Advertising Standards Authority Adjudication
6 July 2005
Forest Gate Homeopathic Practice
484 Katherine Road
Forest Gate,
London
E7 8DP
Broadcaster: Vectone TV and Bangla TV
No. of complaints: 1
Complaint:
Two similar advertisements for Forest Gate Homeopathic Practice
were shown: one on
Vectone TV and the other on Bangla TV. Both advertisements depicted various
people
being treated in the practice. The treatments included an eye and an oral
examination plus
what appeared to be a blood-pressure check. One of the men conducting treatments
wore
a stethoscope and in one of the advertisements appeared to give the 'patient'
some
medicine. In the other, people were shown walking inside the practice and
waiting. Both
advertisements featured a close-up shot of a certificate from the British
Institute of
Homeopathy in the name of Alim Uddin. A man was shown in both advertisements
opening a medicine cabinet full of bottles and packets. This was followed
by close-up
shots of packets of pills and bottles. At the end of both advertisements
on-screen text said
“Consultant - MD Alim Uddin B.S.Y (D.HOM) F.B.I.H” The voiceover
for both
advertisements was in Bengali and according to the translation provided by
Vectone TV
said:
a. Introducing new methods to your health care.
b. Forest Gate Homeopathic Practice.
c. British degree holders and experienced Bangladeshi homeopathic
doctors are available
to cure all kinds of chronic diseases.
d. This treatment is fully scientific,
based on natural methods and free of side-effects.
That's why it's safe and effective for all.
e. So don't waste your time, visit “Forest Gate Homeopathic Practice” today.
A viewer complained that:
1. the certificate shown did not permit Alim Uddin
to practice homeopathy and the
advertisements suggested otherwise.
The Authority challenged whether the advertisements:
2. gave the impression of professional advice;
3. referred to the approval of a particular product or its ingredients;
4. made medicinal and therapeutic claims regarding the treatments;
5. claimed that viewers would be cured by the treatments;
6. suggested that there were no side-effects from the treatments;
7. claimed the effects of the treatments were guaranteed and
8. suggested the treatments were safe or effective because they were “natural”.
Adjudication:
Vectone TV said it had withdrawn the version of the advertisement
shown on its channel
pending the outcome of our investigation. Neither licensee commented on the
points
raised.
1. Complaint upheld
We were advised by the Health Professions Council and the General Medical
Council that
there were nine regulatory bodies in total that covered health related services
in the United
Kingdom. None of these regulated homeopathy and as such homeopathic practitioners
did
not require any particular qualification to set up a homeopathic practice.
We were also
advised by the British Homeopathic Association that, although their own members
were
required to be registered with a statutory professional body, there were
no specific
regulatory requirements for homeopathic practitioners to have any particular
qualifications
or be affiliated with a statutory body. We understood that a certificate
was not required to
practice homeopathy. We considered the advertisement was likely to give the
misleading
impression that a certificate was required and might also mislead as to Mr
Alim Uddin's
professional status.
2. Upheld
We considered the advertisement implied the men providing the treatment were “doctors”
offering professional advice. The inclusion of the certificate along with
the voiceover which
referred to them as “doctors” added to this impression and it
therefore breached the
Advertising Standards Code.
3. Upheld
The advertisements appeared to approve the medicinal-type products shown.
They
depicted one of the “doctors” reaching inside a cabinet full
of packets followed by close-up
shots during which time it was possible to see the label and brand name of
the products.
This was not permitted by the Code.
4. Upheld
The advertising claimed “to cure all kind of chronic diseases”.
We considered this to be a
medicinal and therapeutic claim which was not permitted by the Code.
5. Upheld
Unless allowed by a marketing authorisation, claims that a medicinal product
can cure an
ailment are unacceptable. We understood that no such authorisation existed
for
homeopathic medicinal products and therefore considered the advertisement
in breach.
6. Upheld
The Code stated that “no advertisement for a medicinal product
may suggest it has no side
effects”. We considered that the claim “free of side-effects” breached
the Code.
7. Upheld
We considered that, by claiming the treatments were “effective for
all” and that “doctors
are available to cure all kinds of chronic diseases” the advertisements
implied the effect of
the treatments would be guaranteed. This was not permitted by the Code.
8.
Upheld
The Code does not permit advertisements for a medicinal product to suggest
that its safety
or efficacy are due to it being “natural”. We therefore considered
the claim “based on
natural methods … that's why it's safe and effective for all” breached
the Code.
The advertising was found to be in breach of CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising
Standard
Code Rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 8.1.2 (Impressions of professional
advice and
support), 8.2.2 (b) (Homeopathic medicinal products), 8.2.8 (Guarantee of
efficacy), 8.2.9
(Cure), 8.2.12 (Side effects) and 8.2.14 ('Natural' products) and should
not be shown again
in its current form.
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)
Advertising Standards Authority,
Mid City Place, 71 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6QT, United Kingdom
Related Adjudications: 2006, 2008
This page was posted on April 23, 2008.