Advertising Standards Authority Adjudication
16 September 2002
Premier Health
1 Churchwood Gardens
Barclay Oval
Woodford Green
Essex
IG8 0PL
Complaint
Objection to a leaflet that was headlined "FOOD INTOLERANCE TESTING.
VITAMIN AND MINERAL DEFICIENCY". Beside a picture of a machine, the
leaflet listed "Chronic Sinusitis? Irritable Bowel? Hay Fever? Migraine?
Chronic Fatigue? Eczema? Hyperactivity? Diarrhoea? Abdominal Bloating? Repeated
Infections/Colds? Candida? ...". The leaflet stated "... COMPLETE
TEST FOR TODAYS HIDDEN HEALTH PROBLEMS. The complementary Approach!! Bio-Energetic
Testing Taking us into 21st century ... Our Testing Procedure is one of the
latest developments in food sensitivity testing ... Many people suffer from
health problems such as eczema, stomach problems, irritable bowel syndrome,
candidiasis and mood swings ... We believe in the holistic approach in preventative
healthcare and also provide safe and commonsense nutritional information
by the process of elimination. Thus allowing your body a chance to respond
to this programme. We must point out, however, that our test is an alternative,
non-invasive procedure. It is NOT a medical diagnosis, nor does it pretend
to be so ...". The complainant challenged the efficacy of the technique.
Codes section: 3.1, 7.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3
Adjudication
Complaint upheld
The advertisers sent a published study about electrodermal (ED) testing using
Vega II equipment and an article about the development of the Vega device.
They believed the study showed that the device diagnosed allergies. The Authority
noted the study tested for dust mite allergen and concluded that the "results
indicate that ED testing is a promising technique and should be the subject
of further scientific studies". The Authority understood that other
studies, the outcome of which had been published in medical journals, disagreed
that the device could detect food allergies. The Authority considered that
because the advertisers had provided one study of one allergy only and because
there were studies that disputed the system's efficacy, the evidence provided
was insufficient to support the claim. It asked the advertisers to withdraw
the advertisement and take advice from the Committee of Advertising Practice
Copy Advice team before advertising again.
Advertising Standards Authority,
Mid City Place, 71 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6QT, United Kingdom
This article was posted on August 8, 2007.