DECEPTION

IN WEIGHT-LOSS 

ADVERTISING 

WORKSHOP:

Seizing Opportunities

and Building Partnerships

to Stop Weight-Loss Fraud

A Federal Trade Commission

Staff Report

December 2003
Federal Trade Commission

TIMOTHY J. MURIS, Chairman

MOZELLE W. THOMPSON, Commissioner

ORSON SWINDLE, Commissioner

THOMAS B. LEARY, Commissioner

PAMELA JONES HARBOUR, Commissioner

This is a report of the Bureau of Consumer Protection of the Federal Trade Commission. The views 

expressed in this report are those of the staff and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal 

Trade Commission or any individual Commissioner. The Commission has voted to authorize the staff 

to publish this report. 
Public Health Service

Offi ce of the Surgeon General

Rockville MD 20857

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

 We are witnessing a growing epidemic of obesity in this country. This epidemic

not only costs this nation over $117 billion a year, but it also steals 300,000 lives. 

Unfortunately, there is no miracle pill that can help Americans lose excess weight, so we 

have to rely on responsible behavior – including eating right and being physically active. 

The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity, 

released in December 2001, called upon almost every segment of the public and private 

sectors to work together to help Americans make healthy eating and physical activity 

choices.

 By improving our nation’s “health literacy” we can ensure that Americans have 

the information and tools they need to make effective decisions that will improve their 

overall health and lead to longer, healthier lives. The media can play an important role in 

educating consumers by providing accurate information about weight loss programs and 

weight management products.

 In September 2002, the Federal Trade Commission staff released a report, Weight 

Loss Advertising: An Analysis of Current Trends, that found as much as 55 percent 

of advertising for weight loss products and services contained false or unsupported 

effi cacy claims. Follwing up on that report, the FTC staff convened a workshop where 

representatives of the scientifi c community, the weight loss industry, and media trade 

associations discussed ways that industry and the media could reduce the spread of 

false promises of miraculous, fast, and effortless weight loss. This FTC staff report on 

the workshop lays out a number of opportunitites for industry and media to assume a 

leadership role in addressing deceptive weight loss advertising.

 The FTC staff has proposed a plan to reduce deceptive weight loss advertising 

that includes several segments of the commuity working together to promote positive, 

reliable messages about weight loss through advertising. A major part of the FTC staff 

effort is a list of seven scientifi cally infeasible claims frequently found in misleading 

weight loss ads. Advertising can play an important role in providing consumers with the 

information they need to make healthy weight loss choices.

 I would like to thank and congratulate Chairman Muris, the other Commission 

members, and the staff who continue to work so tirelessly with the weight loss industry 

and media to promote positive, reliable messages about weight loss. 

Richard H. Carmona, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.S.

Surgeon General

U.S. Public Health Service
Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

I. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. Workshop Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A. The Science Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1. Consumers who use the advertised product can lose substantial weight without 

reducing caloric intake and/or increasing their physical activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Consumers who use the advertised product can lose substantial weight while still 

enjoying unlimited amounts of high calorie foods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. The advertised product will cause permanent weight loss. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4. The advertised product will cause substantial weight loss through the blockage of 

absorption of fat or calories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5. Consumers who use the advertised product can safely lose more than three pounds

 per week for a period of more than four weeks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

6. Users can lose substantial weight though the use of the advertised product that is

 worn on the body or rubbed into the skin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

7. The advertised product will cause substantial weight loss for all users. . . . . . . . . . 15

8. Consumers who use the advertised product can lose weight only from those parts

 of the body where they wish to lose weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

B. The Industry Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1. False and Deceptive Ads Tarnish Reputable Marketers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2. Industry Self-Regulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3. The Role of the National Advertising Division of the BBB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4. The Creation of a Partnership Involving the Media in Self-Regulation . . . . . . . . . 24

C. The Media Panel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1. Advertising Clearance Standards Vary Significantly Across the Cable, Newspaper, 

 and Magazine Industries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2. Practical Impediments Faced by the Media in Reviewing Weight-Loss Ads . . . . . . 27

3. Potential Roles for the Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

III. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

A. Summary of the Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

B. Weight-Loss Advertising Guidance for the Media. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

IV. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Appendix A: Biographical Sketches of Panelists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
i

Executive Summary

This staff report (Workshop Report) provides a summary and analysis of the Federal Trade 

Commission’s public workshop on Deception in Weight-Loss Advertising. It includes a detailed 

review and summary of the workshop discussion and relevant public comments submitted in 

conjunction with the workshop. It also sets forth the staff’s recommendations for future FTC action.

The workshop, held on November 19, 2002, was a part of the FTC’s effort to curb false and 

deceptive advertising of weight-loss products and services. The workshop followed the September 

2002 release of the FTC staff report on weight-loss advertising (Weight-Loss Advertising Report). 

The Weight-Loss Advertising Report concluded that, despite unprecedented levels of FTC law 

enforcement and substantial consumer education efforts, false and deceptive weight-loss advertising 

was widespread. Against this backdrop, it should be noted that, according to the U.S. Surgeon 

General, overweight and obesity have reached epidemic proportions in the United States. As a result, 

at any given time, tens of millions of consumers are trying to lose weight and spending billions of 

dollars each year on weight loss products and services. Too often, however, these products do not 

provide the advertised results.

Accordingly, the goal of the workshop was to explore new approaches to stopping false weightloss advertising. In particular, the workshop participants considered whether the FTC should compile 

a concise list of scientifically suspect claims found in weight-loss ads and discussed whether specific 

guidance identifying false claims could assist the industry and the media in eliminating false claims 

from weight-loss ads.

The all-day workshop consisted of three panels: science, industry, and media. The science 

panel, comprised of ten experts in nutrition and the study and treatment of overweight and obesity, 

evaluated eight weight-loss claims and considered whether the claims promised results that were 

not scientifically feasible. The discussion was limited to claims for nonprescription drugs, dietary 

supplements, creams, wraps, devices, and patches (“nonprescription weight-loss products”). Overall, 

the experts believed that there are certain weight-loss claims for these products that are not feasible 

based on the current state of the science. Based on these discussions, as well as the written comments 

received before and after the workshop, the published scientific and medical literature, and the 
ii

investigative experience of FTC staff, this staff report concludes that the following claims are not 

scientifically feasible at the current time for nonprescription weight-loss products:

$ Consumers who use the advertised product can lose two pounds or more per week (over 

four or more weeks) without reducing caloric intake and/or increasing their physical 

activity.

$ Consumers who use the advertised product can lose substantial weight while still enjoying 

unlimited amounts of high calorie foods.

$ The advertised product will cause permanent weight loss (even when the user stops using 

the product).

$ The advertised product will cause substantial weight loss through the blockage of absorption 

of fat or calories.

$ Consumers who use the advertised product (without medical supervision) can safely lose 

more than three pounds per week for a period of more than four weeks.

$ Users can lose substantial weight through the use of the advertised product that is worn on 

the body or rubbed into the skin. 

$ The advertised product will cause substantial weight loss for all users.

$ Consumers who use the advertised product can lose weight only from those parts of the 

body where they wish to lose weight.*

The second panel examined whether the weight-loss industry could fashion a more effective 

self-regulatory program. Members of the industry favored strengthening self-regulatory guidelines 

and considered whether an outside group such as the National Advertising Division of the Council of 

Better Business Bureaus (NAD) could assist with self-regulation. Such industry-based efforts will be 

an important component in curbing problematic ads.

Finally, the third panel considered the media’s part in disseminating problematic ads and 

examined the possibility of an increased role for the media in screening weight-loss ads. Panelists 

raised concerns regarding media screening of weight-loss ads, including various practical issues. For 

example, media members pointed to the short time frames available to make decisions regarding 

whether to run an ad and the difficulty of making judgments on whether an ad makes false claims.

* Although this report concludes that this claim is not scientifically feasible when made in the context of an ad 

promising substantial weight loss, it has not been included in the FTC staff’s media guidance brochure (“guidance”), 

which is being released simultaneously with this report, because the claim does not appear to be widespread. 
iii

Having considered the panel discussions and the written comments, the FTC staff believes that 

guidance on scientifically infeasible claims for nonprescription weight-loss products could be useful 

to the industry, the media, and consumers. Industry members can incorporate information from the 

guidance into new or existing self-regulatory codes that can aid them in preparing truthful ads. Media 

outlets can compare ads they receive with the guidance and reject patently false ads before they reach 

the consumer. And, consumers can use the guidance in evaluating which weight-loss products they 

should avoid. Accordingly, the staff recommends publication of guidance that specifically identifies 

those weight loss claims that are not feasible based on current scientific knowledge. 

At the same time, the staff will continue its other efforts to stop false and deceptive weight-loss 

advertising by: encouraging the media to implement viable media clearance standards and encouraging 

legitimate advertisers and their representatives to support this program; working with interested 

public and private entities to develop self-regulatory weight-loss advertising guidelines; supporting 

the development of effective industry self-regulatory programs; and working with private sector 

organizations to develop effective consumer education. In addition, the staff will recommend to 

the Commission that it bring enforcement actions against companies that use scientifically infeasible 

claims to promote weight-loss products. In any enforcement action, the Commission retains the 

burden of proving that the claims are false, deceptive, or unsubstantiated. 

Finally, the FTC staff will continue to monitor weight-loss advertising over the course of the 

next year to measure improvement. Based on the results of continued monitoring, the staff will make 

further recommendations as are necessary and appropriate.
1

I. Background

Six out of every 10 Americans are overweight or obese.1 The estimated cost of obesity exceeds 

$100 billion per year.2

 Not surprisingly, at the same time, millions of Americans are trying to lose 

weight.3

 The marketplace has responded with a proliferating array of products and services, many 

promising miraculous, quick-fix remedies.4

 Tens of millions of consumers have turned to over-thecounter remedies, spending billions of dollars on products and services that purport to promote weight 

loss.5

 

To document more systematically the extent of false and deceptive weight-loss advertising, the 

FTC staff, with the assistance of the Partnership for Healthy Weight Management,6

 collected and 

analyzed a nonrandom sample of 300 advertisements, mostly disseminated during the first half of 

2001, from broadcast and cable television, infomercials, radio, magazines, newspapers, supermarket 

tabloids, direct mail, unsolicited commercial e-mail (spam), and Internet websites. In addition, 

to evaluate how weight-loss advertising has changed over the past decade, the staff compared ads 

disseminated in 1992 in eight national magazines with ads appearing in 2001 in the same publications.7

The results were released in September 2002, in a report entitled Weight-Loss Advertising: 

An Analysis of Current Trends. The report concluded that the use of false or misleading claims in 

weight-loss advertising was widespread. Nearly 40% of the 300 ads made at least one representation 

that almost certainly was false. An additional 15% of the ads made at least one representation that 

was very likely to be false or, at the very least, to lack adequate substantiation.8

 The report further 

noted that the incidence of false weight-loss product advertising appeared to have increased over 

the last decade, despite an unprecedented level of law enforcement.9

 Concurrent with the release of 

the report, the FTC announced that it would host a workshop to consider additional or alternative 

approaches to combat false and deceptive weight-loss product advertising.10

The workshop was held on November 19, 2002.11 It consisted of three panels designed to 

consider the scientific feasibility of certain claims made for weight-loss products (the “science 

panel”) and to explore ways that members of the weight-loss industry and the media can contribute to 

curtailing weight-loss fraud (the “industry” and “media” panels). 

The science panel was comprised of researchers, academics, and medical professionals from the 

government, academia, and private industry. Each panel member evaluated the claims and opined 

on whether they are scientifically feasible given the current state of knowledge and technology. The 

industry panel included representatives from the weight-loss industry, such as companies that sell 
2

weight-loss products and trade associations that represent the dietary supplement industry. The panel 

discussed the problem that false and deceptive advertising poses for the industry, and considered how 

industry self-regulation could be improved. The media panel consisted of academics, media experts, 

and representatives of media trade associations and media outlets, and focused its discussions on the 

role of the media in disseminating false and deceptive weight-loss ads, as well as new approaches to 

effective media screening. 

The workshop was productive and fostered communication among various groups about how best 

to address the problem of false and deceptive weight-loss advertising. To aid in this undertaking, the 

FTC solicited and received public comments before and after the workshop. This report provides a 

summary and analysis of the workshop and relevant public comments. 

II. Workshop Discussion

A. The Science Panel

In its Federal Register Notice announcing the workshop, the FTC solicited comments on the 

creation of a list of weight-loss claims that are generally agreed to be false.12 The notice also included 

a list of eight claims found in ads for nonprescription weight-loss products and requested comments 

on whether, given the current state of the science, these claims are false.13 Specifically, commenters 

were invited to discuss the state of the science tending to prove or disprove the claims. No comments 

were received prior to the workshop specifically addressing the individual claims or offering evidence 

to prove or disprove any of the claims. Moreover, no scientific evidence was submitted during the 

post-workshop comment period that suggested that, for any of the products considered, any of the 

subject claims could be true. 

The scientific panel members – consisting of researchers, academicians, medical professionals, 

and industry experts14 – were each asked to consider whether certain advertising claims were 

scientifically feasible and the conditions that might affect the feasibility of each claim. The discussion 

was limited to nonprescription drugs, dietary supplements, creams, wraps, devices, and patches 

(“the advertised product” or “the covered products.”) The panel did not consider the feasibility of 

such claims for prescription drugs, meal replacement products, low calorie foods, surgery, hypnosis, 

or special diets such as the Atkins diet or very low calorie diets.15 Although claims made for these 

products or services also may be false, misleading, or unsubstantiated, including some of the claims 
3

identified in this report, consideration of these additional products and services was beyond the limited 

scope of the workshop.16 

The science panelists considered the following eight claims:

$ The advertised product causes substantial weight loss without diet or exercise.

$ Users can lose weight while still enjoying unlimited amounts of high calorie foods.

$ The advertised product causes permanent weight loss.

$ The advertised product causes substantial weight loss through the blockage of absorption of 

fat or calories.

$ The user of the advertised product can safely lose more than three pounds a week for time 

periods exceeding four weeks.

$ The advertised product that is worn on the body or rubbed into the skin causes substantial 

weight loss.

$ The advertised product causes substantial weight loss for all users.

$ Users of the adversised product can lose weight from only those parts of the body where 

they wish to lose weight.17 

For each claim, panel members were asked individually whether they believed that the claim is 

feasible, given the current state of scientific knowledge. In making this determination, panelists were 

requested to express their individual expert opinions based upon a reasonable degree of scientific and 

medical certainty.18 Panelists were asked to consider theoretical and biological plausibility, scientific 

feasibility, possible mechanisms of action, and relevant scientific studies.19

Following a presentation on the principles of weight loss,20 the panel’s FTC moderator explained 

the framework for discussing the eight claims and said that the panelists would be polled regarding 

their opinions on each claim.21 Care was taken to ensure that the panelists understood the precise 

question being polled.22 In certain instances, more than one poll was taken, either because a panelist’s 

comments suggested some misunderstanding of the question, or to test different variations of a 

particular claim.23

The following sections will review the discussion of the panelists, evaluate each claim, and 

respond to public comments relating to the claims.
4

1. Consumers who use the advertised product can lose substantial 

weight without reducing caloric intake and/or increasing their 

physical activity.

a. Claim

As demonstrated in the Weight-Loss Advertising Report, claims that users can lose weight 

without reducing caloric intake or increasing physical activity were common in weight-loss ads. 

Forty-two percent of the ads that the staff reviewed in the Report promised weight loss without diet 

or exercise, and in many cases, the claims were extreme. For example, many promised that users 

could lose a pound or more a day, while others claimed that users could lose three to four pounds per 

week, all without diet or exercise. It also appeared that these types of claims have increased over the 

last decade. To illustrate, none of the ads that the staff reviewed in its 1992 sample claimed that users 

could lose weight without diet or exercise.

 Examples of this claim include, “U.S. patent reveals weight loss of as much as 28 pounds in 4 

weeks... Eat all your favorite foods and still lose weight. The pill does all the work,”24 and “Lose up 

to 2 pounds daily without diet or exercise.”25

b. Panel Discussion 

Mr. Almada began the discussion by indicating that there is research on certain fibers, synthetic 

ephedrine and caffeine, herbal varieties of ephedra and caffeine, green tea extract, and garcinia 

cambogia that supports claims that users can lose weight without changing eating patterns or levels of 

physical activity.26 Mr. Almada indicated that he thought studies supported a finding of weight loss of 

one pound, plus or minus a half a pound, per week, for 8 to 12 weeks.27 Dr. Heymsfield examined 

the claim from a different perspective:

The way I read this is that you could lose a substantial amount of weight 

without reducing your intake and/or increasing your physical activity. Just 

scientifically, you... would have to block absorption, change partitioning, or 

increase your resting metabolic rate. Those are the three ways that are left after 

you eliminate food intake and physical activity. [We know] you can’t block 

absorption to the extent that would be safe or effective even. Partitioning, there 

are no agents that we really know of, and resting metabolic rate, I’m unaware of 

any compound that will increase your resting metabolic rate safely or to the point 

that would cause substantial weight loss.28

The panelists then discussed what the weight-loss limits would be without reducing caloric intake 

or increasing exercise. Dr. Heymsfield indicated that he thought the effect, if any, would certainly 

be less than one-half pound per week.29 Dr. Wadden questioned whether even a half pound per week 
5

would be possible.30 Dr. Heymsfield advised the group that in his research on ephedrine/caffeine 

products, weight loss appeared to be attributable to reduction in food intake, but that there were some 

studies showing some very small increases in resting metabolic rates.31 Mr. Almada indicated that 

there were some studies from Europe indicating that more than half of the effect was due to appetite 

reduction.32 Dr. Stifler said that he believed there would be no weight loss, substantial or otherwise, 

for any of the covered products without reducing caloric intake or increasing exercise.33

Following this discussion, the experts were polled. Nine of the ten experts indicated that given 

the current state of scientific knowledge, no nonprescription drug, dietary supplement, cream, wrap, 

device, or patch would cause users to lose weight without reducing caloric intake and/or increasing 

physical activity.34 The panelists were also polled concerning their views on the same claim with 

the assumption that the weight loss would exceed one pound per week.35 All of the experts except 

Mr. Almada indicated that losing more than a pound per week without reducing caloric intake and/or 

increasing exercise was not scientifically feasible.36 

c. Written Comments 

A joint comment filed by the Magazine Publishers Association and the Newspaper Association 

of America (“Joint MPA/NAA Comment”) claims that “substantial weight loss” may mean different 

things to different people.37 Any ambiguity about the meaning of the word “substantial” is resolved 

by defining it to mean more than one pound per week, as was done in the alternative formulation of 

the claim used in this instance.

d. Analysis

The FTC has considerable experience with claims that users can lose substantial weight without 

diet or exercise. For example, in FTC v. SlimAmerica, the FTC challenged claims that a product 

called Super Formula38 could cause dramatic weight loss, including as much as 49 pounds in 29 days.39

The court, after hearing from experts on both sides, concluded:

To lose one pound of weight, according to a credible expert, the average 

individual needs a deficit of approximately 3,500 calories between caloric intake 

and caloric output. Although drugs may make it easier to achieve this deficit, 

they cannot alter this basic equation. Thus, it would be impossible for a person 

who did not diet or exercise to lose weight simply by taking the defendant’s drug 

or weight loss product. It is thus elementary that if a person consumed calories in 

excess of his/her daily needs, and did not diet or exercise there would be weight 

increase, rather than decrease.40 
6

Theoretically, products purporting to cause weight loss without diet or exercise would either need 

to cause malabsorption of calories or to increase metabolism (so-called “thermogenic agents”). As 

discussed below, the number of calories that can be malabsorbed appears to be limited to 1200 to 1300 

calories per week, or roughly one-third of a pound per week, at best. Accordingly, malabsorption 

alone is unlikely to lead to substantial weight loss.41

With regard to thermogenic agents, it is often difficult to evaluate the supporting evidence, given 

the lack of rigorous methodology in many of the studies in question.42 In any event, the effect of 

purported metabolism boosters appears to be very limited. For example, a study of green tea extract 

found only a 4% increase in metabolism.43 Ephedrine, usually sold in combination with caffeine, has 

been one of the most popular thermogenic agents marketed over the past five years. It appears to 

produce only modest weight loss, mostly due to its appetite suppression effect.44 

The significance of the small amount of weight that can be lost through malabsorption or 

increased metabolism is debatable. It is clear, however, that as the amount of claimed weight loss 

increases, the likelihood that such weight loss can be achieved without restricting caloric intake or 

increasing exercise decreases dramatically. For example, weight loss in the range of two pounds per 

week over periods of time beyond four weeks (eight or more pounds per month) would require a net 

caloric deficit of 7,000 calories per week, or a 1,000 calories per day, over an extended period of 

time. That would amount to 40% of the total calories consumed per week on a 2,500 calorie per day 

diet.45 As noted below, about 180 calories per day appears to be the outer limit for malabsorption. In 

addition, the staff is unaware of any scientific literature suggesting that 40% increases in metabolism 

can be achieved without producing toxic effects on the body.

In summary, the amount of weight loss that can be achieved through the use of nonprescription 

products without reducing caloric intake or increasing exercise is likely to be no more than one-fourth 

to one-third of a pound per week, with additional weight loss being attributable to reduced caloric 

intake. Accordingly, weight loss in the range of two pounds per week over periods of time beyond 

four weeks (eight or more pounds per month) without restricting caloric intake or increasing exercise 

is not now scientifically feasible.46
7

2. Consumers who use the advertised product can lose substantial 

weight while still enjoying unlimited amounts of high calorie 

foods.

a. Claim

Some ads go beyond merely claiming that no diet or exercise is required; these ads claim that 

users can lose substantial weight and still eat unlimited amounts of high calorie foods. For example, 

one ad stated, “Eat as much as you want, the more you eat, the more you lose, and we’ll show you 

how.” Another example is, “Eat All the Foods You Love and Still Lose Weight (Pill Does All the 

Work).”47 

b. Panel Discussion

According to Dr. Stifler, there is an established dose response between the amount of calories 

consumed and the amount of weight loss (or weight gain) that results.48 As Dr. Stifler noted: “The 

bottom line is you have to manage calories in order to lose weight.”49 Dr. Hubbard agreed, saying “it 

is a law of physics and you cannot lose weight unless you change your energy balance.”50 Dr. Stern 

observed that even a small amount of high calorie foods can have a significant effect on weight.51 Dr. 

Heymsfield noted, and Dr. Wadden agreed, that the claim need not be limited to high calorie foods to 

make it false.52

Following this discussion, the panelists were polled and all the experts indicated that given the 

current state of scientific knowledge, no nonprescription drug, dietary supplement, cream, wrap, 

device, or patch would cause users to lose substantial weight while still enjoying unlimited amounts of 

high calorie foods.53

c. Written Comments

The Joint MPA/NAA Comment asserts that this claim may be true if the claim is interpreted to 

mean only that the user can eat to satiety.54 In the case of a true appetite suppressant, a person eating 

to satiety might actually reduce the number of calories consumed, but this mechanism, by definition, 

requires calorie restriction to be successful, a fact that under FTC case law must be clearly disclosed 

in an advertisement.55 Thus, an advertisement could not just claim that users can eat all they want; it 

also would have to convey that the product suppresses appetite and that users will not want to eat as 

much as before.56 Furthermore, the staff believes that this claim, as stated and used in weight-loss 

ads, suggests that the user can maintain or even increase current food consumption, not reduce it.57
8

d. Analysis

This claim is largely a variation of the claim that users can lose weight without reducing caloric 

intake or increasing exercise because the essence of the claim is that users can lose weight without 

reducing caloric intake and may even increase caloric intake and still lose weight. As Dr. Hubbard 

noted, this would defy the laws of physics. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the discussion of 

the first claim, the claim that users can lose substantial weight while still enjoying unlimited amounts 

of high calorie foods is not scientifically feasible. 

3. The advertised product will cause permanent weight loss.

a. Claim

Forty-one percent of the ads reviewed for the Weight-Loss Advertising Report promised that the 

weight loss would be permanent or long-lasting. Examples of this type of claim include: “Take it off 

and keep it off. You won’t gain the weight back afterwards because your weight will have reached an 

equilibrium;” and “People who use this product say that even when they stop using the product, their 

weight does not jump up again.”58

b. Panel Discussion 

Dr. Yanovski started this discussion by observing:

Unfortunately, as we all know, weight regain after weight loss is the rule 

rather than the exception, and those individuals who do manage to maintain 

weight losses over the long term do so by changing their diet and changing their 

physical activity. . . [W]hen you remove an intervention, whether it’s eating 

fewer calories, increasing your energy expenditure, [or] if a supplement did, in 

some way, work to increase metabolism, stopping that, you would expect that any 

benefit from that product or supplement would also be stopped. 

There are no known supplements, devices, programs that give you a 

permanent alteration in your body’s metabolism, and there is no way that lost 

weight will be maintained [after cessation of the intervention], that we know 

of, in the absence of taking in fewer calories and increasing your energy 

expenditures.... We also don’t know of any products or supplements that will 

permanently reduce appetite once the [supplement has] been discontinued.59

Dr. Greene asked whether the claim assumed that the user discontinued using the product after 

weight loss had been achieved.60 Dr. Yanovski answered affirmatively and added that she was not 

aware of any product for which there would not be some degree of weight regain absent lifestyle 

changes.61 
9

On the issue of products that claim to cause permanent weight loss through the conversion of 

body fat to lean muscle mass, Dr. Greene indicated that there was no evidence that the conversion 

level was high enough to cause permanent weight loss.62 Mr. Almada noted the absence of longterm maintenance studies on over-the-counter weight-loss agents.63 Following this discussion, the 

panelists were polled and each expert indicated that, given the current state of scientific knowledge, 

no nonprescription drug, dietary supplement, cream, wrap, device, or patch would cause permanent 

weight loss.64

c. Written Comments

No comment suggested that there is any evidence that use of any of the covered products would 

result in permanent weight loss after discontinuation of the product. The Joint MPA/NAA Comment 

states that Dr. Stern said that long-term trials showed XenicalTM users were able to keep the weight off 

for years.65 Although Dr. Stern made this statement, her next comment was “when you stop using 

the medication, weight is regained. There isn’t anything permanent about that weight loss.”66 Dr. 

Yanovski agreed.67 

The Joint MPA/NAA Comment also asserts that this claim could be true if the person continued 

using the product.68 Assuming that such a claim could be true, the claim set out above contains no 

such qualification.69 It is the staff’s view that if an advertisement claims that weight loss is permanent 

and does not convey that continued use is required, a significant proportion of consumers will 

reasonably interpret the ad to mean that they will not regain the weight even if they discontinue use of 

the product.70

d. Analysis

As noted in the discussion of the experts, assuming a product causes weight loss through a 

reduction of calories, through either an appetite suppression or malabsorption mechanism, weight 

would be regained once the intervention stops and calorie consumption returns to pre-intervention 

levels. In fact, it is well established that most people who lose weight gain it back within five 

years. Experts have repeatedly observed that although persons generally lose weight while actively 

participating in treatment, they tend to regain the weight over time once treatment ends.71 According 

to the National Academy of Science, Food and Nutrition Board, “Many programs and services exist 

to help individuals achieve weight control. But the limited studies paint a grim picture: those who 

complete weight-loss programs lose approximately 10 percent of their body weight only to regain 

two-thirds of it back within 1 year and almost all of it back within 5 years.”72 Finally, no long-term 

studies on the weight loss maintenance of any of the covered products have been brought to the staff’s 
10

attention, and we are not aware of any such studies in the published literature.73 Accordingly, a claim 

that a nonprescription drug, dietary supplement, cream, wrap, device, or patch can cause permanent 

weight loss is not scientifically feasible.74

4. The advertised product will cause substantial weight loss 

through the blockage of absorption of fat or calories.

a. Claim

This claim has been highly popular over the last four years. Like other claims, it implies that 

users do not have to control what they eat, that the product will take the place of willpower. An 

example of this claim is: “Lose up to two pounds daily. [The named ingredient] can ingest up to 

900 times its own weight in fat, that’s why it’s a fantastic fat blocker.” Another example is, “The 

Super Fat Fighting Formula inhibits fats, sugars and starches from being absorbed in the intestines and 

turning into excess weight, so that you can lose pounds and inches easily.75

b. Panel Discussion

Dr. Stern started the discussion by considering what it would take to lose one pound a week, two 

pounds a week, and two pounds daily through the malabsorption of fat:

And in terms of calories, to lose one pound a week, it would take 

malabsorption of about 500 calories a day or about 55 grams of fat. To lose two 

pounds a week, it would take malabsorption of about 1,000 calories or about 110 

grams of fat. And to lose two pounds daily, it would take malabsorption of more 

than 7,000 calories and that would be about 750 grams of fat daily.76

According to Dr. Stern, even with XenicalTM, a prescription drug causing malabsorption of fat, 

users do not malabsorb more than about a third of their fat calories because, above that level, there 

are significant gastrointestinal effects. Based on the XenicalTM research, Dr. Stern concluded that 

users could not malabsorb 55 grams of fat a day, the amount necessary to lose a pound a week.77 In 

addition, Dr. Stern noted that her studies of chitosan, a popular ingredient in over-the-counter fat 

blockers, showed no significant fat malabsorption.78

The panel discussed whether, for the purposes of this claim, “substantial weight loss” should be 

defined as a pound a week.79 The panel decided that it was not necessary, given the unlikelihood that 

more than 20 grams of fat per day (about 180 calories) could be malabsorbed.80 As Dr. Yanovski 

summed up the panel’s discussion: 
11

I think it’s... important [to note] that this is not to say that medications... 

such as orlistat [XenicalTM ] don’t work in terms of decreasing fat absorption. 

They clearly do. But the amount of calories lost [via this mechanism] is really 

modest, and... if people lose substantial amounts of weight, it’s because, perhaps, 

to avoid symptoms or because of following a doctor’s advice, they’re also 

consuming fewer calories.81

Each expert on the panel expressed the view that substantial weight loss through malabsorption of 

fat or calories alone is not currently scientifically feasible.82

c. Written Comments 

The Joint MPA/NAA Comment suggests that all of the experts agreed that a fat absorption pill 

can effectively reduce weight and that the only issue was what constitutes “substantial weight loss.”83 

On the contrary, given the modest effects of even the acknowledged fat blockers like XenicalTM, 

the experts found it unnecessary to define “substantial weight loss” to conclude that the claimed 

results are not scientifically feasible.84 Products such as XenicalTM must be used in conjunction with 

dietary restriction to produce substantial weight loss, i.e., the malabsorption mechanism alone is not 

sufficient.85

d. Analysis

The biological facts do not support the possibility that sufficient malabsorption of fat or calories 

can occur to cause substantial weight loss. To lose even one pound per week would require the 

malabsorption of about 500 calories a day or about 55 grams of fat.86 To lose two pounds per day, as 

stated in the sample ad, would require the malabsorption of 7000 calories per day, which is impossible 

given that it is several times the total calories that most people consume on a daily basis, let alone the 

number of calories consumed from just fat.87

The FTC has challenged a number of deceptive fat blocker claims for some of the most popular 

diet products on the market,88 and the evidence supports the position that consumers cannot lose 

substantial weight through the blockage of the absorption of fat.89 Based on its past experience, as 

well as the discussion at the workshop, written comments, and published studies, the staff concludes 

that the claim that a nonprescription drug, dietary supplement, cream, wrap, device, or patch will 

cause substantial weight loss through the blockage of absorption of fat or calories is not scientifically 

feasible. 
12

5. Consumers who use the advertised product can safely lose 

more than three pounds per week for a period of more than four 

weeks.

a. Claim

Some weight-loss advertisements claim that the advertised product (sometimes in conjunction 

with a diet or exercise program) can cause a user to lose safely more than three pounds per week over 

multiple weeks or months. In some cases, the safety and efficacy claims are contained in the same 

phrase; at other times, the two claims are made in separate sentences. In both cases, the ads convey 

the message of rapid, substantial, and safe weight loss. Examples of this claim include, “Lose three 

pounds per week, naturally and without side effects,” and “Our product is safe and effective,” with 

a customer testimonial claiming more than 12 pounds of weight loss per month. With regard to this 

claim, the ad does not claim that the products are being used under medical supervision. 

b. Panel Discussion

Dr. Heymsfield started the discussion of this claim and noted that very low calorie diets, i.e., 

less than 800 calories per day, produce weight loss in the range of two to four pounds per week.90 

These diets entail certain risks and should only be followed under medical supervision.91 Based on 

risk factors and taking into account initial water loss caused by a low-calorie diet, Dr. Heymsfield 

concluded that the safe rate of weight loss would be about 10 pounds per month.92 According to Dr. 

Stiffer, there could be a different threshold for what is considered safe weight loss, depending on 

whether the person is under medical supervision, the size of the person, the content of the diet, and 

other relevant risk factors.93 In response, Dr. Hubbard indicated that onset of symptomatic gallstones 

is a risk associated with rapid weight loss, and observed:

[T]here are always individuals who can lose larger amounts of weight 

safely compared to others, and what we’re trying to do is establish some level 

that is [reasonably] safe for the general population that is not seeking any type of 

medical advice.94

Dr. Wadden indicated that although it is possible to lose three pounds per week on certain diets, 

it is not something that individuals can do safely on their own, pointing out that in the 1970s, 59 

people died from using a popular liquid protein diet.95 

The panel discussed whether the amount of weight loss should be expressed in percent of initial 

body weight or number of pounds. It was decided to poll the panel based on the question as initially 

presented, because three pounds per week would cover most people.96 In addition, it was assumed 
13

that the claim involved use of a product without medical supervision.97 All of the experts indicated 

that the claim was not scientifically feasible at the current time.98

c. Written Comments

The Joint MPA/NAA Comment points out that several of the experts cited examples of 

individuals safely losing more than 12 pounds per month.99 Although anecdotal experiences were 

discussed, the panel examined the question of whether losing more than three pounds per week 

over a month or more, unsupervised by medical professionals, is reasonably safe for the general 

population.100 The panelists indicated that it is not.

d. Analysis

There are significant health risks associated with medically unsupervised, rapid weight loss over 

extended periods of time.101 This conclusion does not mean that every person who loses more than 

three pounds per week will suffer serious side effects, but it does mean that weight loss in this range 

can create medical risks. In general, “the more restrictive the diet, the greater are the risks of adverse 

effects associated with weight loss.”102 One of the best documented risks is the increased incidence 

of gallstones.103 Added to this risk is the fact that some very low calorie diets104 can be nutritionally 

inadequate and result in serious injury or even death.105 Based on the discussion at the workshop, 

written comments, and the published literature, the claim that consumers who use one of the covered 

products without medical supervision can safely lose more than three pounds per week for a period of 

more than four weeks is not scientifically feasible.

6. Users can lose substantial weight though the use of the 

advertised product that is worn on the body or rubbed into the 

skin.

a. Claim

The products at issue for this claim include creams, wraps, patches, earrings, shoe inserts, and 

rings, among others, that can be purchased without a medical prescription. Examples include, “Lose 

two to four pounds daily with the Diet Patch,” and “Thigh Cream drops pounds and inches from your 

thighs.” 

b. Panel Discussion

Dr. Blackburn began the discussion by expressing his view that it was not currently scientifically 

feasible to apply dermal transmission technology to the area of weight loss.106 Mr. Almada disagreed 
14

on whether it was technologically feasible, but noted that such a product would constitute an 

unapproved drug.107 On the feasibility issue, both Mr. Almada and Dr. Blackburn noted that there 

were a number of significant technical issues involved in transdermal delivery that have not been 

solved as of now.108

Some products in this category, e.g., weight-loss earrings and shoe inserts, purport to work 

through the principle of acupressure. Dr. Stern indicated that a research study conducted by George 

Bray found that an acupressure earring was not effective.109

The panel of experts was polled following the discussion. All ten of the experts indicated that 

a claim that a product worn on the body or rubbed into the skin causes substantial weight loss is not 

scientifically feasible.110

c. Written Comments

The Joint MPA/NAA Comment notes that the experts generally saw transdermal delivery as a 

biologically plausible delivery system but fails to mention that the experts believed that delivery of an 

active ingredient in sufficient quantities to cause substantial weight loss is not scientifically feasible at 

the current time.111

d. Analysis

Since 1990, the Commission has challenged numerous products in this category, including 

acupressure devices, skin patches, slimming insoles, body wraps, and creams.112 The Commission’s 

complaints alleged that efficacy claims for these products were not supported by reliable scientific 

evidence. Similarly, no such evidence was submitted during the workshop comment period. 

Some products in this category purport to work through the principle of acupressure, but the 

biological plausibility of such an effect on body weight appears suspect.113 Moreover, substantial 

weight-loss claims for creams are not scientifically feasible.114 Finally, the studies on topical lipolytic 

treatments such as aminophylline do not show substantial weight loss.115

Products that rely on skin patches to deliver the purported active ingredient for weight loss 

are biologically plausible but not, at this time, scientifically feasible. As noted during the panel 

discussion, the technical issues involved in transdermal delivery are significant.116 In addition, it 

should be noted that no transdermal weight-loss or weight-control products have been approved by 

the FDA. Thus, so called diet patches are unapproved drugs and their introduction into commerce is 

prohibited.117
15

Based on the investigative experience of FTC staff, as well as the discussion at the workshop, 

written comments, and the published literature, a claim that users can lose substantial weight though 

the use of the advertised product that is worn on the body or rubbed into the skin is not scientifically 

feasible. 

7. The advertised product will cause substantial weight loss for all 

users.

a. Claim

This claim can be made in a variety of ways. For example, the statement, “Lose excess body 

fat. No willpower required. Works for everyone no matter how many times you’ve tried and failed 

before,” conveys this claim.118

b. Panel Discussion

The panelists thought this claim was problematic for several reasons. Dr. Heymsfield noted 

that only about one-third to one-half of people even respond to prescription drugs like Phentermine, 

MeridiaTM, and XenicalTM.

119 Dr. Greene added that rates of weight loss will vary because individual 

metabolic rates vary.120 According to Dr. Blackburn, even surgery does not have a 100% success 

rate.121 

Mr. Almada raised the issue of whether it would be possible to minimize non-responders 

through gene therapy, but conceded that such therapy is not available at the current time.122 Dr. Stern 

indicated that such developments were probably five to ten years in the future, and Dr. Hubbard said 

that even gene therapy was unlikely to work for all people.123

In response to Dr. Stifler’s statement that a restricted calorie diet will cause weight loss in all 

people, the panel was reminded that only nonprescription drugs, dietary supplements, creams, wraps, 

patches, and similar articles were being considered.124 Dr. Yanovski pointed out that products that 

require users to take in fewer calories will work only for those who follow the dietary regimen.125 At 

this point, the panelists were advised that they should focus on whether the product itself is capable of 

producing the claimed benefit.126 Dr. Wadden summarized this part of the discussion: 

[W]henever you have a product of any kind, you’re going to find a 

distribution of responses in people. Say if the average weight loss for people is 

about 10 pounds, with a product, you will have a distribution such that about 15 

percent of individuals who receive the product are going to lose less than three 

or four pounds. This is just the bell-shaped curve normal distribution. So, just 

about any product you give, you’ll have a tail-end that does very poorly and 
16

another tail of the distribution that does very well. So, no product is going to 

produce substantial weight loss for all individuals regardless of what product it 

is.127

Dr. Greene agreed, noting that in biological systems, “it’s never all.”128 

The panel then discussed whether it was necessary to use the word substantial, and, if so, 

whether the term needed to be defined. The sense of the panel was that to be conservative, the term 

should be retained and it did not need to be defined.129 The panel was then polled. Each expert 

indicated that, given the current state of scientific knowledge, no nonprescription drug, dietary 

supplement, cream, wrap, device, or patch would cause substantial weight loss for every user.130

c. Written Comments 

The Joint MPA/NAA Comment states that several panel members expressed the view that this 

claim could be true and that one expert said the claim was scientifically feasible.131 The discussion 

cited, however, was of low calorie diets, which can lead to weight loss.132 The claim makes no 

reference to restricted caloric intake, however, and none should be assumed.133 Moreover, what is 

theoretically possible may not be scientifically feasible. One expert did express the view that this 

claim might be theoretically possible and gave gene therapy as an example, but even that expert 

indicated that the claim is not scientifically feasible at this time.134

d. Analysis

Although there are common characteristics among the relevant population, there is not a single 

cause of overweight or obesity. In some people, the cause may be more closely linked to genetic 

factors while in other instances, the principal causal factor may be environmental.135 Moreover, it 

should be obvious that diets, metabolic rates, and levels of physical activity vary from one individual 

to another and that compliance levels will vary.136 Even approved drugs for weight loss always have a 

high level of non-responders, and even gastric surgery for obesity is not successful 100 percent of the 

time.137 Based on the discussion at the workshop, written comments, and published literature, a claim 

that a nonprescription drug, dietary supplement, cream, wrap, device, or patch will cause substantial 

weight loss for all users is not scientifically feasible. 
17

8. Consumers who use the advertised product can lose weight only 

from those parts of the body where they wish to lose weight.138

a. Claim

This claim targets users who want to lose substantial weight, but only from selected parts of their 

body, e.g., users who want to lose a lot of weight from their abdomen, thighs, hips and/or buttocks, 

but nothing from their breasts. For example, the following testimonial makes this claim: “And it has 

taken off quite some inches from my butt (5 inches) and thighs (4 inches), my hips now measure 35 

inches. I still wear the same bra size though. The fat has disappeared from exactly the right places.”

b. Panel Discussion

According to Dr. Wadden, even if some products may cause more weight loss from certain areas 

of the body than others, no parts will be spared completely. Dr. Wadden explained it this way: 

Now, unfortunately, when you go on a diet or use most of our conventional 

weight loss means, you do, in fact, lose weight from all over the body. You lose 

fat from all of your fat stores. You cannot preferentially reduce from a single fat 

store. So, that is the difficulty, that you can’t, in fact, just turn on those fat stores 

in the thighs or in the buttocks. In fact, you’re going to lose weight from the top 

as well as the bottom.139

Panel members spent some time discussing research on aminophylline cream.140 Mr. Almada 

noted that this cream, developed by George Bray and Frank Greenway, purports to cause spot 

reduction.141 Dr. Wadden noted that the research did not show fat loss in the thighs,142 and Dr. Stern 

added that her efforts to replicate the research with a comparable cream were unsuccessful.143

Several panelists expressed the view that regional fat loss may be theoretically possible, but is 

not now scientifically feasible.144 Finally, Dr. Heymsfield noted that the absence of recent studies is 

a good indication that the technology for spot reduction creams is not available at the current time.145 

Following this discussion, the panel was polled; nine of the ten experts indicated that given the current 

state of scientific knowledge, no nonprescription drug, dietary supplement, cream, wrap, device, or 

patch would cause users to lose weight only from those parts of the body where they wish to lose 

weight.146 Mr. Almada was uncertain as to whether the claim was scientifically feasible.147

c. Written Comments

The Joint MPA/NAA Comment asserts that several of the experts could not state unequivocally 

whether the claim was true or false.148 The Joint MPA/NAA Comment, however, refers to the 
18

experts’ discussion of biological plausibility rather than scientific and technical feasibility. With the 

exception of Mr. Almada, the experts considered this claim not to be scientifically feasible at the 

current time.149 

d. Analysis

Panel members spent some time discussing research on aminophylline cream. According to 

published studies, aminophylline cream may cause the redistribution of fat from the thigh area to all 

other fat stores.150 It is important to note that the published studies on aminophylline measure girth 

in the thigh area; they do not measure fat loss. The studies are small (5-23 subjects) and of relatively 

short duration (4 to 6 weeks). Moreover, the differences between the treatment and the controls are 

extremely small.151 Under these circumstances, it is understandable that the authors described the 

treatment as cosmetic.152 There has been little other published research in this area and the results do 

not appear to be consistent.153 

Based on the discussion at the workshop, written comments, and the analysis set forth above, a 

claim that a nonprescription drug, dietary supplement, cream, wrap, device, or patch can cause users 

to lose weight only from those parts of the body where they wish to lose weight is not scientifically 

feasible at this time. Nevertheless, the staff has reviewed the advertisements collected for the WeightLoss Advertising Report and found that this claim does not appear to be widespread. Moreover, 

omitting this claim from the FTC staff’s media guidance brochure will simplify the guidance.154 For 

these reasons, the claim is not included in the guidance. 

In summary, the panel’s discussion supported the view that there are certain weight-loss claims 

that could be determined, on their face, to be scientifically infeasible. This discussion provided a 

foundation for the industry and media discussions concerning how such information might be used to 

curtail false weight-loss advertising.

B. The Industry Panel 

The second workshop panel considered how weight-loss industry members can help reduce 

weight-loss advertising fraud. On the panel were representatives of three dietary supplement trade 

associations and two companies that sell weight-loss and fitness products. The panel also included 

representatives of the Electronic Retailing Association (“ERA”), the Partnership for Healthy Weight 

Management, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus 

(“NAD”).155 Panelists discussed the role the industry could play in ensuring that weight-loss products 

and services are advertised truthfully. The panel concluded that trade associations and other industry 
19

members – alone and in conjunction with other groups – can contribute to more effective selfregulation of false and deceptive weight-loss ads. This section summarizes the discussion of the 

industry panel, with an emphasis on the damage false and deceptive ads cause the industry, existing 

and new means of industry self-regulation, the potential for an outside group like NAD to assist with 

the self-regulatory process, and the possibility of creating partnerships involving the media to help 

reduce false ads. 

1. False and Deceptive Ads Tarnish Reputable Marketers 

Industry panelists expressed concern about the negative effects false and deceptive weight-loss 

ads have on reputable companies. According to panelists, truly false ads are not difficult to spot. For 

example, the National Nutritional Foods Association (“NNFA”), a dietary supplement trade group, 

noted that weight-loss products are one of the fastest-growing segments of the dietary supplement 

industry,156 and some weight-loss ads are “clearly ‘over the line.’”157 The Electronic Retailing 

Association, which represents direct response advertisers including infomercial producers, felt there 

was ambiguity about some of the eight claims discussed, but agreed that certain weight-loss claims 

are, on their face, obviously false.158 ERA’s panelist stated that “[w]hen you see an egregious outlier, 

I think it is self-evident that it’s really bad.”159 She added, “I don’t think anybody in the room looked 

at the two shows this morning and said, well, those claims could be true.”160 In addition, she noted 

that one of the ads described in the Weight-Loss Advertising Report claims users can lose up to seven 

pounds of fat a day, and she didn’t think anyone would find that not egregious.161 On a similar note, 

the panelist from the Council for Responsible Nutrition (“CRN”), a dietary supplement trade group, 

questioned how anyone can be “so gullible” in the face of such obviously false ads.162

Panelists agreed that the entire industry suffers because of false and deceptive ads. Companies 

that advertise truthfully and responsibly may be at a disadvantage compared to less scrupulous 

sellers.163 These reputable companies are forced to compete with advertisers who do not play by 

the rules.164 In addition, responsible companies’ images may be tarnished simply by the presence 

of unrealistic claims in the marketplace. Jenny Craig’s representative expressed concern that others 

“damage both the industry and us unfairly” when they promote quick-fix solutions.165 ICON Health 

& Fitness’s (“ICON”) panelist also lamented “magic bullet” claims in weight-loss ads, which hinder 

responsible companies’ efforts to legitimize the industry and encourage lifestyle changes.166

Similarly, trade associations voiced concern about marketers who make false, deceptive, and 

unsupported claims. CRN has been interested in this area for some time,167 and the American Herbal 

Products Association (“AHPA”), representing marketers of herbal dietary supplements, has met with 
20

FTC staff to discuss weight-loss advertising issues.168 One of the primary concerns of these groups, 

as ERA articulated, is that “fraudulent and unscrupulous” weight-loss ads undermine consumer 

confidence in the industry, which hurts everyone.169 The NNFA agreed that the entire industry, even 

manufacturers who conscientiously obey the law, “pay the price” when the consumer is misled.170

Panelists expressed support for the Commission’s ongoing efforts to prosecute marketers who 

make false and deceptive weight-loss claims. Several groups believe increased law enforcement is an 

important component in fighting problematic weight-loss ads, and should be a continued area of the 

FTC’s focus.171 AHPA emphasized the continued need for specific enforcement actions.172 NNFA 

favored more enforcement specific to Internet advertisements, and Jenny Craig’s representative 

concurred that law enforcement is key.173 At the same time, however, panelists acknowledged that 

law enforcement alone is not enough.174 AHPA’s representative said the groups at the workshop 

know this, and attended precisely to explore alternative approaches to reducing deceptive weightloss claims.175 Other panelists indicated they are similarly open to considering new ways to fight the 

proliferation of misleading weight-loss claims.176 

2. Industry Self-Regulation

One of the panel’s main objectives was to consider how to strengthen industry self-regulation 

for false and deceptive weight-loss ads. Several industry associations already have in place some 

mechanisms for self-regulation.177 In particular, most have some sort of code or voluntary guidelines 

that address issues related to product advertising.178 These existing guidelines, however, apply to 

all products advertised or sold by association members (not just weight-loss) and therefore may be 

inadequate to address the special concerns and considerations associated with weight-loss ads.

At the workshop, the trade associations described their existing self-regulatory programs. ERA 

said it requires members to certify that their infomercials meet the association’s formal guidelines.179 

These guidelines generally mirror what the law already requires.180 If ERA receives a complaint about 

a certified infomercial potentially violating the guidelines, it refers the program to a five-member 

review board.181 If the board agrees the program is in violation, the show is sent to NAD for a 

formal review.182 Similarly, NNFA has guidelines for how members should market their products.183 

NNFA’s code of ethics describes the association’s policies for marketing and selling products and 

must be signed by members each year.184 In addition, NNFA has quality assurance programs for 

suppliers, and those who do not meet the requirements may not be members of the organization.185 

Finally, CRN’s code of ethics addresses in general terms issues of product quality, product 

formulation, advertising, and substantiation.186 
21

Panelists recognized, however, that current self-regulatory programs vary in effectiveness. 

ERA has had some success in enforcing its guidelines and bringing offending infomercials to the 

attention of NAD.187 But the formal review process can be resource-intensive and lengthy, and is 

therefore reserved for only what are considered outliers among infomercial shows.188 In addition, 

the time delay that can occur between initiating an investigation and resolving the case – time 

during which the infomercial continues to air and consumers continue to buy the product – can have 

costly consequences in a direct-response industry.189 As a result, ERA was considering hiring an 

ombudsman who could more routinely and systematically review and correct its members’ ads.190 

CRN, on the other hand, does not formally monitor members’ ads or actively enforce advertising 

guides.191 Consequently, for its members, the consequences of false or deceptive advertising may be 

low.192 CRN’s representative acknowledged that his association is not “a police force” for members 

and does not have “a lot of teeth” in regulating members’ ads.193

The panel also discussed the development of advertising guidelines specific to weight-loss 

products, given that existing industry guidelines do not adequately address weight-loss ads.194 As 

described at the workshop, AHPA is in the process of developing draft advertising guidelines for 

weight-loss dietary supplements.195 AHPA’s guidelines will be tailored specifically to stand-alone 

supplements, and will likely specify what information should and should not be included in weight-loss 

ads.196 For example, the guidelines might say ads should disclose product ingredients and emphasize 

the need for diet and exercise, but avoid the use of before-and-after pictures or claims that imply rapid 

results.197 NNFA, CRN, and ERA all expressed support for the development of industry guidelines 

that can educate marketers and assist them in lawfully advertising weight-loss products.198 CRN’s 

representative also discussed CRN’s red-yellow-green light guidelines for the marketing of sports 

nutrition products to youths as a possible model for weight-loss advertising guidelines.199

Along with exploring industry-based guidelines, panelists debated the usefulness of having 

guidance on scientifically suspect claims. Most groups supported some sort of guidance; however, 

there were reservations about the publication of a specific list of claims. Dietary supplement 

associations generally felt the FTC was on the right track and guidance on advertising claims could be 

beneficial. CRN agreed with “the philosophy” of publishing a list, as long as the guidelines or criteria 

are clear.200 AHPA voiced a concern about the science panel’s lack of sufficient representation from 

the sector of the industry that supports dietary supplements and self-care.201 But its representative was 

receptive to the idea of the proposed guidance and believed the eight claims identified by the science 

panelists “all need to be addressed” in some fashion.202 NNFA was “very much in favor” of the 
22

proposal to publish a list of scientifically suspect claims, with the examples and guidelines discussed 

on the science panel, and would like to see that “progress and be published as soon as possible.”203 

The ERA representative, however, raised certain objections to the publication of a list of 

problematic claims. She questioned the reliability of a list, arguing that science is emerging and 

not static.204 For this reason, she argued, ads must be examined solely on a case-by-case basis.205 

The ERA representative also feared that with a list, context and “net impression” of ads would 

be overlooked.206 She said that except for the claim that you can lose weight without diet and 

exercise, she could see a context in which each of the other claims could be made with appropriate 

disclaimers.207 Therefore, she said, the case-by-case approach is best.208 In response, the Partnership 

for Healthy Weight Management representative, a medical doctor who participated on the science 

as well as the industry panel, explained that the eight claims were considered by the science panel 

in an unqualified state, without disclaimers.209 He asserted that if found in weight-loss ads, without 

qualifiers, the claims must be deemed scientifically unsound.210

NNFA, while supportive of the proposed guidance, was concerned that a list of what it 

characterized as “presumptively false claims” might be too narrow, and that marketers would interpret 

any claim not specifically listed as being allowed.211 Because a list can never be all encompassing, it 

asserted, a problematic claim not on the list may be misunderstood as permissible.212

3. The Role of the National Advertising Division of the BBB

Another area explored was whether an outside third party such as NAD – the advertising 

self-regulatory arm of the Council of Better Business Bureaus – can contribute to an improved selfregulatory process for the weight-loss industry.213 The panel member from NAD described the 

group’s existing system through which companies can challenge competitors’ ads.214 She explained 

that NAD’s voluntary system is not designed to punish, but rather to ensure the truthfulness and 

accuracy of advertisements.215 The process begins when a challenger contacts NAD to complain about 

certain advertising, and questions whether the advertiser has support for its claims.216 The challenger 

may also submit evidence that tends to disprove the claims.217 The advertiser is then notified and 

invited to participate in the process, which involves NAD conferring with each side about what 

messages the ad conveys, whether it can be interpreted more broadly than intended, and whether there 

is appropriate substantiation to support the claims.218 

Industry members were interested in the possibility of involving NAD in a self-regulatory process 

targeted to weight-loss ads. Some associations had engaged in pre-workshop discussions with NAD 

about a potential role. For example, NNFA contacted NAD to explore how NAD’s self-regulatory 
23

model could be incorporated into the association’s membership requirements.219 CRN discussed with 

NAD how an outside third party could be of use in weight-loss advertising regulation.220 

Companies on the panel, however, expressed concern that NAD’s existing process may not be 

well-suited to addressing false and deceptive weight-loss ads. They were not convinced that NAD 

can be effective in this area. NAD conceded that businesses have been slow to bring competitor 

complaints about weight-loss products and dietary supplements as a whole.221 Its panelist opined that 

this may be because nobody wants to “test the waters or make waves or find out where the bright lines 

are.”222 Jenny Craig and ICON, however, cited as the reason skepticism about what the system can 

do. Jenny Craig questioned how much NAD can accomplish in this area,223 and ICON was skeptical 

about NAD’s ability to reach the worst offenders.224 As ICON’s panelist explained, some of the 

most problematic ads are produced by small, overseas companies that have no property, presence, 

or permanency in the United States, and nothing at risk here.225 These entities defraud consumers 

and disappear before they are caught.226 They are not legitimate businesses, have no incentive 

to participate in any voluntary self-regulatory program, and are thus effectively beyond NAD’s 

control.227

NAD acknowledged these concerns and confirmed that some entities are not good candidates for 

self-regulation.228 With respect to companies that are not legitimately based in this country, or have 

no truthful claims to make about their product, it is not a good process.229 Another concern raised 

about using the existing NAD system was that companies do not always have the extra resources 

to devote to reviewing competitor ads and preparing formal complaints for NAD. Jenny Craig’s 

representative said this is an issue for his company which, like any other, must decide how best to 

allocate its resources.230 An additional issue, raised by ERA and acknowledged by NAD, was the 

length of time the formal review process can take.231 

To surmount some of these hurdles, the panel considered the idea of creating a special unit 

within NAD (not unlike the Children’s Advertising Review Unit) that could review weight-loss ads 

less formally and on a faster track.232 NAD was open to discussing such a unit, but acknowledged 

that funding it might be a challenge.233 Association representatives acknowledged difficulty in 

getting financial support from their members for any new initiatives.234 Most agreed, however, that 

depending on the specifics of the program, they could see encouraging members to fund a viable selfregulatory process targeted to deceptive weight-loss ads.235
24

4. The Creation of a Partnership Involving the Media in SelfRegulation

The panel also considered the role of the media and the idea of creating a partnership involving 

media members in self-regulation. Panelists and commenters highlighted the role the media plays 

in disseminating deceptive weight-loss ads. A consumer who filed written comments emphasized 

the power of the media, and said individuals who see before-and-after pictures in magazines and on 

infomercials often believe the claims must be true if they are in print or on television.236 Another 

commenter, a social worker who specializes in eating disorders, noted that ads making “seductive 

promises of weight loss” appear in media everywhere.237 

Panelists therefore recognized that a truly effective effort to stop deceptive weight-loss 

advertising would require the cooperation of media outlets. AHPA’s representative suggested that 

false weight-loss ads will persist as long as the media is willing to run them, and favored media 

filtering of these ads before they reach consumers.238 To aid in this process, he proposed that a 

partnership of interested academics, scientists, health care professionals, and organizations promoting 

the public interest – such as those persons and groups in attendance at the workshop – meet and 

produce a document to provide guidance not only to the industry, but also to the media.239 CRN 

supported the concept of a partnership among regulators, the industry, and the media that would 

realize a common goal of protecting consumers.240 The group viewed media involvement as a critical 

part of this partnership.241 NAD likewise expressed interest in involving the media in any selfregulatory program, and said it hopes to see a cooperative system develop in which the media would 

consider more closely whether to run certain weight-loss ads.242 

One possibility raised for launching a partnership with the media was to enlarge the role of the 

existing Partnership for Healthy Weight Management (Partnership). The Partnership is a coalition 

of representatives from science, academia, the health care profession, government, commercial 

enterprises, and organizations promoting the public interest.243 Its mission is to promote sound 

guidance to the general public on strategies for achieving and maintaining a healthy weight, and it 

engages in various consumer education efforts such as informing the public about the risks of being 

overweight and the benefits of weight loss, cautioning about the risks of unhealthy approaches to 

weight loss, and fostering realistic expectations about weight-loss products or programs.244 The 

Partnership’s panelist suggested expanding the group’s existing framework into more of a selfregulatory forum for weight-loss advertising.245 He also raised the possibilities of using the 

organization as a part of a certification program, or involving another entity, such as the International 

Food Information Council, in self-regulation.246 
25

Overall, industry members supported the establishment of a joint partnership that would include 

advertisement screening by media groups. CRN also noted that the media can assist with consumer 

education by broadcasting messages, crafted by the industry and FTC, about effective weight loss and 

deceptive weight-loss ads.247 Efforts to involve the media in combating fraudulent weight-loss ads are 

ongoing, and the need to improve current media screening initiatives and promote consumer education 

was discussed in more detail during the media panel. 

C. The Media Panel

The final panel of the workshop explored the potential roles the media could play to reduce the 

incidence of weight-loss fraud. The panel consisted of representatives from the three major media 

trade groups, two publishers, and academics in the fields of marketing, journalism ethics, and media 

law.248 As discussed above, there is recognition that law enforcement is not sufficient to address the 

prevalence of fraudulent weight-loss advertising;249 a multi-pronged approach is necessary, involving 

law enforcement, consumer education, industry self-regulation, and the media. The media panelists 

identified two roles for the media: (1) to educate the public on weight-loss fraud, and weight-loss 

issues generally; and (2) to reduce the dissemination of false weight-loss advertising. This section 

summarizes the panel discussion, with a particular focus on the current advertising clearance standards 

used by the media, the challenges identified by the media in screening advertising generally, and the 

ways the media could help combat weight-loss fraud. It also discusses how certain impediments faced 

by the media in reviewing advertisements could be overcome in the limited area of weight-loss.

1. Advertising Clearance Standards Vary Signifi cantly Across the 

Cable, Newspaper, and Magazine Industries

The panelists primarily considered the advertising clearance practices of the cable, newspaper, 

and magazine industries.250 The panel observed that overall, clearance standards vary a great deal 

across media outlets.251 For example, the Editor-in-Chief of Good Housekeeping Magazine stated that 

her magazine requires that advertisers substantiate all claims prior to publication, whereas, according 

to MPA, its members typically have adopted much less rigorous policies.252 The media trade group 

representatives pointed out that cable systems, newspapers, and magazines reject advertisements for 

a wide array of reasons; often, it may hinge simply on whether the ad would be objectionable to the 

target audience.253 The NAA representative noted that credibility is critical to newspapers and that 

no one knowingly wants to run false or misleading ads.254 Most of the panel agreed that regardless 

of size, media outlets typically employ some type of basic ad review that, at a minimum, involves 

declining ads for reasons of taste or encouragement of illegal activities.255
26

a. Cable Industry256

At the workshop, the Cable Advertising Bureau’s representative stated that in 1996 it issued 

voluntary advertising guidelines for its members, and it has periodically reviewed the guidelines 

since that time.257 The CAB’s voluntary guidelines include a section that deals with weight-control 

advertisements.258 In surveying half of its membership, CAB found great variance in how its 

members cleared advertisements.259 Only 17% of the respondents reported using the CAB-distributed 

guidelines; the rest reported using non-CAB guidelines, which are typically of the members’ own 

creation. Further, 75% of the CAB members surveyed claimed to have clearance departments. 

Because there is a wide range of programming on cable, according to CAB’s representative, the type 

of advertising that is accepted for airing on any one channel depends highly on the audience.260 In its 

written comment, CAB explained that ad space on cable channels is sold through multiple levels by a 

wide network of companies, which compounds the complexity of ad review.261 National and regional 

cable channels are principally owned by network operators; however, cable system companies – the 

entities that are responsible for technically delivering the programming to viewers – also often own 

their own channels, called “local origination channels.”262 Moreover, CAB noted that cable channels 

not only sell advertising space directly to advertisers, but also typically reserve blocks of space that 

are sold locally by the cable system companies.263

b. Newspaper Industry264

During the workshop, the Newspaper Association of America representative reported that most 

newspapers adhere to fairly well-established guidelines for acceptability, declining ads for taste 

and obscenity.265 Also, some newspapers reject entire categories of ads, such as firearms, tobacco, 

alcoholic beverages, or adult material.266 NAA proffered that newspapers typically follow the 

generally accepted guideline that if there is a concern about an ad, a more senior person or committee 

will review it for placement.267 The NAA representative explained that a manager, or in the case 

of a larger newspaper, perhaps an advertising manager, would handle the review when there is a 

concern.268 According to NAA, other newspapers might refer the ad to an advertising review board 

or an advertising acceptability committee.269 By using this informal process, NAA said, newspapers 

are effective most times in identifying ads that are blatantly misleading, fraudulent, or illegal.270 

According to NAA, however, newspapers typically conduct ad clearance on an ad-by-ad basis, and 

their practices cannot be encapsulated in a simple formula, and applied across the industry.271
27

 c. Magazine Industry272

Unlike the CAB, the Magazine Publishers of America has not formulated ad clearance guidelines 

for its members.273 The MPA representative stated that its members typically do not use formal 

review procedures.274 According to MPA, in some cases, for “philosophical” or “age-related” 

reasons, magazines might refuse to publish ads that promote certain product categories, for example, 

tobacco or alcoholic beverages.275 Further, MPA reported that some magazines, in exercising their 

discretion, also may decline mail-order ads that lack money-back guarantees.276 MPA emphasized, 

however, that employees of magazines do not “read” ads.277 During the session, two panelists – the 

Editor-in-Chief of Good Housekeeping Magazine, a major women’s magazine, and the Vice President 

of Standards at New Hope Natural Media, a publisher in the natural products industry – described 

advertising review for their publications. According to the representatives, each publication 

adheres to rigorous standards that require each claim to be substantiated,278 a process which Good 

Housekeeping Magazine’s representative believed was quite rare, based on her many years of 

experience in the magazine industry.279 

2. Practical Impediments Faced by the Media in Reviewing WeightLoss Ads

In light of current ad review practices, the media trade groups identified various practical 

reasons why it would be difficult for their members to screen weight-loss ads prior to dissemination. 

According to the trade groups, the chief obstacle for the media in conducting meaningful ad review is 

that they lack the requisite expertise to know whether a claim is deceptive.280 Most ads are handled 

by ad personnel – publishers, associate publishers, ad salespersons, and ad copy-readers – who 

are not equipped to properly evaluate ad claims.281 Although publications like Good Housekeeping 

Magazine rely on the knowledge of their editorial departments to discern the credibility of ads, the 

NAA representative stated it is important to recognize that this is not the norm. For newspapers, 

he emphasized that the divide between the advertising department and the editorial department is 

sacrosanct; the editorial department does not get involved in the ad review process, and the ad 

department does not influence the editorial department.282 

The media trade groups maintain that the costs to support a professional staff able to judge the 

accuracy of advertising would outpace the revenues of most media outlets, especially in the newspaper 

and magazine industries.283 In defense of this position, MPA and NAA in their joint comment 

highlighted the $2.4 million a year expended by Good Housekeeping Magazine to operate its rigorous 

standards program.284 In CAB’s view, it is unreasonable to expect that the cable outlets could dedicate 

the same level of resources as the major broadcast networks to conducting advertising review.285 
28

According to CAB’s written comment, the three major television broadcast networks – ABC, NBC, 

and CBS – collect 10 times the ad revenues of the average cable network.286 The ERA concurred 

with the media group’s observations, stating it was too burdensome for the media to be charged with 

the responsibility of pre-screening advertising.287

In addition, the media groups stated that the burden of screening is compounded by the sheer 

volume of ads to be reviewed and the tight deadlines that are an inherent part of the publishing and 

broadcasting businesses.288 CAB reported that the 2,500 cable systems represented by the CAB sell 

2.7 billion units of advertising each year.289 Also, CAB stated that the 60 CAB-member channel 

networks290 that carry advertising sell more than 13 million commercial units annually, averaging 

217,000 units per network.291 According to CAB, the ads are constantly changing. Echoing 

CAB’s observations, the NAA representative explained that the ads submitted to the newspapers 

for publication are not static, and the clearance process is new and different each day.292 The NAA 

representative noted that, regardless of the clearance standards in place, newspapers – especially the 

daily publications – generally are required to make decisions in a short period of time, which makes 

for a very chaotic atmosphere in the ad departments.293 The Editor-in-Chief of Good Housekeeping 

Magazine conceded that, if she were on a 24-hour deadline, Good Housekeeping’s standards program 

would be difficult to implement.294 Moreover, in its written comment, NAA also explained that in 

many cases, pre-printed ads are supplied by third-party ad brokers only hours before the paper goes to 

press, which serves to further amplify the time pressures.295

In the course of the discussion, the Good Housekeeping Magazine representative explained 

that, while overall her magazine’s program was not “easy to administer,” some ads, like ones that 

promise weight-loss of 10 pounds per week or that you can eat all the high calorie foods you want 

without diet or exercise and lose weight, require very little scrutiny before being rejected.296 In 

fact, according to her, these type of ads rarely are forwarded to her group by Good Housekeeping’s

ad department because the ad personnel know that they will not survive review.297 Also, the Vice 

President of Standards at New Hope Natural Media added that his publication has trained the ad 

sales representatives on what will and will not be accepted, so they are capable of immediately 

rejecting blatantly deceptive weight-loss ads.298 He said that the type of ads submitted to the standards 

department for review are ads that are “subtly misleading.”299

3. Potential Roles for the Media

The panel widely recognized that there were roles for the media to play in the fight against 

weight-loss fraud. Many of the panelists suggested that the media are in a position to educate the 
29

public. The NAA representative offered that the media could disseminate editorial material that 

addressed not only weight-loss fraud, but also the health crisis of obesity in the United States and 

weight-loss management in general.300 According to the MPA representative, in the past year more 

than 1300 articles on weight loss ran in magazines contained in the MPA database, which was 

consistent with what he viewed to be the historic role of the media.301 Good Housekeeping’s Editor-inChief further conveyed that it was important to inform the public because if consumers did not buy the 

fraudulent weight-loss products, advertisers would stop advertising them.302 The CAB representative, 

in particular, supported the use of advertising to influence consumers in a positive way. He suggested 

running a public service announcement campaign on the subject of weight-loss fraud.303 In its 

comment, similar to CAB’s proposal, ERA offered to work with its members and other industry 

groups, such as the Ad Council, to “facilitate the production and broadcast” of PSAs designed to 

educate consumers about weight loss.304 

The Editor-in-Chief of Good Housekeeping Magazine advocated a dual approach to combat 

weight-loss fraud: educate consumers, and also educate the media on how to spot deceptive 

advertising.305 Recognizing a role for newspapers other than educating the public, the NAA comment 

stated that its members “are keenly interested in screening out material that may be harmful or 

offensive to their readers.”306 Similarly, CAB indicated its interest in “identify[ing] possible means 

of reducing, if not completely precluding, the dissemination of claims that are unquestionably and 

egregiously false and misleading.”307

One panelist said that in his view, from a practical perspective, the first step to solving the 

problem of weight-loss fraud is to equip the media with “knowledge.”308 Along these lines, the NAA 

representative stated that it would be useful to furnish the media outlets with a one-page document of 

easily understood buzz words or alerts containing key phrases or numbers, or examples of problematic 

ad campaigns, which could be distributed to decision-makers at all levels in the newspapers.309 

According to CAB’s representative, it would be critical that such a guide or alert for the media be 

very specific, and not “vacuous,” so that the cable outlets could act on it.310 The NAA representative 

added that communicating this kind of information to its members would be one of its functions.311 

Finally, in discussing a potential guide, the NAA representative cautioned that, while his group agrees 

that a guide would be helpful to newspapers in making the initial decisions about which weight-loss 

ads to accept and reject, he felt that the ultimate decision on what to publish and not to publish should 

reside with the publisher.312

Despite the potential benefits of a guide to educate the media on deceptive weight-loss 

advertising, the media trade groups and the ERA voiced concern about media outlets’ undertaking 
30

efforts to screen weight-loss advertising. The MPA and NAA stated in their joint comment that 

even with such a guide, ad personnel would be forced to ascertain whether one of the scientifically 

infeasible weight-loss claims is being made in an ad, and if so, whether, read in context, the ad is in 

fact deceptive.313 In its comment, ERA also expressed unease with the idea of the media screening 

for deceptive weight-loss ads because complex issues of ad interpretation would invariably arise, and 

the media would not be equipped to handle them.314 According to the MPA representative and others, 

because of these difficulties, it is unlikely that publishers would even attempt to exercise judgment; 

they would address the problem by simply refusing to publish ads in the whole category of weight 

loss.315

The trade groups and ERA expressed concern that, if saddled with the task of reviewing weightloss advertising for accuracy, the media outlets most probably would react by rejecting all ads for 

weight-loss products and programs.316 As a whole, the media groups, and ERA, argued that asking 

the media to screen for scientifically infeasible weight-loss claims would cause the suppression of nonmisleading speech.317 CAB and ERA in their written comments conveyed that this outcome not only 

would be costly to the media, but would be an unfair result for legitimate weight-loss advertisers and 

for consumers as well.318

The Joint MPA/NAA Comment asserts that a media screening guide that listed prohibited 

claims would impose impermissible burdens on the media and chill protected speech.319 This First 

Amendment issue was discussed at the workshop. Professor Fred Schauer indicated that the creation 

of a specific list of infeasible claims for the media to use in evaluating weight-loss advertising was 

a constitutionally permissible approach for the FTC to use to encourage the media to engage in selfregulation.320 Because the staff is merely encouraging the media to improve voluntary screening 

of scientifically infeasible weight-loss claims, issuance of media guidance does not raise First 

Amendment concerns. 

III. Conclusion

A. Summary of the Workshop

The purpose of the workshop was threefold: (1) to solicit the scientific opinions of experts in 

the weight-loss field on the scientific feasability of eight claims that appear in weight-loss ads; (2) to 

discuss how the weight-loss industry is addressing the problem of deceptive weight-loss advertising; 

and (3) to explore innovative ways for the media to assist in reducing the dissemination of deceptive 
31

weight-loss advertising. Through the workshop, the staff gathered valuable information on the 

scientific feasibility of certain weight-loss claims, self-regulatory efforts in the weight-loss industry, 

and the clearance standards used by the cable, newspaper, and magazine industries, as well as the 

challenges faced by these media outlets to implement them. 

At the workshop, the scientific experts generally expressed the view that the weight-loss claims 

under consideration were not scientifically feasible. Each of the panelists independently adjudged 

six of the eight weight-loss claims to be scientifically infeasible, with only one panelist expressing 

uncertainty regarding the other two claims. Accordingly, based on the workshop discussions, the 

written comments received before and after the workshop, the published scientific and medical 

literature, and its own investigative experience, the staff concludes that the claims set forth below are 

not scientifically feasible at the current time: 

$ Consumers who use the advertised product can lose two pounds or more per week (over 

four or more weeks) without reducing caloric intake and/or increasing their physical 

activity. 

$ Consumers who use the advertised product can lose substantial weight while still enjoying 

unlimited amounts of high calorie foods.

$ The advertised product will cause permanent weight loss (even when the user stops using 

the product).

$ The advertised product will cause substantial weight loss through the blockage of absorption 

of fat or calories.

$ Consumers who use the advertised product (without medical supervision) can safely lose 

more than three pounds per week for a period of more than four weeks.

$ Users can lose substantial weight through the use of the advertised product that is worn on 

the body or rubbed in to the skin. 

$ The advertised product will cause substantial weight loss for all users.

$ Consumers who use the advertised product can lose weight only from those parts of the 

body where they wish to lose weight.321

It is recognized that these messages can be stated in different ways and that to be useful for 

media screening purposes, the claims should be stated as simply as possible in conversational English. 

Accordingly, in industry and consumer education initiatives the staff may revise the wording of these 

claims and provide additional examples depending on the intended audience. Moreover, there was 
32

considerable discussion at the workshop and in the written comments concerning the meaning of the 

word “substantial.” Nevertheless, workshop discussions regarding the scientific feasibility of most 

of these claims did not turn on the definition of “substantial.” Ultimately, in this context, the staff 

intends its common usage, i.e., “a lot of weight.” Conservatively, any claim of one pound per week 

for more than four weeks (more than four pounds per month) is substantial, as well as total weight 

loss exceeding 15 pounds. 

The panelists recognized that deceptive weight-loss advertising is a growing problem despite 

increased FTC law enforcement and consumer education efforts. To address the problem, the weightloss industry expressed a willingness to strengthen self-regulation, including the development of more 

effective weight-loss advertising guidelines and the exploration of a larger role for the NAD. Many 

panelists also recognized that the media have a crucial part to play in reducing the dissemination of 

false weight-loss advertising. During the workshop, several panelists commented that the media are 

uniquely positioned to educate the public about weight-loss fraud, and to curb its exposure to the most 

egregious of weight-loss advertising through meaningful screening efforts. To this end, it appears that 

concise business guidance identifying scientifically infeasible weight-loss claims would significantly 

aid the media in screening out false weight-loss advertising. It would also assist the industry in 

developing effective self-regulatory guidelines for marketers of weight-loss products.

B. Weight-Loss Advertising Guidance for the Media

As noted above, the estimated cost of obesity exceeds $100 billion per year and consumers are 

spending an estimated $37.1 billion a year trying to prevent weight gain or to lose weight. In too 

many instances, however, the products being promoted for weight loss are worthless and the claims 

used to promote these products blatantly false. Money spent on worthless, over-hyped remedies 

distorts the market and injures consumers. History has taught us that law enforcement alone will 

not adequately address this issue; the question addressed here is whether there is a larger role for the 

media in this effort. 

The media play a critical role in educating the public about weight-loss fraud and healthy weightloss strategies, but their role need not be limited to education. In the past, consumer education 

alone has not proven sufficient to protect consumers from the pervasive counter-messages of easy 

weight-loss without diet or exercise. Significantly, the media have the power to reduce the amount of 

weight-loss fraud by curtailing the dissemination of blatantly false weight-loss advertising. Therefore, 

relying on input from the workshop and discussions with individual industry members, the staff is 

providing weight-loss advertising guidance, which will be released simultaneously with this report, 
33

to aid media outlets in reviewing weight-loss advertising. This guidance includes seven of the eight 

claims identified in this report as scientifically infeasible,322 and is intended to apply to nonprescription 

weight-loss products.323 

The key to more effective media screening is to develop a common sense approach to the review 

of weight-loss ads that can be used by all media outlets – regardless of size, dissemination schedule, 

or expertise – to pick out with ease the worst of the deceptive weight-loss ads. Straightforward 

advertising guidance will equip the media outlets with the basic knowledge necessary to identify the 

most outrageous weight-loss claims – those that are simply too good to be true. 

The media’s incorporation of the guidance into their clearance programs will require minimal 

resources. Most media already conduct some level of ad review to screen out advertisements 

that encourage illegal activity or that may be offensive to their viewers. Weight-loss advertising 

contributes only a small fraction of the total number of ads being disseminated at any one time.324 

Moreover, the robust programs of media outlets such as Good Housekeeping Magazine and the major 

broadcast networks, while laudable, are not necessary to stop the obvious weight-loss fraud that 

was identified in the staff’s Weight-Loss Advertising Report. The vast majority of such ads can be 

identified and rejected by ad personnel without resort to resource-intensive evaluation procedures.325 

The weight-loss advertising business guidance is designed to provide the media with an expertsupported basis for refusing to run advertisements that contain scientifically infeasible claims, without 

the need to investigate the scientific validity of each specific weight-loss claim.326 Use of the guide by 

the media in this manner does not obligate the media to investigate the accuracy of the wide array of 

advertising they disseminate to the public. A weight-loss advertising guide will aid media personnel 

to “eas[ily] notice and reject” ads that contain extreme weight-loss claims that are not scientifically 

feasible.327 The guide is intended to facilitate the same process with regard to obviously false 

weight-loss ads as is used by media outlets that voluntarily reject other types of ads based, not on the 

substance of the ad, but on a facial determination, such as whether the ad contains nudity or promotes 

an illegal or undesirable product. 

Contrary to concerns raised in some comments, public and private encouragement that the media 

undertake voluntary programs to screen out the most outlandish weight-loss claims, in combination 

with the publication of advertising guidance that identifies scientifically infeasible claims, is unlikely 

to cause media outlets to respond by rejecting all weight-loss advertising. The more likely result is 

that the weight-loss product advertisers will eliminate obviously false claims from their ads so that 

they can continue to obtain broad dissemination of advertisements for their products. Although it is 
34

still too early to tell with certainty, the staff believes that there already has been some movement in 

that direction.

In some instances, it may be difficult to determine whether an advertisement contains one of 

the identified claims.328 Perfection, however, is not required for the media to be successful in this 

venture to combat weight-loss fraud. Even by catching only the most obvious claims in question, the 

media could provide a valuable service. With merely a good faith effort to incorporate voluntarily 

the weight-loss advertising guidance as part of their clearance standards, the media outlets, as a 

whole, could reduce significantly the amount of false and deceptive weight-loss advertising that is 

disseminated to the public, and thereby reduce the incidence of weight-loss fraud. 

Finally, it is important to understand that the seven claims included in the FTC staff’s media 

guidance brochure do not constitute a complete listing of all unlawful, deceptive, or unsubstantiated 

claims that might be made by weight-loss advertisers. Although the FTC is seeking the assistance 

of the media and others in eliminating the claims included in the guidance, this action should not be 

construed as limiting the responsibility of advertisers to ensure that claims not on this list are truthful 

and not misleading. 

IV. Recommendations 

At the time of the FTC’s Weight-Loss Advertising Report, false weight-loss advertising appeared 

to have reached unprecedented levels, resulting in unacceptable injury to consumers and legitimate 

businesses. Consumers lose money and confidence in the market. Legitimate businesses lose because 

the competitive environment is muddied, making it difficult, if not impossible, for consumers to select 

the best products available. 

The dialogue between the FTC staff and the private sector since the release of the Weight-Loss 

Advertising Report has reaffirmed that we share a common goal of reducing current levels of false 

weight-loss advertising. Because we are beginning from a common goal, the FTC staff believes that 

substantial progress can be achieved through the following initiatives:

• First, there needs to be meaningful guidance to consumers, advertisers, and the media that 

identifies specific claims that are not scientifically feasible at the current time. The FTC 

staff has taken the first step toward this goal by preparing a list of obviously false weightloss advertising claims that is being released simultaneously with this report. 

• Second, the FTC will continue to encourage the media to implement viable media 

clearance standards based on the guidance set forth above. At the same time, the FTC 
35

will encourage honest advertisers and their representatives to support this program. This 

initiative is intended to be voluntary, and the goal is to stop the dissemination of over-thetop, outrageous weight-loss advertising without adversely affecting truthful, nondeceptive 

advertisers. Accordingly, we will continue to work toward the development of third-party 

resources, such as assistance from the National Advertising Division of the BBB or other 

third parties, that media representatives can use, if necessary, to aid the process of media 

screening. 

• Third, the FTC staff will continue to work with all interested public and private entities 

to develop self-regulatory weight-loss advertising guidelines that incorporate the guidance 

set forth above, and encourage the development of effective industry self-regulatory 

programs to implement such advertising guidelines. Work is currently underway through 

the Partnership for Healthy Weight Management and a number of trade associations, such 

as the American Herbal Products Association, to explore the development of weight-loss 

advertising guidelines that could facilitate the development of self-regulatory programs. 

In addition, the Electronic Retailers Association is developing a self-regulatory program 

that would involve a unit of the National Advertising Review Council in the review of 

electronic direct-response advertisements, including infomercials and short-form television 

ads. Although not limited to weight-loss advertisements, this program could provide a 

meaningful third-party review of weight-loss product infomercials and other direct-response 

weight-loss ads.

• Fourth, the FTC staff will work with private and public groups to develop consumer 

education programs. The FTC is working with the Electronic Retailing Association to 

develop a public service announcement aimed at consumers of weight-loss products. 

• Fifth, the FTC staff will continue to monitor weight-loss advertising over the course of 

the next year to measure improvement. Based on the results of the continued monitoring, 

the staff will make further recommendations to the Commission as are necessary and 

appropriate, including recommendations that the Commission institute actions seeking 

preliminary and permanent injunctive and monetary equitable relief against advertisers who 

promote their products through false and deceptive claims.329
36

Endnotes

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Surgeon General’s call to action to 

prevent and decrease overweight and obesity. [Rockville, MD]: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General; [2001] at XIII, 10.

2. Id. at 10.

3. Serdula, M.K., et al., Prevalence of Attempting Weight Loss and Strategies for Controlling 

Weight, 282 JAMA 1353-1358 (1999).

4. Weight-Loss Advertising: An Analysis of Current Trends, A Report of the Staff of the Federal 

Trade Commission (Sept. 2002) (“Weight-Loss Advertising Report”). 

5. The U.S. Weight Loss & Diet Control Market (7th ed. October 2002) Marketdata Enterprises, 

Inc. at 6. According to Marketdata, the total U.S. weight-loss market for 2001 is estimated to be 

$37.1 billion and growing at a rate of 6 to 7 percent a year. 

6. The Partnership for Healthy Weight Management is a coalition of representatives from science, 

academia, the health care profession, government, commercial enterprises, and organizations 

promoting the public interest. Its mission is to promote sound guidance to the general public 

on strategies for achieving and maintaining a healthy weight. It engages in various consumer 

education efforts, and has published guidelines for providers of weight-loss products and 

services. For more information on the Partnership, see http://www.consumer.gov/weightloss/

index.htm. 

7. Weight-Loss Advertising Report (cited in note 4). 

8. Id. at x, 30. This determination was made based on a facial examination of the ads. The 

remaining 45% of the ads also may have contained false or deceptive claims, but additional 

investigation would have been required to assess the accuracy of these ads. 

9. Id. at 31.

10. FTC Announces Public Workshop to Discuss the Advertising of Weight-Loss Products (Sept. 17, 

2002), available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/09/weightloss.htm. 

11. The workshop was entitled Deception in Weight Loss Advertising: A Workshop. Information 

about the workshop, including the agenda, transcript, panelist bios, and public comments, can be 

found at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/weightloss. 

12. Notice of Public Workshop, 67 Fed. Reg. 59,289 (Sept. 20, 2002), available at http://

www.ftc.gov/05/2002/09/weightlossfrn.htm. 

13. The FTC staff selected the eight claims based on representations challenged in past FTC 

investigations. Most of the examples used at the workshop and in this report come from ads 

reviewed for the Weight-Loss Advertising Report. 

14. The panelists were Anthony Almada, B.Sc., M.Sc., of IMAGINutrition, Inc./MetaResponse 

Sciences; George Blackburn, M.D., Ph.D., of Harvard Medical School; Denise Bruner, M.D., 

of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians; Harry Greene, M.D., of Slim Fast Foods 

Company and the Partnership for Healthy Weight Management; Steven Heymsfield, M.D., of St. 

Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center and Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; 

Van Hubbard, M.D., Ph.D., of the National Institutes of Health; Judith Stern, S.M., Sc.D., of 
37

the University of California-Davis; Lawrence Stifler, Ph.D., of Health Management Resources; 

Thomas Wadden, Ph.D., of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine; and Susan 

Yanovski, M.D., of the National Institutes of Health. See Appendix A for biographical sketches 

of the panelists. Unless otherwise indicated, the opinions expressed by the panelists reflect their 

personal views, and do not necessarily reflect the views or official policy of the organizations 

they represent. 

15. Medically unsupervised very low calorie diets, however, were discussed in connection with 

the consideration of the claim that users can safely lose three pounds per week or more over 

extended periods of time because the panelists did not view weight loss in the range of three 

pounds per week to be feasible without a substantial restriction on caloric intake. The panelists 

expressed the view that a medically unsupervised diet low enough in calories to cause three 

pounds of weight loss per week over an extended period of time cannot be considered safe. See

Deception in Weight Loss Advertising: A Workshop (Nov. 19, 2002), Transcript at 99-100, 

102-04, 107-08, 110-11. References to the workshop transcript in this report appear as “Tr.” 

followed by the page number and name of the speaker, if applicable. The workshop transcript is 

available online at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/weightloss/transcripts/transcript-full.pdf. 

16. Nevertheless, a claim that weight loss would be permanent after discontinuing use of the product 

or service would be questionable for prescription drugs, as well as for the products considered at 

the workshop. 

17. Although this report concludes that this claim is not scientifically feasible when made in the 

context of an ad promising substantial weight loss, it has not been included in the FTC staff’s 

media guidance brochure (guidance), which is being released simultaneously with this report, 

because the claim does not appear to be widespread. Other claims, most notably, the claim that 

users can lose substantial weight loss without dieting or increasing exercise, have been modified 

slightly in the guidance to provide a clear, unequivocal standard.

18. In its supplemental comment, the Electronic Retailing Association (“ERA”) asserts that the 

scientific panel’s analysis should not be taken as reliable, citing, among other things, the 

limited representation of industry on the panel. See ERA, “Supplementary Comments of the 

Electronic Retailing Association to the Federal Trade Commission’s Workshop and Staff Report 

on Advertising of Weight-Loss Products” (“ERA Comment II”), Feb. 3, 2003, at 2-4. With 

regard to this objection, the staff believes that the attached biographical sketches demonstrate 

that all of the panelists had extensive expert credentials. Moreover, the FTC’s Federal Register 

Notice requested that persons interested in appearing on any of the panels contact the FTC 

staff. No scientist representing the weight-loss or dietary supplement industry who requested 

to sit on the science panel was rejected. Finally, no dietary supplement or weight-loss industry 

representatives submitted post-workshop comments challenging the panel members’ analyses. 

Public comments are available online at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/weightloss/

comments/index.htm. 

19. Tr. at 17-19. If a claim is not biologically plausible, it will not be scientifically feasible; a 

biologically plausible claim, however, could be infeasible because of the lack of knowledge or 

technology.

20. Panelist Dr. Steven Heymsfield presented the following well-established general principles of 

weight control. The difference between energy intake and energy output, i.e., energy balance, is 

the ultimate determinant of weight loss and weight change. Energy intake consists of consumed 
38

calories. Energy output occurs both through physical activity (approximately one-third of 

expended calories) and basal metabolism (approximately two-thirds of expended calories). 

According to Dr. Heymsfield, there are four ways to lose weight: (1) reduce food intake; (2) 

block or limit the absorption of food (malabsorption); (3) increase energy expenditure (by 

either increasing physical activity or increasing resting metabolic rate (amount of heat the body 

produces)); and (4) re-partition existing energy, i.e., change the body’s proportion of fat to lean. 

This model can be used to analyze the validity of most of the claims discussed below. See Tr. at 

20-25.

21. Tr. at 13-14, 17-19.

22. See, e.g., Tr. at 35-36, 58-59.

23. See, e.g., Tr. at 80-81, 97-98.

24. In their joint comment, the Magazine Publishers of America (“MPA”) and the Newspaper 

Association of America (“NAA”) assert that this is a different claim than “lose substantial weight 

without reducing caloric intake and/or increasing physical activity.” MPA/NAA, “Comments of 

the Magazine Publishers of America, Inc. and the Newspaper Association of America” (“Joint 

MPA/NAA Comment”), Feb. 3, 2003, at A-4. Rather, according to the MPA/NAA comments, 

the example given is a “hyper-specific weight loss claim pursuant to a universal timetable.” On 

the contrary, the average consumer would consider 28 pounds in four weeks to be substantial 

weight loss and statements such as “eat all your favorite foods” and the “pill does all the work” 

to imply that dieting and increased exercise are not required. The Joint MPA/NAA Comment 

addresses each of the eight claims. The comments on each claim will be considered below.

25. The four measurements commonly used in weight loss ads are pounds, dress size, inches, and 

amount of body fat, any one of which can be used to convey the message of substantial weight 

loss. Additional examples of this claim include: 

$ I lost 30 pounds in 30 days even though I ate all my favorite foods.

$ This product is so powerful, so effective, so relentless in its attack on fatty deposits that 

there is virtually no need to diet. ...Lose 36 pounds in 5 weeks; 60 pounds in 43 days; 42 

pounds in 3 weeks; 12 pounds in 15 days.

$ I lost 15 pounds in 30 days without having to change my eating habits or lifestyle in any 

way. See results fast without the back-breaking exercise!

$ Go from a size 12 to a size 6; lose inches QUICKLY and do absolutely nothing but take this 

pill. 

26. Tr. at 83-84. Mr. Almada agreed that it was not scientifically feasible for any of these 

ingredients to produce weight loss in the range of 28 pounds in four weeks. Tr. at 84. 

27. Tr. at 85. 

28. Tr. at 87. Re-partitioning refers to a change in the body’s proportion of fat to lean. See note 20. 

29. Tr. at 88.

30. Tr. at 89.

31. Tr. at 90.
39

32. Id.

33. Tr. at 96.

34. Tr. at 96-97.

35. Id.

36. Tr. at 97-98. 

37. Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at A-4 to A-5. The record of the workshop 

contains several discussions of the meaning of substantial weight loss. In each case, the majority 

of the experts did not believe that a precise definition of the term substantial weight loss was 

required, because the amount of weight that could possibly be lost through the purported 

mechanisms was, at best, trivial. See, e.g., Tr. at 67-68, 90.

38. The Super Formula product contained chromium picolinate, hydroxycitric acid, chitin, and 

glucomannan.

39. FTC v. SlimAmerica, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 2d 1263 (S.D. Fla. 1999). See also FTC v. Slim 

Down Solution, LLC, No. 03-80051-CIV-PAINE (S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 24, 2003); FTC v. Mark 

Nutritionals, Inc., No. SA02CA1151EP (W.D. Tex. filed Dec. 5, 2002); FTC v. No. 9068-

8425 Quebec, Inc. d/b/a Bio Lab, No. 1:02:CV-1128 (N.D.N.Y. July 28, 2003) (stipulated final 

judgment); National Dietary Research, 120 F.T.C. 893 (1995) (consent order); Body Wise Int’l, 

120 F.T.C. 704 (1995) (consent order); Taleigh Corp., 119 F.T.C. 835 (1995) (consent order); 

FTC v. Shell, No. 90 0120 (Kx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 1991) (stipulated permanent injunction). 

40. 77 F. Supp. 2d at 1273.

41. One expert on the panel referred to a 1984 study of glucomannan that reported weight loss of 5.5 

pounds over 8 weeks without any changes in diet or physical activity. Walsh, D.E., et al., Effect 

of Glucomannan on Obese Patients: A Clinical Study, 8 International Journal of Obesity 289-93 

(1984). In this study, patients were instructed not to deviate from their previously established 

eating and exercise patterns. This study is not particularly persuasive given the small number of 

subjects in the treatment group (10) and the fact that subjects did not maintain appropriate food 

diaries. There is no way to be sure that subjects did not change eating patterns. In fact, one 

of glucomannan’s purported mechanisms of action is as a bulking agent, and the authors note it 

“added bulk in the stomach just before each meal, [which] may decrease the appetite and [cause 

subjects] to eat less at each meal.” Id. at 292. 

42. See generally Allison, D.B., et al., Alternative Treatments for Weight Loss: A Critical Review, 

41 Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 1, 2-3, 18-20 (2001). One common problem 

in studies cited to support claims of weight loss without reducing caloric intake is the lack of any 

monitoring of caloric intake in those studies. See, e.g., Walsh (cited in note 41).

43. See Dulloo, A.G. et al., Efficacy of a green tea extract rich in catechin polyphenols and caffeine 

in increasing 24-h energy expenditure and fat oxidation in humans, 70 Am J Clin Nutr 1040-45 

(1999) (comparing 24 hour energy expenditure in subjects given either caffeine, green tea extract 

(including caffeine), or placebo); see also Green Tea for Weight Loss?, Tufts Univ. Health & 

Nutrition Letter, June 2003, at 3, quoting Jeffrey Blumberg, PhD: “It can’t be concluded that 

[the] small increase in metabolism” reported in studies on green tea, “‘that could easily be 

undone by eating a single cookie or a handful of chips,’” could lead to weight loss. 
40

44. A recently released analysis indicates that there is scientific support that supplements containing 

ephedra and caffeine-containing herbs or ephedrine plus caffeine may cause weight loss of 

about 1⁄2 pound per week over four to six months. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment, 

Number 76, Ephedra and Ephedrine for Weight Loss and Athletic Performance Enhancement: 

Clinical Efficacy and Side Effects, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for 

Healthcare Research and Quality, Feb. 28, 2003, at 219. It is not entirely clear how much of 

this modest effect is due to increased metabolism and how much is due to appetite suppression, 

but it has been estimated that at least half of the effect is due to appetite suppression. See Tr. 

at 90 (Anthony Almada and Dr. Steven Heymsfield). Some ephedrine studies have reported a 

10% increase in metabolic rate. See Greenway, F.L., The safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical 

and herbal caffeine and ephedrine use as a weight loss agent, The International Association of 

the Study of Obesity, 2 Obesity Reviews 3:199-211, 202 (2001). In any event, the effect, if 

any, without also reducing caloric intake would appear to be quite limited. For example, one 

ephedrine and caffeine study found that 75 percent of the weight loss was explained by anorexia 

and 25 percent by increased thermogenesis. See id. at 204. 

45. American men and women consume, on average, about 2800 and 1800 calories per day, 

respectively, but there are large variations based on body size and other factors. Kathleen 

Melanson and Johanna Dwyer, Popular Diets for Treatment of Overweight and Obesity, in 

Handbook of Obesity Treatment 250 (Thomas A. Wadden and Albert J. Stunkard eds., New 

York: The Guilford Press, 2002). 

46. The specification of two pounds in this claim is conservative. The scientific literature does 

contain reports of studies that claim to have tested certain ingredients without diet or exercise. 

Two pounds of weight loss per week over a period of four weeks (eight pounds per month), 

however, significantly exceeds the results reported in these studies and would still include the 

most obviously exaggerated claims. It also would take into account temporary fluid loss during 

the initial week to 10 days. Accordingly, this modified version of the claim is included in the 

FTC staff’s media guidance brochure. It should be emphasized, however, that ads that claim 

weight loss of less than two pounds per week without dieting or increasing exercise may still be 

false or unsubstantiated. The two pounds per week level is used here solely for the purpose of 

establishing a performance limit that is beyond reasonable scientific debate. 

47. Additional examples of this claim include: 

$ I can have my bacon, sausage and grits and still lose weight. 

$ This breakthrough ingredient has patients losing one full pound every 8 hours, 3 pounds 

more each day and all without counting calories, without missing a single meal and without 

giving up those delicious, mouth watering foods they love the most.

$ My “formula for living” lets you eat: Hamburgers, Hotdogs, Fries, Steak, Ice Cream, 

Sausage, Bacon, Eggs, Cheeses! And STILL LOSE WEIGHT!!”

$ I lost 9 pounds during my first week eating just as I always do, going to parties, even eating 

gobs of vacation goodies including my favorite: ice cream. Four weeks later and I’ve lost 

another 27 pounds. 

$ Eat any mouth watering food you want and still blast away dress sizes and belt notches 

lightning fast!

48. Tr. at 46.
41

49. Tr. at 47.

50. Tr. at 48.

51. Tr. at 50.

52. Tr. at 48.

53. Tr. at 51.

54. Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at A-2. The Joint MPA/NAA Comment also 

asserts that research on the Atkins diet proves that a person can eat an unlimited number of 

calories and still lose weight. Id. The Atkins diet is not one of the covered products, nor are 

any plans that involve changing the way consumers eat. An analysis of the scientific research 

underlying the Atkins and other diets is beyond the scope of this report. 

55. Porter & Dietsch, Inc., 90 F.T.C. 770, 873 (1977), aff’d, 605 F.2d 294 (7th Cir. 1979). 

In Porter & Dietsch, the Commission held that it is deceptive to represent, directly or by 

implication, that use of an appetite suppressant enables users to lose body weight or fat without 

dieting or restricting accustomed caloric intake. 90 F.T.C. at 864-65, 866-67. The Commission 

found that claims that users could lose weight without restricting caloric intake and while 

continuing to eat foods of their choice, were “false, misleading and deceptive.” Id. at 866-

67. The Commission further stated, “Where dieting is required, there is simply no substitute 

for clear and conspicuous disclosure that dieting is required.” Id. at 865. In Porter & Dietsch, 

one of the respondent’s ads that the Commission found deceptive contained the headline, “EAT 

WHAT YOU WANT – AND SLIM DOWN.” 

56. For example, “takes away the craving so you do not want to eat.” 

57. Porter & Dietsch, 90 F.T.C. at 873; see also FTC v. Enforma Natural Prods., No. 00-4376JSL 

(Cwx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2000) (stipulated final judgment); FTC v. USA Pharmacal Sales, 

Inc., No. 8:03-CV-1366-T-23-EAJ (M.D. Fla. July 2, 2003) (stipulated final judgment); FTC v. 

Health Labs. of N. America, No. 03-1457 (D.D.C. July 17, 2003) (stipulated final judgment). 

58. Additional examples of this claim include:

$ Thousands of dieters are already using it and losing weight faster than they have before... 

and keeping the weight off.

$ For 15 years, Mary yo-yo dieted without success, fed up and desperate she discovered a 

new miracle product to lose weight easily and permanently.

$ The amazing “Fat-Sponge In a Pill” that lets you eat more, weigh less and finally... yes, 

finally... slim down for good for the rest of your life.

$ Tired of yo-yo diets without success, this miracle product lets you lose the weight easily and 

permanently.

$ It can help you quickly lose weight, and keep it from returning.

59. Tr. at 37-38.

60. Tr. at 39. 

61. Tr. at 39-40.
42

62. Tr. at 41-42.

63. Tr. at 42-43.

64. Tr. at 45.

65. Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at A-2. Although Xenical is a prescription drug 

and not a covered product as set out above, the discussion of the weight-loss performance of 

Xenical is relevant to the issue of scientific feasibility. 

66. Tr. at 44.

67. Tr. at 45.

68. Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at A-1 to A-2.

69. In fact, very few of the advertisements reviewed for the Weight-Loss Advertising Report that 

made a permanent weight-loss claim even addressed the issue of continued use of the product. 

70. See, e.g., FTC v. No. 9068-8425 Quebec, Inc. d/b/a Bio Lab, No. 1:02:CV-1128 (N.D.N.Y. 

July 28, 2003) (stipulated final judgment); FTC v. USA Pharmacal Sales, Inc., No. 8:03-CV1366-T-23-EAJ (M.D. Fla. July 2, 2003) (stipulated final judgment).

71. Methods for Voluntary Weight Loss and Control, NIH Technol. Assess. Conf. Statement Online 

1992 Mar. 30-Apr. 1; 10.

72. Thomas, P.R., ed., Weighing the Options: Criteria for Evaluating Weight-Management Programs

1 (National Academy Press 1995). 

73. The FTC has challenged weight loss maintenance/permanent weight loss claims as deceptive in 

a number of cases, including most recently, FTC v. USA Pharmacal Sales, Inc., No. 8:03-CV1366-T-23-EAJ (M.D. Fla. July 2, 2003) (stipulated final judgment), FTC v. Mark Nutritionals, 

Inc., No. SA02CA1151EP (W.D. Tex. filed Dec. 5, 2002), and FTC v. No. 9068-8425 Quebec, 

Inc. d/b/a Bio Lab, No. 1:02:CV-1128 (N.D.N.Y. July 28, 2003) (stipulated final judgment).

74. It may not be possible to determine without further investigation whether a more explicit claim 

that users can maintain weight loss as long as they continue using a particular product is false 

or unsubstantiated. Therefore, this type of claim cannot be rejected on its face as not being 

scientifically feasible. Nonetheless, it could still be deceptive depending on the substantiation for 

the specific product. 

75. Additional examples of this claim include:

$ Brindall berries cause very rapid and substantial weight loss by reducing fat absorption by 

76%.

$ Super Fat Fighting Formula Guarantees Rapid Weight Loss. Shortly after ingesting small 

amounts of the component, it dissolves into a gel that absorbs and surrounds excess fat and 

calories, preventing them from forming body fat.

$ This product blocks fat before your body absorbs it; the pounds will melt away effortlessly.

$ Reduce fat absorption by 76% and lose substantial weight rapidly.

$ [XXXX] is an “all natural ingredient” designed to attract and absorb excess calories and 

transport them out of your system. Watch the weight come off your body.
43

76. Tr. at 60. 

77. Tr. at 62. Dr. Wadden reached the same conclusion. Tr. at 65-66.

78. Tr. at 61. See Gades, M.D. and Stern, J.S., Chitosan Supplementation and Fecal Fat Excretion 

in Men, 11 Obesity Research 683-88 (May 2003); Gades, M.D. and Stern, J.S., Chitosan 

supplementation does not affect fat absorption in healthy males fed a high-fat diet, a pilot study, 

26 International Journal of Obesity 119-133 (2002).

79. See Tr. at 63-68.

80. See Tr. at 66-68.

81. Tr. at 68. 

82. Tr. at 71. 

83. Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at A-3 to A-4.

84. Tr. at 68. 

85. Id.

86. Even prescription drugs do not produce such dramatic results. For example, orlistat (XenicalTM) 

is an extensively studied pharmacological agent that produces malabsorption of approximately 

one-third of dietary fat in a meal. Louis J. Aronne, Treatment of Obesity in the Primary Care 

Setting, in Handbook of Obesity Treatment 390 (Thomas A. Wadden and Albert J. Stunkard eds., 

New York: The Guilford Press, 2002); see also George A. Bray, Drug Treatment of Obesity, 

in Handbook of Obesity Treatment 327 (Thomas A. Wadden and Albert J. Stunkard eds., New 

York: The Guilford Press, 2002) (discussion of orlistat response to treatment rates). Beyond 

this amount, users experience significant gastrointestinal disturbance, including loose stool and 

diarrhea. See Bray at 328-29; Aronne at 390. On a 60 grams of fat per day diet, approximately 

180 calories per day would not be absorbed, resulting in weight loss of approximately onethird of a pound per week. By itself, this amount of weight loss would not be substantial, as 

that term is used here. See Tr. at 60-61, 62, 66, and 67. The evidence of significant weight 

loss achieved through agents such as orlistat is based on use of the agent in combination with 

a restricted calorie diet. For example, used in combination with a low calorie diet, orlistat has 

been reported to result in an 8% weight loss after a year compared with 4% in a control group. 

The control group was also on a low calorie diet. See Aronne at 390. Thus, the weight loss is 

not attributable to blocking the absorption of fat alone. 

87. Tr. at 60 (Dr. Judith Stern). Seven thousand calories represents approximately 750 grams of fat 

daily. On a 2,500 calorie per day diet consisting of 40% fat, a person would consume only about 

110 grams of fat. 

88. See, e.g, FTC v. Enforma Natural Prods., Inc., No. 00-4376JSL (Cwx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 

2000) (stipulated final judgment) ($10 million in consumer redress); FTC v. Slim Down Solution, 

LLC, No. 03-80051-CIV-PAINE (S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 24, 2003); FTC v. KCD Inc., 123 F.T.C. 

1535 (1997) (consent order). 

89. See Gades and Stern (cited in note 78); Pittler, M.H., et al., Randomized, double-blind 

trial of chitosan for body weight reduction, 53 European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 379-

81 (1999); Wuolijoki, E., et al., Decrease in Serum LDL Cholesterol with Microcrystalline 

Chitosan, 21 Methods Find. Exp. Clin. Pharacol., 357-61 (1999); and Ho, S.C., et al., In 
44

the Absence of Dietary Surveillance, Chitosan does not Reduce Plasma Lipids or Obesity in 

Hypercholesterolaemic Obese Asian Subjects, 42 Singapore Med J, 1: 6-10 (2001).

90. Tr. at 99.

91. Tr. at 99-100.

92. Tr. at 101.

93. Tr. at 102-05.

94. Tr. at 106.

95. Tr. at 107-08.

96. Tr. at 108-10.

97. Tr. at 109.

98. Tr. at 110-11. Consistent with the expert panel’s conclusion, the U.S. Dietary Guidelines 

for Americans state that “[l]oss of 1⁄2 to 2 pounds per week is usually safe.” U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture and U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, U.S. Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans, 2000, at 9.

99. Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at A-6.

100. Tr. at 106-08.

101. Weighing the Options at 115-17 (cited in note 72); Edward W. Gregg and David F. Williamson, 

The Relationship of Intentional Weight Loss to Disease Incidence and Mortality, in Handbook 

of Obesity Treatment 126-27 (Thomas A. Wadden and Albert J. Stunkard eds., New York: The 

Guilford Press, 2002). The indication of four weeks is made here to distinguish short term, e.g., 

weekend, crash diets.

102. Weighing the Options at 115 (cited in note 72).

103. See note 101. 

104. In this case, a covered product, such as a dietary supplement, could be sold as part of a 

“program” that included a very low calorie diet. 

105. Wadden, T.A., et al., “The Cambridge Diet: More Mayhem?” 250 JAMA 2833 (1983). 

106. Tr. at 74.

107. No transdermal diet patch has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for 

weight loss or weight control. Pursuant to Sections 201(g), 201(p), 301(d) and 505 of the federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 321(g), 321(p), 331(d) and 355, introduction of 

such an article into interstate commerce is prohibited by law. 

108. Tr. at 78-79. These issues include bioavailability and dose levels, i.e., whether a sufficient dose 

of an effective ingredient can be delivered transdermally.

109. Tr. at 75-76. See also Allison (cited in note 42) at 2-3 (“methodologically rigorous studies tend 

to find no effect”). 

110. Tr. at 81.
45

111. Id.

112. Kave Elahie/M.E.K. Int’l, 124 F.T.C. 407 (1997) (consent order; aminophylline cream); 

2943174 Canada, Inc., 123 F.T.C. 1465 (1997) (consent order; transdermal diet patch); 

Guildwood Direct Ltd., 123 F.T.C. 1558 (1997) (consent order; slimming insoles); Bodywell, 

Inc., 123 F.T.C. 1577 (1997) (consent order; slimming insoles); Original Mktg., Inc., 120 

F.T.C. 278 (1995) (consent order; acupressure device); European Body Concepts, Inc., 119 

F.T.C. 947 (1995) (consent order; body wrap); Ninzu, Inc., 119 F.T.C. 421 (1995) (consent 

order; acupressure device); Spanish Telemktg. Indus., Inc., 114 F.T.C. 754 (1991) (consent 

order; cream and belt); Richard Crew, 114 F.T.C. 230 (1991) (consent order; transdermal 

patch); Robert Francis, 114 F.T.C. 24 (1991) (consent order; transdermal patch). 

113. See note 109; Tr. at 77. 

114. See Allison (cited in note 42) at 18.

115. See Greenway, F.L., et al., Topical Fat Reduction, 3 Obesity Research 4:561S-568S (1995); 

Greenway, F.L. and Bray, G.A., Regional fat loss from the thigh in obese women after 

adrenergic modulation, 9 Clin. Ther., 6: 663-669 (1987). 

116. Tr. at 79 (Dr. George Blackburn). 

117. See note 107.

118. Additional examples of this claim include: 

$ Everyone in our study lost substantial weight. Failure is impossible.

$ Melt away ugly body fat. The product targets fat and eliminates it, regardless of body type 

and size. 

119. Tr. at 28.

120. Tr. at 29.

121. Id.

122. Tr. at 30.

123. Tr. at 30-31.

124. Tr. at 31.

125. Tr. at 32.

126. Id.

127. Tr. at 32-33.

128. Tr. at 33.

129. Tr. at 33-35.

130. Tr. at 35-36. 

131. Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at A-1. 

132. See, e.g., Tr. at 31 (Dr. Lawrence Stifler) (discussion of restricted caloric diet).
46

133. As discussed earlier, FTC case law is well established that where a product requires a restricted 

caloric intake to be effective, that fact must be clearly and prominently disclosed in the 

advertising for the product. Porter & Dietsch, 90 F.T.C. at 865.

134. Tr. at 29-30, 35-36 (Anthony Almada).

135. For a discussion of factors contributing to overweight and obesity, see R. Arlen Price, Genetic 

and Common Obesities: Background, Current Status, Strategies, and Future Prospects, 

and Katherine Battle Horgen and Kelly D. Brownell, Confronting the Toxic Environment: 

Environmental and Public Health Actions in a World Crisis, in Handbook of Obesity Treatment

73-106 (Thomas A. Wadden and Albert J. Stunkard eds., New York: The Guilford Press, 2002). 

136. Tr. at 29-31.

137. Tr. at 28 (Dr. Steven Heymsfield); Tr. at 29 (Dr. George Blackburn); see also Bray (cited in 

note 86) at 327 (discussion of orlistat response to treatment rates); Aronne (cited in note 86) at 

389. 

138. Although this report concludes that this claim is not scientifically feasible when made in the 

context of an ad promising substantial weight loss, it has not been included in the guidance 

because the claim does not appear to be widespread. 

139. Tr. at 52-53. 

140. See studies cited in note 115. 

141. Tr. at 54.

142. Tr. at 54-55.

143. Tr. at 56.

144. See Tr. at 56-59.

145. Tr. at 58.

146. Tr. at 59. 

147. See id. 

148. Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at A-3.

149. Tr. 58-59. 

150. See Greenway, Topical Fat Reduction and Greenway and Bray (cited in note 115). 

151. For example, in the largest of these studies, the difference between the treatment and control 

condition at the upper thigh measurement was 0.78 " .89 cm over 6 weeks. See Greenway, 

Topical Fat Reduction (cited in note 115) at 567S.

152. Greenway, Topical Fat Reduction (cited in note 115) at 567S.

153. See Allison (cited in note 42) at 18.

154. This claim essentially requires three distinct elements: (1) that the product will cause substantial 

weight loss; (2) that weight loss will occur in specific parts of the body; and (3) that there will 

be no weight loss in certain other parts of the body. Thus, an advertisement that claimed only 

that users could reduce the size of their hips or waist would not be included in this claim. But 
47

see, e.g., Boozer, et al., An herbal supplement containing Ma Huang-Guarana for weight 

loss: a randomized, double-blind trial, 25 International Journal of Obesity 316-324 (2001) 

(study reported statistically significant weight loss in hips and waist). This distinction could be 

confusing to persons attempting to apply the guidance to specific advertisements. 

155. The panelists were Brad Bearnson, Esq., of ICON Health & Fitness; John Cordaro of the 

Council for Responsible Nutrition (“CRN”); Harry Greene, M.D., of the Partnership for 

Healthy Weight Management and Slim Fast Foods Company (representing the Partnership for 

Healthy Weight Management); Andrea Levine, Esq., of the National Advertising Division of 

the Council of Better Business Bureaus (“NAD”); Michael McGuffin of the American Herbal 

Products Association (“AHPA”); Lisa Myers of the Electronic Retailing Association (“ERA”); 

David Seckman of the National Nutritional Foods Association (“NNFA”); and Lewis Shender, 

Esq., of Jenny Craig. See Appendix A for biographical sketches of the panelists. 

156. NNFA, “Advertising of Weight Loss Products Workshop–Comment” (“NNFA Comment”), Jan. 

29, 2003 at 1. Established in 1936, the National Nutritional Foods Association is the oldest and 

largest non-profit trade group for the natural products industry. Its membership includes over 

4,000 retailers, manufacturers, wholesalers, and distributors of natural products, including foods, 

dietary supplements, and health and beauty aids. Members range from small health food stores 

to large dietary supplement makers. Id.

157. Id. 

158. See Tr. at 134-36 (Lisa Myers). The Electronic Retailing Association is a trade group for the 

electronic retailing industry. It has over 450 members, including advertising agencies, direct 

response marketers, telemarketers, Internet and brick and mortar retailers, fulfillment service 

providers, and television shopping channels such as HSN and QVC. ERA Comment II (cited in 

note 18) at 1. 

159. Tr. at 135 (Lisa Myers).

160. Id. (referring to clips from the infomercials for Enforma Natural Products and Pound-A-Patch). 

The companies behind both infomercials were one-time ERA members. Id. at 120. 

161. Id. at 148.

162. Tr. at 136 (John Cordaro). The Council for Responsible Nutrition is a trade association of 

approximately 85 manufacturers of dietary supplements, some of whom manufacture and market 

weight-loss products. Id. at 118. Its panelist likened false and deceptive weight-loss ads to 

incredible spam messages that promise recipients millions of dollars if they will just send a few 

thousand to help “break it loose.” Id. at 136. 

163. See Tr. at 121-23.

164. See Tr. at 122-23.

165. Tr. at 121 (Lewis Shender). 

166. Tr. at 122 (Brad Bearnson).

167. Tr. at 118 (John Cordaro).
48

168. Tr. at 127 (Michael McGuffin). The American Herbal Products Association is a trade 

association that represents about 200 companies, primarily marketers of herbal dietary 

supplements, including some products promoted for weight loss. Id. at 119. 

169. See Tr. at 120 (Lisa Myers); ERA, “Comments of the Electronic Retailing Association to 

the Federal Trade Commission’s Workshop and Staff Report on Advertising of Weight Loss 

Products” (“ERA Comment I”), Oct. 31, 2002, at 2. 

170. NNFA Comment (cited in note 156) at 1.

171. See Tr. at 170-73. 

172. Tr. at 172-73 (Michael McGuffin). 

173. Tr. at 173 (David Seckman, Lewis Shender); see also Tr. at 170-71 (Brad Bearnson) (supporting 

FTC’s enforcement efforts and noting that the FTC has the “biggest hammer” here).

174. See, e.g., Tr. at 127 (Michael McGuffin).

175. Id. 

176. See, e.g., Tr. at 137-38 (John Cordaro) (expressing support for the workshop and for a 

cooperative approach to fighting false weight-loss ads); Tr. at 142 (Dr. Harry Greene) 

(proposing various non-law enforcement options); Tr. at 151 (David Seckman) (expressing 

support for FTC’s proposal to offer guidance on false claims).

177. See Tr. at 123-26, 143, 150-51. 

178. Id.

179. Tr. at 123-24 (Lisa Myers). 

180. Id. at 123.

181. Id. at 124.

182. Id.

183. Tr. at 150 (David Seckman).

184. Id. 

185. Id. at 151. NNFA also supplements self-regulation with consumer education. The association 

has a “What You Should Know About . . .” series of consumer education pamphlets that are 

distributed in retail health food stores. See id. at 150-51; NNFA Comment (cited in note 156) at 

2.

186. Tr. at 143 (John Cordaro).

187. Tr. at 124-25 (Lisa Myers).

188. Id. at 125. 

189. Id. at 125-26. In particular, ERA’s representative described a case in which about two-and-ahalf to three years passed between the time ERA began preparing a complaint to NAD and the 

time a final consent decree was signed. Part of the delay occurred because NAD did not look at 

the show while it was under active investigation by a district attorney’s office. Id. 
49

190. Id. at 126.

191. See Tr. at 143-44 (John Cordaro). 

192. See id.

193. Id. at 144. 

194. See Tr. at 127-33, 137, 143-48. 

195. See Tr. at 127-33 (Michael McGuffin). 

196. Id. at 128-29. AHPA’s representative explained that the organization’s draft guidelines are based 

loosely on the Voluntary Guidelines for Providers of Weight Loss Products or Services published 

in 1999 by the Partnership for Healthy Weight Management. AHPA felt that the Partnership’s 

guidelines are inapposite to its members because they are directed toward weight-loss clinics and 

programs, and products sold in conjunction with these clinics and programs, rather than standalone dietary supplements. Id. at 128. 

197. Id. at 129-32. Other recommendations in the guidelines may be to instruct users to follow the 

label and not take more than the recommended dose, and to avoid the use of absolute safety 

claims (“100 percent safe”) and the statement “FDA approved.” Id. at 131-32.

198. See Tr. at 137 (John Cordaro) (complimenting AHPA on the advance work done in developing 

guidelines that could be useful throughout the dietary supplement industry); NNFA Comment 

(cited in note 156) at 2 (stating that NNFA supports the development of guidelines to assist the 

industry in lawfully selling products); ERA Comment I (cited in note 169) at 7 (noting that ERA 

would be happy to discuss the possibility of creating guidelines specific to weight-loss advertising 

with the FTC staff). 

199. See Tr. at 143-47 (John Cordaro). CRN and the Office of Dietary Supplements at the 

National Institutes of Health convened a group of scientists and representatives from interested 

organizations to assess whether children under the age of 18 should be using sports supplement 

products. The group prepared guidelines that divided products into red, yellow, and green light 

categories, and CRN members agreed not to market red or yellow light products to anyone under 

18. Green light products are normal nutritional products that are acceptable for any age. See id.

200. Id. at 149-50. 

201. Tr. at 167-68 (Michael McGuffin).

202. Id. at 133-34.

203. Tr. at 151 (David Seckman). 

204. Tr. at 136 (Lisa Myers); see also ERA Comment I (cited in note 169) at 3-4. 

205. Tr. at 136 (Lisa Myers). 

206. See id. at 134-36; see also ERA Comment I (cited in note 169) at 4; ERA Comment II (cited in 

note 18) at 5. 

207. Tr. at 135 (Lisa Myers).

208. Id. at 136. ERA’s panelist said the science panel’s votes were clear, but she felt there was 

ambiguity concerning some of the topics discussed. She said ERA did not oppose “the 
50

principles,” but wants to see advertising claims continue to be evaluated in the context in which 

they are made. See id. at 134. 

209. Tr. at 139 (Dr. Harry Greene).

210. Id.

211. See NNFA Comment (cited in note 156) at 2.

212. Id. 

213. See Tr. at 152-70. The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus 

was created in 1971 as the advertising industry’s self-regulatory forum. Id. at 115, 119. More 

than 3,800 advertising cases have been resolved successfully through this system. See http://

www.nadreview.org/MemberShip.asp?SessionID=83641. 

214. See Tr. at 152-56 (Andrea Levine).

215. Id. at 152-53.

216. Id. at 153-54.

217. Id. at 154.

218. Id.

219. Tr. at 151 (David Seckman).

220. Tr. at 118-19 (John Cordaro).

221. Tr. at 159 (Andrea Levine).

222. Id.

223. See Tr. at 160-61 (Lewis Shender). 

224. See Tr. at 161-62 (Brad Bearnson). 

225. Id. The panelist referred to these entities as “pop-up” companies. Id. at 161.

226. See id.

227. See id. ICON also recognized that these companies pose enforcement challenges for the FTC. 

See id. at 171. 

228. See Tr. at 162 (Andrea Levine).

229. See id.

230. Tr. at 160-61 (Lewis Shender). 

231. See discussion at Section II.B.2; Tr. at 125-26.

232. See Tr. at 164-65. The Children’s Advertising Review Unit (“CARU”), founded in 1974, is 

a specialized unit within NAD focused exclusively on children’s advertising. CARU evaluates 

child-directed advertising and promotional material in all media and works to correct problematic 

ads. See http://www.caru.org/about/index.asp.

233. See Tr. at 165 (Andrea Levine). 
51

234. See Tr. at 166-70 (David Seckman, Michael McGuffin, John Cordaro).

235. See id. CRN said despite the funding challenges, it believes tougher self-regulation is coming 

and industry leaders who want to be responsible and gain a competitive advantage over egregious 

players will invest in a system that provides some return on their dollar. See Tr. at 169 (John 

Cordaro).

236. Bob Belive, “Public Comment on Deceptive Weight Loss Advertising Workshop,” Jan. 16, 

2003. 

237. Kathy J. Kater, LICSW, Public Comment, Oct. 11, 2002 at 4.

238. See Tr. at 132 (Michael McGuffin). 

239. Id. 

240. Tr. at 137-38 (John Cordaro). 

241. See id. at 170. 

242. Tr. at 158-59 (Andrea Levine).

243. See Partnership website at http://www.consumer.gov/weightloss/index.htm.

244. Tr. at 139-41(Dr. Harry Greene). The Partnership for Healthy Weight Management published 

“Voluntary Guidelines for Providers of Weight Loss Products or Services” in February 1999, 

which are available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/wgtguide.pdf. 

245. Id. at 142. 

246. Id. The International Food Information Council is an educational organization supported by the 

food industry and involved in food and health issues worldwide. Id. 

247. See Tr. at 171 (John Cordaro). ERA also supported the idea of the FTC, industry, and media 

partnering in education, both for businesses and consumers. See Tr. at 173 (Lisa Myers); ERA 

Comment II (cited in note 18) at 13.

248. The panelists were John Kimball of the Newspaper Association of America (“NAA”); Ellen 

Levine, the Editor-in-Chief of Good Housekeeping Magazine; Don McLemore, Vice President 

of Standards at New Hope Natural Media Publications; Dean Wil Norton of the University 

of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Journalism School; Joseph Ostrow of the Cable Advertising Bureau 

(“CAB”); Michael Pashby of the Magazine Publishers of America (“MPA”); Professor Herbert 

Rotfeld of Auburn University; and Professor Frederick Schauer of Harvard Law School and the 

Kennedy School of Government. See Appendix A for biographical sketches of the panelists.

249. See Section II.B.1.

250. The cable, newspaper, and magazine industries, through their respective trade groups, CAB, 

NAA, and MPA, are the only media groups that have participated publicly in the discussion. 

Because public data on the topic are scarce, the staff primarily has relied on information supplied 

by these three media trade groups to discern how the media currently clear advertisements.

251. Studies conducted in the early nineties found no discernible pattern in how different media outlets 

review ads. See Herbert J. Rotfeld, Power and Limitations of Media Clearance Practices and 

Advertising Self-Regulation, 11 J. Pub. Pol’y & Marketing 87 (1992); Herbert J. Rotfeld et al., 

Radio Station Standards for Acceptable Advertising, 24 J. Bus. Research 361 (1992); Herbert J. 
52

Rotfeld and Patrick R. Parsons, Self Regulation and Magazine Advertising, 18 J. of Advertising 

33 (1989). This research, however, did not cover the cable industry, which was a fledgling 

industry 10 years ago. Tr. at 210 (Joseph Ostrow). 

252. See Tr. at 192-93 (Ellen Levine); see also Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at 2-3.

253. See Tr. at 183 (Prof. Herbert Rotfeld); see also Tr. at 185 (John Kimball); Tr. at 188 (Joseph 

Ostrow).

254. See Tr. at 185 (John Kimball).

255. See, e.g., Tr. at 185 (John Kimball); Tr. at 189 (Michael Pashby). 

256. The Cable Advertising Bureau (“CAB”) represents more than 60 cable networks and cable 

operators. Together, its members comprise 85% of the cable outlets that broadcast advertising 

and are responsible for 95% of the cable advertising. See Comments of the National Cable and 

Telecommunications Association and the Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau (“CAB Comment”), 

Oct. 29, 2002 at 1. CAB is a subgroup of the National Cable and Telecommunications 

Association, the principal trade association for the cable television industry. See also Tr. at 177 

(Joseph Ostrow).

257. See Tr. at 187 (Joseph Ostrow).

258. See CAB Comment (cited in note 256) at 3-4 (referencing the “Cabletelevision Advertising 

Bureau Voluntary Guidelines For Commercial Standards and Practices,” which is attached to the 

comment). 

259. See Tr. at 187-88 (Joseph Ostrow). CAB’s representative pointed out that because reputable 

research companies do not collect data on local cable, it is difficult to obtain solid information on 

how ad review is handled by cable outlets. Id. at 209-10. 

260. See Tr. at 188. For example, a religious channel’s standards will most likely differ from those 

of other cable channels. Id.

261. See CAB Comment (cited in note 256) at 2.

262. See id.

263. See id. CAB’s comment further explained that, despite collecting licensing fees from the cable 

systems, cable networks rely on ad sales as a principal source of revenue. See id. at 3.

264. The Newspaper Association of America (“NAA”) is the trade group for over 2,000 U.S. and 

Canadian newspapers. See Tr. at 175 (John Kimball); Comments of the Newspaper Association 

of America (“NAA Comment”), Oct. 29, 2002 at 1. Its membership accounts for nearly 90% of 

the U.S. daily newspapers. See id.

265. Tr. at 187 (John Kimball); see also NAA Comment (cited in note 264) at 3.

266. Id. at 186; see also NAA Comment (cited in note 264) at 3. 

267. See Tr. at 185 (John Kimball). NAA explained that, with some ads, errors are “obvious,” such 

as when an ad lists the price of the product with all zeros, and as a result, ad personnel may be 

prompted to contact the advertiser. See id. at 186-87.

268. See Tr. at 185 (John Kimball).
53

269. See id.

270. See id. The NAA representative remarked that “[w]e don’t catch it all, but we try very hard.” 

Id. Another panelist, who has extensively researched clearance standards, commented that he 

has found newspapers are more likely than other media to reject an ad on the grounds that it is 

misleading. Tr. 183-84 (Herbert Rotfeld).

271. See id. at 187. 

272. The Magazine Publishers of America (“MPA”) currently represents 240 U.S. companies that 

publish over 1,400 magazines. Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at 1; see also Tr. at 

178 (Michael Pashby).

273. See Tr. at 188 (Michael Pashby).

274. Id.

275. Id.

276. Id. at 188-89. 

277. See id. at 189.

278. See Tr. at 191-93 (Ellen Levine); Tr. at 195-96 (Don McLemore). Good Housekeeping 

Magazine administers a sixteen-point guide that is used to evaluate diet and weight programs and 

plans in particular. Tr. at 192.

279. See Tr. at 191-92 (Ellen Levine).

280. Tr. at 209 (Joseph Ostrow); see also Tr. at 202-04, 219 (Michael Pashby); NAA Comment (cited 

in note 264) at 2; CAB Comment (cited in note 256) at 4; Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in 

note 24) at 2-3. 

281. See Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at 2-3. 

282. See Tr. at 206-07 (Joseph Kimball).

283. See Tr. at 203 (Michael Pashby); see also Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at 2; 

CAB comment (cited in note 256) at 4.

284. See Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at 2. The Good Housekeeping Institute funds 

Good Housekeeping Magazine’s advertising review program. Tr. at 191 (Ellen Levine).

285. See CAB Comment (cited in note 256) at 3. The three major broadcast networks require 

advertisers to supply substantiation in support of each ad claim. This substantiation is reviewed 

by the networks prior to dissemination of the ad. See, e.g., Advertising Standards and 

Guidelines, ABC, Inc., Department of Broadcast Standards and Practices, March 2001 (Update), 

available at http://www.espnabcsportscms.com/adsales/stuff/ABC_Advertising_Standards_and_

Guidelines.pdf. 

286. See CAB Comment (cited in note 256) at 3. On average, it costs $116,000 to purchase a 30-

second spot on a major broadcast network, but only $11,000 on a cable network. See id. 

287. See ERA Comment II (cited in note 18) at 14.

288. See Tr. at 209-10 (Joseph Ostrow); see also NAA Comment (cited in note 264) at 4. 
54

289. CAB Comment (cited in note 256) at 2; see also Tr. at 210 (Joseph Ostrow). These ad sales 

account for about 7% of cable systems’ total revenues. CAB Comment (cited in note 256) at 2. 

290. In total, there are 120 cable networks that carry advertising; of these, approximately 60 are CAB 

members. CAB Comment (cited in note 256) at 3. 

291. Id. On the other hand, CAB pointed out in its written comment that the three major broadcast 

networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS, sell a total of 450,000 units of advertising, which breaks down 

to approximately 150,000 units per network. Id. This is nearly 30% less than the average 

number of units sold by a cable network company. 

292. See Tr. at 185-86 (John Kimball). On the other hand, Prof. Herbert Rotfeld, a marketing 

professor who served on the panel, conducted research that suggested the costs of conducting 

ad review in the particular category of weight-loss would be minimal because the ads are often 

“repeat” ads and do not present new claims for review each time. See Tr. at 222-23. 

293. See Tr. at 185-86, 219 (John Kimball); see also NAA Comment (cited in note 264) at 4.

294. Tr. at 192 (Ellen Levine).

295. NAA Comment (cited in note 264) at 4.

296. See Tr. at 193-94 (Ellen Levine).

297. Id.

298. See Tr. at 195 (Don McLemore).

299. Id. 

300. Tr. at 226 (John Kimball); see also Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at 21.

301. See Tr. at 230 (Michael Pashby).

302. See Tr. at 227 (Ellen Levine).

303. Tr. at 228-29 (Joseph Ostrow).

304. ERA Comment II (cited in note 18) at 13.

305. See Tr. at 227 (Ellen Levine).

306. NAA Comment (cited in note 264) at 3.

307. CAB Comment (cited in note 256) at 5.

308. See Tr. at 225 (Wil Norton).

309. See Tr. at 227 (John Kimball). 

310. See Tr. at 229 (Joseph Ostrow). 

311. See Tr. at 219 (John Kimball).

312. See id.

313. See Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at 11.

314. See ERA Comment I (cited in note 169) at 4-5.
55

315. See Tr. at 204 (Michael Pashby). 

316. See Tr. at 218-19 (Michael Pashby); Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at 11; ERA 

Comment II (cited in note 18) at 8. In their comments to the FTC, the Magazine Publishers 

of America, Inc. (“MPA”) and the Newspaper Association of America (“NAA”) expressed 

concern that publishers who voluntarily use FTC guidance to screen advertisements for weightloss products will assume a duty that subjects them to increased liability for harm caused to 

consumers. Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at 15-19; NAA Comment (cited in 

note 264) at 5-6. It is unlikely, however, that publishers who screen advertisements will be 

exposed to increased liability unless they (1) increase the risk of harm to the consumer or (2) 

cause the consumer to rely on the screening to the consumer’s peril. See Restatement (Second) 

of Torts § 323(a) and (b); 57A Am. Jur. 2d Negligence § 113 (1989). Applying these tests, it is 

clear that (1) publishers who screen out false weight-loss claims will decrease the risk of harm to 

consumers and (2) publishers will not cause consumers to rely on their screening process unless 

publishers make guarantees about their screening process. See Pittman v. Dow Jones, 662 F. 

Supp. 921, 923 (E.D. La. 1987) (Wall Street Journal has no special duty to readers unless it 

guarantees the soundness of the products that it advertises even though it is held in high esteem); 

compare Hanberry v. Hearst Corp., 276 Call. App. 2d 680, 684 (1969) (Good Housekeeping 

Magazine “in effect loaned its reputation to promote and induce [sales]” by publishing 

advertisements with its Good Housekeeping Consumers’ Guaranty Seal). 

317. See id.

318. See CAB Comment (cited in note 256) at 4; ERA Comment II (cited in note 18) at 8; see also 

Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at 3, 11. 

319. Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at 3-10.

320. See Tr. at 211-216. 

321. Although this report concludes that this claim is not scientifically feasible when made in the 

context of an ad promising substantial weight loss, it has not been included in the guidance 

because it does not appear to be widespread. 

322. The claim that “consumers who use the advertised product can lose weight only from those parts 

of the body where they wish to lose weight” is not included. See id.

323. As noted in this report, covered products include only nonprescription drugs, dietary 

supplements, creams, wraps, devices, patches, and similar products. Of course, claims for other 

weight-loss products or services, as well as other claims for the covered products, may also be 

false or misleading.

324. See Tr. at 210.

325. See Tr. at 194 (Ellen Levine); Tr. at 195 (Don McLemore).

326. The dissemination of such claims is subject to the constraints of Sections 5(a) and 12 of the 

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 52 (a), (b) (2003). Section 5(a) of the FTC Act authorizes 

the Commission to prohibit “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” 

15 U.S.C. § 45(a). Further, under Section 12(a) of the FTC Act, it is “unlawful for any 

person, partnership, or corporation to disseminate, or cause to be disseminated, any false 

advertisement... for the purpose of inducing, or which is likely to induce... the purchase of food, 

drugs, devices, services, or cosmetics.” 15 U.S.C. § 52(a). And finally, Section 12(b) provides 
56

that “the dissemination or the causing to be disseminated of any false advertisement” proscribed 

by Section 12(a) is a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C. § 52(b). 

327. See Tr. at 189 (Michael Pashby); see also Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at 7. 

According to MPA and NAA, “an ‘on their face’ standard may also work when it comes to 

proffered advertisements that ‘clearly’ propose illegal activity” because “a person reviewing [the 

ad] can determine whether to reject it simply by looking at it and noticing whether it addresses a 

certain topic.” See id. The goal of the guidance piece is to facilitate a similar process for certain 

types of weight-loss ads.

328. See Tr. at 218-19 (Michael Pashby); see also Joint MPA/NAA Comment (cited in note 24) at 5-

6; ERA Comment II (cited in note 18) at 4-6.

329. See, e.g., FTC v. No. 9068-8425 Quebec, Inc. d/b/a Bio Lab, No. 1:02:CV-1128 (N.D.N.Y. 

July 28, 2003) (stipulated final judgment). Of course, in any enforcement action, the 

Commission retains the burden of proving that the claims are false, deceptive, or unsubstantiated. 
A-1

Appendix A: Biographical Sketches of Panelists

Science Panel

Anthony L. Almada, B.Sc., M.Sc.

Mr. Almada is President, founder, and Chief Scientific Officer of IMAGINutrition, Inc., an innovation and science marketing think tank focusing on nutritional technologies, IP clinical research validation, and science-driven media campaigns. IMAGINutrition is currently engaged in multiple clinical 

studies in various universities around the world. It is also prosecuting several patents and functioning 

as a technology transfer entity for process, composition and utility patents in the human and animal 

dietary supplement, cosmeceutical and functional beverage and food sectors. Mr. Almada has worked 

in the dietary supplement industry since 1975. In 1992 he co-founded Experimental and Applied Sciences (EAS), now the largest sports nutrition company on a global scale. During his tenure as Chief 

Scientific Officer and President, he developed a university research program that completed over 15 

clinical studies in the first three years of the company’s history and yielded two issued patents. After 

selling EAS, he co-founded a medical food company that developed a clinically-validated product to 

prevent HIV wasting. A nutritional and exercise biochemist, Mr. Almada has collaborated on over 

50 university clinical trials, ranging from AIDS/HIV wasting to weight loss and gain. He earned his 

undergraduate degree in physiology and nutritional biochemistry at the University of California, Irvine 

and California State University, Long Beach, and his graduate degree at the University of California, 

Berkeley, exploring the impact of exercise on tissue antioxidant status and kinetics, including vitamins 

C and E, coenzyme Q, and glutathione. 

George Blackburn, M.D., Ph.D.

Dr. Blackburn is Associate Director of the Division of Nutrition, Associate Professor of Surgery and 

Nutrition, and the first incumbent of the S. Daniel Abraham Chair in Nutrition Medicine at Harvard 

Medical School. Dr. Blackburn is also Director of the Center for the Study of Nutrition Medicine 

and Chief of the Nutritional/Metabolism Laboratory, affiliated with the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical 

Center in Boston. His laboratory investigates complex issues dealing with nutrition and health, and he 

has published widely on various aspects of nutrition, medicine, and metabolism with over 400 publications to date. Dr. Blackburn is a Past President of the North American Association for the Study 

of Obesity, the American Board of Nutrition, and the American Society for Clinical Nutrition. He 

serves on the Board of Advisors for the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and on 

the Scientific Advisory Committee of the C. Everett Koop Foundation Shape Up America Campaign. 

He is a member of the board of the American Obesity Association and was Chairman of the Massachusetts Medical Society Committee on Nutrition from 1992-1999. Dr. Blackburn is a principal or 

co-principal investigator on several NIH grants, including the Look AHEAD study, and is Associate 

Director of the NIH Boston Obesity Nutrition Research Center. Dr. Blackburn received his medical degree from the University of Kansas and completed his internship and residency at Boston City 

Hospital, Harvard Medical School. He earned his doctorate in nutritional biochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

Denise Bruner, M.D.

Dr. Bruner is Chairman of the Board of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians (ASBP). She 

also serves as Co-Chair of the ASBP’s Strategic Planning Committee, and previously served as the 

organization’s President. Dr. Bruner has testified on behalf of the ASBP before Congress, the Virginia Board of Medicine, and the National Institutes of Health’s National Task Force on Prevention 
A-2

and Treatment of Obesity. She has also appeared as a representative of ASBP, and to discuss various 

bariatric topics, on several television programs, including NBC’s Today Show, Fox Morning News, 

the Montel Williams Show and the Maury Povich Show. Dr. Bruner has a private practice in Arlington, Virginia, where she specializes in bariatric medicine and family practice. She is also on active 

staff at Arlington Hospital. Dr. Bruner is certified by the American Board of Bariatric Medicine, and 

serves on the Advisory Council of the American Obesity Association. She has been quoted in numerous publications including the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington 

Times, Shape, Good Housekeeping, Self, People, and Prevention. Dr. Bruner is a graduate of the 

George Washington University and Howard University College of Medicine. 

Harry Greene, M.D.

Dr. Greene is Medical Director and Vice President for Research and Medical Education for Slim Fast 

Foods Company. He is responsible for new research programs and the education of physicians on the 

use of Slim Fast products. Personnel under his guidance coordinate and integrate a five-million-dollar-a-year program in obesity research and medical marketing. Prior to joining Slim Fast, he served 

as Senior Director of Medical Affairs for Bristol-Myers Squibb Mead Johnson Nutritional Group, 

Director of the Clinical Nutrition Research Unit at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, and Chief 

of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition and Professor of Pediatrics and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt. An internationally recognized nutrition research specialist and pediatric gastroenterologist, Dr. 

Greene has served as President of the North American Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology/Nutrition 

and President of the American Society for Clinical Nutrition. He has published over 200 articles in 

peer-reviewed medical journals on such topics as gastrointestinal adaptation during health and disease, 

pathophysiology and treatment of type I glycogen storage disease, vitamins in health and disease, 

and lipids. Dr. Greene also participates on behalf of Slim Fast in the Partnership for Healthy Weight 

Management. Dr. Greene earned his bachelor’s degree from Baylor University and his medical degree from Emory University School of Medicine.

Steven Heymsfield, M.D.

Dr. Heymsfield is Deputy Director of the Obesity Research Center and Director of the Human Body 

Composition Laboratory and Weight Control Unit at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New 

York. He is also a Professor of Medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and a Visiting Scientist at Rockefeller University and the Brookhaven National Laboratory. 

Dr. Heymsfield has published more than 200 articles covering topics such as obesity, anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, malnutrition, pregnancy, body composition, and caloric expenditure. Dr. 

Heymsfield has helped to design and build two whole-body human calorimeters, including a direct 

gradient-layer system and a ventilated chamber indirect calorimeter. He also pioneered new methods 

of assessing human body composition such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, 

multicompartment methods and bioimpedence analysis. His recent research includes energy metabolism, obesity, body composition, and effectiveness/safety of weight loss treatments. Dr. Heymsfield 

is President of the American Society of Clinical Nutrition and was formerly President of the American 

Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. He is an Honorary Member of the American Dietetic 

Association, the Chilean Clinical Nutrition Association, the Latin American and Argentine Medical 

Association, and the New York Dietetic Association. Dr. Heymsfield received his bachelor’s degree 

from Hunter College and his degree in medicine from Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. 

Van Hubbard, M.D., Ph.D. 

Dr. Hubbard is Director of the Division of Nutrition Research Coordination and Chief of the Nutritional Sciences Branch of the Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, National Institute of 
A-3

Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Within the 

Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, he is the Director of the Clinical Nutrition Research 

Units and Obesity/Nutrition Research Centers Programs, and is responsible for development of research initiatives and management of research programs related to the nutritional sciences and obesity. 

His major research interests are clinical nutrition, obesity, cystic fibrosis, essential fatty acid metabolism, and nutritional modulation of disease risk. Dr. Hubbard is the current Chair of the NIH Nutrition Coordinating Committee and is the Department of Health and Human Services liaison for the 

Interagency Committee on Human Nutrition Research. Dr. Hubbard serves as the NIH representative 

on numerous committees, serves on various Healthy People 2010 work groups, and is co-lead for 

the Nutrition and Overweight Focus Area and the development of the Surgeon General’s Initiative to 

address overweight and obesity. He previously served as a Professor of Pediatrics at the Uniformed 

Services University of the Health Sciences and a member of the Board of Directors of the American 

Board of Nutrition. Dr. Hubbard received his Ph.D. in biochemistry and his M.D. from the Medical 

College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University. 

Judith S. Stern, S.M., Sc.D.

Dr. Stern is a Professor in the Departments of Nutrition and Internal Medicine, Division of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, at the University of California, Davis. She is also the Director of the 

Food Intake Laboratory Group at UC-Davis. An expert on diet and nutrition, Dr. Stern has published 

extensively on nutrition, the effect of exercise on appetite and metabolism, and obesity. She is currently studying the effects of obesity on lipids and renal disease and the effects of a non-diet approach 

to health in obese women. She is Program Co-Director of a nutrition training grant and Co-Director 

of a Clinical Nutrition Unit Core Laboratory funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stern 

has published over 200 research papers in professional journals and over 150 articles in popular magazines such as Redbook and is an Editorial Advisor to Prevention Magazine. Dr. Stern is a member of 

numerous professional organizations, including the American Society for Clinical Nutrition, where she 

was President from April 1996 to April 1997, and the North American Association for the Study of 

Obesity, where she was President from September 1992 to October 1993. She is co-founder and Vice 

President of The American Obesity Association, a lay advocacy organization dedicated to advancing 

understanding of the disease of obesity. Dr. Stern received her bachelor degree in Foods and Nutrition from Cornell University and her master of science and doctor of science degrees in nutrition from 

the Harvard University School of Public Health in Boston. 

Lawrence Stifler, Ph.D.

Dr. Stifler is President of Health Management Resources (HMR), the leading provider of weight treatment programs and training to the medical community. Used by several hundred hospitals, HMOs, 

group medical practices and research centers, HMR provides to these programs ongoing operational 

and program support, nutritional products, staff training, and research. Dr. Stifler, who is a behavioral psychologist with more than 35 years experience researching and developing programs in behavioral 

medicine with a specialization in weight management and lifestyle-related health issues, helped design 

HMR’s medically and non-medically supervised weight and health management programs. Dr. Stifler 

has also lectured extensively on such topics as weight management, exercise, preventive health, nutrition, cardiac rehabilitation, smoking cessation, and psychopharmacology. He has published research, 

written numerous training manuals and materials, and presented at many professional conferences 

including the International Congress on Obesity, North American Association for the Study of Obesity, Harvard Medical School’s Obesity Conference, the National Conference on Hypertension, the 

American College of Nutrition, the Society for Behavioral Medicine, the American Dietetic Association, and the American Psychological Association. Dr. Stifler has had numerous faculty and teaching 
A-4

appointments at Boston University, Harvard University, and Northeastern University, and has been 

quoted extensively by print, radio, and television, including numerous appearances on Good Morning 

America. Dr. Stifler is an avid exerciser who has won many age class road races, and recently, at age 

sixty, completed his tenth marathon. 

Thomas Wadden, Ph.D.

Dr. Wadden is Director of the Weight and Eating Disorders Program and a Professor of Psychology 

at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Dr. Wadden’s principal research is on the 

treatment of obesity by methods that have included behavior modification, very-low-calorie diets, exercise, and medication. He has also investigated the psychological effects of obesity and weight loss. 

He has published over 180 scientific papers and co-edited three books, the most recent of which is 

Handbook of Obesity Treatment (with Dr. Albert Stunkard). His research is supported by grants from 

the National Institutes of Health, as well as from industry. Dr. Wadden serves on the National Task 

Force on the Prevention and Treatment of Obesity and on the editorial boards of International Journal 

of Eating Disorders, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, and Obesity Research. He also 

serves as Chair of the Lifestyle Intervention Subcommittee for the Look AHEAD study, a 12-year, 

NIH-supported study investigating the health consequences of intentional weight loss in obese individuals with type 2 diabetes. Dr. Wadden received his A.B. from Brown University and his doctorate 

in clinical psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Susan Yanovski, M.D.

Dr. Yanovski is Director of the Obesity and Eating Disorders Program at the National Institutes of 

Health. She is also Executive Director of the National Task Force on Prevention and Treatment of 

Obesity in the Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition at NIH’s National Institute of Diabetes 

and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Prior to joining NIH, Dr. Yanovski worked as an urgent care 

physician, a physician at Comprehensive Weight Control in Rockville, Maryland, and a research associate at the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Yanovski is certified by the American Board 

of Nutrition and is a fellow of the North American Association for the Study of Obesity. She serves 

on several committees and working groups, including the Department of Health and Human Services 

Girls and Obesity Steering Committee, the NIH Nutrition Coordinating Committee, and the WeightControl Information Network Executive Committee. Dr. Yanovski received her medical degree from 

the University of Pennsylvania and her bachelor’s degree in social work from Widener University.

Industry Panel

Brad Bearnson, Esq. 

Mr. Bearnson has been General Counsel of ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., the world’s largest manufacturer of home fitness and exercise equipment, since 1995. In this capacity, he is involved on a 

daily basis with product liability and safety issues. Mr. Bearnson also co-founded Bearnson & Peck, 

L.C., in 1999, and served as a Member of the Legislative Affairs Committee of the Utah State Bar 

from 1997 to 2000. He began practicing law in Logan, Utah, with the law firm of Olson & Hoggan, 

P.C., and served as Managing Attorney for several years. Mr. Bearnson obtained his Bachelor of Science degree from Utah State University and his law degree from the University of Utah. He obtained 

his Certified Public Accountant certificate in 1981 and was admitted to the Utah State Bar in 1982. 

He has also been admitted to practice in various courts across the nation. 
A-5

John Cordaro

At the time of the workshop, Mr. Cordaro was President and Chief Executive Officer of the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), an association of the dietary supplement industry. Heading 

the organization since 1982, Mr. Cordaro provided the leadership for CRN to become a full-service 

trade association recognized as a leading association in the dietary supplement industry. He served as 

a spokesperson for the multi-billion dollar industry through frequent print and electronic media responses as well as various public and private forums. Mr. Cordaro has more than 35 years experience 

in domestic and international food, nutrition, and agricultural activities, including senior positions 

with the Food Safety Council, Inc., the U. S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, and the 

U.S. Department of State Agency for International Development. His numerous publications appear 

in popular magazines and in specialized and technical journals. Mr. Cordaro graduated from Loyola 

University of the South with a B.S. in government, economics, and philosophy. He later attended the 

Georgetown University Graduate School of Foreign Service and received his advanced degree in agricultural economics with a special emphasis on nutrition policy planning from Cornell University.

Harry Greene, M.D.

Dr. Greene is Medical Director and Vice President for Research and Medical Education for Slim Fast 

Foods Company. He is responsible for new research programs and the education of physicians on the 

use of Slim Fast products. Personnel under his guidance coordinate and integrate a five-million-dollar-a-year program in obesity research and medical marketing. Prior to joining Slim Fast, he served 

as Senior Director of Medical Affairs for Bristol-Myers Squibb Mead Johnson Nutritional Group, 

Director of the Clinical Nutrition Research Unit at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, and Chief 

of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition and Professor of Pediatrics and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt. An internationally recognized nutrition research specialist and pediatric gastroenterologist, Dr. 

Greene has served as President of the North American Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology/Nutrition 

and President of the American Society for Clinical Nutrition. He has published over 200 articles in 

peer-reviewed medical journals on such topics as gastrointestinal adaptation during health and disease, 

pathophysiology and treatment of type I glycogen storage disease, vitamins in health and disease, 

and lipids. Dr. Greene also participates on behalf of Slim Fast in the Partnership for Healthy Weight 

Management. Dr. Greene earned his bachelor’s degree from Baylor University and his medical degree from Emory University School of Medicine.

Andrea Levine, Esq. 

Ms. Levine is Director of the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business 

Bureaus, the advertising industry’s forum for voluntary self-regulation of national advertising. Over 

the course of her legal career, Ms. Levine has handled a wide range of advertising challenges, including drafting a comprehensive blueprint for truthful and accurate airline advertising, formulating advertising guidelines for car rentals at the request of the industry, analyzing and evaluating environmental 

marketing claims, and handling product safety issues particularly as they pertain to toys and other 

products intended for use by children. During the ten years that she served as an Assistant Attorney 

General for the State of New York, Ms. Levine worked closely with the FTC, state attorneys general 

nationwide, FDA, EPA, and CPSC. Before joining NAD, Ms. Levine was special counsel to the 

Ryan Community Health Network, a non-profit managed care company. She received her B.A. from 

New York University and her J.D. from Brooklyn Law School.
A-6

Michael McGuffin

Mr. McGuffin is President of the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA), the primary U.S. 

trade group for herbal products manufacturers. He also serves as Treasurer and a member of the 

Board of Trustees for the non-profit American Herbal Pharmacopoeia, and is Chair of the Industry 

Committee of the Plant Conservation Alliance/Medicinal Plant Working Group. He is a board member of United Plant Savers, and of the Dietary Supplement Education Alliance, a non-profit industry-funded educational resource committed to providing accurate information about supplements to 

consumers. Mr. McGuffin has been active in the herbal industry since 1975, having owned both retail 

and manufacturing businesses in the field. He is the Managing Editor of AHPA’s Botanical Safety 

Handbook (1997) and Herbs of Commerce, 2nd edition (2000). He has represented the herbal industry at state and federal hearings on herbal regulatory issues and as a member of the FDA’s Food Advisory Committee Working Group on Good Manufacturing Practices for Dietary Supplements. Mr. 

McGuffin has been quoted in a variety of news publications such as the New York Times, Washington 

Post, U.S. News & World Report, and Newsweek, and has made appearances on ABC’s Nightline, 

National Public Radio, and ABC Radio.

Elissa Matulis Myers 

At the time of the workshop, Ms. Myers was President and CEO of the Electronic Retailing Association (ERA), a trade association representing the $125 billion electronic retailing industry. Founded in 

1990, the ERA is comprised of more than 450 member companies and subsidiaries worldwide that use 

the power of electronic retailing to sell direct to consumers via television, radio, Internet, and wireless 

media. During Ms. Myers’ tenure, the organization changed its name from the National Infomercial Marketing Association to the Electronic Retailing Association, published the first comprehensive 

industry guidelines for online marketing, created inter-industry guidelines for Advance Consent Marketing and Telemarketing, and established strong participation in government forums. Ms. Myers 

also founded ERA Europe, the France-based ERA operation dedicated to helping promote electronic 

retailing across Europe. Her professional experience includes 25 years of strategic management of 

associations. She previously served as head of the publishing division at the American Society of Association Executives and developed the ASAE member database, customer service center, the International Section, the Ethics Committee, and group insurance programs. Ms. Myers is a member of the 

Committee of 100 for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Industry Functional Advisory Committee 

for the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Board of Directors of the Greater Washington Society of 

Association Executives and the National Board of Regents of the Institutes for Organization Management. 

David Seckman

Mr. Seckman is Executive Director and CEO of the National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA), 

the nation’s oldest and largest natural products trade organization. Based in California, NNFA represents more than 4,000 manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of natural products including dietary 

supplements, organic foods, and health and beauty aids. Since joining the organization in May 2000, 

Mr. Seckman has represented the industry in testimony before Congress about the benefits of healthy 

lifestyle and food choices, advanced the association’s leadership role as a standard setter, and participated in a coalition to educate consumers about the safe and effective use of dietary supplements. 

He was integral in the formation of the NNFA-China, and spearheaded the revitalization of NNFA’s 

political action committee, expanding the association’s advocacy efforts. Mr. Seckman previously 

served as Vice President for Regulatory Affairs and interim CEO for the American Health Care Association. He holds a master’s degree in health care administration from the University of Illinois and 

a bachelor’s degree in political science from George Washington University.
A-7

Lewis Shender, Esq.

Mr. Shender joined Jenny Craig, Inc. in June 2002 as Vice President, General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary. He is responsible for providing legal support to all functional areas within the 

company as well as to the Board of Directors. Mr. Shender joined Jenny Craig after serving as Vice 

President for Law and Acting General Counsel of Focal Communications Corporation, a national 

telecommunications provider, and as Vice President and General Counsel of MVE Holdings, Inc., 

an international manufacturer of liquid gas containment and application systems. Prior to that, Mr. 

Shender was with the law firm of Dorsey & Whitney, focusing on corporate transactions and venture 

capital investments. Mr. Shender is a magna cum laude graduate of Duke University and received his 

law degree from New York University School of Law.

Media Panel

John Kimball

Mr. Kimball is Senior Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer at the Newspaper Association of 

America (NAA). He is responsible for the NAA’s marketing initiatives to increase revenue, grow 

circulation and readership, and to promote and improve work processes for the $59 billion newspaper industry. Prior to his post at the NAA, Mr. Kimball served as Senior Vice President of Sales for 

Macromedia, Inc. where he integrated the sales and marketing strategies for the company’s twenty 

print properties. Mr. Kimball is on the Board of Directors of the Joint Nation Retail Federation/Retail 

Advertising Marketing Association and has served on the Boards of the Better Business Bureau in Detroit, Denver, and Northern New Jersey. Mr. Kimball, who is a decorated Vietnam Veteran, received 

a B.A. in advertising from Michigan State University and a graduate degree from the Harvard Business School Executive Management Program.

Ellen Levine

Ms. Levine is Editor-in-Chief of Good Housekeeping, the flagship women’s publication of Hearst 

Magazines. She is the first woman to serve in this position since the magazine’s inception in 1885. 

Prior to joining Good Housekeeping, Ms. Levine was Editor-in-Chief at two other major women’s 

magazines: Redbook and Women’s Day, and was a Senior Editor at Cosmopolitan. Ms. Levine frequently appears on national talk shows and news programs, and has authored numerous books and 

articles. She served two terms as President of the American Society of Magazine Editors from 1994 

to 1996. Throughout her publishing career, Ms. Levine has received many honors, including the Matrix Award for exceptional achievement in the communications industry. Also, in recognition of her 

work on the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography, the American Society of Journalists and Authors awarded Ms. Levine for her courage in the Pursuit of Truth. Ms. Levine similarly 

was honored by the Atlantic Coast Independent Distributors, Inc. for her distinguished service defending the First Amendment and the U.S. Constitution. Ms. Levine is a graduate of Wellesley College.

Don McLemore

Mr. McLemore is Vice President of Standards at New Hope Natural Media, a leading media and 

trade show company in the natural products industry. In 1998 Mr. McLemore established an in-house 

Standards Program for the company’s Trade Show and Conference Division and in 1999 extended the 

program to include its Publishing and New Media Division. The Standards Program is designed to 

support industry self-regulation. Prior to joining New Hope Natural Media, Mr. McLemore was on 

the staff of the Herb Research Foundation. His extensive clinical experience includes being the Direc-
A-8

tor of a Neuro-Vestibular diagnostics center. Mr. McLemore received an M.A. in Audiology from 

the University of Tulsa.

Dean Wilbert Norton

Dean Norton is Dean of the University of Nebraska’s Lincoln College of Journalism and Mass Communications. Dean Norton has served in this post since 1990. He also is a partner-owner of the South 

Reporter, Inc., a company that publishes two newspapers and a total market publication. He is a 

trustee of the Freedom Forum and is Vice President of the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications. He is a past President of the Association for Education in Journalism and the Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass Communications. Dean Norton’s prior 

experience includes serving as the publisher of the Daily Iowan, and the managing editor of Christian 

Life Publications, Inc. He also was on the staff of the Chicago Tribune and was sports editor of the 

Wheaton, Illinois, Daily Journal. Dean Norton has authored numerous journal and magazine articles, 

has ghost-written three books, and has directed funded research for a dozen newspapers. Dean Norton received his B.A. in history with honors from Wheaton College and his Ph.D. in Mass Communications from the University of Iowa. He also earned an M.A. in mass communications from Indiana 

University.

Joseph Ostrow

Mr. Ostrow is President and CEO of the Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau (CAB), the national 

trade association of the cable television industry. The CAB is devoted to the marketing and advertising activities of the cable industry, representing system operators that serve 85% of the nation’s cable 

subscribers. Mr. Ostrow’s key responsibilities at the CAB involve developing initiatives to increase 

advertising revenue for the industry. Prior to joining CAB, Mr. Ostrow served as Executive Vice 

President, Worldwide Media Director at Foote, Cone & Belding Communications, Inc. where he was 

responsible for FCB’s worldwide media operations. Mr. Ostrow began his career at Young & Rubicam, where he rose to the position of executive vice president, Director of Communication Services. 

A current Member of the Board of the Advertising Council, Mr. Ostrow is a well-known speaker and 

writer on issues that affect the advertising community. He previously has served as President of Media Directors Council and the Advertising Information Services and Vice Chairman of the American 

Association of Advertising Agencies’ Media Policy Committee. Mr. Ostrow attended Cornell University and New York University.

Michael Pashby

Mr. Pashby is Executive Vice President and General Manager for the Magazine Publishers of America (MPA). At MPA, among his other responsibilities, Mr. Pashby oversees the Consumer Marketing Department and works on supporting and promoting the magazine industry to its key constituencies. In the past he has coordinated the magazine industry’s position on sweepstakes promotions, and 

has developed “Best Practice” guidelines for the industry in the telemarketing area. Prior to joining 

MPA, Mr. Pashby was President and Publisher of Art and Antiques Magazine and served as Vice 

President of Circulation and New Product Development for Gruner+Jahr U.S.A. At Gruner+Jahr 

he was responsible for the circulation of Parents, Young Miss, and Expecting. Mr. Pashby earned his 

B.A. from Warwick University, England.

Professor Herbert Rotfeld

Prof. Rotfeld is a Professor of Marketing at Auburn University and author of the book Adventures in 

Misplaced Marketing. A respected scholar of advertising regulation and self-regulation, Professor 

Rotfeld is the editor of the Journal of Consumer Affairs and serves on the editorial boards of several 
A-9

other research journals. Professor Rotfeld is the recipient of the American Academy of Advertising’s 

Outstanding Contribution to Research Award in 2000, and was a columnist in Marketing News magazine and a contributing section editor for the Journal of Consumer Marketing. Professor Rotfeld 

received his B.A. and Ph.D. in Communications from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Professor Frederick Schauer

Prof. Schauer is the Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment at the John F. Kennedy School 

of Government of Harvard University. Professor Schauer is a widely recognized scholar on the First 

Amendment and his work has been the subject of numerous academic commentaries. He is the author 

of more than 125 articles on constitutional law and has written several books on the topic, including 

the Law of Obscenity, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry, and Playing By the Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision Making in Law and in Life. Professor Schauer is the former 

chair of the Association of American Law Schools Section on Constitutional Law and is a Fellow of 

the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, as well as the Radcliffe Institute of Advanced Study. 

He is co-founder and co-editor of the journal Legal Theory. In addition to appearing before many 

congressional committees on the First Amendment and freedom of speech, Professor Schauer has 

taught and advised countries worldwide on various issues concerning legal and constitutional development. Professor Schauer is a graduate of Dartmouth College, the Amos Tuck School of Business 

Administration at Dartmouth, and the Harvard Law School.