Trigo FA Claims Get Mixed Review from NAD

NEW YORK—The National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus (BBB) has recommended PatentHEALTH modify or discontinue certain claims for its Trigosamine Fast Acting (Trigo FA) dietary supplement. However, the Canton, Ohio-based company plans to appeal certain NAD findings to BBB’s National Advertising Review Board (NARB).

NAD examined advertising for Trigo FA following a challenge by Nutramax Laboratories Inc., Edgewood, Md. Claims at issue related to the time it takes for the supplement to take effect (i.e., “rapid relief,” “results in as little as three days”); its comparative speed of efficacy compared to glucosamine alone; and the format of the print advertising. PatentHEALTH submitted support for its claims, including a clinical study on Trigo FA, an independent expert report, and evidence on the individual ingredients in the formula. NAD concluded while the study supports that the supplement works faster than the previous formula, consumers could likely misunderstand how quickly it could work based on their expectation of “rapid relief.” Further, NAD recommended PatentHEALTH discontinue comparative claims of efficacy compared to glucosamine alone, as there was no study comparing Trigo FA to glucosamine alone. Finally, it advised the company to revise the appearance of its news-like advertisements to more clearly emphasize that it is an ad, not news, which the company agreed to do.

In a statement, PatentHEALTH said it would comply with NAD’s recommendations regarding claims of “fast” or “rapid” relief, and direct glucosamine comparison claims. However, the company added, “NAD has misunderstood the meaning of its statistical analysis and the data underlying the three-day claim, which led the NAD to reject this claim. This misunderstanding surrounding the meaning of baseline and raw data should not change the fact that credible statistical analysis proves there was a statistically significant improvement in mobility at the Day 3 data point. Therefore, PatentHEALTH will seek the NARB’s review of this claim.”