The United States doesn't mess around when it comes to dealing with companies that make wild weight-loss claims.
If they can't substantiate their advertising claims, they could be hit with meaningful penalties in the form of massive fines.
A few months ago, for example, that country's Federal Trade Commission (FTC) found that the ads for three "skin gels" - including a product called "Tummy Flattening Gel" - which claimed that they simply "melted away" fat, could not be backed up by clinical tests.
Nor was there any hard evidence backing the claims that three slimming pill products - including one aimed at children - caused drastic weight loss. The company behind all six products, Basic Research, was fined $3-million (about R22-million) for violating federal law.
Down here on the southern tip of Africa, the makers of slimming products, cellulite creams and the like have a much easier time of it.
These products are not classified as medicines, so they aren't subject to independent and scientific testing for quality, safety and effectiveness.
And they don't have to answer to the Medicines Control Council.
The only body that has any control over this multimillion rand industry is the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), and then only if someone lodges a specific complaint about their advertising. That's when they are required to prove their claims.
But here's what often happens if that proof is not deemed to be valid and the complaint is upheld by the ASA: a new, "reformulated" version of the product enters the market, so the complaint process has to begin again, which takes months; the offending claims get watered down but the basic message of the advert stays the same; or the products remain in shops, in packaging bearing those ruled-against claims, many months after the ASA ordered their removal.
Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge,
deputy minister of health, has conceded that there is no "back up" legal system for the ASA.
"In the US the FTC has the legal authority and power to act against deceptive advertising. Thus legal action can be taken against advertisers who do not co-operate," she said.
So in the absence of such a legal framework, it's left to the ASA to do its best to call this industry to account.
But the extent to which some companies disregard or side-step its rulings was painfully apparent recently.
Glomail, distributors of Bioslim and other slimming products, was accused of continuing to sell its Gymtronix Duo "muscle stimulation" gizmo more than seven months after the ASA had ordered it to be withdrawn.
At the November 15 hearing, the ASA revealed that in the past year, it had made five rulings against the advertising claims of Glomail products - including Bioslim Hoodia, Carb Attack and Fat Attack - and on two occasions had found the company in breach of earlier rulings.
"It appears that (Glomail) has a history of contravening the advertising code and transgressing ASA rulings," the ASA noted.
The body ruled that if Glomail is again found in breach of the code in the next six months, it will be forced to submit all its advertising for pre-approval prior to publication, for a period of six months.
- At a recent ASA hearing regarding Glomail's advertising claims for its Bioslim Hoodia product, the directorate found that the TV advert featuring Iris Francis from The Apprentice: SA created a misleading impression that she lost 30kg while using the product.
Shape magazine reported that she claimed she'd lost 25kg through "healthy eating, exercise and hard work".