Category: Regulation

Chiropractors struggle to drop testimonials

Chiropractors struggle to drop testimonials

The latest newsletter from the regulator of chiropractors offers an insight into the industry’s culture problems.

In their June newsletter, the chair of the Chiropractic Board has admonished chiropractors for a discussion on how to circumvent consumer protection regulations:

At a recent chiropractic function, a presentation was given on advertising, chiropractors’ responsibilities and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The information was well presented and informative however ensuing discussion revealed that the message is clearly not being heard by all. I urge you to please refer to my email of 30 August 2017 that clearly outlines your responsibilities, and reiterates very important points set out in the Board’s Advertising and Social Media Policy, and references to all other responsibilities. I was particularly disappointed in discussion among practitioners on how to best circumvent the prohibition on posting testimonials on Facebook – some very creative ideas were invented.

The Chiropractic Board published their current Advertising Policy in November 2015. It notes, correctly, that the use of health testimonials in advertising is prohibited in New Zealand by Section 58(1)(c)(iii) of the Medicines Act 1981:

A chiropractor shall not advertise any material which relates to the chiropractor’s qualifications, practices, treatment or the premises where they practice chiropractic if the material:

…

f) uses testimonials whether from patients or any other person (see section on Medicines Act);

…

This section [58 of the Medicines Act] provides further at Section 58(1)(c) that it is an offence to imply, claim, indicate or suggest that a medicine, treatment or device is a panacea or infallible for any condition or is recommended by an appropriately qualified person or had beneficially affected the health of a particular person or class of persons, whether real or fictitious.

This wording clearly prevents a health practitioner publishing testimonials.

Unfortunately, this law is widely ignored in New Zealand, particularly by promoters of dodgy health products. In my experience even when breaches are brought to the attention of the agency responsible for enforcing it – Medsafe, in this instance – nothing is likely to happen.

In 2015, my colleague at the Society for Science Based Healthcare Mark Honeychurch and I looked at how often New Zealand chiropractors were publishing health testimonials and various misleading health claims in online advertising. This was prior to the publication of the Chiropractic Board’s current advertising policy, but over 20 years after the law prohibiting the use of health testimonials in advertisements was passed. We found that just over a third of the 137 websites we looked at used health testimonials.

Thankfully, this does seem to have decreased following the introduction of the Advertising Policy, but the recent newsletter seems to imply that chiropractors are not happy about being unable to use testimonials to promote their services.

When looking at how often chiropractors use misleading claims and health testimonials in 2015, we hadn’t looked at advertising on social media. While writing this post, I have searched for “NZ chiropractic” on Facebook and clicked on the top three pages that showed up in the results – Bays Chiropractic NZ, Chiropractic Touch, and Revolution Chiropractic NZ – to have a quick look (I didn’t look through any comments or watch any videos) and see if any of them had been publishing testimonials there.

I didn’t see testimonials on the Bays Chiropractic NZ page, but I couldn’t help but notice that they shared an image in February featuring many misleading claims about chiropractic manipulation, including that it can reduce allergies, asthma, and ADHD. As the Chiropractic Board of Australia has clarified in their own Statement on Advertising in 2016, these claims are not supported by evidence:

Claims suggesting that manual therapy for spinal problems can assist with general wellness and/or benefit a variety of paediatric syndromes and organic conditions are not supported by satisfactory evidence. This includes claims relating to developmental and behavioural disorders, ADHD, autistic spectrum disorders, asthma, infantile colic, bedwetting, ear infections and digestive problems.

In August 2017, Chiropractic Touch posted a testimonial claiming that chiropractic manipulations had cured someone’s asthma. They used one of the “creative ideas” commonly used by chiropractors to try to circumvent the prohibition on publishing health testimonials: telling the testimonial in the context of it inspiring a chiropractor to pursue their career rather than framing it as a patient’s experience.

I didn’t see any testimonials on Revolution Chiropractic NZ’s page, but they do seem to publish a lot of posts about adrenal fatigue. Adrenal fatigue is a fake diagnosis that I’ve seen most often used by naturopaths to sell unnecessary supplements. Revolution Chiropractic NZ also shared some of the same misleading claims as Bays Chiropractic NZ, including particularly concerning misleading claims about being able to treat children and infants for conditions such as colic and ear infections.

Whatever improvements there may have been over the past few years, it seems the chiropractic industry in New Zealand is still struggling with its culture of ignoring or sidestepping patient protection regulations.

New rules for pharmacists

New rules for pharmacists

The Pharmacy Council has (finally) published their new Code of Ethics 2018.

I’ve written several times on the ongoing saga of the Pharmacy Council’s Code of Ethics. In late 2014 we put together a complaint at the Society for Science Based Healthcare arguing that their Code of Ethics 2011 had been violated by an Auckland pharmacy, in which a salesperson had recommended and sold a homeopathic product to someone who didn’t realise they were buying quackery.

Following this complaint, the Pharmacy Council decided they would not enforce the rule in their Code of Ethics at the time that prohibited pharmacies from purchasing or supplying any health product that was not backed by “credible evidence of efficacy”.

This led to two protracted consultation processes, first about that specific part of the code and then about rewriting the code entirely. I worked on the Society for Science Based Healthcare’s submissions during each consultation period, and we met with the Pharmacy Council twice to discuss the topic.

The consultation processes also saw well-voiced support for strong patient protection rules coming from the New Zealand Medical Council and the Pharmaceutical Society (who represent professional pharmacists). Whereas the Pharmacy Guild (who represent pharmacy owners) was in favour of the more relaxed rules that had been suggested. For more detail on this, you can read my submissions roundup from 2015.

The Code of Ethics 2018 will come into force on the 12th of March 2018. It’s principle-driven, and accompanied by a number of guidelines that go into more detail on what’s expected of pharmacists in various areas. One of these guidelines is the Pharmacy Council Complementary and Alternative Medicines – Statement and Protocol for Pharmacists.

Unlike the Code of Ethics 2011, the new rules don’t prohibit pharmacists from selling quackery. While this is unfortunate, it’s seemed clear from the outset that the Pharmacy Council had no intention to keep this rule given they aren’t prepared to enforce it. Instead, there has been an increased focus on ensuring patients are given the opportunity to make an informed choice.

I’m feeling cautiously optimistic about the change. Though ideally pharmacists shouldn’t be lending their credibility to ineffective health products, if pharmacists must be allowed to sell quackery then I think the next best approach to regulation is to protect patients’ rights to make an informed decision.

On the face of it, I think the new rules seem good. But enforcement has been a concern in the past and parts of the previous code were widely disregarded. Come the 12th of March, I plan to have a look for pharmacists who aren’t complying with the new rules and lodge complaints to see how they are treated, and if the behaviour is corrected. Unfortunately, there are a few pharmacies in New Zealand that have a history of promoting quackery, including by selling ineffective health products online, which seems like a good place to start.

I’d recommend you read the rules for yourself if you’re interested, but here’s my summary of what I think are the most important new patient protection rules regarding informed consent:

[Principle 1H: A pharmacist] Before recommending, supplying or promoting a medicine, complementary and/or alternative medicine or other healthcare product or service, considers available evidence, and only supplies a product when satisfied that it is appropriate, and the person understands how to use it correctly and safely.

[Principle 4C: A pharmacist] Provides accurate, truthful, relevant, and independent information in an appropriate form that is not misleading to patients, the public and/or other healthcare professionals.

[Principle 4H: A pharmacist] Ensures that when providing any medicine, complementary and alternative medicine, or other healthcare product or service, that the health and wellbeing of the patient or consumer is the primary consideration, and that the benefit of use outweighs the risk.

[Principle 4I: A pharmacist] Does not engage in advertising, promotion or supply of goods or services that could include misleading or unsubstantiated claims, and/ or undermine public trust in the profession.

[Principle 6A: A pharmacist] Maintains contemporary knowledge of evidence-based practice.

Where it makes sense, all of these principles are effectively extended to non-pharmacist salespeople who work in pharmacies via Principle 5G:

[A pharmacist] Is responsible for actions of staff under their supervision.

Looking at the associated guideline on “complementary and alternative medicines”, the requirements in parts 14 and 15 seem like they will be particularly important for protecting patients from quackery in pharmacies:

14. When supplying products or information about treatments/products/services that have no current evidence of proven efficacy pharmacists are expected to:

a. ensure that patients are informed about the degree to which treatments or products have been evaluated, and

b. the degree of certainty and predictability that exists about their efficacy and safety

15. Pharmacists must advise patients when scientific support for treatment is lacking.

Part 18 of the guidelines also includes the following requirements:

e. provide sufficient information regarding the CM/NHP [Complementary Medicine/Natural Health Product] to allow patients to make informed choices

f. not misrepresent information or opinion. Patients must be made aware of the likely effectiveness of a given therapy according to recognised peer-reviewed medical publications, in spite of your personal beliefs

g. provide the patient with a timeframe for accessing conventional medicine if their condition is unresolved or there is no improvement

Time will tell if these rules really do enhance patient protection in the pharmacy industry, which has a long-standing problem with promoting quackery on the side.

From the 12th of March onwards, if you see behaviour that you think is non-compliant with the code feel free to let me know about it. I can be contacted via email at mark@honestuniverse.com.

Can you trust Band-Aids?

Can you trust Band-Aids?

Band-Aid is a household name, but can you trust the way they’re promoted?

For years Johnson & Johnson, the manufacturers of Band-Aid adhesive bandages, have been making a simple claim about them. If you put a Band-Aid on a cut, it will heal faster than it would have if left uncovered.

Specifically, they say it will heal twice as fast:

Band-Aid packaging, front and back.

Johnson & Johnson is a large, well-known medical company. As well as Band-Aids, they make many other health and health adjacent products such as shampoo for babies, cold medicines, and mouthwash. For better or for worse, this means many of us are willing to accept their claims at face value.

In an ideal world, that would be fine. They don’t have a reputation for being misleading, like the reputation Reckitt Benckiser has earned for its misleading claims about Nurofen. They’re also not selling products that are clearly dodgy, like homeopathy or a quantum magnetic health analyser.

If all of us took the time to look into every health claim we encountered, we’d have no time left to eat or sleep. So, in cases like this, we often feel satisfied that if such a big company were making a dodgy claim someone would have caught it and called them out.

Well, that’s exactly what happened in this case. In early 2017, Dr Ken Harvey contacted Johnson & Johnson to ask them to provide the evidence for the “heals cuts twice as fast” claim they were making. In response, Johnson & Johnson did not send him the evidence. Instead, they opted to remove the claims.

“I gently asked them where was the evidence, it’s a fairly strong claim,” Dr Harvey told Fairfax. “And they hummed and hawed and eventually decided, I got a lovely letter from them, saying there was evidence – but they are removing the claims.”

Band-Aid promotions to be ripped off the shelf after complaints about healing claims | The Age

I was alerted to this by a member of the Australian patient advocacy group Friends of Science in Medicine*, which has similar aims to the New Zealand Society for Science Based Healthcare that I chair.

At the Society for Science Based Healthcare, we decided we wanted to make sure that the same change would be reflected over here. So, in April 2017, I wrote to Johnson & Johnson:

Kia ora,

I saw the other day that Johnson & Johnson will be removing promotional material in Australia saying Band-Aids are “clinically proven to heal wounds faster”. http://www.theage.com.au/national/health/bandaid-promotions-to-be-ripped-off-the-shelf-after-complaints-about-healing-claims-20170413-gvk985.html

Similar promotional material for Band-Aids exists in New Zealand. Does Johnson & Johnson also plan to remove these? For example, these online ads for various Band-Aid products all say they can make cuts heal twice as fast as if they were uncovered, and it looks like the same claim is made on the packaging too:

If Johnson & Johnson does not plan to remove these ads, will they be willing to publish the evidence alluded to in the statement provided to Australian media?

Sincerely,

Mark Hanna
Chair, Society for Science Based Healthcare

A couple of weeks later – after their Director of Regulatory Affairs for Australia, New Zealand, and Japan had returned from leave – I received this response:

Dear Mr Hanna,

Re: Band-Aid® Brand Adhesive Bandages

I refer to your correspondence in relation to our Band-Aid® Brand Adhesive Bandages.

I can confirm that the product sold in New Zealand is the same as the product sold in Australia. Any changes that we make to our promotional and packaging material for Australia will, therefore, be reflected in the New Zealand market.

Thank you for your enquiry.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Harris B.Sc(Hons) PhD
Director, Regulatory Affairs

Great, the claim on the packaging would be removed! A win for consumers, all done and dusted I guess. Except… all those examples I sent to them were text on a supplier’s website. Would their suppliers all be told of the change they should make to the way Band-Aids could be promoted? I asked:

Thanks Andrew, it’s good to have confirmation on this. I assume, then, that Johnson & Johnson will be contacting all of its New Zealand retailers to ensure they update their marketing materials for these products?

Sincerely,

Mark Hanna
Chair, Society for Science Based Healthcare

This time, I never heard back. Obviously I can’t say for sure, but in my opinion it’s likely that Johnson & Johnson never responded to that question because they had nothing else to tell me that wouldn’t make them look bad.

I don’t think they ever had any plans to contact their suppliers about removing this claim from promotional material that Johnson & Johnson didn’t have direct control over. I also don’t think they’ve contacted their suppliers about this in the months since they agreed to change their packaging.

In fact, if you check those example links I sent to them in April, you might find the “Heals cuts twice as fast” claim is still there. At the time of writing, that claim was still present at all three links.

But it’s not just their suppliers that are the problem. In early June, a couple of months after Johnson & Johnson agreed to stop claiming that Band-Aids can heal cuts twice as fast, Society for Science Based Healthcare member Daniel Ryan noticed that the claim was still made on over a dozen pages on the Band-Aid New Zealand website. He laid a complaint about this with the Advertising Standards Authority.

Unsurprisingly, his complaint was settled in July when Johnson & Johnson voluntarily removed the claims:

The Chair [of the Advertising Standards Complaints Board] acknoweldged the Advertiser’s response to the complaint confirming it had made changes to the website voluntarily and without admission, removing packaging images containing statements which were of concern.

ASA Complaint 17/185

Though Johnson & Johnson are clearly happy to be seen doing the right thing – removing claims that they are unwilling or unable to substantiate – it seems to me that they have also been very willing to ignore many places where these claims continue to be made, and to delay their removal through inaction.

It reminds me of Reckitt Benckiser’s behaviour in the case of the misleading claims they made about Nurofen specific pain products. Even though they were eventually forced to remove the claims (accompanied by a paltry fine, in their case), they still made a healthy profit in the meantime.

Perhaps more importantly, during the intervening time in which the claims remained, they were only further cemented as part of public knoweldge. So even though they’re no longer used, they’ll probably still come to mind when people are deciding whether or not to buy them:

“Band-Aids heal cuts twice as fast? Yeah, I’m sure I heard that somewhere.”

This is often what supposedly reputable health companies rely on. Even if they’re forced to remove misleading claims, people will still remember the old claims.

And if no one complains, nothing happens.

* I’m also a member of Friends of Science in Medicine (though not particularly active, since I focus my efforts on New Zealand issues), and Dr Ken Harvey is on their executive.

New Zealand should not regulate naturopaths

New Zealand should not regulate naturopaths

Naturopaths can kill, but regulating them is not the answer.

Over the weekend, the Sunday Star Times published an article by Simon Maude on an unnamed naturopath whose inept attempts at cancer treatment led to the death of an Auckland woman last year: Naturopathy under microscope after cancer sufferers speak from under shadow of death

At the same time, an article syndicated to Stuff from the Sydney Morning Herald detailed a court case in which a naturopath in Australia nearly killed a baby through their dietary advice for the infant’s eczema: Australian naturopath admits ‘raw food’ diet advice endangered baby’s life

As a result, the question has been raised of whether or not naturopaths should be regulated in the same way as medical doctors, pharmacists, and chiropractors.

In the Sunday Star Times article, vice president of the New Zealand Society of Naturopaths Sharon Erdrich laments what she sees as the root of the problem:

New Zealand Society of Naturopaths vice-president Sharon Erdrich says the society wants tighter regulations.

“In Germany, naturopaths are very heavily regulated, there’s regulation in the United States and Australia has some controls.”

Even though there is “potential for harm, basically anyone in New Zealand can call themselves a naturopath,” Erdich says.

(As an aside, Ms Erdrich’s clinic offers such bogus health services as quantum reflex analysis and live blood analysis, and an article she published in 2016 says “The first, and most important thing you can do” if you have cancer is to book an appointment with a naturopath.)

This argument was continued in an editorial in The Press this morning: New Zealand should require naturopaths to be registered

Here is the root of the argument, as expressed in that editorial:

Naturopathy is also enabled by tertiary institutes offering courses which are recognised by the official New Zealand Qualifications Authority framework.

This means that, even though anyone can claim to be a naturopath in New Zealand (there is no law stopping them), practitioners can arm themselves with diplomas and degrees and present themselves as equal to other health professionals.

That being the case, safeguards should be put in place for the public.

The most useful of these would be to require naturopaths to be registered, and made subject to similar disciplinary processes demanded of other health professionals when they can’t make good on their promises.

NZQA approving courses on quackery, such as their Certificate in Acute Prescribing with Homeopathy, is a real problem. But these calls for naturopaths to be registered are missing the point, I think.

The problem is not that “anyone can claim to be a naturopath in New Zealand”; the problem is that naturopathy is quackery. We already have regulation to address quackery, the real problem is that the existing regulation is not adequately enforced. Both the Fair Trading Act 1986 and the Medicines Act 1981 prohibit the misleading claims which are the basis of the practice of naturopathy.

For example, the Fair Trading Act prohibits the use of any “unsubstantiated representations”, as well as “conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive”, in trade. The Medicines Act prohibits the use of health testimonials (which can be both very convincing and entirely misleading), and claims to treat serious illnesses such as cancer, in advertisements.

The Sunday Star Times article also notes that naturopaths, despite not being subject to specific regulation, are still subject to the Health and Disability Code of Rights:

Regulation is not being considered as the ministry has not received an application from naturopaths to become regulated under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003.

Health practitioners including naturopaths remain subject to the Health and Disability Code of Rights, “whether they are regulated or not”.

Consumers may complain to the Health and Disability Commissioner about care.

The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, which regulates professions such as medical doctors and pharmacists, also prohibits anyone from claiming or implying that they are registered as or qualified to be registered as any type of regulated health professional. This is the provision that could prevent anyone not registered from calling themselves a naturopath.

We have already seen, here in New Zealand, that regulating a health profession prone to making misleading claims does not stop that practice. In research conducted by myself and Mark Honeychurch in 2016, we found that the majority of New Zealand chiropractors who advertise online make misleading claims about what they can treat. Including them in the regulatory scheme has not stopped this behaviour at all, rather it has just allowed them to continue misleading patients from a position of authority, able to use the protected title of “Dr”.

The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act sets up authorities to regulate each health profession that is composed of members of that profession. The Medical Council, the Pharmacy Council, and the Chiropractic Board are all examples of this.

But a Naturopathy Board filled with naturopaths would not be able to effectively regulate naturopaths. Quacks can’t regulate quacks effectively. All regulating them would do is give them the appearance of legitimacy and authority.

The real problem with all of this regulation is that it is not enforced. The solution, therefore, should be simple: enforce it.

Pharmacy ethics: Have your say

Pharmacy ethics: Have your say

The Pharmacy Council has opened consultations on a proposed new code of ethics. Following an initial consultation in 2015 where they’d proposed changing one part of the existing code, the council has since decided the whole code could do with a review.

The Pharmacy Council is the regulatory body for pharmacists in New Zealand, set up by the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. As well as overseeing the registration of pharmacists, they are also responsible under Section 118(i) of the Act for setting standards of ethical conduct to be observed by pharmacists.

I met with the Pharmacy Council just prior to the new consultation being opened, as part of my volunteer work with the Society for Science Based Healthcare. They told us that the revised code is intended to be more principle-driven, with associated guidelines that will be able to be updated more easily so as to keep pace with the evolution of the healthcare industry and with new legislation.

As well as these principles, the proposal also includes a draft of the Pharmacy Council Complementary and Alternative Medicines Statement and Protocol for Pharmacists as one of its appendices, and the council is also seeking feedback on this part of their proposal. Here are the consultation questions they’ve put forward, though they note that these are only intended as a guide and submissions can comment on any part of the proposal:

  1. Can you think of any ethical values for the pharmacy profession that appear to be omitted from the revised code?
  2. Considering the explanation of the term “patient” and equivalent terms in the key terms (key terms):

    1. Do you think the term “patient” is the best word to use, most of the time, to express the relationship that exits between the pharmacist and the person they are directly or indirectly caring for or providing health care information to?
    2. Are there any specific clauses where you can think of different term that could be more appropriate?
  3. Considering the new clauses that relate to the sale of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM, clauses 1g, 4h and 4hh): Do you find it clear that the Council is not opposed to the sale of CAM when they have demonstrated benefits for patients, have minimal risks, and the patient is making an informed choice?
  4. Are there any other comments you would like the Council to consider?

In the Society for Science Based Healthcare’s 2015 submission, we stressed the importance of a code of ethics that would effectively protect patients. The context of the original proposed change was a complaint we laid in 2014 regarding an Auckland pharmacy promoting and selling a homeopathic product, in which the Pharmacy Council determined it could not enforce its existing code of ethics:

The council forwarded the complaint to the office of the Health and Disability Commissioner, but both organisations were unwilling or unable to enforce it as this would involve telling a pharmacy which products they can or cannot sell. Neither the Pharmacy Council nor the Health and Disability Commissioner seems willing to enforce a code of ethics when this would involve telling pharmacists which products they can or can’t stock.

The Pharmacy Council’s proposal document notes that the Council “has a duty to protect the public”. A code of ethics which is not enforced may as well not exist. We feel the addition of a new section requiring that sufficient information can be provided to consumers in order for them to make an informed choice regarding whether or not to purchase a complementary therapy is in line with what consumers could reasonably expect. We hope that complaints about potential breaches of this standard would be considered by the Pharmacy Council or another body, so that it can offer some measure of consumer protection.

Our submission will view the draft revised code in this light, looking at it in terms of how effectively we could expect it to prevent patients from being misled in pharmacies.

If this is important to you too, I hope you’ll consider making a submission. As the consultation document notes, submissions can be sent via email to enquiries@pharmacycouncil.org.nz, and (at the time this article was published) submissions will close at 5pm on Friday 18 August 2017.

A Failure to Regulate

A Failure to Regulate

New Zealand has several layers of regulation to protect us against misleading health claims. Sometimes they all fail. My struggle against quackery over the last few years has given me some familiarity with the ways we’re protected against it, and with their shortcomings.

Misleading people about their healthcare options is something that is clearly unethical. To quote the alt text of Randall Munroe’s xkcd comic strip Alternative Literature:

Telling someone who trusts you that you’re giving them medicine, when you know you’re not, because you want their money, isn’t just lying–it’s like an example you’d make up if you had to illustrate for a child why lying is wrong.

Alternative Literature | xkcd

Whether or not someone making misleading health claims knows they’re not true, this is something that can pretty clearly cause harm. At the lower end, a useless health product promoted for something that will get better on its own will cause financial harm. At the higher end, misleading people about their healthcare options could lead them to delay or avoid life-saving medical treatment. In all cases, it involves a violation of the person’s right to make an informed decision about their healthcare.

Our protection

Advertisers

The first line of defence we have against misleading healthcare claims is the conscience of the person making the claims. If no one ever made claims that are misleading in the first place, we wouldn’t need any regulation to deal with it.

In some cases, the advertiser themselves may have been misled, such as a store having been misled by a supplier. Sometimes, as I have written here before, once they are aware they have been misled their conscience may lead them to fix the problem.

Industry bodies

The second line of defence is industry self-regulation. This can take a few forms, such as the codes of conduct of professional societies. Perhaps the most prominent piece of general industry self-regulation in New Zealand is the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

The ASA has codes for various types of advertising, including a Therapeutic and Health Advertising Code which requires that therapeutic claims can’t be made in advertising unless you have good evidence to back them up.

The ASA won’t go out looking for non-compliant ads; instead they rely on people submitting complaints to them. The ASA considers each and every complaint lodged with them, and will always act if they agree it’s justified under their codes. If they find that an ad which has been complained about does not comply with their codes, and the advertiser refuses to fix it, the ASA will uphold the complaint.

When the ASA upholds a complaint, they ask the advertiser to remove their ad. However, they don’t have any legal power to enforce this, and there aren’t any penalties for violating the ASA’s codes.

Some industry groups have made a commitment to comply with the ASA’s rulings. For example, the Newspaper Publishers’ Association of New Zealand (Inc) is a member of the ASA. If an advertiser refuses to comply with an ASA ruling, any organisation that is member of the ASA should refuse to publish the ad.

However, many misleading claims are published directly by the advertiser, for example when they appear online on the advertiser’s own website. These advertisers have typically made no such committment to abide by the ASA’s rulings, and the ASA relies on their voluntary compliance.

The law

The third line of defence is legislation. We have laws against various ways in which consumers can be misled, and these are enforced by various government agencies.

The Fair Trading Act 1986 is one of these laws. It has a requirement for substantiation similar to the one in the ASA’s codes:

A person must not, in trade, make an unsubstantiated representation.

Fair Trading Act 1986 Section 12A(1)

This law is enforced by the Commerce Commission. There are some important differences that set the Commerce Commission apart from the ASA:

  • The Commerce Commission has power to enforce the law. Whereas the ASA can only ask an advertiser to withdraw an ad, the Commerce Commission can take them to court.
  • The Commerce Commission will not act on every justified complaint it receives. Instead it will assess them and decide whether or not to take action. Sometimes the decision is made to take no action even if there is a breach of the Fair Trading Act.

Also at this level of regulation is the Medicines Act 1981, which is enforced by Medsafe. The Medicines Act restricts certain health claims, only allowing them to be made for products that have been approved by the Minister of Health to be sold as a medicine for that purpose.

New medicines can be approved through a process in which they must provide evidence of their safety and efficacy. There are also some products that were already around in 1981 when the Act came into effect were “grandfathered” into the scheme and granted automatic approval, regardless of the evidence for them.

Like the Commerce Commission, Medsafe will not act on every justified complaint they receive, even if the Medicines Act has been breached. They prioritise complaints, and in my experience will typically not act unless there is a clear safety issue.

This means that some parts of the Medicines Act, such as Section 58(1)(c)(iii) which prohibits the use of any sort of health testimonial in medical advertisements, can go entirely unenforced.

Consumer advocates

With almost every level of regulation, nothing will happen unless someone complains. The system relies heavily on individual consumer advocates and consumer advocacy organisations. Groups like the Society for Science Based Healthcare (which, to be clear, I’m the chair of), Consumer NZ, and the NZ Skeptics can do what the regulators can’t.

Though we don’t have any powers of enforcement, we can bring issues to the attention of regulators, work to educate and inform consumers, and raise awareness of issues that regulators have failed to resolve.

Such as the ongoing case of the Homeopathy Centre’s misleading advertising…

When it all goes wrong

In March 2015, I was sent a message about an advertorial written by a business called the Homeopathy Centre, which was published in the Christchurch Mail newspaper.

This business was making a lot of misleading claims about homeopathy, both in the advertorial and on their website. They were using pseudoscientific language to convince people that homeopathy is effective:

The carefully selected homeopathic medicine is energetic in nature and can stimulate the vital force, which is not material, but a vibrant energetic structure interconnected with the body and mind.

Homeopathy Centre

The ads also claimed homeopathy could help with a large number of health problems such as insomnia, anxiety, and a “Weak immune system”. The most prominent claim for homeopathy was:

No matter what state of health you are in, you can improve it!

Homeopathy Centre

Advertising Standards Authority

Through my volunteer work at the Society for Science Based Healthcare, I make a lot of complaints about misleading health advertisements.

Almost always, I go to the Advertising Standards Authority first. Misleading health claims are often made by people advertising their own products and services, so dealing with them directly is unlikely to be helpful. On the other side, neither the Commerce Commission nor Medsafe are likely to take action on small things such as misleading claims on the website of a small business. The ASA is a good middle ground, as they will take action on these small things and often end up fixing the problem. But sometimes, even when they uphold a complaint, nothing changes.

I lodged a complaint with the ASA regarding these ads soon after being made aware of them in March 2015. In May, the ASA decided my complaint was justified, and it was upheld.

…therefore the advertisements were misleading, had unduly glamorised benefits of homeopathy and had portrayed unrealistic outcomes.

Consequently, the Complaints Board said the advertisement had not been prepared with the requisite standard of social responsibility.

Complaint 15/137 Homeopathy Centre | Advertising Standards Authority

The advertiser’s response to my complaint was to say they did not plan on continuing the newspaper advertorial, and that they were in the process of making changes to their website “over the next few months”.

Normally, that decision to uphold my complaint would have been the end of it. Most advertisers are responsible enough to comply with the ASA’s rulings in this way. As far as I am aware, the Christchurch Mail did, but that wasn’t the case with the Homeopathy Centre’s website.

Whenever I complain about online content, I set up a change monitoring system that sends me an email if a web page changes. As a result, I am able to see in detail every change made to the pages on the Homeopathy Centre website since I complained two years ago. When I complained, I set up change monitoring for 40 pages on their website, including those directly relevant to my complaint.

Since my complaint in March 2015, only five of these pages have had any changes. Most of these changes are irrelevant, such as a change of address and an increase in their prices. Whatever the changes they’d planned on making to their website, they don’t appear to have happened yet – two years down the line.

I’ve been following up with the ASA to try to get the Homeopathy Centre to comply with this decision since June 2015.

Advertising standards authority, again

In March 2016, when it was clear the promised changes were not forthcoming, the ASA suggested I submit another complaint that they could consider anew and, if upheld, seek compliance on. So that’s what I did.

In July 2016, the ASA upheld my second complaint regarding the Homeopathy Centre website. This time, the advertiser’s complete response to the complaint was a simple attempt to opt out of regulation:

No thank you, I don’t wish to respond

Homeopathy Centre Christchurch

It was abundantly clear by this point that the advertiser had no interest in voluntary compliance. When you make a complaint to the ASA, they ask that you sign a waiver saying that, if they accept your complaint, you won’t take the issue to another authority. So I tried to work with the ASA to help them gain compliance.

New Zealand Council of Homeopaths

I pointed out that Elisabeth Fink, the director of the Homeopathy Centre since 2009, is a member of an organisation called the NZ Council of Homeopaths. According to the Homeopathy Centre website, she has been a member of this organisation since 1987.

This is important because the NZ Council of Homeopaths is another part of that second line of defence I mentioned earlier. They have Rules of Practice that requires, among other things:

Any advertising will not contravene the Commerce Act 1986, the Fair Trading Act 1986, section 58 of the Medicines Act 1981, and must be in compliance with current Code for Therapeutic Advertising of the Advertising Standards Authority.

Rules of Practice | NZ Council of Homeopaths

As the ASA had already ruled that the Homeopathy Centre’s advertising is not in compliance with their current code for therapeutic advertising, this seemed remarkably clear cut. Elisabeth Fink was breaking the rules of practice of a professional organisation she’d been a member of for nearly three decades.

The ASA agreed in November 2016 to get in touch with the NZ Council of Homeopaths to gain compliance via this route. Later that month, I was told the executive members of the council would meet within a week to discuss the issue, and that they were planning to address it with the advertiser.

Then, in February 2017, I had an update:

The NZ Council of Homeopaths has been in touch with the advertiser. Unfortunately they have not been able to make any progress. You have the option of referring the advertiser to Medsafe.

Advertising Standards Authority

Commerce Commission

With this email the ASA released me from the waiver I’d agreed to, which said I wouldn’t take my complaint up with another authority. My experience with Medsafe in the past has been that, unless there is a pressing safety issue, they are unlikely to take any action.

For example, I have a complaint regarding misleading health claims made about “Harmonized Water” with Medsafe that has been “active”, but without any meaningful action, since September 2014.

So I decided to try the Commerce Commission first instead. I’ve had some success with them in the past, where they issued a formal warning against an advertiser of “amber teething necklaces” (which, by the way, don’t help teething in any way and can be unsafe) who had refused to comply with upheld complaints from the ASA.

I lodged the complaint with the Commerce Commission in the wake of their action against Reckitt Benckiser for misleading marketing of Nurofen specific pain products. It was encouraging to have seen Dr Mark Berry, the Commerce Commission Chairman, recently say:

The Commission will continue to take cases where traders do not promote their products truthfully. Products need to be as described on the box, and these were not. We take a particularly dim view when goods for human consumption are misdescribed; especially where pharmaceutical or healthcare products are not promoted truthfully. With these types of products consumers have little opportunity to verify the claims being made and tend to rely heavily on what they are told by the trader. To be able to choose the product best suited for them, consumers must have accurate and reliable information

Dr Mark Berry | Commerce Commission Chairman

This morning, two months after lodging my complaint with them, I have heard back from the Commerce Commission. It was not good news:

Dear Mark

Thank you for the information you provided the Commerce Commission regarding Homeopathy Centre.

We have now completed our assessment of the concerns you have raised and are writing to advise you that we will not be taking any action against Homeopathy Centre at this time.

Commerce Commission

Though this is so far a repeat of what happened with Baa Baa Beads – the Commerce Commission initially decided not to act then later changed their mind – a repeat of that behaviour hardly feels like something to rely on.

What’s next?

Medsafe will be receiving a complaint about Homeopathy Centre shortly, but I don’t honestly anticipate that they will do anything about it. In the meantime, this company will continue to mislead the public about their healthcare options, as they have knowingly done for at least two years now.

The lesson I would like everyone to take away from this story is that a rule is only useful if it is enforced. You can have the best rules in the world, but if they’re not enforced they don’t matter at all. If consumer protection rules aren’t enforced, consumers are not protected.

In this particular case, the ASA cannot enforce its rules, the NZ Council for Homeopaths chooses not to enforce its rules, and the Commerce Commission chooses not to take action. More often, no one complains about misleading claims, so nothing happens.

As a result of all this and more, quackery thrives in our country.

State-Approved Health Fraud Scams

State-Approved Health Fraud Scams

A decades old loophole in New Zealand’s patient protection legislation is letting quacks get away with health fraud, right under the regulator’s nose.

In New Zealand, patients are protected from health fraud scams by the Medicines Act. This legislation, which is enforced by Medsafe, only allows products making strong health claims to be sold if they have been approved by the Minister of Health.

In order to get approved, a medicine needs to pass a rigorous submission process that includes providing robust evidence to substantiate all of the health claims that will be made about it. In this way, patients should be protected against health fraud scams.

Health fraud scams refer to products that claim to prevent, treat, or cure diseases or other health conditions, but are not proven safe and effective for those uses.

Health Fraud Scams – US Food & Drug Administration

Except, there are some products that have this approval but are not been backed up by evidence.

When the Medicines Act came into effect 35 years ago, in 1981, all products that would be covered by the legislation which were already on the market were given automatic approval. This included a bunch of homeopathic products manufactured by the company Weleda.

Weleda, unfortunately, is still in operation today and still sells many of the same products. They operate out of Havelock North, which strikes me as somewhat ironic given their business is based on selling water as medicine. They’re far from tiny, too. In the 2014 financial year alone they made $4.85m in revenue from retail sales.

Usually, when you see a homeopathic product for sale in New Zealand, its marketing materials will be full of weasel words like “supports”. These ads typically manage to imply a whole lot without really saying anything at all.

Support for a healthy heart.

Maintains joint health.

Supports your body’s natural response to winter ills and chills.

Wink wink, nudge nudge.

There are also many cases where this promotion oversteps the generous line set by the Advertising Standards Authority. Myself and others at the Society for Science Based Healthcare work to bring these to the ASA’s attention when we find them, as part of our efforts to reduce the amount of medical misinformation people are subjected to.

Usually this is a pretty straightforward process, especially for homeopathic products. After all, the evidence on homeopathy is abundantly clear:

there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.

Statement on Homeopathy – Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council

And so are the ASA’s requirements:

Statements and claims shall be valid and shall be able to be substantiated. Substantiation should exist prior to a claim being made.

Therapeutic and Health Advertising Code – Advertising Standards Authority

However, a recent complaint that we’d expected to be as straightforward as previous ones turned out to be anything but. My colleague at the Society for Science Based Healthcare, Mark Honeychurch, submitted a complaint earlier this year about an advertisement for one of Weleda’s products: Weleda Cold and Flu Drops.

The ad for this product on Weleda’s website gave clear directions for its use, which included strong and unambiguous claims about what the product is meant to do:

Take at the onset of cold or flu to relieve symptoms — fever, muscle ache, headache, sore throat, sneezing and runny nose. Take with Weleda Echinacea/Thuja Comp. Active Strength Immune Support for additional effectiveness. Does not cause drowsiness.

Weleda New Zealand

The problem with this ad is, of course, that there’s no evidence that this product can relieve any of those symptoms. Nor is it at all plausible.

That formed the basis of Honeychurch’s complaint. So it was quite a surprise when the ASA ruled to not uphold it, and passed on this response from Weleda:

Weleda Cold & Flu Drops is a registered medicine with Medsafe (TT50-8039) and is permitted to carry therapeutic claims. In relation to the complaint, the recommendations for the product on the website are consistent with the registered packaging indications which are as follows:

  • Take at the onset of cold or flu to relieve symptoms – fever, muscle ache, headache, sore throat, sneezing and runny nose.

Given that the statement on the website is consistent with the registered indications, we consider that the claims do not contravene the Therapeutic Products Advertising Code. We trust that our response resolves this issue.

Weleda New Zealand

Communication with Medsafe quickly uncovered the fact that this approval was granted in 1981, when the Medicines Act came into effect. The issue we identified was that Weleda was using this approval as a substitute for the substantiation required by the ASA’s codes. Under usual circumstances this would make some sense, as Medsafe’s approval typically requires that sort of substantiation. But these are not usual circumstances, and we thought this was a misuse of the approval Weleda had been granted.

Honeychurch sent a list of written questions to Medsafe, to get to the bottom of this and to aid with his appeal to the ASA. Two of his questions were particularly important, in my opinion. The first sought to clarify whether or not Weleda had ever given Medsafe evidence that their product can do what it says on the label:

What substantiation, if any, was used to accept these indications [for Weleda’s Cold & Flu Drops], either when the product was “grandfathered” into Medsafe’s Current registration system, or at any other time?

The product was grandfathered into the current regulatory Scheme following the enactment of the Medicines Act 1981. Products that were eligible for grandfathering were those that were already marketed in New Zealand and had a demonstrated history of safe use. For grandfathered products, the date of approval was deemed to be the earliest date of market availability provided by the product owner.

The product was originally indicated as a homoeopathic medicine for all types of influenza and Colds. These indications Were accepted at the time.

Subsequent to the original approval under the Medicines Act the indications have been modified in 2007 and 2014. The modified indications have been accepted as they are all encompassed by the Original appoval.

Medsafe

The lack of a clear answer from Medsafe here is frustrating. As far as I can tell, their answer means Weleda demonstrated that their product had a history of safe use, and provided the earliest date of its market availability. But it also seems Weleda never gave Medsafe any evidence to support the claims made about the product’s efficacy.

The other important question Honeychurch asked regarded the scope of the problem. Although this was the only homeopathic product we’d found to have been approved by Medsafe, it seemed unlikely to be the only one that exists.

What other Weleda products, and homeopathic products from other manufacturers, are registered with Medsafe as medicines, and what indications are there for each of them?

You can search for Weleda’s approved medicines that have been transferred into the therapeutics database using the search function above [http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/regulatory/DbSearch.asp] and entering Weleda into the sponsor box. Please note that products in the database are those which have undergone regulatory activity since being grandfathered.

Weleda also notified over 1000 homoeopathic medicines to be grandfathered. The approved product details are only held in hard copy files. Many of the products are intended to be supplied to practitioners of homoeopathy or direct to patients through speciality retail stores.

Providing the requested information would require extensive research and collation and Cannot be Completed within the timeframe you have indicated as necessary for your to lodge an appeal to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Medsafe

As a lower estimate of the number of health fraud scams approved by Medsafe, “over 1000” is a pretty scary number.

So what is there to be done about it?

Honeychurch started by submitting an appeal to the ASA, hoping the answers he’d recieved from Medsafe would be enough to overturn the decision. After all, the decision should hinge on the assumption that Medsafe’s approval of Weleda’s products implies the substantiation required by the ASA’s codes, and that assumption appears to be false.

But the ASA instead ruled to maintain their original decision. This ruling was released today, and makes for interesting reading. For example, this part of Weleda’s response clarifies that they truly have never had to submit evidence of efficacy for their products, simply because they have been sold for a very long time (emphasis in the original):

Weleda accepts that Weleda Cold & Flu Drops was ‘grandfathered’ into the current medicines registration system following the enactment of the Medicines Act 1981 (which replaced the Food and Drug Act 1969 which in turn replaced the Food and Drugs Act 1947. Cold and Flu Drops received ‘default’ approval as a medicine on 31 December 1969, three months before the Food and Drug Act 1969 came into force on 1 April 1970. This ‘grandfathering’ process however was applied to all relevant products at the time, including what may be called ‘conventional’ medicines. There was no favouritism toward one type of medicine or another and there was no requirement to (re-)submit evidence of efficacy to be registered.

Weleda New Zealand

The rest of their response makes it seem pretty clear to me that they’re using this historical approval as a shield to stop the ASA from requiring they provide robust evidence of efficacy that simply does not exist:

In the absence of a statutory or regulatory requirement under either the Food and Drug 1969 [sic] or the Medicines Act 1981 for Weleda to freshly prove the efficacy of our Cold & Flu Drops, we do not accept that it is open to M. Honeychurch to demand we do so by way of this proceeding — particularly when they have provided no evidence to support the view that Cold and Flu Drops has no efficacy.

Weleda New Zealand

And if that all wasn’t clear enough, Medsafe also weighed in on the issue of whether or not substantiation had been supplied by Weleda (this time the emphasis is mine):

The ‘approval date’ published on the Medsafe website in relation to this product (and most Weleda products) indicates approval at 31 December 1969. This means that these products were determined to have been legally on the market prior to the commencement of the Food and Drug Act 1969 and could continue to be marketed under the current legislation, with the same indications. Proof of efficacy is not held by Medsafe.

Medsafe

In my opinion, the decision the ASA should have been making should have been “does this advertisement breach our codes?”. Indeed, this is the question they usually ask when dealing with a complaint, and the fact that advertisements that breach their codes might not be downright illegal isn’t usually enough to stop them from upholding a complaint. But for some reason they’ve decided this case is different:

In relation to the complaint before it, the Appeal Board considered the key issue was a matter outside its jurisdiction, namely the process agreed to with the regulator during a change to legislation some decades ago.

…

The appeal Board noted the position of the Complainant with regard to the ‘grandfathering’ of certain products but agreed this was a matter that should be raised directly with Medsafe.

Advertising Standards Authority

The “grandfathering” process that allowed these hundreds of ineffective health products to get a free pass seems to have been intended to keep low risk products on the market, regardless of whether or not they are effective. With the unfortunately named Natural Health Products Bill lined up to wrap some much needed patient protection legislation around the area of low risk health products of dubious efficacy, it might seem like a great time for these “grandfathered” products to be transferred into that framework.

Unfortunately, the proposed regulations associated with the Natural Health Products Bill explicitly exclude homeopathic products from their rules. In our dealings with Medsafe, time and time again I have come away with the clear impression that they only care about safety issues. So long as a health fraud scam is safe, Medsafe is content to do nothing about it.

Magic water? Sure, it’s just water. What’s the harm?

I can certainly see the justification for that. Safety issues are typically more pressing than low risk products that are only doing more indirect harm like causing people to delay effective treatment, putting strain on finances, and damaging public health literacy. Often it’s entirely appropriate for Medsafe to rely on our first line of defence – the Advertising Standards Authority – to deal with misleading health claims. But when that fails, something needs to be done.

There is an ocean of health fraud scams in New Zealand. It’s high time the regulator responsible for enforcing our patient protection legislation started giving a damn about it.

We’ve got in touch with Medsafe to request a meeting in the new year, to discuss what path there might be for addressing the issues I’ve touched on here. While I’m hoping for the best, I’m not holding my breath.

Misleading claims common among chiropractors

Misleading claims common among chiropractors

Most New Zealand chiropractors make misleading claims.

Through my role as the chair of the Society for Science Based Healthcare, I see a lot of misleading health claims in advertisements. Many of them are pretty clearly bogus; I’ve seen claims that drinking “harmonized water” is as good as sunscreen and that bacteria make your cells each lose a positive electron.

But not all misleading claims are obvious. Many might sound plausible, especially if you don’t know much about the therapy or if they come from someone in a position of authority. This, I think, is where they can be the most dangerous. Luckily we have rules in place to prevent this, but the complaint-based systems we rely on require cooperation from advertisers. When the rules are widely ignored, we simply aren’t protected.

In 2015 my colleague at the Society for Science Based Healthcare Mark Honeychurch and I gathered data on how common misleading claims from chiropractors are in New Zealand. We systematically searched through the first 30 pages of results of an anonymous Google search for “Chiropractor New Zealand”. For all 137 websites we found for New Zealand chiropractic clinics, we recorded the presence or absence of claims that chiropractic manipulation can help with ADHD, allergies, asthma, bed wetting, colic, or ear infections. We also looked for health testimonials used as a marketing tool.

We picked that list of conditions based on the results of successful complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority, and on our failure to find credible evidence to support the claims when searching the scientific literature ourselves. We included health testimonials in our search because they can be both very convincing and highly misleading. We have legislation prohibiting them in medical advertisements, and for good reason.

Today, our results have been published in a letter to the editor at the New Zealand Medical Journal: Chronic misleading online advertising by chiropractors

Claim Quantity Proportion
ADHD 34 25%
Allergies 48 35%
Asthma 54 39%
Bed Wetting 43 31%
Colic 59 43%
Ear Infections 55 40%
Any condition 74 54%
Testimonials 48 35%
Any condition or testimonials 96 70%
Total 137 100%

Unfortunately, we weren’t surprised to find that such a high proportion of New Zealand chiropractors who advertise online make unsubstantiated claims about what they can treat. Similar research has found as high as 95% of English chiropractor websites make unsubstantiated claims.

This problem is also widespread in Australia, where the Chiropractic Board of Australia recently published a Statement on advertising addressing this problem along with several others:

Claims suggesting that manual therapy for spinal problems can assist with general wellness and/or benefit a variety of paediatric syndromes and organic conditions are not supported by satisfactory evidence. This includes claims relating to developmental and behavioural disorders, ADHD, autistic spectrum disorders, asthma, infantile colic, bedwetting, ear infections and digestive problems.

Statement on advertising | Chiropractic Board of Australia

We have a Chiropractic Board here in New Zealand as well, which was set up to regulate chiropractors under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. They have their own Advertising Policy:

All advertising must… be presented in a manner that is accurate, balanced, and not misleading

…

A chiropractor shall not advertise any material which relates to the chiropractor’s qualifications, practices, treatment or the premises where they practice chiropractic if the material… uses testimonials whether from patients or any other person

Advertising Policy | New Zealand Chiropractic Board

Even if we didn’t have these rules laid out in an explicit “this is for chiropractors” format, we also have the Fair Trading Act and the Advertising Standards Authority’s codes of practice both requiring that claims made in advertisements must be substantiated, and the Medicines Act prohibiting health testimonials in advertisements.

How the regulation is enforced currently is not working. Our findings make that abundantly clear. If we’re going to solve this problem, the Chiropractic Board needs to take a more active role.

The New Zealand Chiropractors’ Association’s response to our findings has been that they are “not really current now”, and “the issues had been addressed recently, and the numbers would be much different now”. However, when Mark Honeychurch re-checked all 137 sites this morning for the claims we were looking for he found that only 15 (11%) had changed in this respect. Eight of those sites had removed claims (four of them had disappeared entirely), whereas seven had claims we didn’t observe last year. The problem is not solved yet.

Here’s what I want to see the New Zealand Chiropractic Board do about this:

  1. Publish a public statement on advertising, like the Chiropractic Board of Australia did, making it abundantly clear that this behaviour is not acceptable.
  2. Take an active role in maintaining compliance, by seeking out and contacting chiropractors that are making unsubstantiated and misleading claims. We are willing to share the data we collected with the Chiropractic Board to assist this effort.
  3. Sanction any chiropractors who might continue to make misleading claims after being told to stop. It is not appropriate for a registered healthcare professional to mislead their patients – any who continue to do so simply should not be trusted to hold that position of authority.

Perhaps just as importantly, I want to see New Zealand chiropractors themselves clean up their act. Those chiropractors who already ensure that they don’t engage in this behaviour should lead the charge for change within the industry – from my vantage point it sure looks like it could use some leadership on this.

Nurofen: Does It Really Target Pain?

Nurofen: Does It Really Target Pain?

Nurofen provides targeted relief from pain. Or does it?

For a long time now, the pharmaceutical company Reckitt Benckiser has sold a range of their ibuprofen product Nurofen, which are marketed for four specific types of pain:

  • Back pain
  • Migraine pain
  • Period pain
  • Tension headache

Since at least 2008, Nurofen has marketed these specific pain relief products saying they “provide targeted relief“. From watching their TV ads, you could be forgiven for believing that Nurofen will “act at the site of the pain” or “target headaches at the source of pain“. Their logo, a bullseye target, is often shown alongside the tagline “Targeted relief from pain”. Their New Zealand website describes their range as being “made up of a number of different products to target specific conditions, from back pain to cold and flu symptoms”. This Nurofen TV ad from the UK even shows a Nurofen logo performing a sort of “seek and destroy” manoeuvre to find a bull in a maze the shape of someone’s head, in a metaphor for dealing with headache pain.

The Nurofen brand really has been built around the idea of “targeted relief”. The message is clear, or at least I thought so when I saw ads like these on TV. But is it true?

Well, it’s complicated. The main Nurofen products come in two formulations, containing either 200 mg ibuprofen or 342 mg ibuprofen lysine (which is equivalent to 200 mg ibuprofen). There is evidence that these products can provide pain relief, but the way in which they do so is not targeted. In fact, all of the specific pain products have identical formulations: 342 mg ibuprofen lysine. It doesn’t matter if you have back pain, period pain, migraine pain, or tension headache. You can take any of those Nurofen products for the same effect.

In 2010, Australian consumer affairs magazine Choice awarded Nurofen their “shonky” award for these products. They revealed not only that these specific pain products are identical and unnecessary, but also found:

The shonkiest aspect is that, in some stores we surveyed, the targeted painkillers are almost twice as expensive as their all pain equivalent products.

The 2010 Shonky Awards: Shonky for pain in the hip pocket | Choice

In 2011 the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which is roughly the Australian equivalent of New Zealand’s Medsafe, received a complaint about this advertising from Professor Paul Rolan. The complaint essentially said that, although the products were effective, the claims that they provide “targeted relief” were misleading. The legislation administered by the TGA prohibits advertisements for therapeutic goods from being misleading, so the complaint was investigated. If you want to read more about this complaint, I wrote about it last year: The Price of Painkillers Part 2: Only Misleading in Australia

The TGA found that Professor Rolan’s complaint was justified, and issued sanctions to Reckitt Benckiser saying they must withdraw the misleading advertisement and representations (the TGA didn’t have jurisdiction of the products’ packaging, except when images of it were used in advertisements). But that didn’t stop Reckitt Benckiser from claiming that Nurofen offers “targeted relief”. Instead, they issued a statement two months later saying they would not comply with the TGA’s sanctions:

Nurofen advises that consumers will continue to see the familiar branding on the Nurofen target and messages of Nurofen working at the site of pain. This branding includes TGA approved claims on packs that Nurofen provides targeted relief from pain

Nurofen maker says ads will carry on | Australian Doctor quoting Nurofen

Three days after that, the TGA made a decision to issue an order to Reckitt Benckiser “as the Advertiser had not fully complied with the Panel’s determination issued on the 30 August 2011”. The order itself came nearly a full year after the decision to issue it, and required that Reckitt Benckiser:

  1. withdraw the “Live Well Headache” television advertisement (“the advertisement”) about the therapeutic good “Nurofen” which was the subject of the complaint;
  2. withdraw any representation, in the context of headaches, that the advertised therapeutic good “Nurofen” goes “straight” to the source of the pain;
  3. not use the representations in (b) above in any other advertisement; and
  4. where the representation has been provided to other parties such as retailers or website publishers, and where there is a reasonable likelihood that the representation has been published or is intended to be published by such parties, to advise those parties that the representations should be withdrawn.

…

Pursuant to subregulation 9(2) of the Regulations, the order is subject to the conditions that within 10 working days of being notified of this order, Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd is required to provide evidence to the delegate of the Secretary [to the Department of Health and Ageing] of compliance by Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd with the order set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) above including a written response indicating that they will continue to abide by this order.

Nurofen – Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd – Complaint No. 2011/06/001 | Therapeutic Goods Administration

One month after the order, Reckitt Benckiser advised that they had complied and would continue to comply with the order. But this didn’t slow them down at all.

Associate Professor Ken Harvey wrote an article for The Conversation the month after this response, explaining why the order had essentially failed:

In response [to the order], regional director of Reckitt Benckiser, Lindsay Forrest, said he was, “delighted with the TGA Delegate’s ruling as it validates our decision to challenge the CRP [Complaints Resolution Panel] findings, specifically in relation to our ability to communicate our long standing messages of targeted pain relief in relation to pain, including headaches”. The media statement continued, “Reckitt Benckiser’s current media plan will not be impacted by the TGA Delegate’s decision as it currently complies with all the TGA Delegate’s findings”.

It is my view that TGA delegate’s ruling has unnecessarily and incorrectly limited the Regulation 9 order to the specific words, “goes straight to the source of the pain” thereby failing to taking [sic] into account the CRP’s equal concern about the words, “targeted relief from pain”. In addition, by focusing only on the television ads for headaches and not taking into account the wider ongoing Nurofen campaign that uses look-alike branding the TGA delegate has failed to protect consumers.

TGA failure gives Nurofen consumers a headache | Ken Harvey

Professor Harvey went further, and laid a complaint of his own with the TGA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in August 2012. The ACCC is essentially Australia’s equivalent to New Zealand’s Commerce Commission.

In 2013, Australian consumer affairs show The Checkout aired a segment on Nurofen’s targeted relief products, clearly showing the inconsistency between their marketing and reality with quips such as “When I have a tension headache, I take Nurofen Back Pain for fast, targeted relief”.

By the time that episode aired, the status quo remained unchanged from 2011, when Reckitt Benckiser refused to comply with the TGA’s ruling. As far as I’m aware, nothing changed until March 2015.

EDIT 2015/12/16: Since publishing, I’ve found more information on what happened between 2012 and 2015. Professor Harvey’s 2012 complaint to the TGA, along with another anonymous complaint on the same grounds, was successful. In July 2013, the CRP issued a written determination saying Reckitt Benckiser had breached the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code.

Just like in 2011, soon after this the TGA was forced to take further action as Reckitt Benckiser had refused to comply with the CRP’s determination. An investigation into this lack of compliance lasted from 16 July 2013 until 11 April 2014, at which point the TGA delegate to the Secretary of the Department of Health decided the TGA was correct and Reckitt Benckiser’s advertisement really was misleading.

Another order was issued to Reckitt Benckiser, saying they must:

  1. withdraw any representations, including implied representations, that imply that any two or more Nurofen products that contain equivalent ibuprofen quantities and include the same product specific indications on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods:

    1. are effective only in treating a particualr condition or conditions or pain in a particular part or parts of the body; or
    2. are not effective in treating other conditions or pain in other parts of the body, where they are indicated for those other conditions or pain in particular parts of the body
  2. not use the representations referred to in paragraph (a) above in any other advertisement unless the Advertiser satisfies the Secretary that the use of the representations would not result in a contravention of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (the Act), the Regulations or the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code 2007 (the Code)
  3. where the representations in paragraph (a) have been provided to other parties such as retailers or website publishers, and where there is a reasonable likelihood that the representations have been published or are intended to be published by such parties, to advise those parties that the representations should be withdrawn.

Nurofen – Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd – Complaints No. 2012-08-010 and 2012-10-024 | Therapeutic Goods Administration

As with their order in 2011, this order was issued with the condition that Reckitt Benckiser must notify the TGA within 10 working days that they’d comply with the order, and supply evidence of this compliance. There was also another condition, regarding how their Nurofen specific pain products must be advertised:

any representation that refers to two or more Nurofen products that contain equivalent quantities of ibuprofen and include the same product specific indications on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods must clearly indicate, in the body of the advertisement, that the two products can be used for the same purposes and are interchangeable (or words to that effect). An asterisk in the body of an advertisement with full detail explained elsewhere, for example in a footnote, will not be sufficient to satisfy this condition

Nurofen – Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd – Complaints No. 2012-08-010 and 2012-10-024 | Therapeutic Goods Administration

On the 9th of May 2014, Reckitt Benckiser said they would comply with this order. But they didn’t. Which takes us to the legal action taken against them by the ACCC in March 2015…

That’s when the ACCC issued a press release saying they were taking Reckitt Benckiser to court:

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (Reckitt Benckiser), alleging that it made false or misleading claims that its Nurofen Specific Pain Products were each formulated to treat a specific kind of pain, when the products are identical.

ACCC targets alleged false and misleading Nurofen claims | Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

Today, the Federal Court of Australia has found in favour of the ACCC:

In proceedings commenced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Federal Court has found that Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (Reckitt Benckiser) engaged in misleading conduct in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law by representing that its Nurofen Specific Pain products were each formulated to treat a specific type of pain, when the products are identical.

Court finds Nurofen made misleading Specific Pain claims | Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

Finally, four years after Professor Rolan’s original complaint and many more after Reckitt Benckiser first started marketing Nurofen as providing “targeted relief from pain”, they were found guilty in court of making misleading claims.

What does this mean for Australia?

The Federal Court’s ruling makes several orders of Reckitt Benckiser. It seems that we won’t see a repeat of Reckitt Benckiser’s 2012 behaviour, as the ACCC’s press release states that:

Reckitt Benckiser admitted that it had engaged in the contravening conduct and consented to the orders made by the Court.

Court finds Nurofen made misleading Specific Pain claims | Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

And what were those orders? They were much more extensive than those given by the TGA three years ago:

The Court ordered that Reckitt Benckiser remove the Nurofen Specific Pain products from retail shelves within 3 months. The court has also ordered that Reckitt Benckiser publish website and newspaper corrective notices, implement a consumer protection compliance program, and pay the ACCC’s [legal] costs.

The ACCC has agreed [on] an interim packaging arrangement with Reckitt Benckiser for use following the removal of these products. This will clearly disclose to consumers that the products are equally effective for other forms of pain.

Court finds Nurofen made misleading Specific Pain claims | Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

A later hearing will also determine what financial penalty will be imposed on Reckitt Benckiser.

What does this mean for New Zealand?

Immediately? Probably nothing. Particularly after seeing how keen Reckitt Benckiser was to avoid changing their marketing in 2011, I very much doubt they are going to change their New Zealand marketing because of an Australian court case.

However, as noted in articles from Pharmacy Today and Stuff today, the Commerce Commission is investigating Reckitt Benckiser in New Zealand for the same reasons. In a Stuff article from March, the Commerce Commission is quoted as saying they were “also looking into the matter and would be following the ACCC’s investigation closely”. So it may only be a matter of time before we see similar legal action against Reckitt Benckiser in New Zealand.

If we do see legal action though, I don’t expect it to be resolved quickly. Even in cases where it’s clear that marketing is misleading, it can take a long time for the Commerce Commission to make a difference. In the only direct experience I’ve had with them, they took two years to issue a warning about a very cut and dried case of misleading advertising from Baa Baa Beads, which had refused to remove misleading advertisements following upheld Advertising Standards Authority complaints.

In the meantime, the best way to protect yourself against misleading marketing is to educate yourself. Be sceptical. If you think a claim might not be true, don’t hesitate to ask for evidence.

What does it mean for consumers?

Not much. You should certainly be aware that Nurofen’s specific pain products are all identical. You can take Nurofen Migraine Pain for period pain, and it will be just as effective as Nurofen Period Pain. You shouldn’t, for example, take both the back pain and period pain products if you are experiencing both back pain and period pain.

You should also be aware that, despite the marketing, ibuprofen painkillers like Nurofen don’t target anything. If you were misled by this, it’s unlikely it caused you any harm, but you still have the right to make informed choices about your health. Harmless or otherwise, misleading marketing about healthcare products like Nurofen does violate this right.

But perhaps the most important message of all to take away has very little to do with Nurofen at all. Because ibuprofen, the active ingredient in Nurofen, is not patented. You can buy a generic ibuprofen painkiller that is equivalent to Nurofen for fraction of the price.

For example, you can buy 24 caplets of Nurofen Back Pain (active ingredient 342 mg ibuprofen lysine, equivalent to 200 mg ibuprofen) for $17.55 from Pharmacy Direct. Or, you could buy 24 “Home Brand” caplets of 200 mg ibuprofen for $2.99 from Countdown. Yes, the branded one does cost over five times as much as the unbranded one.

If you do want to buy Nurofen specifically, make sure you’re not paying more for the same product. When I compared prices for different Nurofen “specific pain” products on Pharmacy Direct last year, I found some were more expensive despite the pills themselves being identical.

As this article discusses specific brands of pharmaceutical products, I feel it is appropriate to state that I have no conflicts of interest to declare.

I have written about this issue previously here:

  1. The Price of Painkillers
  2. The Price of Painkillers Part 2: Only Misleading in Australia

Pharmacists Don’t Want to Sell Unproven Products

Pharmacists Don’t Want to Sell Unproven Products

The Pharmaceutical Society doesn’t think pharmacists should be able to sell healthcare products with no evidence of efficacy.

Last week I wrote about the Pharmacy Council’s proposal to change their Code of Ethics, and summarised the submissions that I was aware of. One important organisation that was missing from that roundup is the Pharmaceutical Society.

The Pharmaceutical Society is a professional association representing New Zealand pharmacists. Given their important position in the pharmacy industry, I think their submission might arguably be the most important. Earlier this week I spoke with Bob Buckham, Chief Pharmacist Advisor at the Pharmaceutical Society, about their submission on the Pharmacy Council’s proposal.

The Pharmaceutical Society does not support the proposed change. Coming from the perspective of pharmacists, their submission also raised two important points around this issue:

  • Pharmacists need clarity: what behaviour is consistent with the Code of Ethics, and what is not?
  • The Code of Ethics is important and cannot be ignored. The Pharmacy Council must be willing to provide guidance and to enforce the code.

The reason why the Pharmaceutical Society does not support this change is similar to the reasons given by other organisations, in that it would implement a double standard:

The Society does not support the proposed supplementary wording in obligation 6.9 as the split wording in the two parts separates the therapy terms “medicine or herbal remedy” in 6.9a from “complementary therapy or other healthcare product” in 6.9b. The result is that the subsequent obligation attached to those therapies does not apply to the other.

To clarify further, “credible evidence of efficacy” is only required when supplying or promoting a “medicine or herbal remedy” (Obligation 6.9a) and “no reason to doubt… quality or safety and when sufficient information about the product can be provided” only applies to “any complementary therapy or other healthcare product.

The Society considers that the obligations of “credible evidence of efficacy” and no reason “to doubt… quality or safety” should apply to the supply or promotion of all therapies and products – ie. any medicine, herbal remedy AND any complementary therapy or other healthcare product.

Submission to the Pharmacy Council of New Zealand (Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand)

Like other submissions, the Pharmaceutical Society does support the addition of a new clause about providing sufficient information for patients to make informed choices. However, they also made a similar suggestion to one in the Society for Science Based Healthcare’s submission in that the wording of this clause should be strengthened:

The Society also considers that “sufficient information about the product” must be provided in order for purchasers to make an informed choice with respect to efficacy of that product and the risks and benefits of that against other treatment options.

Submission to the Pharmacy Council of New Zealand (Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand)

Aside from their comments on the new proposed wording, the Pharmaceutical Society raised concerns about the application of this section of the Code of Ethics. Part of their submission focussed on pharmacists’ responsibility to comply with the Code of Ethics:

Pharmacists must comply with the Code of Ethics
The Council have stated that it is not the purpose of the Code, or the Council, to endorse or prohibit the supply of any particularly complementary and/or alternative medicine, product, or practice. However, as the responsible authority for pharmacy under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, standards of ethical conduct set by the Council must be observed by pharmacists. Indeed, in the Code of Ethics the Council requires that pharmacists must comply with “all the implied requirements of ethical practice” within the Code.

The Medicines Regulations 1984 (in Schedule 2 related to applications for a licence to operate a pharmacy) also refers to how pharmacists being employed or engaged in duties in a pharmacy are

not requested or required to act in a way that is inconsistent with the applicable professional or ethical standards of the pharmacy practice

Therefore, the obligations within the Code of Ethics must be interpreted clearly so that pharmacists have a clear understanding of what is considered ethical practice, but also so that the Council can investigate and act upon breaches of the Code.

Submission to the Pharmacy Council of New Zealand (Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand)

This call for clarity has been a common theme among submissions. Both the NZ Skeptics’ submission and Dr Ben Albert’s submission called for guidelines on product categories that should not be sold in pharmacies due to a lack of evidence. Also, when the Society for Science Based Healthcare complained to the Pharmacy Council last year, one of the recommendations made was to for the Pharmacy Council provide guidance on this issue:

As a result of this complaint, we want pharmacists to have the opportunity to do the right thing and fulfill their ethical obligations. In order to achieve this, we suggest that the Pharmacy Council consider the following courses of action:

…

  1. To assist pharmacies in evaluating whether or not a healthcare product is supported by credible evidence of efficacy, the Pharmacy Council should develop and publish guidelines regarding what constitutes credible evidence of efficacy. This need not be a strict requirement so much as a useful guide that pharmacists can use to establish a consistent minimum standard of evidence.

NaturoPharm Wartoff Complaint (Society for Science Based Healthcare)

If it’s unclear where the line is drawn with regard to “credible evidence of efficacy”, it makes it more difficult for pharmacists to practice ethically. The Pharmaceutical Society’s submission raises questions about where this line might be drawn regarding alternative healthcare products, and talks about how the Code will be applied in practice:

Definition and interpretation of obligations
The wording of the proposed obligations 6.9a and 6.9b make reference to “credible evidence of efficacy” and “quality and safety”. Therefore, if presented with a complaint against a pharmacist claimed to be in breach of the obligations within the Code of Ethics, the Council is expected to determine what is “credible evidence of efficacy” and/or “quality or safety”.

The Society recognises that the application of a principles-based Code of Ethics to individual scenarios or circumstances is open to interpretation and challenge. Such scenarios are often not “black and white”, but “shades of grey” where a group of peers may have differing opinions to the acceptability or otherwise of a particular practice. It is expected that such “shades of grey” will always exist in pharmacy practice, as indeed it does in medicine and other areas of professional practice. However where a particular practice is determined to be unethical or unacceptably, this must be made clear. This is a difficulty faced when considering the evidence and use of complementary treatments against regulated medicines.

Submission to the Pharmacy Council of New Zealand (Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand)

The submission goes on to compare “natural” or herbal healthcare products with homeopathic products, in terms of plausibility:

Complementary/alternative medicine: natural/herbal remedies
The Society recognises the history of pharmaceuticals, and indeed of the pharmacy profession, where the first “medicines” were derived from natural products. Many of these have been purified, refined and further manipulated in the development of modern day pharmaceutics. Much of modern pharmaceutical research continues to analyse the therapeutic potential of compounds found naturally occurring substances derived from flora and fauna. We recognise how the levels of evidence of the therapeutic benefits (or otherwise) of natural products can vary markedly, but understand the science behind their potential mechanisms of action has the same pharmacological basis and pharmaceuticals.

…

Homeopathy
We note the Council’s own ‘Complementary and alternative medicines – best practice guidance for pharmacists’ document makes reference to the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill which states:

currently there is no accepted scientific evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy and therefore that health benefit claims should not be made for homeopathic products

This aligns with further documents and statements issued internationally, including the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)(1), the Cochrane Library and others have noted homeopathic products show no effects beyond placebo. A large number of government committees, professional pharmacy and medical organisations internationally have issued statements reinforcing this lack of effectiveness of homeopathy in treating health conditions. The Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand does not at this time have a position statement on complementary medicines or homeopathy.

Homeopathy is not herbalism, and homeopathic science is not consistent with currently accepted medical and pharmacological science. Some pharmacists, and indeed other health professions, have argued for the role of homeopathy as a valid form of treatment to meed patient demand, while acknowledging any “benefit” is achieved through a placebo effect, while not necessarily agreeing with the purported science behind homeopathic practice.

The question for the Council must then be whether it is considered ethical practice for pharmacists to charge a fee for products for which there is no accepted scientific evidence for effectiveness; OR for which they acknowledge a lack of evidence yet sell for the purposes of providing a placebo effect.

(1) National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC). NHMRC Information Paper: Evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions [Internet]. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council; 2015. Available from: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/cam02

Submission to the Pharmacy Council of New Zealand (Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand)

The Pharmaceutical Society also noted something that was raised in a few other submissions; when pharmacies sell ineffective products they lend them the credibility of their profession, which can inadvertently lead to patients being misled about their efficacy.

While we again note that the Council have expressed that it’s not their purpose or the purpose of the Code of Ethics to “endorse any particular complementary or alternative medicine or practice”, in setting the requirements for pharmacists to conform with obligation 6.9 (or 6.9a and 6.9b), the Council must determine whether the practice of homeopathy is consistent with the Code. Particularly when having homeopathic products available alongside pharmaceutical medicines, or indeed herbal/complementary medicines with their varied levels of evidence, potentially implies clinical benefit by association and provision through a respected and regulated health professional.

Submission to the Pharmacy Council of New Zealand (Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand)

I’ve not yet been made aware of any other submissions that have been made to the Pharmacy Council, but I imagine a number of individuals at least will have made submissions that have not been publicised. As it stands though, the Pharmacy Council’s proposal seems to have strong opposition from all sides, with the only significant support I have seen so far coming from the Pharmacy Guild, who represent only those pharmacists who own their own pharmacies.

It seems no group other than pharmacy owners wants to keep the status quo of pharmacies selling ineffective products without consequences.