Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all were Upheld.
Ad description
A website www.radblock.co.uk featured various claims related to RadBlock. The website stated "RadBlock ... PROTECTION FROM RADIATION ... Protect Yourself from Mobile Phone Radiation ... Radiation May Cause: Heat to the Head, Headaches, Tension, Stress, Hair Loss And Possibly Brain Tumour ... Be Safe with RadBlock ... Proved to Reduce RADIATION (SAR) 96.43%". The website also included specific versions of the product for appliances such as vacuum cleaners, computers, cordless phones and video cameras.
An online video showed before and after "thermology [sic] images" of a human head. The before image showed the head coloured mostly green and blue. The after image was composed mainly of yellow, orange and red colouring. The video then showed a device purporting to indicate high radiation levels before the product was used. The product was then applied and the device purportedly showed reduced levels of radiation. It also showed a mobile phone emitting large red circles next to an X-ray image of a head. The video ended with the text "Protect yourself and buy a RadBlock Radiation Absorber today ... Proven to reduce (SAR) Radiation by up to 96.43%”.
Issue
1. Three complainants challenged whether the claims relating to mobile phones and electronic equipment were misleading and could be substantiated.
2. Two of the complainants challenged whether the efficacy claims for the product could be substantiated.
3. One of the complainants challenged whether the ad was likely to cause undue alarm about radiation.
4. One of the complainants challenged whether the thermology images related to the effects of radiation.
Response
1. RadBlock submitted a dossier of evidence which they believed supported the advertised claims. They said that the evidence consisted of a selection of extracts available on the Internet made by scientists with particular research expertise in this field. Additional information included web-links to articles related to scientific findings in relation to radiation, a report on electromagnetic radiation and further web-links to media reports on mobile phones and radiation. The advertiser said that they understood that whole reports were more beneficial, but did not supply them due to the overall volume of paperwork involved.
2. RadBlock said that their product was patent protected and had been proven to absorb radiation, the results of which could be accessed via their website. They said that the video on their website was genuine and showed the product visibly reducing radiation levels.
3. The advertiser said they had received only three complaints from around eight million people registered on their database. They said that if the ad was likely to cause undue alarm to consumers, they would have already voiced their concerns. They pointed out that it was not their intention to cause alarm, but to inform consumers as studies had shown a correlation between a change in electro-magnetic waves and the use of electrical devices.
4. RadBlock supplied a link to the images which they believed were taken from a reputable, authentic and reliable source.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted the advertiser supplied a range of materials which were sourced from a number of websites. However, as many aspects of the evidence were extracts only, we were unable to assess the full reports or draw accurate conclusions from them. One document concerned comments from scientists which related to animal or cellular studies which would not be sufficient to support claims made in relation to human populations. The document showed that the scientists also highlighted the need for re-defined standards, reappraisal by government of concerns relating to radiation from consumer products and the need for longer term or further studies into this area.
Additional material consisted of several comments from a website, news related media reports and additional links to what appeared to be pressure groups. We considered that whilst this demonstrated that there were some individuals and/or groups who were concerned about the potential effects of radiation on the body from devices such as mobile phones, the evidence did not demonstrate that such a relationship existed.
Because of the lack of robust evidence and the nature of the evidence submitted, we concluded that it did not support the claims made for the effects of radiation from mobile phones and other electrical appliances.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 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).
2. Upheld
We noted the report tested an unidentified product and that it did not make clear whether it was the advertised product that was being tested. The test was not conducted under relevant consumer conditions and examined the product efficacy on one mobile phone only. We also noted the video appeared to illustrate reduced radiation levels in the form of before and after visuals when the device was tested with an unidentified testing device. However, data was not submitted to support the advertiser's claim that the video illustrated a reduction in radiation levels. Because the tests were not carried out under relevant consumer conditions and, as it was not clear whether the tests were conducted with the advertised product and because tests were conducted with one phone, we concluded that the report and video were not adequate substantiation to support claims for radiation absorption.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 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).
3. Upheld
We noted it was not RadBlock's intention to cause alarm and that they wanted to inform consumers. However, we were concerned by the statement that the use of consumer products could result in "headaches", "tension", "stress", "hair loss" and "brain tumours". We noted the intention of Radblock was to raise awareness of what they believed to be a potential risk for consumers and that they had not wanted to cause deliberate and unnecessary concern. However, because the claims highlighted an opinion that was not widely accepted within the medical community and presented it as fact, we concluded that the ad was likely to cause unjustifiable distress.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 4.2 4.2 Marketing communications must not cause fear or distress without justifiable reason; if it can be justified, the fear or distress should not be excessive. Marketers must not use a shocking claim or image merely to attract attention. (Harm and offence).
4. Upheld
We noted the link showed images before and after a device was applied to a mobile phone. However, it was not clear whether the device used was the advertised product and the full details of the test were not available. We understood the red, orange and yellow colours used may have been interpreted as an illustration that showed increased blood flow to the side of the face. However, it was not clear whether this was due to heat or radiation as no supporting information was provided. Because we had not seen evidence that demonstrated the increased reddening of the face was due specifically to radiation, we concluded that the ad was misleading
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 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).
Action
The ad must not appear in its current form. We told Radblock Ltd to ensure they held robust substantiation for their claims and to avoid causing undue alarm to consumers.
