activo | asset management system

Friday, August 10, 2007

Unilever Oh... Unilever



Gara-gara liat status YM Lita seperti ini:

Langsung penasaran ada apa gerangan.

Saya: Lu jadi PR-nya Unilever Lit ? *smile*
Lita: HALAH gak urusan ama Unilever.
L: Gak suka sama orang asal njeplak yang gak mikir dalem2 sebelum ngomong.
L: Gara2 dia gak teliti atau gak ngerti baca label, kok Unilever dibilang membohongi publik. ngaco.

S: Emang siapa siy?
L: Di milis sehat. Jadi gini.. Kan ada yang posting berita okezone, katanya ada 'penemuan mengejutkan' bahwa beberapa produk Unilever mengandung formalin (formaldehid).
L: Trus ada yang nanggapin, 'wah berarti selama ini Unilever melakukan pembohongan publik'
L: Yaelaaaahhh.. dari dulu ada kok di label, tulisan formaldehid itu. di mana bohongnya kalau jelas2 di-state sama produsen?

S: Ooo... ya udah-ya udah... sabar2 *smile*
L: Gak sabaran, apalagi ke yang ngomong sebelum mikir.
L: Itu di milis juga langsung gw bilang. 'di mana bohongnya, pak? lha wong ditulis di label kok'.

S: Jadi gimana? Unilevernya dah di tuntut blom?
L: Ya gak bakalan dong, Di. Dia pasti menang. Aturan memperbolehkan pake formalin karena produknya bukan makanan kok.
L: Aman, lagian. Ngapain diributin.

S: Iyah... Betul.

Kesimpulan: Jangan macem-macem sama Lita. Serem... Hihihi...

5 comments:

  1. rakhmat10:04 AM

    lagian siapa yang mau makan pepsodent :p

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous1:02 PM

    The real question is, if others can produce non-formalin products, why can't Unilever?
    The circulating concerns are many, if not most, Indonesians, have been using pepsodent, lifebuoy, clear and sunsilk their whole life, how can we be sure there's no formalin accumulation in our body?
    Guess that's for the government to answer...
    reg,
    zulu

    ReplyDelete
  3. Zulu:
    Maybe this Lita's point of view can answer your question:

    Comment by Lita to Zulu
    2007-08-11 23:26:01

    As from chemical engineering point of view, I can say “If it is economically and efficacy adequate, safe, and legal, why not?”.
    That doesn’t sound rhetorical, does it?
    Not to mention that the ingredients used for every consumer good items are not perfectly same. Thus the interaction between the chemical substances.
    I’m sure there’s more reason to the choice.
    Not too much different than why we choose agar, or gelatin, or collagen, or carrageenan, or seaweed for something looks about the same.
    To our perception, that is.

    Well, probably you’re right in noting that this incident can remind people to read labels.
    That may slip my mind, since I always read labels and don’t consider the habit as something special, rather than automatically (reflex, intuitive).

    Thanks for the warning, reminding me of how much people don’t consider chemistry as an important subject in highschool.
    Most people hate chemistry lesson, to a level that it’s allergic, scary, and useless for them.
    At least now we have a reason to tell our children why they must conquer chemistry: you can simply understand what’s written on those labels, my lad.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My off-the-record friend (as Unilever partner) said that U had planned to change the preservative they used (in this case: formaldehyde) since about 2 years ago.
    It came to a problem when BPOM rejected it, provided a reason that they had not the regulation for the substitute. And right after this all buzz, BPOM approved it.
    Doesn't it come to a big question? WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?

    Oh well, you (we) can all say, "It's just an issue". Right. No way for me to say the source, moreover to say what chemical it is. It's up to you whether to believe it or not.

    Dan ngomong-ngomong, produk lain pun sebetulnya mengandung pengawet yang dapat melepas formaldehid, senyawa dengan nama yang pasti tidak familiar di kalangan awam (tulisan 'formaldehid' ada bertahun-tahun saja baru diributkan sekarang!).

    Pertanyaannya, kalau pihak yang mempermasalahkan memang berniat menggali tentang formaldehid, kenapa hanya formaldehid yang jelas dinyatakan dalam label saja yang 'diangkat'? Kenapa tidak senyawa yang mengandung (dan dapat melepas formaldehid) juga?

    Sentimen terhadap Unilever? Atau terlalu awam terhadap isu yang diangkat? Saran saya tetap: pelajari dulu semua seginya, baru diangkat.
    Telat? Emang. Persoalannya aja telat dibahas kok.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Lita:
    Thanks Lit. Mungkin ini bisa jadi pencerahan buat kita semua. Karena info yang Lita kasih benar-benar susah mencarinya di media manapun. thanks sekali lagi Lit.

    ReplyDelete

Komentar Terbaru