Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Cellulite is the popular name given to body fat that occurs primarily on the buttocks and thighs and disrupts the smoothness of the surface of the skin giving it a dimpled appearance. The ASA accepts that it exists but does not accept that cellulite is a distinct type of body fat.
Rule 13.9 stipulates that marketers should not claim that weight can be lost from specific parts of body. Like all fat, the only way that cellulite can be removed non surgically is by reducing energy intake to below that of energy expenditure. Many advertisers have argued that their products (particularly, creams and electrical “stimulation” devices) can reduce cellulite or reduce the appearance of cellulite. Neither the ASA nor CAP has yet been satisfied that such products have a proven effect on cellulite (The Boots Company plc, 14 September 2005). Some advertisers have argued that their creams refine the appearance of skin and so would refine the appearance of skin covering “cellulite”. In the past, the ASA and CAP have believed that consumers would expect a so-called cellulite product or treatment to ”treat” cellulite, not merely the covering skin.
Creams and electrical stimulation devices are not the only products on sale to supposedly "cure" cellulite. Other claimed treatments include light therapy in conjunction with acupressure and isotonic exercise (Scanda Sol Professional Ltd, 17 January 2001), serums, shower gels and peeling massage (Dr Irena Eris, 6 April 2005), exercising under low atmospheric pressure (for example, in a vacuum) (Hypoxi UK Ltd, 17 March 2004) and other, undisclosed "cellulite removal plans" (XCell International Ltd, 24 September 2003).
In September 2001, however, the ASA acknowledged that the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had accepted the claim “temporary reduction in the appearance of cellulite” for a massage machine called LPG Endermologie (The Harley Medical Group, 19 September 2001) and a similar massage device called “Silhouette” sold by Luxar Corporation (a subsidiary of ESC Medical). The ASA concluded, however, that the efficacy of Endermologie to either treat or remove cellulite (as opposed to the appearance of cellulite) was unproven and, unless they have convincing evidence, marketers of that product should state that informed opinion on the efficacy of Endermologie is split (Rule 3.13).
References to the "treatment", "improvement" or "removal" of cellulite or the appearance of cellulite (irrespective of how it might be described, for example “dimpled skin” or “orange peel effect”) are likely to be unacceptable for pills or topically applied creams. Marketers might be able to refer to “cellulite”, “dimply skin” or “orange peel skin” in marketing communications if they have conducted rigorous human trials that prove such deposits can be successfully treated by their product, device or regimen (see CAP Help Note on Substantiation for Health, Beauty and Slimming Claims). Such trials would have to show that the claimed effect of the product is distinct from the effect of massage.
Marketers should bear in mind that products that break down or remove subcutaneous fat might be regarded as medicinal by nature and might therefore need a Marketing Authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Last modified : 30 July 2010