ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Ecoflow Ltd

Complaint

Objections, including one from The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Trading Standards department and one from the Cornwall Trading Standards department, to three leaflets advertising magnetic products. a The first leaflet advertised the Ecoflow fuel economiser and stated "Ecoflow for petrol and diesel engines can: Save Fuel (Customers claim between 5-20%) Reduce emissions Improve Combustion Improve Performance Improve Torque Keep Engine Cleaner Extend Plug Life Prolong life of catalytic converters. Ecoflow has been officially tested by the Department of Trade and Industry's Environmental Executive laboratory Warren Spring. Their test vehicle covered 12,000 miles. Fuel consumption improved, power increased and harmful emissions reduced". On the back of the leaflet was a stamp which stated "QMS ISO 9001 REGISTERED FIRM". b The second leaflet advertised the Ecoflow Vector 100, a device designed to protect mobile phone users against electromagnetic radiation. The leaflet stated "Our bodies are designed to protect themselves from harmful external influences. The Vector 100 has been developed, after much research, to enhance this vital function and effectively helps the body neutralise the harmful emissions from mobile phones". c The third leaflet advertised Nutriflow, a powdered electrolytic mineral supplement. The leaflet stated "We also suggest you might consider Nutriflow Powdered Electrolyte/ Mineral Supplement Formulated by MVDr. Vanclavek Helps the body's natural healing Increases Energy and Recovery Optimises Effects of Bioflow". The complainants challenged whether: 1. the efficacy of the products in leaflets (a) and (b) had been scientifically proven; 2. the reference to the tests carried out by the Department of Trade and Industry at Warren Spring in leaflet (a) was misleading because they believed that the tests had been performed several years ago and that Warren Spring laboratory was no longer part of the DTI and 3. the QMS ISO 9001 logo in leaflet (a) was misleading because it was not clear from the leaflet which aspects of the advertisers' product were endorsed by the registration. 4. The complainants questioned whether the product in leaflet (c) had been scientifically proven to help the body's natural healing and increase energy and recovery.

CAP Code

Adjudication

1. Complaints upheld The advertisers sent literature on the general theory of Magnotherapy as well as letters, testimonials and articles relating to the Ecoflow fuel economiser and the Ecoflow Vector 100. They submitted a copy of the Warren Spring report on the fuel economiser, conducted in 1992, which they believed supported their claims. The advertisers said they were in the process of rewording their advertising literature and had been careful to make clear that their claims were expressions of opinion. They stated that their products were the subject of a continuing product specific trial funded by an independent charity but acknowledged that the results would not be available for some time. The Authority took expert advice on the Warren Spring report. It understood that the testing procedure was flawed and therefore the results did not prove the efficacy of the Ecoflow fuel economiser. It considered that the letters, testimonials and articles sent by the advertisers to support their claims for the fuel economiser and the Vector 100 did not constitute rigorous scientific evidence. The Authority concluded that the advertisers had not proved their claims for either device and it welcomed the advertisers' assurance that they were rewording their advertising literature to comply with the Codes. The Authority reminded the advertisers that until the efficacy of their products was scientifically proven they should advertise on an availability platform only. It told the advertisers to consult the Committee of Advertising Practice Copy Advice team for guidance before advertising in future. 2. Complaints upheld The advertisers believed the results of the Warren Spring report were still valid because the research had been conducted by an independent laboratory and was product specific. The Authority understood that, although the testing methods were up-to-date, the vehicle tested, a non-catalyst equipped carburetted engine car, was not typical of current vehicles, which are fitted with catalysts and fuel injected systems. The Authority noted the vehicle tested was too old and too variable in its exhaust emissions for the test programme used. The Authority concluded that the reference to the Warren Spring report was misleading because the testing procedure was flawed and the test vehicle no longer representative. It told the advertisers to delete the reference to the Warren Spring report from their leaflet. 3. Complaints not upheld The advertisers believed the QMS ISO 9001 logo was not misleading and they submitted a copy of their Registration Certificate. The Authority understood that QMS, which stands for Quality Management Systems, was an international organisation specialising in ISO 9001 assessment and certification. The Authority considered that most people would understand that ISO 9001 was a quality standard relating to management systems. It concluded that the logo was not misleading. 4. Complaints upheld The advertisers sent letters, testimonials and articles to support their claims for Nutriflow. The Authority considered that the evidence sent by the advertisers did not constitute scientific proof that confirmed the claims in the leaflet. The Authority reminded the advertisers that until the efficacy of their products was scientifically proven they should advertise on an availability platform only. It told the advertisers to consult the Committee of Advertising Practice Copy Advice team for guidance before advertising in future.