5689937_

Issue 3: 5 March 2012
slimming products, as laboratory tests found evidence of pharmaceutical grounds, due to increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.
The MHRA explained that Sildenafil can cause potentially life-threatening high blood pressure. Individuals with heart problems are at increased risk abnormal heart beat. Other side effects include headache, indigestion, have been approved for probiotics under the legislation, there are potential justifications that owners of probiotics might use to avoid changes 2012 will bring the greatest changes
ever seen to European Union healthy
nutritional labelling or ‘nutrition claim’ rules. Two legal cases are be removed from supermarket shelves six months after the law comes into (EFSA’s) panel on dietetic products, nutrition and allergies (NDA) has, so variety of reasons – largely because they demands that health food companies come up with the scientific evidence to back their labelling. The European Parliament has until
April 27 2012 to block the European
Commission’s
By 2013, many products currently
However, loopholes in the law may save probiotic yogurt manufacturers Members of the European Parliament have urged more consideration of what should be included in the list; they argue that the substantiation of health claims ignores the fact that tablets. This may lead to a loss of control of hypothyroidism when switching between products.
On 23 January 2012 discussions
Department of Health has indicated that nutrition claims such as ‘contains glucosamine’ or ‘contains probiotics’ will be deemed implied health claims if they are the subject of negative EFSA opinions.
The Department of Health said it was likely that ‘contains X ingredient’ claims, although it is not clear what evidence would be needed to justify such claims or who should assess it.
challenged that Henkel AG & Co misled customers as to the efficacy of their products.
The ASA considered that those
individuals would understand "90%
coverage" to be a claim about the
"Perfect white coverage up to 90%".
quantity of hair coverage achieved
by
therefore
considered that the claim was
qualified.
Dermatological Research which stated "dermatologically approved".
5. The claim was misleading because other hair colour products geared towards scalp comfort had been available for some time – the ASA likely to interpret the text "there was simply no alternative" as a claim that irritants - the ASA considered that
these claims had been substantiated
and therefore concluded that the
claim was not misleading.
that this was the case. They
concluded that the claim was
misleading.
be used on delicate scalps" - Henkel supplied demonstrated that the product range was suitable for sensitive scalps and could be recommended. The ASA
considered that this claim had been
for a moisturiser, the ASA has
substantiated.
concluded that the image in the ad
did not exaggerate the effect that
could be achieved by the product,
misleading
customers.
the efficacy of the product, and so
the ASA considered that this claim
had not been substantiated and
concluded that it was misleading.
The ASA considered post-production
techniques had not exaggerated the
effects of the product, and
concluded
misleading.
appearance of the skin. They stated that the image of Jane Fonda that product, and went beyond what an ordinary consumer could achieve.
The ASA considered that consumers were likely to expect a degree of reference point to ensure the illustrated effect was achievable. this approach was acceptable so long as the resulting effect was not one product, which showed the product could extend the look of lashes at the corners and give lashes more volume. had been used in the production of the ad, the length and volume of the On 15 February L’Oreal (UK) Ltd
stated "facilities, fees, classes and club". The ASA considered that this
sufficient
information to enable consumers to
make an informed decision about
whether to take advantage of an
The ASA has held that a press ad for
David
gymnasiums
misleading, and the ad must not
appear again in its current form.
The ASA have found that a number
of Superdrug’s adverts for cosmetics
The ad stated, "We're free until 2012. were misleading, and must not
appear again.
enjoy free membership until 1st January 2012.” Small print stated will be payable when you join. Free membership available when joining by stated "3 for 2 mix & match across all challenged whether the claims "three for two on all cosmetics" and "3 for 2 the "free" offer, challenged whether mix & match across all cosmetics" in a separate category to cosmetics.
displayed Rimmel products only. However, some Rimmel bronzing products. The ASA concluded that the ads were misleading.
The ASA considered the image had
been altered in a way that
substantially
complexion to make it appear
smoother and more even, and
therefore concluded that the ad
misleadingly
exaggerated
performance of the product in
relation to the claims. The ASA
ruled that the print advert must not
appear again in its current form.
black and white picture of actress Rachel Weisz. "Skin looks smoother, complexion looks more even," said the double-page magazine spread. "It's not a facelift, it's Revitalift." Jo Swinson MP challenged whether the ad was misleading, because she The information contained within this update is and shall remain the property of
Browne Jacobson LLP. This document may not be reproduced without the prior consent
of Browne Jacobson LLP.
The information contained in this legal update only represents a summary of the
subject matter covered, and is not intended to be comprehensive or to be a
substitute for detailed advice.
Browne Jacobson 2012

Source: http://www.moreniche.com/assets/pdf/ISSUE3(5690016_1).PDF