Similar patterns could doubtless be traced elsewhere, but from the earliest of times it was established that business was dependent on the goodwill of the people, while all looked to government to provide leadership in matters of protection.

The growth of communities has seen this tightly knit relationship largely dissipate, however. Free-flowing lines of communication along which information once sped back and forth have become clogged with intolerance and apathy.

With business more concerned over the balance sheet and government in attracting business investment, the needs of the public are not necessarily prioritized in their minds.

While the media tries to fulfill its role in providing information to the public, this is not always easy as transparency is not necessarily a prime attribute of government, and with some businesses having grown to be larger than sovereign states, they tend to treat society as subjects rather than customers.

Accurate information is thus often hard to obtain.

In January this year, for instance, the United States’ Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by Exxon Mobil Corporation against a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that the company could not withhold information on certain business practices that had been requested in a case before the Massachusetts courts.

In a classic who knew what and when scenario, this information is believed to be indicative of the company’s knowledge of the impact its main products have on global warming and climate change. Moreover, some of the records date back decades.

Such moves to delay the release of possibly damaging information to the public have been attempted, but today tobacco products come labeled with graphic warnings on the potential dangers of smoking.

The public doesn’t need an exhaustive list of the more than 7,000 chemicals found in cigarette smoke; all they need to know is that smoking can be harmful to health and 214,000 Indonesians die each year from smoking related illnesses.

Even faced with those facts the choice is not that simple, for tobacco contains the alkaloid nicotine and, unlike in tea for example, at addictive concentrations.

Partially, in efforts to mitigate past harms to society, but also maybe for its survival, the tobacco industry has undertaken exhaustive research to develop alternative products that it claims are less harmful to health.

There are now various products to feed the nicotine habit while seeking to reduce the negative side effects of smoking.

It will be decades, however, before there will be any definitive evidence on their long-term effect on health, although initial results do appear to support the prognosis that the products make quitting smoking easier.

As with the breaking of any addiction, though, this is very much dependent on the individual.

This attempt to mitigate past harms is largely aligned with corporate responsibility as defined under the United Nations’ guiding principles on business and human rights, which “exist over and above compliance with national laws and regulations protecting human rights”.

Yet the company obligation to prevent and mitigate harm is a broad mandate, for we are not just talking about immediate or foreseeable injury, but the mitigation of all harms in a transparent manner regardless of nature, timeliness or foreseeability.

The health sector is certainly an area where there is an onus to educate the public about the latest innovations, as scientific research is leading to new approaches on almost a daily basis.

It’s also a sector where the government has striven to meet its responsibility to protect its citizens from adverse human rights impacts as per the guiding principles, through the introduction of the national health insurance.

It’s an area where both government and business have a coordinated role to play. Business must undertake research on new products and approaches independent of government pressure, plus be willing to share the results of such research so that any potential benefit to the public can be independently verified.

For its part, meanwhile, the government should not unduly delay the introduction of new, less harmful products to the market.

Moreover, both must work in tandem to ensure effective regulation is introduced to protect the public from any harm suffered through use of the product.

That health care should be viewed from a preventative rather than curative aspect is illustrated by the approach of PT Garam, a salt producer, in recognizing that high sodium intake can lead to hypertension.

Yet many Indonesians, regardless of socioeconomic status, are blissfully unaware of how high their daily salt intake actually is.

In response, the company markets a less harmful low sodium salt product, Lososa, to help address the increasing prevalence of hypertension among Indonesians. The state-owned company understands that taste does not have to be sacrificed in the pursuit of health.

The media too has a role to play in providing the public with reliable information of the benefits of following a healthier lifestyle, particularly in what they eat and drink.

For many are not really aware of the risks they take in consuming saturated fats, salt and heavily sweetened beverages on a regular basis.

Encouraging business to act in a responsible manner is just part of the government’s duty for it must also liaise in facilitating the spread of information and licensing of new products as swiftly as possible following their approval for public consumption.

After all, information about and access to these products is the right of society, particularly those that can enable people to actively protect their own health.

***

The writer is program coordinator at the Foundation for International Human Rights Reporting Standards (FIHRRST).

Popular

To my horror, it’s just a movie!

RI, Australia strengthen partnership on taxing crypto assets

Pentagon chief congratulates Prabowo on being elected President