'Sugar causes wrinkles' is misleading

Douglas's television commercial for its anti-wrinkle cream is misleading. Douglas wanted to tell consumers that cellular saccharification can have a detrimental effect on the skin as the years go by. And that its product would be the solution. But the statement 'sugar causes wrinkles' is misleading; there is no scientific evidence that this causal link exists. Douglas was also unsuccessful in the appeal proceedings.

The Sugar & Nutrition Knowledge Centre Foundation (KSV) is involved in the scientific substantiation of the role of sugar in nutrition, in the knowledge that overconsumption of sugar is unhealthy.

Douglas launched a new advertising campaign. An expert, Dr Von Schmiedeberg, shows a cube of sugar in the picture, with the text: "SUGAR CAUSES WRINKLES!". According to KSV, this is scientific nonsense, and so KSV filed a complaint with the Advertising Code Committee for misleading advertising. KSV was proven right. Douglas also tried to defend its statement on appeal. However, the Board of Appeal is quite clear: 'sugar causes wrinkles' explicitly and emphatically identifies (crystal) sugar as the culprit and cause of skin aging due to saccharification of cells. The TVC says that the Douglas cream neutralises this negative effect. The claim is absolute and firm, so Douglas must provide evidence that, beyond reasonable doubt, shows a direct causal link. Douglas could not provide that evidence. KSV had also argued that current science, the Voedingscentrum and other (international) organisations do not support Douglas's claim either. The Board of Appeal also found the TVC misleading; consumers were convinced to purchase the anti-wrinkle cream with an incorrect argument. So Douglas had to discontinue its TV campaign, just like the expressions on social media. Before Christmas, for example, all wrinkle posters had to be removed from the shops.

Ebba Hoogenraad argued this case on appeal for KSV.