Trust me, I'm a doctor

Main Category: Public Health
Article Date: 27 Jul 2004 - 0:00 PST


United Kingdom - Apparent endorsement by health advocates such as Dr Hilary Jones and the NHS are being used to persuade the public to believe the health claims made by advertisers, writes Kath Dalmeny.

Claiming that food products can reduce the risk of disease or positively contribute to health is a risky area for advertisers. Unsubstantiated claims can result in censure from trading standards officials, adverse media coverage and, perhaps most damaging of all, increased scepticism among their customers.

What better way to convince us of the validity of health claims than to use an independent and trusted organisation or individual to give their endorsement to the product?

Two extraordinary publications, destined for circulation to millions of people in the UK use this technique to exploit the trustworthiness of two of the most well-known health advocates in the UK - GMTV's Dr. Hilary Jones and the National Health Service.

The publications interweave health advice and advertising, usually for pharmaceuticals and food products. Some of this marketing is in the form of 'advertorial' - features designed to look like an independent and unbiased assessment of a product, yet written by industry representatives aiming to portray the product in the best possible light.

nhs Family Choice is a new directory of medical treatment providers, due to be published this summer and distributed by the NHS via doctors' surgeries, midwives and community nurses to over 2 million families. It will be published in response to Health Secretary John Reid's call for patients to have more choice in their medical care.

Despite its name, the magazine is not published by the NHS and is a commercial venture that mingles information provision with advertising and advertorial.

A marketing brochure circulated by manufacturer Hall & Woodhouse, makers of Panda Pops, reveals the type of advertising material nhs Family Choice will contain.

The advertorial portrays Panda Pops as low in sugar and low in additives, and therefore a healthier choice for children. Some Panda Pops products are indeed low in sugar, but others are not - and some contain the very additives identified by a recent government study as triggering behavioural problems in toddlers, including sodium benzoate and the red food colouring carmoisine (see Food Magazine 66, page 3).

Hall & Woodhouse goes further, implying that 'senior NHS staff' approved the advertorial. This is especially worrying since the advertorial contains a table showing Panda Pops as a healthier choice than fruit juice. At a time when an NHS priority is to promote the consumption of fruit and vegetables through the five-a-day programme, this is a highly unlikely message for the NHS to endorse.

When we spoke to the publisher of nhs Family Choice, Cyworks plc, they admitted that the NHS is not involved with the publication of the magazine, and gave the following feeble defence: that the 2 million families to whom this publication will be circulated would not think that the health messages came from the real NHS because the real NHS logo uses upper-case letters, unlike nhs Family Choice.

The Food Commission has duly submitted a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority against both Hall & Woodhouse and the publishers of nhs Family Choice.

Family Healthcare magazine 'with Dr. Hilary Jones' is another magazine that demonstrates how a trusted health advocate can be used to convince readers of the benefits of products. Family Healthcare is distributed through high-street newsagents and bookshops, costing £3.50. Over one third of the magazine (117 of the 290 pages) is advertising, with several features that also appear to be advertising material, although they are not declared as such.

In the introduction, Dr. Hilary Jones states that 'the prognosis for the NHS is bleak and consequently it will become ever more vital for us all to take more responsibility for our own health. Ultimately, each one of us will in a way need to become amateur doctors in our own right.' The perfect cue for features and advertising encouraging self-diagnosis and self-medication by means of pharmaceuticals, herbal remedies, vitamin pills and functional foods.

At least 25 advertising pages are devoted to self-medication by means of food products, including: Warburton's bread with added omega 3 fat to 'aid brain development in unborn children'; Scottish Salmon to help with 'reducing the chances of developing coronary heart disease'; Columbus Eggs, to 'keep joints supple and prevent injury'; Müller Probiotic yogurt 'helping to balance your entire digestive system'; and the Tea Council stating that consuming tea 'may have a role in protecting against certain diseases such as cancer, stroke and heart disease'.

One particular feature caught our eye: 'Smiles to be proud of', written by Dr. Samantha Stear and investigating dental health. The article contains many familiar industry defences for sugar consumption, and focuses on personal responsibility in dental care rather than dietary changes to combat dental decay. Who would advocate such an approach?

Our suspicions were triggered by an advert for the industry's Sugar Bureau, conveniently placed in the midst of the article, promoting the health benefits of sugar. So who is this author? Who is the seemingly independent Dr. Samantha Stear? None other than Science Director for the Sugar Bureau. A fact that the article fails to mention.

This article is taken from the latest Food Magazine. The Food Magazine reports on children's food and drink and other food issues in the UK. An annual subscription costs £22.50 (individuals/non-profit) or £46.00 (corporate). Published every three months. Click here to subscribe.

• Additional
• References
• Citations