ASA Adjudication on MultiVits Ltd

Ad

a. An online ad on the Menopause Matters web forum featured text in a small box headed “FEATURED PRODUCT Advertisement” and a picture of tablets. Text stated “Omega 7 - For Vaginal Dryness. Omega-7 may help to maintain natural lubrication during the menopause, via its soothing action on mucous membranes such as those of the vaginal tract.” A web link stated “visit the shop page” and led to ad (b). b. An online ad was headed “The Menopause Shop … Advertisement … Omega 7”. Below a picture of the product, text stated ”Omega 7 is derived from the Sea buckthorn berry and contains fatty acids Omega 3, 6, 7 and 9. Fatty acids in Sea buckthorn oil will enhance the regeneration of mucous membranes especially those of the vaginal tract. Omega-7 may help to maintain natural lubrication during the menopause, via its soothing action on mucous membranes such as those of the vaginal tract. It may also be beneficial for the symptoms of dry eyes and dry mouth, for a healthy immune system, normal inflammatory response and for helping to maintain healthy skin … The Oil of the Sea Buckthorn … may benefit a wide array of people, from menopausal women to vegetarians who do not get sufficient amount of fatty acids in their diet. Omega 7 is indicated for the maintenance of the body’s mucous membranes which are essential for healthy digestive, respiratory and urogenital systems.”

Issue

1. The complainant challenged whether the advertisers could substantiate the claim that Omega 7 could improve menopausal symptoms, such as vaginal dryness.

2. The ASA challenged whether the ads made medicinal claims for an unauthorised product.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Multivits Ltd said that the ads were no longer appearing.  They stated the dryness of mucous membranes associated with the menopause had been linked to increased oxidative stress/dietary deficiency of antioxidants and essential fatty acids.  They stated buckthorn oil, along with antioxidant vitamins and cartenoids, was a valuable source of supplemental Omega 3, 6, 7 and 9 fatty acids.  They stated sea buckthorn oil was one of the few accessible dietary sources of Omega 7 fatty acids, which were important in conferring resistance of mucous membranes to oxidative stress induced damage.  They provided several academic studies in support of their claims.

2. They stated that the menopause was not a disease, but a naturally occurring phenomenon and a common consequence was the dryness of the mucous membranes.  Because the claims referred to the consequences of a naturally occurring process, rather than a disease, they did not consider that they constituted medical claims.

Assessment

1. & 2. Upheld

The ASA considered the evidence that Multivits had provided.  We noted that much of the evidence provided looked at and documented the effects of sea buckthorn oil, however, only one study specially considered the effects on menopausal symptoms.  We noted the study considered the "Effects of seabuckthorn oil capsule" on 25 women aged from 37 to 66, with typical symptoms of itching, burning, liquid secretion and dryness in the genital tract mucosa, but that 13 of the women were post menopausal, and considered that the sample size was therefore limited.  We nevertheless noted that the MHRA had not authorised the product and considered claims such as "Omega 7 - For Vaginal Dryness" and "Omega-7 may help to maintain natural lubrication during the menopause, via its soothing action on mucous membranes such as those of the vaginal tract ...  It may also be beneficial for the symptoms of dry eyes and dry mouth, for a healthy immune system, normal inflammatory response and for helping to maintain healthy skin", in the context of ads for tablets, suggested the Omega 7 tablets could treat vaginal dryness and the symptoms of dry eyes and dry mouth, and therefore made claims to treat unwelcome symptoms of the menopause and made medicinal claims.  

We considered we had not seen evidence to show that the product had a valid marketing authorisation and that the ads made medicinal claims to promote an unlicensed product.  Because of that and because we had not seen sufficient evidence to substantiate the product's efficacy,  we concluded that there were therefore in breach of the CAP Code.

The ads breached CAP Code clauses 50.1 and 50.11 (Health & beauty products and therapies).

Action

The ads must not appear again in their current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)