Short abstract
How did an advertisement for a so called psoriasis “remedy” get accepted by several national newspapers?
Cashmere Beauty is a “new unisex organic cream,” which, according to advertisements that have appeared recently in three UK national broadsheets, offers “an effective alternative to toxic prescriptive products treating Psoriasis, Eczema or any irritated complexion.” The advertisement, headlined “Psoriasis & eczema remedy discovered,” also claimed that Cashmere Beauty “heals effected [sic] skin, including: scar tissue, bumps, mild acne and stretch marks.” It further claimed the product was “dermatologically tested and FDA approved.”
To find out more, readers were urged to visit Cashmere Beauty's website (www.cashmerebeauty.com), where they could learn that the cream is made from fresh (“not powdered”) cashmere goats' milk and ponder the prices of The Miracle Bar (£10) and a 30 ml pot of the Rapid Recovery Cream (£34.50).
Now the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is investigating whether or not the advertisement, which appeared in the Times, the Independent, and the Guardian, falls foul of its code.
A quick Google search shows that before the ad's appearance last month, Shahriar Nazemi, founder and owner of the company Cashmere Beauty, had already achieved considerable success gaining editorial coverage for his product. It received mentions in publications as diverse as British Vogue (“Read the name and you'll already feel better”) and the Warner Bros online entertainment magazine (“Hollywood's answer to the fountain of youth”). But, for better or worse, journalists do have some latitude in what they write. Readers might justifiably be expected to exercise some cynicism with regard to their superlatives.
The advertising of products making specific medical claims is supposed to be different. Under the British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (www.asa.org.uk/asa/codes/cap_code/), strict guidelines govern the use of terms such as “remedy” and “heal”; primarily, as such descriptions imply a physiological effect, products using them must be licensed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Furthermore, psoriasis is specifically mentioned on a “serious” list of ailments for which claims about treatment should not be made unless a product is so licensed. Cashmere Beauty has no such licence.
As for its claimed FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) approval, that is open to interpretation. While individual ingredients might have been passed as safe, the agency takes a dim view of any cosmetic product claiming it has been given its approval.
“I'm quite amazed that the ad was allowed to get through,” said Christopher Griffiths, professor of dermatology at the University of Manchester. “The only treatments that give good results in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis are prescription drugs.” Adding that it wasn't uncommon for patients seeing him to come wielding computer printouts or newspaper cuttings showing products making similar claims, Professor Griffiths said: “This sort of thing just raises false hopes.”
Gladys Edwards, chief executive of the Psoriasis Association, also voiced concern about the vulnerability of patients and said she was disappointed so many newspapers took the Cashmere Beauty ad in the form it appeared. “We are especially concerned that the advertisement makes reference to the FDA, which we fear could mislead the public about the nature of the product and its status, particularly in the light of the use of the word `remedy'.”
Donna Mitchell, ASA spokeswoman, said the strength of the self regulatory system of newspaper advertising in the UK lay in the fact that if an advertiser would not voluntarily stop running an offending ad, then publishers would not take it. There was in any case, she added, a legal backstop through the Office of Fair Trading.
Figure 1.
Getting their goat: some experts are worried that such ads could raise false hopes
Credit: JOHN STAMPFL
However, it remains incumbent upon publishers to ensure ads conform to both the ASA's guidelines and the law in the first place. In the case of Cashmere Beauty, that proved to be an unreliable system. Out of the UK national broadsheets, only the Daily Telegraph queried the ad with the authorities and the paper refrained from publishing it.
Figure 2.
So what kind of checking procedures take place in the advertising departments of UK national newspapers? Simon Kilby, head of agency sales at the Guardian—where the ad was 20 cm high and across two columns—said there were several stages at which warning bells might sound. Firstly, there was the sales department, which booked ads; secondly, there was advertising services, which handled copy; and thirdly, the pre-press stage. After that, editorial might pick up infringements when proofing pages.
“However, all these departments are manned by humans, so there's always the element of human error,” said Mr Kilby. “We book thousands of ads every week.”
Simon Cooke, ad director at the Independent, said that while those booking ads at his and other newspapers were “in no way qualified to make a decision about claims made in ads,” his department was always up to date with ASA alerts. “But there's always one or two that get under the radar.”
Cashmere Beauty's Mr Nazemi seemed reluctant to detail to the BMJ either the clinical evidence behind the claims made for his product or the nature of its alleged FDA approval. In an email, he explained that it was “very busy here.”
However, in an earlier call he admitted: “We're a young company and there is a learning curve for us.” Whether national newspaper advertising departments have such an excuse is a moot point.