ASA Adjudication on Eudemon International Ltd

Ad

An ad for Eudemon in the United Lincolnshire Hospital News, a newspaper produced by Lincolnshire NHS Trust for distribution in hospitals, showed a picture of a lightbulb with a waterfall in the background. The ad was headed "bringing the benefits of nature indoors." Body copy stated "Benefits from nature's own chemist have been combined in the development and manufacture of one of the world's premier health aid products using a standard energy saving light bulb and fluorescent tube. Each CFL or Fluorescent tube emits 3.5 million negative ions per second through a negative ion generator contained within the structure of the Bulb or Tube, cleaning and purifying the air we breathe." Bullet-pointed text stated "Removes from the air: Pollen, Dust, Bacteria, Odours and Cigarette Smoke. Providing Relief for suffers [sic] of Hayfever, Asthma and Bronchitis. Negative ions form predominantly near waterfalls, high on mountains or at the seashore. Negative ions can improve alertness, relaxation, and recuperation. Effects of Negatively Charged Fresh Air: Improved sense of well being, Decreased anxiety, Lower resting heart rate, Lowered body temperature, Decreased survival of airborne bacteria and viruses, Improved alertness and Increased rate of quality and growth rate of plants and animals." A section headed "Eudemon (TM) Fresh Light" showed a fluorescent tube. Body copy stated similar claims to the above but stated in addition "Negative ions enhance sleep quality and improves alertness, concentration, reaction time, mood and skin condition and gives a sense of wellbeing ... Helps provide relief for sufferers of ... stress." A section headed "Eudemon (TM) Pure Light." Body copy stated similar claims again but stated in addition "Triggers vitamin D as in sunlight. Improves drive, vitality, mental agility, alertness, concentration, reaction time, mood, skin condition and a general sense of well being ... Helps relieve ... fatigue, depression, irritability and eyestrain. Relief from ... Stress, SAD, ADD/ADHD." Postal, e-mail and website addresses and a telephone and fax number were shown at the bottom of the page.

Issue

A reader challenged whether the claims that the bulbs could provide relief from the conditions listed in the ad were misleading and could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Eudemon said the claims made regarding the benefits that could be obtained from using their light bulbs were based on the benefits that could be gained from exposure to negative ions and/or full spectrum lighting (in respect of the Pure Light product).  They said their products helped remove smoke, dust, pollen and bacteria from the air through the use of negative ion technology.  They sent test reports from the Bochum Institute in Germany which they believed provided evidence that the product emitted millions of negative ions when it was switched on.  They said the test reports showed an average emission of 5.28 million ions per second.  They said a video on their website illustrated the removal of smoke from the air by a light bulb.  They said the Bochum Institute's report stated that the lightbulb removed 92% of dust from the air.  They supplied a test report by the Korea Institute of Construction Materials which they believed showed a 99.3% reduction of bacteria in the air after three hours' use of the light bulb.  They supplied two articles which they believed contained additional illustrations of the antibacterial effects of negative ions.  They supplied a second report from the Korea Institute which they believed showed how their light bulb reduced odours in the air by 38.3% over a two-hour period.

They said the 92% reduction in dust and/or airborne particles in the air, together with exposure to negative ions, provided relief for sufferers of hay fever, asthma and bronchitis.  They supplied an article on studies undertaken to test negative ion exposure on respiratory conditions.  They believed the studies constituted evidence that exposure to negative ions provided relief for the conditions but said their ad did not claim that their products offered a cure for the conditions or that they should be used as an alternative to conventional medical treatment.

They said the claims regarding the relief of SAD, depression, fatigue and anxiety were made in relation to the full spectrum Pure Light product.  They attached a Flux test report which they said showed the Pure Light product was full spectrum and attained a CRI of over 95 (the sun having a CRI of 100).  They believed it was accepted that full spectrum lighting relieved symptoms of SAD, fatigue and "winter blues."  They maintained that the Pure Light product relieved those symptoms by exposure to negative ions as opposed to light therapy alone.  They supplied an abstract from a study undertaken by the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University, New York which, after a double blinded test, concluded that a negative ioniser appeared to act as a specific antidepressant for patients with SAD.  They said other studies had confirmed that negative ion treatment had been found to significantly relieve depression and/or anxiety.  They said they were willing to remove the references to the serious conditions depression and ADHD/ADD from their ad to comply with the CAP Code.

They said a number of the studies undertaken to test negative ion exposure on respiratory conditions, discussed in the article referred to above, also reported an improved sense of wellbeing and alertness.  They cited a paper published by Surrey University which found that restoring negative ions and reducing particulate levels reduced headaches and significantly increased alertness and freshness with an improved "sensation of comfort and pleasantness."  They said the article referred to testing, over six years by BT, on the effect of ion technology on workers, which recorded that the "sickness symptoms" relieved included environmental stress, respiratory stress, headaches and general stress.  They said other tests showed the effects on blood pressure, heart rate, fatigue and skin resistance.  They said a table of results published in the article summarised improvements recorded even at low levels of ionisation.  They said other articles illustrated the benefits of negative ions on the perfomance and attitude of VDU users', and on improvements in fatigue and cognition of drivers and that case studies undertaken at universities had also reported benefits.  They believed there was substantial evidence from the trials and research undertaken that negative ion technology provided relief from the conditions referred to in their ad.  They believed the benefits attributed to ionisers were well-established and pointed out that, although their product combined an ioniser with another household product in a novel way, the concept of an ioniser was not a new one and that the benefits were well-established.

Eudemon said they were willing, however, to make amendments to their ad so that it complied with the CAP Code.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted that Eudemon believed the benefits the ad claimed were achieved from their lightbulbs were the result of the exposure they gave to negative ions and/or full spectrum light and that they had provided a range of studies and articles that they believed substantiated the claims.  We were concerned, however, that the evidence appeared not to be sufficiently detailed, scientific or specific to substantiate the claims.  We considered that the video on Eudemon's website did not appear to have been conducted in a way that took full account of the volume and quality of air and the size of the area in which the demonstration took place, and the subsequent effect on the conditions listed, that we considered would be necessary for it to constitute suitable evidence that the product for sale provided relief from the conditions listed in the ad.  We noted that the test reports from the Bochum Institute appeared to have been conducted on one type (23 W fresh air) of Eudemon lightbulb only and, while they reported the rate of emission of negative ions, there was no subsequent testing of the emission rate from Eudemon's lightbulbs against the health benefits claimed in the ad.  We noted that the test results from the Korea Institute were summaries only and did not describe in detail how the tests were conducted.  We noted that the Flux test report, which Eudemon had cited to substantiate the effect of full spectrum lighting, was not followed up by tests that put the results against the health benefits claimed in the ad.  We noted that the other studies and articles Eudemon had cited, while they had assessed the benefits from exposure to negative ions, had not conducted the tests using Eudemon's own products.  Although the ad did not claim that Eudemon's products would cure the conditions listed or that they should be used as an alternative to conventional medical treatment, we nevertheless considered that claims such as "Benefits from nature's own chemist have been combined in the development and manufacture of one of the world's premier health aid products ...;" "Providing Relief for suffers [sic] of ..." and references to improved recuperation implied Eudemon's products could be used to successfully treat the conditions.  We noted that the specification of products was likely to vary and that Eudemon's products, which combined an ionising device with a lightbulb, functioned in a different way from the products that were assessed in the trials.  Because Eudemon had not provided data that demonstrated that their own products could provide the health benefits claimed in the ad, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.

We also noted that the CAP Code specified that ads should not offer advice on, diagnosis of or treatment for serious medical conditions unless it was conducted under the supervision of a doctor or suitably qualified health professional.  We welcomed Eudemon's offer to remove references to depression and ADHD/ADD from their ad.  We concluded that, because Eudemon had not shown that patients would be treated by medically qualified staff, the ad should not have referred to conditions such as asthma, bronchitis, depression, SAD and ADHD, which were serious medical conditions, because it could discourage essential treatment.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1, 50.2, 50.3 and 50.5 (Health & beauty products and therapies - General).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.  We welcomed Eudemon's willingness to amend their ad so that it complied with the CAP Code.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)