Ionised water email campaign slapped for colon claims

The advertising watchdog said the colon health-benefitting claims being made by Sussex firm Earth Trade Water (ETW) for its treated water product were not scientifically substantiated and ruled that they must not appear again.

The ASA recently ruled against another ionised water company in the UK, Stationbridge Ltd, on similar grounds, a ruling the company’s managing director, Lewis Montague, said had provoked his company to establish a private network where information could be shared without fear of regulator retribution.

Water breaches​

ETW sent an email to 200 subscribers whose identity was not protected which the ASA also said violated its database privacy code.

Statements suggesting drinking regular tap water could cause digestive problems were also deemed unsubstantiated, and disclaimers that appeared on a linked website were deemed insufficient.

“We told ETW not to make health claims until such time as they were able to substantiate them, and that they should not refer to conditions for which medical supervision should be sought,”​ ASA said.

“We also told them to ensure that personal information was held securely and safeguarded against unauthorised use or disclosure.”​

The claim​

Part of the ETW email, sent March 30, 2011, read: “Colon cancer is preventable, and many health practitioners advise their patients to undergo a colon cleaning regimen in order to purge wastes from the colon and remove toxins from the body and use other methods, such as herbal cleansing or taking special supplements. ​

“Thankfully, there is an additional way to achieve good colon health. Drinking plenty of iodized alkaline mineral water has been shown to clean the entire digestive tract, not just the colon…​

“The water helps with peristalsis, the process of moving wastes through the digestive tract. Avoid drinking tap water since research shows that tap water can cause digestive problems.”​

In its defense ETW said the advert was based on testimonials located on its website and academic statements and it included a link to a disclaimer that read: "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."​

The ASA said it had not been made clear the claims were, “​the opinion of other people”,​ and even if it was, they were the kind of claims requiring scientific substantiation which was lacking.

It said such a disclaimer should appear in the email message rather than as a weblink, and that at any rate, the disclaimer, “​contradicted rather than clarified the claims in the e-mail”.​

The company said the publication of the email addresses had been an administrative error caused by software issues, but the ASA said no evidence had been provided to verify this.