BUOL 537 1
BUOL 537 – Legal, Ethical, and Social Environment
Melissa Fields, Kristina French Brown
Maygan McKool, Sneha Muralidharan
University of Cumberlands
February 15, 2018
BUOL 537 2
Introduction
The president of Peru, Ollanta Humala Tasso, was faced with a huge decision in May of
2013. He was tasked with the opportunity to pass into law a controversial proposal, the “Junk
Food Act”, which would limit the processed foods and advertisements allowed to influence the
children of the country. “The law’s enactment would force thousands of Peruvian kiosks and
school cafeterias to change their offerings, doing away with processed foods, whole advertising
of these goods to children would require revision” (Villaran & Bird, 2014, p. 1).
Peru has come a long way in the process of improving its economy and building its
political reputation. The potential outcomes from this proposal created such uproar within
several politicians, congress, the media, and other individuals with various interests. Some
criticized that the bill would infringe civil liberties and damage the country’s growing
appreciation for their growing culinary exports. Others argued the bill would be necessary to the
health and longevity of the Peruvian children to create awareness of obesity rates and the
contributing factors that would influence a healthier lifestyle.
Regardless of where one stands on the matter, it is crucial to consider the implications
that impacted the Peruvian president’s decision. Discussions in this research include whether or
not the criticism on all parties are well grounded, when a law is considered just, legislation
versus self-regulation, whether it is ever right to break an unjust law, and topics that surround
recommended amendments to the aforementioned law.
Are the criticisms well grounded? Can you think of others?
The Junk Food Act met with a lot of criticism from all sections of society. The act was
proposed considering the recommendations published by the World Health Organization, for
marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children. La Republica published a column
BUOL 537 3
by Augusto Alvarez Rodrich calling the act an “invasion of privacy” on something as sensitive
as food, while Gaston Acurio said it was a “threat to liberty”. Many similar criticisms arose in
light of the proposal of the Act. Jamie Delgado, a congressman for the ruling National Party,
gave statements addressing these critiques and disproving them as claims. The critiques claimed
the act was addressing a non-existent problem, citing statistics from the Ministry of Health.
These claims were disproven by publicist Alexander Chiu who quoted some official information
from the Ministry of Health. Critiques also blamed that the act is an attack against the freedom of
choice and violates freedom of enterprise. Proponents countered that the specific case of
manipulative advertising to children was immoral, and thus the government had the right to limit
free enterprise. Some critiques stated that the law was impossible to implement claiming that
retailers will be most affected if it was implemented as the law rules that kiosks and school
cafeterias can only sell healthy food. This, some claimed, would create sanitation problems as
the public schools lack the adequate infrastructure to store and keep perishable foods. WHO’s
representatives felt that the law was a necessary step to ensure that current and future generations
of children face lower risks of illnesses such as diabetes, cancer and strokes. The law was
criticized for preventing all information from travelling and having negative economic effects.
The law was also criticized for imposing restrictions that other countries did no and was blamed
for controlling the media. The COMEXPERU, further criticized the proposal claiming that
implementing the act would incur costs for the State. In response to this claim, Congressman
Delgado argued that enforcing this law would result in potentially saving millions of Soles (Pe$)
spent every year to treat obesity related illness. While some of these claims were corroborated,
most of them do not seem well grounded in my opinion as these criticisms were easily disproven
by official statistics and statements.
BUOL 537 4
When is a law just?
When we think of what a just or unjust law is, we think it is fair or unfair. To define a
just law, it would be said that it is fair or reasonable. A law that is immoral or unethical could be
seen as an unjust law. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. defines a just law as a man-made code that
squares with the moral law or the law of God (King, 2017). A just law is one that is considered
fair and moral. As it relates to The Junk Food Act In Peru, many critiques looked into this act
and this act would be considered unjust. The following post was made on Gaston Acurio’s
Facebook page: “Just picture how subjective it would be. There are so many things around a law
that it could end up being very unfair, arbitrary, absolutist –a threat to liberty. As a result, this
motion to tax a specific type of food is very dangerous” (Villaran, 2014, p. 4). The critiques
state, the problem does not exist, the law violates the freedom of enterprise, the law is an attack
