Posted 6 March 2010
|Another weight loss product made by the same company making Slender Gel, simply a mix of ingredients that an individual felt that if mixed together, will result in weight loss. Of course, the usual argument applies why this product is bound to have no effect and cannot be substantiated.|
The ASA agreed, no evidence that the claims can be substantiated, and the name Slender Max Tincture is misleading, i.e., cannot be used.
These are the usual argument:
- No robust proof that the individual ingredient(s), or their dosages, can result in weight loss
- No robust proof that the ingredient, or mix of ingredients can result in weight loss
- No robust proof that the product is safe
- Makes therapeutic claims which requires registration with the MCC (Medicines Control Council), but is not
In addition I argue that the name “Slender Caps” is misleading for the product has no proof of being able to result in one becoming slender.
What makes this product even worse, is that the company on the one hand argues that one needs 400mg of hoodia in the caps to result in weight loss, whereas here a tincture will have the same or similar effect!
(see also the Hoodia category for an explanation why hoodia in this product is unlikely to have any effect)
Slender Max Tincture / HA Steinman / 14796
Ruling of the : ASA Directorate
02 Mar 2010
Dr Steinman lodged a consumer complaint against the Slender Max Tincture packaging and advertising on the respondent’s website www.planethoodia.co.za.
The packaging states, inter alia, “CAUTION, USE OF THIS PRODUCT CAN LEAD TO MASSIVE WEIGHT LOSS.” The following claims appear on the packaging:
- “Slender Max Tincture”
- “Pure Hoodia Gordonii”
- “The Secret Herb used by San Bushmen for thousands of years to suppress appetite and curb cravings.”
- “You could drop up to 2 waist sizes with the help of slender max!”
The complainant also quoted the following from the website www.planethoodia.co.za/gordonii/slender-gel.php:
“Although we believe that Slender Gel is the most advanced Hoodia product currently on the market, we have identified a need from some of our customers that they require a different form of Hoodia to use in conjunction with their Gel, as there are occasions when application of Slender Gel may not be practically possible.”
The complaint raised several issues which will be dealt with individually below.
RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE CODE OF ADVERTISING PRACTICE
In light of the complaint the following clauses of the Code were taken into account:
• Section II, Clause 4.1 – Substantiation
• Section II, Clause 4.2.1 – Misleading claims
The respondent submitted that the brand name makes no claim to actually making people thinner or to losing weight. The word “Slender”, used in its adjectival sense, makes no suggestion off or claim to a “process whereby one becomes less stout or fleshy (attenuate)” but refers to an actual state of being. It also does not apply exclusively to the human body or to human beings. The shorter oxford dictionary gives examples of masts, cables, books, spaces and abilities and arguments being described as slender.
The respondent also submitted that the statement “Caution, use of this product can lead to massive weight loss” is hyperbole. It is a figure of speech that uses exaggerated or extravagant statement to create a strong emotional response. As a figure of speech it is not intended to be taken literally. In support of its argument, the respondent gave a few examples of hyperbolic statements used by other people, such as “Red Bull Gives You Wings”.
The respondent further argued that the complainant relies on a previous ASA ruling, Glomail Health Hoodia / HA Steinman / 9299 to argue the use and reference to the name Hoodia. However, the only ruling it could find on this was the Directorate ruling issued on 14 August 2007, where the complaint was dismissed.
Finally, the respondent included an extract from “phytopharm plc” which supports claims that Hoodia extract has significant positive effects in a double blind placebo controlled test. This encounters the complainant’s assertion that “dried and pulverised, processed hoodia” has no efficacy. Additional material on hoodia was also submitted, which refers, inter alia, to tests done by the CSIR and Unilever.
ASA DIRECTORATE RULING
The ASA Directorate considered the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties.
It is noted that some changes have been made to the respondent’s website since the complaint was received. The respondent, however, did not submit any unequivocal undertakings to make permanent amendments. In addition, the changes appear minor to the extent that the current website still makes similar claims to those previously objected to. There is also nothing to suggest that the respondent’s packaging will change.
As such, the Directorate will rule on the matter based on the material at hand and the advertising as originally objected to.
At the outset, it must be noted that medicinal products cannot be treated as an ordinary general commodity. They have the potential for harmful as well as beneficial effects and can cause serious problems if not used safely. For this reason, there are specific regulations that strictly control the advertising and promotion of medicinal products.
The scope of this ruling is limited to the subject matter of the complaint brought to the ASA, namely whether the claim concerning the efficacy of the respondent’s product can be substantiated. The ASA is not able or authorised to rule on the quality or safety of the product in question, and this ruling must be interpreted and applied accordingly.
Merits of the matter
The use of the product name Slender Max Tincture
The complainant submitted that the use of the product name implies, suggests or claims that this product will have a slender effect. This claim has not been substantiated because there is no proof that this product or its constituent, hoodia, results in appetite suppression and or weight loss. The respondent submitted that the use of the word “Slender” in its product name is not limited to humans and does not necessarily mean to lose weight.
The Directorate acknowledges the fact that Slender Max Tincture is the registered name of the respondent’s products. However, if product names are used in a certain manner, or carry an appropriate meaning in relation to the product, it can be understood by consumers to make certain promises or claims. In Bioslim Snack Bar / Dr HA Steinman / 857 (2 June 2005), for example, where a similar issue of a trademark on packaging was considered, the Directorate held that “The word ‘Bioslim’, incorporating as it does the word ‘slim’, as well as the silhouetted figure of a woman that forms the ‘I’ in ‘Bioslim’, has connotations of slimming”. The same principle was echoed by the Directorate in Slender Gel/ HA Steinman / 14795 (18 February 2010) ruling.
The same principle applies in this matter. The word “Slender” used on a product that purports to offer benefits of appetite suppression and reduction in cravings can only be interpreted to refer to slender in the sense of “becoming slender”. A hypothetical reasonable person would interpret the advertisement and the name of the product, to fall under slimming products categories and will expect claims made in relation to that product to be achievable. This is even more so given the weight loss and appetite suppressant claims made under the name of this product.
Accordingly, the Directorate agrees that the word “Slender” as used in “Slender Gel” implies that the product will result in a person becoming slender.
Use of the term “Hoodia”
The complainant submitted that use of the term Hoodia is misleading as there is no proof that it works for any of the claim made. It submitted that consumers are duped into believing that the product works based on the incorrect media attention given to Hoodia. In addition, the San used only raw fresh material and not dried pulverised and processed hoodia, which in transformation loses essential constituents. There is no proof that the processed form of Hoodia is any way similar to raw Hoodia.
The complainant submitted that testing the product does not indicate any reasonable levels of active P57 that is claimed to be the active ingredient.
The respondent correctly noted that the Glomail Health Hoodia / HA Steinman / 9299 ruling issued on 14 August 2007 dismissed the complaint relating to the inclusion of “hoodia” in advertising. However, what the respondent does not appear to realise is that the complainant appealed this ruling, and on 5 October 2007, the Advertising Standards Committee (the ASC) ruled as follows:
“The ASC considered the advertisement before it as a whole. The overall take-out is that the Glohealth Hoodia with Bioslim Weight-Loss System will result in weight loss. Each part of this system is then listed, and the hypothetical reasonable person would conclude that each part of the system has some efficacy for weight loss. This includes the ‘28 Day Glohealth Hoodia’. The advertisement then clarifies that Hoodia is associated with hunger suppression through the statement ‘. . . it has been used by the San Bushmen who believed it could suppress their hunger during long hunting expeditions.’ The consumer will therefore conclude that the part that Glohealth Hoodia plays in the weight loss programme is that it suppresses hunger”.
The respondent’s advertising clearly attributes its weight loss and hunger suppressing qualities to the fact that it contains hoodia. Its packaging states, “Pure Hoodia Gordonii Tincture” and “The Secret Herb used by San Bushmen for thousands of years to suppress appetite and curb cravings” as well as “CAUTION, USE THIS PRODUCT CAN LEAD TO MASSIVE WEIGHT LOSS”.
Given the above, the Directorate agrees that the respondent is attributing weight loss capabilities to its product by virtue of the fact that it contains hoodia.
The only question that remains is whether or not such an expectation is substantiated in terms of Clause 4.1 of Section II of the Code.
Because the ASA is not a technical expert body, Clause 4.1 of Section II requires it to rely on the opinion received from the “independent, credible expert”. Should the Directorate be satisfied that the relevant person or entity is indeed independent, credible and an expert in the field to which the claims relate, the Directorate will consider whether or not the expert confirms the claims in question as valid for the product.
The advertising objected to makes claims such as, inter alia, that “Although we believe that Slender Gel is the most advanced Hoodia product currently on the market, we have identified a need from some of our customers that they require a different form of Hoodia to use in conjunction with their Gel, as there occasions hen application of Slender Gel may not be practically possible” and “Slender Max Tincture, Hoodia Gordoni, Secret Herb used by San Bushmen for thousands of years to suppress appetite and curb cravings”; “You could drop up to 2 waist sizes with the help of slender max!” and lastly, “Caution! Use of this product can lead to massive weight loss!”
In terms of Clause 4.1 of Section II, the respondent should have submitted verification of these claims from an independent and credible expert in the relevant field. It is also an established principle that the Directorate will only accept product-specific substantiation. In other words, the respondent should supply independent verification from an expert in this field to unequivocally state that its product, as a whole, when consumed at the recommended dose, will deliver the claimed effects.
The respondent submitted no such verification but referred to an extract from phytopharm plc”.
In light of the above, the claims objected to are currently unsubstantiated, and therefore in breach of Clause 4.1 of Section II. Accordingly, the advertising objected to is also in contravention of Clause 4.2.1 of Section II.
Given the above:
- The claims appearing on the website and packaging must be withdrawn;
- The process to withdraw the claims must be actioned with immediate effect on receipt of this ruling;
- The withdrawal of the claims must be completed within the deadlines stipulated by Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide;
- The claims may not be used again in its current format until new substantiation has been submitted, evaluated and a new ruling is made.
The respondent’s attention is drawn to Clause 15.5 of the Procedural Guide.
The complaint is upheld.