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.
CAP is aware of unlicensed slimming pills, herbal remedies and patches that purport to aid weight loss. Neither CAP nor the ASA has seen convincing evidence that such unlicensed products can alone result in weight loss (Meridian Leisure South Ltd, 26 May 2004; New Lifestyle Company Ltd, 17 March 2004, and Pro-Medicus, 26 March 2003).
Slimming patches may be advertised on an availability-only platform or may be advertised as being a prompt to remind wearers to stick to their diets. No efficacy claims may be made (Advanced Health & Beauty Ltd, January 2000).
Marketers should bear in mind that any ingested products that claim to have an effect on metabolism are likely to be medicinal and therefore prohibited by rule 12.11, unless licensed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Claims such as “decrease appetite”, “burn fat” and “speed up metabolism” are likely to be medicinal and should not be made for unauthorised products (HealthiChoice, 8 September 2004). Marketers for slimming products that make such claims should first consult the MHRA and Trading Standards to ensure their claims breach neither medicines regulations nor food regulations.
In 2007, the Copy Advice team was asked to review evidence for a pill that supposedly blocked starch from being absorbed by the body. Although it was considered plausible by CAP’s independent expert, the evidence was rejected because the product was considered a ‘breakthrough’ and should be supported by more than just one robust study. Our Help Note on Substantiation for Health, Beauty and Slimming Claims gives information on the level and type of evidence we generally expect.
For products that have been authorised by the MHRA, advertised claims should not exceed those specified in the Marketing Authorisation. In November 2000, the ASA upheld complaints against Newtons Traditional Remedies Ltd, despite MHRA authorisation of the product. By asserting that the product gave rise to “visible, seeable results” and “fat reduced within a couple of weeks with excess inches just falling away” the marketer went beyond that allowed by the Authorisation, which described the product as a herbal remedy traditionally used as an aid to [short-term] slimming. Newtons’ problems didn’t stop there. The ASA upheld a challenge against them for irresponsibly suggesting that consumers should want to lose weight for special occasions such as “parties, clubbing, dates, holidays etc.” (Newtons Traditional Remedies Ltd, November 2000 and September 1999).
Prescription-only medicines (POMs) should not be advertised to the general public, either directly or indirectly. In 2004, the ASA ruled that a Scottish clinic had indirectly advertised appetite suppressants that were prescription-only. Even though those medicines were prescribed by medical practitioners, the ASA ruled that the advertiser should not make future weight-loss claims that relied, in part or in whole, on the use of POMs (Strathearn Medical Clinics Ltd, 12 May 2004). That position was reinforced by a later adjudication (Peptalking Ltd, 26 April 2006). POMs may, however, be advertised to the medical, dental and related professions.
Marketers should neither state or imply they are offering medicines if they are not (Foxglove Clinic, 25 February 2004) nor imply products have been clinically tested or medically approved if they have not (Goldshield Pharmaceuticals Ltd, 3 November 2004, and New Lifestyle Company Ltd, 17 March 2004).
Marketers who claim to treat obese subjects, whether or not with POMs, should do so only if they are “suitably qualified” (Rule 12.2. See ‘Weight Control: Obesity and Eating Disorders’)
See also ’Chitosan’ and ’CLA’.
Last modified : 06 August 2010