Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

100%?

Re: 100%?

Postby diy » Thu Dec 17, 2015 12:55 pm

The ones that really annoy me are those claiming natural ingredients when they are synthesized in labs.
Then there are those that claim certain health benefits associate with a food (e.g. the thermogenic effects of grapefruit) but neglect to point out the quantity you'd need.

So much of this is aimed at larger women who are desperate to lose weight and find magic fixes. The other day I was reading some claims about some fitness shorts that claim to make your workout 4 X more effective at burning calories. What is less obvious is that they compare it vs. normal shorts and they compare that vs training in underpants.

So assuming the effect of lycra wearing shorts on a training bike makes a difference 10kcal per hour (assuming say a 500kcal workout) then the magic shorts make a difference of up to 4 X more, so you get another 30Kcal. But the impression you get is these shorts are going to make you hit up to 2000kcal an hour.

Then their is green tea tablets. Green tea is slightly thermogenic (actually all foods are, but green tea raises the metabolism without providing any calories). Studies show your BMR (actually BMR is not the correct measure but its close enough) is raised 10kcal per cup if you have green tea and a spoon of honey. But Honey is more than 10kcal per spoon.

And how much do you pay for these so called Fruit and veg tablets and thermogenic fat burners - about £30 a month. :shock:

My all out favourite is "may aid weightloss as part of a calorie controlled diet" that could be true of a chocolate bar.

This is definitely an industry which needs scrutiny - some of the claims (which are then disclaimed in the legal sections usually) are outrageous.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: 100%?

Postby dls » Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:34 am

My all out favourite is "may aid weightloss as part of a calorie controlled diet" that could be true of a chocolate bar.


The issue is not as to the honesty or accuracy of this statement, but as to an education system which leaves people so ready to mishear it as they appear to do.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12274
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: 100%?

Postby diy » Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:14 pm

Its a catch 22, the more savvy the consumer is to the snake oil claims, the more sophisticated the ad-'men and lawyers get at coming up with new ways to present their vague claims.

For example - when a product is identical in chemistry to another product, but that product is rumored to be bad, synthesizing it under a different trademarked product seems only to have one objective - deceive the consumer that its not the product they are trying to avoid.

Don't forget you have "lawyers ears and eyes", you read things differently than your avg plump mum who's desperate to lose her post-pregnancy "fat". Her eyes and ears will likely be of the "happy" variety keen to believe what she reads/hears.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: 100%?

Postby dls » Fri Dec 18, 2015 2:42 pm

There has been the revers complaint this week about a certain drug which is identical in content, but marketed differently as intended for back pain and then for other pains. This was described as if it were something evil. In practice, people do not understand the ways in which different pains are treated by different drugs, and many of them (us) are unable (and not interested enough) to read the technical small print on the packaging. Given this it seems to me perfectly appropriate to market the same drug with different packages addressing the various conditions it might address.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12274
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: 100%?

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:50 pm

Smells like a smokescreen... or maybe just a slow news week?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10116
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: 100%?

Postby Millbrook2 » Sat Dec 19, 2015 9:15 am

dls wrote:There has been the revers complaint this week about a certain drug which is identical in content, but marketed differently as intended for back pain and then for other pains. This was described as if it were something evil. In practice, people do not understand the ways in which different pains are treated by different drugs, and many of them (us) are unable (and not interested enough) to read the technical small print on the packaging. Given this it seems to me perfectly appropriate to market the same drug with different packages addressing the various conditions it might address.


Agree entirely although I think one aspect of the complaint was the price differential. Same drug twice as expensive when marketed for migraine as opposed to headache.
Millbrook2
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:05 am

Re: 100%?

Postby Hairyloon » Sat Dec 19, 2015 10:51 am

So they charge stupid people extra: is that a problem?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10116
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: 100%?

Postby diy » Sat Dec 19, 2015 10:14 pm

dls wrote:There has been the revers complaint this week about a certain drug which is identical in content, but marketed differently as intended for back pain and then for other pains. This was described as if it were something evil. In practice, people do not understand the ways in which different pains are treated by different drugs, and many of them (us) are unable (and not interested enough) to read the technical small print on the packaging. Given this it seems to me perfectly appropriate to market the same drug with different packages addressing the various conditions it might address.


From what I could read from the press on this, the issue was the same drug, in the same dosage, being sold at different prices and branded at specific pains. The court case heard that each of the forms where equally effective at treating all of the types of pain. Hence it was hard to justify why they could claim one a specialist product. It seemed fairly despicable given the more expensive products were "targeting" the more debilitating pains.

Its one thing to market a pain killer under different brands and charge appropriately, particularly if there is different delivery mechanism (e.g. the chalky paracetamol at 1p per dose vs, the sugar coated version at 5p per dose.) But to exploit peoples desperation to find resolve, knowing they are paying more for a product that is no better than the other one - just not right IMO.

Its not washing powder - Its pain relief - should be a little more thoughtful of the customer.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: 100%?

Postby dls » Sun Dec 20, 2015 12:05 pm

From what I could read from the press on this, the issue was the same drug, in the same dosage, being sold at different prices and branded at specific pains. The court case heard that each of the forms where equally effective at treating all of the types of pain. Hence it was hard to justify why they could claim one a specialist product. It seemed fairly despicable given the more expensive products were "targeting" the more debilitating pains.


That was the original story in Australia.

I saw no suggestion that different charges were being made in the UK (though they might be). My point was that there are in fact clear and good reasons for doing exactly this.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12274
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Previous

Return to Contract and Consumer Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest