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