George Quaye, the president of the Ghanaian Arts and Tourism Writers Association, has expressed dissatisfaction with the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approach in releasing their prohibition on celebrity endorsements of alcoholic beverages.
The media celebrity and actress claimed that before to releasing the directive, the FDA had not consulted anyone involved in the creative industry.
George Quaye thinks this is a prejudice toward celebrities because of this.
“It’s clear there has been a prejudice against ‘who popular people are’ at the very beginning. I am definitely sure there were no consultations and clearly there are people that work on this that do not even know our space,” he said on 3FM Sunrise and monitored by ATL FM on Thursday June 20.
He mentioned that parties involved are eager and able to communicate with the FDA about this directive in more detail.
“I’m happy that he himself has said there are still opportunities to engage. We will look forward to that engagement.
“I am happy that he has agreed that there can be conversations around this because I still insist that none was done at the beginning. If indeed some where done then those that represented our sector gave us in otherwise, we wouldn’t be here because there are more smarter ways to go about this,” Mr. Quaye added.
In its guidelines for food advertisements released on February 1, 2016, the FDA states that “alcoholic beverage advertising shall not feature any well-known personality or professional.”
Related story:Supreme Court dismisses suit against FDA ban on celebrity alcoholic advert
According to the authorities, the purpose of the rule was to stop minors from developing an alcohol addiction as a result of celebrity influence.
The FDA added that the prohibition was in line with a World Health Organization (WHO) regulation and that it was an effort to keep kids and young adults from falling victim to alcoholism.
But Mark Darlington, a citizen, filed a lawsuit against the FDA’s decision, pleading with the Supreme Court to declare it unconstitutional on the grounds that it infringed upon the right to discrimination protected by Article 17 of the landmark 1992 Constitution.
However, the case was dismissed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday, June 19, in a 5-2 majority ruling, upholding the FDA’s instruction.
The FDA’s mandate was deemed by the court to be reasonable and not excessive, and it did not violate any constitutional provisions.
