News items will be published here, but also sign up to our Newsletters — see the form on the right.
You can receive updates from the News feed, either to your RSS reader or via email.
Back in October, we told you of the complaints about the 26 adverts in the first two issues of the new monthly magazine What Doctors Don't Tell You we submitted to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
The ASA have been working on resolving our complaints and have started dealing with just about all of them.
Many will be informally resolved by the advertiser agreeing to remove the claims the ASA find unacceptable.
Others are being fully investigated by the ASA, asking the advertiser for the evidence to substantiate the claims made — remember that an advertiser must hold that evidence at the time the claim is made, not just come up with it later when challenged. If they cannot supply that evidence or it is not up to the ASA's standards, they are likely to lose the adjudication with full details published on the ASA's website for all to see.
Today, the first two of the informally resolved cases are published.
The Buteyko Breathing Method purports to be a breathing technique that can help with conditions such as asthma.
The claims this ad in WDDTY made went well beyond this:
For optimal physical and mental health and the reversal of chronic disease
The Classical Buteyko Breathing Method is an effective drug free approach to bringing about optimal health and managing chronic symptoms such as:
- hormonal disorders
- anxiety and panic attacks
- weight problems
- pain and more
The ad appeared in the September issue of WDDTY. There were smaller, 1/8-page ads in the first three issues, but these made no claims.
We questioned these claims. The ASA agreed with us that we had a valid point and told the advertiser to change their ad, instructing them to remove all efficacy claims for the technique.
Because it was informally resolved, all the ASA publishes is basic details of the case — but the advertiser is still named.
There were two different ads in the first issue and one of them repeated in the second, all making the same claims. The ads were by Wholistic Research for their water filter product.
Clean up your polluted drinking water and make sure you drink lots of pure water to hydrate and cleanse your cells…
We challenged the claims and said we believed it could make readers worry unnecessarily about their drinking water and put undue pressure on them to buy the product.
The ASA initially decided to investigate and ask the advertiser for evidence. However, the advertiser agreed to change the wording in future ads to resolve our complaint.
There are many more informally resolved complaints and adjudications to come and it will no doubt take some time, but we will let you know the progress.
Meantime, we will not be complaining about any of the ads in the latest (November) issue. The ASA need time to do their job and deal with the advertisers — and with the magazine publishers if necessary — to ensure that the ads in any future issue comply with the CAP Code.
However, we are keeping a detailed tally of the ads. In the September issue there were 38, 35 in October and 35 in November. Many of these ads are the same or very similar, but what is interesting is that there are only 39 different advertisers in total over the three issues. Out of 100 pages per issue, that doesn't seem like very many.
14 November 2012
This really should have been very simple — and sorted out a long time ago.
Holland and Barrett advertises the Nelsons homeopathic products it sells in its stores. The advertising of these products is controlled by regulations and enforced by the medicines regulator, the MHRA. The advertiser should already have known and understand those regulations and what is and isn't permitted when advertising these products.
But it seems they didn't know. After a complaint from us, the MHRA told them to ensure they complied and Holland and Barrett told the MHRA they would take action to rectify the situation. That was at the start of 2012.
Then in July, we found out that they were still not complying with the regulations, so we submitted another complaint to the medicines regulator.
We sent them photographs sent in by our supporters from eight Holland and Barrett stores up and down the country that still had the point-of-sale advertising that the MHRA had told them was not permitted.
Richmond (07 July 2012)
Bury St Edmunds (20 June 2012)
Cambridge Lion Yard (25 May 2012)
Cambridge Grafton (25 May 2012)
Kensington High Street (25 June 2012)
Saffron Walden (29 April 2012)
Trafford Centre (30 July 2012)
Stortford (7 June 2012)
Stortford (7 June 2012)
Note the different format of the advertising in the Stortford store.
This sorry tale started last December — and it's still not successfully concluded.
Advertising homeopathic products in Holland and Barrett stores, July 2012
22 October 2012
The Nightingale Collaboration complained to the MHRA about point of sale advertising of Nelson's homeopathic products in six Holland and Barrett stores and advertising on their website. The complainant was concerned that the advertising included indications for use but the products were not licensed with indications. A similar complaint investigated in November 2011 concerning the same point of sale materials and website was upheld and Holland and Barrett had agreed to withdraw the materials from all stores and review their website.
The MHRA upheld this complaint. Holland and Barrett stated that the advertising materials were displayed in a small number of stores due to a miscommunication. They issued another communication to withdraw the advertising from their stores and amended the information on their website.
Date case raised: 12 July 2012
Date action agreed: 9 August 2012
Date of publication: 22 October 2012
When the MHRA informed me of the outcome at the start of last month, they said:
We have once again been in correspondence with Holland and Barrett again and have completed our investigations. You may wish to know that the point of sale materials were mistakenly displayed in Holland and Barrett stores and have now been withdrawn from the stores.
Holland and Barrett have agreed that we can make a copy of their response to your complaint available to you. This is enclosed and provides their comments on this advertising feature and addresses the concerns raised in your email of 12 July 2012.
In Holland and Barrett's response to the MHRA, they stated:
We were made aware around middle of July 2012 that a very few H&B shops had not removed the booklets as we had instructed late last year. It had come apparent that this was due to some stores having another booklet that was not displayed to customers but was sent out by the suppliers 'Nelson' previously to help our store staff with knowledge of the products. Hence certain stores assumed that this was the booklet referred into the recall and not the one that was displayed.
Therefore we re- issued a new memo to the stores clearly advising of the booklet displayed on the shelves next to the products that need to be removed. Please see attached a copy of the memo sent. We have called all the stores listed in the complaint letter and they have all removed the displayed booklet and sent it back to depot since this revised memo was issued.
It was all a mix-up and miscommunication, apparently.
But at least this new memo made everything clear:
NELSONS HOMEOPATHIC BOOKLET
"WHICH REMEDY DO I NEED"
To: H&B / NW Stores
From: Technical Services
Date: 24th July 2012
Subject: Nelsons Homeopathic Booklet "Which Remedy do I Need"
Reason: MHRA Complaint – Booklet is making medicinal claims that are not allowed
A recall was put on pulse back in December 2011 for these booklets to be removed and returned back to depot, however it has been bought to our attention not all were removed and/or returned.
Therefore can you please check if your store still has this booklet on display or is still available in your store.
If so, remove the booklet from display/store immediately and also any other POS notices with the Nelsons range products that have a reference to the booklet.
Nelsons Homeopathic Booklet "Which Remedy do I Need"
Action Required – Please check to see if you still have the above booklet in your store next to the Nelsons Homeopathic products or in store, if you do then remove immediately, place in an envelope (with your store name and number on the front) and return to the warehouse with your delivery driver for the attention of Technical Services.
You'd have thought that that would be the end of it and that all Holland and Barrett stores would all now be complying with the medicines regulations.
Blogger Josephine Jones sent us a photograph she took in the Trafford Cernte in Manchester this morning:
Needless to say, a third complaint has been submitted to the MHRA.
22 October 2012
Many of you will be aware that a new monthly magazine called What Doctors Don't Tell You is being sold in various retail outlets including WH Smith and many supermarkets.
We were dismayed to see that the magazines carry many adverts for products and services that we believe are making questionable claims, which could mislead the public.
In view of the seriousness of many of the claims being made, we have submitted complaints to the ASA about a number of adverts found in the first and second issues.
In the September 2012 issue, we counted a total of 37 ads, with 34 in the October issue. Some of these are duplicate ads for the same service or product.
We have submitted complaints about 26 adverts.
We believe this may be the greatest number of complaints submitted to the ASA for a single publication.
We'd like to remind our supporters that the ASA only need one complaint to investigate an advert — additional complaints about the same ads only places an unnecessary burden on the ASA and will not change the outcome. We believe we have covered the vast majority of questionable claims, so we would suggest there is no need for anyone else to submit any further complaints.
It is, of course, up to the ASA to investigate and decide whether or not any of the ads we've highlighted are in breach of the CAP Code and to rule accordingly.
We will let you know the outcome of our complaints in due course and we will, of course, be monitoring all future issues for similar questionable claims.
04 October 2012
Late last year, we reported that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) had adjudicated on the Being in Stillness (BIS) website, which was one of the three websites in our 'master' complaint about the promotion of craniosacral therapy (CST).
The ASA identified ten points in our complaint and upheld them all.
BIS asked that the adjudication be reviewed by the ASA's Independent Reviewer, Sir Hayden Phillips.
There are just two grounds for a review: the person requesting the review must be able to establish that a substantial flaw of process or adjudication is apparent, or show that additional relevant evidence is available.
The details of requests for review are not published, so all we know is that the request was rejected by Sir Hayden, presumably because the request met neither of these grounds.
While a review is in progress, the ASA removes the adjudication from their website. It has now been republished.
Meanwhile, we noted that, in spite of the adjudication, the website remained much as it was. Additionally, some new text had appeared denying that the website contained any claims; rather, that it carried a "a genuine description" of the experience of many practitioners and clients of craniosacral therapy together with the standard protestation that the scientific method can't be applied to complementary therapies and that "the mention of certain conditions is not intended to imply or guarantee a 'cure' for those conditions; nor any others; and nothing in this website is intended to discourage you from seeking medical advice where applicable".
Further text argued that CST works with "our underlying vitality" and supports "our body's innate healing and self-repair" (though no explanation of how it does this was provided). Thus, it was claimed that CST "may be of help with almost any situation", specifying a long list of conditions that included depression, M.E., recurrent infections, digestive problems, menstrual disorders, tonsillitis, asthma, autism and babies' colic.
There was also a claim that CST may be useful in supporting older people in their various ailments and women through pregnancy and childbirth.
So we submitted a second complaint and the adjudication on this is today published on the ASA's website.
As expected, our complaint was upheld on both counts: that the claims implied that CST was effective in treating the conditions named and that people could be discouraged from seeking essential treatment.
In response, BIS had argued that the website doesn't state that CST can treat conditions, in fact, it states that they do not guarantee a cure for any ailment. They held the view that visitors to the website will not see the anecdotal claims as objective and capable of substantiation.
The ASA, however, considered that the text implied that a cure was at least possible through CST, even if not guaranteed. They also considered that claiming to work with "the whole person rather than conditions" and with "many different situations and conditions" followed by a list of medical conditions did indeed imply that CST could treat those conditions and that this could discourage readers from seeking essential treatment for them.
The full adjudication is quite lengthy but worth reading as an illustration of how some practitioners think they can avoid compliance with the advertising regulations and how the ASA sees right through them.
Like it or not, all advertisers have a responsibility to abide by the CAP Code and ASA adjudications. It is the level playing field that ensures that the public are not misled by advertising and the ASA provide an independent means for claims to be challenged and for advertisers to present their evidence for their claims. Responsible advertisers know that and are happy to abide by the Code and adjudications, even if the result is not what they might have liked.
We note that the list of conditions and the other claims the ASA has deemed misleading have now been removed from the craniosacral page on the BIS website (for comparison, the page we complained about is cached here) and we welcome this. However, the page now contains a longer section on the ASA and its decision and tries to argue that CST does not lend itself to scientific investigation.
In light of this adjudication, we now hope that other craniosacral therapists will review their own websites to make sure they are on the right side of the ASA's CAP Code and their guidance on craniosacral therapy. We also hope that the CST trade bodies take responsible action to help and encourage their members to do the same.
If they are still in any doubt about what they can and cannot say, there is always the ASA's free Copy Advice service.
01 August 2012
Last time, we asked for your help in making sure the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE) didn't allow alternative therapy organisations on to its new Accredited Registers scheme. We believe this could pave the way for alternative therapists to claim they are 'officially accredited' or 'Goverment accredited', particularly if they display the schemes 'quality mark'.
We believe this would simply mislead the public into thinking these therapies are legitimate and have a Government seal of approval.
Many of you wrote to the CHRE and sent us a copy of your submissions. Our thanks to everyone who did and we hope the CHRE will take note.
We also submitted our response. We wrote it with several aims in mind. Firstly, since the CHRE oversee a number of statutory regulators of health care professionals (as well as chiropractors and osteopaths), we wanted to make sure that they knew what they would be getting into and what the implications might be for their credibility and that of legitimate health care professionals.
We highlighted the reason many occupations are considered alternative is that they do not have robust evidence to substantiate what they do and the claims frequently made about them by their practitioners and trade bodies. Another common feature is that they frequently have no plausible mechanism of action — as exemplified by homeopathy and crystal healing.
Additionally, we illustrated that, even though many alternative therapies are, in themselves, fairly harmless, there are indirect harms and risks that need to be considered. These include a frequent disdain or even outright antipathy for the many health professionals — particularly medical doctors — whose statutory regulator falls within the CHRE's remit and we drew attention to the distrust of vaccines by many alternative therapists.
We also highlighted many of the clauses in the standards proposed and how they needed to be strengthened so the public are better protected.
You can read our full submission here, but we concluded:
1. We strongly recommend that the CHRE do not allow onto their Accredited Register any organisation whose registrants provide alternative therapies that do not meet the basic requirements of having a robust evidence base or that does not have an assessment of safety that ensures that the public will be properly protected.
We believe that to do so would be detrimental to:
- the CHRE’s reputation;
- public confidence in the CHRE and its regulated professions;
- public health and safety;
- the reputation of other Accredited organisations.
2. We strongly recommend that the standards ensure that the public are given independent and unbiased information about the evidence base for treatments.
3. We strongly recommend that the standards ensure that the public are given independent and unbiased information about the risks associated with treatments.
This scheme is supposed to be up and running in November and we'll let you know when the CHRE publish their final eligibility criteria and standards.
As a result of further information we received from our supporters about point-of-sale advertising for homeopathic products in Holland & Barrett stores, we decided that writing to their head office wasn't sufficient to get this issue resolved once and for all.
It appears that some store managers have been told by their head office that there was nothing wrong with the advertising, despite the MHRA's previous ruling on our complaint.
So, we have submitted another comprehensive complaint to the MHRA, including many of the photographs of the POS advertising you sent to us.
It will no doubt take the MHRA some time to deal with this, but we are confident of the outcome. We'll let you know in a future newsletter.
Holland & Barrett, Kensington High Street, London
23 July 2012
This was advertising that included therapeutic indications when a condition of the registration of those homeopathic products is that they are not allowed to have indications.
According to the MHRA, Holland & Barrett withdrew the advertising from their stores and agreed to review the information on their website. While they have corrected some of the information on their website, we still think some is not correct and we will be contacting the MHRA again.
However, more than six months later, it seems that some Holland & Barrett stores have yet to remove this prohibited advertising.
In May, one of our supporters told us that the Holland & Barrett store in Saffron Walden only removed the advertising after she wrote to them pointing out the MHRA's ruling. She has since spotted the same point-of-sale advertising in other Holland & Barrett stores in London, Cambridge, Saffron Walden, Bury St Edmunds and Stortford.
There are hundreds of Holland & Barrett stores up and down the country and we'd like your help again.
We think that is the best way to make Holland & Barrett take notice and ensure the misleading advertising is removed from all their stores.
However, if you prefer, you can always have a chat with the store manager and hand him or her one of our information sheets — or just leave one next to the advertising.
And don't forget to let us know how you get on.
Or how about Accredited Crystal Healer? Accredited Iridologist? Accredited Colonic Irrigator?
As we pointed out in our last Newsletter, this could pave the way for alternative therapists to claim they are 'officially accredited' or 'Goverment accredited'. They will, after all, be entitled to display a 'quality mark'.
We believe this will simply mislead the public into thinking these therapies are legitimate and have a Government seal of approval.
The CHRE (which will be renamed the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care later this year) do say that being admitted to their Accredited Register:
…will not be an endorsement of the therapeutic validity or effectiveness of any particular discipline or treatment.
However, particularly given the level of interest shown by many alternative therapy trade bodies, we do not believe that the eligibility criteria and standards proposed by the CHRE are sufficiently stringent and robust to prevent alternative therapy organisations applying and achieving the status of an Accredited Register.
We believe that the public will be misled and may even be put in danger by the accreditation of alternative therapies for which there is no robust evidence base and for which there are safety issues or for which safety hasn't been properly assessed.
We also believe that potential customers will not be given all the (unbiased) information required with which to make informed choices and exercise informed consent.
The consultation ends on Tuesday 19 July, so only a few days left to help — but more than enough time. Click here to find out how.
We've not said much about the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC). They have members from a wide variety of alternative therapies (or 'disciplines' as they call them). This includes reflexologists and we're pleased to see that the CNHC are advising their members to heed the Advertising Standards Authority's adjudications on our three reflexology master complaints and their new guidance on reflexology.
In their July (Issue 32) Newsletter (the link to this newsletter on their website is wrong, but we have our sources!), the CNHC say they have written to all their registered reflexologists:
The [ASA's] CAP Compliance Team has asked CNHC to draw to your attention to:
- three rulings by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in respect of advertising by reflexologists, which have implications for all reflexologists
- the latest CAP copy advice with regard to reflexology, in light of these three rulings
The detailed rulings and the advice can be read on www.copyadvice.org.uk/Ad-Advice/Advice-Online-Database/Therapies-Reflexology.aspx
It's also important to understand that the CAP Compliance Team pro-actively monitors advertisements, as explained on www.cap.org.uk/Compliance/Monitoring.aspx
Please check the wording of your websites and publicity materials to ensure that all of your advertising complies with the CAP Advertising Code. The easiest and safest way to describe your reflexology practice is to use the reflexology descriptor that CNHC has agreed with the CAP Copy Advice Team. This is available here and can be downloaded by all CNHC registered reflexologists by logging into the Resources section of MyCNHC. We also recommend that you use CNHC's Advertising Guidance which you can find on our website here: CNHC Advertising Guidance
This is very welcome: although many alternative therapists are responsible and will already be abiding by the rules, it does no harm to remind them and ensure they are aware of what they can and can't claim.
The CNHC's Therapy Descriptors have been agreed with the ASA for all their regulated therapies and they are devoid of the many misleading claims frequently being made by alternative therapists. They provide very responsible guidance that keeps on the right side of the CAP Code.
We hope all CNHC therapists — and non-CNHC therapists — will take note and ensure all their advertising complies with this very sensible advice.
We also hope the CHNC ensures its members abide by it.
We had a small glitch on our website a few weeks ago. This was caused by migrating it to a new bigger, faster, better server, which gave some warning messages that were displayed on the page. This has now been resolved and we apologise for any inconvenience.
06 July 2012