Letters to the Editor
View(s):Come together to safeguard our 175-year-old tea industry
President Gotabhaya Rajapaksa has to be commended for his forthright and patriotic views on the present state of the tea industry.
On account of COVID-19, most of the revenue-earning enterprises in our country have come to a virtual standstill. However the tea industry continues to survive despite severe obstacles. Should we indulge in practices that will tarnish our image at the international level?
It is an open secret that selfish manufacturers are resorting to adulteration in order to add weight and appearance to tea.
This industry which has lasted for more than 175 years should be preserved at any cost.
It is an established fact that the errant manufacturer is thriving at the expense of the genuine manufacturer. The majority of manufacturers are laden with numerous problems such as inability to procure good leaf, failure to service bank loans etc.
Therefore, the time is ripe for the Sri Lanka Tea Board, Tea Factory Owners Association, CTTA, CBA & TEA and the Plantation Ministry to join hands to protect this industry.
Failure to do so will result in Ceylon Tea being permanently quarantined.
As a conscientious manufacturer I very strongly appeal to all tea manufacturers and stakeholders to refrain from practices that will drive this industry to extinction.
S. Sebastian Retty
Via email
Construction sites not paying heed to COVID health guidelines
The COVID-19 virus is spreading rapidly in closed environments where there is less ventilation. I have noticed a couple of construction sites where the workers are not wearing face masks, not maintaining social distance, not using gloves and where there is no disinfectant in the premises.
Ambitious contractors are getting these workers to work extra hours probably with overtime, but against UDA regulations that stipulate the maximum number of working hours per day.
We appeal to the COVID National Operations Centre and Ministry of Health to temporarily halt all construction activities until the situation is brought close to normalcy. This is in the interests of society and the construction workers.
Priyantha Perera
Colombo
An imaginative and enterprising approach to ‘tourism during COVID’ is necessary
The news item in the Sunday Times “Despite COVID moves to bring Russian Tourists” contained a few ‘peculiar’ comments starting with the statement by Udayanga Weeeratunga, (ex-Sri Lankan ambassador to Russia), that “he” is able to bring in 44,000 tourists.
Ex-bureaucrats have no right to claim credit for any influx of tourists, Russian or otherwise, and let’s hope this is not mere ‘laying the groundwork’ for anybody’s unwarranted financial claims, arising there from. Tourist arrivals are the combined result of efforts by the Tourist Board, Minister and hundreds of others in the trade, certainly not of one individual.
But why the emphasis on Russian tourists who are known to be measly spenders, when compared to the Germans or Chinese?
Secondly and importantly, the statement by the Ministry Secretary, that “interaction with locals” will be prevented using the Army, is unacceptable to the tourists and insulting to the public! The benefits of tourism must not be limited to large hotels and tour companies but also to the “locals”. Local café owners, tour guides, bars and restaurants in beach areas, must also benefit, and tourists must be free to interact! Adequate health measures such as COVID tests and voluntarily limiting their movements to (say) 100 kilometres, can be taken if necessary. Definitely not a “military enforced” operation. A more logical approach would be to open tourism to visitors from within the region- Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia and China should be the priority, not far-away Russia.
An imaginative and enterprising approach to ‘tourism during COVID’, is necessary- why can’t tourists be allowed to travel freely within a limited radius, rather than treating them as virtual prisoners within a hotel or residence!
J.K.
Via email
Coconut oil and the heart: Study not adequate to make sweeping statement
I am writing this in reference to the news feature in the Sunday Times of October 25. It was titled “Now; coconut oil is bad for your heart”. After having read through the study quoted by you and the authors of the study, I feel the evidence from their study is not adequate to make such a sweeping statement.
The effects of coconut oil had been a topic of interest for decades and a consensus had not been reached in the scientific community. The study quoted is a meta-analysis, that is an analysis made by putting together all the available good quality studies on the subject. The researchers have found 23 studies to include in their analysis. Of them, according to a scale used to assess good quality 11 were of good quality and 12 were of poor quality. When you mix good quality with poor quality studies the results cannot be reliable.
There were only two studies that followed up people for a longer duration and others were of very short duration. Changes in blood cholesterol levels take time after dietary changes and results from studies done for short periods cannot be reliable. The number of subjects in some studies were so small that valid conclusions cannot be made from them. Including such studies in the analysis make the results unreliable.
Designs of the analyzed studies also varied widely, another reason for conclusions to be not valid. A good meta-analysis if it is to provide valid results should contain studies of good quality with similar designs. The study done here is not of good quality and can be useful only to suggest a hypothesis that need to be tested by properly designed studies. There was one study from India included in the analysis that studied patients for two years with one group using coconut oil and the other group using sunflower oil. At the end of two years there was no difference in outcomes, probably the only relevant study.
Therefore, my opinion is that the results from the present meta-analysis are not reliable and it should not have been given publicity in the media even before it was out of press in the journal. Publicity is given for a research finding before it is out in print, only if the results are so important that delaying the results can affect the public adversely. Only when the research paper is out of the press that the other experts will read and make their comments on the validity of the findings. Unfortunately, the new trend is to call for a press conference the moment the paper is accepted for publication.
This is not good research ethics. In the absence of good studies to answer the question, what we need is a properly designed research study to find out whether coconut oil is bad for the heart .
Professor Saman Gunatilake
Emeritus Professor of Medicine
University of Sri Jayewardenepura