Ad description
A teleshopping ad promoting Jojoba oil, seen on The Jewellery Channel on 16 February featured a presenter and a “special guest” from a cosmetics company.
The presenter made a range of claims for the product, including “We really wanted to share with you the benefits of this product and the benefits of what this can do and what you might be buying it for … If you’ve got age spots, you might want a bottle of this …”. The presenter also showed the product’s information leaflet, which stated that it could be used for “… Sunburn, Nappy Rash … Scars, Acne, Cradle Cap …”. The presenter later referred to the product’s packaging, which showed that it could also be used for “Abrasions … insect bites, skin rashes, surgical wounds …”.
The guest also made a range of claims for the product, including “I think every medicine cabinet should have it, so it can be used on burns, it can be used on stretch marks, it can be used in the eye for conjunctivitis, you can use it in your mouth if you get ulcers or cold sores … You can use it on eczema, psoriasis, dermatitis, rosacea … girls stop producing natural sebum at 20 and boys at 25 years …” and described the oil as “nature’s wrinkle fighter”. Towards the end of the presentation, the guest stated, “I used to suffer a little bit with IBS and I took a little bit of it … I always put Jojoba on before my sun cream ‘… I never get bitten once’ …”.
Issue
The ASA received a complaint from one member of the public. The complainant challenged whether:
1. the ad made medicinal claims for an unlicensed product;
2. the product could be used as an insect repellent, to treat “age spots”, “scars” and wrinkles; and
3. the claim “girls stop producing natural sebum at 20 and boys at 25 years” was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. The Jewellery Channel Ltd believed that the presentation did not feature any medicinal claims. They stated that at no point did the presenter or the “special guest” for the featured product, which contained jojoba oil, claim that it would “cure”, “remedy” or “fix” specific problems, but rather what it “could” be used for. The Jewellery Channel believed that this was demonstrated with dialogue between the presenter and guest, which included “the benefits of what this can do and what you might be buying it for” and “if you’ve got age spots, you might want a bottle of this”. Furthermore, The Jewellery Channel stated that during the presentation the product’s information leaflet was shown, which stated that it “could” be used for “Sunburn, Nappy Rash … Scars, Acne, Cradle Cap …” and following this, the presenter then referred to the product’s packaging and showed that it “could” also be used for “Abrasions … insect bites, skin rashes, surgical wounds …”.
2. The Jewellery Channel stated that at no point did the presenter or guest state that the product would be effective for everyone in respect of acting as an insect repellent, treating age spots, scars and wrinkles. They stated that any claims relating to these problems were caveated or based on personal experience. Furthermore, The Jewellery Channel stated that those claims indicated what the product “could” be used for, which they believed was made clear in the dialogue “I think every medicine cabinet should have it, so it can be used on burns, it can be used on stretch marks, it can be used in the eye for conjunctivitis, you can use it in your mouth if you get ulcers or cold sores … You can use it on eczema, psoriasis, dermatitis, rosacea …”.
The Jewellery Channel believed that the guest’s comments that “[She] always put Jojoba on before [her] sun cream ‘… I never get bitten once’ …” did not suggest that the product could be used as an insect repellent.
The Jewellery Channel referred to a response that was provided to them by the manufacturer of the product, who stated that they sold beauty products which were not medicinal in anyway. They stated that they did not claim that their product could treat or cure problematic conditions and that their packaging conformed to EU regulations.
The Jewellery Channel provided some customer testimonials from the manufacturer’s website, which they believed demonstrated the product’s effectiveness. They also provided search listings, information about the product from other retailers and online reviews for the product’s efficacy for being used on age spots, scars and wrinkles. They believed that this information showed that jojoba was widely referred to as “nature’s wrinkle fighter” by other companies.
3. The Jewellery Channel stated that it was widely reported in medical journals that production of sebum increased at the time of puberty and decreased whilst aging, which they believed was demonstrated in a clinical study they had provided.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted at the start of the presentation that the presenter stated, “We really wanted to share with you the benefits of this product and the benefits of what this can do and what you might be buying it for.” Later on in the presentation, the presenter highlighted the product information leaflet and packaging, which said that it could be used for sunburn, nappy rash, acne, cradle cap, abrasions, insect bites, skin rashes and surgical wounds. We also noted that during the presentation the guest had stated, “I think every medicine cabinet should have it, so it can be used on burns”, “it can be used in the eye for conjunctivitis, you can use it in your mouth if you get ulcers or cold sores”, “you can use it on eczema, psoriasis, dermatitis, rosacea” and “I used to suffer a little bit with IBS and I took a little bit of it”. We considered that these were claims that suggested the product could treat the referenced conditions by restoring, correcting or modifying a physiological function by pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action and were therefore, medicinal claims which required marketing authorisation by the MHRA.
Because we understood that the product was not a licensed medicine, we concluded the ad made medicinal claims for an unlicensed product and had therefore breached the Code.
On this point the ad breached BCAP Code rule 11.19 11.19 Medicines must have a licence from the MHRA, the VMD or under the auspices of the EMA before they are advertised. Advertisements for medicinal products must conform with the licence. Advertisements must not suggest that a product is "special" or "different" because it has been granted a licence from the MHRA. For the avoidance of doubt, by conforming with the product's indicated use, an advertisement would not breach rule 11.3. (Medicines, Medical Devices, Health-Related Products and Beauty Products).
2. Upheld
During the ad we noted that the presenter stated, “If you’ve got age spots, you might want a bottle of this” and also showed the product’s information leaflet, which stated that it could be used on scars. We also noted that the guest had stated that the product was “nature’s wrinkle fighter”. We considered that viewers would understand these claims to mean that the product was an effective treatment for improving the appearance of scars, age spots and wrinkles.
We also noted that the guest stated “I always put Jojoba on before my sun cream ‘… I never get bitten once’ …”, which we considered suggested that the product was effective as an insect repellent.
To support such efficacy claims, we expected to see clinical trials on humans testing the effects of the product as an insect repellent, on age spots, wrinkles and scars, which The Jewellery Channel had not provided.
We reviewed the substantiation The Jewellery Channel had referred to in order to support the claims. However, that information was shown in screenshots of search engine results where the terms “jojoba oil”, “age spots”, “scars” and “wrinkles” were used. The screenshots showed the title of the web pages found along with some text and the link to the relevant website. Furthermore, we noted that the customer reviews were based on various products containing the jojoba oil, which commented on the effect it had on the skin, including clearing acne and the visibility of more youthful skin. However, The Jewellery Channel had not provided clinical trials showing that the product could achieve those effects.
We therefore considered that the claims for the product’s efficacy as an insect repellent and in improving the appearance of “age spots”, “scars” and wrinkles had not been substantiated with robust documentary evidence and concluded that they were misleading.
On this point the ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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 3.12 3.12 Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service. (Exaggeration).
3. Upheld
The Jewellery Channel had stated that it was widely reported in medical journals that production of sebum increased at the time of puberty and decreased whilst aging, which they believed was demonstrated in the clinical study they had provided. However, this did not address the claim that we were investigating.
During the presentation, the guest stated that, “… girls stop producing natural sebum at 20 and boys at 25 years.” We considered that viewers would interpret the claim to mean that women and men stopped producing sebum indefinitely at 20 and 25 years of age respectively and that products of this type could be used to counteract the effects of this on one’s skin. However, The Jewellery Channel had not provided clinical trials on humans to support such a claim. As stated by The Jewellery Channel, we also understood that sebum production was typically at its peak during puberty and that both men and women would continue to produce it throughout their lives, but at lower levels.
We therefore considered that the claim “girls stop producing natural sebum at 20 and boys at 25 years” had not been substantiated with adequate evidence and we concluded was misleading.
On this point the ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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 ad must not appear again in its current form. We told The Jewellery Channel Ltd to ensure that they held adequate substantiation for their marketing claims and that they did not make medicinal claims for unlicensed products.
