ASA Adjudication on Homecraft Rolyan Ltd

Ad

A brochure, for the Salli saddle chair, was headlined "Introducing the new Salli Saddle Chair from Homecraft Rolyan". Text stated "it has enormous benefits to posture, flexibility and core strength. The ingenious design encourages healthy sitting, which eases back pain and increases circulation ...". A section of text headlined "Key Benefits of the Salli Saddle Chairs" stated "Neutral positioning for lower back - maintains optimal spinal function Increases blood and fluid circulation in lower extremities Enhances posture, flexibility and core strength - lower back strengthens and becomes healthier ... Helps prevent muscular skeletal disorders ... The gap in the Multi-Adjuster and the Twin models reduces pressure when sitting, making it a comfortable all day seating solution for both genders." The reverse page showed photographs of three Salli saddle chair models: the "Multi-Adjuster", the "Twin" and the "Classic". Text stated "Saddle sitting provides significant physiological benefits. Your diaphragm is not pushed up into your vital organs so your body functions better than when sitting in a stressed conventional position. Your abdominal organs e.g. lungs, liver, alimentary tract, etc. are not compressed into the bladder and bowel. Thoracic abdominal and pelvic spaces are maximized. The result to the user is improved breathing and function of internal organs including blood supply. Unlike conventional seating, sitting on a Salli saddle chair allows your body to preserve the natural 'S' curve of your spine and enhances leg circulation ... By working in a more natural, correct posture, you're at less risk of neck, back, hip and arm pain. Sitting Disorders ... Because sitting for a long time is unnatural, it is important to become aware of the harmful 90°angles in the knees and hips and pressure on many sensitive soft tissues, resulting in sitting disorders. Sitting is also an important factor in many muscular skeletal disorders. Sitting seems to have a connection with spinal and posture problems, back and hip-area muscle tensions, poor circulation in the lower extremities, several genital disorders and arthritis in the hip and knee joints. Prostate and rectum/anus problems are also suspected. Research Results on Seat Pressure When you sit on a traditional work seat, pressure is concentrated on the buttocks and thigh muscles and also in part on the genitalia. Solid saddle seat applies harmful pressure on the male genitals. On the divided saddle seat the pressure is concentrated on the sitting bones, which is the healthiest alternative for anyone who sits a lot." Three diagrams below that text had the respective captions "Traditional work seat: pressure mainly on the thigh and buttock muscles", "Solid saddle seat: strong pressure on the male genitals" and "Divided saddle seat: pressure correctly on the sitting bones".

Issue

The Bambach Saddle Seat (Europe) Ltd thought the ad was misleading and alarmist and unfairly compared the Salli saddle chair with other seats, because they believed Homecraft Rolyan could not substantiate the ad's implication that:

1. a divided saddle seat provided proven physiological benefits over other types of seating, and

2. there were health risks involved in conventional seating and solid saddle seating, which could be overcome by using a divided saddle seat.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. & 2. Homecraft Rolyan said the claims in the leaflet were based on information which they had obtained in good faith from their supplier in Finland.  They did not comment on the complaint.

They sent the complainants a translation of a study on sitting pressures conducted in May 2006 by a student at the Jyvskyl University of Applied Sciences, Finland as part of a Bachelors Thesis. Two saddle chairs were tested in the study: one was a Salli chair with a divided seat and adjustable height and angle; the other was not identified but had a one-piece seat and only the height could be adjusted.  There were seven test subjects but no details of whether all seven tested each seat or whether the two seats were tested by different people.  The study found the two seats exerted pressure in different locations: the split seat was designed to reduce pressure on the genital area, whereas the one-piece seat placed the highest pressure either on the pubic bone at the front or on the area in front of the ischial bones towards the thighs on several test subjects, which "causes the pudental nerve and veins in the genital area to become compressed".  The study claimed that shifting pressure to the thighs presented a risk of the large nerves and veins becoming compressed, which caused symptoms of numbness in the legs, and that "compressed nerves and veins in the genital area trigger symptoms in the given area.  In the one-piece seat ... part of the pressure is placed on sensitive areas which do not tolerate pressure and even light pressure may cause symptoms ...".  The study also asserted that the sitting surface of the one-piece seat was softer than that of the Salli seat, and claimed a sitting surface that was too soft would impede ventilation in the genital area and would not be conducive to an ideal upright posture.

Homecraft Rolyan sent the ASA a translation of a second study which looked at the distribution of the sitting pressure in the genital and buttock-thigh areas when sitting on different types of saddle chairs.  It was carried out at the University of Kuopio in Finland, seemingly by a PhD student, on 26 September 2008.  Three saddle chairs were tested: a Salli chair with a divided seat and adjustable height and angle, a Salli chair with a solid seat and adjustable height and angle and the complainants solid seat with adjustable height and angle.  Ten people - five men and five women - tested each of the three chairs and gave subjective evaluations of the sitting experience.  A pressure-measuring mat measured the distribution of the test persons sitting pressure to the genital and buttock-thigh areas.  The Salli chair with a divided seat was ranked as the most comfortable; measurements showed the pressure subjected to the genitals was low or negligible.  The complainants chair was ranked as the least comfortable; measurements showed that chair exerted strong pressure on the genital area and thighs.

The translation began by acknowledging that there were no reference values to determine the harmfulness of sitting pressure to human beings and the only measure was the subjective experience of a sitting persons discomfort.  It claimed that several studies had demonstrated that male competitive cyclists had genital disorders caused by the pressure of a solid bicycle saddle subjected to the base of the penis, and divided bicycle saddles had been introduced to decrease the pressure in the genital area and remove the disorders it caused.  It went on to say there were reasons to believe that similar disorders might occur when spending a long time sitting on a saddle chair with a solid seat at work, and divided saddle seats might mitigate the risk of such disorders, because they decreased the pressure subjected to the inner pudendal arteria which took care of blood circulation and erection of the penis.

Homecraft Rolyan also submitted statements from two Finnish doctors about the September 2008 study.

Assessment

1. & 2. Upheld

The ASA understood that the May 2006 study had not been published or peer-reviewed and was not a double-blind or blind study.  Despite our request for further details, Homecraft Rolyan provided no information on the studys methodology or design, so we were unable to determine, for example, which of the seven test subjects tested which seat, whether they had any existing medical conditions, their posture while being tested and how long they were seated for, although we surmised that the testing was carried out on one day only.  We were also not told the manufacturer or brand name of the second seat tested but understood it was not the complainants, because they manufactured and distributed a solid saddle seat adjustable in both height and angle, yet the seat compared to the Salli chair in the May 2006 study could not be adjusted by angle.  We considered the study should have tested work seats that were representative of all the different types available in order to support the claims made in the ad.  We also considered no scientific evidence had been submitted to support the claims made in the translation regarding compression of nerves and veins in the genital area and symptoms of numbness in the legs caused by the one-piece seat; the study itself relied on assumptions about the risks of exerting pressure in certain areas and no evidence was provided to support those assumptions.   We considered that we had insufficient details of how the study had been carried out but, even if full details were supplied, the trial was highly unlikely to be considered rigorous enough to support the claims in the ad.

We noted the September 2008 study post-dated the ad.  We reminded Homecraft Rolyan that the Code stipulated that marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove an ads claims before publishing or distributing it.  We understood that the 2008 study had not been published or peer-reviewed and did not seem to be a double-blind or even blind study.  There was no detail on how long the test subjects sat for (although again we surmised that the testing was carried out on one day only) or whether the study had taken account of confounding factors such as medical conditions.  We also noted the brochure stated that sitting on a Salli saddle chair was "unlike conventional seating", yet no conventional seating was tested.

Homecraft Rolyan sent no research to demonstrate the assertion in the translation that male competitive cyclists had genital disorders caused by the pressure of a solid bicycle saddle subjected to the base of the penis.  Besides, we considered that the experience of a bicycle seat when cycling was not directly comparable to sitting on a saddle chair in the workplace.  No scientific evidence was presented for the studys assertion that the complainants chair "blocks the blood circulation by pressing the inner pudendal arteria and causes numbness by pressing the pudendal nerve", the assumption that "long-lasting pressure on (the inner pudendal arteria) causes thickness of atrium septum and erectile dysfunction" or the assertion that, when sitting on a solid saddle chair, the base of the penis was subjected to pressure "which can disrupt or damage the nerves and blood vessels in the area".

We considered that the statements from the two Finnish doctors were insufficient, because they merely amounted to opinions that the September 2008 study was significant and reliable; they did not constitute an objective review of the study and how it was conducted.

We noted the brochure referred to "the problems of conventional sitting in clinics" and "sitting disorders" such as "spinal and posture problems, back and hip-area muscle tensions, poor circulation in the lower extremities ... genital disorders ... arthritis in the hip and knee joints" and "prostate and rectum/anus problems".  It claimed that "solid saddle seat applies harmful pressure on the male genitals".  It also claimed that the Salli saddle chair could "ease back pain", "increase blood and fluid circulation in lower extremities" and "help prevent muscular skeletal disorders".

We considered the quality of the evidence submitted was insufficiently robust to substantiate the brochures claims.  We considered the brochure suggested that robust scientific trials had been carried out on a sufficiently large, representative number of people using a range of conventional, solid saddle and divided saddle seating over a reasonable period of time, and had produced statistically and physiologically significant results which proved that a divided saddle seat provided specific physiological benefits over other types of seating and that there were specific health risks involved in conventional seating and solid saddle seating, which could be overcome by using a divided saddle seat.  We considered that pressure measurements, assumptions about health risks and subjective evaluations of comfort and discomfort from only 10 people who had used a limited number of chairs for a short length of time on one day were insufficient to substantiate those implications.

We concluded that the ad was misleading, used an unjustifiable appeal to fear and unfairly compared the Salli saddle chair with other seats.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 9.1 (Fear and distress) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.  We advised Homecraft Rolyan to contact the CAP Copy Advice team before preparing future similar ads.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)