Scientific claims about probiotic yoghurt misleading

Posted on October 14th, 2009 in Diet, Food, Health, Science, Supplements

ASA claim this advert was misleading

Today’s upholding of a complaint by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) supports my view that you should investigate claims of health benefits of products you supplement your diet with, to ensure you don’t waste your time, money or even damage your health.

The TV advert in question is for Actimel, a pro-biotic drinking yoghurt intended to be consumed by every one of all ages. One viewer had challenged whether the claim by the ad voice-over that “Actimel was scientifically proven to help support your kids’ defences” could be substantiated.

In their defence to the ASA, Danone claimed that the health benefits of Actimel had been demonstrated in 23 human studies conducted on over 6000 people across different age ranges, with eight studies carried out on children up to 16 years of age.

Danone claimed that the health benefit of Actimel is through the support of the human body’s natural defence system, helping to protect against pathogens and harmful environmental factors, as some of the most important defence systems are located within the gastrointestinal tract. Danone said they had referred to Actimel as being “scientifically proven” in their ads based on a significant body of published scientific evidence that showed that Actimel supported the natural defences of different age groups, including children.

The ASA thought that the ad suggested through the image of an Actimel bottle jumping over a skipping rope and the sound of children laughing and playing implies that the product is intended for normal, healthy children of school age (five to sixteen years old). The ASA also considered that most consumers would understand the claim that Actimel “was scientifically proven to support your kids’ defences” to mean that the product would help defend those children against common, every-day childhood infections. Whilst Danone submitted scientific studies in support of the claims, they were not involving subjects who could be considered ‘normal, healthy children of school age’.

One study examined the effect of Actimel on hospitalised children in India suffering from acute diarrhoea another involved those receiving medication for chronic Helicobacter pylori. Both trials were considered to be unsuitable for use in support of a claim that was likely to be seen as referring to normal, healthy children.
Children in another study assessed the effect of Actimel on the occurrence and duration of a range of symptoms, including asthma, rhinitis, diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, abdominal pains and fever, in children aged two to five years who suffered from allergic conditions. Again meaning the results of the study could not necessarily be applied to normal, healthy children.
Three other trials were on children between the ages of 6 and 33 months, much lower than the target group of school-age children suggested by the ad. The ASA understood that the developing immune systems of children under two differed from those of older children, and so did not think that it could be safely assumed that the results reported for the young children in these studies would be the same for school-aged children.
A further area of concern was the portion sizes used in the studies. The children in some studies were supplemented with portion sizes that were larger than the recommended serving size of one 100 g pot of Actimel per day. The observed benefit for Actimel in the clinical trials might not therefore, be representative of the effect of the product when consumed on an ‘everyday’ basis.

The ASA considered that the ad was making an absolute claim that Actimel would support the defences of children, and that the reference to “your kids” was implying to consumers that Actimel would benefit their child.

The ASA understood that some children would not see a benefit from consuming Actimel, and because were concerned that any observed effects for Actimel in the trials might not be representative of the efficacy of the product when consumed in line with the recommended daily serving. It was concluded that a serving of Actimel was not scientifically proven to support the defences of normal, healthy school-aged children against common, every-day childhood infections and that the ad was misleading.

The ASA have ruled that the ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. Whilst there is no suggestion that this product could damage anyone’s health, the findings of the ASA support my previous articles on supplement efficacy and safety: Even with claims of supporting scientific evidence, many products may only benefit specific groups of people. Before you waste your money on ‘healthy’ products, consider if you are actually deficient in the nutrients they are supplying? If they can cure illnesses, is it something you are suffering from? Do you fit the target group scientific studies have shown benefit in? If in any doubt consult a healthcare professional.