Show Hide image

Flat Tummy Tea: why the ASA is cracking down on influencers shilling detox drinks

Will a new ruling put an end to the #teatox trend?

The pictures are nearly always the same. A reality TV star, wearing a sports bra, holds up two sachets of tea for the camera. The larger packet is emblazoned with a light pink, one-word promise: “ACTIVATE”. The smaller one reads “CLEANSE”. These are adverts for Flat Tummy Tea – a detox tea that claims to reduce bloating – but you won’t see them plastered on the underground or splashed across a magazine. Adverts for Flat Tummy Tea most frequently appear on the Instagram profiles of the rich and famous – from Khloe to Kourtney to Kylie Kardashian.  

Today, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint against one of these ads. Back in March, Geordie Shore star Sophie Kasaei shared an Instagram post espousing Flat Tummy Tea. In a split screen before-and-after style photograph, Kasaei is seen with a bloated belly and a high ponytail. Next to this is a photograph presumably meant to have been taken at a later date, where Kasaei’s weight and her ponytail are down. “Nothings [sic] gonna get you flat the same as this tea will. The excuses are in the past, much like the water weight I used to have,” she captioned the post.

If you follow vloggers, bloggers, or reality TV stars on Instagram, this type of post will be familiar. Social media stars advertise a range of detox teas (#teatox!) including Fit Tea, Bootea, Skinny Tea, Lyfe Tea, and Flat Tummy Tea itself (which retails at £37.21 for a four week pack). Despite a swathe of negative online reviews (“all it does is give you gas and make you go to the bathroom”) and health warnings from medical professionals about senna, a laxative often included in detox teas, celebrities continue to sell these teas. It appears the teatox trend relies on consumers caring less about what’s in a product and more about who it’s in. Will the ASA’s ruling change things?

The ASA have investigated two issues with Kasaei’s post, upholding both of the complaints as a breach of the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) code. The first complaint challenged Kasaei’s claim the tea could help with water weight, finding that the company in charge of Flat Tummy Tea, Nomad Choice, had no scientific data to back up this claim. On Flat Tummy Tea’s own site, their claims are more carefully crafted, forgoing mentions of weight loss for promises of cleansing, energy-boosting, and metabolic benefits.  An asterisk then notes that these claims have “not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration”, yet such caveats are not readily disclosed in celebrity Instagram posts.

The second complaint challenged the very name of the product itself, which is not compliant with the EU’s Register of nutrition and health claims. To advertise Flat Tummy Tea, the product name has to be accompanied by a health claim listed as authorised by this Register – something Nomad Choice lacks. As they cannot yet prove that sipping their tea guarantees a flat tummy, the ASA found they breached the code.

The detox tea industry relies on influencers, so this landmark ruling could affect business. Yet marketers have always been very good at getting round advertising rules. Since 2014, social media stars have had to mark paid-for-promotions with the hashtag #ad (advert) or #spon (sponsored) – and in April, the ASA upheld a complaint against the makeup blogger who failed to do so in another advert for Fit Tummy Tea. Yet in June, Khloe Kardashian snuck #ad in her post for a hair supplement in an arguably disingenuous way. “This is more than just an #ad,” she wrote, “because I truly love these delicious, soft, chewy vitamins”.

Whether the ASA’s ruling will affect influencers and tea companies therefore remains to be seen. Kasaei’s advert only fell under the ASA’s jurisdiction because she is a British star advertising to British consumers, but it is up to America’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to make rulings on any Kardashians advertising tea (it’s worth noting that Khloe posted about the benefits of Flat Tummy Tea and Fit Tea within weeks of each other). Kasaei’s ad has now been banned from appearing again in its current form, and the ASA have told Flat Tummy Tea to ensure that future adverts don’t make claims which aren’t listed as authorised on the EU Register. Before these health claims are registered, they will be unable to use their current brand name in an ad.

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Ann Summers can’t claim to empower women when it is teaming up with Pornhub

This is not about mutual sexual fulfilment, it is about eroticising women’s pain. 

I can’t understand why erotic retailers like Ann Summers have persisted into the twenty-first century. The store claims to be “sexy, daring, provocative and naughty”, and somewhat predictably positions itself as empowering for women. As a feminist of the unfashionable type, I can’t help but be suspicious of any form of sexual liberation that can be bought or sold.

And yet, I’d never really thought of Ann Summers as being particularly threatening to the rights of women, more just a faintly depressing reflection of heteronormativity. This changed when I saw they’d teamed-up with Pornhub. The website is reputedly the largest purveyor of online pornography in the world. Pornhub guidelines state that content flagged as  “illegal, unlawful, harassing, harmful, offensive” will be removed. Nonetheless, the site still contains simulated incest and rape with some of the more easily published film titles including “Exploited Teen Asia” (236 million views) and “How to sexually harass your secretary properly” (10.5 million views.)  With campaigns such as #metoo and #timesup are sweeping social media, it seems bizarre that a high street brand would not consider Pornhub merchandise as toxic.

Society is still bound by taboos: our hyper-sexual society glossy magazines like Teen Vogue offer girls tips on receiving anal sex, while advice on pleasuring women is notably rare. As an unabashed wanker, I find it baffling that in the year that largely female audiences queued to watch Fifty Shades Darker, a survey revealed that 20 per cent of U.S. women have never masturbated. It is an odd truth that in our apparently open society, any criticism of pornography or sexual practices is shut down as illiberal. 

Guardian-reading men who wring their hands about Fair Trade coffee will passionately defend the right to view women being abused on film. Conservative men who make claims about morals and marriage are aroused by images that in any other setting would be considered abuse. Pornography is not only misogynistic, but the tropes and language are often also racist. In what other context would racist slurs and scenarios be acceptable?

I have no doubt that some reading this will be burning to point out that feminist pornography exists. In name of course it does, but then again, Theresa May calls herself a feminist when it suits. Whether you believe feminist pornography is either possible or desirable, it is worth remembering that what is marketed as such comprises a tiny portion of the market. This won’t make me popular, but it is worth remembering feminism is not about celebrating every choice a woman makes – it is about analysing the social context in which choices are made. Furthermore, that some women also watch porn is evidence of how patriarchy shapes our desire, not that pornography is woman-friendly.  

Ann Summers parts the net curtains of nation’s suburban bedrooms and offers a glimpse into our peccadillos and preferences. That a mainstream high street retailer blithely offers guidance on hair-pulling, whipping and clamps, as well as a full range of Pornhub branded products is disturbing. This is not about women’s empowerment or mutual sexual fulfilment, it is about eroticising women’s pain. 

We are living in a world saturated with images of women and girls suffering; to pretend that there is no connection between pornography and the four-in-ten teenage girls who say they have been coerced into sex acts is naive in the extreme. For too long the state claimed that violence in the home was a domestic matter. Women and girls are now facing an epidemic of sexual violence behind bedroom doors and it is not a private matter. We need to ask ourselves which matters more: the sexual rights of men or the human rights of women?