Ad description
A leaflet, for The Ladbroke Clinic, stated "FOOD SENSITIVITY TEST... A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE TO TEST FOR FOOD SENSITIVITY, VITAMIN/MINERAL DEFICIENCY & DIGESTIVE ENZYME REQUIREMENTS. THIS MAY HELP IDENTIFY THE ORIGIN OF SOME OF THE FOLLOWING SYMPTOMS: FATIGUE ... ASTHMA ... ITCHING ... ECZEMA ... IBS ... M.E .... ARTHRITIS ... ADHD ... DIARRHOEA". Further text stated "At the end of the test you will be provided with a list of all items you have been tested for, indicating the items you are sensitive to... The Food Sensitivity Test is a screening test and not a substitute for medical advice when needed ...".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the advertiser could substantiate claims that the test could:
1. detect food sensitivity, vitamin or mineral deficiency and digestive enzyme requirements;
2. identify the origins of the symptoms listed.
3. They also challenged whether the ad could discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
Response
The Ladbroke Clinic said it was not their intention to mislead and believed the ad did not make any claims, but stated that they may be able to help people suffering from the listed conditions.
1. The Ladbroke Clinic said they used Electrodermal Testing (commonly known as the Vega test) to detect food sensitivities. They said the Vega method of testing was registered throughout Europe as a medical testing device. They submitted a certificate from a German testing body that indicated that certain types of Vega testing devices had met their standards. They also submitted several declarations from users of the Vega testing device and believed this provided evidence that the Vega method was effective in detecting food allergies. They also sent four published studies about the Vega system which they believed showed that the device detected food sensitivities, vitamin or mineral deficiency and digestive enzyme requirements.
2. They submitted a series of online abstracts and articles about food intolerances, sensitivities and allergies that made reference to particular food and drink that may cause or worsen pre-existing symptoms of asthma, diarrhoea, IBS, eczema, fatigue, hyperactivity, arthritis and ADHD and cause rashes, bloating, a running nose and mood swings and believed this provided medical evidence of a link between certain symptoms and food sensitivities.
3. They said the leaflet stated "The Food Sensitivity Test is a screening test and not a substitute for medical advice when needed" and believed this encouraged readers to seek medical advice.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted The Ladbroke Clinic said they tested for food sensitivities and not food allergies and we therefore considered that the literature on food allergies did not provide relevant evidence to substantiate the claim that The Ladbroke Clinic could test for food sensitivity. We acknowledged that the Vega test was a registered medical testing device but noted neither the certificate nor the declarations demonstrated that the method was effective in detecting food sensitivities. We acknowledged three of the papers submitted were published in academic journals but noted they did not refer to food intolerances among the general population and indicated that the Vega method could be improved, was not 100% reliable, nor generally accepted by conventional medicine. In the absence of sufficiently robust evidence to substantiate the efficacy of the Vega method for diagnosing food sensitivity, vitamin or mineral deficiency and digestive enzyme requirements, we considered that the ad breached the Code.
On this point the ad breach CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.7 (Substantiation), 12.1 and 12.2 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
2. Upheld
We noted the abstracts and articles submitted were taken from websites and blogs and stated that the elimination of certain food and drink may help to relieve certain unwanted symptoms. However, we noted these texts made clear there was no reliable method to identify the origins of the unwanted symptoms and that the only way to identify foods that may cause them was through eliminating suspected items through trial and error. In the absence of evidence to demonstrate that the Vega test could identify the origins of any of the symptoms listed in the ad, we considered it breached the Code.
On this point the ad breach CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.7 (Substantiation), 12.1 and 12.2 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
3. Upheld
We acknowledged the ad stated "The Food Sensitivity Test is a screening test and not a substitute for medical advice when needed". However we considered that, despite the text, because the ad referred to medical conditions for which qualified medical advice should be sought, readers might be discouraged from seeking medical advice for those symptoms by understanding that they could be solely relieved by eliminating those foods identified by The Ladbroke Clinic as sensitive. We also considered that, because we had not seen evidence that the tests were conducted under the supervision of a qualified health professional, the ad breached the Code.
On this point the ad breach CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Compliance) and 12.2 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
