Featuring endoresements from high-profile Instagram celebrities, HiSmile teeth whitening kits claim they can make teeth eight shades whiter in minutes. We review the product to find out what it can really do and whether it is worth the price tag.
Do you have experience with teeth whitening kits? Share your thoughts below.
While reading the report it occurred Choice should consider advocating for laws stipulating that all advertising claims must be substantiated by evidence available to anyone who asks, on request, if not filed with a government agency that is supposed to be (but often does not appear to be) regulating that industry. Failure to produce the evidence within ‘X days’ should result in a substantial penalty per day beyond ‘X days’.
As a matter of practicality making the evidence available would not have to include assessing its veracity, although that would be ideal.
Top thinking, thanks for the ideas.
One shouldn’t need to ask as the advertising or statement on the packing could be seen as part of the purchase contract.
Any claims should be made available publicly on or before the first day of sale, such on the manufacturer’s/seller’s website or within the packing containing the product. Website may be easier as I expect that a manufacturer may quote numerous references which will be difficult to include in most packaging.
There would be no reason the requirement could not be fulfilled in that way, but I am for a requirement that could be met online or in-post or by email but would have to be met within ‘X days’. It is reasonable to expect any company with evidence would be happy to post it as you suggest.
'The rub" is being able to issue penalties without ‘technical problem’ being able to be put up as a defence.
Of course it is perfectly safe.
The oils are produced exclusively from free-range. organically raised snakes, so what could possibly be unhealthy about that.
Yes, but having it publicly available would allow anyone to scrutinise any claims made about a product, especially where there is a environmental (e.g. efficiency, recycled content), medical/health or social (e.g. donate XYZ to charities) claims.
With the number of claims out there, it may be a financial burden to have numerous consumers asking for the same information.
Rather than the fine not for providing the information, maybe the fines could be for products launched without information publicly available or for products proven to be launched with fraudulent claims. This form of punitive action would be easier to regulate that arguing whether or not information has been issued.
…and the company would be free to use their lowest cost outlet, even the internet so long as there were no ongoing ‘technical difficulties’ whereby the evidence could not be accessed.
Interesting and meritorious thought, but who is funded and charged with assessing the claims, and consider how any business would react if such vetting was not done timely. A small although imperfect step beats a better one that might be tomorrow, if that makes any point.
Perhaps, until business sued for having products delayed through no fault of their own as they could not release them until they got the appropriate tick.
Pragmatism might not be perfect, but it is better than what we have today whereby questions about the claim/evidence are simply not responded to.
The business before releasing the product onto the market. They need to be able to stand behind the claims they make.
Secondary view to verify the claims could be made by any individual or organisation.
I know that some will say that the product may work as there is no evidence indicating that it doesn’t. But if this case then claims should not be made about the product or it should be clear that the label information made are based on unproven, untested anecdotal information from consumers.
We can always trust self policing businesses. Ask the banks and the Victorian builders for a start. Not at all neglecting sponsored research in that mix.
Confirming veracity requires an unbiased higher standard, and sometimes significant expertise. Letting them post what they feel is evidence opens them to scrutiny.
Do I need to go further about this? Never heard about a dodgy bank or dodgy Victoria builder who was up front that ‘we proudly do you like nobody else’ in comparison to the wonderful on-line accolades of how good they are.
Maybe we are ‘arguing’ the same thing using different words or perspectives, but regardless the idea was floated and made.
That’s a 
brilliant idea @PhilT.
Peter’s idea has merit, in that if companies couldn’t provide their bona fides up front, they should not be able to launch the product to market. This might cut down the volume of complete rubbish being sold at the moment.
