The ASA have just published a ruling where they uphold a complaint against YorkTest (an allergy and intolerance testing company whose products are often recommended by Holford). The ASA found that:
-
YorkTest could not substantiate their claim to offer “clinically validated” testing.
- YorkTest could not substantiate their claims of clinical efficacy.
- The claims made in Yorktest adverts could lead to mistaken diagnoses.This is really quite damning. Here at Holford Watch, we hope that YorkTest will be more careful with future adverts, and will remove from their range any products which are not clinically validated and/or could lead to mistaken diagnoses when used by consumers. We also hope that Professor Patrick Holford of Teesside University will revise his claims about the utility of YorkTest’s various products, in the light of this ruling and the ASA’s assessment of the current evidence for the efficacy - or otherwise - of YorkTest’s products.
15 responses so far ↓
Andy Lewis // October 24, 2007 at 12:51 am
Stunning work by some individuals there. It has taken a long time coming. But well worth it.
Gramlin // October 24, 2007 at 7:08 am
To think I nearly fell for their claims… only financial constraints dissuaded me. If I’d been a bit richer at the time, well, I’d have been made a bit poorer at the time.
superburger // October 24, 2007 at 8:54 am
good work.
I wonder if Prof. Holford will stop advising people to spend money on these tests?
pv // October 24, 2007 at 11:35 pm
I’m curious, does Mr Holford have any business connection with YorkTest? Does he get any money from YorkTest for his support or recommendation?
Dr* T // October 26, 2007 at 9:28 am
Outrageous self-promotion :)
“…
There are further fun and games from the ASA website regarding all the upheld complaints about the highly dubious York Allergy Tests by YorkTest Laboratories. Not surprisingly, everyone’s favourite pill peddler Patrick Holford is a fan - read the outcome on HolfordWatch….
“
jdc325 // October 26, 2007 at 10:17 am
“We also hope that Professor Patrick Holford of Teesside University will revise his claims…”
Has this ever actually happened with -any- of The Professor’s claims?
“The ASA challenged whether:
3. the ads made claims that could lead to a mistaken diagnosis” - brilliant! Submit complaints to the ASA and they’ll add to it. Well done to the ASA and the complainant.
LeeT // October 26, 2007 at 6:50 pm
“Well done to the ASA and the complainant.”
Hmmm. I beg to differ. It is appalling using the country’s advertising watchdog to police bad science. The pentalties are not exactly very severe - you merely have to withdraw the offending advert. Given that most adverts have a run of less than a few months by the time the adjudication comes the advert has finished anyway.
The media may be relucatant to take advertisements from persistent offenders, though Mr Holford’s slap on the wrist came from a flyers/inserts if I remember rightly.
It is all bit like apprehending Al Capone for parking on a double yellow line …
What is the latest on the EU supplement directive? Surely if these people believe their pills work they should be subject to control by the MHRA.
jdc325 // October 26, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Hi Lee,
Re EU directives: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/RECH_menu.do is a handy search page for EU regulations, directives etc…
There are new regulations on health claims (can’t remember the regulation number off-hand) and there is also the Food Supplements Directive 2002/46/EC here: http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynuezj or here in PDF: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yohghu
Re your comments on the ASA: “It is appalling using the country’s advertising watchdog to police bad science.” I disagree - sometimes this can be a useful way to prevent the spread of misinformation and sometimes it is even (unfortunately) the only way. I think the complaint was a good idea, I thought it was dealt with appropriately by the ASA and I think all concerned did as much as could be expected of them in order to prevent the spread of misinformation.
I do think that your point regarding the severity of the penalties involved - “It is all bit like apprehending Al Capone for parking on a double yellow line” - is an interesting one, though. I’m not sure what legislation governs the sale of these ‘testing kits’, but if they were classed as ‘medical devices’ then they would be covered by the MHRA - http://preview.tinyurl.com/e4gfg - there is a page on Medicines and Medical Devices here: http://preview.tinyurl.com/2rkq3r for a PDF download.
LeeT // October 27, 2007 at 10:28 am
Thank you for the links.
Although it is good fun reading adjudications against Holford and Holford-related projects I do think it is a rather slow way of making progress. Firstly, it depends on either the public or the ASA taking an interest. Secondly, most adjudications are not very well publicised.
The MHRA did not seem very interested when I rang to express my concern at the medicinal claims being made on some Higher Nature/Patrick Holford mood supplements. On his blog David Colquhoun’s mentions how they allowed certain herbal medicines to be labelled traditional remedies. (Sorry haven’t been able to find the link.)
If we were to argue in favour of a stronger regulatory regime that would certainly (i) engage the interest of CAM practitioners and (ii) probably the general public.
Can I challenge those who run this blog and comment on it to come up with a five or ten point manifesto? (Serious suggestions only!) Here is my contribution:-
(1) all herbal/supplement products to treated the same way as conventional medicine
(2) nutritionist to be a title protected by law within the EU
(3) nutritional therapists to be oliged to have an honours degree in addition to the ION diploma unless they have a relevant degree such as biochemistry/food science
jonhw // October 28, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Thanks for all the comments. I think the ASA did what they were able to do - but there is a real case for giving them, or other agencies, stronger punitive powers. For example, we could take a leaf out of America’s book - where, sometimes, if a product is sold using inaccurate claims then company(s) selling it are forced to offer a full or partial refund to all customers.
Claire // October 28, 2007 at 4:08 pm
REgarding Lee’s point (i), somebody called Nicholas Cresswell has put up a No. 10 petitions callling for disclaimers to be put on alternative medications, stating sth like ‘ there’s no good evidence that this works’ - http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/altmedicinediscl/ . Not many signatures so far but it might cheer him up if more were to sign up!. On the wider point of regulation/enforcement, I agree with jonhw, the ASA did what it could and it is good to have the decision on the public record. The US’s FDA (though not by any means without its own problems, suspicions of being too cosy with Big Pharma etc) does seem to have more clout that MHRA when it comes to sanctioning those making inaccurate claims. Though I’m not sure about the extent of their reach regarding AltMed products?
LeeT // October 28, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Thank you. That’s great. I have just signed. If the word goes out in the blogging community hopefully thousands more will sign up.
Regarding Jon’s point legislation was tightened up to impress upon company directors their responsibilities re health and safety. Perhaps the same thing could be done with regard to misleading advertising claims. Make directors, such as Mr Holford, personally liable and they will surely be careful. As things stand he has two adjudications go against him directly and I suppose the York one could be thought of as an indirect - let’s see whether he will change his ways …
Patrick Holford, Food for the Brain and Equazen « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // December 12, 2007 at 1:48 am
[...] to EMR and YorkTest, the IgG food intolerance tests criticised by both the House of Lords and the ASA). Holford managed to procure some useful backing for the Food for the Brain project. One of the [...]
Food for the Brain Child Survey: The Promotion « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // January 8, 2008 at 7:31 pm
[...] is any such evidence, despite expert review of these issues by both the House of Lords and the ASA? If so, it would behove him to explain why these independent reviews should be rejected in favour [...]
eden aries // March 4, 2008 at 11:39 am
DON’T FALL FOR YORK TESTS!!
I HAD 2 TESTS DONE ONE AFTER THE OTHER (7 DAYS APART WITH NO DIET CHANGE) SPENT A TOTAL OF 400 POUNDS AND HAD RESULTS COMPLITELY DIFFERENT IN ONE TEST I WAS INTOLLERANT TO EVERYTHING IN THE OTHER JUST TO 3 THINGS..I WANT MY MONEY BACK (130+ 265) THAT’S A BIG FRAUD PLUS THEY DIDN’T REPLY TO MY COMPLAINT
Leave a Comment