[ Home ] [ Dietary Supplements or Functional Foods ] [ Darwinian Medicine ] [ Adaptation & Darwinian Medicine ] [ TGA & the Pan Crisis ] [ Pan Crisis ] [ Health Trends ] [ Medical Rationing ] [ Do Not Resuscitate ] [ Alternative Medicine Takeover ] [ Holistic or Reductionist? ] [ Orthodox Medicine ] [ Science Today, Quackery Tomorrow ] [ Integrated Medicine ] [ Medical Bias ] [ Health Topics ] [ Hypophobia ] [ Nutrition Breakthroughs ] [ Nutrition & Megavitamins ]

Misinformation About Pan, & Increased Regulatory Control of Alternative Medicines in Australia & NZ: Codex & the Global Agenda

Anti-nutrition Bias, & Bizarre Beliefs About Codex and Pan: don't let the truth get in the way of a good biased story

Is the 'Natural Products Industry' Complaining About False Advertising in Support of the Natural Products Industry?

Who is Doing the Scaremongering and Who is Telling the Truth?
HolisticHealthTopics Response to NPNZ Complaints and ASA Decision

Fear and Its Exploitation by Opponents of Complementary Medicines & Natural Therapies

Natural Products New Zealand and Their Complaint About Fear & Scaremongering in Advertisements Supporting Complementary Medicines: the use of fear to promote and condemn complementary medicines

Using Fear to 'Promote' Complementary Medicines & Restore Confidence in the Industry

Exploitation of Public Fear to Condemn Complementary Medicines

Conclusions Made in Lieu of the Refusal to Publicise Evidence of The Alleged Adverse Reactions to Complementary Medicines in New Zealand: why the secret?

References

Appendix 1 - Complaint by Michelle Beckett of Natural Products New Zealand to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Appendix 2 - Response of the Advertising Standards Authority to the Complaint and Response from the Advertisers.

Anti-nutrition Bias, & Bizarre Beliefs About Codex and Pan: don't let the truth get in the way of a good biased story

Some of the bizarre beliefs demonstrated by opponents of alternative medicine or those who have been relentlessly pursuing increased regulatory control of complementary or alternative medicines include the following:

1. When a pharmaceutical drug is shown to be toxic, as occurred during the Pan debacle, what is needed is tighter regulatory control of alternative medicines, not drugs (Pan Crisis, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill).
2. When alternative medicines are shown to be much safer than drugs, as occurred during the Pan debacle, what is needed is tighter regulatory control of alternative medicines, not drugs (Pan Crisis, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill).
3. Following on from this is the belief that if one drug (or alternative medicine), can be shown to be toxic then this justifies urgent regulatory control of all alternative medicines unlike the situation in the drug industry where the toxicity of one drug is considered to have no relevance to the safety of other different drugs (Pan Crisis, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill, Dietary Supplements).
4. The best way of increasing confidence in alternative or complementary medicines is to make false scientifically baseless claims about the dangers of such products and even blame alternative medicines for adverse reactions to toxic drugs and then offer to 'save' the industry by introducing new regulations (Pan Crisis, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill).
5. Adverse reactions to alternative medicines do not need to be caused by the alternative medicine itself as long as there is an "association" - in this regard a different standard of evidence applies compared to pharmaceutical drugs (Pan Crisis, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill, Regulatory Changes in the Land of the Free, Dietary Supplements).
6. Although falsely based public fear about safety should be exploited to justify increasing regulatory control of alternative medicines, commercial considerations such as "market exclusivity" and "data protection" should be central to new regulations (Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry).
7. Although most modern drugs have a symptomatic effect only (Symptom Suppression, Darwinian Medicine) whereas nutritional supplements like folic acid have a curative effect when used to treat the relevant nutritional deficiency (Nutrition and Megavitamins, Nutrition is for the Birds), supplements must be prevented from carrying label claims stating they have a curative effect or they may be used to treat or prevent serious diseases such as birth deformities or heart disease (Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill, Nutrition Breakthroughs) even in spite of the fact that foods containing these same supplements may make various health claims (Dietary Supplements or Functional Foods).
8. There should be a persistent avoidance of any commitment to guarantee the future availability of the current range or potency of retail dietary supplements and a refusal to include health freedoms and the right to freedom of choice of supplements in legislation (Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill).

There has also been a consistent campaign to discourage the public from establishing any connection between the simultaneous campaigns to control dietary supplements which are occurring in numerous countries throughout the world (TGA & Pan, Codex in Australia, Pan Crisis & Future of Alternative Medicines, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill, Regulatory Changes in the Land of the Free, Dietary Supplements, Dietary Supplements or Functional Foods, Nutrition Breakthroughs). Those pursuing increased regulatory control of alternative medicines in Australia and New Zealand for instance, consistently try to distance themselves from simultaneous campaigns to erode health freedoms in other countries, especially by stating "Codex" does not apply to Australia (Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill). Since they deny a common global theme for these changes promoters of such campaigns have demonstrated the following beliefs.

1. The simultaneous campaigns to introduce stricter controls of alternative medicines in different countries is just an amazing coincidence. There has been no communication between these countries - they just all decided to make the same changes at the same time (TGA & Pan, Codex in Australia, Pan Crisis & Future of Alternative Medicines, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill, Regulatory Changes in the Land of the Free)!
2. 'Codex' is the ONLY way of imposing restrictions upon alternative medicines. It is not possible to restrict alternative medicines by new regulations unless the new regulations are referred to as 'Codex' (Alternative Medicine Takeover).

Since I have already considered the above matters elsewhere (Pan Crisis, TGA & Pan, Codex in Australia, Pan Crisis & Future of Alternative Medicines, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill, Regulatory Changes in the Land of the Free, Dietary Supplements, Dietary Supplements or Functional Foods, Nutrition Breakthroughs) I would like to focus here on recent claims in New Zealand that supporters of complementary medicine in that country have resorted to false advertising in their attempts to prevent the passage of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill (Therapeutic Products Bill).

Is the 'Natural Products Industry' Complaining About False Advertising in Support of the Natural Products Industry?

While NPNZ makes claims they represent a "substantial portion of the Natural Products industry"  they do not claim to represent consumers of natural health products or health freedom advocates. In fact they carefully emphasize that they have a commercial agenda which is (2) "focused on international trade" and full membership of the organisation will not be granted unless the applicant is involved in the exporting of natural health products. Unlike consumers of natural health products however, NPNZ is an extremely new kid on the block, having been in existence for only 4 years (3). Interestingly, according to the New Zealand Health Trust, claims that NPNZ represent the natural health industry in New Zealand are (4) "demonstrably false" since they claim it (5) "does not represent the views of the majority of NZ businesses in the natural health sector" (4). It should be noted that when I recently contacted NPNZ and asked them the following question I received no response:

While false advertising cannot be justified regardless of who is responsible for it, when an organisation which claims to support complementary medicines complains about an advertisement which supports the retail complementary medicine industry and the maintenance of health freedoms it is worth a closer look. It is vitally important that the public is not misled by claims that an organisation represents the "natural products industry".

Why would an organisation which claims to support the complementary medicine industry complain about the allegedly misleading nature of advertisements supporting consumers of complementary medicines? Are they simply impartially seeking truth in all advertising? Do they have a clear track record of impartially criticising all types of misinformation in the public health arena or is there evidence of selective concerns? It would seem to me that most organisations concerned with public health and safety of complementary medicines would object most vocally to those matters which pose the greatest public health risk OR which represent the most severe injustice and departure from truth.

The most serious public health matter as far as therapeutic substances are concerned continues to be  the scientifically proven dangers of pharmaceutical drugs and the complete inability of our current drug regulatory system to prevent the thousands of deaths which occur every year as a result of consumption of drugs which have allegedly been shown to be safe by double blind trials. This is an absolute scandal which should be at the top of the list of concerns for anyone genuinely interested in the safety of therapeutic products. On the other hand, the most important injustice and departure from truth in the natural health industry in Australia and New Zealand in the past 5 years has undoubtedly been the condemnation of complementary medicines when the pharmaceutical drug Travacalm was shown to be toxic (Pan Crisis). Condemning all complementary medicines when a drug was shown to be toxic represents a new low in dishonesty and mass deceit and a new high in the exploitation of consumers and the propagation of misinformation. Especially since the proposed legislative changes and tighter control of complementary medicines in New Zealand are clearly based upon the misinformation resulting from the Pan witch hunt (Therapeutic Products Bill) it is most noteworthy that NPNZ makes very little comment about this falsely based exploitation of fear (6):

 While acknowledging that "the proximate cause of the further scrutiny of Pan was not a natural product, but was an over-the-counter pharmaceutical product" according to their media releases (7) NPNZ avoid any specific reference to the monumental injustice and mass deceit perpetrated upon the New Zealand people by this attempt to falsely blame complementary medicines for the toxicity of a pharmaceutical drug. Neither do their media releases (7) mention the enormous insult to the collective intelligence of the New Zealand people perpetrated by those who seem to expect New Zealanders to believe that all complementary medicines should be blamed for the toxicity of a pharmaceutical drug. And neither did they complain (7) when the New Zealand government sought to exploit the falsely based fears generated by the Pan debacle to justify a legislative campaign (Therapeutic Products Bill) to harmonise with Australia and introduce tighter control of complementary medicines (Therapeutic Products Bill). Not only did NPNZ fail to issue any media release about this monumental injustice (7), other than the brief mention above they completely avoided these matters in their news releases (7).

Of course this matter may be partly rectified if NPNZ were to issue an urgent news release stating that the Pan drug crisis demonstrated once again the safety of complementary medicines (as compared to drugs) and condemning the exploitation of fear about the safety of such products and the use of the Pan drug crisis to justify trans Tasman harmonisation.

In spite of the lack of concern displayed by NPNZ regarding the exploitation of falsely created fear amongst consumers which resulted from the Pan witch hunt, on 27th April 2007 they issued the following news release because of what they claimed was "scaremongering" and "misinformation" being circulated by people who opposed Trans Tasman Harmonisation and the Therapeutic Products Bill (which resulted from the dangers allegedly demonstrated by the Pan witch hunt) (8):

Following the above allegations about scaremongering in April 2007, NPNZ lodged their complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in May (1) and the ASA upheld the complaints on 10th July and released the results on the 19th July (9,10,11,12). Since those who supported the Trans Tasman Bill and the control of complementary medicines in NZ have enthusiastically embraced the findings of the ASA, describing those who opposed the Bill as (10,11,12) "going ballistic", "telling lies", "chanting", and "scaremongering", it is vitally important we take a closer look at the initial complaint by NPNZ (1) and the findings of the ASA (9). Indeed, according to Annette King (10), "this decision epitomises the misinformation and lies that a minority of opponents used to pervert the democratic process." But these concerns about the democratic process are not consistent with the fact that Ms King preferred to do a deal in parliament rather than take the matter to the New Zealand people (10). Recently Gordon Copeland has again challenged Ms King to adopt a more democratic approach by listening to the people (13):

If democracy is uppermost on the mind of Ms King why the reluctance to take the matter to the people? Truth and the democratic process also seemed to be shamefully inconspicuous when Ms King used the Pan drug crisis to justify harmonisation and enhanced legislative control of supplements in NZ (14).

And Michelle Beckett of NPNZ apparently claimed that those who opposed the Bill have (15) "vested interests" in the industry and (15) "her group will continue to give what she calls the honest version of what the bill is about." But if Ms Beckett is concerned about the corrupting influence of vested interests why not be guided by consumers rather than by the commercially motivated NPNZ? Perhaps Ms Beckett is recommending the matter should be taken to the people in a referendum so that the influence of vested interests may be minimised. Anger from doctors and medical associations in New Zealand (12) which has been directed at the complementary medicine industry because they claim defeat of the Bill will result in more difficulty (12) "accessing new and improved drugs", is also seriously misdirected to say the least. If doctors will be unable to access "new and improved drugs" then this would be the direct result of the intransigence of both Australian and New Zealand governments who have both absolutely refused to accept a compromise solution by exempting complementary medicines from the Bill (16, 25, 26).  The anger of New Zealand doctors should therefore be directed totally at both Australian and New Zealand governments who have persistently refused to pass the Bill the doctors require. Their anger certainly should not be directed towards the complementary medicine industry since they have done absolutely nothing to reduce access to ""new and improved drugs".

Are the conclusions of the ASA consistent with all the available evidence? And why would an organisation which claims to represent the natural products industry fail to issue any public complaint about probably the most monumental injustice ever perpetrated upon the natural products industry (the Pan debacle) and yet issue media releases and complaints about advertisements in support of natural products? Do the above matters justify expressing more concern than the misinformation resulting from the Pan witch hunt which the New Zealand government used to justify the current legislative crackdown on complementary medicines? Why express more concern about alleged "scaremongering" in support of complementary medicine while ignoring "scaremongering" which is falsely critical of complementary medicines? Does NPNZ consider scaremongering which falsely criticises complementary medicines to be unimportant? If so, why? It is worthwhile examining the basis for the concerns of NPNZ and the conclusions of the ASA.

Who is Doing the Scaremongering and Who is Telling the Truth?
HolisticHealthTopics Response to NPNZ Complaints and ASA Decision

1. NZ Govt Moves to Outlaw Vitamins

The advertiser offered the following statement in response to this complaint (9):

In my view the claim that "NZ Govt Moves to Outlaw Vitamins"  is unnecessarily vague and I take little issue with this complaint although in the world of false advertising, concern about this statement seems to me to be extremely petty, if not mischievous. Supporters of dietary supplements have so much factual information at their disposal it is disappointing that sometimes ammunition is given to opponents of natural health by poorly expressed publicity campaigns. If this statement had been qualified as being the opinion of the advertisers it would have been acceptable. Alternatively, it could be stated thus: "NZ Gov Fails to Guarantee Future Availability of Present Range of Retail Supplements."

2. Did you vote for Australian Bureaucrats to make your health decisions?

The advertiser offered the following statement in support of this claim (9):

There are two issues here, although it must be noted that this is a question and not a statement of fact. How can a question be incorrect? Firstly, does the Bill have the potential to affect the "health decisions" of consumers? There is absolutely no doubt that this is so since there is no argument that the Bill will effect the cost and/or availability of supplements (Therapeutic Products Bill). Even NPNZ, who lodged the complaint with ASA, have acknowledged this is so in a news release entitled "Good Health Comes at Increased Cost" (7). According to NPNZ (7):

This has also been confirmed by many others (see Therapeutic Products Bill) including Dr Jonathan Coleman, National Party MP for Northcote and Associate Health Spokesman, who stated in regard to the proposed Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill (18):

Secondly, since the proposed health bill would undeniably affect "health decisions", would "Australian bureaucrats" have played any role in these effects? Since Australian bureaucrats played a fundamental role in the Pan crisis and the ensuing proposed regulations in NZ (Therapeutic Products Bill), a fact which was conceded by Ms King (Therapeutic Products Bill), there is absolutely no doubt about this. I cannot therefore see anything inaccurate in asking the question "Did you vote for Australian Bureaucrats to make your health decisions?"

3. 494 pgs of `safety' legislation yet no one has ever died from supplements

The advertiser offered the following statement in support of this claim (9):

Since opponents of complementary medicines and natural therapies have a long tradition of exploiting fears in consumers (Medical Bias, Nutrition is for the Birds, Nutrition and Megavitamins, Dietary Supplements, Functional Foods or Dietary Supplements, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Pan Crisis, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Therapeutic Products Bill, Regulatory Changes in the Land of the Free), and considering the fact that "fear" is central to the complaints of Ms Beckett of Natural Products New Zealand, I will consider this matter in more detail in a separate section below entitled "Fear and Its Exploitation by Opponents of Natural Therapies".

4. NZ Acting chair of the coroners council Dr Bain (a lawyer and pharmacist) states that a thorough search of all records indicated that not one person has ever died from consuming a health supplement in New Zealand's history"

I will also consider this complaint below in the section "Fear and Its Exploitation by Opponents of Natural Therapies".

5. 60% of New Zealand made supplements & vitamins forced from the shelves.

The following statement was offered in support of this claim (9):

The interesting thing about this claim is that the figure of 60% was cited by Tony Ryall (and not refuted), in NZ parliament, apparently from the governments own research (19). According to Ryall (19):

How is it possible to find the claim "60% of New Zealand made supplements & vitamins forced from the shelves" is untrue when it was cited in parliament allegedly from the government's own figures? It seems the ASA is not only accusing the advertiser of untrue claims, they are also accusing Tony Ryall and the government of not telling the truth. Who is telling the truth here? Is the ASA accusing the politicians?

6. Prices will increase by 20% and 100%

The advertisers offered the following support of this claim (9).

Since according to Ms King (14), the proposed legislative changes in NZ have been structured in response to problems highlighted as a result of the Pan drug crisis, as also occurred in Australia, it is interesting to observe the affects of these changes in Australia according to Marcus Blackmore (20):

To suggest this claim is untrue seems petty in the extreme. As I have considered above, even  NPNZ, who complained about this claim, have acknowledged there will be significant price increases. This fact is generally agreed (see Therapeutic Products Bill) so there seems no issue to complain about as far as this statement is concerned, unless of course NPNZ is preoccupied with precise percentages. However if this is so it implies a mischievous obsession with pettiness.

7.  50% of New Zealand manufacturers will close - associated loss of jobs

The advertisers offered the following statement in support of this claim (9).

Widespread job losses are expected as a result of this Bill (see Therapeutic Products Bill) so there seems little to worry about with this claim although the use of the precise figure of 50% may not have been necessary. In the words of McCully (21):

8. It just gets worse - all decisions regarding what supplements and vitamins you are allowed - and levels - are to be made by unelected, unaccountable Australian bureaucrats, heavily lobbied by the pharmaceutical industry

The advertisers defended this claim thus (9):

As has been noted by NZ politicians (see Therapeutic Products Bill), it is expected that the new Therapeutic Products Agency will be comprised of only about 7% New Zealanders while the remainder will be Australians. This simple fact demonstrates quite clearly that most of the bureaucratic processing will be done by Australians, unless of course Ms Beckett is suggesting the 7% of New Zealanders will do more work than the 93% of Australians! The final decision will be left to an unelected Managing Director who clearly cannot be both an Australian and New Zealander so there seems no significant error in this statement.

9. You deserve to know... that this is a move to limit your access to natural health products, thereby driving you toward pharmaceutical "solutions"

The advertisers offered the following statement supporting this claim (9):

Since politicians in NZ have readily acknowledged that the proposed Bill would have the effect of reducing the availability and increasing the cost of complementary medicines (see Therapeutic Products Bill) there seems no doubt that these reduced options would tend to force consumers to utilise cheaper and more readily available pharmaceutical alternatives. In fact, according to Thomas Faunce, senior lecturer in law and medicine at the Australian National University, the ANZTPA is being deliberately structured to favour the views of the drug industry (22):

Faunce concluded that the rejection of the Bill by NZ parliament was a (22) "good thing" for NZ. It seems however, that according to the ASA, these experts are all wrong.

General Comments Made By Advertiser in Support of Claims

In addition to these itemised explanations the advertisers made the following general comments regarding the complaint by Natural Products New Zealand (9).

Fear and Its Exploitation by Opponents of Complementary Medicines & Natural Therapies

History

Mainstream medicine has a very long history of anti-nutrition bias and utilising politicians or the media to discredit and marginalise alternative medicine (Medical Bias, Nutrition is for the Birds, Nutrition and Megavitamins, Dietary Supplements, Functional Foods or Dietary Supplements, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Pan Crisis, Dispelling the Vitamin E Myths, Global Trends in Health Care). As I have stated elsewhere (Global Trends in Health Care):

One of the main tactics used to discredit complementary medicines by supporters of mainstream medicine is the exploitation of public fears about the safety of such products (Medical Bias, Nutrition is for the Birds, Nutrition and Megavitamins, Dietary Supplements, Functional Foods or Dietary Supplements, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Pan Crisis, Dispelling the Vitamin E Myths). The practice of exploiting public fears is referred to as 'scaremongering' (23). As has recently been pointed out (23); "one thing that is not seen with scaremongering tactics is reference to quality clinical trials or studies. Claims have to be substantiated with evidence to have any value." In other words, as I indicated above (Global Trends in Health Care), "it is clear that the battle will not be fought in the laboratory - and it will not be won in the laboratory. The battle will be fought in the court of public opinion, with the assistance of politicians, because medical authorities know from experience they can never obtain the dominance they seek by laboratory research and scientific evidence." This was demonstrated very effectively during the Pan drug crisis when various 'experts' caused widespread community fear and alarm about complementary medicines when a drug was found to be toxic (Pan Crisis, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry). Rather than provide scientific evidence of the alleged dangers of complementary medicines however, resort was given instead to the use of false or unscientific claims in the media (Pan Crisis, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry). Orthodox medicine has traditionally been much more interested in any claim, no matter how spurious, about the dangers of vitamins rather than scientific evidence of their effectiveness (Medical Bias).

This inability to scientifically justify the widespread community fears they generate is a central part of scaremongering or the deliberate exploitation of  fear. Often those who cannot prove their case adequately using scientific evidence resort to emotive terms such as "quackery", "snake oil" or "expensive urine" to support their cause (Pan Crisis, Medical Bias, Nutrition is for the Birds, Nutrition and Megavitamins, Dietary Supplements, Functional Foods or Dietary Supplements, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Pan Crisis, Dispelling the Vitamin E Myths). Supporters of mainstream or so called 'evidence based' medicine (EBM) often seem to claim that randomised clinical trials are the only scientific truth and the only way of knowing (When There is Evidence for Nutrition but Little Evidence for Evidence Based Medicine) but strangely, such advocates of EBM often claim that vitamins are dangerous although it seems they cannot cite one double blind placebo controlled clinical trial confirming the toxicity of vitamins (24). They cite double blind trials as the gold standard by which the safety and effectiveness of therapies are judged (Medical Evidence or Medical Ignorance?) but yet they totally abandon their own gold standard when it comes to the safety of vitamins, preferring instead to use other scientifically inconclusive studies (Dietary Supplements, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Dispelling the Vitamin E Myths) or unscientific emotive terms like 'snake oil' in the popular media (Pan Crisis, Nutrition and Megavitamins, Holistic or Reductionist).

Another popular tactic employed by those who promote public fears about the alleged dangers of complementary medicines is to persistently avoid any scientific comparison between the safety of complementary medicines as compared to pharmaceutical drugs (Pan Crisis, Medical Bias, Nutrition is for the Birds, Nutrition and Megavitamins, Dietary Supplements, Functional Foods or Dietary Supplements, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Dispelling the Vitamin E Myths, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry). Whereas genuine concern about public health will be clearly manifested by concerns which are obviously prioritised according to degree of toxicity and evidence of known risk, in reality most medical experts seem to express the most concern about the safest products (ie. supplements) and the least concern about the most dangerous (ie. drugs)(Pan Crisis, Medical Bias, Nutrition is for the Birds, Nutrition and Megavitamins, Dietary Supplements, Functional Foods or Dietary Supplements, Nutrition Breakthroughs, Dispelling the Vitamin E Myths, Alternative Medicine Takeover, Response to Government Inquiry, Holistic or Reductionist). Such an attitude suggests a contemptuous disinterest in scientific evidence and public health and the safety of therapeutic substances.

Strangely, although NPNZ and the ASA have suggested the Health Freedom advertisements in NZ were intended to promote or "play on" community fears about the future cost and availability of complementary medicines in NZ, when it comes to the safety of such products NPNZ has taken precisely the opposite stance and claimed these products are MORE dangerous than depicted in the advertisements. In other words it seems, when it comes to the safety of complementary medicines, Michelle Beckett and NPNZ seem to be complaining that the Health Freedom advertisements do not promote sufficient community fear! While Ms Beckett expresses her concern about scaremongering in regard to Health Freedom's claims about the impact of the proposed legislation upon the marketing and availability of complementary medicines (1,8,12), it seems that when it comes to safety she is complaining that there is not enough scaremongering! So according to NPNZ it seems, we should be promoting more fear about the safety of complementary medicines and less fear about the effects of the proposed legislation on the cost and availability of complimentary medicines! But if we promote more fear about the safety of complementary medicines would not this be expected to have a negative impact upon the cost and availability of such products?

Especially in view of the fact that allegations of unjustified fear, scaremongering, and the safety of complementary medicines, were absolutely fundamental to the complaint of Ms Beckett of NPNZ and the decision of the ASA, let us consider the truth about the safety record of complementary medicines and examine recent attempts to justify increased regulatory control of complementary medicines in Australia and NZ on the basis of safety or exploitation of community fears. 

Natural Products New Zealand and Their Complaint About Fear & Scaremongering in Advertisements Supporting Complementary Medicines: the use of fear to promote and condemn complementary medicines

Using Fear to 'Promote' Complementary Medicines & Restore Confidence in the Industry

Since the advertisements complained about by NPNZ were intended to support the retail complementary medicine industry it would seem, since NPNZ also claims to represent the complementary medicine industry, that NPNZ would seek to promote the industry by advertisements which contrast very sharply indeed with those authorised by Health Freedom. In regards to safety for instance, and the claims by Health Freedom (items 3 & 4) that the safety of complementary medicines is demonstrated by the fact that "no one has ever died from supplements" , Michelle Beckett of NPNZ states (Appendix 1):

Michelle Beckett of NPNZ points out that scaremongering or causing community fear is fundamental to her complaints about these advertisements. In their news release of 27th April NPNZ state (8):

And when NPNZ welcomed the findings of the ASA she further stated (11):

Quite clearly, guilt by association does not necessarily prove the complementary medicines in question were at all responsible for the adverse effects reported and the determination of New Zealand authorities to conceal the full details of these cases therefore makes it impossible to draw any firm conclusions. In general terms however, the specific claim that no New Zealander "has ever died from supplements" cannot be conclusively disproved by a report which provides no scientific proof but merely describes an "association" of certain symptoms or health outcomes with the use of "complementary and alternative medicines". Given these facts it is amazing to me that the ASA could uphold this complaint of NPNZ. I can only assume they have access to concrete scientific evidence rather than reports describing an "association", however, I cannot understand their reluctance to release this information to me when I requested it.

The top secret nature of the evidence in question, and the persistent refusal to publicise the full details is not in the public interest and raises huge questions about the credibility of anyone endorsing such a secretive attitude. If complementary medicines are so so dangerous why hide the facts? I challenge the authorities concerned to publicise the full details of these alleged cases of adverse reactions to complementary medicines. I expect that the urgency of their action will reflect their concerns about public health and the safety of complementary medicines.

If I am provided with the required details I will happily amend this article and provide any corrections if needed. Until then.........

1. http://www.naturalproductsnz.org/newsfile_gateway.php?newsid=186 Natural Products NZ Lays Complaint with ASA over False Claims, Media Release, NPNZ, 2nd May, 2007; see also  http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0705/S00043.htm , Scoop Independent News, 2nd May, 2007.
2. http://www.naturalproductsnz.org/about.htm
3. http://www.naturalproductsnz.org/newsfile_gateway.php?newsid=49 Natural Products Summit Hears of Sector's Need for Scientific Support, Media Release, NPNZ, 26th March, 2003.
4. http://www.nzhealthtrust.co.nz/pdf/ANZTPA_Public_Briefing_Points_Summary_11_Feb_07%20.htm ANZTPA Public Briefing Points Summary 11 Feb 07, NZ Health Trust.
5. http://www.nzhealthtrust.co.nz/pdf/rebuttal_Kings_article.htm Rebuttal to Annette Kings Article, 13th March 2007, NZ Health Trust.
6. http://www.naturalproductsnz.org/newsfile_gateway.php?newsid=54 Natural Products New Zealand Expresses Concern and Support for Market Credibility, Press Release, 5th May 2003, NPNZ.
7. http://www.naturalproductsnz.org/news.php
8. http://www.naturalproductsnz.org/newsfile_gateway.php?newsid=179 THE TRUTH STANDING IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY, Trans Tasman Agency: FACT v FICTION, Media Release, 27th April, 2007, NPNZ.
9. http://www.asa.co.nz/display.php?ascb_number=07198 07/198 - Health Freedom New Zealand Newspaper & Radio Advertisement, Advertising Standards Authority of NZ, 19th July 2007.
10.http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/Speeches/2/f/1/48HansS_20070724_0000001 Fenton, Darien: , Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers, Hansard, NZ Parliament, 24th July 2007.
11.http://www.naturalproductsnz.org/newsfile_gateway.php?newsid=208 NATURAL PRODUCTS NZ WELCOMES ASA DECISION BUT DISAPPOINTED IT HAS COME TOO LATE, Media Release, NPNZ, 19th July, 2007; see also http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0707/S00216.htm , Scoop Independent News, 19th July, 2007.
12.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10452818 Catherine Masters, The politics of selling drugs, NZ Herald, 21st July 2007.
13.http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0708/S00013.htm Gordon Copeland, Chance for the people to have say on Therapies, Press Release, Scoop Independent News, 1st August, 2007.
14.http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2003_12_04.htm Trans-Tasman Therapeutic Products Agency—Bilateral Treaty, NZ Parliament, 4th Dec 2003.
15.http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/default.aspx?id=74986&cat=979 Natural products group angry bill shelved, NZ City, 17th July 2007.
16.http://www.newswire.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=382883&catid=33 Time Runs Out For Joint Medicines Agency, Newswire, 16th July 2007.
17.http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0707/S00250.htm  Health Freedom disputes ASA Ruling, Scoop Independent News, 21st July, 2007.
18.http://www.canterburysdigest.co.nz/details.php?id=561 Jonathan Coleman, Creating a more sustainable health system, Canterbury's Digest, Spring edition 2006, Box 32093, Christchurch, New Zealand.
19.http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/portfolios/state_services/2007/mar/14/o01#23 Questions to Ministers, New Zealand Parliament, 14th March 2007; see also http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2007_03_14.htm#_Toc163464757 .
20.http://www.blackmores.com.au/MediaCentre/Detail.aspx?ArticleId=8568 Marcus Blackmore, Trans-Tasman Harmonisation: Blackmores’ perspective, 5th July 2006.
21.http://www.mccully.co.nz/ Murray McCully, The Therapeutic Goods Saga – the Cock-up of the Century, mccully.co, No 297, 20th July 2007, ; see also Scoop Independent News, 20th July, 2007. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0707/S00340.htm
22.http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22141485-23289,00.html Adam Creswell, Drug regulator collapse dents patient hopes, The Australian, 28th July 2007.
23.http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=the_art_of_scaremongering.php Health scares and the art of scaremongering, UK Skeptics, 2005.
24.http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v02n06.shtml Abram Hoffer et al, VITAMIN SAFETY REVIEW PANEL ISSUES FOLLOW-UP REPORT May 26, 2006, Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, May 26, 2006.
25.http://www.newswire.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=385380&catid=3008 Paper Stands By Story After Key Denies U-Turn on Medicines Regulator, Newswire, 1st Aug 2007.
26.http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?articleId=10754 John Key, NZ First 'proposal' doesn't make the grade, Media Release, National Party of New Zealand, 1st Aug 2007.
27.http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/Publishing.nsf/Content/health-mediarel-yr2003-tw-tw03043 Government moves to restore confidence in complementary medicines industry, Media Release, Department of Health, Australian Government, 31st Oct 2003.
28.http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/health-mediarel-yr2003-tw-twsp030909 Trish Worth, Lessons from the Pan Recall,  ASMI Conference, Department of Health, Australian Government, 9th Sept 2003.
29.http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/03/10/1319924.htm Alternative medicine rules tightened, ABC News, 10th March 2005.
30.http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-5MT8UY Kerryn Phelps, Doctors, healing, and the role of complementary medicine, Speech by AMA Federal President, Dr Kerryn Phelps to the International Holistic Health Conference - Australian Integrative Medicine Association (AIMA), Noosa, 23rd May 2003.
31.http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no5/mead.htm Paul S. Mead et al, Food-Related Illness and Death in the United States, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol 5 No.5, Sept/Oct, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
32.http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s785664.htm Food poisoning deaths may be wildly underestimated, News in Science, ABC, 17th Feb 2003.
33.http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/food_allergies/stats.htm  Statistics about Food allergies
34.http://www.newstarget.com/001590.html Mike Adams, Cancer Industry Spreads Fear and Disinformation To Scare People Away From Learning About Alternative Treatments for Cancer on the Internet, 6th Aug 2004.
35.http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19970201-000025.html Jill Neimark, On The Front Lines Of Alternative Medicine; More and more respected mainstream physicians are blending traditional and alternative medicine—even when it means risking their reputations and security, Psychology Today, Jan/Feb 1997.  
36.http://www.mdsupport.org/library/altmed.html Marcia Angell, Jerome P. Kassirer and response by Andrew Weil, Alternative Medicine - The Risks of Untested and Unregulated Remedies, New Eng J Med, 17th Sept 1998.
37.http://www.newstarget.com/008269.html Mike Adams, Why organized medicine wants to outlaw nutrition and turn healers into criminals, 6th June 2005.
38.http://www.channel3000.com/iteam/5006971/detail.html I- Team, Alternative Medicine Practitioners Under Attack - Patients Say Their Rights Are Being Violated, Channel 3000, 22nd Sept 2005.
39.http://apsu.inopsu.com/cam2001.pdf  See: Dr Mike South, (Principal Investigator) General Medicine,
Dr Noel Cranswick, Clinical Pharmacologist, Dr Susan Skull, Paediatrician/Epidemiologist,
Dr Alissa Lim, Adverse Effects Associated with the use of Complementary or Alternative Medicine, 2001, Royal Children's Hospital, Flemington Road, Parkville VIC3052.
40.http://apsu.inopsu.com/CAMprotocol.pdf  See: Prof. Mike South, (Principal Investigator) General Medicine, Dr Noel Cranswick, Clinical Pharmacologist, Dr Susan Skull, Paediatrician/Epidemiologist,
 Adverse Effects Associated with the use of Complementary or Alternative Medicine, Australian Paediatric Surveillance Unit, 2001, Royal Children’s Hospital, Parkville, Vic. 3052.
41.http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/119-1233/1954/ Tonia Nicholson, Complementary and alternative medicines (including traditional Māori treatments) used by presenters to an emergency department in New Zealand: a survey of prevalence and toxicity, Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 05-May-2006, Vol 119 No 1233.
42.http://www.biopsychiatry.com/serotoninsyn.htm  Mackay FJ, Dunn NR, Mann RD, Antidepressants and the serotonin syndrome in general practice, Br J Gen Pract 1999 Nov; 49(448):871-4.
43.http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/117-1196/937/ Cheryl Krone, John Ely, Louis Harms, Nutritional supplements: friend or foe?, Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 18-June-2004, Vol 117 No 1196.

 

Appendix 1 - Complaint by Michelle Beckett of Natural Products New Zealand to the Advertising Standards Authority.

"Complainant, M. Beckett – Natural Products NZ, said:
(Complaint letter dated 30 April 2007 regarding Newspaper Advertisement)

“I write in complaint about an advertisement that appeared in the New Zealand Herald (Page A13) on Thursday April 26th 2007. Copy of the advertisement is attached as Appendix A.

The advertisement was placed as:
"On behalf of Health Freedom (NZ) P.O. Box …, North Harbour AK 0751  Advertisement Authorised by D…"

The advertisement is misleading and deceptive and specifically breaches the Advertising Code of Ethics on no less than nine (9) counts. The objection to this advertisement and the basis for complaint is as follows:

1.             The headline: "NZ Govt Moves to Outlaw Vitamins"

This statement is untrue and is designed to create fear in the minds of those who currently use vitamin supplements or foods that contain them as additives. It is therefore in breach of Item 2 (Truthful presentation), and Item 6 (Fear) of the Code of Ethics. There is no action proposed or in train by the New Zealand Government to `outlaw vitamins'.

2.             "Did you vote for Australian Bureaucrats to make your health decisions?"

The bill makes it clear that this is a joint agency which will include New Zealand and Australian staff. The above statement implies that this will be an `Australian-only' operation and appears designed to create a block between the agreement of both Governments to create closer relations between our two countries. The Bill makes it quite clear that New Zealand sovereignty will be protected.

 Sub Line: If passed the Therapeutic Products and Medicine Bill, rejected by two select committees^(a) and championed by Annette King will be another disaster for the health of all New Zealanders^(b)

(a) The Bill is currently before Parliament and is in review by a Select Committee.

To date, the Bill has not been rejected by any Select Committee, let alone two as claimed in the advertisement. The statement suggests that the Government has rejected its own Bill. Therefore we submit this statement is untrue and breaches Item 2 (Truthful presentation)

(b) There is no evidence that this bill (or its implementation) will be a "disaster for the health of all New Zealanders".

Although this represents the opinion of the advertiser, it is designed to create fear, is exaggerated and gives no reasons or evidence for the claim.

3.             "494 pgs of `safety' legislation yet no one has ever died from supplements".

 Unfortunately, according to the reports of The Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring (CARM) also known as the New Zealand Pharmacovigilance Centre, deaths have occurred in people taking `supplements' therefore we contend this statement is wholly untrue. It is therefore in breach of Item 2 (Truthful presentation) of the Code of Ethics.

Copy of the CARM report is enclosed as Appendix B.

4.             "NZ Acting chair of the coroners council Dr Bain (a lawyer and pharmacist) states that a thorough search of all records indicated that not one person has ever died from consuming a health supplement in New Zealand's history"

CARM reports summary for Serious Reports to Complementary and Alternative Medicines received by NZ Pharmacovigilance since 1992 to 31st December 2006 lists 3 deaths, 24 Life Threatening Events, and 25 cases requiring hospitalization associated with Complementary and Alternative Medicines. It is therefore in breach of Item 2 (Truthful presentation) of the Code of Ethics. Copy of the CARM report is enclosed as Appendix B.

5.             "60% of New Zealand-made supplements and vitamins forced from the shelves"

There is no evidence presented to support this claim. It is designed to create fear, and therefore is in breach of Item 6 of the Code of Ethics.

6.             "Prices will increase by between 20% and 100%"

No evidence is submitted to support this claim. Currently the major suppliers to the Australian and New Zealand market already operate under a very similar system to that proposed for the control of complementary medicines under the Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Agency. Their prices are stable in light of competition. There is no evidence given to support the claim for price increase and it is designed to create fear (Item 6). Some manufacturers may be faced with increased costs of having to implement testing and other controls they do not do presently. Products will also have to be licensed, and there will be a fee for this - as there is for other medicines. There is no evidence presented that the impact will result in 20-100% price increases.

7.             "50% of New Zealand manufacturers will close - associated loss of jobs"

Again there is no evidence to support this claim which is intended to create fear from `loss of jobs'. This is a hyperbole, and no mention of the actual number of manufacturers or jobs involved - or why they will have to close. It is implied they will be forced to do so by this legislation.

8.             "It just gets worse - all decision regarding what supplements and vitamins you are allowed - and levels - are to be made by unelected, unaccountable Australian bureaucrats, heavily lobbied by the pharmaceutical industry"

The Bill currently before the NZ Parliament clearly defines that there will be an Office of Complementary Medicines in Wellington and Canberra and government appointed specialist committees comprising experts from both Australia and New Zealand will make recommendations to the regulators. Much the same process occurs here in New Zealand when New Zealand `bureaucrats' make similar recommendations. The Managing Director of the new joint agency will be responsible to the Ministerial Council which has one New Zealand and one Australian member.

In the Explanatory Note to the Bill, Page 2;

"The objectives of the agreement are to;

·                Safeguard public health and safety in Australia and New Zealand by establishing and maintaining a joint scheme consistent with international best practice for the regulation, quality and safety and efficacy or performance of therapeutic products, and of their manufacture, supply, import, export and promotion;

·                Establish a world class regulatory agency to administer the scheme and be accountable to both parties (the Australian and New Zealand Governments):

·                Establish a Ministerial Council (consisting of one New Zealand and one Australian Minister)

·                Avoid unnecessary barriers to trade"

9.             "You deserve to know that this is a move to limit your access to natural health product, thereby driving you toward pharmaceutical `solutions"'

There is nothing in the Bill that would support this claim. Therefore this statement is also designed to create fear. Item 6 of the Code.

General Comment: This advertisement is designed to create fear through the use of false information and statements to suggest that the New Zealand Government is planning to restrict New Zealanders' choices and access to complementary medicines and through this, force them to use products made by the prescription medicines industry.

Nothing in the legislation currently before Parliament suggests that 'NZ Govt Moves To Outlaw Vitamins'. Therefore we submit this advertisement breaches the ASA Code of Ethics on several counts including the principle of Truth in Advertising.

The Complaints Committee may wish to consider whether the unwarranted concern that this advertisement by Health Freedom NZ have caused warrants a retraction by Health Freedom. It may also be that the publication itself has some responsibility to check the veracity of statements made before going to press especially as paid advertisements.

It is our understanding that more advertisements of similar nature are likely to be placed in the next month by `Health Freedom NZ' and we ask for the Advertising Standards Complaints Board to consider this compliant with some urgency so as to prevent further misleading of the public. …

NPNZ looks forward to receiving the timely response of the Advertising Standards Complaints Board in relation to this advertisement.”

(Complaint letter dated 3 May 2007 regarding Radio Advertisement)

“I write in complaint about a radio advertisement that is appearing on Radio NZ and has specifically been broadcast on 1ZB in Auckland and other main centres as a syndicated advert, 12.20pm Thursday 3 May. 07 Please note this is a frequently repeated advertisement and is being broadcast on many stations across the country.

The advertisement is being "authorised by D… Kay of …" - D… Kay is also authorising written advertisements that breach the Code of ethics under:

"On behalf of Health Freedom (NZ) P.O. Box …, North Harbour AK 0751  Advertisement Authorised by D …"

The advertisement is misleading and deceptive and specifically breaches the Advertising Code of Ethics. The objection to this advertisement and the basis for complaint is as follows:

1.             "You will not be able to buy supplements"

There is no evidence presented to support this claim whatsoever and is in fact an intentionally misleading statement. The statement is untrue and breaches Item 2 (Truthful presentation); It is designed to create fear, and therefore is in breach of Item 6 of the Code of Ethics.

2.             "Prices will increase by between 20% and 100%"

No evidence is submitted to support this claim. Currently the major suppliers to the Australian and New Zealand market already operate under a very similar system to that proposed for the control of complementary medicines under the Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Agency. Their prices are stable in light of competition. There is no evidence given to support the claim for price increase and it is designed to create fear (Item 6). Some manufacturers may be faced with increased costs of having to implement testing and other controls they do not do presently. Products will also have to be licensed, and there will be a fee for this - as there is for other medicines. There is no evidence presented that the impact will result in 20-100% price increases.

This radio advertisement is designed to create fear through the use of false information and statements to suggest that the New Zealand Government is planning to restrict New Zealanders' choices and access to complementary medicines through this Bill. We ask that the Complaints Committee looks into this matter with some urgency as while the advertisement continues to be aired on NZ radio stations, the consumers are being further misled by D… Kay.

 We ask that the ASA moves quickly to remove these radio advertisements from the airwaves. NPNZ looks forward to receiving the timely response of the Advertising Standards Complaints Board in relation to this radio advertisement.”

(Further correspondence from complaint received 19 June 2007)

“As discussed, below is the original correspondence from the New Zealand Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring (CARM) and attached is the report which lists the three deaths related to Complementary and Alternative Medicines.

For support to Complaint 07/198. I look forward to the outcome of the meeting on 10 July.”

Appendix 2 - Response of the Advertising Standards Authority to the Complaint and Response from the Advertisers.

"The Complaints Board perused the complaints and the correspondence before it and viewed a copy of the newspaper advertisement as well as listening to the radio advertisement. It noted the Complainant raised a number of issues about misleading claims made in the advertisements.

The Chairman directed the Complaints Board to consider the complaints with regard to Rules 2, 6, and 11 of the Code Ethics.  Accordingly the task before the Complaints Board was to determine whether in its view the advertisement made exaggerated claims that were misleading or likely to mislead the consumer and without justifiable reason played on fear.  The Complaints Board was also required to assess the advertisements in light of the requirements of Rule 11 for advocacy advertising.

As a preliminary matter, the Chairman also directed the Complaints Board to use the Advocacy Principles in their deliberation.  The Advocacy Principles are:

• That Section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990, in granting the right of freedom of expression, allows advertisers to impart information and opinions but that in exercising that right what was factual information and what was opinion, should be clearly distinguishable.
• That the right of freedom of expression as stated in Section 14 is not absolute as there could be an infringement of other people’s rights. Care should be taken to ensure that this does not occur.
• That the Codes fetter the right granted by Section 14 to ensure there is fair play between all parties on controversial issues. Therefore in advocacy advertising and particularly on political matters the spirit of the Code is more important than technical breaches. People have the right to express their views and this right should not be unduly or unreasonably restricted by Rules.
• That robust debate in a democratic society is to be encouraged by the media and advertiser and that the Codes should be interpreted liberally to ensure fair play by the contestants.
• That it is essential in all advocacy advertisements that the identity of the advertiser is clear.

The Complaints Board then addressed the comment made by the Advertiser in its response with regard to the newspaper advertisement being a public notice and not an advertisement.  The Complaints Board was in no doubt that the newspaper advertisement before it clearly met the definition of advertisement used by the Board in its deliberations.  This definition is listed in the ASA Codes of Practice Booklet and on the website www.asa.co.nz under “Interpretation”.

The Complaints Board also noted that the matter the advertisements referred to were the subject of significant media coverage and strong polarised views.  The Complaints Board noted that strong opposing views were not uncommon in the area of advocacy advertising and confirmed that robust debate is an important part of a free and open society.

In its deliberation, the Complaints Board first considered the newspaper advertisement before it.  The Complaints Board confirmed that it was clearly an advocacy advertisement and the identity of the advertiser and an authorisation statement had been included.  In addition, the Complaints Board noted the statements made by the Advertiser in its response, acknowledging the value of the self-regulatory system, the use of pre-vetting and that the advertisement being considered by the Complaints Board had not been published in that form again.

Turning to the content of the advertisement, the Complaints Board noted that a number of absolute claims had been made.  In the Complaints Board’s view, it was not clear in the advertisement which of these statements was fact and which was opinion.  It therefore considered that the advertisement was in breach of the part of Rule 11 of the Code of Ethics, which said “opinion should be clearly distinguishable from factual information”.

The Complaints Board noted the information provided by the Advertiser in substantiation of the claims made in the advertisement.  However, it considered that the material provided did not provide an adequate level of proof given the absolute nature of the claims made in the advertisement.  In particular the Complaints Board referred to the claims about job losses, price increases and availability of products.

The Complaints Board also agreed that such claims were likely to play on fear in relation to the reaction of the consumer and the Complaints Board agreed that it did not have information in front of it that would indicate such statements could be justified.

Therefore, in relation to the newspaper advertisement, the Complaints Board ruled that the advertisement had not made the separation of fact and opinion clear and was thereby in breach of Rule 11.  The absolute claims in the advertisement had not been substantiated in the Complaints Board’s view and therefore the advertisement was in breach of Rule 2.  It also played on the fear of consumers, thereby breaching Rule 6 of the Code of Ethics.

The Complaints Board then turned to the radio advertisement.  The Complaints Board considered that this advertisement made only one absolute claim in relation to the banning of 60% of the vitamins available to New Zealanders.  The Complaints Board agreed that adequate substantiation of this claim had not been provided and therefore ruled to uphold the complaint in relation to Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics.  The Complaints Board agreed that it also played on fear and thereby breached Rule 6.  The Complaints Board agreed that the identity of the advertiser had been clear, however, separation of fact and opinion had not, thereby breaching that part of Rule 11 of the Code of Ethics.”

The author of this web site expressly disclaims all liability to any person arising directly or indirectly from the use of, or for any errors or omissions in, the information in this web site. The adoption and application of the information in this site is at the reader's discretion and is his or her sole responsibility.

This page was last updated on 18/05/09
Copyright © 2000 Graham Williamson
webmaster@holistichealthtopics.com