A corporate attempt to silence healthcare professional: Dr. M. Sivaranjani Santosh on Kenvue notice

Dr. M. Sivaranjani Santosh, a Hyderabad-based pediatrician, is currently facing a legal challenge from Kenvue (the consumer health spin-off of Johnson & Johnson). The dispute centers on her long-standing public advocacy regarding the distinction between Oral Rehydration Salts (ORS) and commercial electrolyte drinks.

For years, Dr. Sivaranjani has cautioned that products like ORSL (and its rebranded successor, ERZL) are frequently confused with standard ORS. While both contain electrolytes, their functions are fundamentally different.

In an interview with News Meter, Dr. Sivaranjani Santosh talks about the legal notice and her stand as a medical professional.

News Meter: What is your take on the legal notice sent by Johnson and Johnson?

Dr Sivaranjani Santosh: A practising paediatrician commenting on products sold alongside ORS in the pharmacies, which may be purchased by caregivers of sick children, is exercising her professional duty and constitutional right to free speech on a matter of Public health. This is squarely within the 'fair comment' exception to defamation under Indian law.

Saying that a doctor doesn't have the expertise to understand the regulatory framework and the scientific risk assessment is condescending and irrelevant. A law firm telling a practicing paediatrician that she lacks the expertise to comment on whether a product marketed in the health care space is safe for children! A practicing paediatrician has every professional and ethical obligation to voice concerns about products that may be confused with therapeutic agents at the point of sale, particularly in pharmacies.

News Meter: The fight has been since last 8 years, and the FSSAI orders in 2025 were being seen as a relief, but it has further aggravated the situation. What is your take on that?

Dr. Sivaranjani Santosh: The FSSAI's October 14 and 15, 2025 orders confirm the regulatory concern that the original ORSL branding was misleading. This criticism predated and was vindicated by the regulator's own action. The rebranding to ERZL and the re-stickering process(old ORSL packs with ERZL stickers pasted over them!) is itself a ground-level consumer confusion issue that a healthcare professional is entitled to document and report.

The notice repeatedly cites the Delhi High Court's November 12, 2025, order stating the product is "not adulterated or unsafe for use". This is a weak argument. My criticism (from what the notice itself reproduces) was about the misbranding and not that the liquid inside was adulterated.

News Meter: What is your take on Sucralose?

The WHO'S 2023 guideline on non-sugar sweeteners is a legitimate, peer-reviewed, systematic-review-based recommendation from the world's apex health body. Citing it is not "unscientific ". The EFSA 2026 affirmation pertains to currently authorized uses and ADOI levels-it does not contradict the WHO'S broader conditional recommendation regarding long-term metabolic effects. Science involves ongoing debate; characterizing a doctor's reference to WHO guidelines as "malicious" is itself a misrepresentation.

The notice cherry picks regulatory approvals(FSSAI, Codex, FDA, and the February EFSA reaffirmation) while completely ignoring the WHO'S own 2023 guidelines, conditionally recommending against the use of non-sugar sweeteners (including Sucralose) for weight control and flagging potential long-term risks, including type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease with long-term use. The WHO guidelines explicitly state that this applies to everyone except those with pre-existing diabetes.

News Meter: Since it is a brand and a trademark that you are criticising and publicly warning people, the company claims it is its right to protect. Your comments.

Dr. Sivaranjani Santosh: Nominative fair use permits naming a product for purposes of criticism, commentary, or review. No authorization is required to discuss a commercially available product in a non-commercial, public -interest context.

The demands to take down all posts, provide a list for corporate review, and refrain from future commentary amount to prior restraint of speech- something Indian constitutional law views with deep suspicion. The Supreme Court of India has held that prior restraint on speech is permissible only in the narrowest of circumstances, none of which are present here.

News Meter: You have released a video of the implicit threat by Johnson and Johnson, and they have countered with a commercial benefit accusation. How are you planning to counter it?

Dr. Sivaranjani Santosh: The doctor reserves her own right to bring this notice to public attention as an example of corporate intimidation of health advocates and to seek appropriate legal remedies if harassment continues. The notice should be recognized for what it is- a corporate attempt to silence a health care professional using litigation costs as a weapon.

The commercial benefit accusation is an outrageous one, that someone who is striving hard for public health advocacy has commercial motives! So, any doctor who gains a following for evidence-based health communication is commercially motivated and should be silenced?! The party actually benefitting commercially from the product is the company Kenvue/J&J!