• Cookies Policy
  • ASAI and Remote Working
  • Links
  • Publications
Ph: (01) 6137040 // Email: standards@asai.ie
linkedin
twitter
  • Welcome
  • Make a complaint
    • Advertisement or Promotion
    • Online Behavioural Avertising
  • About ASAI
  • Advertising & Self Regulation
  • ASAI Code
  • Complaints Bulletins
  • News

Agriculture (Horse Industry)

June 22, 2017
by Seona Parker
Comments are off

Print This Post Print This Post
Bulletin: 17/3
Batch: 242
Reference: 25954
Product: Agriculture (Horse Industry)
Advertiser: Bucas Ltd
Influencer:
Agency:
Medium: Internet
Codes:
ASAI Code 7th Edition: 2.4(c), 4.1, 4.4, 4.9

  • Advertisement
  • Complaint
  • Response
  • Conclusion
  • The advertisement for a therapy rug for horses referred to the following:

    “Bucas has developed a brand new Recuptex Therapy rug which not only prevents numerous medical problems but can also help treat a vast array of ailments such as:

    • Arthritis
    • Muscle soreness
    • Soft tissue damage
    • Whither soreness
    • Kissing spine

    The webbing acts like a Faraday Cage, reflecting the magnetic fields created inside the body. Preserving these fields stimulates blood circulation and oxygen flow in the horse’s body and back, which heals and reduces both swelling and inflammation and promotes faster healing.

    Bucas Recuptex Therapy rug is the ideal choice for treating horses with chronic arthritis or back problems and helps to accelerate the recovery process in a natural protected environment. The new patented Snap-lock magnetic front and internal surcingles keep the rug in place.

    The Recuptex Therapy rug is a trustworthy and highly technological equine rug which no horse should be without.”

  • The complainant felt the advertisement was misleading due to claims of functionality that were (a) contraventions of physics and (b) unproven. He said claiming that a Faraday Cage reflected a horse’s magnetic field back into the body mistook what a Faraday Cage actually did. He said the rug could not have the mode of action that the advertisement claimed.

  • The advertiser noted that the complaint was an objection to the use of certain scientific terminology in the product description of their Recuptex Therapy Rugs for horses. Regarding the term ‘Faraday Cage – reflecting the horse’s magnetic field back into the body’, they stated that it was true that the term Faraday Cage does have a specific physical application to a form of shielding with respect to certain forms of electromagnetic radiation. They advised that the initial discovery and development by Michael Faraday was applied to protection from high voltage electrical discharges (e.g. lightning). They advised that the principle of electromagnetic shielding had been found to have a much broader application. In 1989, Frieder K. Kempe, who secured a patent for ‘Method of Pain Reduction using Radiation Shielding Textiles’, identified specific findings and benefits of radiation shielding with respect to both humans and animals (specifically
    horses in the patent), in which he ascribes and expresses the scientific basis for his discovery as being that of a ‘Faraday Cage’. Stating the ‘Faraday Cage effect’ as being simply an expression of the concept of ‘electromagnetic shielding’ with specific physical

    benefits and thus patentable claims, the advertisers expressed their product description likewise in order to give the reader a broad based understanding that the Recuptex rug acts in a similar way, ‘like a Faraday Cage’.

    The advertisers provided a listing of the various scientific papers that had formed the basis for the use of the terminology concerned and support for the ‘radiative shielding (Faraday Cage)’ benefit claims to both humans and to horses.

    The three supporting documents from the advertiser covered the following:
    • “Faraday Cage in Powder Coating”
    • ‘Method of Pain Reduction using Radiation-Shielding Textiles’; Kempe,United States Patent,Patent No. 4,825,877,dated 2 May, 1989
    • “recupTEX ® - Prolongs your muscle performance!”, accrediting Concordia Textiles and Bekaert

    They stated that the terminology which they had used most accurately described the principle involved and the case studies provided attested to the benefits of the application of this scientific principle to the benefit of people and horses.

    Further information:
    The Executive requested the advertiser to provide the studies that substantiated all claims in their advertisement and to indicate the relevant substantiation in each of the three submissions. They noted that of the three documents (above), Kempe’s patent document contained eight case studies, three of which related to horses. They noted that commentary was included on the individual horse trainer’s assessments; however, the original source of this material was not cited and there was no reference to any veterinary or equestrian expertise and the research sample size was extremely small.

    The advertiser provided additional information together with a series of 14 publications and documents in support of substantiation of their claim. The Executive noted that all the documentation and the associated advertisers’ comments related to Faraday cages without highlighting any references to animals or horses.

    The advertisers proposed, in order to clarify the matter, amending the wording from ‘like a Faraday Cage’ to ‘like a Faraday Shield’.

    The Executive provided the advertiser with a further opportunity to present any substantiation surrounding testing, clinical trials, demonstrations or outcomes of the use/treatment of horses for the ailments referred to in the advertisement. The advertiser referred the Executive to the several case studies as detailed in the text of the original patent in 1989 (and referred to above) regarding clinical evidence in relation to the product’s beneficial effect towards helping in the relief of muscle soreness and its help in the healing of injuries and reducing nervousness in animals.

  • Complaint upheld.

    The Complaints Committee considered the details of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. They noted that the advertisers had submitted extensive documentation which referenced Faraday cages and their various uses, including one example of equestrian use. The Committee noted, however, that the advertisers had not provided relevant substantiation for the claims made in the advertising about the product’s efficacy. Without relevant substantiation for the claims made, the Committee considered the advertising to be in breach of Sections 4.1, 4.4 and 4.9 of the Code.

    ACTION REQUIRED:
    The advertisement should not reappear in its current form.

Social Share

    Complaints Bulletins

    • Complaints Bulletins
      • 22/4
      • 22/3
      • 22/2
      • 22/1
      • 21/5
      • 21/4
      • 21/3
      • 21/2
      • 21/1
      • 20/6
      • 20/5
      • 20/4
      • 20/3
      • 20/2
      • 20/1
      • 19/6
      • 19/5
      • 19/4
      • 19/3
      • 19/2
      • 19/1
      • 18/5
      • 18/4
      • 18/3
      • 18/2
      • 18/1
      • 17/5
      • 17/4
      • 17/3
      • 17/2
      • 17/1
      • 16/7
      • 16/6
      • 16/5
      • 16/4
      • 16/3
      • 16/2
      • 16/1
      • 15/6
      • 15/5
      • 15/4
      • 15/3
      • 15/2
      • 15/1
      • 14/8
      • 14/7
      • 14/6
      • 14/5

    Search:


    Filter by:

    Reset

    ©ASAI 2021 // 7 Herbert Street, Dublin 2, D02 K838 // Ph: (01) 6137040
    website by smudge design
    /* ----------------------------------------- */ /* Content Template: Complaint_Content_Type - start */ /* ----------------------------------------- */ /* ----------------------------------------- */ /* Content Template: Complaint_Content_Type - end */ /* ----------------------------------------- */
    This website uses cookies to improve your browsing and interactive experience. If you are happy to proceed with this, please click Accept

    If you wish read more about our cookie policy please Read More
    Privacy & Cookies Policy

    Privacy Overview

    This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
    Necessary
    Always Enabled
    Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
    Non-necessary
    Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
    SAVE & ACCEPT