Posts Tagged ‘Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)’
Curbing the quacks & protecting the public
In November last year, there was specualtion that the ASA’s remit might be extended to cover claims on advertisers’ own websites, rather than just third-party online adverts (the so-called digital remit).
In launching their new Code of Advertising Practice today (which comes into force on 1 September 2010), the ASA/CAP have given more details:
4. What is not included in new the Codes?
Extending the Digital Remit of the CAP Code
In its consultation, CAP clarified the existing online remit of the Code which covers paid-for advertisements and sales promotions on websites. However, the consultation did not contain proposals to extend the Code’s remit to cover marketers’ own marketing communications on their own websites. This was because this was the subject of a separate project being considered by the wider advertising industry, led by the Advertising Association, at that time.
On 8 March 2010 the advertising industry has now recommended an extended online remit to CAP, along with new enforcement powers and a mechanism to fund its regulation. This would allow the Advertising Standards Authority to apply the Code to online marketing communications that currently sit outside their remit for the benefit of consumers, children and industry.
CAP will now assess the practicalities of the recommendations, with the aim of bringing the new remit into effect as soon as possible, later in 2010.
I’m sure this will take some time to sort out properly, but it opens up all sorts of new possibilities for those really interested in protecting the public from claims — particularly health claims — that are not substantiated by robust scientific evidence.
Sceptic activists have been very successful in curbing some of the worst excesses of quacks and others out to make a fast buck from the vulnerability, gullibility and scientific ignorance of others, but so many claims are made on sellers’ own websites. Until the ASA takes over this as part of their remit, the only option has been to report them to Trading Standards. However, this has proved unsatisfactory, partly due to the lack of resources and experience within TS and partly due to the lack of a coherent country-wide strategy.
When the ASA takes on this function, I hope they have correctly anticipated the high demand that is likely to come from sceptics anxious to police quacks who are not currently properly or adequately policed.
Talking the talk
The first few pages of Bronfort et al. certainly talk the right talk:
EBH [Evidence-Based Healthcare] is about doing the right things for the right people at the right time. It does so by promoting the examination of best available clinical research evidence as the preferred process of decision making where higher quality evidence is available. This reduces the emphasis on unsystematic clinical experience and pathophysiological rationale alone while increasing the likelihood of improving clinical outcomes. The fact that randomized clinical trial (RCT) derived evidence of potentially effective interventions in population studies may not be translated in a straight forward manner to the management of individual cases is widely recognized. However, RCTs comprise the body of information best able to meet existing standards for claims of benefit from care delivery. The evidence provided by RCTs constitutes the first line of recommended action for patients and contributes, along with informed patient preference, in guiding care. (page 4)
Spot the difference
The first photo was taken in East Kilbride shopping centre on 16 August 2009. The second was taken this morning.
Spot the difference:
Answer: Today’s advert has the claims for “Children with colic & ear infections” covered up.
The removal of these claims may have been due to the GCC’s recently released Bronfort report, or perhaps they’ve now read the ASA guidance they’re supposed to follow. Who knows.
The claims left are for: “headaches and migraines, neck, back and shoulder pains, sciatica or disc injuries, sports or accident injuries, pins and needles in arms and legs”.
A step in the right direction, but a long way to go yet.
What’s Polish for ‘chiropractor’?
Czego mogę się spodziewać podczas wizyty u kręgarza?
If your Polish isn’t up to scratch, this roughly translates as: What can I expect when visiting a chiropractor?
Ah! I hear you say. Is it just a coincidence that this is suspiciously close to What can I expect when I see a chiropractor?
No, of course it isn’t. That was the title of the GCC’s leaflet that Simon Perry (Adventures in Nonsense, Leicester Skeptics in the Pub and skeptical columnist for the Leicester Mercury) complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about last year. Read the rest of this entry »
Discover Chiropractic
No. I’ve not been converted and I’m not urging you all to realise that the future of humanity and an end to all pain, suffering and diseases known to man lies in the chiropractic way.
It’s the name of a chiropractic clinic in Edinburgh. They wanted to spread the word about the benefits of chiropractic and decided to advertise.
Oops! You’d have thought… No. I won’t say it again.
The trouble with babies
When it comes to supplying the Advertising Standards Authority with evidence that backs up claims you’ve made in an advert, it’s a good idea to make sure it does actually back up the claims you’ve made. Common sense, really. Saves a lot of hassle. And an adverse adjudication. And adverse publicity.
It’s a fallacy of personal incredulity I know, but I’d have thought that Philips Electronics UK Ltd — part of giant Royal Philips Electronics of The Netherlands — would have been circumspect when it came to ensuring they have the appropriate evidence for claims they were making.
Washing dirty linen in public
The General Chiropractic Council publishes annual Fitness to Practice reports, which contain summaries of all complaints dealt with over the year and useful advice and guidance for chiropractors on topics like:
1. Professional boundaries
2. Abuse of trust or exploitation of lack of knowledge
3. Communication with patients and obtaining consent
4. Record keeping
5. Management and care: initial examination and review of treatment
6. Use of X-rays
7. Local complaints procedure
8. Treatment prescribed by another health professional
9. Protecting patients and colleagues from risk of harm
10. Honesty, integrity and trustworthiness
11. Politeness and consideration towards patients
12. Respecting confidentiality
Shedding more light on acceptable evidence
Pharmacies are in the news again this week. Not Boots this time, but that other well-known high street chemist, Lloyds Pharmacy.
An ASA adjudication, published today, upheld a complaint against a TV advert about their ‘light therapy device‘. The advert claimed:
Hay fever seasons [sic] here again. But heres [sic] something you might not have tried before, the Lloyds Pharmacy hay fever reliever. Its [sic] been shown to help reduce symptoms like your runny nose and itchy eyes … Just pop it up your nose for a couple of minutes two or three times a day and start making the most of your summer.
Although I wouldn’t be entirely keen on sticking anything up my nose, I don’t suffer from hay fever. However, I do know it can be a miserable condition and anything that might help would be worth a try. But you’d want something for which there was good evidence for efficacy before you splashed out your hard-earned cash, wouldn’t you? And you’d want the seller to be able to provide that good evidence when asked?
What a week for quackery!
Phew! This has been a spectacular week or so for alternative medicine.
Firstly, we had the Landmark ASA ruling on asthma and colic. Then we have the spectacle of some of its major proponents being tortured and exposed before the House of Commons Science and Technology Sub-committee looking into the evidence (or lack of it) for homeopathy. Skepticat tells it far better than I could, but the admission by Boots of the absence of evidence for homeopathy and that they just sell the stuff ‘cos their customers want to buy it has been described as a Ratner moment.
That was Wednesday; but today was another significant day for the regulation of quackery.
Landmark ASA ruling on asthma and colic
The Code of Practice for chiropractors clearly states that claims made by chiropractors have to be:
…consistent with the law and the guidance issued by the Advertising Standards Authority.
There have been several cases where the ASA have found chiropractors to be in breach of this guidance by making claims for all sorts of medical conditions, some serious. Since the adjudications form part of the ASA guidance, you’d have thought that chiropractors would be somewhat cautious about making claims that the ASA either have already rejected or ones not on the list of conditions they will allow (providing the advertiser provides convincing evidence, of course). The only condition the ASA will allow without asking for evidence is migraines (not headaches). Not even lower back pain.
And now there’s another one.
