Ad description
The website www.consol.eu, for a tanning company, stated "When the skin is exposed to Ultraviolet (UV) Light, this triggers the production of a pigment called melanin … Another side effect of exposure to UV light is the production of Vitamin [sic] D. Unfortunately, during winter months, most northern Europeans … don't get enough sunshine and are actually Vitamin D deficient, causing major health concerns. Recent studies have shown that having sufficient Vitamin D levels can help: Reduce the risk of several internal cancers, including Breast Cancer and Colon Cancer [sic]… Boost your immune system … Protect against heart attacks … Reduce the risk of Type 1 Diabetes … Prevent rickets … Reduce the risk of cognitive decline (a major risk factor in Alzheimer's and Dementia)”.
Issue
Sunbed Ban UK challenged whether the claims relating to vitamin D were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Univilla Ltd t/a Consol sent hyperlinks to several studies related to vitamin D, two of which were abstracts. Full studies related to vitamin D and oesophageal cancer risk, prevention of infectious diseases, gene expression and insulin-dependent diabetes.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted that the ad included the claim "most northern Europeans … don't get enough sunshine and are actually vitamin D deficient" and considered that implied the existence of a widespread deficiency. Consol did not provide evidence to support that claim. They provided evidence in the form of abstracts to support claims in relation to vitamin D and cognitive decline and heart disease. Because we could not assess those papers in full, we considered they were insufficient to support the claims.
To substantiate the remaining claims, we would have expected papers, collated from a body of evidence that comprised sound data relevant to the claims made. The full papers that were provided contained methodological flaws such as statistically insignificant results, very small sample sizes or were short-term, retrospective trials. We therefore considered they were not of a sufficient standard to support the claims.
Because Consol had not provided adequate substantiation that widespread vitamin D deficiency existed, or to support the specific claims in the ad related to the health benefits of vitamin D, we concluded the claims breached the Code.
The claims breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) and
12.1
12.1
Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
(Medicines, medical devices, health related products and beauty products).
Action
The claims must not appear again in their current form. We told Univilla Ltd not to make claims that implied a widespread vitamin D deficiency existed or make claims for the benefit of vitamin D in the absence of substantiation.
