ASA Adjudication on First Class Ltd

Ad

A leaflet given to schools claimed that a device would protect children from harmful radiation from mobile phones and Wi-Fi connections. The front of the leaflet stated "FOR A HEALTHY SCHOOL. First Class Quartz crystal radiation protectors … the wi-fi shield for computers, laptops … etc … the phoneshield for mobile phones, PDA’s … etc. Today’s technology requires Schools to observe their Statutory Duty of Care for Students and Staff … Take precautionary action NOW as advised by HM Government." The inside of the leaflet was titled "IT'S OFFICIAL - UK GOVERNMENT ADVISES EXTRA CAUTION OVER HEALTH FEARS FOR CHILDREN USING WI-FI AND MOBILE PHONES.” Text stated “The above warning comes from a leaflet still being issued by the Department of Health to the public about the dangers of mobile phones based on a UK Government report headed by Sir William Stewart published in May 2000 … This was 8 years ago since which time sales of mobile phones and Wi-Fi have leapt and no further advice or guidance has been issued. Could this be because both parties intending to fund the research are not disinterested? ... An independent 610 page Bio-initiative Report … which unequivocally concludes that there is sufficient evidence that EMR can be harmful and stresses that children are much more vulnerable”. It went on to give an explanation of Electro-Magnetic Radiation (EMR) and its effects. It outlined that the phoneshield “devices have been scientifically designed to alleviate the harmful effects of EMR” and described how the product had been tested.

Issue

The complainant, who worked at a primary school, challenged whether the ad was misleading because:

1. the claims made regarding the effects of the product could not be substantiated;

2. it stated mobile phones and Wi-Fi used identical technology, which he did not believe was the case;

3. it stated that no government research had been issued on the topic since 2000; however the complainant believed that a leaflet on wireless communications technologies had been issued in 2005;

4. he believed the "independent 610 page Bio-initiative Report" was not independent and was produced by a party with a vested interest;

5. the front page implied that the government had recommended the First Class Quartz crystal radiation protectors, or similar products, which he did not believe was the case; and

6. the ad relied on scaremongering and could cause fear and distress.

7. The ASA challenged whether the claims about the potentially harmful radiation emitted by mobiles and Wi-Fi devices could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. First Class Ltd (First Class) said they distributed the products in schools, and that their suppliers, Natural Health & Leisure Products Ltd (NH&LP), would respond on their behalf.  NH&LP provided documentation to support their claims, including testimonial and several studies; for example, a study which suggested that a number of independent tests had concluded that the damage to cells caused by electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from a mobile phone was reduced by applying a phoneshield.  They stated they had anecdotal evidence of a muscle test procedure carried out by medical practitioners, which showed the effects of EMR, and had successfully demonstrated the test in pharmacies and health stores, which stocked their product.  They stated they were currently carrying out additional tests using field meters which measured radiation levels from mobile phones. They believed the introduction of the shield showed a meaningful reduction in EMR.

2. They said mobile phones and Wi-Fi devices relied on the transmission of signals which carried information from transmitters or modems using radio waves through a range of frequencies, some of which coincided with those used by the human brain.  They stated the technology for both systems was the same and was distinct from traditional systems which relied on sheathed cables or wiring to connect the signal sender with the signal recipient.  They referred to an article on the Powerwatch website which they said supported this.

3. They said the 2005 report by the Stuart commission gave the same precautionary advice on the same issues as those made in the 2000 report, albeit more emphatically.  They stated the ad referred to advice and guidance, with particular reference to children and did not claim that additional research had been carried out.

4. They stated they were not aware of a vested interest of any person involved in the report.  They stated that if a vested interest had existed, the European Parliament would have been unlikely to have adopted the report.

5. They felt that the complainant had taken the quote out of context and they did not believe that the ad implied that the government had recommended their product or similar products.  They stated that government advice was not to let children use mobile phones, and this information was included at the foot of page 2 in the ad.

6. They stated that the information in the ad, which concerned the dangers of radiation from mobile phones and Wi-Fi devices, were the publicised views of distinguished scientists and health experts.  They stated they had not made reference, for example, to leukaemia or cancer, even though some reports referred to those dangers.  They stated that making reference to the dangers to children's health was bound to be an emotive subject, but the views expressed were reliable and verifiable.

7. They said the Stewart report stated "there is some evidence that changes in brain activity can occur" and stated some countries had banned or limited the use of technology in schools and public buildings.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted one piece of research dated from 2000.  We understood that that report relied on testing the blood of an adult male donor and involved a mobile phone on standby only.  We were concerned that the tests did not replicate the normal use of mobile telephones, for example, making or receiving calls, or involve tests on Wi-Fi signals and use.  We noted the other studies provided by the advertisers looked at measuring electrostatic and magnetic fields and measuring body stress and noted that those studies suggested that additional testing was needed that replicated the phone when in use.  We were concerned that the methodology was not clear and that that the tests did not relate to the issue of how harmful the effects of EMR could be on children, which was the basis for many claims in the ad.  In addition, we did not consider that the testimonials provided were sufficient to support the claim.  

We therefore concluded that we had not seen sufficient evidence to substantiate the efficacy claims in the ad.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Principles), 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Upheld

We noted the ad stated "wi-fi networks ... uses the identical technology as mobile phones".  We sought advice on the issue and understood that Wi-Fi and mobile phones both used radio signals for the transmission of information, rather than wires, but that there were technical differences, for example, the frequencies of the radio waves used by Wi-Fi were higher than those from mobile phones.  We understood that the exposure situations and levels were also different, because a mobile phone was normally held with its transmitting antenna close to the head, whereas Wi-Fi antennas were normally much further from the body, and exposures were therefore typically much lower with Wi-Fi than with mobile phones.  We therefore concluded the ad was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Principles), 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

3. Upheld

We noted that the ad referred to "a leaflet still being issued ... to the public about the dangers of mobile phones based on a UK Government report ... published in 2000" and "This was 8 years ago ... and no further advice or guidance has been issued."  We noted that, since the Stewart Report was published in 2000, the Mobile Phones and Health 2004 report had been produced and a leaflet relating to that 2004 report had been published at that time.  Although we noted the Executive Summary to the 2004 report stated "the main conclusions reached in the Stewart Report in 2000 still apply today", we considered the ad implied the same leaflet had been distributed since 2000, which was not the case, and concluded the ad was therefore misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Principles), 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) 9.1 and 9.2 (Fear and distress).

4.  Upheld

We noted that the European Parliament resolution on the mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010, adopted 4 September 2008, indicated in a footnote that the Bio-initiative Report had been produced by independent scientists and provided a link to the Bio-initiative website, but did not provide any additional detail or notes about the way the report was produced and who had produced it.  However, we also noted that the Bio-Initiative report had been the subject of criticism by a number of scientific bodies, including EMF-NET, an advisory body of the European Commission, who published a detailed report of their reservations concerning the report and stated that "there is a lack of balance in the report; no mention is made in fact of reports that do not concur with the authors statements and conclusions.  The results and conclusions are very different from those of recent national and international reviews on this topic".

Because the advertisers had not provided information which confirmed that the Bio-initiative Report had not been produced by a party with a vested interest, we considered the ad was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Principles), 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) 9.1 and 9.2 (Fear and distress).

5. Upheld

We noted the ad stated "Take precautionary action NOW as advised by HM Government" on the front page and that there was no accompanying explanatory text, which put the quote in context.  We did not consider that it was clear that it referred to the specific government advice that children should avoid non-essential use of mobile phones, set out in the Stewart report.  We noted the ad stated "FOR A HEALTHY SCHOOL" and "Today's technology requires Schools to observe their Statutory Duty of Care for Students and Staff" and considered that implied that the advertiser's product or similar products, or the efficacy and health claims in the leaflet, were endorsed by the Department of Health.  We therefore concluded the ad was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Principles), 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) 9.1 and 9.2 (Fear and distress).

6. Upheld

We noted the ad included the headline "UK GOVERNMENT ADVISES EXTRA CAUTION OVER HEALTH FEARS FOR CHILDREN USING WI-FI AND MOBILE PHONES" and the accompanying text stated "the above warning comes from a leaflet ... being issued by the Department of Health ... about the dangers of mobile phones" and had included selected quotes from the Stewart report: "the Government leaflet also acknowledges that "there is some evidence that changes in brain activity can occur" and that "there are significant gaps in our scientific knowledge".  We understood, however, that the Mobile Phones and Health 2004 Report stated that "the widespread development in the use of mobile phones world-wide has not been accompanied by associated, clearly established increases in adverse health effects" since the Stewart Report, and we understood that that remained the case.  We did note that the use of mobile phones by children was an area where there was additional precautionary advice and that the non-essential use of mobile phones by children should be discouraged.  However, we considered that because the leaflet overstated the dangers of mobile phone use and had not clearly communicated the position currently held by the Government, based on the 2000 Stewart Report and Mobile Phones and Health 2004 Report, it could cause fear and distress.

On these points, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Principles), 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) 9.1 and 9.2 (Fear and distress).

7. Upheld

We considered the evidence provided by the advertiser had not concluded that the normal use of mobile phones was likely to cause harm and did not consider the documentation was sufficient to substantiate the ad's claims about the potentially harmful radiation emitted by mobiles and Wi-Fi devices.  Because of that, and because of the position currently held by the Government, based on the 2000 Stewart Report and Mobile Phones and Health 2004 Report, as outlined in point 6, we concluded the ad was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Principles), 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) 9.1 and 9.2 (Fear and distress).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)