Background
Summary of Council decision:
Five issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A leaflet for a tanning centre stated "Vitamin D The Sunshine Vitamin ... Vitamin D, Where will you get yours this winter? Caribbean around £1500. Tenerife around £500. Indigo Sun sessions from £2. Exposure to UV light (whether from sunlight or sunbeds) is the most important source of Vitamin D for people in the UK". Text at the bottom of the page stated "BUY ONE SESSION GET ONE HALF PRICE*" and the linked text read "*Terms and conditions apply. See in store for details. Offer only valid with leaflet. Offer expires 31 May 2011". The reverse of the leaflet was headed "SUNBED FACT + FICTION" and text below the heading stated "Q. Exposure to UV light whether with sun beds or sunshine is unhealthy? A. Fiction. Regular, moderate exposure is necessary for good health. UV light is the most important source of Vitamin D for people in the UK. Medical studies around the world have proven the health benefits of this Vitamin", "Q. Sunbeds are 16 times more powerful than the sun? A. Fiction. Current EU Law limits the UV output of sunbeds produced after July 2007 to that of the Mid-day sun in Summer in the Mediterranean" and "Q. Young people under the age of 15 should avoid exposure to high intensity sunlight or sun beds as they are more at risk of developing a melanoma in later life? A. Fact. Exposure to high levels of UV light for the under 15s can result in an increased risk factor of 3".
Issue
The Scottish Government challenged whether:
1. the claim "Exposure to UV light (whether from sunlight or sunbeds) is the most important source of Vitamin D for people in the UK" was misleading and irresponsible, because it contradicted the World Health Organisation's (WHO) advice on the use of sun beds as a source of vitamin D;
2. the limited time offers were irresponsible, because they encouraged increased sun bed usage with fewer intervals, increasing the likelihood of skin damage;
3. the claim "Q. Exposure to UV light whether with sun beds or sunshine is unhealthy? A. Fiction. Regular, moderate exposure is necessary for good health. UV light is the most important source of Vitamin D for people in the UK. Medical studies around the world have proven the health benefits of this Vitamin" was misleading and irresponsible, because they believed sun beds were calibrated to cause accelerated tanning as opposed to short-term incidental exposure to sun;
4. the claim "Q. Sunbeds are 16 times more powerful than the sun? A. Fiction. Current EU Law limits the UV output of sunbeds produced after July 2007 to that of the Mid-day sun in Summer in the Mediterranean" was misleading and irresponsible because it implied that mid-day Mediterranean sun exposure was safe, which was contrary to WHO guidance; and
5. the claim "Q. Young people under the age of 15 should avoid exposure to high intensity sunlight or sun beds as they are more at risk of developing a melanoma in later life? A. Fact. Exposure to high levels of UV light for the under 15s can result in an increased risk factor of 3" was misleading and irresponsible, because it implied that this risk was limited to under 15-year-olds which they did not believe was the case.
Response
1. Indigo Sun Retail Ltd t/a IndigoSun (IndigoSun) said it was generally accepted that people in the UK got 90% of their vitamin D from exposure to UV light and that it was a fact that UV exposure from sunbeds stimulated vitamin D production. They stated that they did not recommend the exclusive use of sunbeds as a source of UV and that the leaflet included health warnings that customers should be aged 18 years or over, that people with fair skin or moles (skin type 1) should avoid exposure and that all customers should avoid overexposure and wear eye protection. They also stated that it was a legal necessity to put up posters in their salons advising customers of the health risks.
2. IndigoSun said the limited time offer was restricted to a single half price session to be used within 28 days of the initial full-price session and they did not consider that that encouraged irresponsible sunbed use.
3. IndigoSun stated that the calibration of sunbeds had no bearing on whether the claim was misleading or not. They pointed out that they had not stated sunbeds were safer than natural sunlight, only that moderate exposure to UV was not unhealthy and was in fact necessary to stimulate vitamin D production. They explained that skin started to go pink and burn when it received more than the minimum erythemal dose (MED) of UV. They said their sessions were based on the customer's skin type and previous history and were limited to a dose lower than the customer's MED to avoid over exposure. They said it was a misconception that a sunbed session was intended specifically to deliver more than the MED.
They stressed that sunbed use was legal and that they were legally obliged to put up posters in their salons advising customers of the health risks. They believed that the information they provided customers, including in their leaflet, gave sufficient safeguards so that they could responsibly use their tanning equipment and at the same time maintain their Vitamin D levels.
4. IndigoSun said the "16 times more powerful than the sun" claim was factually inaccurate but was often quoted in the media. They explained that the power output of sunbeds was regulated by EU law and they did not believe that making people aware of this could be considered irresponsible.
5. IndigoSun said this information came from a study conducted by Cancer Research UK which compared the incidence of malignant melanoma in children under the age of 10 who emigrated to Australia with those who were over 15 when they emigrated. They said the leaflet had clearly stated customers had to be over 18 to use a sunbed and that the information provided about the study had been intended to emphasise the increased risks of exposure to UV for young people.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA understood that vitamin D could be sourced through diet or supplementation but that it was widely accepted that UV light/radiation (UV) was the primary source of vitamin D for UK citizens.
We noted that the claim was a general one regarding the importance of UV as a source of vitamin D and that it did not go into detail about the risks of over exposure to UV, from either sunlight or sunbeds. We noted that the leaflet contained warnings regarding over exposure, the need for eye protection and the need for people with certain skin types to avoid exposure to UV completely. We did not therefore consider that readers would infer from the claim that there were no health risks associated with exposure to UV from sunbeds, or that sunbeds were any safer than sunlight.
We understood that operators in Scotland were legally required to display a public information notice in their premises and to provide customers with a written health warning before they could use a sunbed, which included a statement to the effect that the potential health risks outweighed the potential benefits of sunbed use to supplement vitamin D. Because we understood that UV was the most important source of vitamin D for people in the UK, because we considered that those who saw the claim would also have seen the general health warnings and because they would be provided with detailed information regarding the potential health risks by the operator before they used a sunbed, we concluded the claim was not misleading or irresponsible.
On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) Rule 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Social responsibility) and 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We understood that frequent exposure to UV increased the likelihood of harm to a person's health and we noted that the WHO guidance referred to by the Scottish Government stated intentional exposure to sunlight or sunbeds should be avoided for 48 hours after sunbed exposure. We noted UK government advice was that those who used sunbeds should do so no more than twice a week and not more than 60 times a year. We therefore considered that the leaflet, which provided for one additional sunbed exposure within 28 days of the first, did not contradict WHO or UK government advice and was unlikely to encourage irresponsible sunbed use.
On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) Rule 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Social responsibility) but did not find it in breach.
3. Not upheld
We considered readers would understand from the claim that exposure to UV was not unhealthy provided that it was "regular, moderate exposure". We understood that that was consistent with advice in this area from government and other organisations. We understood that it was a combination of the intensity and duration of the UV exposure, whether from sunbeds or sunlight, that increased the health risks and we considered readers would understand from the claim that excessive exposure could be unhealthy, particularly in light of the general warning regarding over exposure in the leaflet.
We noted that the advertisers based customers' sessions on their individual skin type, amongst other factors, and we understood that sunbed manufacturers provided information to operators about how long people with each skin type should be exposed to their product in order to avoid over exposure. Because we understood that exposure to UV was not unhealthy in moderation and that sunbed sessions could be designed to avoid over exposure, and because we understood that readers would be provided with clear information regarding the potential health risks by the operator before they used a sunbed, we concluded the claim was not misleading or irresponsible.
On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) Rule 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Social responsibility) and 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) but did not find it in breach.
4. Not upheld
We understood that the current European Standard for sunbeds manufactured and sold in the UK had been in place since 2009 and that that limited the irradiance of appliances to a level that was often described as similar to Mediterranean mid-day sun. Although we understood that older appliances still in operation might not comply with this standard, we considered that was the correct standard to reference when providing general information on the irradiance of sunbeds in the UK.
We noted that the WHO advice was to limit, not to avoid, exposure to midday sun and we understood that was consistent with the advice provided by other organisations. We did not consider readers would infer that exposure to that level of UV would not be hazardous if the frequency and/or duration was excessive, particularly in light of the general warning regarding over exposure in the leaflet, and we concluded the claim was not misleading or irresponsible.
On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) Rule 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Social responsibility) and 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) but did not find it in breach.
5. Not upheld
We understood that the minimum age for sunbed use had been set at 18 years because there was an increased risk to young people from exposure to UV. We considered readers would understand that that was the point being emphasised and we did not consider they would infer from the claim that the risks were limited to young people, particularly considering the general warnings in the leaflet. Because of that, and because we understood that readers would be provided with detailed information regarding the potential health risks by the operator before they used a sunbed, we considered the claim was not misleading or irresponsible.
On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) Rule 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Social responsibility) and 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
