Johnson & Johnson - ASA Complaint

[Major Hazzard]

Just seen this:

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/nicoventures-trading-ltd-a17-383588.html

It seems Johnson & Johnson complained about a vaping advert.. confused me at first until I realised that they produce the Nicorette patches.

I've told my wife I'm starting a one man boycott :-)

 

[speedfreek67]

Bloody pharma companies just want to stop people vaping, so that they can sell overpriced nicotine replacement that is less effective at stopping people smoking, so people go back to smoking and then either need more medicines provided by pharma companies, or die and reduce the pensions deficit.

 

[Ment]

In the light of evidence that proves vaping is far more successful than patches as a smoking cessation aid, surely J+J are guilty of something by promoting an inferior product?

 

[Mr Numpty]

I've told my wife I'm starting a one man boycott :-)

There's actually a long list of boycotts against J&J for a multitude of reasons, so you're in good company.

 

[Rukaguy]

A few interesting questions this raises.....

1. Big pharma are subject to TONNES of rules about their own advertising - they probably hate the fact that, in general, the 'vaping' community have not had such impositions thrust upon them... until now...

2. They are direct competitors with eCig vendors etc vs their own NRT products

3. Reading through the judgement above by the ASA - is there such thing as a licensed eCigarette product? They note, "[we] reminded them that when advertising unlicensed nicotine-containing e-cigarettes on their own website" - I'm just confused that to call something 'unlicensed', implies there is a license available for that specific product.

4. "Nicoventures is a company set up in 2010 by British American Tobacco (BAT) which focuses exclusively on the development and commercialisation of regulatory-approved, non-tobacco nicotine products." - which makes it part of a HUGE company. I wonder whether they would go after small businesses, or is this Big vs Big?

 

[SirLugg]

I'm not using their baby lotion on any part of my body again.
Ever.
Bastards. [emoji35]

 

[jay2]

Has anybody looked closeley at the small print one of those nicotine patch packages,. It's extremely intersting. For example:

"One patch of 30cm2 containing 52.5 mg nicotine....average absorption rate 21 mg nicotine in 24 hours" (that's from a "21mg " patch)

Ohhhh? lools like big Pharma could have saved Dr Farsolinos a lot of trouble, doesn't it? They had the exact same ratio worked out long ago.

More to point: note there's a double standard being applied here?

If e-juice is limited to 20 mg max, bugger the absorption rate, why doesn't the same ruling apply to NRT products? And fags, come to that. It's not made explicit is it, but I'm thinking that the tobacco industry must surely also be be qoting the amount of nic absorbed by the average smoker, not the amount in the tobacco , same as Big Pharma.

To be fair and equitable, those 21 mg nic patches should be marketed as 52,5 mg patches, and be subjected to screams of public outrage about the dangerously high nic content. And heavy smokers should be forced to attempt to quit smoking using 20mg patches, .average absorptrion rate 6 point something mg per day.

Seriously.

 

[Timwis]

Aren't Johnson and Johnson just like a lot of what we perceive as pharmaceutical companies when in reality they are just global greedy moneymakers. Pharmaceutical companies are usually small innovative concerns who turn the expertise into developing life saving and life improving drugs and products who are then swept up by the likes of Johnson and Johnson when they are ripe for the pickings.

 

[Mr Numpty]

More to point: note there's a double standard being applied here?

If e-juice is limited to 20 mg max, bugger the absorption rate, why doersn't the same ruling apply to MRT products? And fags, come to that. It's not made explicit is it, but I'm thinking that the tobacco industry must surely also be be qoting the amount of nic absorbed by the average smoker, not the amount in the tobacco , same as Big Pharma.

To be fair and equitable, those 21 mg nic patches should be marketed as 52,5 mg patches, and be subjected to screams of public outrage about the dangerously high nic content. And heavy smokers should be forced to attempt to quit smoking using 20mg patches, .average absorptrion rate 6 point something mg per day.

Seriously.

As flimsy as it undoubtedly is, I believe the reasoning behind capping the nicotine content of e-juice was to protect children who fancied a drink from the pretty bottle. Perhaps nicotine patches don't invite chewing on them to the same extent. At any rate, it's less about the nicotine absorption rates for e-juice/cigarettes/NRT users and more about child protection, albeit a crock of horseshit.

 

[jay2]

@ Mr Numpty: yeah, crock of horseshit it is, indeed. Of course , the only way to properly protect children is to keep it where small children won't get hold of it, same as your pretty painkillers, and to teach older children to value their lives and to exercise a tiny bit of common sense.

But the thing is that certain bodies (including thos sectors of the ecig infustry that have ben taken over by Big Tobacco) have been allowed to promote the misconception that 20mg e-juice is equivalent to those patches, or 20 cigarettes per day. and the non-vaping public have bought that lie, hook, line and sinker. This makes the 20 mg ruling look perfectly reasonable. It also creates difficulties for heavy smokers who are trying to switch to vaping, ofc.

I mean, if they don't know that they've savagely cut their nicotine intake by switching, the excperience is likely to be highly discouraging.


But now, having looked at the small print on the nic patch packages, it strikes me: there is such a thing as Trading Standards, and surely either the NRT merchants and the Tobacco Industry are misrepresenting their product; or else the e-juice merchants are misrepresenting their product accouding to those Standards? No I haven't looked into that, but it stands to reason that the same trading standards should apply.

If only the labelling could be brought in to line, then the lie would would be pretty self-evident to everybody wouldn't it?