Health and Beauty Advertisements

The advertising of health and beauty products and services can appeal to the vulnerability of consumers. For this reason the advertising codes are particularly strict about the type of claims that advertisers can make for these types of products.  

The claims made for health and beauty products range from statements such as "no other shampoo leaves your scalp feeling cleaner" to more detailed claims such as "our new system can eliminate stress, wrinkles and depression in just two weeks".  While the first statement is likely to be seen as merely a matter of opinion, the second claim, where it is implied that the product will have a physiological or psychological effect on the user, requires substantiation.

Advertisers in this area are expected to comply with the general advertising rules of being able to prove all the claims that are made in their advertisements. However, specific rules on the advertising of health and beauty products also exist in the advertising codes; included in these specific rules are the requirements that:

* medical and scientific claims should be backed up by evidence, and where appropriate, should be in the form of trials conducted on people and

* ads should not discourage essential treatment. No advice or offer of treatment should be given on serious or prolonged conditions unless it is to be conducted under the supervision of a doctor or other suitably qualified health professional.

Problematic Ads
In December 2005, The Alliance for Physical Activity Honesty (AFPAH) objected to two leaflets from New Image Studio.  The first leaflet, for the Easytone Chair, claimed that the product would "strengthen and firm muscles" which the complainants challenged because they believed the intensity of muscle contractions provided by the Easytone Chair was insufficient to deliver a measurable strengthening effect. The complainants also challenged the efficacy of the Aqua Detox treatment, promoted in the second leaflet, in particular the claim "This re-balances the cells, encouraging them to release any build up of toxins ... Your body will be healthier and improvements will occur in liver and kidney function, blood circulation and metabolism as well as in arthritic conditions, skin problems and menstrual pain".    The advertisers did not send us clinical evidence showing that they had undertaken rigorous trials, conducted on people, to substantiate the claims made in the ads and the complaint was therefore upheld. 

Acceptable Ads
The advertising codes require that advertisers hold evidence to support not only the claims that are stated within an ad but also the overall impression that that ad creates.  In September 2005, Boots plc objected to the claim "no-one makes the sun safer" in a TV commercial and magazine ad for Garnier Ambre Solaire, manufactured by L'Oreal (UK). Boots objected that the claim implied that the advertised products were as safe as any other product on the market, which they believed to be untrue as,tests that they had carried out showed that the advertised products offered lower levels of UVA protection compared with other similar products.  Boots believed their own Soltan range provided better UVA protection, which made it safer, and hence the Ambre Solaire claim that "no-one makes the sun safer" was inherently unsupportable.  The ASA did not agree with the complainants.  We considered that the claim was based both on the level of protection afforded by the range of products and the efforts made by Ambre Solaire to promote awareness of sun-protection in general, along with innovative product design. We considered that viewers were unlikely to think the claim related solely to the products featured in each ad and would accept it related to the entire range.  We concluded that, on balance, the claim was acceptable.

Other Rulings
Avon Cosmetics Ltd (Jan 2007)
A catalogue ad stated "ANEW CLINICAL DRAMATIC RESULTS. TAKE ACTION WITH THE AT HOME ALTERNATIVE TO SURGERY". We received a complaint challenging the efficacy of the product and whether claims stated in the ad implied that use of the product was comparable to, and were as permanent as, surgery. We consulted an independent expert and concluded that the advertisers were unable to prove the efficacy of their product beyond that of a moisturiser. We also considered that the diagrams shown in the ad implied that the product would have a physiological effect, which was not supported by the evidence that the advertisers had supplied to us. Avon were told to amend their ads taking guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team.

L'Oreal Golden Ltd (August 2005)
We received a complaint about a TV commercial for L'Oreal Wrinkle De-Crease, which featured the model Claudia Schiffer.  The complainant believed that the ad's claims that "76% reported visible reduction on expression lines", "the first anti-creasing cream with Boswelox to counteract skin micro contractions", "... in only one hour. Rapidly reduces wrinkles" and "let surgery wait" overstated what the product could achieve.  We were also concerned whether the name of the product - Wrinkle De-crease - was itself a claim and that it implied that the product would give more than just a cosmetic effect on the skin. The ASA Council agreed with the complainant that the commercial implied that the product would have a physiological effect on the skin, actually reducing the number of wrinkles that would be visible. Because the advertisers did not send sufficient clinical evidence to support the implied physiological effects, we considered that the claims were misleading. However, we considered that the claim "let surgery wait", was likely to be interpreted by viewers as meaning that the product would have a temporary cosmetic effect. We concluded that the use of this claim was acceptable.  We also concluded that the name of the product was unlikely to be interpreted by viewers as a claim that the product reduced wrinkles at a physiological level.

Restorelite (October 2005)
One person challenged the efficacy of a device which the advertisers claimed would "reverse the effects of ageing in our complexion". The ad claimed "a particular wavelength of invisible infrared light ... improves skin elasticity reducing folds above and "bags" below the eyes. An improvement in the depth and length of wrinkles has been documented ..." The ad included before and after pictures of a patient. As well as the complainant's challenge, we questioned whether the before and after pictures were genuine. To substantiate the before and after pictures, the advertisers sent us signed and dated proof from the person featured in the ad. We therefore accepted that the photographs were a true depiction of the patient's improvement.   The advertisers did not, however, send us scientific or clinical evidence to prove their treatment could produce the positive effects claimed in the ad and we therefore concluded that the ad needed to be amended.

Great Chinese Herbal Medicine Ltd t/a DrChina (2005)
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) objected to a leaflet that was headlined "DrChina A NATURAL WAY TO GOOD HEALTH". MHRA believed the leaflet's claim that Chinese medicine was "safer than western medicine" was misleading. They were also concerned that the leaflet irresponsibly contained a list of specified ailments which might deter patients from seeking medical advice from a suitably qualified practitioner.  We challenged the implied and direct references to "doctor".  The advertisers did not send any clinical evidence to substantiate the claim so they were told not to repeat the claim unless they held evidence to prove their assertions.   We were also concerned that: the list of ailments in the leaflet included both serious and minor conditions; that the advertisers had not shown that they were medically qualified to justify the use of the references to "doctor"; and no evidence had been supplied to prove the efficacy for any of the advertised treatments. We told them that, without documentation to support the claims, all reference to the treatment of ailments should be removed from future ads.  The advertisers offered to amend the references, in the body text of the ad, to "doctors" with the word "practitioners".   We welcomed their suggested amendment, but considered that, in addition to the references to "doctors" within the text, the company name, DrChina, could imply that staff held general medical qualifications.   Whilst we acknowledged that DrChina's staff were experienced practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine, we considered that they had not shown that they had general medical qualifications. The advertisers were told that if they were unable to supply evidence to show their practitioners had general medical qualifications, they should clarify this position by way of a disclaimer in future ads. It was suggested that the advertisers seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising again.

The Boulderstone Clinic (September 2005)
A doctor objected to a magazine ad for Life Force Healing, a treatment for Multiple Sclerosis (MS). He challenged whether the advertisers could substantiate the claims they had made about Life Force Healing because he believed the cause of MS was not known.  In addition, we challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and likely to discourage readers from seeking qualified medical advice by offering advice on treatment for a serious medical condition.   The advertisers did not send evidence to substantiate their claims.   We considered that some readers could infer from the ad that a breakthrough had occurred in the treatment of MS and that Life Force Healing successfully treated people with the illness.  We also considered that the ad could discourage some people from seeking professional medical advice for what is a serious medical condition. The advertisers withdrew the ad following the complaint, which was welcomed by the ASA Council.

Estee Lauder Companies (May 2005)
Carter Products Ltd challenged the efficacy of the anti-cellulite visible contouring serum that was promoted in this magazine ad. They challenged the efficacy of the product, while we were concerned that the ad's claim " ... with our exclusive thermogenic complex and potent Asian herbals melts away the fatty look of cellulite" breached the CAP Code by making a medicinal claim for an unlicensed product. We sought expert advice on the evidence the advertisers submitted to substantiate their claims. We considered that the advertisers had not demonstrated the efficacy of the product on cellulite itself, or that it reduced the appearance of cellulite. We concluded that the ad was misleading and the advertisers were told to avoid the implication that their product could reduce the presence, or appearance, of cellulite in their future advertisements. The advertisers were also advised to consult the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising the product again.  However, we concluded that the claims made for the product were not medicinal in nature and therefore the advertisers had not breached the CAP Code by making a medicinal claim for an unlicensed product.

The Windsor Group t/a Windsor Health (October 2004)
This national press ad promoted a book entitled "Vinegar - Nature's Secret Weapon". The ad was headlined "Lose weight with vinegar" and included claims that vinegar could relieve headaches; help fade age spots; guard against food poisoning; soothe painful sunburn. The ad also claimed the book offered a "tasty recipe [that] will help keep your cholesterol at a healthy level. Heal that cold sore fast. A morning treat that could ease the discomfort of asthma Learn to prepare this ancient Indian broth for blood pressure ... Need to lose weight? Here's a tasty brew that will help Stop toothache quickly with this natural pain relieving tip ..." The complainant had challenged whether the advertisers could substantiate the health claims.  The advertisers conceded that they couldn't substantiate the claims made in the ad and gave their assurance that the ad would not appear in that form again. We were particularly concerned at the references to serious medical conditions to such as high blood could discourage readers from seeking essential treatment from suitably qualified health professionals.

Babylis (November 2002)
The British Association of Electrolysists objected to a national press supplement advertisement for Epiliss, a home electrolysis system.   They believed that needle-type electrolysis was the only proven method of permanent hair removal and therefore challenged the advertisers' claim "Permanent Hair Removal". The advertisers sent a report from a research laboratory that tested the efficacy of the product on four volunteers.  We noted the report showed that, seven weeks later, the areas treated had fewer hairs growing than previously and that the growth phase of hairs in those areas was of a shorter duration.  The report concluded that Epiliss interfered with the growth potential of some hair follicles.   Although we noted the results of the report, we considered that one trial, which tested the product on four volunteers, over a period of seven weeks, was insufficient to establish that the Epiliss could remove hairs permanently.  We told the advertisers not to use the claim "permanently" unless they could substantiate it.