I won’t accept sponsorship from any alcoholic brand
Award-winning gospel musician Joe Mettle has firmly maintained his position on rejecting sponsorship offers from alcoholic brands.
In a recent interview on Daybreak Hitz with Andy Dosty, Joe Mettle emphatically stated that he will not entertain any partnership with such companies for his upcoming events.
He emphasized, “It is a categorical no for me. Apart from aligning with my faith, I believe in only collaborating with brands that harmonize with my values and mission.”
When questioned about the possibility of receiving undisclosed sponsorship from an alcohol brand, Joe Mettle pondered, “In the case of sponsors who prefer to remain anonymous, known as silent sponsors, I find myself in a conundrum as to how to proceed.”
He elaborated that corporate sponsorships typically come with certain expectations and requirements that must be met in exchange for the support provided.
A company’s sponsorship often entails a cost, as one way or another, there will be expectations and obligations that must be fulfilled in exchange for the opportunity to be showcased on their platform,” he declared.
In its guidelines for food advertising released on February 1, 2016, the FDA specifies that the use of well-known personalities or professionals in alcoholic beverage ads is strictly prohibited.
The regulatory body justified this measure by emphasizing the crucial need to protect minors from potential alcohol addiction triggered by celebrity influence.
The FDA emphasized that the prohibition was in alignment with a policy set forth by the World Health Organization (WHO), demonstrating a commitment to safeguarding children and adolescents from the dangers of alcoholism.
Despite these intentions, Mark Darlington, a concerned citizen, filed a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s directive. He petitioned the Supreme Court to declare the directive as unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the right against discrimination as enshrined in Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution.
In a decisive 5-2 majority ruling on Wednesday, June 19, the Supreme Court dismissed the case and affirmed the FDA’s directive.
The court declared that the FDA’s action was both reasonable and proportionate, emphasizing that it did not violate any provisions of the constitution.
