Health: Allergy Claims

Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.

Hold evidence to support claims about the removal of allergens
Be careful if making allergy prevention claims for a device
Avoid making medicinal claims for non-medicines or unlicensed medicines
Avoid making allergy prevention or treatment claims for food supplements
Don’t advertise prescription-only treatments to the public
Take care when making claims to diagnose food allergies and intolerences

Hold evidence to support claims about the removal of allergens

The ASA and CAP accept that in theory, products such as washing machines, air filters and vacuum cleaners can remove some allergens. However, in order to make such claims, marketers would need to hold robust evidence (Rule 3.7).

Marketers should not state or imply that their product is capable of removing all allergens if they do not hold evidence to support such an absolute claim. In 2011 the ASA upheld a complaint about a marketers advertising which claimed that its vacuum cleaners were “perfect for an allergy free environment”. During the investigation, the ASA established that the vacuum featured a filtration system which captured 99.5% of the most penetrative size of particles (allergens), and 99.99% of other sizes. Despite this, the ASA understood that the consumers would interpret the claim “...allergy free...” as removing all allergens and deemed the ad misleading (The Miele Company Ltd, 25 May 2011).

Be careful if making allergy prevention claims for a product

Marketers should be aware that claims that products like vacuum cleaners or air purifiers can ‘treat’ or ‘prevent’ allergies or allergic reactions as a result of the removal of allergens will need to be supported by robust documentary evidence.

Claims that a device that acts on the person (rather than the surrounding air) can prevent or treat allergies would potentially be treated as a medical device. See advice on Medical devices.

Avoid making medicinal claims for non-medicines or unlicensed medicines

Claims to “prevent” or “treat” allergies are likely to be considered medicinal. Medicines must have a licence from the MHRA before they can be marketed. See Medicines.

Avoid making allergy prevention or treatment claims for food supplements.

Claims that state or imply a food prevents, treats or cures human disease are likely to be considered unacceptable (15.6.2)

In 2014 the ASA ruled against an ad for a food supplement which included claims such as “Your natural way to prevent springtime sneezes", were considered likely to be interpreted as claims to prevent hay fever. The ASA considered the ad therefore breached the Code because it made disease prevention claims for a food (PharmaNord UK Ltd, 10 December 2014).

Don’t advertise prescription-only treatments (POMs) to the public.

Prescription-only medicines cannot be advertised to the public either directly, or indirectly. In 2022 CAP issued an Enforcement Notice in relation to ads for prescription-only treatments claiming to treat hay fever, following a number of ASA investigations including Skincodes Aesthetics, Lucy Isabella Beauty and Aesthetics , Sarean Aesthetics, The Skin Clinic Faversham and Elite Aesthetic Clinic. Additionally, the POM that was the subject of the rulings wa not licensed in the UK for the treatment of hay fever.

Take care when making claims to diagnose food allergies and intolerences

Because neither CAP nor the ASA have, to date, seen convincing evidence that, when used in isolation, food allergy or intolerance testing kits can effectively identify food allergies, sensitivities or intolerances or the claimed effects of such allergies, any claims that testing services or testing kits can indicate potential food intolerances (and similar claims) would need to be supported by a robust body of evidence (Rule 12.1).

Please see Food: Reduction of disease risk claims