Background
Summary of Council decision:
Six points were investigated, all of which were 'Upheld'.
Ad description
An ad seen in What Doctors Don't Tell You magazine for a Stetzer electrical product stated "Electric pollution? Try the Stetzer solution ... The powerful answer to a poisonous problem ... Stetzers absorb dangerous dirty electricity from the wiring in buildings experts [sic] have seen significant improvements in ADHD, allergies, diabetes, fibromyalgia, headaches, ME, MS rashes, tinnitus ... Independently EC mark [sic] certificated [sic] ... Now 50% more powerful ... Using patented technology. Electricity bills may be reduced by 30%".
Issue
The Nightingale Collaboration challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "Stetzers absorb dangerous dirty electricity from the wiring in buildings";
2. "experts have seen significant improvements in ADHD, allergies, diabetes, fibromyalgia, headaches, ME, MS rashes, tinnitus";
3. "Independently EC mark certificated";
4. "Now 50% more powerful";
5. "patented technology"; and
6. "Electricity bills may be reduced by 30%".
Response
1. & 2. Stetzer Electric Inc. (Stetzer) supplied several documents which they said supported the advertised claims. They said the claim “Stetzers absorb dangerous dirty electricity …” was supported by documents from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) who recommended the use of filters to control harmonics, as harmonic and non-harmonic frequencies could introduce harmful effects associated with spurious radio frequencies (RF). They also said a document from a US medical research institute listed the effects of RF in support of the claim. An additional document discussed electrical hypersensitivity to dirty electricity along with five case studies. The case studies included the use of the product in one healthy individual, one person with symptoms of electrical hypersensitivity, one with multiple sclerosis (MS), one with diabetes and responses from 18 teachers about the purported effect of the product on them and their students.
3. They supplied two test reports for their UK, EU and Australian models which they said supported the claim that their product was EC mark certified.
4. The advertiser said the claim that the product was “Now 50% more powerful” was based on a comparison with their US product. They said they were able to use this claim due to the differing voltage ratings between the US and the UK products.
5. They supplied us with a list of patent numbers and patent applications from a range of countries such as Kazakhstan, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, India and Japan which they believed supported the claim that the product was patented.
6. They supplied references to two reports. One was a reference guide by a Canadian transmission and electrical distribution company and the other was a case study on one home that related to electricity costs and mobile phone masts.
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA understood that the advertiser had defined "dirty electricity" as "poor power quality" and noted the documents supplied to support the claim that it was dangerous. One paper discussed various scientific opinions on electromagnetic radiation (EMR) but did not draw firm conclusions about the effects on human health. We also assessed various documents relating to the purported effects of EMR on specific human illnesses including case studies with the product in use. However, we were concerned that the sample sizes were too small to draw conclusions for the general population. Furthermore, where the product was used, there was no placebo control or individual data and the student and pupil case study did not include an objective measurement pre or post trial. Information relating to several of the other listed conditions was not supplied. The ad also made efficacy claims for the relief of conditions where advice, diagnosis or treatment should only be conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional.
Because the advertiser was unable to provide robust evidence to support the advertised claims and as several listed conditions were not supervised by a suitable health professional, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On these points 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),
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.
and
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).
3. Upheld
The testing documents supplied by the advertiser related to British Standard compliance, assessed by an independent testing laboratory, rather than certification from a notified body. Because we were not supplied with a CE certification, we concluded the claim "Independently EC mark certificated" had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this 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) 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
We noted the advertiser compared the advertised product with their US version. However, we considered the ad was likely to give the impression that they had compared a previous model, available in the UK. Because the advertiser did not supply evidence to demonstrate that the product was 50% more powerful than a previous model available in the UK, we concluded the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this 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) 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).
5. Upheld
We acknowledged the various patent numbers supplied which were not accompanied by official documentation. Nevertheless, several other country patents were accessible online. We asked the advertiser for the UK patent certification, which was not supplied. We considered that, because the ad was addressed to a UK audience, consumers would expect a UK patent to be held. Because we did not see relevant patent certification, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On 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) 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).
6. Upheld
The references submitted did not relate to the advertised product and the advertiser did not supply evidence that demonstrated the product reduced electricity bills. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this 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) 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 ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Stetzer Electric Inc. to ensure they held robust substantiation for future claims. We also told them not to refer to conditions that should be supervised by a suitably qualified health professional.
