Hopefully you haven’t bought into this scheme, but many people likely have by now, since the commercial is very visible and the product lines pharmacy aisles in Canada and the United States. You’ve seen the commercial, and now you see the tubes of apparent medi-miracles on your trusted pharmacist’s shelf?so how could it not be legitimate?

To start with, Florida-based Miralus Healthcare’s HeadOn is essentially a tube of overpriced lip balm, and the so-called medical ingredients are contained in quantities of just a few ppm (parts per million). The product is based on ?homeopathic? principles, which gives the manufacturer some sort of excuse for selling you a stick of wax. HeadOn’s stated active ingredients (1) include white bryony and potassium dichromate, with different formulations containing minuscule amounts of these or other ?homeopathic? ingredients.

The ads use blunt force and repetition to drill the product into your head. This gimmick is needed since there is no medical evidence backing up Miralus’ claims (2). The cooling sensation it can provide on the forehead, due to menthol, seems to inspire positive reactions from some–but the actual headache or migraine relief some may feel is only a placebo effect at best. One writer describes using it, maintaining that, ?When stricken with a headache, shortly afterward, I found the product entirely useless? (3).

The vice president of sales and marketing for Miralus has stated that HeadOn works by ?stimulating your body to overcome a headache or migraine? instead of masking symptoms ?like conventional headache medicines? (4). Truly the words of a marketing wizard with nothing solid to stand on. If stimulating your body was enough to overcome a migraine, vigorous exercise or cocaine would be surefire migraine remedies. However, this isn’t known to be the case.

Amazingly, an ABC News report asking Miralis how HeadOn worked got a response saying that ?the proof is in Head On’s sales? (5) In less than one year, more than six million tubes were sold (5).

So it works because people buy it–talk about circular reasoning! Surely its sales are not because of the incredible market penetration, intense hype, and clever marketing campaign.

Nonetheless, the marketers are geniuses in at least one respect: Seth Stevensen of Slate theorizes that ?These ads give viewers headaches, thus spurring demand? (6).

One pharmacist believes that OTC (over-the-counter) manufacturers ?can sell whatever they want, and imply its intended use, without using things like science or reason to back up their claims. What’s even worse, we sell [HeadOn at our pharmacy], which implies that the licensed professionals behind the counter tacitly approve of their use. Make no mistake, I will always lead the consumer away from these types of products at my counter. Unfortunately, they don’t always ring their items up at the pharmacy counter? (7).

Pharmaceutically speaking, rubbing something on one’s forehead would not ease pain in the brain. It seems to make intuitive sense–pain in the forehead, therefore medicine on the forehead!–but what about protective barriers, such as the skull? Unless HeadOn absorbs from the forehead skin into the blood, it wouldn’t enter the brain. If it did absorb into the bloodstream, it could be rubbed anywhere, not just the forehead. The marketer is preying on those unable to make a proper distinction between a genuine medical product and a stick of wax.

Pharmaceutical companies, as criticized and hated as they are by some segments of society, actually have dual goals of making money and helping society. The makers and marketers of HeadOn and its related wax-sticks have created this product solely as a money-making enterprise–in my view, there is no benefit to anyone but Miralis and the stores and pharmacies selling it. Society loses, as the least-informed spend their income on a sham.

On HeadOn’s website, Miralis maintains that HeadOn ?is one of the safest medications available on the market today? (1).

Indeed. Logically speaking, a drug that is 6 or 12 parts per million of its active ingredient won’t cause any damage. Conversely, it won’t provide any benefit, either. The ingredient content is negligible, leaving purchasers with a menthol-infused wax.

Miralus also makes ActivOn (an ache and pain reliever) and FirstOn (an anti-itch ointment), among others. Expect more variations of the wax roll-on in the next few years, as long as OTC regulations remain lax. The marketing platform revolves around fooling the consumer based on promises and premises bordering on falsity and getting the product into drug and grocery stores to manufacture credibility. The only limit to the influx of profit is, how many variations can be dreamed up? How creative are the marketers involved?

On that note, here are a few new product line suggestions for the marketers and producers of this fine stable of ?medications? . . .

InsulOn: the roll-on wax-stick treatment for diabetes, the formerly incurable condition! Rub wherever and whenever you inject insulin, and InsulOn will heal your pancreatic failings–homeopathically, ?through the nerves?–in 4 to 6 years! ?I hate your commercials and this crap clearly isn’t the long-lost cure for diabetes, but I love your product!?

DeadOn: apply to the hands before hunting, to steady nerves in order to maximize gun-toting accuracy. The makers of DeadOn guarantee that, with use of the product, your hunting skills will be no worse than ?Dead-Eye Dick? Cheney’s. For added benefit, apply directly to the rifle!

HardOn: no explanation needed. Will be sold as a cheap roll-on alternative to Viagra/Cialis/Levitra, but instead of actually working, will be marketed based on its homeopathic one part-per-million content of one of many alleged aphrodisiacs. Maybe chocolate? Or tiger penis?

HairOn: baldness is a bazillion-dollar industry with countless devotees dedicated to finding a solution, so people will buy no matter what the proven effectiveness. Active ingredient? Who cares; just throw in something that sounds like it might, in the words of Miralis’ Marketing VP, ?stimulate your body to overcome? lack of hair! Apply directly to the bald spot!

Clearly, a major issue here is pharmacies stocking this hocus-pocus gimmickry on their shelves. Selling it in pharmacies lends it an air of credibility, with the pharmacist giving it their apparent endorsement. The debate about selling cigarettes in pharmacies should also be applied to selling deceptively marketed, useless items like HeadOn. Is it ethical for a pharmacy to sell? Pharmacies across Canada have mostly stopped selling tobacco, either by regulation (in many provinces) or conscious individual pharmacy decisions. Knowingly selling useless products to unsuspecting customers in a pharmacy is more unethical than a pharmacy selling tobacco products–because any pharmacist worth his or her weight in Vicodin will know that HeadOn isn’t worth the wax It’s presented in, while a potential purchaser may not.

Everybody knows about the risks and dangers of tobacco–but not everyone is knowledgeable about the efficacy, science, or truth behind these OTC ?health? products. Seeing them in a health-care establishment, after seeing the ads, will fool people into thinking these products are legitimate. It’s time for pharmacies to stop participating in the bamboozlement of customers trusting these health providers to put their health and well-being first. If governments don’t do anything about this deceptive marketing, health professionals enjoying the public’s trust should take the first step and say no to any health product they know to be useless.

(1) Miralus Healthcare, 2005. ?Safety.? Retrieved August 22, 2007, from http://www.headon.com/safety.htm

(2) CBS, 2006. ?Can A Roll-On Provide Migraine Pain Relief?? Retrieved August 22, 2007, from http://wcbstv.com/seenat11/local_story_191225122.html

(3) The Johns Hopkins News-letter, 2006. ?HeadOn collision.? Retrieved August 22, 2007, from http://www.jhunewsletter.com/news/2006/09/21/Opinion/Headon.Collision-2302527.shtml

(4) The Daily Collegian, 2005. ?Healing head pains.? Retrieved August 22, 2007, from http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/10/10-18-05tdc/10-18-05dscihealth-04.asp

(5) ABC News, 2006. ?Does Hyped Headache Remedy ‘Head On’ Work?? Retrieved August 22, 2007, from http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=2695490

(6) Slate, 2006. ?Head Case.? Retrieved August 22, 2007, from http://www.slate.com/id/2146382

(7) Fast Food Pharmacy, 2007. ?HeadOn, PissOff!? Retrieved August 22, 2007, from http://fastfoodpharmacy.blogspot.com/2007/05/headon-pissoff.html

Apparently, three 355 ml cans of the product will burn 60 to 100 calories. The marketers have taken a cautious effort to ensure that Enviga’s marketing materials and health claims refrain from mentioning any weight loss benefits of the product. They only reference the drink’s alleged calorie-burning potential. It leaves a person wondering why someone would be concerned about burning calories if weight-loss wasn’t the primary goal? The company’s effort to draw a fine line between weight loss and calorie burning (the latter apparently proven in a questionably-valid company-financed study) appears sneaky at best. As ABC reports, “though Enviga is not marketed specifically as a weight loss product, some doctors and consumer advocates say that looking at the ads, it’s hard to think of anything else” (Marikar, January 3, 2007).

According to CBC, “the claim depends partly on research that hasn’t been publicly released or formally reviewed by other scientists, and skeptics aren’t convinced of the health benefits” (CBC, October 14, 2006). In fact, the short-term three-day tests were conducted on healthy, normal-weight individuals on a controlled diet (Tappy, February 2007). Coincidentally, fitter people with more muscle burn calories more easily than the rest of us. It is interesting that the researchers chose to use healthy, normal-weight individuals to provide their calorie-burning numbers, while ignoring those who would be most enthused by such claims. Importantly, metabolism boosts tend to be neutralized by increased eating, in order to make up for it as our bodies strive toward homeostasis. The calorie-burning effects of Enviga over the long-term will tend to be about as static and solidified as the results of a weight-loss diet (i.e., not exactly known for lasting long or producing the same benefit long-term).

Each can has 60 to 100 calories and costs approximately US $1.29 to $1.49. That’s about four dollars a day (or more) for three cans. One month for Enviga’s recommended daily dose will cost at least US $115. The company recommended this daily dose, even though “people would have to drink more than five cans of Enviga to burn the number of calories in two Oreo cookies” (CBC, October 14, 2006). That is if we assume that the number of calories burned are scientifically accurate.

In fact, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which has launched a lawsuit against Enviga, argues that “Enviga burns money, and over the long-term is more likely to result in a negative bank balance than negative calories” (CSPI, December 4, 2006). Further, CSPI states that “the evidence that Enviga has even a minor effect is weak and inconsistent at best, and that the claims violate federal food law and state consumer protection laws” (Ibid.).

The drink was launched in the U.S. in January, and there are no public plans to bring it into Canada as of yet (CBC news, October 14, 2006). The main question arises, why would someone spend countless dollars when you can simply brew your own green tea, and perhaps (like Enviga) add some artificial sweetener to improve the taste? One of the ironies of this health product is that the relative lack of calories (only five per serving) is enabled through the use of artificial sweetener, which dilutes the meaning of the phrase “natural health product.” To really see this beverage as being health-conscious, you’d have to ignore the use of artificial sweetener, and neglect the assumption that they tend to increase hunger, rather than actually help dieters keep the pounds off. Aspartame-laced green tea may turn out to be the next best green-coloured hunger-inducer -? right behind marijuana!

Making this particular green tea-based product even less healthy is its caffeine content. Marketed as an energy drink (Marikar, January 3, 2007) as well as a health promoter (kind of like Red Bull, but with the addition of shedding calories), the suggested dosage of three cans per day contain a total of 300 milligrams of caffeine. This is the amount found in nine cans of Coke (CSPI, December 4, 2006). This in itself is not healthy, of course. The company’s tests (Tappy et al, February 2007) show that there were “no adverse effects on heart rate or blood pressure” to the subjects after drinking these nine Cokes worth of caffeine, which suggests that the carefully-selected test subjects were either spectacularly healthy or Coke-Nestle has a different definition of the term “adverse effects” or the tests weren’t conducted in as scientific a manner as they could’ve been.

The following are Enviga’s ingredients: carbonated water, calcium lactate, concentrated green tea from tea leaves, citric acid, phosphoric acid, potassium sorbate and potassium benzoate, natural flavors, aspartame, caffeine, and Acesulfame potassium (BevNet). Does that seem healthy, especially compared to regular green tea, at a fraction of the cost? The cost is a fraction of even more expensive designer brands of tea. By the ingredients alone, Enviga seems like just another carbonated soda, just with a marketing twist.

So how does one fight against the marketing magic of a scientifically questionable product that takes the benefits of green tea and dilutes it while sucking the money out of consumers? First, we must consider that in a free market system, Coca-Cola and Nestea are doing the right thing for their bottom line. They are increasing shareholder value, while introducing a potentially-blockbuster product that’ll keep the market of health nuts coming back for more. Perhaps there’s nothing wrong that is being done here. Consumers are free to ignore the product. But the issue comes down to scientific claims being made that are based on very short-term, company-financed tests. You don’t see many products on the market where non-profit organizations file lawsuits and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal steps in to ask for scientific data proving calorie-burning claims (Associated Press, February 6, 2007). Americans should feel free to buy the product knowing its claims are largely based on marketing magic. Canadians should continue to drink their green tea, along with all the health advantages it offers, while hoping Enviga dies on the vine before making it into our country, or doesn’t make it past Health Canada’s licensing requirements necessary for marketing natural health products. Perhaps such intense evaluation is why there are no plans to bring the product to Canada.

Expensive mass-market items capitalizing on health benefits of cheaper natural foods are a dime a dozen, but we might all be better off with the natural, unadulterated source of benefits. Skip the Enviga. Stick to natural green tea, Canadians, before this product comes here to suck in our weary weight-loss warriors (and isn’t that pretty much everyone?). Do you want to shed calories? Exercise and eat less. As CSPI’s Executive Director says, “If you want to lose weight, drink less Coke, not more Enviga” (CSPI, December 4, 2006).

References

Marikar, S. (2007, January 3). Drink Enviga, burn calories, lose weight? Not so fast. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Business/story?id=2758704&page=1
CBC news staff (2006, October 14). Dietitians skeptical of beverage’s calorie-burning claim. CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/10/13/enviga.html.
Tappy, L. et al. Effect of beverage containing green tea catechins, calcium and caffeine on 24-h EE and fat oxidation in humans. Retrieved from http://www.enviga.com/_doc/nestle_abstract.pdf.
Tappy, L. et al (2007, February). Effect of a thermogenic beverage on 24-hour energy metabolism in humans. Obesity, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 349-355. Retrieved from http://www.enviga.com/_doc/nestle_clinical_study.pdf.
Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) (2006, December 4). “Calorie burning” Enviga tea drink a fraud, Group Says. Retrieved from http://www.cspinet.org/new/200612041.html.
BevNet. Enviga: Nutrition and Ingredients. Retrieved from http://www.bevnet.com/reviews/enviga/facts.asp.
Associated Press (2007, February 6). Enviga’s claims investigated. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16993421/.

Trans fats are partially hydrogenated oils that were developed as a healthier, cheaper, and longer-lasting alternative to fully saturated solid fats like lard. “Healthier” no longer applies, as recent studies show that these artificially hydrogenated fats are more harmful than their saturated cousins. These fats are found in natural sources, but most of our intake comes from man-made sources ? partially hydrogenated oils that remain essentially hidden from view unless we pay close attention (and restaurants keep its use even more hidden). While both fats increase bad (LDL) cholesterol, trans fats have the additional negative effect of decreasing good (HDL) cholesterol, as well as raising “triglycerides … and causing arterial inflammation: a quintuple whammy” (according to Men’s Health)(1). According to the Harvard School of Public Health, the “combined effect on the ratio of LDL to HDL cholesterol is double that of saturated fatty acids,” and that “approximately 30,000 premature coronary heart disease deaths annually could be attributable to consumption of trans fatty acids.”(2)

We would all benefit from “bans on trans”. Conveniently, the trade-off is almost one-sided, as replacing these fats with healthier oils would retain the same flavour in foods, while barely affecting producers’ costs. Consumers benefit; producers lose little if at all, as the NY Board of Health believes that a ban would be “cost neutral”, since alternatives could be found “at the same price”(3).

Critics of a ban cite an uncomfortable infringement by Big Government on industry and consumer freedoms. On their site Trans-FatFacts.com (think of a jolly pro-tobacco site if the Internet existed in the 1950s), the Center for Consumer Freedom — a group funded by food companies and restaurants — offers a quote from a marketing strategist, saying, “There’s a reason why consumers like partially hydrogenated oils. Let’s face it?fat tastes good” (4).

The logical progression here is that consumers should be free to drown in trans fats, because fat tastes delicious. No mention of the fact that trans fats are easily replaced by natural fats, or that consumers don’t particularly “like” trans fats ? they like fat, period, and won’t notice if one is replaced by a similar, healthier version. (Pro-trans fatties, pardon the phrasing, have no qualms about scaring consumers into believing their favorite foods will be banned altogether if trans fats are regulated.)

While the hype over trans fat may be overblown ? it is not toxic, nor will it erode our lifespan if we eat a burger or cupcake or three ? countervailing arguments are often exaggeratory. For instance, a Jackson Citizen-Patriot editorial worries, “the trans-fat Nazis will have to pry from our cold, dead hands this newsroom’s once-a-week dose of [trans fat-containing] doughnuts.” The editorialist believes that government action against trans fats is a “trend worth watching — perhaps even fearing.” (5)

The trans fat Nazis want to help you and your children, dear; your donut will remain, it’ll just be better for you. Those fascists!

Further, a January 11th Washington Times editorial reads, “The nation’s food zealots have taken a page from their anti-smoking counterparts. They’ve started out with a small target — a ban on restaurant use of trans fats. Here’s what I predict is their true agenda: If banning a fat that’s only 2 percent of our daily caloric intake is wonderful, why not ban saturated fats, the intake of which is much higher?”(6)

Such a slippery-slope argument is fallacious, as is the “consumer freedom” argument, which actually refers to corporate/restaurant freedom at the expense of consumers. Certainly, saturated fats cannot be banned unless meat and essentially food in general, is eliminated ? quite unlikely. Critics characterize a ban as an assault on individual freedom and liberty, essentially a Health Jihad on North American cuisine. They refer to Big Brother; “food zealots”; at the root is a distrust of government. A libertarian can appreciate the government’s banning of harmful chemicals from our water; only the government can rid our food supply of useless, harmful trans fats. The science is behind them, as are citizens’ interests.

Consumers could make their own choices, of course ? but information is not easily available from restaurants, nor is everyone capable of making an educated decision. Labeling requirements are beneficial, but this isn’t a great leap from banning the fats outright, and is quite expensive.

Another argument against banning trans fats is that the science isn’t clear or settled. Writes the Center for Consumer Freedom, “the science about trans fat is less clear than Big Brother would care to admit” (7). Indeed, science is never as clear as it could be on some issues ? but if our health is on the line, why should we wait for further validation? The science is quite clear: artificial trans fats are worse for us than natural ones (through the previously-noted “quintuple whammy”).

Finally, the larger point that industry groups are missing in their perceived quest for minimizing costs is that giving consumers confidence that their food is free of trans fat can only increase sales, which may even lead to increased profits.

Sometimes, Big Government (to adopt the critics’ terminology) does have citizens’ best interests at heart. So does Big Science. And sometimes, Big Food doesn’t ? and this is one of those times. The public has already won in New York City, and other jurisdictions and nations should follow. Consumers will remain just as free to eat fried chicken or doughnuts, manufacturers and restaurants will adapt quickly and inexpensively, and we’ll all be better off health-wise. The incorporation of trans fats into our consumer culture was a mistake ? and it’s time that it was corrected.

Rob Fursiewicz was recently awarded a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Alberta, and is currently working towards a B.Management degree at Athabasca University. He can be reached at rf1@ualberta.ca.

Sources cited:

(1) http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1608/is_5_19/ai_100545103
(2) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/reviews/transfats.html
(3) http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,,1882606,00.html
(4) http://www.trans-fatfacts.com/better.htm
(5) http://www.mlive.com/news/jacitpat/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1168878911180270.xml&coll=3
(6) http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070110-102836-4215r.htm
(7) http://www.cspiscam.com/headline_detail.cfm?id=3138
Additional Reference: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/cardio/cardio-transfat-healthcode.shtml