Nestle, PepsiCo, Unilever sell less healthy products in India: Report
New Delhi: A recent report reveals that major food and beverage companies, including Nestle, PepsiCo, and Unilever, are selling less healthy products in low income countries such as India.
According to a global index published by Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNI), as cited by Business Standard, Nestle, PepsiCo and Unilever were among the companies found to be offering products in low income countries with lower scores on a health rating system.
The non-profit organisation found that across 30 companies, products sold in low-income countries received lower ratings on a star system developed in Australia and New Zealand compared to those sold in high income countries.
The average score was just 1.8 out of 5 for low income countries, while it was 2.3 for high income countries. Products with a score above 3.5 are considered healthy.
Mark Wijne, research director at ATNI, told Reuters that it is clear these companies are increasingly active in the poorest countries, but they are not selling their healthier products there.
“It’s a wake-up call for governments in these countries to be vigilant,” he added.
According to the World Health Organization, over one billion people around the world are living with obesity. The World Bank estimates that 70 percent of individuals who are overweight or obese reside in low-and-middle-income countries.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Unreserved vacancies for candidates with disabilities open for all categories: SC
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday said "unreserved" vacancies for Persons with Disabilities (PWD) are an open pool where merit remains the decisive factor and that eligible candidates belonging to any social or special category can be employed.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh set aside a judgement of the Calcutta High Court, saying the "unreserved" category is not a separate "social category" but an open field for all.
It held that a more meritorious PWD candidate belonging to a reserved category like OBC, SC, or ST cannot be barred from an unreserved PWD post simply because a candidate from the "General" category is also available.
"In reservation law, it is well settled that the Unreserved/Open category does not refer to any social/communal category like SCs, STs or OBC. In other words, any post falling under the Unreserved or Open category does not pertain to any particular social category, it provides an open field or pool meant for the world at large, in the sense that it is open to all candidates, irrespective of whether one belongs to any social or special category or not," Justice Singh, who authored the verdict, said.
The court said if an unreserved or open post is meant for the special category of Persons with Disabilities, it means that the said post will be open to all candidates of all vertical social categories, whether Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) or Other Backward Classes (OBC), provided such candidates are also PWD.
"Thus, all candidates, whether SC, ST or OBC, but who are Persons with Disabilities, are equally entitled to compete for the post meant for Persons with Disabilities falling under the Unreserved category, the rationale being that all those who are similarly situated must be treated equally," it said.
The case arose from a recruitment drive of the West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (WBSETCL) for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II.
The notification included one post specifically earmarked for Unreserved (Persons with Disabilities -- Low Vision).
The controversy involved two candidates, an unreserved category candidate with low vision who scored 55.667 marks and an OBC candidate, also with low vision, who scored 66.667 marks.
The WBSETCL appointed the OBC candidate to the post based on his higher merit.
This was challenged by the general category candidate who said since he was a "qualified unreserved candidate", the vacancy should have gone to him and that reserved category candidates should only be considered if no unreserved PWD candidate is available.
While a single-judge bench of the high court dismissed the plea, a division bench reversed that decision, directing the employer to appoint the less-meritorious unreserved candidate.
The WBSETCL had then appealed to the Supreme Court.
