Posted 15 May 2014
This article published in The Times, is old, but has only come to our attention now. It is still relevant for Glomail continues to market Celltone but without the claims previously made and ruled against by the ASA, when in fact their own research shows that the product does not work.
Scary stuff! What does this tell you about the ethics and morals of the owners of the company?
Snail gel gets squashed
NOMAHLUBI JORDAAN | 15 October, 2013 00:56
Now w, a recent Advertising Standards Authority ruling will make it even more difficult to market Glomail’s Celltone regenerative gel in South Africa.
This is the second time the authority has found that the product’s claims to reduce the appearance of scars, stretch marks, spots and wrinkles, as well as to assist with various “skin ailments”, are not backed up by proof.
Celltone, promoted by local celebrity Cindy Nell, claimed to contain snail gel extract “which snails naturally produce to heal their shells”.
It said snail gel’s alleged healing properties were discovered by farm workers harvesting snails, who noticed “the healing effect on their hands”. It sells for R399.
Last year, the authority ordered Glomail to immediately withdraw its claims unless they brought acceptable evidence to the authority for a new decision.
The latest ruling, delivered last week, comes after Glomail claimed to now have new proof that its product did, in fact, work.
Relying on evidence by a cosmetics expert John Knowlton of Cosmetics Solutions and two studies by Future Cosmetics CC, Glomail said the claims were adequately supported.
But the authority wasn’t convinced and has again ordered Glomail to stop making the claims.
The authority found that while Knowlton and Future Cosmetics appeared to reach conflicting conclusions, both agreed on one thing – that there was no proof Celltone diminished the appearance of scarring.
As for the other claims, while the evidence showed there was some improvement in the skin of those using Celltone, it did not last.
“The evidence appears to suggest only temporary effects for the majority of skin conditions tested.
“In some instances, no effect appears to have been demonstrated,” the ruling read.
The matter first came to the authority in 2012, when Cape Town researcher and medical doctor Harris Steinman complained about Celltone’s “misleading” advert.
Yesterday, Steinman told The Times the ruling would help consumers to be more questioning about the products they used.
It would also vindicate those who claimed Celltone didn’t work, he said.
Glomail’s marketing manager, Varina Singh, said the company would abide by the ruling.