Background

Summary of Council decision:

Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.

Ad description

A website, www.sarahburtnd.co.uk, seen on 18 June 2015, promoted iridology.

The home page was headed "WHAT HAPPENS DURING AN APPOINTMENT" and stated: " ... I then use a technique called IRIDOLOGY, (looking with a torch and light into the iris). Once all of this information is gathered, a naturopathic plan unique to you is formulated that will address all areas of your life, to help you feel your best".

A further page, headed "ABOUT IRIDOLOGY" described the origins of iridology and stated that the practitioner to which the technique was generally attributed "began looking into the eyes of his patients to see if any correlations could be made between their injuries / aliments and patterns seen in the iris, this was the birth of modern Iridology". The page also stated "For more information about Iridology click here".

The link led to a page headed "See what the eyes reveal", which featured eight close-up images of irises. Each was captioned with a variety of potential or expected medical conditions, including:

"Lymphatic / Circulatory Congestion leading to ... Furred Arteries, Stroke, Thrombosis, Immune System Failour [sic] ... Weakness in the Lung / Bronchiole area ... Asthma, Recurring Chest Infections and Lung Disorders ... Arthritis, Fibromyalgia ... Nervous System Weakness ... Bloating, Wind, Poor Digestion and Assimilation, Allergies ... Chronic Adreanal [sic] Exhaustion, Toxic Gut, Lymphatic System Overload, therefore symptoms of Excess Catarrah [sic], Extream [sic] Fatigue and Sluggishness ... Internal Intestinal Wall Weakness, Gut Ulceration, Diverticulitis, Chrons disease [sic] and IBS ... Malabsorption and Tiredness ... Nervous and Adreanal [sic] Exhaustion ... Very extream [sic] and chronic condition where the body is on the point of collapse ... Circulatory Problems, Digestive and Nerve Disorders ...".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether:

1. the implications that iridology could be used as a diagnostic tool were misleading and could be substantiated; and

2. the ad discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.

Response

Sarah Burt did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA was concerned by Sarah Burt's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to provide a response and told them to do so in future.

1. We considered that the claims that iridology was effective and could treat or diagnose the listed conditions would need to be substantiated with a body of robust scientific evidence, such as clinical trials conducted on people. Because Sarah Burt had not responded to the complaint, we had not seen evidence to support any of the claims and concluded that they were unsubstantiated and therefore misleading.

On that point the ad 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).

2. We considered that a number of the conditions listed were conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. For example, stroke, arthritis, asthma, gut ulceration, Chron's disease, circulatory problems, and diverticulitis, as well as references to a "chronic condition where the body is on the point of collapse". Advertisers could offer advice, diagnosis or treatment for such conditions only if that advice, diagnosis or treatment was conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. However, we had not seen evidence that was the case in this instance, and considered that such claims should therefore not have been made at all.

We concluded that, because those claims could encourage consumers to seek treatment from the advertiser rather than a qualified health professional, they discouraged essential treatment for such conditions and were therefore in breach of the Code.

On that point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule  12.2 12.2 Marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. For example, they must not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment for such conditions unless that advice, diagnosis or treatment is conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional. Accurate and responsible general information about such conditions may, however, be offered (see rule  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.
 ).
Health professionals will be deemed suitably qualified only if they can provide suitable credentials, for example, evidence of: relevant professional expertise or qualifications; systems for regular review of members' skills and competencies and suitable professional indemnity insurance covering all services provided; accreditation by a professional or regulatory body that has systems for dealing with complaints and taking disciplinary action and has registration based on minimum standards for training and qualifications.
 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Sarah Burt to ensure that future ads did not make claims about treatment or diagnosis with iridology unless they held adequate evidence to substantiate the claims. We also told them to ensure that their advertising did not offer treatment or discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

12.1     12.2     3.1     3.7    


More on