In South Africa, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) decided to attack the manufacturer of electronic cigarettes "Twisp" following the broadcast of an advertisement on radio station 702 where we could hear that the vape was 95% safer than smoking.
THE HEALTH ENGLAND PUBLIC REPORT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONCRETE PROOF!
In a judgment rendered on April 28, the ASA found that a radio commercial broadcast on station 702 touted the Twisp company while declaring that vaping was safer than smoking. According to the ASA, this statement would be completely incorrect, moreover in its judgment, the Authority highlights article 4.1 of section II of the Advertising Advertising Code which specifies that “ Advertisers must obtain proof or verification for all efficacy claims ... such proof or verification must emanate from or have been evaluated by an independent and credible entity "
The judgment follows a complaint from Tertia Louw to the ASA, it disputes the allegation that " electronic cigarettes would be 95% safer than conventional cigarettes “, Arguing that this has never been demonstrated by solid scientific research. In her statement, she also maintained that " the vape was just another way to smoke"
In response to the complaint, the company "Twisp" mentioned the report of Public Health England entitled " E-cigarette: an evidence update", This one specifies that" the best estimates show that electronic cigarettes are at least 95% less harmful to health than smoking, and that when they help most smokers to completely quit tobacco ".
Si the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has declared that she accepts the authenticity of the report, she wishes to remain cautious about the claims. " Management should exercise caution when dealing with health claims made in commercial advertising. It cannot be ignored that the claim is made in relation to the range of Twisp electronic cigarettes. »
According to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the link between the Public Health England report and the promotion of Twisp electronic cigarettes remains unclear, she notes that the advertisement is contrary to the 4.1 clause of section II of the Code and therefore requested the withdrawal.
Source : Timeslive.co.za
