Posted 15 November 2015
The two articles below, highlight Antagolin’s interdict in High Court against the ASA to prevent the ASA from taking action against claims being made for their product. Both are written by the journalist, Elaine Swanepoel: the first, published in Health24, is a translation of the second, published in Die Rapport.
Subsequent to the High Court action, Antagolin (Dr Conrad Smith and Mariaan du Plessis) are now taking the ASA and Dr Harris Steinman to the High Court, demanding over R17 million and R200,000 respectively.
Supplement manufacturers take advertising authority to court
Health24
03 November 2015
The South Gauteng High Court has ruled that the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa may not block AntaGolin advertisements.
http://www.health24.com/Natural/News/Supplement-makers-take-advertising-authority-to-court-20151103
In September the Medical Nutritional Institute (MNI) requested an urgent interdict against the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASA) to prevent it from prohibiting advertisements for their product AntaGolin.
AntaGolin claims to fight insulin resistance in the body, thereby encouraging weight loss.
The supplement manufacturer USN (Ultimate Sports Nutrition) is also threatening legal actions against the ASA if it continues enforcing its “alleged authority” on the company.
Considerable harm
The South Gauteng High Court granted the interdict against the ASA because MNI products are regulated by the Healthcare and Consumer Protection Act. The ASA is not recognised as a statutory regulator within this act.
The court also found that MNI could suffer considerable harm if AntaGolin advertisements were prevented from appearing on ASA members’ platforms. This means that the ASA may not prohibit AntaGolin advertisements.
The ASA was also ordered to remove findings from its website that there is not sufficient clinical proof that AntaGolin is effective.
In May, USN, in a lawyer’s letter, questioned the ASA’s competence to decide on the effectiveness of their products. They are also threatening to take the ASA to court if it made any further negative comments about their products or prohibit their advertisements.
In the period from January 2013 to May 2015 the ASA made at least 30 decisions against USN to force them to remove statements about the effectiveness of a number of their products.
The ASA for instance found that there was no clinical proof that the USN product Fat Block reduced fat absorption after meals. USN then changed the product’s name to Fat Binder.
Bordering on intimidation
USN and MNI are also suing Dr Harris Steinman, director of Food and Allergy Consulting & Testing Services for respectively R2 million and R200 000 because he said, following on the ASA’s findings, that advertisements for these products were not far from being scams.
Professor George Claassen, a professor in science communication and media ethics at the University of Stellenbosch said that these interdicts border on intimidation because Dr Steinman was acting in the interests of public health. He added that these companies are using the courts to circumvent the process of self-regulation.
Dr Cliff Johnston, spokesperson of the South African National Consumer Union said that the verdicts of these court cases are very important because the ASA is the only organisation able to hold companies liable for the products they advertise.
Albé Geldenhuys, founder and CEO of USN, however, believes that Steinmann used the ASA to launch a personal attack on USN, damaging their products and business.
(Translation and summary of an article by Elaine Swanepoel)
Article in Rapport
Herbex & Kie. baklei tot in hof
Waghond oor reklame in spervuur oor sy gesag
Deur Elaine Swanepoel
Sondag 01 November 2015 05:40
http://www.netwerk24.com/Nuus/Hof/Herbex-Kie-baklei-tot-in-hof-20151031
Verskeie regsaksies teen die Gesagsliggaam vir Reklamestandaarde (GRS) dreig om verbruikersregte te knou en grens aan intimidasie.
So meen kenners oor die hofsake wat Herbex en die Medical Nutritional Institute (MNI) teen die GRS aanhangig gemaak het.
Die voedselaanvullingsmaatskappy USN dreig ook met regstappe, sou die GRS aanhou om sy “beweerde gesag” aan USN op te dwing. Die MNI is in September hof toe vir ’n dringende interdik teen die GRS sodat advertensies vir AntaGolin nie verbied word nie. AntaGolin is ’n produk wat glo insulienweerstand in die liggaam teenwerk en jou só help gewig verloor.
Die Suid-Gautengse hooggeregshof het die interdik toegestaan omdat MNI-produkte deur die Medisynewet en Wet op Verbruikersbeskerming gereguleer word.
“DIÉ MAATSKAPPYE WEND HULLE TOT DIE HOWE OM SELFREGULERING TE OMSEIL.”
Die GRS word nie erken as ’n statutêre reguleerder binne een van dié wette nie. Die hof het ook bevind MNI kan wesenlike skade ly as AntaGolin-advertensies nie op GRS-lede se platforms mag verskyn nie. Dit beteken die GRS mag nie AntaGolin-advertensies verbied nie.
Die GRS moet ook onmiddellik bevindings van sy webtuiste verwyder dat daar nie genoeg kliniese bewyse is dat AntaGolin wel doeltreffend is nie.
Ook Herbex is in September hof toe oor die GRS se beslissing dat daar nie genoeg bewyse is dat hul produkte doeltreffend is nie.
In ’n prokureursbrief aan die GRS het USN in Mei die GRS se bevoegdheid bevraagteken om oor die doeltreffendheid van hul produkte te beslis. Hulle dreig ook om hof toe te gaan, sou die GRS sy gesag op USN afdwing en verdere bevindings teen hul produkte maak of hul advertensies verbied.
Van Januarie 2013 tot Mei vanjaar het die GRS in minstens 30 gevalle téén USN beslis.
Dit was om bewerings wat hulle oor die doeltreffendheid van verskeie van sy produkte in advertensies maak, te verwyder.
Talle USN-advertensies het voor die GRS gedien, waaronder: advertensies vir produkte wat gewigsverlies belowe; een wat rooibloedselle en suurstof ’n hupstoot gee; ’n testosteroon-versterker; ’n middel wat glo help dat selluliet nie vorm nie; en een wat die opname van stysel inhibeer.
Die GRS het ook bevind dat dit nie klinies bewys is dat die USN-produk Fat Block vetopname ná ete verminder nie. Daarna het USN die produk se naam in Fat Binder verander.
USN en AntaGolin dagvaar ook dr. Harris Steinman, direkteur van Food and Allergy Consulting & Testing Services, vir onderskeidelik R2 miljoen en R200 000.
Dit omdat hy, na aanleiding van die GRS se bevindings, gesê het advertensies oor dié produkte grens aan swendelary.
“Dit grens aan intimidasie,” sê prof. George Claassen, ’n professor in wetenskap-kommunikasie en media-etiek aan die Universiteit Stellenbosch. “Dr. Steinman tree op in die openbare belang en die gesondheid van die publiek. Dié maatskappye wend hulle tot die howe om die proses van selfregulering te omseil.”
Hy sê die appèlhof se beslissing dat die openbare beskermer wel die magte het om haar bevindings af te dwing, is ook van toepassing op die GRS omdat sy ’n soort “super-ombudsvrou” is.
Dr. Clif Johnston, woordvoerder van die Suid-Afrikaanse Nasionale Verbruikersunie, sê as die hof dié maatskappye gelyk gee, sal dit ’n verbruikersregte skaad.
“Die uitkoms van die hofsake is van groot belang omdat die GRS die enigste organisasie is wat adverteerders aanspreeklik kan hou. Dis baie sleg as hul gesag uitgedaag word.”
Albé Geldenhuys, stigter en uitvoerende hoof van USN, sê Steinman het die ASA misbruik om persoonlike aanvalle op USN te doen. “Harris het aanhou fout soek met ons produkte, tot só ’n mate dat ons onself nie meer kon verdedig nie. Ons produkte en besigheid het begin skade ly, daarom dat ons regstappe neem.”
[note note_color="#f8fddd"]CAMCheck posts related to Antagolin(Link opens in new browser window)
- SLAPPing back: Court checks corporate bullying 12 February, 2021
- Court strikes blow against quackery 17 March, 2017
- Beware of Illegally Marketed Diabetes Treatments 30 May, 2016
- Open season for snake oil salesmen? 23 November, 2015
- Power Report: Watchdog in chains as advertiser fights back 18 November, 2015
- Supplement manufacturers take advertising authority to court 15 November, 2015
- USN, Herbex, Antagolin, Solal and Vigro (Nativa) go to court to block ASA 6 October, 2015
- Antagolin – ASA breach ruling June 2015 22 July, 2015
- Antagolin – Still no robust evidence II 7 August, 2014
- Antagolin – Still no robust evidence I 7 August, 2014
- Antagolin – ASA ruling 12 April, 2014
- Antagolin, ASA agrees, no evidence it works! 7 March, 2014
- Antagolin – does it work? Unlikely. 29 October, 2013
No comments yet.