USN Cellu-Firm – ASA ruling November 2006

Posted 05 October 2015

This ASA ruling was made in November 2006. USN claimed that Cellu-firm “to be effective for cellulite”. The complainant pointed out that the active ingredient is Centella asiatica, a synonym for gotu kola, and that Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, the “Scientific Gold Standard for Evidence-Based, Clinical Information on Natural Medicines” had NO indication that this ingredient has ANY efficacy against cellulite.

The ruling is posted, followed by the complaint.

USN Cellu-Firm / HA Steinman / 5622

Ruling of the: ASA Directorate

In the matter between:

DR HA Steinman Complainant(s)/Appellant(s)

Ultimate Sports Nutrition (Pty) Ltd Respondent

28 November 2006

http://www.asasa.org.za/rulings/USN-Cellu-Firm-HA-Steinman-5622-3463

Dr Steinman lodged a consumer complaint against a print advertisement for USN’s “Cellu-Firm”. The advertising is titled, “Cellulite Is it your worst enemy?” and positions the product as an “anti-cellulite” dietary supplement. It also states, inter alia, “Cellu-Firm is formulated with a precise blend of herbal extracts to increase blood flow and the metabolic rate, freeing the trapped fat and eliminating cellulite”.

COMPLAINT

The complainant submitted, in essence, that the claim that this product is effective against cellulite cannot be substantiated. The complainant also took issue with the active ingredient, Centella asiatica, stating that there is no indication in literature that this ingredient has any efficacy against cellulite.

RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE CODE OF ADVERTISING PRACTICE

In light of the complaint the following clauses of the Code were considered relevant: • Section II, Clause 4.1 – Substantiation • Section II, Clause 4.2.1 – Misleading claims • Appendix C – Advertising of cosmetics

RESPONSE

The respondent submitted arguments contending that the complainant is involved in numerous business activities in the Health Industry and that he sells advertising space to companies in, inter alia, the slimming market. He must therefore be regarded as a competitor and not a consumer. Subsequently, the respondent submitted documentation from Dr Trevor Baillie in support the efficacy of the product and lifestyle treatment programme for the treatment of cellulite.

ASA DIRECTORATE RULING

The ASA Directorate considered the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties. The Directorate firstly notes that the scope of this ruling is limited to the subject matter of the complaint brought to the ASA, namely whether the claims concerning the efficacy of the respondent’s product can be substantiated. This ruling must therefore be interpreted and applied accordingly.

Status of the complainant

The respondent initially challenged the status of the complainant. In Liqui Lean / Dr H A Steinman / 4332 / (30 August 2006) the Directorate established that the complainant does not have a commercial interest in slimming and related products. The arguments put forward by the respondent in this matter are no different, and the Directorate therefore has no information to counter its previous decision. While the complainant can be regarded as an informed consumer in relation to slimming and related products, he does not appear to have a conflicting or commercial interest in weight-loss products. The complainant is accordingly regarded as a consumer in this matter.

The complainant submitted that the product contains Centella asiatica for which there is no scientific evidence that it has any efficacy against cellulite. The respondent submitted documentation from Dr Trevor Baillie titled, “Substantiation provided for USN Cellu Firm and the effectiveness of this product and lifestyle program for the treatment of cellulite”.

Clause 4.1 of Section II of the Code requires substantiating documents to emanate from, or be evaluated by an entity which is independent, credible and an expert in the field to which the claims relate. Dr Trevor Ballie appears to be employed at the respondent’s head office in Dubai. His contact details are also available on the respondent’s website. Accordingly, he cannot be regarded as independent and therefore cannot be used to substantiate the claims made for this product, as he does not ex facie satisfy the requirements of Clause 4.1 of Section II of the Code.

As the respondent failed to submit independent scientific evidence to support the claims made in the advertising, the product ingredients and formulation remain unsubstantiated in terms of Clause 4.1 of Section II of the Code. Accordingly, the claims made in this context are in breach of Clause 4.1 and 4.2.1 of Section II of the Code at this time. Given the above finding:

• The advertisement must be withdrawn;
• The process to withdraw the advertisement must be actioned with immediate effect on receipt of ruling;
• The withdrawal of the advertisement must be completed within the deadlines stipulated by Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide; and
• The advertisement may not be used again in its current format in future.

In light of the above contravention it is not necessary to consider the remaining clauses at this time. The respondent’s attention is also drawn to Clause 15.5 of the Procedural Guide, which requires offending claims to be withdrawn from all media, notwithstanding the fact that the complainant did not specifically refer to a particular media. The complaint is upheld.

Original Complaint

13 July 2006

Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa
Box 41555
Craighall 2024

Dear Sir or Madam:

Re: USN Cellu-firm

USN is selling a product called Cellu-firm which claims to be effective for cellulite. I argue that this cannot be substantiated.

The active ingredient is Centella asiatica. This is a synonym for gotu kola. In previous arguments with the ASA for a products’ efficacy, two “credible experts” for a respondent, independently of each other, confirmed Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database as the “Scientific Gold Standard for Evidence-Based, Clinical Information on Natural Medicines.” I accessed this resource on 13 July 2006, and there is NO indication that this ingredient has ANY efficacy against cellulite. In fact, in the 4 page overview, the word “cellulite” is not used once!

This source states:

“People Use This For:

Orally, gotu kola is used for reducing fatigue, anxiety, depression, improving memory and intelligence, venous insufficiency including varicose veins, wound healing, and increasing longevity. It is also used for the common cold and influenza, sunstroke, tonsillitis, pleurisy, urinary tract infection (UTI), hepatitis, jaundice, abdominal pain, diarrhea, indigestion, gastritis, peptic ulcer disease, dysentery, trauma, shingles, leprosy, cholera, syphilis, psychiatric disorders, epilepsy, asthma, anemia, and diabetes. Gotu kola is also used for contraception, amenorrhea, elephantiasis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), tuberculosis, memory loss, and as an aphrodisiac.

Topically, gotu kola is used for wound healing and reducing scars.

Parenterally, gotu kola is used for bladder lesions associated with schistosomiasis.”

Furthermore, this substance has toxicity potential – it is hepatotoxic (damages the liver)

Similarly, accessing orthodox medicines “scientific gold standard for evidence-based, clinical information” found no efficacy for this substance.

I therefore argue that the claims made for this product are misleading and unverifiable.

Sincerely

• Can You Get Too Much Protein? 15 September, 2021
• SLAPPing back: Court checks corporate bullying 12 February, 2021
• Sports nutrition position paper backs dietary protein over supplements 28 August, 2020
• South African Whey and Casein protein powders lack important amino acids 7 November, 2019
• USN PhedraCut Lipo XT recalled due to high caffeine content 18 September, 2019
• UK ASA rules claims of USN Phedracut breach advertising code 6 August, 2019
• Sports nutrition: spoiled by ‘wrong and immoral’ marketing 10 May, 2018
• Protein World’s Carb Blocker versus USN Carb Block 22 March, 2018
• 5 supplements that claim to speed up weight loss – and what the science says 31 January, 2018
• Why do teenagers use supplements, and where do they get their advice? 27 November, 2017
• 3 Bodybuilding Supplements That Are An Absolute Waste Of Money 16 October, 2017
• Denmark warns over online sports supplements 2 July, 2017
• Sports nutrition growth spoiled by ‘wrong and immoral’ marketing 28 June, 2017
• Sports supplements sold to children 12 May, 2017
• Garcinia Linked to Liver Damage 1 May, 2017
• Teens Receiving Inaccurate Information on Supplements 19 April, 2017
• Court strikes blow against quackery 17 March, 2017
• Some good reasons to be cautious about using dietary supplements 13 February, 2017
• Protein hype: shoppers flushing money down the toilet, say experts 28 December, 2016
• Muscle-building shakes don’t always have as much protein as they claim to 11 July, 2016
• Targeting school children in marketing campaigns for sports supplements: Is it ethical? 31 May, 2016
• USN linked to company promoting sport supplements in children 21 April, 2016
• Diet supplements threat to liver 25 January, 2016
• Power Report: Watchdog in chains as advertiser fights back 18 November, 2015
• USN’s defamation action: Commentary on RSG 21 October, 2015
• Supplement use might be a sign of disordered eating in men 8 October, 2015
• Die Burger: Aktivis gedagvaar oor aanvullers 7 October, 2015
• USN, Herbex, Antagolin, Solal and Vigro (Nativa) go to court to block ASA 6 October, 2015
• USN: Previous ASA rulings 5 October, 2015
• USN defamation charge against CamCheck 17 September, 2015
• Do sports drinks and energy bars make you a better athlete? 15 September, 2015
• CLA supplement linked to hepatitis case 14 September, 2015
• USN/Evox Protein supplements: what you need to know 26 August, 2015
• Melamine contamination in South African nutritional supplements 21 July, 2015
• USN Carb Binder – ASA breach ruling 7 May, 2015
• Nutritech Diet Meal vs USN – ASA Ruling 5 May, 2015
• Nutritech Premium Pure Whey Lite vs USN – ASA Ruling 4 May, 2015
• Muscle-Building Supplements Linked to Testicular Cancer 22 April, 2015
• Study finds troubling link between use of muscle-building supplements and cancer 14 April, 2015
• MedicalBrief: Fat Blocker moves to silence fact checker 29 March, 2015
• UK ASA acts against USN product claims 26 March, 2015
• New consumer site casts doubt on (USN) supplement claims 24 March, 2015
• USN issues a ‘Take-down’ notice for CamCheck 18 March, 2015
• USN CreatineX4 – UK ruling 18 March, 2015
• USN ‘Carb binder’ – the scam continues 10 February, 2015
• White kidney bean extract for weight loss? 29 January, 2015
• Albe Geldenhuys / USN responds to CamCheck posting 26 January, 2015
• Oxygen myths that refuse to die 18 November, 2014
• USN 100% Whey Protein 13 October, 2014
• USN Fat Block – Fat chance 3 October, 2014
• USN Phedra-Cut Lipo XT – ASA breach ruling 2 October, 2014
• Anti-Doping Agency warns athletes about dietary supplements 11 August, 2014
• USN 19-Testo Mass – ASA ruling 28 July, 2014
• USN “Carb Binder” – scam product, ASA ruling 28 July, 2014
• USN 19 TESTO MASS – ASA ruling 9 May, 2014
• Albe Geldenhuys of USN, a master scam artist? 9 March, 2014
• Biogen Tribulus – ASA Santions – 31 January 2014 31 January, 2014
• Biogen Testoforte: ASA ruling – website advert 10 November, 2013
• Biogen Testoforte: ASA ruling – print advert 10 November, 2013
• Biogen Tribulus – ASA Breach ruling – 8 November 2013 8 November, 2013
• USN Pure Protein Bar – ASA ruling 10 October, 2013
• Biogen Tribulus – ASA ruling – 11 September 2013 11 September, 2013
• USN Phedra-Cut Hardcore – ASA Ruling 10 June, 2013
• USN Fat Block – Lie, no proof that it blocks fat 7 May, 2013
• USN Phedra-Cut LipoXT product – ASA ruling 7 April, 2013
• USN Weight loss product’s claims are ‘misleading’ 4 February, 2013
• USN Phedra-Cut Hardcore – No proof! 17 January, 2013
• USN Phedra-Cut Lipo XT – ASA ruling 1 August, 2012
• Biogen Andrenal Boost nonsense 12 August, 2011
• Protein supplements give no benefit to athlete’s performance 10 July, 2011
• USN Cellu-Firm – ASA Sanctions – 15 July 2009 15 July, 2009
• USN Cellu-Firm – ASA Breach ruling – 8 June 2009 8 June, 2009
• USN Cellu-Firm – ASA Sanctions – 16 October 2008 16 October, 2008
• USN Cellu-Firm – ASA Breach ruling – 8 April 2008 8 April, 2008
• USN Cellu-Firm – ASA breach ruling – 02 April 2007 2 April, 2007
• USN Cellu-Firm – ASA ruling November 2006 28 November, 2006