This post (from CAMcheck.co.za) was subject to an invalid ISPA takedown notice from USN’s lawyers. The text content is repeated here in protest. No effort has been made to format this reasonably. Please visit the original site (subsequently moved out of the reach of the ISPA) for the full context.
USN has posted a response to their Website which states the following (my response follows):
2015-01-23
Dear Clients, Colleagues and Stakeholders,
USN would like to state the allegations made in the article posted on www.camcheck.co.za are categorically unsubstantiated and defamatory. This site is renowned for the author’s malicious views, and his personal vendettas against nutrition brands, and other companies who conduct business outside of the ethical medicines arena.
For many years, USN has been, and continues to be, the leading advocate in South Africa for safe and effective supplement development, global reach manufacturing, warehousing and ethical retail. USN has been cleared of the assertions referenced within the main body of this article as a course of resulting ASA investigations, where USN has provided sufficient and substantiating evidence to support the research material and product development processes.
Nutritional information and label claims are made according to the respective laws at the time, and they remain substantiated and correct at the time of print. Furthermore, USN has been committed to updating all label claims, nutritional information and product offerings as the dynamics of the relevant laws changes and adapts. This results in further protection of consumer rights, something which we wholeheartedly support.
USN has a complex research and development model, and the raw ingredients as well as the finished products are tested regularly by a third party, independent, internationally recognised and accredited testing laboratory. Products also undergo HFL screening in the UK. The organisation is compliant with both legal regulations and ethical obligations in the manufacturing of sports supplements. Please visit our website for more information and facts: www.usn.co.za.
We have initiated the due legal processes necessary to have the allegations removed from www.camcheck.co.za website. We have always been, and continue to be an ethical company, with standards above the industry requirements. Please feel free to contact us on info@usn.co.za or 0861111876 should you have any further enquiries.
Regards,
Albé Geldenhuys
Chairman & CEO: USN
Firstly, credible sports scientists throughout the world agree that approximately 95% of sport supplements (ingredients) either have no proof of efficacy or have not been shown to work. Secondly, as far as I know, there is not a single peer-reviewed study showing that any product of USN has efficacy.
Let us pick USN’s statement apart.
1. “. . . renowned for the author’s malicious views, and his personal vendettas against nutrition brands, and other companies who conduct business outside of the ethical medicines arena.”
Is Mr Geldenhuys arguing that USN is a company who conducts business outside of the ethical medicines arena? This is ambiguous. Many people in the pharmaceutical industry refer to branded medicines as ‘ethical medicines.’ And he is in the pharmaceutical business. But is he perhaps unwittingly conceding that he conducts business outside of an ethical framework?
Mr Geldenhuys offers nothing to support his allegation of my so-called ‘malicious’ intent. Just because I criticise scam products that I become aware of, doesn’t make me malicious – in fact the opposite – I am attempting to protect the consumer from harm, no matter who the seller, or what the product is. I have no personal vendetta but point out the scientific validity of these companies claims. It is called free speech and is valid, as long as my claims and arguments are valid and can be scientifically supported.
Mr Geldenhuys makes a handsome profit from selling these products, I do not earn a cent from pointing out the invalidity of the claims. Mr Geldenhuys makes it clear he has known about me for some time. It is interesting that he has been awfully quiet since March. If the post was ‘defamatory’, why is he only taking ‘action’ now?
Mr Geldenhuys may not be aware of the The Streisand effect – the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.
USN DID change USN’s Fat Block to Fat Binder, then to Waterslim, because of and after ASA rulings. Same ingredient, different name, different claims. USN claimed their 100% Whey powder had 75.1 g of protein per 100 gms of powder but actually contained 62.3 g. What about the nonsense USN “Bio-Field Balance Bracelet” modeled on the Power Bracelet scam?
2. Mr Geldenhuys writes; “For many years, USN has been, and continues to be, the leading advocate in South Africa for safe and effective supplement development, global reach manufacturing, warehousing and ethical retail. USN has been cleared of the assertions referenced within the main body of this article as a course of resulting ASA investigations, where USN has provided sufficient and substantiating evidence to support the research material and product development processes“.
Not actually true. Advertising Sanctions were pending against USN for one particular product: they withdrew the product from the market. Other products were withdrawn or claims amended after complaints were laid with the ASA. The claims made in the body of my posting are accurate, USN simply changed the name and claims of the product as claimed. It is true that in some instances, the complaint against USN was dismissed but this was not necessarily because USN could substantiate the claims, but that the complaint was deficient. And importantly, the majority of USN’s products’ claims have never been scrutinised by the ASA.
USN has NOT “provided sufficient and substantiating evidence to support the research material and product development processes“. At best, they have provided cherry picked evidence that a non-scientific body such as the ASA could evaluate out of context of the whole body of evidence. Not a single highly credible sport scientist will support the claims for most of USN’s products. I am thinking of top South African sport scientists and sports dieticians such as Dr Ross Tucker, Prof Tim Noakes, Prof Mike Lambert, Dr Jon Patricios, Shelley Meltzer, Dr Glen Hageman, Dr Amanda Claassen-Smithers, among others. The defense against an action of defamation would be that the statement is true and for the public benefit, or that it is fair comment on a matter of public interest.
3. Mr Geldenhuys writes: “USN has a complex research and development model, and the raw ingredients as well as the finished products are tested regularly by a third party, independent, internationally recognised and accredited testing laboratory. Products also undergo HFL screening in the UK.”
“. . . complex research and development model . . .” Really?!
Products tested regularly? Remember how USN contaminated products almost ruined two springbok careers? And not exactly as shown as recent as October 2014 where USN 100% Whey was found to be short of claims. Firstly, this is a recent development and I am informed that not every batch of USN product is tested. Worse, this is misleading for no matter how much testing USN undergoes, the main question is this: is there sufficient evidence to support the efficacy claims for all USN products? How about 80%? No. Has a 1% of USN products EVER been tested to see whether the claims are achievable? No. All major sports science bodies throughout the world argue that the claims made for approximately 95% of sports supplements/ingredients are nonsense. Mr Geldenhuys is confusing tests for quality and perhaps hidden banned substances, with tests of efficacy.
4. Mr Geldenhuys writes: “Nutritional information and label claims are made according to the respective laws at the time, and they remain substantiated and correct at the time of print.”
No, not exactly. USN operated in a regulatory vacuum, under the guise of a “complementary medicine”. And I am sure they were aware of ASA regulations but constantly were found at fault. CamCheck started listing ASA complaints after 2011, but ASA complaints were laid against USN products even before that. But no laws sanctioned or gave USN products proper legal status. Now the new draft Complementary Medicine regulation may result in USN’s products being ‘banned’.
5. Mr Geldenhuys writes: “We have initiated the due legal processes necessary to have the allegations removed from www.camcheck.co.za website. We have always been, and continue to be an ethical company, with standards above the industry requirements“.
Mr Geldenhuys wants to squash my (and your) comments – he is the CEO of a company that brought you among other, oxygenated water, USN’s Fat Block product which became Fat Binder after an ASA ruling, and then Waterslim when the ASA ruled against the former name. Same ingredient, different name, different claims. This is a company that brought you a number of other products with dubious claims, and will try to prevent that from being exposed. This is about creating illusions and misdirecting.
Can he prove that all his products have always been produced in accredited facilities or MCC acceptable conditions? No he cannot, we have the evidence that they were not all.
Will he able to counter my claims by contradicting the experts I have mentioned above? Unlikely. Does he want you to know the truth? Absolutely not.
CamCheck posts related to USN
MedicalBrief: Fat Blocker moves to silence fact checker March 29, 2015
UK ASA acts against USN product claims March 26, 2015
New consumer site casts doubt on (USN) supplement claims March 24, 2015
USN issues a ‘Take-down’ notice for CamCheck March 18, 2015
USN CreatineX4 – UK ruling March 18, 2015
USN ‘Carb binder’ – the scam continues February 10, 2015
White kidney bean extract for weight loss? January 29, 2015
Albe Geldenhuys / USN responds to CamCheck posting January 26, 2015
Oxygen myths that refuse to die November 18, 2014
USN 100% Whey Protein October 13, 2014
USN Fat Block – Fat chance October 3, 2014
USN Phedra-Cut Lipo XT – ASA breach ruling October 2, 2014
Anti-Doping Agency warns athletes about dietary supplements August 11, 2014
USN 19-Testo Mass – ASA ruling July 28, 2014
USN “Carb Binder” – scam product, ASA ruling July 28, 2014
USN 19 TESTO MASS – ASA ruling May 9, 2014
Albe Geldenhuys of USN, a master scam artist? March 9, 2014
Biogen Testoforte: ASA ruling – website advert November 10, 2013
Biogen Testoforte: ASA ruling – print advert November 10, 2013
USN: Previous ASA rulings November 9, 2013
USN Pure Protein Bar – ASA ruling October 10, 2013
USN Phedra-Cut Hardcore – ASA Ruling June 10, 2013
USN Fat Block – Lie, no proof that it blocks fat May 7, 2013
USN Phedra-Cut LipoXT product – ASA ruling April 7, 2013
USN Weight loss product’s claims are ‘misleading’ February 4, 2013
USN Phedra-Cut Hardcore – No proof! January 17, 2013
USN Phedra-Cut Lipo XT – ASA ruling August 1, 2012
Biogen Andrenal Boost nonsense August 12, 2011
Protein supplements give no benefit to athlete’s performance July 10, 2011