Archive | Vogel

ASA Ruling: A Vogel Prostasan

Continue Reading 2

Consumer complaints were lodged against SA Natural Products’ print advertisement appearing in, inter alia, the Weekend Argus and Sunday Times, as well as an internet advertisement that was published on the website www.sanatural.co.za during 2010.

The advertisement promotes the respondent’s Prostasan capsules contains the following claims: “A. Vogel Prostasan may relieve your: Frequent urinating during the day and night Incomplete emptying of the bladder Urinary urgency Pushing and straining while urinating”. It also contains a lengthy discussion on the product and its claimed benefits as well as references to trials done and recommended usage.

In essence, the complainants submitted that the advertisement is misleading as it there is no proof that the respondent’s product can alleviate the symptoms stated in the advertisement. 

Read the rest
Continue Reading 2

ASA Ruling: Multiforce Alkaline Powder

Continue Reading 15

A consumer lodged a consumer complaint against SA Natural Products’ print advertisement for its Multiforce Alkaline Powder product.

The advertisement states, among other, “Acidity may contribute to, or aggravate the following conditions:  Pain in the body joints; Inflammatory conditions; Poor quality skin, hair and nails; Reduced immune response; Kidney and gall stones;  Weight fluctuations; Low vitality and energy; Indigestion, constipation and flatulence; Water retention; Lower back ache; Gout;  Osteoporosis; Promoting cancer”.

How did the ASA rule?

Read the rest
Continue Reading 15

Vogel’s Echinaforce

Continue Reading 0

A consumer laid a complaint with the ASA against Vogel’s Echinaforce advert. The advertorial was headed, “A. Vogel Echinaforce proven in-vitro to inhibit Swine Flu, Bird Flu and Seasonal Flu”. The advertorial contained, inter alia, the claim “in the first round Echinaforce was effective against 97.85% of the viruses”. Reference is also made to Echinaforce’s prophylactic and antibacterial qualities.

In essence, the complainant submitted that the advertorial is misleading as the product is not registered with the authorities in any way. She also contested the validity of the claim that the product is able to protect against, inter alia, Swine Flu, arguing that this study has not been subjected to any form of peer review. 

How did the ASA rule?

Read the rest
Continue Reading 0