Health

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

SlimFast: Clinically Proven to Lose Weight and Keep It Off?

Pick up any SlimFast product and you’ll see a box with this claim:

SlimFast claim

SlimFast products

*MOUSE PRINT:

That tiny asterisk refers to a small disclosure that weight loss is clinically proven when using the product on the SlimFast diet plan.

SlimFast note

In commercials you will see the same claim — clinically proven — also being applied to their diet plan itself.

A competitor challenged those and other claims and brought their case to the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Better Business Bureau. The NAD handed down a decision last week and on many key points ruled against SlimFast.

NAD said it was reasonable for consumers to believe that any of SlimFast’s products that displayed the “clinically proven” box had been tested by the company and shown to be effective at losing and keeping off weight.

Their decision said:

NAD noted that the advertiser provided no evidence that each SlimFast product has been individually evaluated. Further, the advertiser’s evidence was limited to studies and expert reports based on weight loss studies on discontinued SlimFast products.

NAD recommended that the company discontinue its unqualified claims of “clinically proven” and “Clinically Proven: Lose Weight & Keep It Off.”

Regarding the claim, “Clinically Proven to Lose Weight & Keep it Off When Used as Part of the SlimFast Plan,” NAD found “that the claim expressly and by implication conveys the message that the current products themselves have been clinically proven to allow consumers to lose weight and keep it off” when they had no such proof.

SlimFast vowed to appeal NAD’s decision because they feel they presented substantial scientific corroboration and testimony to support their claims.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Neuriva Brain Supplement Is Not “Proven”

Remember this commercial for Neuriva, a recently introduced brain supplement?


The claims in it that Neuriva has “clinically proven ingredients that fuel five indicators of brain performance” became part of a class action lawsuit against the company. The complaint asserted that Reckitt Benckiser, the maker of Neuriva, lacked scientific proof that the product really improves brain functioning.

A review of the relevant scientific literature shows that no valid scientific or clinical evidence exists regarding how much, if any, of Neuriva’s key ingredients reaches the brain. Because of this lack of evidence, Defendants’ claims that Neuriva’s ingredients are scientifically and clinically proven to benefit the brain or enhance brain performance are patently false, as well as are Defendants’ claims that Neuriva has been scientifically proven to be effective. Indeed, no publicly available study of Neuriva exists, and Plaintiffs have found no indication that Neuriva’s efficacy has ever been studied or tested.

The company denied the charges but nonetheless subsequently entered into a proposed settlement agreement which calls for full or partial refunds to consumers and a change in the claims the company makes on the packaging and in advertising. [Purchasers can file a claim here, although the settlement is not finalized yet.]

*MOUSE PRINT:

Neuriva old and new

Put simply, the company agreed to change the word “proven” to “tested” along with other minor wording changes, but only for a period of two years. Frankly, whether it says “clinically proven” or “clinically tested” I think most consumers will still come away with the same net impression that there is reliable scientific evidence backing up the brain performance claims. The proposed settlement has also come under fire from other consumer advocates and court watchers.

The product’s TV advertising has changed already. They now have Miyam Bialik, the actress best known for her roles on Blossom and The Big Bang Theory, and as the future host of Jeopardy!, vouching for the product. What qualifies her for this role? She got her doctorate in neuroscience. Now the company uses that fact to also claim that the product is “neuroscientist approved.”


One thing that hasn’t changed is a disclaimer on the side of the Neuriva package.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Neuriva disclaimer

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Can Crest Toothpaste Really Repair Your Gums?

In 2021, at least five lawsuits have been filed against Procter & Gamble claiming that Crest Gum & Enamel Repair toothpaste is being deceptively marketed. [Suit #1, suit #2 pre-amendment, and suit #3]

Crest Gum and Enamel Repair

The lawyers contend that this Crest toothpaste cannot “repair” gums.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Allegations from some of the cases…

…gums that have suffered structural damage cannot be repaired, restored, or re-grown through use of the Product. The only way to repair gums is through periodontal treatment, including cosmetic dental surgery such as gum grafting.

…receding gums do not grow back; once the gum tissue has pulled back and away from teeth, it’s gone for good.

…the Product’s active ingredient –Stannous Fluoride .454% (.14% W/V Fluoride Ion) – which is common to most toothpastes, provides no special gum “repair” benefits.

With respect to gum care, all a toothpaste can really do is control, reduce, or prevent gingivitis by helping to remove plaque. Gingivitis is a common and mild form of gum disease that causes irritation, redness and swelling where your gum meets the base of your teeth.

So the lawyers claim that purchasers have been misled, would not have bought the product, or would have paid less than the premium price that P&G charges had they known the true nature of this toothpaste to start with.

P&G presumably denies the charges but best we can tell, P&G has not formally filed answers to the complaints yet.

One of the lawyers predicts what one of P&G’s defenses might be and he makes a pre-emptive grammatical argument against it. He expects P&G to say that in the phrase “Gum and Enamel Repair” that the word “gum” does not modify the word “Repair.” In essence, he’s suggesting that P&G will likely claim this is a “gum toothpaste” and an “enamel repair toothpaste.” The consumer lawyer says the name of the product follows normal parallel structure and most consumers would understand it to mean the product is for “gum repair” and “enamel repair.”.

What do you think? Do these cases have any teeth?