Blooms Health ad banned
BLOOMS Health has been pinged for promoting online its Coenzyme Q10 150 Max product (pictured) as an “amazing” panacea across a wide range of medical conditions, by the Therapeutic Goods Administration Complaints Resolution Panel (TGACRP).
The advertisements in question included an article by high profile pharmacist Gerald Quigley, identifying benefits for people with “disease states ranging from high blood pressure and heart attacks to deficiencies of the immune system and cancer,” the Panel said.
A number of other claims included “assists with the optimal absorption of the powerful antioxidant Coenzyme Q10”, “helps to improve stamina and endurance”, “supplies an advanced health and stamina formula in one daily capsule” and “can help maintain performance as well as assist recovery following exercise”.
In addition, the claims included: “CoenzymeQ10 is a powerful free radical scavenger that may assist in maintaining peripheral circulation and reduces oxidation of LDL (bad) cholesterol” and “assists maintenance of heart health ʹ in particular heart muscle function and peripheral circulation”.
The company, Phytologic Holdings trading as Blooms Health, challenged by an anonymous complainant, is required to publicly retract, withdraw representations and withdraw advertisements.
The promotions were published on several websites in Dec 2016 including those of Blooms Health itself, Discount Drug Stores, Pharmacy Direct Θ Pharmacy Online.
All sections of the code referred to by the complainant were upheld by the Panel, although Phytologic did defend some of its claims.
“Without contending that the overall message of the article went beyond what was allowed by the Code, it is widely acknowledged in published literature that coenzyme Q10’s normal roles in the body involve supporting heart health as well as energy production”, the company insisted.
Phytologic also provided copies of monographs and other review papers supporting the claims, but the Panel countered with the statement that it “was satisfied that all of these representations were misleading, unverified, likely to arouse unwarranted expectations, and abused the trust and exploited the lack of knowledge of consumers.”