Posted 26 July 2014
A consumer lodged a consumer complaint against a Healthmakers CC’s internet advertisement promoting the Tri-Vortex Flow Water bottle.
This is the nonsense, fruit-loopery that the product claims to do: ” Tri-Vortex is a quantum technology using sound to mimic the rhythms of nature. When products that are treated in special chambers come into contact with water, it assists in adjusting the structure of the molecules in such a way that it returns to the original state as found in nature. It helps to remove the chaos from the water thereby reducing stress in the water and ultimately in humans, animals and plants. It has seen remarkable results around the world. Cells hydrate optimally when presented with structured water. ”
Tri-Vortex Water Bottle / H Steinman / 2014 – 825F
Ruling of the : ASA Directorate
In the matter between:
Dr Harris Steinman Complainant(s)/Appellant(s)
Healthmakers cc Respondent
08 Jul 2014
Dr Steinman lodged a consumer complaint against a Healthmakers CC’s internet advertisement promoting the Tri-Vortex Flow Water bottle. The advertisement was published at http://imadeitmyself.co.za, and contains, inter alia, the following claims:
“Tri-Vortex is a quantum technology using sound to mimic the rhythms of nature. When products that are treated in special chambers come into contact with water, it assists in adjusting the structure of the molecules in such a way that it returns to the original state as found in nature”.
“It helps to remove the chaos from the water thereby reducing stress in the water and ultimately in humans, animals and plants. It has seen remarkable results around the world”.
“The Tri-vortex Flow Bottle is no ordinary stainless steel waterbottle. Each time you put water into the bottle you are getting better tasting supercharged, quality water”.
“Benefit is achieved by placing our products in special Tri-Vortex chambers for up to 48 hours. These products and materials are then changed in such a way as to create harmony and natural balance in the body”.
The complainant submitted, in essence, that the claims in support of the advertised product are directly aimed at scientifically naïve individuals who cannot appreciate that the claims are contrary to known scientific facts. The complainant has searched, and was unable to find any credible, reliable evidence of the claims, which suggests that they cannot be substantiated as required by Code, and therefore mislead consumers and bring advertising into disrepute.
RELEVANT CLAUSE OF THE CODE OF ADVERTISING PRACTICE
The complainant identified Clause 4.1 of Section II (Substantiation) as relevant to his complaint.
The Directorate initially contacted Tri-Vortex directly, who confirmed that “… the website in your letter – has NOTHING to do with us and we had nothing to do with its construction or laying out of advertising etc. These people are unknown to us and maybe you should challenge them instead”.
According to http://www.coza.net.za/whois.shtml, the http://imadeitmyself.co.za website is registered to “Thornhill, Colleen”. The Directorate then had regard for the disputed advertising and noted that it encourages visitors to visit “Healthmakers” on Facebook. According to http://www.coza.net.za/whois.shtml, the www.healthmakers.co.za website is registered to the respondent, and the contact person registered is email@example.com.
When the Directorate contacted Healthmakers CC, the reply came from Ms Colleen Thornhill, a Managing Partner. She stated, inter alia, that the advertisement was part of a test website, which was never actively offering products. The website has since been taken down.
ASA DIRECTORATE RULING
The ASA Directorate considered all the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties.
In terms of the Code and a long-standing principle held in previous rulings, the Directorate has discretion in terms of deciding whether or not an unequivocal undertaking to remove or amend the advertising complained of is an adequate resolution to the matter.
The respondent has confirmed that the website has been deactivated, and attempts by the ASA to access it were unsuccessful.
This appears to address the complainants’ concerns and there is therefore no need for the Directorate to consider the merits of the matter at this time.
The undertaking is accepted on condition that the claims as they appear above are not used again in future in their current format.