On 11 September 2013 the ASA ruled against the claims being made for this product. On 8 November 2013, the ASA ruled in favour of a breach complaint which pointed out that the same claims were still being made, and that sanctions were suggested. In this ruling, the ASA considered what sanctions were applicable.
BIOGEN TRIBULUS / H A STEINMAN / 20408
Ruling of the: ASA Directorate
In the matter between:
Dr Harris Steinman Complainant(s)/Appellant(s)
Ultimate Sports Nutrition (Pty) Ltd Respondent
31 January 2014
In Biogen Tribulus / H A Steinman / 20408 (8 November 2013) the respondent was found in breach of the previous Directorate ruling due to the continued use of the claims “Increases energy and stamina” and “Libido Enhancer” and “Potent sage testosterone precursor”.
The parties were afforded ten working days each to comment on whether or not sanctions in terms of Clause 14 of the Procedural Guide were appropriate.
COMPLAINANT’S COMMENTS ON SANCTIONS
The complainant recommended that all forms of media (print, television, etc.) where advertising for USN products appeared over the preceding two months, should run corrective adverts at USN’s expense. In addition, he argued that all media should be requested to NOT accept any form of advertising from USN for a period of 12 months.
When motivating this request, he explained that USN was a serial offender, and listed several previous rulings both against USN and its Biogen brand.
The complainant added that despite undertaking to withdraw its Phedra-Cut Hardcore products (see USN Phedra-Cut Hardcore / HA Steinman / 20411 (5 June 2013) ruling of the Advertising Standards Committee for context), USN continues making essentially the same claims as before when promoting its products. A similar argument was made in relation to rulings issued under the reference USN Creatine X4 / D Stein / 2962. This persistent use of claims ruled against amounts to profiteering from the flagrant abuse of consumers, society, and bringing into disrepute, the ASA, advertising and marketing.
The ASA have no remaining options but to take the harshest actions against this company, incorporating both USN and Biogen brands.
RELEVANT CLAUSE OF THE CODE OF ADVERTISING PRACTICE
In light of the breach ruling, Clause 14 of the Procedural Guide (Sanctions) was taken into account.
The respondent submitted that the Biogen brand has been handled with care to ensure compliance and any necessary action was taken when required. There have been only two prior incidents concerning its Testoforte & Adrenal Boost products, and in both cases it complied with rulings, removed products from its website, and/or amended labels.
The current breach was handled in the same manner, and the only concern relates to a website write-up where it had already admitted to an honest oversight, with no malicious or defiant intentions. The label was amended when requested, and a newer pack shot replaced the previous one to ensure even the possible visibility of the older label/ or claims would be avoided.
In addition to this, it has specifically hired a consultant to assist with guidance on label claims and it is updating labels proactively. It feels this alone can attest to the ethics and practice of the Biogen team and brand. It cannot be expected to comment on any USN product related cases, as it had no responsibility nor jurisdiction to do so.
ASA DIRECTORATE RULING
The ASA Directorate considered all the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties.
At the outset, the Directorate does not agree with the complainant’s approach of lumping USN and Biogen rulings together for the sake of sanctions. While Biogen is a product / brand of USN, it appears to be separately managed, and at all instances, the ASA has dealt with Biogen staff, and not USN. In addition, the circumstances do not suggest that USN is advertising various products (including Biogen) in its advertising. The disputes brought before the ASA on Biogen products have always related to ads for and by Biogen only. It would therefore be unreasonable, based on the information at hand, to hold Biogen accountable for the USN indiscretions referred to by the complainant. The Directorate will therefore only consider this matter in relation to previous Biogen rulings.
In considering sanctions, the Directorate takes into account several factors; most notably the nature of the contravention, any history the respondent has with the ASA, as well as possible harm done to consumers or competitors as a result of non-compliance.
A preliminary search on the ASA’s electronic archives shows that in the past 12 months there has been only one ruling against the respondent, being the original ruling in this matter. Since then, the respondent has been found in breach on one occasion.
Objectively speaking, this does not appear to warrant severe sanctions, and does not suggest a deliberate intent to circumvent the ASA rulings or contravene the Code.
Having said this, the Directorate is reluctant to merely excuse the non-compliance, especially as the breach ruling pointed out that “The advertisement originally ruled against, and the one currently complained of are virtually identical”. The Code places the onus of compliance squarely at the door of the respondent. Any sanction imposed, would ideally serve as educational, rather than punitive at this time.
Weighing up the issues and relevant factors, the Directorate is of the view that a sanction in terms of Clause 14.2 of the Procedural Guide is warranted at this time.
In terms of this sanction, the respondent is ordered to submit the proposed amendment, original advertisement and the relevant ASA rulings to the ACA Advisory Service for pre-publication advice before making efficacy claims for its Biogen product. This is a once-off sanction, and the respondent should retain proof of its approval from the ACA Advisory Services, in the event of further disputes being lodged with the ASA.[note note_color="#f6fdde" radius="4"]CamCheck posts related to USN
(Link opens in new browser window)
- Can You Get Too Much Protein? 15 September, 2021
- 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