Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two video ads on the website www.videojug.com and an ad on a YouTube channel, for a Philips Juicer:
a. The first video featured Madeleine Shaw, whom the ad identified as a "Nutritional Health Coach". Madeline Shaw stated, "Today I'm going to be making my Watermelon Cooler juice which is an amazing fat buster." On-screen text stated "Fat buster Get a real juice health boost with Philips". Text beneath the video stated "This is a total fat buster. The citrulline in watermelon has been shown to reduce the accumulation of fat in our fat cells".
b. The second video also featured Madeline Shaw, who stated, "I'm going to be making my Classic Cleanse juice, which is great to give your body a good reboot." On-screen text stated "Classic Cleanse Get a real juice health boost with Philips". Madleine Shaw continued, " ... And next add in one beetroot ... it acts as a great cleanse for the liver ... I prefer to use green apples rather than red because they contain less sugar." Text beneath the video stated "Beetroot juice contributes towards the cleansing of your liver, helping to reinvigorate your body".
c. The ad on the YouTube channel also featured Madeline Shaw, who stated, "Today I'm going to be making my Beat the Bloat juice, which is great for toning your tum." On-screen text stated "Beat the bloat Get a real juice health boost with Philips". Madleine Shaw also stated, "So that's my Beat the Bloat juice which is amazing for toning your tum."
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated;
1. " ... my watermelon cooler juice ... is an amazing fat buster";
2. "Citrulline in watermelon has been shown to reduce the accumulation of fat in our fat cells";
3. "Beetroot acts as a great cleanse for the liver"; and
4. the claims that the Beat the Bloat juice could tone the stomach.
Response
Philips Electronics UK Ltd (Philips) said the ads included well-established benefits of the foods featured that were supported by the opinion of Madeleine Shaw, a qualified nutritional health coach.
1. & 2. Philips said the flesh of a watermelon contained citrulline, which they understood to be an amino acid commonly converted by the body into arginine. They said arginine could help improve blood flow and cardiovascular health. They said there was preliminary evidence from animal studies that demonstrated a greater conversion of citrulline to arginine could help prevent excess accumulation of fat in fat cells. They provided an abstract of a study to support that. They also said the juice contained fresh mint, which was a diuretic that helped bowel movements and aided weight loss. They provided a link to a website that they believed demonstrated the effects of peppermint.
3. Philips said beetroot contained betalains and that two of those betalains had been shown to provide 'antioxidant', anti-inflammatory and detoxification support. They said beetroot contained pectin that helped to clean the toxins that had been removed from the liver and allowed them to be removed from the body instead of being reabsorbed. They provided a study and article from a website, which they believed supported their arguments.
4. Philips believed the presence of mint leaves and pineapple in the juice helped to eliminate excess gas around the stomach, which made the stomach less bloated and the muscle tone appear more visible. They provided a link to a website that they believed demonstrated the effects of peppermint. They also provided three articles from websites that they believed supported the effects of pineapple.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted the ad included a number of references to the Watermelon Cooler juice as a "fat buster". In the context of the ad, we considered viewers would understand the claim " ... my Watermelon Cooler juice ... is an amazing fat buster" to mean that the juice was able to aid fat loss in humans. We therefore expected to see robust documentary evidence to demonstrate that. Philips provided an abstract to a study that considered the effect of a variety of watermelon on atherosclerosis in mice. They also provided an article from a website that they believed demonstrated the effects of peppermint. We considered that, in and of itself, evidence relating to individual ingredients of the juice was unlikely to be sufficient to demonstrate that the juice produced in the Philips Juicer, as shown in the ad, was able to aid fat loss. We were also concerned that the evidence provided was not sufficiently robust to demonstrate that those ingredients could contribute to fat loss. In particular, we were concerned that the abstract relating to watermelon was for a study in mice, rather than humans and that the information relating to peppermint was taken from an article on a website, rather than a robust clinical trial. We therefore concluded the claim had not been substantiated and breached the Code.
On this point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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).
2. Upheld
We considered viewers would understand the claim "Citrulline in watermelon has been shown to reduce the accumulation of fat in our fat cells" to mean that citrulline in watermelons could aid fat loss in humans. As noted in point 1, we were concerned that the abstract relating to watermelon was for a study in mice, rather than humans. We therefore considered we had not seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate that citrulline in watermelons could aid fat loss in humans. On that basis, we concluded that ad (a) was misleading and breached the Code.
On this point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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).
3. Upheld
Text beneath the video for the Classic Cleanse juice stated "Beetroot juice contributes towards the cleansing of your liver, helping to reinvigorate your body". In the context of the ad, we considered viewers would understand the claim "Beetroot acts as a great cleanse for the liver" to mean that beetroot could cleanse a human's liver. We therefore expected to see robust documentary evidence to demonstrate that. The study provided by Philips considered the effect of beetroot juice on liver injury in rats, rather than its effect on humans. The article relating to the purported effects of beetroot did not linked to a robust clinical trial. We therefore considered the evidence provided was not sufficient to demonstrate that beetroot could cleanse a human's liver. On that basis, we concluded that ad (b) was misleading and breached the Code.
On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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).
4. Upheld
Ad (c) stated "Is it [pineapple] a Natural source of anti-inflammatory? It is indeed ... it's also got an enzyme that is really good for digestion ... it's the perfect sort of component to start this beat the bloat juice" and "It's [mint's] also really good for beating the bloat ... helps like digestion and sometimes you have mint tea after dinner." In that context, we considered consumers would understand the claims that the Beat the Bloat juice could tone the stomach to mean that the juice could reduce bloating of the stomach and improve muscular toning.
Phillips provided a number of articles that they believed demonstrated the effects of two of the ingredients in the juice: peppermint and pineapple. The evidence relating to those ingredients was taken from articles on websites, rather than robust clinical trials. We considered that, in and of itself, evidence relating to individual ingredients included in the juice would not be sufficient to demonstrate that the juice, as produced by the juicer, could reduce bloating of the stomach and improve muscular toning. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On that basis, we concluded that ad (c) was misleading and breached the Code.
On this point, ad (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Philips Electronics UK Ltd to ensure they held sufficient robust documentary evidence to support efficacy claims in future.
