Honey puffs stung by advertising rules

By DITA DE BONI marketing writer

Who would have thought furry little buzzy bees - yielding millions of dollars for the local economy - could cause so many problems for their enthusiastic owners?

The lucrative bee product sector - selling an estimated $30 million each year of royal jelly, bee pollen, propolis and honey - has a sting in its tail: its products continue to fall foul of therapeutics advertising codes with, some say, exaggerated claims of health benefits.

Bee venom - long used in folk medicine - is tipped to ease joint pain; manuka honey is plugged as having antitoxic and antiseptic properties; bee pollen is sold as a food supplement and is said to contain many vitamins and minerals.

But honey makers are angry that as soon as they start talking about honey's health benefits, they get whacked under medicines regulations.

In advertising, they are subject to the self-regulatory TAPS (therapeutics advertising pre-vetting system) to which every other participant in the $100 million "complementary medicines" market has voluntarily bound itself.

Not only have some fairly harsh decisions from food authorities upset bee product makers - such as a ruling two years ago which required all products containing royal jelly to carry dire warnings to asthmatics - but the sector is at odds with itself over some of the more strident claims made.

One case recently before the Advertising Standards Authority complaints board concerns exaggerated claims of health benefits which, the complainant says, have flourished in a faulty self-regulatory system.

The case begins with claims by Topline International, producer of the Nature Bee brand, that its "potentiated" bee pollen is more effective as a food supplement than regular bee pollen.

Regular pollen is collected from bees in pellets, in which individual pollen grains are glued together with nectar. Milling separates the grains. But in potentiation, the separated grains are subjected to a patented explosive decompression process, which ruptures the exterior of the pollen grain.

The manufacturers claim this makes their products more "available" to the body, a claim strenuously denied by competitors.

Both sides wheeled out experts to substantiate their claims, with Topline bringing forward Dr Kelvin Duncan of Canterbury University.

Abeeco, meanwhile, claimed research done by Food & Crop in Dunedin found no difference between the potentiated and non-potentiated process.

It also cited Toxic Substances Board member Dr Robert Mann, who says potentiated pollen should "not be permitted for human consumption" in the absence of proper facts.

The Business Herald asked bee experts at HortReseach for their opinion, but none would comment on potentiation.

The ruling of the Advertising Standards complaints board clearly finds fault with the original advertisements, saying that three claims - "dramatically increases digestibility," "80 times more digestible than other bee pollens," and "90 per cent available to your body" - were not substantiated.

As a result, the first two claims were amended in the advertisements on print and radio. The last claim was found in breach.

However, John Triggs of Abeeco Health, says the ruling has not been adequately enforced by the ASA and has largely been ignored by media, putting the efficiency of the self-regulatory system in doubt.

One factor which heightened the problem with an advertisement played on Radio Pacific was that it was by way of an interview with Pam Corkery and John Banks, both presenters on Radio Pacific.

Mr Banks owns around a quarter of Topline and has his name prominently displayed as a director of the company on its website.

This factor was outside the ASA's ambit but added to Mr Triggs' view that Topline "[believed] they were above the law and continue to advertise in the same fashion regardless."

Topline International did not respond to questions put to it by the Business Herald.

Mr Triggs and his supporters, which include the head of another health food supplement company, Comvita, say the ads continue to play on television. Their opinion of the ads remain negative despite the fact Topline has amended its claim, because, they say, there is no proof that potentiation is a valid process.

But both TVNZ and TV3 say they are playing amended ads in accordance with the TAPS system, ads which meet all the requirements of directions issued by the TAPS adjudicator Nigel Andrews.

Both channels say an ad found to be in breach of the advertising codes is withdrawn and not allowed to be broadcast again without appropriate classification, which is gained from the TAPS adjudicator.

Nigel Andrews says Mr Triggs has been able to appeal against the decision and he has been advised to do so, but the ads were amended by the company and their revised form meets requirements.

Mr Andrews defends the TAPS system as slowly but surely drawing everyone into abiding by the therapeutics advertising code.

"The TAPS system has been in place just over two years and we've looked at around 600 cases where there are most often changes to the ads needed, including bigger warnings [that the product may aggravate some conditions] - allergies and the like.

"The system seems to be working from what we can see, because out of all of those, only six or so have gone on to the complaints board with around three of those upheld in narrow areas, including the Topline case."

But Bill Bracks, chairman of health food supplement company Comvita, is fed up with the fact that proper evidence does not seem necessary to substantiate other advertising claims, while food and health authorities give honey and bee product producers a hard time over any claims whatsoever.

"On the one hand, honey, for example, is subject to the Medicines Act as soon as it claims anything beneficial about itself. It's like someone who produces a bottle of water, and as soon as they say it will quench your thirst if you are dehydrated, it becomes therapeutic terminology.

"On the other hand, it seems that other bee pollen producers can make the most outlandish claims and get away with them."