ASA Adjudication on CYC Marketing Ltd

CYC Marketing Ltd t/a thepinkpatch.co.uk

Cherrytree (Suite 2)
Union Road
Nether Edge
Sheffield
S11 9EF

Date:

30 July 2008

Media:

Internet (display)

Sector:

Health and beauty

Number of complaints:

19

Complaint Ref:

54307

Ad

An internet ad, for a weight loss product, showed a woman's midriff with a pink patch stuck to it. White dots circled the patch. Text stated "Want to lose the tummy?" and was then replaced with further text that stated "Drop a Stone in 2 Weeks! Get a FREE* Pink Patch Sample CLICK HERE ThePinkPatch.co.uk". The asterisk linked to smaller text that stated "*P & P charges apply".

Issue

1.  Eight complainants challenged whether the claim "Drop a Stone in 2 Weeks" could be substantiated.

2.  Seven complainants challenged whether the ad was irresponsible, because it encouraged weight loss at a rate that was incompatible with good medical and nutritional practice.

The ASA challenged:

3. whether the weight loss would be achieved by a loss of body fat as opposed to fluids.

CAP Code

Response

1., 2. & 3. CYC Marketing (CYC) believed significant scientific evidence supported the claims in the ad.  They explained that the Pink Patch contained a number of herbal ingredients, all of which had been shown to promote weight loss and/or increase metabolic rate.

CYC submitted a number of ingredient-specific studies in support.  They sent a paper drafted by another supplier of weight loss patches which summarised the results of studies carried out on one of the ingredients of the Pink Patch.  They also sent a number of study abstracts carried out on the remaining ingredients by universities in Japan, Korea, Denmark and the USA.  Some studies were carried out on humans; other studies used rats and dogs.  CYC sent a full copy of one study which considered the effects of one ingredient, taken orally as a capsule, on obese adults.

CYC said they were no longer using the ad but had designed a new version.

Assessment

The ASA welcomed CYC's decision to amend their advertising.  We nevertheless noted CAP guidance indicated that they had yet to see convincing evidence that slimming patches alone could result in weight loss and that slimming patches should be advertised either on an availability-only platform or as a prompt to remind wearers to stick to their diets.

1., 2. & 3. Upheld

While we noted we had seen summaries of trials for the individual ingredients of the Pink Patch, we noted some studies had been carried out on animals, not humans.  We noted the CAP Code stated that claims for weight loss products should be backed by rigorous trials on people.  In addition, we noted we had not seen evidence to show that, when combined together in the Pink Patch, the ingredients resulted in any weight loss, nor had we seen evidence that it could help wearers to "Drop a Stone in 2 Weeks".

The evidence did not persuade us that wearing the Pink Patch would result in a loss of body fat and we concluded that the claim "Drop a Stone in Two Weeks" was unsubstantiated and could mislead.

We noted the Code stipulated that marketing communications should not contain claims that people could lose precise amounts of weight within a stated period or that weight or fat could be lost from specific parts of the body.  We also noted the Code stated that, for those who were normally overweight, a rate of weight loss greater than 2 lbs per week was unlikely to be compatible with good medical and nutritional practice.  For those who were obese, a rate of weight loss greater than 2 lbs per week in the early stages of dieting may be compatible with good medical and nutritional practice.  We considered that the claim "Want to lose the tummy?" meant that the ad was likely to be perceived as targeting those readers who were overweight or obese.  We understood that a stone equated to 14lbs and considered that the claim "Drop a Stone in 2 Weeks" therefore advocated weight loss at a rate of 1lb per day, contrary to good medical and nutritional practice.  We concluded that the ad was therefore irresponsible.

On points (1) and (3), the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 51.1 and 51.4 (Weight control).

On point (2), the ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising), 51.9 and 51.10 (Weight control).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.  We told CYC to contact the CAP Copy Advice team for guidance on future ads.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)

Log a complaint

Find out what types of ads we deal with and how to make a complaint.

How to complain

Sign in here

View the full content of this site and to keep up-to-date with ASA news.

Sign in

Adjudications

View our latest weekly ASA adjudications or search for rulings from the last five years.

Adjudications

Enquiries

If you have a general query about the work of the ASA, please read our Frequently Asked Questions as you may find your answer in this section instantly.

FAQs

Key facts and figures

Read some of our key facts and figures.

Key facts and figures

Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP)

The advertising rules are written by the advertising industry through two Committees: the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP).

CAP website

Copyright © 2009 ASA