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


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.

Are King’s Hawaiian Sweet Rolls Really Made in Hawaii?

That’s the issue raised in a new lawsuit filed by two consumers who said they were misled into believing that King’s Hawaiian Sweet Rolls were manufactured in Hawaii.


King's Hawaiian

These rolls were first made in Hawaii in the 1950s, and eventually they became so popular that tourists would take them back home, or those on the mainland with friends in Hawaii would ask them to send some.

The consumers who have filed the lawsuit say that it was not only the packaging that gave them the impression that these buns came from Hilo, Hawaii, but language on the website that says the company will send the product to the “mainland” (continental US) for free:

King's mainland claim

There are many local and national brand knockoffs of King’s Hawaiian sweet rolls but these consumers paid a premium price which they would not have done but for the fact that they thought they were getting the real thing from Hawaii.

All is not totally sunny in this case for the plaintiffs, however. There is nothing explicitly on the package or on the website that says these buns are “made in Hawaii.” In fact, when reading the history of the company on their website or looking at the back of the package, one learns that their bakery is in Torrance, California.

So, how do you think a judge will rule? Will he or she side with the consumers or declare their claims to be half-baked?

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.]


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.


Neuriva disclaimer