Ad description
Pages on the website,www.kaneandross.co.uk, for Kane & Ross Clinics, for osteopathy and cranial osteopathy for babies, seen in January 2022.
A page titled “Our Services” had the subheading “BABIES”, under which text included “constipation […] infections”.
A page titled “Osteopathy for Babies” included the claims “Using a finely developed sense of palpation we assess newborn babies for stresses and strains following the birth. Gentle cranial osteopathic techniques are then applied to help release the strains and resolve symptoms naturally”. The ad further included the claims “Passing through the birth canal is a stressful experience for the baby. Babies' heads are made up of 22 bones which overlap and mould during this process. Immediate signs that may be seen from moulding that does not release are […] poor latching to the breast, irritability or babies that want to be held all the time”.
The page further stated that “Babies born by caesarian [sic] section have different problems some are in shock and can be very irritable. Caesarian [sic] section babies tend to be more mucusy [sic] than babies who were born by vaginal delivery because they had no compression through the chest. This can result in ongoing multiple infections of the ear nose throat and chest.”
A page titled “Cranial Osteopathy” included the claim “Patients often present at the clinic with the following symptoms […] Complicated structural problems such as scoliosis”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that osteopathy was effective in treating the symptoms and conditions listed, in babies.Response
Kane & Ross Clinics Ltd responded that they had reviewed their advertising in light of the complaint and would remove the claims.Assessment
Upheld
The ad referenced “constipation” and “Infections” under the sub-heading “Babies” on a page titled “OUR SERVICES”. The ASA considered that in the context of a website that offered osteopathic services, those claims would be understood by consumers to mean that osteopathy was an effective treatment for constipation and infections in babies.
The page “Osteopathy for Babies” included various claims which stated that birth caused stresses and strains to babies’ bodies which could be effectively treated by osteopathy or cranial osteopathy. For example, the claim “Using a finely developed sense of palpation we assess newborn babies for stresses and strains following the birth. Gentle cranial osteopathic techniques are then applied to help release the strains and resolve symptoms naturally” appeared at the top of the page. We considered that claim would be understood by consumers to mean that cranial osteopathy was effective in releasing stresses and strains in babies.
The page also included claims which suggested that those stresses and strains could manifest as specific conditions, which could also be effectively treated by osteopathy or cranial osteopathy, for example, “Passing through the birth canal is a stressful experience for the baby. Babies' heads are made up of 22 bones which overlap and mould during this process. Immediate signs that may be seen from moulding that does not release are […] poor latching to the breast, irritability or babies that want to be held all the time”. In the context of the previous references on the page to both osteopathy and cranial osteopathy, we considered consumers would understand that claim to mean that osteopathy was an effective treatment for moulding that had not released, poor latching to the breast, and irritability and behavioural issues in babies.
The page further included the claim “Babies born by caesarian [sic] section have different problems some are in shock and can be very irritable. Caesarian [sic] section babies tend to be more mucusy [sic] than babies who were born by vaginal delivery because they had no compression through the chest. This can result in ongoing multiple infections of the ear nose throat and chest”. In the context of the previous references on the page to both osteopathy and cranial osteopathy, we considered consumers would understand that claim to mean that both osteopathy and cranial osteopathy were effective treatments for irritability, mucus build-up and infections of the ear, nose and throat in babies that were born through caesarean delivery.
The page “Cranial Osteopathy” began with the claim “[…] babies can benefit from cranial treatment […]” and then further described cranial osteopathy techniques. In that context, we considered consumers would understand the claim “Patients often present at the clinic with the following symptoms […] Complicated structural problems such as scoliosis” to mean that cranial osteopathy was an effective treatment for scoliosis in babies.
We had seen no evidence to demonstrate the efficacy of osteopathic treatments, including cranial osteopathic techniques, in treating constipation, infections (including ear, nose and throat infections), stresses and strains, moulding that had not released, poor latching to the breast, irritability and behavioural issues, mucus build-up or scoliosis in babies. In the absence of such evidence, we concluded that those implied efficacy claims had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
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
We told Kane & Ross Clinics Ltd not to state or imply that osteopathy, including cranial osteopathic techniques, was effective in treating health conditions, including those in babies, unless they held robust evidence to substantiate the claims.
