ASA Adjudication on Paradox Omega Oils Ltd

Ad

A national press ad, for a fish oil supplement, was headlined “‘Miracle oil’ changed life for three generations of one family...”. It included text that stated “Carolyn O’Donnel, at 34, ‘was on her last legs, exhausted and in severe pain’. Her 13 month old son was in agony too with a reflux problem, unable to keep any food down and not sleeping, and trying to help them both was her aunt Iris, 76 who was living with severe eczema and arthritis that had kept her hospitalised for weeks at a time. Carolyn decided to try Paradox and says that ‘within two weeks it seemed to have cured everything that was wrong with me’, ‘I was astounded, it was miraculous.’ She started then to add a little oil to her son’s food, and explained how he improved. ‘It was unbelievable to see the change in Adam.’ She suggested her Aunt try it for the severe arthritis and eczema that was baffling the specialists… ‘The Oil worked for my aunt too, once she started taking the oil the eczema vanished after a few weeks, and her arthritis in her spine is much improved and she can get up and about with little effort. We are like three different people!’”.

Issue

The complainant challenged whether:

1. the claims that the product could cure reflux, severe eczema and arthritis were misleading and could be substantiated; and

2. the ad made medicinal claims for a product without marketing authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

The ASA challenged whether:

3. the ad was irresponsible because it could discourage those with serious medical conditions from seeking advice from a suitably qualified health professional.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1., 2. & 3. Paradox Omega Oils Ltd (Paradox) said they believed there was an ongoing discussion, and many studies, about the areas of health in which omega fatty acids could be of benefit; for example, dermatology and musculoskeletal, cardiovascular and child health. They said the ad was a direct copy of an article that had appeared in a national newspaper; Paradox had no part in writing the original article, which had been researched by a journalist, and reflux, eczema and arthritis were referred to because they were part of quotations taken from the interviewee. Paradox said a pilot study and anecdotal evidence supported the initial findings of the doctor who had developed the oil; they submitted details of the background to the product and said it was a serious attempt to further research into the health benefits of omega 3 fatty acids; additional research was also being conducted. They also submitted the original press article and the pilot study.

Paradox said the ad was truthful and they had no intention of misleading. They stated the interviewee had already sought medical advice; they did not intend to claim cures for serious illnesses or to prevent readers from seeking medical advice. They said they were willing to amend their future marketing material.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA acknowledged Paradox were willing to amend their future marketing material. We noted the ad included quotations from an interviewee but the Code stated that testimonials alone did not constitute substantiation and the opinions in them must be supported with independent evidence of their accuracy. We noted the pilot study and background information Paradox submitted. We were concerned that the study was conducted on a group of only 13 participants, it was not randomised or double-blind and subjective self-reporting was the only measure on which the conclusions were based; In addition, the formulation of the product had been altered since the study was conducted. We considered the information submitted was not sufficiently robust to substantiate the claims. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 14.3 (Testimonials and endorsements) and 50.1 (Health and beauty products and therapies - general).

2. Upheld

We noted the testimonial in the ad stated that the product " ... seemed to have cured everything that was wrong with me"; we also considered the overall impression of the ad was that the product could cure or treat the conditions referred to. We noted that claims related to curing, or treating, health conditions were medicinal; however, the product did not have the relevant marketing authorisation from the MHRA. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 50.11 (Health and beauty products and therapies - medicines).

3. Upheld

We considered the overall impression of the ad was that the product could cure or treat severe eczema and arthritis; we considered that the ad was likely to discourage readers from seeking essential medical treatment for serious medical conditions by implying that the product had curative effects. We concluded that the ad breached the Code.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 50.3 (Health and beauty products and therapies - general).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Paradox to ensure future marketing communications did not include medicinal claims for products without marketing authorisation from the MHRA and did not discourage essential treatment. We also told them to ensure they held robust substantiation to support claims, including those that appeared as part of a testimonial.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)