You’d have seen headlines on the recent Bournvita controversy. An Instagram influencer called out Bournvita for passing itself off as a health drink, his post got over 12 million views, and Bournvita’s parent company, Cadbury, sent him a legal notice for trademark infringement and defamation.

The influencer took down the video, posted an apology, and Cadbury issued a lofty statement on how it’s a “scientifically designed formula”.

Parallely, the central government proposed that social media influencers “disclose” their credentials for offering advice on health and wellness.

To me, there’s a wider set of issues at play — which is mainly why I’ve been hesitant to jump into the trending topic swamp and add my half-baked hot take to it. Now that the doom-scrolling public has moved on to its next outrage, I think it’s worth stepping back and thinking about this.

There are four things we need to consider.

Let’s start with the obvious — the visible media circus around this story.

It is silly and counterproductive for large companies to legally go after random people on social media. The worst way to diffuse an ongoing controversy is to go after people on the internet. Once you do that, you’ll be remembered for that — not for the merits or demerits of the actual issue.

Social media algorithms are optimised to amplify conflict. The bigger the conflict, the better. In the Bournvita case, the original conflict was on whether or not a product contains an unhealthy amount of sugar. But the bigger conflict was a giant company going after one man’s Instagram account. So, you’ve essentially shifted the narrative to a battle you cannot win. Everyone loves an underdog, even if said underdog made a bunch of unverified claims on social media.

This also spotlights a deeper realisation that we may not want to appreciate. 

Algorithms work the way they do because users have a negativity bias. We share the story headline that says “X causes cancer” and not the more accurate one that says “There is no evidence that X causes cancer”. The social media landscape is a series of hyper-amplified, context-free conflicts because that’s where we get our daily fix of dopamine — constant validation from other people who want to discover the outrage that we share.

Now, let’s get to the issue itself.

I grew up drinking Bournvita as a child. Everyone around me grew up drinking something from that category of products — add to milk, and drink. When I switched to coffee as a teenager, it’s not that I consumed less sugar per beverage. If anything, I added more sugar to my coffee to balance out the bitterness. 

But this is anecdotal, and teaches us nothing.

Instead, here’s the objective truth: There is added sugar in a ton of products. That the public is now aware of it is a good thing. You should pay attention — but be balanced and sensible about it. One brand is not the exclusive source of the problem here. Every product in that category has added sugars. In fact, some of the milk powders marketed as “Indian”, “herbal” and “traditional” have twice as much added sucrose as the brand in question.

Next, really consider how much sugar you consume in your tea or coffee on a daily basis. Every time you use honey, eat a biscuit, or add jaggery to your food — it’s all added sugar.

But, you might interrupt, Bournvita is for kids! Surely that’s more serious?

Consider this. My mother had three boys. She was a working mother and, like millions of other working mothers, she didn’t have the bandwidth (or the privilege) to constantly make sure her children got all the micro and macronutrients they needed. Which is why parents just give kids milk. 

Milk is nutrient-dense but it can lack certain minerals and vitamins. So, you’d want your child to get those things in their other food, but when was the last time you saw kids eat vitamin-rich vegetables like spinach without complaint? Kids won’t, and they like sweet things.

That’s why products like Bournvita became popular in the first place. They eliminate at least a part of the headache of making sure children get the nutrients they need. Milk and one of these powders will largely cover vitamins, minerals and a decent amount of protein, fat and carbohydrates. People buy them because they are convenient, not because they are “healthy”. 

These products contain sugar because kids don’t like drinking unsweetened milk. Milk sugar and lactose don't taste sweet. We add chocolate because kids love it, but chocolate is bitter. Hence, all the added sugar.

The point here is companies aren’t “fooling” us with added sugar. We demand it. So either help Indian parents in the kitchen — and, let’s be honest, it’s mothers who are forced to carry the burden of Indian households — and do your bit in persuading children to eat more vegetables and protein in their diet. Or stop whining selectively about this.

That brings us to advertising ethics.

This isn’t an industry that’s known to be committed to the truth. Back in the day, it tried to convince us cigarettes were healthy, trotting out doctors to do precisely that. In fact, rather relevantly, the sugar-producing lobby in the United States worked with the advertising industry to demonise fats so we’d be distracted from the actual problem of too much sugar in our diets.

Closer to home, there’s no dearth of misleading claims — everything from fairness creams to memory improvement pills to immunity boosters. It’s important for consumers to always be sceptical of all advertising.

On the other hand, there is a specific seriousness required when making health claims. But the brand in question isn’t the only product making health claims. Sure, all those vitamins and minerals are essential for your body’s immune system to function well. But the medical bar to make such claims is that you’ve got to prove that not consuming the product results in a weaker immune system. You can’t, of course.

Brands make health claims because if they don’t, their competition will. It’s a race to the bottom. So, be sceptical of all health-based claims and read the labels yourself.

Finally, let’s talk about the influencer misinformation industrial complex.

With no particular focus on the individual in question, it’s evident that scaring people — without evidence, context, nuance or attention to detail — is the easiest way to get followers on social media. No one goes viral for a bland set of factual statements. Right now, there are more health influencers diagnosing cancer and “gut issues” than actual oncologists and gastroenterologists in hospitals. 

As a consumer, you can still hold companies accountable by suing them, though it’s not for the faint of heart. Companies are still legally required to adhere to FSSAI standards and, notionally, an advertising code of conduct. But there is absolutely no holding influencers accountable for the claims they make and the products they endorse — they often don’t even tell you they’re paid to do so.

You should be sceptical of large companies, their products, and their marketing claims. But in equal measure, don’t assume that anyone on Instagram or YouTube (me included) is somehow more transparent and honest than large companies. Don’t assume that if something is called “natural” and “traditional”, it is somehow “healthier”.

In short, don’t put your trust in individuals. Put your trust in the scientific method — where claims require evidence and if the evidence doesn’t make sense, ignore the claims.