Ad description
Claims on Optimum Health UK’s website, viewed on 13 May 2011, described the services on offer.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. The use of the title “Dr” and the claim “All our consultants are medically/clinically qualified” misleadingly implied that San Gogana held a general medical qualification.
2. The efficacy claims for colonic irrigation, including that it could remove toxins, improve skin conditions, improve mental clarity, reduce headaches, and improve circulatory, immune system, inflammatory and weight problems, were misleading and could be substantiated.
3. The efficacy claims for live blood microscopy, including that it was a better test for detecting medical conditions than the CBC test and that it could detect hormonal imbalances, sugar intolerance, organ malfunction, digestive problems, absorption problems, and the effects of free radicals, were misleading and could be substantiated.
4. The efficacy claims for nutritional therapy, including that it could remove toxins and increase cellular energy, were misleading and could be substantiated.
5. The claim that “most illness is related to unrelieved stress” was misleading and could be substantiated.
6. The efficacy claims for face reading, including that it could be used to detect the health and function of internal organs, the underlying causes of digestive problems, hormonal imbalance, back problems, allergies, weight gain, and uncover nutritional deficiencies, were misleading and could be substantiated.
7. The efficacy claims for live blood therapy, nutritional therapy and face reading could discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
Response
1. Optimum Health UK (Optimum Health) said that, where they referred to their practitioners as “Dr”, they would amend their advertising to state the discipline in which they held a doctorate.
2., 3., 4., 5. & 6. Optimum Health said they would amend their website so that the correct references were provided for the claims, but did not provide substantiation for the claims.
7. Optimum Health did not comment on this point.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted Optimum Health’s response but considered that, because the clinic offered a range of therapies and referred to a range of medical conditions, consumers would be likely to interpret references to the practitioners as “Dr” to mean that they held general medical qualifications. We noted we had not seen evidence that Ms Gogana, or any of the other practitioners at the clinic, held general medical qualifications and therefore concluded the ad was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising) and
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation).
2., 3., 4., 5. & 6. Upheld
We noted Optimum Health had not provided any evidence that substantiated the efficacy claims for colonic irrigation, live blood microscopy, nutritional therapy and face reading, or that substantiated the claim that “most illness is related to unrelieved stress”. We therefore considered that the claims had not been substantiated and concluded the efficacy claims were misleading.
On these points, the ad breached CAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) and
12.1
12.1
Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
(Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
7. Upheld
We noted the ad made efficacy claims for live blood therapy, nutritional therapy and face reading which referred to various problems and dysfunctions of the body, some of which could be symptoms of serious medical conditions. We considered that readers suffering from the problems and symptoms described would be likely to interpret the claims to mean that Optimum Health could diagnose conditions or treat associated symptoms and could therefore be discouraged from seeking advice from a doctor. We also considered claims such as “Your health is entirely your own responsibility not the medical doctors or hospitals”, “None of these can be put right by taking either prescribed or over-the-counter drugs and remedies” and “Face reading is a neither invasive nor embarrassing diagnostic tool which can also be used for determining your constitution, current health and long term health prospects” were also likely to discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. We concluded the ad breached the Code in that regard.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation),
12.1
12.1
Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
and
12.2
12.2
Marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. For example, they must not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment for such conditions unless that advice, diagnosis or treatment is conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. Accurate and responsible general information about such conditions may, however, be offered (see rule
12.1
12.1
Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
).
Health professionals will be deemed suitably qualified only if they can provide suitable credentials, for example, evidence of: relevant professional expertise or qualifications; systems for regular review of members' skills and competencies and suitable professional indemnity insurance covering all services provided; accreditation by a professional or regulatory body that has systems for dealing with complaints and taking disciplinary action and has registration based on minimum standards for training and qualifications.
(Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Optimum Health they should not make claims for which they did not hold substantiation and should not make claims which could discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. We also told them they should not refer to any of their practitioners as “Dr” unless they held a general medical qualification.
