|
<Back
| Home | Basics |
Departments | Get
Involved | Site Map | What's
New
 Advertising
and Monkey Business
By Valerie James
I wanted a doll for my fourth birthday. I had shown my
grandmother the doll in the local country store. But instead she gave
me a little brass statue of three monkeys; one had its hands over it
eyes, one had its hands over its ears and the other had its hands over
its mouth. She told me to listen up and remember that a good rule was
to speak no evil, see no evil and hear no evil. Since she was the kind
of person you minded well, I remembered that lesson all the rest of
my days.
But a few years ago, I got a different message from those three brass
monkeys when I realized that sometimes it is necessary to see evil and
report it. That happened after my investigation of the toxic properties
of soy, which are never disclosed to the customer. Naturally advertisers
accentuate the positive aspects of a product and de-emphasize the negative.
This is merely good business. But good business easily crosses the fine
line into monkey business. Remember the rule about telling the whole
truth?
The International Code of Advertising, to which advertisers and media
give lip service, demands that "all advertising should be legal,
decent, honest and truthful." It states:
Advertisements should not contain any statement or visual presentation
which directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated
claim is likely to mislead the consumer. . . Advertisements should
not misuse research results or quotations from technical and scientific
publications.
But keep your eyes and ears open and you will find that this voluntary
code is often broken. As most countries have a forum for public complaints,
it is important that ordinary people like you and me make the effort
to keep advertisers honest by complaining.
A recent decision in Australia shows what a difference a complaint
can make. It involved false advertising of a product called Promensil,
sold as a phytoestrogen pill for menopause problems. The complaint was
lodged against Novogen, the manufacturer, by Alastair MacLennan, editor
of Climacteric, The Journal of the International Menopause
Society. A study published in the professional journal showed that Promensil
had no greater effect than a placebo. Yet advertisements for the product
inferred that the trials showed that the product was effective. On March
22, 2000, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Advertising Council responded
with the following verdict:
Novogen’s claim that its purpose was to show there was not
lack of science behind the claims for its product does not sit comfortably
with the expressed inconclusiveness of the very references upon which
it relies and with the adverse conclusions of the two published studies
which it sponsored and supported. . . Nogoven has not satisfied the
Panel that at the time of advertisement there was scientifically valid
proof that its claims for Promensil were true. Advertising of this
kind must stop, lest it bring the complementary medicines industry
as a whole into disrepute. The Panel request Novogen Limited to withdraw
the advertisement from further publication until the claims are proved
to be true by scientifically valid trials, the results of which have
been published in peer-reviewed publications and, within 14 days of
being notified of their request, to provide evidence to the Panel
of its compliance.
The Australian Authority is a joint industry-government organization
which has enforcement powers. New Zealand’s Advertising Standards
Authority does not have enforcement powers and its members, which fund
it, are from media and advertising agencies. In fact, its rules state
that the Agency will do all acts which may from time to time be
necessary or expedient for the benefit and protection of Members so
far as the same are permitted by laws of New Zealand. Similarly,
in the US, there is no one panel with decision-making powers to which
citizens can complain.
But that does not mean that citizens in New Zealand and the United
States have no power. In New Zealand, decisions are occasionally given
in favor of a complainant and then act as a deterrent to advertisers.
In the US, the media and most industries are very sensitive to consumer
attitudes and to the possibility of product liability claims.
The Australian decision, and citizen outrage in general, led to similar
decisions in New Zealand against So-Good soy milk and Flora Pro-Activ
margarine (called "Take Control" in the US), developed by
Unilever. Thus, we no longer have advertized claims that drinking a
class of soy milk a day can lower cholesterol or that three weeks of
an estrogen-laced margarine can reduce cholesterol levels. In Europe,
approval for the sale of the Unilever cholesterol-lowering margarine
was delayed because of "widespread public concern about scientific
manipulation of food products," according the Financial Times,
March 22, 1999. As of this date, approval is still withheld. Grass roots
action CAN make a difference!
Making a complaint takes time and effort but costs nothing. Next time
you see false advertising, remember that the only person who should
complain is you. Complain to the appropriate government authorities;
complain to the publications that carry false advertisements. Only if
we stop covering our eyes and then speak out will this monkey business
stop. Find out who your local regulators are and get started!
About the Author
The efforts of Valerie and Richard James of
New Zealand have alerted the public and government agencies to the dangers
of modern soy products. Visit the website at soyonlineservice.co.nz.
<Back
| Home | Tour
| Calendar | Contact
Us | Funding | Join
Now
|