I was recently in Britain where I noticed that any TV advertisement that made a statement that the produce was proven in some way, e.g. “85% of people …” had a text at the bottom quoting the actual numbers involved in the ‘study’. So this would mean it would list the actual numbers that were in the study, and what the number was that met the criteria.
What stood out was the very small number being sampled to provide the statistic that was quoted in the advertisement proving the value of the product. Many of these products are exactly the same as what is sold in Australia, even the ads were the same!
Advertisers are allowed to hide behind statistics and percentages that are quite spurious and misleading. I think it is time for regulations forcing advertisers in Australia to display actual numbers for the source of their claims.
I’d like to see the actual research not just the stated results. Often what may happen in a test-tube in a lab, or with mice over 4 days for example does not translate to the same results in people no matter what the size of the actual test sample.
I represent Choice on the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code Council (TGACC) and the Complaint Resolution Panel (TGACRP). There is an ongoing problem of advertisements misrepresenting scientific studies, for example using the claim “clinically proven” when the limited evidence available does not justify such a strong claim. See: http://www.tgacrp.com.au/decision-highlights/.
Despite numerous TGACRP determinations, advertisers continue to mislead consumers about such matters; largely because there are no timely or effective penalties to deter such profitable behaviour: http://www.tgacrp.com.au/complaint-register/?_search=Ease&_id=2883.
Hopefully, this may change given the Government’s response to recommendations is a recent review: https://health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/MMD-govresp
Dr Ken Harvey
http://www.medreach.com.au
k.harvey, if it had not come up in your discussions, misrepresentation is one problem, but another is the TGA seem to have a single job, to assure safety, not address quality or efficacy.
Using krill oil as an example, it is a natural and thus variable product described by a “monograph”. Australian manufacturers are not required to show EPA or DHA, while in jurisdictions such as the USA it is required. A few Australian companies provide full labelling but most have no labelling beyond the mg of krill oil. Some companies will not respond to the EPA/DHA question and others answer by claiming all krill is the same. However, the EPA/DHA content varies by almost double across labelled products (including those companies who do not label but are honest enough to answer a direct question), suggesting different quality products are derived from different processing techniques.
The lack of mandated labelling makes it impossible for a consumer to evaluate product quality, however, I did a 3 month study (n=1) with 3 different brands, and the two that had no EPA/DHA labelling required me to take a double or triple dose as compared to the one with mid-upper labelled EPA and DHA to achieve anecdotally similar joint relief.
Perhaps the TGA is a case of politically inspired window dressing appearing to be consumer protection but is really an industry protection mechanism?
First of all, the promotion of Krill oil has come up; see:
https://theconversation.com/krill-oil-marketing-a-case-study-of-australias-broken-regulations-36770.
Which ironic given that the current fastest selling Vitamin & Dietary Supplement is Krill oil, which generates over $201 million (growth of 180% in 2013) from Consumer Health in Australia, Euromonitor International.
The quality of fish oil is also problematical see:
https://theconversation.com/fish-oil-or-snake-oil-most-capsules-dont-contain-what-they-promise-37311.
So, is the TGA doing a good job?
There is no pre-market assessment of complementary medicines by the TGA, only limited post-marketing reviews. The most recent figures available from the TGA concerning random and targeted post-marketing reviews of listed complementary medicines show around 80% were not in compliance with the regulations. In addition, of all complaint determinations assessed by the TGACRP, 98% are upheld.
In short, the current “light-touch” regulatory system makes it more profitable for sponsors of complementary medicines to invest in marketing hype and celebrity endorsement rather than research and development of quality, evidenced-based products. The end result is a market flooded with products of doubtful value with claims that often go far beyond the limited (or absent) scientific evidence that sponsors are meant to hold in order to justify their claims.
Dr Ken Harvey
