Posted 18 January 2013
USN continues to deceive consumers with either exaggerated or unsubstantiated claims. This is particularly true for their Phedra-Cut range – all making unsubstantiated weight-loss claims. There is not a single study to confirm that a single one of USN’s Phedra-cut range, has efficacy (or for that matter, most of their products), i.e., works.
In this instance, the ASA has become aware that USN continues to claim that they will alter their unsubstantiated claims, but USN then simply generates new false claims.
It appears that the ASA have now become fed-up with USN: “Given the respondent’s apparent pattern of providing undertakings as opposed to evidence for its efficacy claims, the Directorate will consider whether or not additional sanctions in accordance with Clause 14 of the Procedural Guide should be imposed on the respondent.”
Previous ASA rulings:
|USN Phedra-Cut Hardcore / HA Steinman / 20411|
Ruling of the : ASA Directorate
In the matter between:
DR Harris Steinman Complainant(s)/Appellant(s)
Ultimate Sports Nutrition (Pty) Ltd Respondent
16 Jan 2013
Dr Steinman lodged a consumer complaint against claims appearing on the respondent’s packaging for its “PHEDRA-CUT HARDCORE AGGRESSIVE WEIGHT CONTROL AGENT”.
The packaging carries a sub-heading “MAXIMUM DURATION” and claims that the product is “Scientifically formulated to help burn fat, and crush appetite & constant cravings”. It adds that it “Delivers long lasting explosive energy and mental focus”. Similar claims are made on the back of the packaging.
The complainant argued that the claims give consumers an impression that the product has been “scientifically formulated”, and therefore has been proven effective.
Considering that there is not a single robust study published in a peer reviewed publication that supports any of the claims made for the product or its ingredients, the claims are unlikely to be true, and therefore also misleading.
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
The respondent initially replied stating that the complaint would be forwarded to the “R&D department and the directors … and [that it] will get back to [the ASA] …”
After successfully being granted an extension to reply, it responded stating:
“We have taken cognizance of the content of Dr Steinman’s complaint and will amend our advertising material to accommodate his views.
We trust you find the above to be in order”.
ASA DIRECTORATE RULING
The ASA Directorate considered all the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties.
The ASA has a long standing principle which holds that where an advertiser provides an unequivocal undertaking to withdraw or amend its advertising in a manner that addresses the concerns raised, the undertaking may, at the absolute discretion of the ASA, be accepted without considering the merits of the matter.
On the face of it, it would appear that the respondent’s undertaking may be an adequate resolution to the matter. However, this is only one in a long line of such undertakings provided by the respondent.
In USN Phedra-Cut Lipo XT / MM Davy / 20382 (26 July 2012), the Directorate received a similar undertaking, and ruled as follows:
“While the Directorate is aware that this would potentially address this specific complaint, it cannot ignore the fact that the respondent appears to have a tendency to offer such undertakings when confronted with complaints.
In the past nine years, at least twenty four rulings have been issued where USN was a respondent. Save for those that dealt with issues of compliance, the majority related to allegations that the Code’s provisions on substantiation (Clause 4.1 of Section II) and misleading claims (Clause 4.2.1 of Section II) had been breached. It is therefore safe to say that the respondent has had more than one encounter with the ASA and the provisions of the Code, and could therefore not claim ignorance insofar as the requirements in terms of substantiation are concerned.
In addition, and perhaps more to the point, the Directorate has dealt with the respondent’s Phedra-Cut products on more than one occasion:
In USN / De Castro Ramos & Others / 875 (17 June 2005), part of the complaint related to the respondent’s ‘Phedra-Cut’ product. When taken to task by the complainants, the respondent provided an undertaking to remove the efficacy claims associated with the product pending substantiation. At this time the Directorate accepted this undertaking.
In USN Phedra-Cut / Dr Steinman (3 November 2006), the respondent again undertook to amend the claims to ensure that they do not mislead people. This was accepted at the discretion of the ASA.
In USN Phedra-Cut Accelerator / H A Steinman / 9069 (5 June 2007), the respondent advised that the Phedra-Cut Accelerator product had been discontinued and that no further advertising would appear. The Directorate accepted this as an adequate resolution.
In USN Phedra-Cut Stimulant free / H A Steinman / 9070 (5 June 2007), the respondent’s efficacy claims were again taken to task, and again the respondent confirmed that it would remove and/or change the relevant claims. Here too the Directorate accepted the undertaking.
In USN Phedra-Cut XT / H A Steinman / 10318 (19 December 2007), the respondent again undertook to withdraw its efficacy claims, and the Directorate accepted this, but drew specific attention to the fact that ‘simply undertaking to withdraw advertising each time a complaint is received is not a sufficient resolution’. The Directorate specifically noted … that simply undertaking to withdraw advertising each time a complaint is received is not a sufficient resolution.
Subsequent to this, in a ruling referenced USN Phedra-Cut Stimulant Free / HA Steinman / 9070 (8 April 2008), the respondent was found to have breached the earlier ruling in that the efficacy claims still appeared on its website.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ABOVE EXPLANATION IS THAT ALL PRIOR DISPUTES, INCLUDING THE CURRENT MATTER, RELATE TO THE PHEDRA-CUT RANGE OF PRODUCTS, AND IN EACH INSTANCE THE EFFICACY CLAIMS RELATED TO FAT BURNING AND WEIGHT LOSS. ADDITIONALLY, EACH DISPUTE RESULTED IN A VOLUNTARY UNDERTAKING TO REMOVE OR AMEND THE ADVERTISING AT ISSUE (our emphasis)
… It appears from the above history that the respondent has used, and arguably abused the ASA’s leniency insofar as accepting voluntary undertakings is concerned …”
Given this, the Directorate did not accept the undertaking, and found the respondent in breach of the Code’s provisions relating to substantiation and misleading claims.
The ruling ended stating “While no sanctions were called for, and while the Directorate accepts that this is the first adverse ruling against the respondent in recent times, the respondent is reminded that Clause 14 of the Procedural Guide empowers the Directorate to consider voluntary undertakings in calculating which sanctions should be imposed. The Directorate will not take future contraventions of the Code or of previous rulings lightly”.
This matter constitutes yet another undertaking that appears to be calculated to merely sidestep adverse decisions or sanctions, and the Directorate rejects this undertaking.
As such, and in the absence of any evidence for the efficacy claims highlighted by the complainant, the respondent’s claims are found to be unsubstantiated, and therefore likely to mislead consumers about the efficacy of the product.
The packaging is therefore found to be in contravention of Clauses 4.1 and 4.2.1 of Section II of the Code.
The respondent is therefore instructed to:
Withdraw the packaging and claims objected to by the complainant
Ensure that the process of withdrawal is effected immediately upon receipt of this ruling
Ensure that the process of withdrawal is completed within the deadlines stipulated in Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide, minus the two weeks granted on extension (i.e. the respondent has two months and two weeks to comply)
Refrain from using the packaging and claims again in future.
The complaint is upheld.
Given the respondent’s apparent pattern of providing undertakings as opposed to evidence for its efficacy claims, the Directorate will consider whether or not additional sanctions in accordance with Clause 14 of the Procedural Guide should be imposed on the respondent.
The complainant is therefore afforded ten days from the date of this ruling to comment on whether or not sanctions are warranted, and if so, which sanctions. After this period, the respondent will be afforded an equal opportunity to address the Directorate on this issue after which another ruling (on the issue of sanctions) will be made in accordance with the procedures of the Code.
|CamCheck posts related to USN|
- 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