Complaint upheld over 'unrealistic' diet pill ad

File photo / Thinkstock

An advertisement for a diet pill promising its users they would lose two kilos every 24 hours was among complaints recently upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

The direct mail advertisement for Natural Health Specialists claimed the Lemon Juice Diet Rapid Slimming Capsule was a "slimming miracle".

The advertisement "explicitly guaranteed" users would "lose a minimum of 2 kilos every 24 hours" and would "lose weight from day one, without going hungry for a second".

The ad went on to claim that "annoying calories" would "magically disappear" from food.

The authority's complaints board said the advertisement promised unrealistic and unsafe rapid weight reduction that the advertiser was unable to substantiate.

The complaint was therefore upheld and the authority ordered it to be removed.

Another complaint regarding a misleading advertisements for weight loss products was for a direct mail advertisement issued by Sanoma Garden for a weight loss product called Double Shot.

The advertisement made multiple weight loss claims including a testimonials which stated, "Double Shot: Eat everything and as much as you want! No need to exercise?lose up to 6 kilos a week".

The complaints board said the various claims made about weight loss in the advertisement were "exaggerated and grossly misleading".

The complaint against the ad was therefore upheld and the advertisement ordered to be removed. The advertiser did not respond to the complaint.

The ASA's complaints board also upheld a complaint against a company advertising amber bead teething necklaces for babies.

The Baa Baa Beads website advertisement stated; "In contact with your baby's skin, the amber warms and the beads release healing oils to help calm and sooth babies and toddlers through the discomfort of teething."

The FAQ section of the website also stated that amber "known anti-inflammatory properties" and was "equal or better of many commercial drugs".

The complaints board said no substantiation was provided for the claims made on the website and described the advertisement as "likely to mislead consumers" and "socially irresponsible". The advertiser failed to respond to the complaint.

The authority ordered the advertisement to be removed.