Background
Summary of Council decision:
Six issues were investigated, of which five were Upheld and one was Not upheld.
Ad description
Websites and other online ads for the Harcombe diet:
a. The home page of the Harcombe Diet website, http://theharcombediet.com, included text which stated "This book, or Stop Counting Calories & Start Losing Weight or The Harcombe Diet for Men will share the discoveries that Zoë made. If you haven't heard of Candida, Food Intolerance and/or Hypoglycaemia and the impact that they may be having on you, learning more about these conditions could be as enlightening for you as it was for Zoë".
b. A web page headed "Phase 1" included text which stated "Phase 1 can be as short as five days long although it is recommended to stay on Phase 1 for longer if you have more than 20lb to lose and/or if you have marked Candida overgrowth"
c. A web page headed "Candida" included text which stated "While researching .to try to understand why people who were so desperate to lose weight were craving and consuming quite specific foods in excess, Zoë came across many publications about three conditions: Candida, Food Intolerance and Hypoglycaemia. The works that Zoë researched were about these separate conditions and the numerous symptoms with which they were associated. Zoë noticed that the doctors, expert in each of these conditions, wrote in their literature about food cravings and eating disorders, but that the authors didn't develop the implications for this. Zoë did".
d. A web page headed "Testimonials" listed a number of testimonials, including "I've lost 24lbs. I just can't believe it. I feel great too - I can't remember feeling better to be honest. Thank you so much for the diet!", "I lost 70lbs on this programme. It was easy to follow. I never felt hungry. I could eat out, take lunches to work, go on holiday and carry on with my normal life while still losing weight. It is so practical and effective. All my colleagues were asking me how I had lost so much weight and I actually didn't want to tell them. I wanted to keep the secret to myself!" and "I read 4 pages and lost two and a half stone - I figured I'd better not read much more".
e. The home page of the Harcombe Diet Club website, included text which stated "Being overweight is about fat stored and losing weight is about encouraging the body to release stored fat. In no way is the body as simplistic as energy in = energy out - and, therefore, we do not need to put less energy in and/or try to get more energy out. We need to eat better, not to eat less. Come and join a growing group of people that are losing weight and gaining health, The Harcombe Diet way."
f. A web page headed "The Harcombe Diet 30 Day Blitz" included text which stated "Imagine yourself in just 30 days time feeling healthier than you can ever remember being. Imagine that you've successfully and easily lost up to 20 pounds in weight. Imagine that some health conditions, which have been troubling you for years have eased or even completely disappeared. Imagine gaining all these health benefits without having to spend one minute down the gym or eating any tasteless and nutritionally void low-fat foods. Imagine no more. Sign up today".
The page included testimonials which included "I've cut my insulin from 40 units to 12 units and I am hoping to be insulin free by the end of next month", "I used to suffer from regular tension headaches ... these have disappeared", "My sister has lost 2 stone" and "I have lost 45lbs so far".
g. Ad (a) linked to a video on a website for a Zoe Harcombe Hook entitled 'The Obesity Epidemic', www.theobesityepidemic.org. The video included a slide which compared a "Ms. Mother Nature" diet to a "Ms 'Eatwell' Plate" diet based on the NHS recommended dietary proportions of "Carb/Fat/Protein". The slide stated that the "Mother Nature" diet consisted of 1641 calories and was described as "Slim & Healthy" compared to 1826 calories for the "Eatwell" diet which was described as "Fat & Sick".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the claims in ads (a), (b) and (c) relating to Candida, hypoglycaemia and food intolerance misleadingly implied that they caused food cravings and could be treated by the Harcombe diet;
2. the claim "In no way is the body as simplistic as energy in = energy out - and, therefore, we do not need to put less energy in and/or try to get more energy out. We need to eat better, not to eat less" in ad (e) and comparison in ad (g) misleadingly implied that conventional weight loss advice was wrong;
3. the implication in the testimonials in ad (d) that the Harcombe diet led to weight loss could be substantiated;
4. the claim "it is recommended to stay on Phase 1 for longer if you have more than 20lb to lose" in ad (b) marketed treatment for obesity which would not take place under suitably qualified supervision;
5. the claim "Imagine yourself in just 30 days time feeling healthier than you can ever remember being. Imagine that you've successfully and easily lost up to 20 pounds in weight" and testimonials in ad (f) made reference to a rate of weight loss that was not compatible with good medical and nutritional practice; and
6. the testimonials in ad (f) implied the diet could treat medical conditions, including conditions that required medical supervision.
Response
Zoë Harcombe provided a number of recent peer reviewed studies and articles which the advertiser said challenged current dietary advice. They said the conventional view of weight management was the calorie theory, which stated that to lose one pound of fat you needed to create a deficit of 3500 calories. Therefore creating a deficit of 1000 calories a day would lead to a loss of 2 lb per week. However, they did not believe the calorie theory was valid and said that no evidence existed to support it, and that no government or obesity organisations had been able to provide proof to them. Consequently they believed that CAP Code rules relating to weight loss were flawed, because they were based on that theory.
1. Zoë Harcombe said ads (a) and (b) did not mention food cravings. They said that ad (c) was a web page containing further background information on Candida and contained quotes from medical literature and peer reviewed references. They said it did not include claims or mention the Harcombe Diet, but factually reported work undertaken by Zoë Harcombe as a researcher.
2. Zoë Harcombe reiterated that they did not believe evidence existed to support the calorie theory and that it worked as a formula each and every time, in all circumstances. They referred to the various studies and articles which they had provided. They did not believe that ad (g) was within the remit of the ASA.
3. Zoë Harcombe said the testimonials were direct quotations from the book 'Stop Counting Calories & Start Losing Weight' and that they would amend the ad to make clear they were book extracts.
4. Zoë Harcombe said the claim "it is recommended to stay on Phase 1 for longer if you have more than 20lb to lose" was a direct quotation from the book 'The Harcombe Diet: 3-Step Plan'. They believed it was common sense that a weight loss advisor would advise someone to stay on a diet longer if they had more weight to lose.
5. & 6. Zoë Harcombe said the web page was no longer online. They also stated that they did not believe the CAP rules relating to good practise for weight loss had an evidence base.
Assessment
1. Upheld
Ad (a) referred to "Candida, Food Intolerance and/or Hypoglycaemia and the impact that they may be having on you" in the context of promoting the Harcombe Diet book, and the ASA therefore considered it implied that the conditions were associated with diet and being overweight. Ad (b) referred to Candida and stated that this could impact on how long you should stay on Phase 1 of the diet, and again we considered it implied that Candida was associated with diet and being overweight, and that it could be treated by the Harcombe diet. Ad (c) referred to the three conditions in the context of food cravings, and we therefore considered the ad implied the conditions were caused by food cravings, and that they could therefore be treated by the Harcombe diet. We also noted that text further down the page stated that further information was available in Zoë Harcombe's book, including "How can you treat Candida?" We acknowledged that the claims were based on a view expressed in her books, but considered that they were presented as objective fact. We had not been provided with any evidence that Candida, hypoglycaemia or food intolerance were associated with being overweight or food cravings, nor that the conditions could be treated by the Harcombe diet. We therefore concluded that the claims breached the Code.
On this point ads (a), (b) and (c) 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.
and
3.8
3.8
Claims for the content of non-fiction publications should not exaggerate the value, accuracy, scientific validity or practical usefulness of the product. Marketers must ensure that claims that have not been independently substantiated but are based merely on the content of a publication do not mislead consumers.
CAP has published a Help Note on the Marketing of Publications.
(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
The claim "In no way is the body as simplistic as energy in = energy out - and, therefore, we do not need to put less energy in and/or try to get more energy out. We need to eat better, not to eat less" appeared in ad (e) on the home page for the Harcombe Diet Club website. We considered that the claim was presented as factual and that it implied it was not necessary to consume fewer calories to lose weight by dietary change and that conventional weight loss advice was therefore wrong. Ad (g), a page on a website which promoted a book by Zoë Harcombe, included a comparison between a "Mother Nature" diet and the NHS recommended "'Eatwell' Plate", which included the description "Fat & Sick". We considered that, because the claim appeared in the context of a website focused on promoting a book and was connected with the content of that book, that it fell within the ASA's remit. We considered that although it was clear that it related to the content of a book the comparison was presented as factual, and that it implied that conventional weight loss advice was wrong and contributed to obesity.
We understood that it was generally accepted within the public health community that sticking to a daily calorie allowance as part of a healthy diet, and consistently reducing calorie consumption below the respective recommended daily amounts for men and women, would lead to weight loss. We acknowledged that the claims in the ads were based on a view expressed in Zoë Harcombe's books, but considered that they were presented as objective fact and therefore required robust substantiation to ensure they did not mislead. They had provided 10 published and peer reviewed papers, and one short news article, which they said undermined current dietary advice, two of which Zoë Harcombe had co-authored. Six of the papers focused on dietary advice in relation to the prevention or treatment of medical conditions other than obesity, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes, and we therefore considered they were of limited relevance to the claims in the ads, although we acknowledged that they questioned whether current dietary advice was supported by the evidence in relation to those conditions. The remaining papers also questioned current dietary advice, although the majority focused on the advice to reduce saturated fat consumption rather than on general advice to reduce overall calorie consumption. We considered that the evidence therefore demonstrated that there was some level of debate within the scientific community (although not the degree of that debate) about whether current dietary advice was correct in a number of respects, and particularly advice regarding saturated fat. However, we did not consider that the evidence was sufficient to substantiate claims that it was not necessary to consume fewer calories to lose weight by dietary change and that conventional weight loss advice was therefore wrong and contributed to obesity. We therefore concluded the claims were misleading.
On this point ads (e) and (g) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(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.
and
3.8
3.8
Claims for the content of non-fiction publications should not exaggerate the value, accuracy, scientific validity or practical usefulness of the product. Marketers must ensure that claims that have not been independently substantiated but are based merely on the content of a publication do not mislead consumers.
CAP has published a Help Note on the Marketing of Publications.
(Substantiation).
3. Upheld
Ad (d) included testimonials which referred to weight loss and we therefore considered that consumers would understand that undertaking the Harcombe diet would lead to weight loss. The CAP Code stated that any claim made for the effectiveness of a weight-reduction method must be backed, if applicable, by rigorous trials on people, and that testimonials were not sufficient to support such claims. We noted Zoë Harcombe said they would amend the claims to make clear they were book extracts, but were concerned that any such quotes were still likely to imply efficacy. We had not been provided with any evidence that the Harcombe diet, which we understood did not rely on calorie reduction, led to weight loss and therefore concluded that the testimonials breached the Code.
On this point ad (d) 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 13.1 13.1 A weight-reduction regime in which the intake of energy is lower than its output is the most common self-treatment for achieving weight reduction. Any claim made for the effectiveness or action of a weight-reduction method or product must be backed, if applicable, by rigorous trials on people; testimonials that are not supported by trials do not constitute substantiation. (Weight control and slimming).
4. Not upheld
Ad (b) was a web page which focused on Phase 1 of the Harcombe diet and included the claim "it is recommended to stay on Phase 1 for longer if you have more than 20lb to lose". We understood that, using body mass index (BMI) as a guide, it was possible for an individual to be more than two stone (28 lb; c. 13 kg) overweight but not be considered obese. We therefore did not consider that the reference to having more than 20 lb to lose specifically marketed treatment for obesity. We concluded that the claim did not breach the Code on that basis.
On this point we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 13.2 13.2 Obesity in adults is defined by a Body Mass Index (BMI) of more than 30 kg/m2. Obesity is frequently associated with a medical condition and, except where stated in 13.2.1, a treatment for it must not be advertised to the public unless it is to be used under suitably qualified supervision. Non-prescription medicines that are indicated for the treatment of obesity and that require the involvement of a pharmacist in the sale or supply of the medicine may nevertheless be advertised to the public. (Weight control and slimming) but did not find it in breach.
5. Upheld
Ad (f) included the claim "Imagine yourself in just 30 days time feeling healthier than you can ever remember being. Imagine that you've successfully and easily lost up to 20 pounds in weight" and testimonials included "My sister has lost 2 stone" and "I have lost 45lbs so far". The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not contain claims that people can lose precise amounts of weight within a stated period, and we therefore concluded that the claim "Imagine yourself in just 30 days time feeling healthier than you can ever remember being. Imagine that you've successfully and easily lost up to 20 pounds in weight" breached the Code.
The Code also stated that claims that an individual has lost an exact amount of weight must be compatible with good medical and nutritional practise, which would normally be 2 lb a week or less. Such claims must also state the period involved and must not be based on unrepresentative experiences. The testimonials did not state the period involved, although we considered they implied the weight loss was likely to be within the 30-day period specified on the web page. We had also not seen any evidence to demonstrate that the specified weight loss was compatible with good medical and nutritional practise. We therefore concluded that the testimonials breached the Code.
On this point ad (f) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 13.9 13.9 Marketing communications must not contain claims that people can lose precise amounts of weight within a stated period or, except for marketing communications for surgical clinics, establishments and the like that comply with rule 12.3, that weight or fat can be lost from specific parts of the body. and 13.10 13.10 Claims that an individual has lost an exact amount of weight must be compatible with good medical and nutritional practice. Those claims must state the period involved and must not be based on unrepresentative experiences. For those who are normally overweight, a rate of weight loss greater than 2 lbs (just under 1 kg) a week is unlikely to be compatible with good medical and nutritional practice. For those who are obese, a rate of weight loss greater than 2 lbs a week in the early stages of dieting could be compatible with good medical and nutritional practice. (Weight control and slimming).
6. Upheld
Ad (f) included testimonials which stated "I've cut my insulin from 40 units to 12 units and I am hoping to be insulin free by the end of next month" and "I used to suffer from regular tension headaches ... these have disappeared". They also appeared in the context of a page which stated "Imagine that some health conditions, which have been troubling you for years have eased or even completely disappeared." We therefore considered the ad implied that "The Harcombe Diet 30 Day Blitz" could treat medical conditions, and specifically diabetes and tension headaches. We had not seen any evidence to substantiate those claims and also considered that diabetes was a condition which required medical supervision, and therefore offers to treat it should only be made if that treatment would be supervised by a suitably qualified health professional. We welcomed the assurance from Zoë Harcombe that the web page had been removed. However, because at the time it was seen it implied the diet could treat medical conditions, including conditions which required medical supervision, we concluded the ad breached the Code.
On this point ad (f) 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.
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 ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Zoë Harcombe to ensure they held robust substantiation to support objective claims. We also told them not to make claims relating to weight loss unless they were supported by robust evidence relating to trials on people and otherwise complied with the Code, not to make claims that the Harcombe diet could treat medical conditions in the absence of robust evidence, or to make claims that it could treat conditions which required medical supervision.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
12.1 12.2 13.1 13.10 13.2 13.9 3.1 3.7 3.8
