Ad description
A website for a light therapy clinic, accessed in May 2011, stated “Natural sunlight, the oldest form of light therapy, contains all possible wavelengths of light, from infrared to ultraviolet. There are a number of light therapies using a variety of combinations of these wavelengths in different ways, including bright white light, full spectrum light, coloured light, UV and laser light”.
It stated that the advertisers specialised in “Lightwave Stimulation (LWS)”. It also stated “Lightwave Stimulation (LWS or Downing Technique) is a neuro-sensory developmental programme developed by Dr. John Downing ... Dr Downing recognised that a photocurrent deficit seemed to be present in people with a wide range of symptoms, including: Learning disabilities, poor memory, poor concentration, poor physical co-ordination and performance, light sensitivity, poor peripheral vision, night blindness, hyperactivity, sleeping problems, fatigue, mental fogginess, headaches, emotional difficulties, including anxiety and depression”. It also stated “Great improvements have also been noted with light sensitivity and visual perceptual difficulties including Meares-Irlen Syndrome” and “Lightwave Stimulation is very effective in helping with Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD)”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the advertiser could substantiate the efficacy of light therapy on the listed conditions; and
2. the ad could discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
Response
The Sound Learning Centre Ltd (SLC) said that they were not medical doctors and did not offer medical treatment, advice or diagnosis. Furthermore, they said they did not claim to cure any condition, medical or otherwise. They said they provided assessments and, if the assessments so indicated, they would recommend clients seek advice from medical professionals.
SLC submitted links and references to numerous documents and articles to do with the background and history of light therapy. They said their use of light was based upon the approach of Dr. John Downing OD, Ph.D which in turn was based upon the practice of Syntonic Optometry (the use of light through the eyes for therapeutic purposes). They believed that the way in which the sensory system functioned determined many aspects of a person’s behaviour. They referred to several articles and studies that they claimed supported this view.
SLC said that they had quoted results from Dr Downing’s work and had also referred to conditions that Dr Downing claimed to have had success in treating. They said they did not intend to imply that they could treat these conditions but only to demonstrate that, with many medical conditions there are underlying sensory performance concerns.
They believed that a combination of behaviours often resulted in a diagnosis, which may be the diagnosis of a “medical” condition. They referenced a publication on autism, which they said provided an example of how diagnosis of a medical condition could result from observing specific behaviours. They claimed this logic could be applied to many other conditions that they listed on their website, e.g. SAD, depression, learning disabilities, eating disorders, sleeping problems, mental fogginess, anxiety and chronic fatigue syndrome.
SLC claimed that it was widely supported that light, both in intensity and colour, could influence hormone production, the nervous system, moods and emotions, eating and sleeping patterns. They submitted a study on “The effect of syntonic (coloured light) stimulation on certain visual and cognitive functions”, which they claimed explained the science behind coloured light therapy. They said that it was their belief that helping the underlying sensory performance in people could lead to an improved performance in a wide range of areas such as social, emotional, behavioural or academic performance.
They also submitted a reference to a paper by a Professor Brainard which concluded “Given the potential therapeutic value that is claimed for syntonic optometry, a series of strictly controlled experiments which evaluate the clinical efficacy of this therapy would appear to be warranted and timely”. SLC said they concurred with this statement.
They stated that they employed people with the appropriate psychological training to treat medical conditions for which this type of assistance should be sought. However, they maintained that they did not claim to treat any specific disorders, but only helped improve the functioning of the sensory system.
SLC said they had temporarily taken the web page on light therapy off their website whilst they made revisions.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that SLC removed the web page in question when we first contacted them. We noted that they claimed they did not offer medical treatment, advice or diagnosis. We also noted they asserted that they treated sensory difficulties, which they believed caused certain behaviour patterns that were often grouped together, when diagnosed, under the label of a medical condition.
However, we noted that the ad stated “Dr Downing recognised that a photocurrent deficit seemed to be present in people with a wide range of symptoms, including: Learning disabilities, poor memory, poor concentration, poor physical co-ordination and performance, light sensitivity, poor peripheral vision, night blindness, hyperactivity, sleeping problems, fatigue, mental fogginess, headaches, emotional difficulties, including anxiety and depression” and “He found that stimulation with appropriate coloured light through the eyes can increase the ability of the neuro-visual pathways to transmit photocurrent to the different parts of the brain and reduce this deficit”. We considered that by attributing these symptoms to a photocurrent deficit and then claiming to be able to redress this deficit, the ad implied an efficacy claim for light therapy for the listed conditions.
Furthermore, we noted that the ad stated that “Great improvements have also been noted with light sensitivity and visual perceptual difficulties including Meares-Irlen Syndrome ... We have seen improvements in clients with eating and sleeping disorders and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME)” and “Lightwave Stimulation is very effective in helping with Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), anxiety and depression”.
We considered that these claims implied efficacy for light therapy for Meares-Irlen Syndrome, ME, SAD, anxiety and depression.
We noted SLC claimed that it was widely supported that light, both in intensity and colour, could influence hormone production, the nervous system, moods and emotions, and eating and sleeping patterns. We also noted the study they submitted investigated the effect of coloured light stimulation on visual field size, visual memory for objects, visual memory for abstract symbols, auditory memory and speed and accuracy of eye movements. We noted that the study claimed that, beyond noting improvements in these areas, they also noted improvements in “handwriting, memory and emotional well-being”. However we also noted that the study only comprised 36 participants and had not investigated the efficacy of light therapy on the symptoms and conditions listed in the ad. Because of this we considered it insufficient to substantiate the efficacy of light therapy for the conditions listed in the ad.
We noted the numerous references and links submitted by SLC. However, we considered that, whilst these provided background information on the theoretical basis for light therapy, they were not suitable evidence for substantiating efficacy claims. We considered that efficacy claims for the therapy should be substantiated with suitably robust clinical trials on human subjects. We noted that one of the quotes submitted by SLC, from Professor Brainard, had called for these kinds of trials to be conducted. We also noted that SLC concurred with this call but had failed to submit such studies.
We considered that the ad had implied efficacy claims for light therapy but we had not seen robust documentary evidence in support of these implied claims. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
2. Upheld
We noted that the ad referred to poor memory, depression, learning difficulties, ADHD, autism and eating disorders. We also noted that CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 12.2 stated “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”. Although SLC had asserted that some of their practitioners were suitably qualified psychologists, we noted that we had not seen any evidence for this. Furthermore, we noted that not all of the serious medical conditions listed could be suitably treated by a psychologist.
Because the ad referenced serious medical conditions for which suitably qualified medical advice should be sought, and we had not seen any evidence that the practitioners working for SLC operated under the supervision of those with suitable credentials, we concluded that the ad had breached the Code.
On this point the ad breached 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 12.2 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ad must not appear again. We told SLC to remove from their website the claims found to be in breach of the Code.
