Comments on: Equazen and the ASA – Again

By: The Advertising Standards Authority May Be Closing Some Loopholes: About Time « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:14:11 +0000

[...] change to close loophole.[a] We have blogged several ASA rulings that involve Patrick Holford and Equazen where the ASA has found that their advertising is untruthful, unsubstantiated etc. and yet, these [...]

By: dvnutrix

dvnutrix — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:02:17 +0000

So – you’re saying, “No, I can’t provide a reference” then, Lateral. Par for the course, sadly.

By: lateral

lateral — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:17:59 +0000

Deficient soil does equate to deficient diets where do you thing the nutrients in the foods come from in the first place. We are not just talking fruit and vegetables here – meat, milk, eggs, grain and everything that is fed on that grain. Ever hear of the food chain?

Should find a ref and more info on the World service website, some basic research should put you straight on this issue.

By: jonhw

jonhw — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 11:09:50 +0000

Lateral- do you have a reference for this? Where was the research published, and where were they analysing the soil?

Not to mention, of course, that deficient soil does not necessarily equate to deficient diets: for example, we have easy access to a lot of fresh fruit and veg, so a healthy diet may still be more than adequate.

By: lateral

lateral — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:11:08 +0000

At last

Last night on the World Service news it has finally been acknowledged that Britain’s agricultural soil IS deficient in nutrients due to modern ‘inadequate’ chemical farming practice.

Therefore it is possible to assume that foods derived from that soil are also deficient in vital vitamins and minerals.

I was making this argument a few months ago and one of you baffoons were pretty scathing about it

So in the words of the infamous Bart

eat my shorts hehe

By: gimpy

gimpy — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:25:38 +0000

jdc325, interesting idea. I’ve long thought that newspaper corrections should be given the same prominence as the original erroneous claim, so why not apply that logical to advertising?

By: jdc325

jdc325 — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:30:05 +0000

How about a bullshit logo? Following a ‘guilty verdict’, offending advertisers could be forced to use a bright red, bold, capitalised font (with a minimum point size) consisting simply of the word “bullshitters” – on each future ad they run.

By: Steve Rolles

Steve Rolles — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:02:37 +0000

It’s not censorship or totalitarian – just a sensible regulatory response to an out of control, socially damaging industry with history of serial abuse and exploitation. I have zero sympathy for the ad industry – they are professional bullshitters one and all – perfecting the art of selling crap to idiots. Voluntary codes, industry regulation etc – no longer credible IMHO. These are people obsessed with profit over any and all other considerations.

looking into it, apparently broadcast ads do have to be cleared already (although recommendations are non binding) and print output can require vetting if they get hit by the ASA few times.

It all needs to be far stricter of course – and have legal teeth including power to levy fines and prosecutions

By: dvnutrix

dvnutrix — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:58:57 +0000

Casablanca: Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds? Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money] Croupier: Your winnings, sir. Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much. [aloud] Captain Renault: Everybody out at once! -------- If there were fines, there would probably be an entirely new section devoted to calculating the fines because they should be stepped and reflect the size of the company (and gravity of the offence). But, that would make it rather expensive to administer and probably cost more than it is worth (judging by some quangos, govt. depts. etc.). The staff of the ASA are probably very frustrated - I wonder if they consider this the best of all possible workable systems or if they have some ideas for ensuring compliance with the standards that are just not seeing the light of day. Victoria Health - the names don't go away, do they?

By: gimpy

gimpy — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:04:58 +0000

Wouldn’t it be sensible for all health product adverts, (maybe all adverts) have to be passed by a regulatory BEFORE they go public?

Well that would be an argument for censorship and would be a mildly totalitarian move. Personally I’d like to see harsher penalties for breaches, financially punitive ones. That way you would give people the option of choosing to break the law rather than moderating their intentions before they act.