New York, NY – September 5, 2006 – The Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program (ERSP) has determined that Iovate Health Sciences International (Iovate), marketers of the Accelis Weight Loss Supplement (Accelis), have provided a reasonable basis for all general performance and testimonial claims. ERSP has recommended the marketer modify secondary claims. The marketer’s advertising was reviewed pursuant to an anonymous challenge.

ERSP, the electronic direct-response  industry’s self-regulatory forum, is administered by the Council of Better  Business  Bureaus  (CBBB)  with  policy  oversight  by  the  National  Advertising Review Council (NARC).

ERSP reviewed core claims that include:

• “Clinical research has shown that the key ingredients in Accelis cause and accelerated weight loss.”
• “…lose 10. 65 pounds fast.”
• “With Accelis, you can lose weight rapidly.”
• “The rapid-release liquid technology is unlike any product on the market today and actually enhances the absorption of the weight-loss ingredients.”
• “Lost 32lbs”; “I lost 32 pounds–fast!”
• “I think it is one of the few products out there that has any detail, which is a significant factor that people should look for in a diet product. I think it is a well thought out.” [Dr. Andrew Parkinson]

Following its review of the evidence, ERSP determined that general weight loss claims were supported by the eight-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study of subjects following a controlled diet based on body weight.

ERSP did not object to Dr. Parkinson’s and or consider it a “doctors’ recommendation” claim and determined that the consumer testimonials used in the advertising  were sufficient when accompanied by necessary disclosures.

However, ERSP expressed its concerns with the marketer using unqualified “rapid” and “fast” weight loss claims, and recommend that the claim be presented in the clear and conspicuous context of and in close proximity to a defined time element  (i.e., “In an 8 week study…”).  ERSP determined that the data provided by Iovate could not support such a take-away. ERSP was not persuaded that a single study provided the necessary evidence to support claims that the product or the primary ingredient has been “clinically proven.”

Iovate, in its marketer’s statement, said it  “…appreciates ERSP’s careful consideration of the relevant “Iovate will closely consider ERSP’s recommendations on the secondary claims and changes to future advertising that are consistent with this decision,” the company said.