Biogen Testoforte: ASA ruling – website advert

For all Biogen Testoforte articles, including recent ones related to the sportsman, Demarte “The Wolf” Pena who was suspended for using steroids, and then dumped as the brand ambassador by Biogen, whose product caused him to test positive for steroids(!) click here (opens in a new browser window)

16 Aug 2012
http://www.asasa.org.za/ResultDetail.aspx?Ruling=6210
Mr Charleston lodged a consumer complaint against website advertising on the URL www.biogen.co.za/products/testoforte.asp. The advertising promotes the respondent’s product using, inter alia, the following claims:

• “Increases testosterone within natural ranges”;
• “Maintains lean muscle”;
• “Heightens energy levels, sex drive and physical performance”;

It further states that “Biogen Testoforte is a proprietary blend of unique ingredients, developed to increase stamina, performance and desire naturally” and that “TestoForte Ingredients have been used successfully by Chinese Physicians for up to 2000 years as a sexual enhancer. Male libido enhancement can be achieved by increasing testosterone levels to optimal, natural levels, which is the main mechanism of action for Testoforte”.

COMPLAINT
The complainant referred to studies allegedly referenced in the advertisement, explaining why they are irrelevant or contradict the impression that the product would deliver on the claimed benefits. He argued that the “claim that the product is effective has no scientific basis and requires substantiation”.

It should be noted that the complainant also lodged a complaint against the respondent’s print advertisement appearing in the Sunday Times around the same time. This complaint has been allocated a different case number (19706), and is being considered separately as it relates to a different advertisement containing somewhat different claims or graphs.

RELEVANT CLAUSE OF THE CODE OF ADVERTISING PRACTICE
The complainant identified the provisions of Clause 4.1 of Section II (Substantiation) as relevant. Reference was also made to the definition of “Scientific substantiation” as contained in Clause 4.25 of Section I.

RESPONSE
The respondent only filed one response in relation to the 19706 matter (i.e. the Sunday Times advertisement), but confirmed that “… we can still use the same response for 17905 [sic] and 17906 [sic] …”

Its response deals with the fact that this product falls into the category of Complementary, Alternative and Traditional medicines (CAMs), and is therefore associated with a completely different paradigm to regular medicines. The knowledge and support for efficacy originated centuries (or in many instances millennia) ago, and is still accepted and subscribed to today, both in the countries of origin and the western world.

In terms of the South African Constitution, it has a right to encourage and promote products from a CAM paradigm alongside the allopathic, biomedical paradigm of ordinary medicines.

It also questioned whether or not “scientific substantiation” as called for by the complainant (with reference to Clause 4.25 of Section I) has relevance, given the nature of the product. It argued that the documentary evidence as called for in Clause 4.1 of Section II should have “market relevance” to CAMs, and attached documentary evidence (from a CAMs perspective) to support its claims.

ASA DIRECTORATE RULING
The ASA Directorate considered all the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties.

At the outset it should be noted that the Directorate is not tasked with determining whether or not a CAMs perspective or a “biomedical” perspective as the respondent termed it, is appropriate or should be disallowed. The ambit and role of the ASA is to ensure that advertising is self-regulated in the public interest and remains informative, factual, honest and decent in line with the provisions contained in the Code.

The scope of this ruling is limited to the subject matter of the complaint brought to the ASA, namely whether the claims 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.

It should also be noted that the Directorate was not able to locate any of the references allegedly seen in the online advertisement. It would appear that the complainant obtained these references from the print advertisement complained of and erroneously included them in the complaint relating to the website.

Clause 4.1 of Section II requires advertisers to hold in their possession (prior to publication) documentary evidence that supports any direct or implied claims. It further stipulates that such evidence should either emanate from, or be evaluated by an independent and credible expert in the field to which the claims relate.

The complainant took issue with the efficacy claims made for this product. These are:

• “Increases testosterone within natural ranges”;

• “Maintains lean muscle”;

• “Heightens energy levels, sex drive and physical performance”;

• “… increase stamina, performance and desire naturally”.

Accordingly, the respondent would have to show that its product, as purchased by consumers, and when consumed at the recommended dose, would bring about the claimed effects. The substantiation relied on by the respondent falls short in this regard for the following reasons:

Firstly, the respondent has not submitted any unequivocal verification from an independent and credible expert that the results obtained or discussed in the relevant documents can be extrapolated and applied to its product.

Secondly, the respondent has not motivated why the sources relied on should be regarded as independent and credible expert sources.

Thirdly, some of the documents associate the ingredients with conditions that do not appear to be related to testosterone, energy levels, sex drive or performance, or stipulate that data is lacking for any indication and that more research is required before any conclusions can be drawn.

For all the above reasons, the Directorate is not currently satisfied that the efficacy claims made in the advertisement are adequately substantiated in terms of the requirements of Clause 4.1 of Section II of the Code.

In light of the above finding, the respondent is required to:

withdraw the claims complained of in their current format;

the process to withdraw the claims must be actioned with immediate effect on receipt of the ruling;

the withdrawal of the claims must be completed within the deadlines stipulated by Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide; and

the claims may not be used again in their current format in future unless new substantiation has been submitted and accepted by means of a new ruling.

The complaint is upheld.

• SLAPPing back: Court checks corporate bullying 12 February, 2021
• Sports nutrition position paper backs dietary protein over supplements 28 August, 2020
• South African Whey and Casein protein powders lack important amino acids 7 November, 2019
• USN PhedraCut Lipo XT recalled due to high caffeine content 18 September, 2019
• UK ASA rules claims of USN Phedracut breach advertising code 6 August, 2019
• Sports nutrition: spoiled by ‘wrong and immoral’ marketing 10 May, 2018
• Protein World’s Carb Blocker versus USN Carb Block 22 March, 2018
• 5 supplements that claim to speed up weight loss – and what the science says 31 January, 2018
• Why do teenagers use supplements, and where do they get their advice? 27 November, 2017
• 3 Bodybuilding Supplements That Are An Absolute Waste Of Money 16 October, 2017
• Denmark warns over online sports supplements 2 July, 2017
• Sports nutrition growth spoiled by ‘wrong and immoral’ marketing 28 June, 2017
• Sports supplements sold to children 12 May, 2017
• Garcinia Linked to Liver Damage 1 May, 2017
• Teens Receiving Inaccurate Information on Supplements 19 April, 2017
• Court strikes blow against quackery 17 March, 2017
• Some good reasons to be cautious about using dietary supplements 13 February, 2017
• Protein hype: shoppers flushing money down the toilet, say experts 28 December, 2016
• Muscle-building shakes don’t always have as much protein as they claim to 11 July, 2016
• Targeting school children in marketing campaigns for sports supplements: Is it ethical? 31 May, 2016
• USN linked to company promoting sport supplements in children 21 April, 2016
• Diet supplements threat to liver 25 January, 2016
• Power Report: Watchdog in chains as advertiser fights back 18 November, 2015
• USN’s defamation action: Commentary on RSG 21 October, 2015
• Supplement use might be a sign of disordered eating in men 8 October, 2015
• Die Burger: Aktivis gedagvaar oor aanvullers 7 October, 2015
• USN, Herbex, Antagolin, Solal and Vigro (Nativa) go to court to block ASA 6 October, 2015
• USN: Previous ASA rulings 5 October, 2015
• USN defamation charge against CamCheck 17 September, 2015
• Do sports drinks and energy bars make you a better athlete? 15 September, 2015
• CLA supplement linked to hepatitis case 14 September, 2015
• USN/Evox Protein supplements: what you need to know 26 August, 2015
• Melamine contamination in South African nutritional supplements 21 July, 2015
• USN Carb Binder – ASA breach ruling 7 May, 2015
• Nutritech Diet Meal vs USN – ASA Ruling 5 May, 2015
• Nutritech Premium Pure Whey Lite vs USN – ASA Ruling 4 May, 2015
• Muscle-Building Supplements Linked to Testicular Cancer 22 April, 2015
• Study finds troubling link between use of muscle-building supplements and cancer 14 April, 2015
• MedicalBrief: Fat Blocker moves to silence fact checker 29 March, 2015
• UK ASA acts against USN product claims 26 March, 2015
• New consumer site casts doubt on (USN) supplement claims 24 March, 2015
• USN issues a ‘Take-down’ notice for CamCheck 18 March, 2015
• USN CreatineX4 – UK ruling 18 March, 2015
• USN ‘Carb binder’ – the scam continues 10 February, 2015
• White kidney bean extract for weight loss? 29 January, 2015
• Albe Geldenhuys / USN responds to CamCheck posting 26 January, 2015
• Oxygen myths that refuse to die 18 November, 2014
• USN 100% Whey Protein 13 October, 2014
• USN Fat Block – Fat chance 3 October, 2014
• USN Phedra-Cut Lipo XT – ASA breach ruling 2 October, 2014
• Anti-Doping Agency warns athletes about dietary supplements 11 August, 2014
• USN 19-Testo Mass – ASA ruling 28 July, 2014
• USN “Carb Binder” – scam product, ASA ruling 28 July, 2014
• USN 19 TESTO MASS – ASA ruling 9 May, 2014
• Albe Geldenhuys of USN, a master scam artist? 9 March, 2014
• Biogen Tribulus – ASA Santions – 31 January 2014 31 January, 2014
• Biogen Testoforte: ASA ruling – website advert 10 November, 2013
• Biogen Testoforte: ASA ruling – print advert 10 November, 2013
• Biogen Tribulus – ASA Breach ruling – 8 November 2013 8 November, 2013
• USN Pure Protein Bar – ASA ruling 10 October, 2013
• Biogen Tribulus – ASA ruling – 11 September 2013 11 September, 2013
• USN Phedra-Cut Hardcore – ASA Ruling 10 June, 2013
• USN Fat Block – Lie, no proof that it blocks fat 7 May, 2013
• USN Phedra-Cut LipoXT product – ASA ruling 7 April, 2013
• USN Weight loss product’s claims are ‘misleading’ 4 February, 2013
• USN Phedra-Cut Hardcore – No proof! 17 January, 2013
• USN Phedra-Cut Lipo XT – ASA ruling 1 August, 2012
• Biogen Andrenal Boost nonsense 12 August, 2011
• Protein supplements give no benefit to athlete’s performance 10 July, 2011
• USN Cellu-Firm – ASA Sanctions – 15 July 2009 15 July, 2009
• USN Cellu-Firm – ASA Breach ruling – 8 June 2009 8 June, 2009
• USN Cellu-Firm – ASA Sanctions – 16 October 2008 16 October, 2008
• USN Cellu-Firm – ASA Breach ruling – 8 April 2008 8 April, 2008
• USN Cellu-Firm – ASA breach ruling – 02 April 2007 2 April, 2007
• USN Cellu-Firm – ASA ruling November 2006 28 November, 2006