Letter from the Advertising Standards
Authority
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Advertising Standards Authority
(ASA) welcomes the opportunity to submit written evidence to this
inquiry. The ASA is responsible for supervising the self-regulatory
system for advertising standards in both broadcast and non-broadcast
media, ensuring that all advertisements, wherever they appear,
are legal, decent, honest and truthful.
1.2 This submission will address the following
points:
1.2.1 The role of the ASA. This
submission aims to provide a brief overview of the advertising
self-regulatory system in the UK and the ASA's relationship with
relevant statutory regulators.
1.2.2 Respond to your questions
about the ASA's approach to regulating advertising claims and,
in particular, how we would go about investigating claims that
state a product's suitability for those suffering allergies.
2. ABOUT THE
ASA
2.1 The ASA is the UK self-regulatory body
for ensuring that all ads, wherever they appear, are legal, decent,
honest and truthful. The ASA has been responsible for policing
non-broadcast advertising standards for more than 40 years. The
success of the self-regulatory system was recognised in November
2004 when Ofcom contracted-out the regulation of broadcast (TV
and radio) advertising to the ASA system. This move was approved
by Parliament and created a "one stop shop" for advertising
complaints.
2.2 The ASA administers three main advertising
standards codes. Two industry bodies, the Committee of Advertising
Practice (CAP) and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice
(BCAP) are responsible for maintaining the Advertising Standards
Codes. CAP is responsible for the non-broadcast Code and BCAP
is responsible for the TV and Radio Codes.
2.3 The full names of the Codes are:
— The British Code of Advertising,
Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing ("the CAP Code"
(non-broadcast)).
— The BCAP TV Advertising Standards
Code.
— The BCAP Radio Advertising Standards
Code.
2.4 Further information about CAP, BCAP
and the Codes can be found at www.cap.org.uk.
2.5 The ASA receives complaints from both
the public and the industry about advertisements that are alleged
to have breached the Advertising Codes.
2.6 The ASA system operates within a legal
framework. For non-broadcast advertising the ASA is the "established
means" for enforcing the Control of Misleading Advertisement
Regulations 1988 (as amended) (CMARs). The Office of Fair Trading
acts as a legal backstop to the system for misleading advertisements.
The ASA's role in regulating misleading advertising is unlikely
to alter under the Unfair Commercial Practices (UCP) Directive.
2.7 As already mentioned, for TV and radio
advertising, the ASA operates in a co-regulatory partnership with
Ofcom. Therefore, Ofcom acts as a legal backstop to the broadcast
side of the ASA system.
2.8 The rationale behind creating a "one
stop shop" for all advertising complaints was to simplify
advertising regulation. Dealing with a single regulator makes
it easier for consumers to complain and is simpler for advertisers
to work with. The ASAS "one-stop shop" is in line with
better regulation principles.
2.9 All the costs for running the ASA are
met by a levy of 0.1 per cent on advertising space paid by advertisers
and collected by at arms-length from the ASA by the Advertising
Standards Board of Finance and its broadcast equivalent (Asbof
and Basbof, www.asbof.co.uk).
2.10 Further information about the ASA and
the work that we do can be found on our website at www.asa.org.uk.
The website also contains a searchable database of all our adjudications
from the past five years.
3. RESPONSES
TO THE
COMMITTEE'S
QUESTIONS
3.1 "Is the use of the phrases `hypoallergenic'
or `dermatologically tested' regulated in any way by the Committee
of Advertising Practice (CAP) code?"
As already mentioned, there are three Advertising
Standards codes regulating advertising in the broadcast and non-broadcast
media. These Codes do not provide specific rules on allergy claims
or "hypoallergenic" and "dermatologically tested".
Providing code rules on every conceivable advertising claim would
render the Codes un-navigable and cumbersome, however the Codes
do provide sensible rules on misleading advertising to which all
advertisers must adhere. Advertisers that wish to make a claim
about their product, including a scientific or allergy claim,
must hold substantiation prior to making that claim. In particular,
scientific claims must be supported by robust and independently
verifiable evidence.
The burden of proof falls on the advertiser;
it is not for the ASA to prove that the claim is untrue. I have
enclosed a Help Note that has been drafted by CAP indicating the
level of substantiation required under the Codes (see Annex 1).
[not printed]
3.2 "Has the ASA had any previous experience
of implementing these regulations?"
The ASA receives more than 20,000 complaints
a year and approximately 75 per cent of these relate to misleading
advertising. Although the ASA does not receive large numbers of
complaints about allergy claims in advertising, it has investigated
such claims in the past (see 3.3 below). Problems with misleading
claims has led CAP to issue a Help Note providing guidance to
advertisers on what can and cannot be stated in such ads (see
Annex 2). CAP has also issued a Help Note on vacuum cleaner advertisements,
which includes a section on allergy claims (see Annex 3). [not
printed]
The ASA's adjudications are published on a weekly
basis and can be found on our website.
3.3 "Has the ASA ever received any complaints
regarding the use of this terminology, and if so, were these complaints
upheld?"
The ASA has received complaints about allergy
claims in advertisements. These complaints have led to 24 published
adjudications in the last five years, of which 19 were upheld
fully or in part. I have enclosed some notable adjudications (see
Annex 4).
The ASA considers each complaint on a case-by-case
basis. If the Committee has concerns about any specific advertisements,
we would be more than happy to look into their complaint. Complaints
can be made via our website, or by email, fax, phone, or letter.
I have enclosed a complaints booklet for your information.
3.4 The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive
takes effect in April 2008. To what extent will this help the
ASA regulate the use of misleading claims?
As the Committee is undoubtedly aware, the UCP
Directive is a framework Directive, meaning that it primarily
provides general legal principles with which business must comply
ie businesses should not trade unfairly; should not mislead by
action or omission and should refrain from aggressive business
practices.
That said, the Annex I of the Directive does
provide a list of commercial practices that are considered to
be unfair in all circumstances. One of these practices is, "Falsely
claiming that a product is able to cure illness, dysfunction or
malformations" (annex practice 17). The DTI is expected to
publish further information on 29 May 2007 on how this section
of the UCP Directive can be enforced under UK law by statutory
enforcers.
However, regardless of the DTI's anticipated
statement, the new provisions in the UCP Directive are unlikely
to alter the ASA's interpretation of what is or is not permitted
in advertisements in relation to allergy claims. This is because
the UK Advertising Codes and existing legislation have, for a
long time. provided the level of consumer protection that the
UCP Directive will, in future, provide for all EU citizens.
I do hope that this submission fully answers
the Committee's questions about advertising regulation in this
area and reassures the Committee that the ASA is committed to
protecting consumers and ensuring high standards in advertising.
| Annex 1 | Help Note on Substantiation for Health, Beauty and Slimming Claims. [not printed]
|
| Annex 2 | Help Note on Asthma and Allergy Claims in Marketing for Devices.
|
| Annex 3 | Help Note on Vacuum Cleaner Marketing. [not printed]
|
| Annex 4 | 6 ASA adjudications:
Deal TV Limited (9 May 2007).
Air Ion Technologies Ltd (14 February 2007).
Usave.tv (22 November 2006).
Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd (6 October 2004).
Samsung Electronics UK Ltd (16 June 2004).
Medivac Healthcare Ltd (19 February 2003).
|
| |
Annex 2
Committee of Advertising Practice (Non-broadcast)
HELP NOTE ON ASTHMA AND ALLERGY CLAIMS IN MARKETING FOR
DEVICES
CAP Help Notes offer guidance for non-broadcast marketing
communications under the British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotions
and Direct Marketing (the CAP Code). For advice on the rules for
TV or radio commercials, contact the BACC www.bacc.org.uk for
TV ads or the RACC www.racc.co.uk for radio ads.
These guidelines, drawn up by the Copy Advice team, are intended
to help marketers, agencies and media interpret the rules in the
British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing
as far as they relate to the subject discussed. They neither constitute
new rules nor bind the ASA Council in the event of a complaint
about a marketing communication that follows them.
Asthma and allergies affect people in different ways. Not
only are asthma attacks and allergic reactions often triggered
by different allergens, but one sufferer might have a much higher
tolerance of an allergen than another. It is therefore difficult
to predict the benefit, if any, to an individual of reducing the
number of allergens in their environment by using devices such
as specially designed vacuum cleaners, bedding and air filters.
1. Marketers who claim that their device can reduce the
amount of allergens in the environment should hold relevant substantiation.
Claims such as "Product X removes 99 per cent of house dust
mite faeces" are likely to be acceptable if marketers can
prove them.
2. Marketers who claim that reducing the amount of allergens
in the environment can benefit the health of asthma or allergy
sufferers should be able to support these claims with satisfactory
clinical trials on human subjects. Claims such as "Product
X removed 99 per cent of irritants", "Product X removes
99 per cent of house dust mite faeces, providing relief ..."
and "Product X removes 99 per cent of house dust mite faeces,
a common trigger for reactions" are unlikely to be acceptable
in the absence of these clinical trials.
3. Marketers who have proved that their product can benefit
the health of asthma or allergy sufferers equally should not imply
that all asthmatics or allergy sufferers can benefit where this
is not the case. It may be necessary to qualify a claim to reflect,
for example, that only those sufferers whose reactions are triggered
by house dust mite faeces might benefit.
Advice on specific marketing communications is available
from the Copy Advice team. The CAP website at www.cap.org.uk contains
a full list of Help Notes as well as access to the AdviceOnline
database, which has links through to relevant Code rules and ASA
adjudications.
August 1997
Revised: March 2003
Annex 4
| Deal TV Limited | Date: 9 May 2007
|
| Portland Media Group Ltd | Media: Television
|
| Sector: Health and Beauty
|
| |
COMPLAINT
Monitoring staff viewed an ad for Miracle Spring Water and
Miracle Olive Oil Soap on Deal TV, a teleshopping channel. The
TV evangelist Reverend Peter Popoff said viewers who called in
to receive the Miracle Spring Water and obeyed the instructions
would receive money, be offered a house, a car, be healed from
allergy problems, chest pain, heart burn and high blood pressure
and lose weight. He claims "Obey, move in obedience and you
will literally see the angels of the Lord bring money to you ..."
Reverend Peter Popoff siad "You've had pain, it's because
of a tumour in your stomach, right there by your navel, it's more
or less on the right side and there's been pain. Four surgeries,
I just believe now that Doctor Jesus is going to touch everything
that's not right and make it right, make it new ... In the name
of Jesus Christ of Nazareth I command these things to dissolve".
[Peter Popoff puts his hand on woman's head and she collapses].
An assistant said "She got the miracle spring water,
she followed the instructions and just a little while later moved
out of the slums into owning her very own home. Amen. God gave
you a house." The woman responded saying "Yes he did.
Praise God. Yes he did." The assistant said "Did you
use the Miracle Spring Water?" The woman said "Yes,
I followed the instructions and a couple of days later you wrote
me and said I would get a house, I would get a car".
A testimonial claimed "Since I received your Miracle
Spring Water my mom was healed and can walk again after a bad
fall. My son was healed from allergy problems and my 17 years
of chest pain, finger pain and heart burn are all healed. I believe
you are the 100 per cent prophet of God".
Another testimonial claimed "I received your Miracle
Spring Water when I saw you on TV. You said someone was going
to get good news from the doctor. My blood pressure was 201/100.
After the Miracle Spring Water my doctor said it [sic] was only
a few days my pressure was down and I had lost 8 lbs".
Reverend Peter Popoff said "We are going to pray. We
are going to send the anointed word out over the airwave. And
Liz, so many people tell me that they've touched our hands as
a point of contact and seen a miracle. We are going to believe
God right now for a mighty miracle touch. Father in heaven, right
now, in the name of Jesus I take authority over every sickness,
affliction, infirmity and disease. I take authority over this
onslaught of financial attacks that has come against the people
of God right now. I bind the forces of the enemy now. And Lord
Jesus I release abundant blessings until each and everyone who
is watching right now in Jesus's name. It's done, Liz I can just
feel the burdens rolling away I can feel bondages being broken
I can feel healing power flowing, do you feel that? I feel that
diabetes is going away".
Another TV evangelist, Dr Paul Lewis, promoted the Doctor
Paul Lewis Miracle Olive Oil Soap and gave examples of some healings.
Harry and Harriet McCain were with him and reminisced about the
healings.
Harry McCain said "As a matter of fact you had given
him a bar of soap because he had some things going on within his
body. A lot of people don't believe in the miracle olive oil soap.
It works. It's not a gimmick, it's real. You told him to wash
for several days and he had a back injury and he had some things
going on in his stomach and all of that went away ... He was totally
blind to the point that his eyes were white when you took the
sunglasses off. So you know that he couldn't see anything. And
so you prayed for him and you told him look, you're going to see.
And the whole place became silent. You could hear a pin drop.
And he said you are going to see this night. After this night
your sight after washing with the soap is going to get better
and better and better until you can see totally. There's something
about the soap. Amen. We get so may calls about this soap saying
what did you put in that soap? The amount of testimony we've been
getting of people who've been healed from cancer, AIDS I mean
AIDS! I mean doctors don't have a cure for AIDS or cancer and
the amount of testimony we are getting. Man of God, it's real,
Jesus it's real".
Dr Paul Lewis recounted how he had visited a mosque "that
day in that temple about 10 of those Muslim got me down in that
basement and we sit around and they say tell me a little bit about
your Jesus. And I begun to tell them about my Jesus and can I
tell you even to this day some of those Muslim, right now, is
coming to my church".
Harriet McCain said "You said to her believe woman,
believe woman that you can get up out of that wheelchair. Raise
yourself up and believe by the power of God that God can heal
you. She hadn't walked for years. She hadn't walked for years,
couldn't move for years, for years, for years. And you told her
wise up woman because you can do it—daughter of God, wise
up ... And she began to raise herself up and it took me back to
the woman with the issue of blood, she did not want to miss her
moment because if she'd have missed her moment Dr Paul, she would
have missed her opportunity and then she would have missed her
blessing and I can look at this woman's face and she said I'm
gonna get out of this wheelchair one way or the other and I am
not going to miss my opportunity. And she raised herself up and
it was, she got up out of that wheelchair and, when she got up
out of the wheelchair she began to walk and then when she got
up and she walked, she put you in the wheelchair and she begun
to push you through the aisles, that's the power of God. And that
was the point of contact and you've been saying the point of contact
and with this, this oil, this olive oil, that you have, the miracle
olive oil that you offer free, free, free, it's free".
Chanice said "I've used the free olive oil soap and
the pain that I had, Dr Paul, all through my body, all through
her body, all through her body, has been gone. And listen to this
Dr Paul. I've used the olive oil soap, the miracle olive oil soap,
and I've even lost weight. You don't have to go to the gym. You
don't have to go to the gym. So if you wanna lost weight. That's
right. Call for the miracle oil soap. Amen. Amen. O yeah. Come
on call for it, and God will let you lose weight. Amen".
Dr Paul Lewis said "James 5:14 said—Is any sick
among you? Let him call for the elders of the church and he shall
anoint him with oil, miracle olive oil soap, and the prior of
the saints shall save the sick and the Lord will raise him up".
The on-screen text quoted from the Bible [Is any sick among you?
Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over
him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord [James 5:14].
A testimonial said "Since I used the soap, the chemo
makes my bones ache and I mean have no energy. I have had all
the energy and haven't had any bones aching, no muscles aching
and I just thank God that I'm healed".
Dr Paul Lewis said "Pick up the phone right now and
call that number. It's toll-free. You don't even have to pay a
penny".
ISSUE
Monitoring staff challenged whether the ads:
1. exploited vulnerable viewers;
2. expounded religious beliefs and referred to individual
experiences associated with a doctrine;
3. claimed the products would cure cancer, AIDS, and
other serious medical conditions;
4. made medicinal claims for products that did not hold
a marketing authorisation under the Medicines Act 1968;
5. complied with rule 8.4.3 (Predictions of weight loss);
6. would cause serious or widespread offence against
generally accepted moral or cultural standards;
Monitoring staff challenged whether:
7. evidence existed to substantiate the claims that people's
financial circumstances would change after receiving the Miracle
Spring Water;
8. using the prefix "Doctor" for Paul Lewis
implied a professional recommendation for the product;
9. offering the soap and water as treatment for various
medical conditions was a breach of rule 8.2.6;
10. the channel had sought suitably qualified medical
advice on the efficacy of the Miracle Spring Water and the Miracle
Olive Oil Soap's slimming effects;
11. the on-screen telephone number was "toll-free"
as claimed.
BCAP TV ADVERTISING CODE
10.13; 5.4.4; 10.8; 10.10; 5.1; 5.2.1; 5.2.2; 8.1.1; 8.2.9;
8.2.3; 8.4.3; 6.1; 8.1.2(a); 8.1.2(c); 8.2.6; 8.4.2; 5.3.1
RESPONSE
Portland Media Group Ltd first said they had subleased the
channel to a third party who had aired the ads on the understanding
that they had been shown on other channels. Then, in a written
response, they accepted that they had breached the Code and said
that they had withdrawn the ads when the breach was brought to
their attention. Later, they permanently stopped the broadcast
of Deal TV and surrendered its Ofcom licence. They added that
ads had been broadcast on two occasions only and, because of an
isolated administrative error, caused by the proposed re-location
of parts of the business to the USA, the tapes had not been viewed
by their compliance officer as standard. They believed that no-one
had ordered the products as a result of the broadcasts.
ASSESSMENT
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that the references to healing, the testimonials
of those who had been healed and references to people receiving
"a miracle touch from God" if they called to order the
Miracle Spring Water or the Miracle Olive Oil Soap breached the
Code. We considered that the ads exploited vulnerable viewers.
The ads breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards
Code rules 10.13 Vulnerable viewers and 5.4.4 (Testimonials).
2. Upheld
We considered that the quotes from the Bible, Reverend Peter
Popoffs reference to "We are going to pray, we are going
to send the anointed word out over the airwave ..." and his
instruction that "it's not the water that brings the miracle,
it's the obedience to the instructions of the servant of God that
releases the miracle in your life" expounded doctrinal beliefs
that were prohibited by the Code.
The ads breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards
Code rules 10.8 (References to beliefs) and 10.10 (Benefit claims).
3. Upheld
We noted Deal TV had not sought independent medical advice
on the safety and efficacy of the Miracle Spring Water or of the
Miracle Olive Oil Soap and had not established whether reputable
scientific evidence supported the claims.
The ads breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards
Code rules 5.1 (Misleading), 5.2.1 (Evidence), 5.2.2 (Implications),
8.1.1 (Assessment of claims) and 8.2.9 (Cure).
4. Upheld
We considered that the claims that the Miracle Spring Water
had healed people suffering from chest pain and heart burn and
high blood pressure and that the Miracle Olive Oil Soap had healed
a blind man and people with cancer and AIDS were medicinal claims.
The ads breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards
Code rule 8.2.3 (Products without a marketing authorisation).
5. Upheld
We considered that the testimonial from the woman who claimed
to have lost 8 lbs in a few days after receiving the miracle spring
water did not comply with the Code because the rate of the weight
loss was too rapid to comply with accepted good medical and dietary
practice. We considered that the testimonial from Chanice who
claimed to have lost weight from using the Miracle Olive Oil Soap
did not comply with the Code because the period over which the
weight loss was achieved was not specified.
On this point the ads breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising
Standards Code rule 8.4.3 (Prediction of weight loss).
6. Upheld
We considered that the reference to converting Muslims in
their place of worship would cause serious or widespread offence.
The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards
Code rule 6.1 (Offence).
7. Upheld
No evidence was submitted to substantiate the testimonials
that claims an improvement in financial circumstances after receiving
the Miracle Spring Water. We concluded that the claims were misleading.
The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards
Code rules 5.1 (Misleading) and 5.2.1 (Evidence).
8. Upheld
We considered that referring to Paul Lewis as "Doctor"
implied he was qualified to give professional advice on health
matters. Also, we considered that the products name, "Dr
Paul Lewis Miracle Olive Oil Soap", was a reference to approval
of or preference for the products by Dr Lewis.
The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards
Code rule 8.1.2 (a) and (c) (Impressions of professional advice
and support).
9. Upheld
We considered that Reverend Peter Popoffs claim to "take
authority over every sickness, affliction, infirmity and disease.
I take authority over this onslaught of financial attacks that
has come against the people of God right now. I bind the forces
of the enemy now. And Lord Jesus I release abundant blessings
until each and everyone who is watching right now in Jesus's name.
It's done, this I can just feel the burdens rolling away I can
feel bondages being broken I can feel healing power flowing, do
you feel that? I feel that diabetes is going away" might
give the impression that medical consultations were not necessary.
The ads breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards
Code rule 8.2.6 (Conditions requiring medical attention).
10. Upheld
We noted Deal TV had not sought suitably qualified medical
advice on the efficacy of the Miracle Spring Water and the Miracle
Olive Oil Soaps slimming capabilities.
The ads breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards
Code rule 8.4.2 (Requirements for medical advice).
11. Upheld
We noted the on-screen telephone number was an 020 7 number
and so not free as claimed.
The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards
Code rule 5.1 (Misleading) and 5.3.1 (Accurate pricing).
We noted the two contradictory responses. We were concerned
that, as the licence holders, Portland Media Group Ltd was not
entitled to sublease a licensed service and was wholly responsible
for that service and its compliance with the conditions of the
Licence. We welcomed Portland Media Group Ltd's prompt action
in removing the ads and surrendering the Licence. We were concerned
that the broadcaster had so seriously breached the Code and because
of the seriousness of the breach, were minded to refer the Portland
Media Group Ltd to Ofcom for the consideration of a statutory
sanction. But, because the Licence had been surrendered, we considered
that no other action was needed.
ACTION
The ads must not be shown again.
| Air Ion Technologies Ltd | Date: 14 February 2007
|
| Media: Magazine |
| Sector: Health and Beauty
|
| |
COMPLAINT
A magazine ad, for Myairzone an air purifier, claimed "Clears
the air of pollutants, dust mites, cold and flu bugs, fungal spores,
pet and animal dander, smoke, moulds ... What our customers say:
From our 2006 customer survey, Myairzone is used for asthma, anxiety,
bronchitis, hayfever, headaches, migraines, infection avoidance,
odour removal, pet allergy, skin conditions, deepens sleep, smoke
clearance, driving, working, dust mite allergy and mould ...".
ISSUE
1. The complainant challenged the efficacy of the product.
2. The ASA challenged whether the claim "What our
customers say: From our 2006 customer survey, Myairzone is used
for asthma, anxiety, bronchitis ...", misleadingly implied
that the device could relieve, or treat, the symptoms of the listed
conditions.
THE CAP CODE
3.1; 7.1; 50.1; 50.3
RESPONSE
Air Ion Technologies (Air Ion) explained that the purpose
of the product was to claim the air in close proximity to the
user; they said they believed it was analogous to a water purifier.
They said the process had been tested in independent trials by
the Workplace Environment Science & Technology Research Association
(WESTRA) and the Universities of Surrey, Leeds, Southampton and
Reading and its ability to clear the air of various particles
had been demonstrated by WESTRA regularly by using a particle
counter at clients' premises. They also claimed that the product
cleared the air of various micro-organisms and said this had been
demonstrated by researchers at Leeds and Southampton Universities.
They sent a presentation from the Healthy Buildings Symposium
in June 2006 and a copy of their customer satisfaction survey
as substantiation for the advertised claims. They pointed out
that they had a 60-day money back guarantee that allowed purchasers
to assess the value of the product for themselves and obtain a
full refund, including postage, if they were not satisfied.
ASSESSMENT
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that the claim "Clears the air"
implied the product removed all airborne allergens. We noted the
information Air Ion had supplied as substantiation was a short-term
study on the impact of improved air quality on productivity and
health in the workplace. Because it did not support the implication
that the advertised product removed all pollutants and because
it was not designed to be controlled for a placebo effect, we
considered that the study was insufficient to support the claim.
Furthermore, we noted Air Ion had not provided robust, placebo-controlled
clinical studies that showed the product removed allergens from
the surrounding air of the user's homes, inside and outside, or
for any specific irritant such as animal dander. We concluded
that Air Ion's submissions were insufficient to prove the efficacy
of the Myairzone.
2. Upheld
We noted the customer satisfaction survey had a very high
response rate and, from the graph provided, customers seemed to
have enjoyed an improvement in their various symptoms. We nevertheless
noted that it was impossible to know from the questionnaire whether
any perceived change was directly attributable to the product.
We considered that the claim implied the device could relieve,
or treat, the symptoms of the listed conditions including the
serious medical condition of bronchitis. Because Air Ion had not
provided product-specific, clinically controlled trials on sufferers
of these conditions to prove the efficacy of the product, we concluded
that the claim was misleading. We were also concerned that the
references to bronchitis and migraines, serious medical conditions,
could discourage consumers from seeking help from a suitably qualified
medical practitioner.
On points 1 and 2, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation),
7.1 (Truthfulness), 50.1 (Scientific substantiation) and 50.3
(Discouragement of essential treatment).
ACTION
We told Air Ion not to repeat the ad and advised them to
consult the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising again.
| Usave.tv t/a Save. TV | Publish Date: 22 November 2006
|
| U Save TV Ltd | Media: Television
|
| Sector: Retail |
| |
COMPLAINT
An ad for a silk-filled duvet on U Save TV claimed "It's
filled with 100 per cent silk and it's got a very beautiful 100
per cent cotton casing as well. So it's something that actually
helps your body to breathe as you sleep at night ... Does that
mean that it actually keeps you cool? Because I must admit when
the summer starts coming I wake up sometimes in a hot sweat ...
Are you using the same duvet that you sleep with in the summer
and the winter? You know, yes, I am actually. Well, you don't
have to worry about having a summer duvet or a winter duvet because
the moisture will actually just evaporate. This is absolutely
breathable. So this could actually be a summer duvet and a winter
duvet? ... The thing that I find quite amazing about this is the
fact it keeps you warm in the winter yet it lets you breathe in
the summer as well and so you actually save money on not having
to buy a summer duvet and a winter duvet. You have this one all
the year round. Absolutely, and so you don't have to worry about
storage so much because you've only got the one."
"It's great news for allergy sufferers as well ... There
are health properties along with this as well, real benefits for
your health. Now because it doesn't actually retain any moisture
it means bed bugs can't actually live in here. They are not welcome.
It's the bed bugs isn't it that actually cause the problems. It's
the droppings of bed bugs which causes asthma and eczema and your
itchy skin ... It's 100 per cent hypo-allergenic ... it actually
breathes with your skin ... It will actually adjust to your temperature
as well: so when you are sleeping in the winter it keeps you warm,
in the summer it will keep you cool ... It's got great health
properties as well: asthma sufferers, allergy sufferers, hello,
this is for you!"
The voice-over on the offer page stated ... including health
properties which help relieve itching caused by skin conditions,
100 per cent breathable ...".
Another ad, for a memory pillow, claimed "this pillow
is going to support your head. It's going to mean there is less
movement of the joints, the distribution of your weight is going
to be maximised and, because you're moving around less, if you've
got any aches and pains or joints that are really achy, you're
going to possibly avoid that sort of problem. Do you know what
else this is great for? If you're a snorer ... or you sleep next
to a snorer and they keep you awake why don't you get one of these
for them? ... Your head just rests so comfortably into this pillow,
it's supporting your neck. In fact it's just lifting your neck
very slightly, clearing your airways, so you can breathe air straight
down into your lungs which could reduce your snoring".
The text on the offer page stated that the pillow would "relieve
pain and reduce snoring".
ISSUE
BCAP staff challenged whether the duvet would:
1. help the body to breathe;
2. prevent bed bugs and their droppings and thereby help
asthma and eczema sufferers;
3. be 100 per cent hypo-allergenic;
4. adjust to the body's temperature and be warm in the
winter and cool in the summer.
5. BCAP staff challenged whether the pillow would reduce
snoring and help relieve pain.
BCAP TV ADVERTISING CODE
5.1; 5.2.1
RESPONSE
U Save TV submitted evidence of a study that demonstrated
the effectiveness of a special sericin-free silk fabric in the
treatment of young children affected by atopic dermatitis (AD).
The study explained "silk also helps to maintain the body
temperature, by reducing the excessive sweating and moisture loss
that can worsen xerosis" although "the type of silk
fabric generally used for clothes is not particularly helpful
in the case and dressing of children with AD as it reduces transpiration
and may cause discomfort when in direct contact with the skin".
The study stated "the clothes used in the present study are
made of woven silk where the special properties of silk are enhanced:
the fabric allows the skin to breathe and the sensation does not
bother the wearer; it also has a high capacity to absorb sweat
and serious exudates (up to 30 per cent of its weight without
becoming damp)". The study stated the fabric had a waterproof,
durable, antimicrobial finish. The study noted that "recent
studies have suggested that cotton may also present a roughness
that irritates the skin of children affected by AD". The
study tested children wearing the special silk clothes against
a control group that wore cotton clothing. The study concluded
that "the use of sericin-free silk products would appear
to alleviate the symptoms of AD".
The study's introduction stated that one of the many factors
known to worsen AD was house dust mite.
The study explained that "the final textile products
of silk are mostly non-allergenic".
1. U Save TV explained that they had meant to state merely
that silk was used as the ultimate breathable material; with its
large fibres reducing thermo conductivity, either trapping air
next to the skin to keep one warm in the cold or drawing it away
from the body in hotter temperatures. The broadcaster admitted
the statement could mislead.
2. U Save TV acknowledged that they did not have enough
evidence to substantiate the claim.
3. U Save TV maintained that house dust mites were a
frequent cause of allergic reactions and that one of their favourite
locations was bedding. They claimed that house dust mites would
not, or perhaps could not, live in silk. They added that, provided
the rest of the bedding was washed regularly to keep it "mite-free",
that source of allergy could be controlled.
4. U Save TV maintained that silk-filled clothing was
used by explorers in the Amazon jungle and in Alaska because of
the silks natural properties. But they conceded that the claim
was merely a suggestion and that it could apply also to other
types of bedding.
5. U Save TV submitted no evidence and said the claim
had been removed from the ad.
ASSESSMENT
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that evidence from a study on specially
treated silk clothing could not be extrapolated to a duvet that
was filled with a different type of silk and had a cotton casing.
We considered that the claim was misleading.
2. Upheld
We noted that no evidence was presented to show that house
dust mites were unable to live in silk-filled duvets or that a
cotton-cased duvet would produce the improvements described in
the study. We considered that the claims were misleading.
3. Upheld
Because no evidence was presented to show that house dust
mites were unable to live in silk filled duvets and because the
duvet had a cotton casing, we considered that the claim was misleading.
4. Upheld
We noted no evidence was presented to support the claim that
the duvet would adjust to the body's temperature or be warm in
the winter and cool in the summer. We considered that the claims
were misleading.
5. Upheld
We welcomed the broadcasters action but nevertheless considered
that the claims were misleading.
We concluded that the ads breached rules 5.1 (Misleading
advertising) and 5.2.1 (Evidence) of the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising
Standards Code.
ACTION
The ads must not be shown again in their present form and
the products should not be advertised without adequate substantiation
for the claims made.
| Sharp Electronics (UK) Ltd | Publish Date: 6 October 2004
|
| Media: National press
|
| Sector: Household
|
| Public complaint from: London
|
| |
COMPLAINT
Objection to a national press advertisement that was headed
"I suffered allergies for 15 years. It only took two months
to feel the difference". It claimed "... Sarah has a
job she loves ... But since being a small child herself, she'd
suffered badly with asthma and hay fever. Over the years she had
learned that the most likely triggers were pollen, pets, and most
especially, airborne mite allergens. Apart from irritation of
the eyes, nose and throat, the severity of her allergy caused
her actue breathing difficulties. Particularly at night, when
it would become hard to get the restful sleep she needed to face
the next busy day. As a result Sarah gave a trial to the new Sharp
Healthcaire FU-40SEK Plasmacluster air purifier ... In as short
a time as two months she began to notice a difference in her life.
The severity of her symptoms was reduced and she was not able
to sleep soundly right through the night ...
Introducing Plasmacluster Ion Technology. A scientific solution
to airborne allergens ... After lengthy research and development
they [experts in the field of molecular biotechnology] have recently
verified that they had identified a pro-active way to deactivate
airborne mite allergens*, one of the most common asthma triggers
... The Sharp Healthcaire air purifier is the first device to
incorporate a Plasmacluster Ion generator, the key to this revolutionary
breakthrough in anti-allergen technology. This produces streams
of positive and negative ions—which are natural components
of healthy air—that quickly bond with water molecules, known
as cluster ions. When these cluster ions are released into a room
they actively seek out and surround airborne mite allergens. A
chemical reaction takes place and the allergen is rendered harmless,
robbed of its ability to provoke an allergic response even if
breathed in ... Plasmacluster Ion Technology is not in itself
a cure for Asthma or other allergies. But for sufferers like Sarah,
it may mean that they can now breathe in a purer air that isn't
laden with the active allergens that have caused them years of
misery". The complainant, who believed the product did not
affect dust mite allergens, challenged whether the device benefited
people who suffered from dust mite allergies.
Codes Section: (Ed 11: 3.1; 7.1; 50.1)
ADJUDICATION
Complaint upheld
The advertisers said the device had been independently tested
in Japan; they sent a press release that detailed the test results.
They said, before the device was marketed in the UK, trials on
allergy sufferers had been conducted by a specialist communication
company on their behalf; they said the feedback from those trials
had been mainly positive. The advertisers said they had selected
two of the trials to form the basis of their advertising and sent
a copy of one of the completed questionnaires from an allergy
sufferer. The advertisers asserted the device had been awarded
a "Seal of approval" by the British Allergy Foundation
and that two professors, who were specialists in the field, had
stated the effectiveness of the device in combating the triggers
that caused allergic reactions.
The Authority took expert advice. It understood that the
advertisers' evidence showed the device provided effective air
filtration and that the additional plasma cluster technology could
inactivate allergens in the air. It nevertheless understood that,
in the absence of a rigorously designed clinical study, corrected
for any placebo effect, the efficacy of the device for providing
actual clinical benefit to allergy sufferers was unproven.
The Authority considered that the advertisement implied the
device would rid the air in people's homes of virtually all airborne
allergens and help those with medical conditions such as asthma.
The Authority noted the results of the trials conducted on behalf
of the advertisers, but considered that the results of those trials
were not sufficient to substantiate that implication. In the absence
of product-specific, clinically controlled trials on sufferers
to prove the efficacy of the advertised product, the Authority
concluded that the advertisement was misleading. It told the advertisers
not to repeat the advertisement and advised them to consult the
CAP Copy Advice team before advertising the device again.
| Samsung Electronics UK Ltd | Publish Date: 16 June 2004
|
| Media: Magazine |
| Sector: Household
|
| Industry complaint from: Wiltshire
|
| |
COMPLAINT
Dyson Ltd objected to a trade magazine advertisement, for
a washing machine, that was headlined "larger drum—less
washing time". Text stated "Effective, efficient and
allergy free washing from Samsung ... This powerful washing machine
is not only a first for its size but also for its innovation.
The unique Detergent Dissolver System diffuses the detergent faster
and more effectively before its reaches the wash, minimising the
residue left on your clothes which can cause skin irritation.
And the impressive 7.5 kg load capacity, the largest in a standard
UK size machine, ensures fewer loads to complete your washing
...". The complainants challenged whether:
1. the advertisement, especially the claims "larger
drum—less time washing" and "not only a first
for its size, but also for its innovation", misleadingly
implied that the advertisers' machine had a larger drum than competitors'
machines;
2. the advertisement, especially the claims "larger
drum—less time washing" and "not only a first
for its size, but also for its innovation", misleadingly
implied that the advertisers' machine washed more quickly than
competitors' machines and
3. the claim "allergy free washing" was misleading,
because they understood that the advertisers' machine performed
poorly and less well than the Dyson CR01 on the IEC test, which
measured the level of detergent left in the final rinse water.
Codes Section: (Ed 11: 3.1; 7.1; 19.1)
ADJUDICATION
1. Complaint not upheld
The advertisers stated that the advertised washing machine
was called Bigwash, because it had a larger load capacity and
could wash large items such as duvets, towels and curtains. They
stated that the Samsung Bigwash had a drum volume of 60 litres
and a capacity of 7.5 kg; they said the 7.5 kg capacity was a
first for its size and innovation, because no other brand provided
that much washing capacity under European standard dimensions
of 60 cm width, 60 cm depth and 82 cm height. They argued that
they had never claimed that their washing machine's drum volume
was the largest, merely that its load capacity was the largest
for the European standard depth of 60 cm. The advertisers asserted
that the complainants' machine, the Dyson CR01, which had a depth
of 71 cm, was oversized compared with European standard dimensions.
The Authority noted although the Dyson CR01 had a drum volume
of 78 litres, its load capacity was less than that of the advertised
machine. It also noted the Dyson CR01 had a depth that was greater
than the standard UK size machine. The Authority considered that
the advertisement made clear the 7.5 kg load capacity of the advertised
machine was the largest for a standard size machine. Because it
noted the advertised machine could wash a larger load compared
with other washing machines, including the complainants' machine,
the Authority concluded that the advertisement was not misleading
on that point.
2. Complaint not upheld
The advertisers stated that a comparative test had shown
that the Samsung Bigwash had a cycle time of 98 minutes (mins)
compared with 118 mins for Miele, 124 mins for Bosch and Siemens
and 145 min for Zanussi; they had not included the Dyson machine
in the test because it was in a different size category. The advertisers
asserted that no other brand had a shorter cycle time for a 7.5
kg load. The Authority noted, although it had a cycle time of
88 mins, the Dyson CR01 was larger than the standard size. The
Authority noted the advertisement stated "... the impressive
7.5 kg load capacity ... ensures fewer loads to complete your
washing ...". It considered the consumers would infer from
the advertisement that, because the advertised machine could wash
heavier loads than other machines, they could complete their washing
in fewer loads and thus spend less time washing, not that the
advertised machine had a shorter cycle time compared with competitors'
machines. The Authority concluded that the advertisement was not
misleading on that point.
3. Complaint upheld
The advertisers asserted that the Bigwash programs on the
advertised machine, which no other manufacturer provided, focused
on low detergent residues. They stated that WFK in Germany had
conducted comparative tests to measure detergent residues; they
said the results showed that the Samsung Bigwash 6 kg produced
less detergent residue than Bosch, Hoover, Whirlpool and the Dyson
CR01 washing machines. The advertisers asserted that, as well
as the Bigwash programs, the Samsung Bigwash 7.5 kg had a "Detergent
Dissolver System" to minimise detergent residue on laundry;
the detergent powder was full dissolved and liquidised quickly
to minimise residue that was not dissolved completely during washing.
They asserted that their machine also had a "Shower Spinning"
function that sprayed water onto the laundry during the spin cycle,
thus helping to reduce skin problems. They said to ensure "allergy
free washing" for sensitive people, their machine had a "Rinse
Selection" option, which enabled consumers to increase the
rinse cycle up to five times; they asserted that no other European
brand had that feature. The Authority noted the results of the
detergent residue tests and the features of the machine that the
advertisers asserted reduce detergent residue. It nevertheless
considered that the advertisers had not sent sufficient substantiation,
including the results of clinical trials, to show that the advertised
machine could provide a significant benefit to allergy sufferers.
The Authority concluded that the claim was misleading and advised
the advertisers to amend it with help from the CAP Copy Advice
team.
| Medivac Healthcare Ltd | Publish Date: 19 February 2003
|
| Media: Leaflet |
| Sector: Health and Beauty
|
| Public complaint from: Berkshire
|
| |
COMPLAINT
Objection to a leaflet for products for people with asthma,
eczema and rhinitus. The leaflet stated"... Swiss mountain
air quality for your home or office. How does the Airwasher work?
The new Swiss-designed Medivac Airwasher literally washes the
air you and your family will breathe ... The Airwasher has also
been designed to help breathing difficulties during the drier
months of the year when relative humidity levels are reduced ...
The modern design of the Medivac Airwasher will look good in any
home or office. This appliance is strongly recommended for adults
and children whose medical condition is influenced by exposure
to common allergens, from dust mites, cats, traffic or any of
the many airborne particles created by our modern lifestyles ...
Medivac has satisfied the United Kingdom's [sic] HM Customs &
Excise that Medivac Healthcare products are of such medical benefit
to adults and children with asthma, eczema or rhinitus, that such
individuals may purchase Medivac products free from Value Added
Tax ... The Airwasher is designed solely to protect adults and
children from airborne allergens ... which can trigger asthma,
rhinitis or eczema ...". The complainant challenged the efficacy
of the device.
Codes Section: (Ed 10: 3.1; 7.1; 50.1; 50.3)
ADJUDICATION
Complaint upheld
The advertisers said their airwasher was an allergen avoidance
product; they argued that the efficacy of allergen avoidance products
had been proven by medical research institutions. They claimed
that their product had two main features: it washed and it humidified
air, both without the use of filters. The advertisers argued that
temperature, air purity and moisture content of the air were all
important factors in the maintenance of an ideal room climate.
They explained how their product worked. The advertisers sent
various references referring to studies about asthma prevention
and the links between allergen exposure and respiratory allergy.
They said they had no plans to promote the product again. The
advertisers commented that they had received only one complaint
about the product. The Authority considered that the leaflet implied
the product would rid the air in people's homes of virtually all
pollutants and help those with medical conditions such as asthma.
In the absence of results of product-specific, clinically controlled
trials on sufferers to show the product worked as advertised,
the Authority told the advertisers not to repeat the advertisement
and advised them to consult the Committee of Advertising Practice
Copy Advice team before advertising again.
| 
