Archive | Ultima Fat Away

Posted 30 May 2013

This is an interesting ruling and shows how perception can influence an ASA ruling. I first complained about Ultima Fat Away many years ago, which resulted in an arbitration which found in my favour.

Two years later, I realised that the name of a product could also be regarded as also misleading and I started laying complaints against this aspect as well.

Following a breach ruling in Ultima Fat Away, I realised that I had never laid a complaint against the name of the product which is clearly misleading for it claims being effective, when it is not, and therefore I subsequently did. Because of the timing of my complaint, the argument could be made that it appeared to be vexatious. Thankfully the ASA did conclude “. . . most certainly does not afford the respondent a “free ticket” to carry on using terminology that implies … Read the rest

Posted 22 July 2012

In December 2005, after a process of arbitration in terms of Clause 16 of the ASA Procedural Guide had been completed, the Directorate ruled that the following claims could not “be substantiated based on scientific studies”: • “Effectively blocks fat absorption”; • Helps eliminate existing body fat”; and • “Energises and boosts metabolic rate”. The respondent at the time (Advanced Health Foods CC) was instructed to withdraw the claims with immediate effect. A consumer submitted that the respondent is still marketing the product in stores and on its website with the same claims as before and any claims regarding weight-loss efficacy are unproven. This is clearly a breach of the previous rulings.

The pharmacist, Brent Murphy (of Solal Technologies) substantiated the claims for the product and the ASA initially ruled in favour of Ultima. Arbitration was requested and was performed by Prof. Tessa vd Merwe … Read the rest