ASA Adjudication on The Pure H2O Company Ltd

Ad

Two ads for a household water purification system. a. The first, a magazine ad, was headlined "We have the technology to replace bottled water". Further text stated "Stop buying water, bottle your own ultra pure water using a RODI sub-sink purifier for the well-being of your family … producing a continuous supply of the purest water, now clinically proven to reduce LDL cholesterol." b. The second, a circular, had a photograph of some calcium powder on the front with large text that stated "You wouldn't let your child take this. So why let them drink it?" Further text stated "Enjoy the purest water there is … Pure H2O has clinically proven benefits … Clinically proven to reduce LDL cholesterol and blood pressure". Further text stated: "Our health is improved by consuming Pure H2O and because of this it could also: Help prevent cancer by acting as an antioxidant … lower your blood pressure and reduce stress levels … Reduce your body pollutants and can help reduce urinary infections … Help prevent, ulcers, IBS and constipation …". Text elsewhere stated "Water can be bad for you … Every time you drink mineral water, a high level of minerals, such as calcium, are deposited in your body. Every time you drink a glass of tap water, you're digesting contaminants such as salts, minerals, metals, pesticides, microbes, hormones and parasites … Your body becomes toxically overloaded … Over time, this build up can contribute to chronic kidney disease, heart failure or skeletal fluorosis." A statement attributed to Dr H Purkait of Surrey University reiterated the theme of the ad, stating that the minerals from water, coupled with contaminants, became a "toxic cocktail".

Issue

The ASA received two complaints:

1.  The first complainant, a health professional, challenged whether The Pure H2O Company could substantiate the claim in the magazine ad that the RODI water purifier was clinically proven to reduce LDL cholesterol.

The second complainant, a member of the public, challenged whether the circular:

2.  caused undue fear or distress by referring to health problems caused by drinking mineral or tap water, and

3. misleadingly implied that mineral water and tap water were not safe to drink and could lead to health problems and whether these claims could be substantiated.

The ASA challenged whether the following claims in the circular were misleading and could be substantiated:

4. "Clinically proven to reduce LDL cholesterol and blood pressure";

5. "Help prevent cancer by acting as an antioxidant";

6. "Lower your blood pressure and reduce stress levels"; and

7. "Help prevent ulcers, IBS and constipation".

We also challenged:

8. whether the ads made medicinal claims for unauthorised products.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. & 4. The Pure H2O Company (Pure H2O Co.) said they had amended the claim about LDL cholesterol to state "In a controlled study to identify the effects of Pure H2O on LDL cholesterol and blood pressure, the study group showed positive improvements when consuming Pure H2O over a period of 6 months.  In light of these findings a documented clinical trial has been commissioned to reaffirm the health benefits of Pure H2O".

2., 3., 5., 6. & 7. Pure H2O Co. said the claims were supported by a thesis on Pure H2O for the British Institute of Homeopathy and Westbrook University, USA, carried out as a PhD by Dr Purkait from the University of Surrey.  They explained that she was the only person they had found in the UK who had studied Pure H2O in depth.  They submitted Dr Purkait's PhD thesis, which was entitled "Pure H2O water a remedial cure for disease prevention, and a natural health/homeopathic prognosis for a healthy longer life".  It discussed the history of drinking water, how it was unnecessary for water to contain minerals, how the Pure H2O reverse osmosis system worked and how Pure H2O could aid health and cure disease; it also compared Pure H2O with other waters and argued that tap water was toxic and unsafe to drink.

In addition, Pure H2O Co. submitted papers written by Dr Purkait over the last few years which claimed that harmful bacteria, chemicals and minerals were found in drinking taps, the high calcium content in bottled and tap water harmed the body, accumulated fluoride could lead to kidney damage, low oxygen levels bred cancer and increasing oxygen levels in cells with Pure H2O killed cancer, Pure H2O contained no contaminants that weighed down the use of lymphocytes in the small intestine and Pure H2O could aid digestion.

They said their marketing communications did not contain shocking claims and would not cause fear.

8. Pure H2O Co. did not comment specifically on this point.

Assessment

1. & 4. Upheld

The ASA was pleased to note Pure H2O Co. had amended the claim in both ads that their system was clinically proven to reduce LDL cholesterol and blood pressure.  However, we considered the amended claim was also problematic, because none of the evidence we had seen related to a controlled six-month study on the effects of Pure H2O on LDL cholesterol and blood pressure.  We noted Pure H2O Co. had commissioned a clinical trial to establish the health benefits of Pure H2O, which they might be able to use to support future claims.

On points 1 & 4, the ads breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health & beauty products and therapies - General).

2., 3., 5., 6. & 7. Upheld

We considered that the papers and PhD thesis of Dr Purkait contained theories and reasonings about the benefits of Pure H2O and the harmful qualities of mineral and tap water.  However, we explained to Pure H2O Co. that, in order to support the circular's claims about health, which included claims about prevention of serious medical conditions, such as cancer, we would need to see the results of primary research and clinical trials, not merely theories even if they were from a qualified person.  We had not seen the sources of Dr Purkait's assertions or the evidence on which they were based, so were unable to assess the reliability and robustness of those assertions.  The information submitted contained some references to studies but not the relevant extracts of the studies themselves and, as such, was insufficient to support the claims made.

The PhD thesis contained, in addition to Dr Purkait's views, information about the health effects of the contaminants in tap water. However, we noted that this information was from a manufacturer of a water purification system whose promotional literature also appeared in the thesis, and considered it was therefore not sufficiently impartial.  Also, the manufacturer had provided no supporting evidence for the claimed causes of the symptoms of impure water or for the claimed adverse health effects of the presence of contaminants.

The thesis referred to a trial on levels of minerals in bottled water which was carried out by Dr Purkait in France. However, we considered the circular's claims were likely to be interpreted as referring to tap and mineral water in the UK.  We also noted it was a study without human subjects, no detail of the methodology was included and it seemed to have been neither published nor reviewed by someone with relevant expertise.

The thesis also referred to a case study of two women with heavy intravascular coagulation who drank purified water but we considered there was insufficient detail of the study's methodology and results. The purified water the subjects drank might not have had the same composition as Pure H2O and again it was unclear whether the study had been published or reviewed by someone with relevant expertise.

The thesis included fact sheets, dating from 1996 to 2002, jointly prepared by the Public Health Laboratory Service and a company called WRc about the threat to the health of water consumers.  We noted they did not state that mineral or tap water had led or was likely to lead to any specific health problems or diseases, whereas we considered the circular implied that was the case.

We noted the circular stated "Water can be bad for you ... Every time you drink a glass of tap water, you're digesting contaminants ... Your body becomes toxically overloaded ... this build up can contribute to chronic kidney disease, heart failure or skeletal fluorosis ...".  We considered the evidence submitted by Pure H2O Co. did not substantiate the circular's implication that mineral and tap water were not safe to drink and could lead to health problems.  We considered that the circular could therefore mislead and cause undue fear or distress about the dangers of drinking any water other than Pure H2O.

We also considered the quality of evidence submitted fell short of substantiating the claims that Pure H2O could help prevent cancer, ulcers, IBS and constipation and could lower blood pressure and stress levels.

On points 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, the circular breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 9.1 (Fear and distress) and 50.1 (Health & beauty products and therapies - General).

8. Upheld

We noted Pure H2O Co. had not confirmed that Pure H2O and/or their water treatment system had a Marketing Authorisation allowing them to make medicinal claims which should conform to the authorisation.  We considered that claims such as "clinically proven to reduce LDL cholesterol", "help prevent cancer" and "lower your blood pressure" were medicinal claims which should not be made for unauthorised products.

On this point, the ads breached CAP Code clause 50.11 (Health & beauty products and therapies - Medicines).

Action

The ads must not appear again in their current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)