Dr & Herbs

[zeno]

I made a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority several years ago about the High Street Chinese 'medicine' chain, Dr & Herbs and won on most of my complaints.

I've just made another about some of the claims made in their leaflets. I've already posted the correspondence on our Think Humanism (http://www.thinkhumanism.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=982) forum, so please visit to see what's going on.

Once I get the adjudication, I'll post it there and report the results here.

One question: I've done a couple of these (magnetic therapy, Chinese medicine, psychics), but even though it is extremely easy to win an adjudication, all that seems to happen is that the offenders simply get better at writing their nonsense to get round the letter of the ASA's codes, but still manage to use language that still fools the gullible.

So, do you think that complaining is not only a waste of time, but is actually counter-productive?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

It's a never ending battle isn't it?

If we didn't complain and make an issue about these things though, just imagine how much worse it would be.

[Matt]

I imagine the following situation woo healer claims to be able to cure asthma, gets slap from the authority now just sells a herb alongside the true fact that it has historically been used as a treatment for asthma. Technically they're not making any claim of efficacy and as their claim is factual they're beyond reproach. The average man on the clapham omnibus is hardly going to notice the difference and if they do they'll just think it's case of "The Man" interfering with what can be said.

Still it's something. People in part make judgements on advertised claims based upon their level of confidence in authorities to weed out lies. e.g. "They couldn't say it cured asthma if it didn't" As long as people are making such judgements we need peopel like you to bring such flase claims to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

[Pebble]

So, do you think that complaining is not only a waste of time, but is actually counter-productive?

Please keep up the good work. Agreed the buggers are slippery, but only by demonstrating that the law fails to protect, can one move it along. If claims are made and unchallanged, then the ASA goes to sleep and all is assumed to be well. As long as stories continue to crop up in the media about various bogus 'healers' this helps stop such rubbish entering the mainstream by default.
The problem of the gullible is that caveat emptor remains a powerful impediment to helping all.O0

[zeno]

I won, of course. Unfortunately, the ASA didn't publish an adjudication, but you can read all the correspondence I had with them on our Think Humanism forum (http://www.thinkhumanism.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=982).

[Mongrel]

Nicely done zeno :smiley:

[bindeweede]

I won, of course. Unfortunately, the ASA didn't publish an adjudication, but you can read all the correspondence I had with them on our Think Humanism forum (http://www.thinkhumanism.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=982).

zeno,

I don't know if you will read this, but your post inspired me to complain to the ASA about the MIND article here

http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/Booklets/Making+sense/Makingsensehomeopathy.htm

promoting, advertising, homeopathy.

Thank you.

[Mojo]

zeno,

I don't know if you will read this, but your post inspired me to complain to the ASA about the MIND article here

http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/Booklets/Making+sense/Makingsensehomeopathy.htm

promoting, advertising, homeopathy.

Unfortunately the ASA don't deal with claims made on websites or in books, and it probably doesn't count if they're just giving out misleading information about homoeopathy rather than promoting their own services.

[Skeptiger]

Unfortunately the ASA don't deal with claims made on websites or in books, and it probably doesn't count if they're just giving out misleading information about homoeopathy rather than promoting their own services.

Oh dear. So if you want legitimacy, write a book (which every average person assumes must be true, otherwise it wouldn't have been published) and no-one can do anything about it.

It is an uphill battle.

[Graham Lappin]

There is a Chinese medicine shop in my town and I have been wound up more than once on the poster in the window that has diabetes on their list of treatments! I think I will wander in there this weekend and see what they have to say. If I find anything in their advertising, I will follow zeno's example. Thanks for the inspiration zeno - it's just got to be worth the effort in the long run.

[Mojo]

There is a Chinese medicine shop in my town and I have been wound up more than once on the poster in the window that has diabetes on their list of treatments! I think I will wander in there this weekend and see what they have to say. If I find anything in their advertising, I will follow zeno's example. Thanks for the inspiration zeno - it's just got to be worth the effort in the long run.

The ASA don't do posters in shops or point of sale displays either; that comes down to the local trading standards dept, who probably have a limited budget and would have to satisfy the burden of proof for a successful prosecution (might change after the new consumer protection regs come into force on May 26th). You need to find a leaflet you can take away - it is noticeable that a TCM shop near here makes much more modest claims in its leaflets than it does in its posters.

[Graham Lappin]

The ASA don't do posters in shops or point of sale displays either; that comes down to the local trading standards dept, who probably have a limited budget and would have to satisfy the burden of proof for a successful prosecution (might change after the new consumer protection regs come into force on May 26th). You need to find a leaflet you can take away - it is noticeable that a TCM shop near here makes much more modest claims in its leaflets than it does in its posters.

I bow to your knowledge on this - I have a feeling you have done this before. Although I didn't know the rules about posters it was my intention to see what genuine advertising material they had. My curiosity has been aroused.

[zeno]

I thought the ASA did posters as well, but I could be wrong. It does seem ridiculous that one body isn't responsible for all advertising. IIRC, the ASA weren't originally responsible for TV adverts, but they merged with the body that did, but online adverts are dealt with by Trading Standards.

BTW, I'm glad I've inspired a few others to make complaints as well - keep it up!

Maybe we're not going to change things overnight, but every little helps.

Has everyone read Rose Shapiro's book Suckers: How Alternative Medicine Makes Fools Of Us All (Suckers:%20How%20Alternative%20Medicine%20Makes%2 0Fools%20Of%20Us%20All) or Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst's book Trick or Treatment?: Alternative Medicine on Trial (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/Trick%20or%20Treatment?:%20Alternative%20Medicine% 20on%20Trial)?

Mojo: What's the new legislation, or is it the law that psychics got all hot under the collar about last week? (Why didn't they see it coming?)

[filippo lippi]

I thought the ASA did posters as well, but I could be wrong.

Might it be billboards, not flyers stuck in shop windows, that they regulate?

[bindeweede]

I’ve just received a letter from the ASA. As Mojo said, they couldn’t deal with my complaint. Their Code only applies to certain kinds of material on websites. Quote –

“They are:


Online ads in space that’s been sold by the website owner to a third party, e.g. banner and pop-up ads.
Sponsored search results (i.e. the links advertisers pay search engines to offer when you enter particular search terms)
Sales promotions. We regulate these wherever they appear, including in advertisers’ websites or e-mails. (Examples of sales promotions are free gifts and prize competitions; simple price cuts and savings claims aren’t sales promotions and we can’t investigate them.”
The letter suggested I contact CAB or Trading Standards.

Still, they responded quickly, and in a helpful manner.

[Graham Lappin]

I’ve just received a letter from the ASA. As Mojo said, they couldn’t deal with my complaint. Their Code only applies to certain kinds of material on websites. Quote –

But it nevertheless makes you think Dickens was right, in that "the law is an ass" (to quote out of context).

[Mojo]

I thought the ASA did posters as well, but I could be wrong.Might it be billboards, not flyers stuck in shop windows, that they regulate?

Yes. See here (http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/about/Guided+Tours/Consumers/What+types+of+ads+and+promotions+does+the+ASA+look +into.htm) for details of what they do and don't cover.
There are some types of commercial message we don’t deal with; these include:

...

In-store advertising
Misleading claims on posters, shelves or till points should be reported to your local trading standards department

The ASA (http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/about/) was basically set up by the advertising industry to regulate itself (note that it's a .org rather than a .gov). Advertising that isn't part of this is therefore outside their remit.

[Mojo]

Mojo: What's the new legislation, or is it the law that psychics got all hot under the collar about last week? (Why didn't they see it coming?)

Yes, it's the same regulations (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/draft/ukdsi_9780110811574_en_1). The psychics probably noticed it because it specifically repeals the Fraudulent Mediums Act (see Schedule 4 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/draft/ukdsi_9780110811574_en_9#sch4), but it in fact applies to any business.

As well as the general description of misleading actions and omissions in regulations 5 and 6 (see Part 2: Prohibitions (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/draft/ukdsi_9780110811574_en_2#pt2)), there is also a list of "practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair" in Schedule 1 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/draft/ukdsi_9780110811574_en_5#sch1). This includes "17. Falsely claiming that a product is able to cure illnesses, dysfunction or malformations". This (according to a lawyer I've heard talk about it) will probably be interpreted quite widely, so that they probably won't get away with "weasel words"; claims to "treat" a condition will probably be interpreted as claims to cure.

[Graham Lappin]

As I said I would, I visited my local Chinese medicine store today. Perhaps surprisingly it was a little more thought provoking than I had anticipated. No room here for the thoughts so I'll take the liberty of putting a link to the blog http://oryctolagus.wordpress.com/

I picked up a leaflet and Mojo was right (I had faith in you all along) - the claims in the leaflet are very modest. Certainly a lot more modest that what I was told. I will do this more often (until I get bored with it anyway).

[seren]

I am pretty shocked about that information on the Mind website. It actually has the nerve to call homeopathy "effective".

If anyone here feels so inclined I urge you to email Mind about this. I would, but I'm kind of in that field of work and don't want to get on the wrong side of them. Seriously, they need to reconsider that page; it's misleading.

Did have a giggle at this bit:


Because of the dilution process that is part of their preparation, homeopathic remedies should be free from side effects.

They've basically said right there why it DOESN'T WORK. Duh.

[Rat]

The ASA don't do posters in shops or point of sale displays either; that comes down to the local trading standards dept, who probably have a limited budget and would have to satisfy the burden of proof for a successful prosecution (might change after the new consumer protection regs come into force on May 26th). You need to find a leaflet you can take away - it is noticeable that a TCM shop near here makes much more modest claims in its leaflets than it does in its posters.

Ah, that's why you need the leaflet from Mkt Harborough. Still not been up, I'm afraid.