Garden Of Life’s FucoTHIN Weight-Loss Claims Get Mixed Review From ERSP
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
The Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program supports general performance claims for Garden of Life's fucoTHIN fat burner, but recommends the firm stop marketing the product as "clinically proven" to burn "belly fat.
The Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program supports general performance claims for Garden of Life's fucoTHIN fat burner, but recommends the firm stop marketing the product as "clinically proven" to burn "belly fat." ERSP reviewed claims for fucoTHIN featured online and in print advertising after receiving an anonymous competitive inquiry, the industry self-regulatory forum says in an April 2 decision. The watchdog group, administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus, determined GOL's scientific evidence supports claims the product is a non-stimulant and "burns fat while providing antioxidant cellular protection." Additionally, the firm's weight-loss study of 150 participants met several criteria of "Gold Standard" clinical studies; participants in the fucoTHIN group lost an average of 14.5 pounds during the 16-week study, while the placebo group lost three, ERSP notes. However, "notwithstanding the encouraging results of the marketer's study with respect to the weight loss achieved by subjects using the product in conjunction with a low-calorie diet, ERSP determined it would not be appropriate to extrapolate from these results that fucoTHIN has been 'clinically proven' to reduce belly fat," the CBBB group says. In addition, the study was performed on obese women, yet the results are included in advertising aimed at a much broader audience, ERSP notes. The group also cites an opinion from FTC, which states "there is no such thing as spot reduction." The West Palm Beach, Fla.-based firm agrees to revise advertising to conform to ERSP's recommendations to call its results "clinically studied" or "clinical results" instead of "clinically proven results," according to the decision. The firm also voluntarily discontinued the use of two testimonials referred to in the decision and was in the process of revising some of its advertising during ERSP's inquiry, the group adds. - Katie Stevenson ([email protected]) |