Recent advertising by Dabur suggested that its famed Ayurvedic supplement, Chyawanprash, can help protect lungs from the effects of air pollution, a claim that has sparked controversy and triggered responses from critics, health-influencers, and public-health observers.
Two media pieces one from an advertising-industry news portal and another from a mainstream news site highlight how the claim has drawn fire for potentially misleading consumers.
According to reporting:
An influencer (referred to as FoodPharmer) publicly challenged Dabur’s campaign, arguing that stating a supplement can protect against lung damage from smog overreaches scientific support.
The critic’s argument rests on the fact that no robust clinical studies or peer-reviewed research establish that chyawanprash (or similar herbal tonics) can prevent or reverse lung damage from particulate pollution or gaseous pollutants.
The concern is that such advertisements may give consumers a false sense of security, possibly deterring them from evidence-based measures like reducing exposure, using masks, improving indoor air quality, or seeking medical care when needed.
Air pollution, especially fine particulate matter (PM₂.₅), nitrogen oxides, ozone, is strongly linked to respiratory diseases: chronic bronchitis, asthma exacerbation, impaired lung function, cardiovascular stress, and increased mortality. Public health authorities globally consider pollution a major environmental risk.
Preventing or mitigating pollution-related lung damage relies on reducing exposure (e.g., masks, air filtration), policy and environmental action, and medical care for respiratory diseases.
To date, there is no credible peer-reviewed clinical trial showing that Chyawanprash or similar herbal supplements can safeguard the lungs from pollution-induced damage.
Lung injury from pollution involves oxidative stress, inflammation, and damage to delicate lung tissue — processes complex and systemic. While some herbs might have antioxidant or anti-inflammatory properties, that does not equate to proven protection in real-world, high-exposure settings.
Regulatory and medical-ethical standards require evidence-based claims before a product is marketed for disease prevention or protection.
In absence of such evidence, health experts warn against claims that a supplement alone can offset the hazards of air pollution.
This controversy underscores a broader issue in the wellness and supplement market:
Advertising Standards: Products marketed with health-protection claims (especially against serious risks like air pollution) must be backed by rigorous evidence.
Consumer Protection: Consumers exposed to aggressive marketing may be misled into thinking a simple supplement is sufficient — potentially neglecting more effective protective measures.
Public Health Implications: In high-pollution cities, misplaced trust in “miracle” supplements could weaken public pressure for environmental reforms or discourage real protective behavior.
Hence, critics argue that claims linking Chyawanprash to lung protection fall short of ethical advertising standards and public health responsibility.
For individuals living in pollution-prone areas:
There is no substitute for reducing exposure to polluted air — through masks, air purifiers, avoiding peak pollution hours, and supporting clean-air policies.
Supplements can contribute to general wellness (if safe and used properly), but they should not be viewed as shields against environmental hazards without evidence.
If experiencing respiratory symptoms — persistent cough, breathing difficulty, wheezing — seek professional medical evaluation rather than relying on unproven claims.
While Dabur’s Chyawanprash remains a popular and widely used tonic, the recent claims that it can protect lungs from air-pollution damage are medically unverified and have drawn justified criticism. Until rigorous scientific studies prove otherwise, public health experts and consumers alike should remain cautious about equating herbal supplements with prevention or protection from environmental hazards.
This case serves as a reminder: in matters of lung health and environmental risks, evidence-based measures remain the cornerstone, not marketing promises.
(Rh/TL)
