Background
Summary of Council decision:
Six issues were investigated, of which five were Upheld and one Not upheld.
Ad description
A magazine ad and the website www.healthy-house.co.uk promoted electrosmog detectors:
a. The magazine ad was headed "Electrosmog - Should you be concerned?". Text below stated "We all depend on modern technology to keep us in touch and informed, but did you know there are safer ways of using much of this technology? First you need to know where the hotspots are by measuring them with a meter - EMF meter for electric and magnetic fields, and an A-COMED Electrosmog Detector for microwaves. Once you know what you are dealing with, there is a great deal you can do to protect yourself and your family".
b. The website included a page entitled "Electrical Sensitivity". Text stated "Electrical sensitivity, as with most other ‘allergic’ conditions, varies in intensity from mild symptoms to being quite restrictive. It can cause a wide range of symptoms from levels of electrosmog that most people would not react to. It is a recognised illness in Sweden and is gradually being more recognised in this country as the network of electromagnetic fields become more impossible to avoid. The symptoms of electromagnetic stress vary from a feeling of lethargy and fatigue, tingling in the arms and legs to more severe symptoms including psychological problems, inability to concentrate, anxiety and depression, insomnia and dizziness to breathlessness and high blood pressure. You may not even know that the symptoms you experience are caused by electrical sensitivity particularly if you haven't measured the fields and been able to move your bed and favourite chair to a safer place. If you do not know that you are electrically sensitive you may fear that there is nothing that will help you ... Please click to learn more about electromagnetic stress and geopathic stress, the causes of electrical sensitivity".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the claim "there is a great deal you can do to protect yourself and your family" was misleading and could be substantiated, because he believed there was no credible evidence that the electric and magnetic fields and microwaves that humans were exposed to in their day-to-day lives were harmful;
2. the claim "there is a great deal you can do to protect yourself and your family" was alarmist and could cause undue fear or distress;
3. the claimed symptoms and effects of electromagnetic stress in ad (b) were misleading and could be substantiated;
4. the references to "Electrosmog" in ads (a) and (b) were misleading, because he understood there was no scientifically agreed definition of the term;
5. the claim in ad (b) that electromagnetic stress was "gradually being more recognised in this country" was misleading and could be substantiated; and
6. ad (b) could discourage an individual from seeking treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
Response
1. & 2. The Healthy House provided a copy of Resolution 1815, passed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in 2011, and highlighted particular extracts including "the assembly strongly recommends that the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle is applied, covering both the so-called thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation".
3. Healthy House highlighted a section from a report authored by the Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL) entitled "Electrosmog in the Environment", dated June 2005, headed "Is electrosmog a health hazard?". In particular they highlighted the following claim, "... the fact that high-frequency radiation gives rise to non-thermal effects is undisputed".
4. Healthy House highlighted the first sentence of the introduction of the SAEFL report which stated "Electricity supply systems, electrical appliances and a wide range of transmitters for wireless applications generate non-ionising radiation (commonly referred to as "electrosmog") that can be harmful to our health, depending on its intensity". They also highlighted that the report listed a number of sources of electrosmog.
5. Healthy House provided a press release from the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) entitled "IARC classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans". They stated the documents supplied from the IARC, Council of Europe and the SAEFL showed that government bodies were becoming more active in the area of electromagnetic waves and their potential impact on humans. They also argued that, more generally, members of the public were becoming increasingly aware of the issues of electromagnetic stress and highlighted the existence of the charity "ElectroSensitivity UK", the campaign to stop smart meters, and the existence of public meetings of groups that campaigned against the construction of mobile phone masts in their locality due to concerns regarding radiation. Healthy House also provided a number of links to websites and online videos which discussed or warned against the risks of exposure to radiation such as Wi-fi technology.
6. Healthy House said they would add a disclaimer to ad (b) to state "Information included is intended for information only and is not to be used as a substitute for consultation with a medical practitioner".
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that the Resolution voiced some concern regarding the lack of research and clinical trials exploring the potentially harmful biological effects that non-ionising radiation of all frequencies could have on plants, insects and animals, including humans and therefore advocated that the ALARA principle should be applied. We also reviewed the SAEFL and IARC documents provided and understood that they both discussed the potential, but as yet, unconfirmed, harmful impact of non-ionising radiation on humans. Although we noted that the documentation provided showed that some research had been carried out that indicated electromagnetic radiation could have a biological effect on organisms, we understood that, overall, the results were currently inconclusive in terms of the general effects of electromagnetic radiation on humans. We therefore considered that the implied claim that the non-ionising radiation that humans were exposed to on a daily basis was harmful to them was misleading.
On that 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 noted that the ad was headed "Electrosmog - Should you be concerned?" and included images of a young child and teenager using mobile phones and laptops. We also noted the references to "safer ways" of using technology and that the claim in question encouraged consumers to take steps to protect themselves and their family from radiation produced by household technology. We considered that a number of readers might not be aware of the term "Electrosmog" or of the alleged risks of utilising technology such as microwaves, laptops and Wi-fi in their homes. We therefore considered that consumers reading the ad would understand that electrosmog was harmful and that they could be putting their family at risk by not taking the appropriate precautions. In the absence of any evidence to show that non-ionising radiation around the home could be harmful to humans, we considered that the ad was alarmist in nature and could cause a consumer unnecessary worry and distress.
On that point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 4.2 4.2 Marketing communications must not cause fear or distress without justifiable reason; if it can be justified, the fear or distress should not be excessive. Marketers must not use a shocking claim or image merely to attract attention. (Harm and offence).
3. Upheld
We noted that ad (b) stated that the symptoms of electromagnetic stress varied but included "lethargy", "fatigue", 'tingling in the arms and legs", "psychological problems", "inability to concentrate", "anxiety" and "depression". We noted the extracts that Healthy House had highlighted, but understood that the report discussed the potential impact of electromagnetic waves on the human body and some research papers that suggested such waves did have an impact on the body, but that whether such an impact was hazardous or not was unknown. In addition, we noted a section of the report was entitled "Phenomenon of electrosensitvity" and explained that "The term electrosensitivity (or electromagnetic hypersensitivity) is used when someone attributes his or her health problems to the effects of low-intensity non-ionising radiation" and went on to list a number of symptoms including "headaches", "nervousness", "general tiredness" and "tinnitus".
We noted that information on the World Health Organisation’s website on electromagnetic hypersensitivity, which the complainant had provided, acknowledged that a number of individuals had reported a variety of health problems that they themselves believed related to exposure to electromagnetic radiation. However, it stated that the majority of studies indicated that those individuals could not detect electromagnetic radiation exposure any more accurately than those not suffering from such symptoms. The website also stated that it had been suggested that other environmental effects such as 'flicker' from lights and poor ergonomic design could account for some symptoms, and there were some indications that the symptoms could be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions or stress reactions to worrying about the effects of radiation. The article concluded that although the symptoms were certainly real there was no scientific basis to link them to exposure to non-ionising radiation. We therefore considered that the evidence provided was not sufficient to substantiate the claim that exposure to non-ionising electromagnetic radiation could result in the symptoms listed.
On that 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) 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).
4. Not upheld
We acknowledged SAEFL's definition of electrosmog, but understood that the term was not utilised widely in the UK, and that consumers would not necessarily be familiar with it. We therefore considered that the average consumer reading the term in isolation would not understand what it meant. We noted that ad (a) included the claims "Electrosmog, should you be concerned?" and "We all depend on modern technology to keep us in touch and informed, but did you know there are safer ways of using much of this technology", alongside references to "electric and magnetic fields", "microwaves" and household sources of radiation, including mobiles, laptops and Wi-Fi networks. We also noted that ad (b) made a brief reference to electrosmog as the cause of electrical sensitivity and the associated symptoms. Therefore, we considered that, in the context of both ads, readers would understand the term to refer to electromagnetic radiation emitted from household technology, and that all such radiation was harmful to humans. We also considered that there was no suggestion in either ad that that implied definition was an official or well-established scientific term which was widely used in the scientific community, and considered that the inclusion of the term in both ads did not give Healthy House’s alleged concerns regarding radiation any greater legitimacy. Therefore, whilst we acknowledged that, as discussed in point 1 above, we had not seen any evidence to confirm that non-ionising radiation was harmful to humans, because neither ad suggested that the implied definition was official or scientifically agreed, we concluded that the term electrosmog, in and of itself, was not materially misleading.
On that point, we investigated the ads under 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), but did not find them in breach.
5. Upheld
We considered that most consumers reading the claim that electromagnetic stress was "gradually being more recognised in the country" would understand it to mean that there was a growing body of evidence consisting of clinical trials which confirmed that non-ionising electro-magnetic waves were harmful to humans and that the issue was acknowledged by bodies in the UK, such as the NHS or Cancer Research UK, who were taking action to warn consumers and mitigate against that harm. Because Healthy House had not provided any evidence to confirm that that was the case, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On that 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).
6. Upheld
We understood that Healthy House intended to add a disclaimer to ad (b) explaining that the information on the site was not intended as a substitute for advice from a qualified medical practitioner. We considered, however, that such a disclaimer would not be sufficient to counter the text in the main body of the ad, and the impression that the symptoms listed could be indicative of an individual's propensity to electrical sensitivity, and that those symptoms could be alleviated if an individual invested in a variety of products to protect themselves. We therefore had concerns that individuals reading the text and experiencing one or more of the symptoms listed as a result of a medical condition could instead believe they were the result of radiation in their home and decide to self-diagnose and delay, or fail to seek, the appropriate medical attention. Because of that, we concluded that the claims were in breach of the Code.
On that point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
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).
Action
The ads must not appear in their current form again. We told the Healthy House Ltd to ensure they held sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims in their advertising in future, and to ensure they did not cause undue fear or distress or discourage individuals from seeking treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
