Cristiano Ronaldo’s recent endorsement of Herbalife’s Formula 1 meal replacement shake has drawn sharp criticism, with hepatologist Dr. Cyriac Abby Phillips, known as "The Liver Doc," highlighting potential health risks associated with the product. Dr. Phillips took to X (formerly Twitter), urging caution about products like Herbalife due to past controversies surrounding liver health concerns. His response gained significant traction, resonating with many followers concerned about Ronaldo’s influence on public health choices.
Ronaldo promoted the shake as a “healthy breakfast option” on his social media, presenting it as a balanced source of protein, fibre, vitamins, and minerals. His post, accompanied by hashtags like #Herbalife and #HealthyBreakfast, sparked a community fact-check and ignited a debate over the ethics and transparency of celebrity endorsements.
A good way to start the day? A healthy breakfast. Herbalife Formula 1 delivers a balanced mix of protein, fiber, vitamins, and minerals.#Herbalife #HealthyBreakfast pic.twitter.com/0N3O59FWZP
— Cristiano Ronaldo (@Cristiano) November 7, 2024
Users quickly pointed out Ronaldo’s failure to disclose the post as a paid advertisement, which violates social media endorsement regulations. The platform added a community note, alerting viewers that the footballer had not been transparent about his relationship with Herbalife.
Christiana Ronaldo just got community noted by @theliverdr pic.twitter.com/vm2ph5HVcQ
— Zee (@MhaskarChief) November 8, 2024
Dr. Phillips criticised Ronaldo’s endorsement, warning that Herbalife products had raised liver health concerns. He stated, “A healthy breakfast is, of course, a great start to the day, but not with products that have raised concerns over liver health.” He also urged influencers to prioritise ethical advertising when endorsing products with potential health risks, linking sources supporting his claim.
A good way to start the day? A healthy breakfast.
— TheLiverDoc (@theliverdr) November 8, 2024
No doubt. But Herbalife has no role in it.
Herbalife is a multilevel marketing pyramid scheme company which manufactures low quality mixed protein made from pea and soy and includes other dangerous botanicals, all the while… https://t.co/jsO4l5TH22
This incident also revived debate over Ronaldo’s past stance against sugary drinks like Coca-Cola. During UEFA Euro 2020, Ronaldo famously removed Coca-Cola bottles from view at a press conference, suggesting people should drink water instead. This gesture, widely perceived as an endorsement of healthier choices, even impacted Coca-Cola’s market value.
Now, Ronaldo’s endorsement of Herbalife has led to accusations of inconsistency, with critics questioning his stance on health-related endorsements.
Cristiano Ronaldo:
— M (@monsefp29) November 10, 2024
Coca cola ❌😡🤬
Herbalife ✅🥰🫶🏼 https://t.co/Hr29A9QTxn
This is one of the biggest ponzy scheme ever across continents. But I was surprised by Ronaldo's post. During a press conference at UEFA Euro 2020 in June 2021, Cristiano removed two Coca-Cola bottles placed in front of him and held up a water bottle. And now U-turn?? pic.twitter.com/sAbJfBFKD5
— Pragya Nidhi (@Pragya_Nidhi1) November 10, 2024
Several Indian athletes, including Virat Kohli, Smriti Mandhana, Mary Kom, and Lakshya Sen, also faced similar criticism for appearing in front-page ads as Herbalife ambassadors in Indian newspapers on 10 November 2024.
And we have our celebs also endorsing this as well pic.twitter.com/QAePig1yuY
— Rajith Ramachandran (@rajithr14) November 10, 2024
NDTV initially reported on the backlash with a post titled “Kerala Doctor Calls Out Cristiano Ronaldo For Endorsing Herbalife: "Deprived Of Ethics”, but reportedly took down the article shortly after publication, sparking further speculation. Social media users speculated that NDTV's decision might have been influenced by external pressures or commercial interests, as the platform provided no official explanation.
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.
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
