- The Advertising Regulatory Board upheld a complaint over claims that Prostasan relieves prostate symptoms, finding the evidence was inadequate.
- The advert showed an older couple whose sleep was disrupted by menopause and frequent urination, promoting Prostasan as a daily solution for men.
- The ARB ruled that the advertiser failed to provide independent expert evidence and ordered the advert’s withdrawal until proper substantiation is supplied.
The dispute before the Advertising Regulatory Board began with a familiar scene of an older couple lying awake in bed as their sleep is repeatedly interrupted. The wife tosses off the duvet during a hot flush, while the husband gets up once again to use the bathroom.
The television commercial frames these interruptions with a voiceover asking, “Hot flushes ruining your night? Frequent trips to the bathroom ruining his?” The advert then introduces two natural remedies. Menoforce is presented as relief for menopause symptoms. Prostasan is promoted for men experiencing urinary problems linked to an enlarged prostate.
The voiceover promises “a convenient once-a-day solution that works,” before ending with a door sign reading “do not disturb” and the message that if you wake up at night, it should be “for the right reason.”
This advertisement for A Vogel Prostasan, marketed by SA Natural Products, triggered a formal complaint to the Advertising Regulatory Board.
Complaint over scientific evidence
The complainant argued that the advert gave viewers the impression that taking a single tablet daily would relieve symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia in men. According to the complaint, this message was reinforced by statements on the advertiser’s website claiming the product can improve urinary symptoms, increase urinary flow, reduce residual urine in the bladder, and reduce night-time urination.
The complainant pointed out that Prostasan’s active ingredient is saw palmetto extract, and submitted that scientific evidence regarding its effectiveness remains deeply contested. While earlier studies and some manufacturer-funded research suggested benefits, more recent and independent research has frequently found the extract to be no more effective than a placebo.
A 2024 Cochrane review was cited, concluding that saw palmetto showed no improvement in urinary symptoms or quality of life compared to a placebo. The complainant also noted that major medical bodies have expressed scepticism about the ingredient, as positive studies are often inconsistent or methodologically weak.
Based on this evidence, the complainant argued that the advert created a misleading impression that the product would work for men suffering from enlarged prostate symptoms.
SA Natural Products defends the advert
SA Natural Products disputed that the advert promised universal results. The company maintained that the commercial simply described the product’s intended purpose, rather than guaranteeing effectiveness for every user.
The advertiser argued that the phrase “that works” referred to the product being designed for its intended function. The company stated that the commercial did not claim Prostasan would cure benign prostatic hyperplasia or relieve symptoms in all men.
The company acknowledged that some recent studies have questioned the benefits of saw palmetto but insisted that a substantial body of research still supports its use. According to the advertiser, credible peer-reviewed studies have shown meaningful improvements in urinary symptoms.
The advertiser also cited international recognition of saw palmetto. It pointed to acceptance by the European Medicines Agency for symptomatic treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia; the World Health Organisation monograph recognising its traditional use for urinary symptoms; and therapeutic indications recognised in German Commission E and ESCOP monographs.
In response to a request from the Advertising Regulatory Board, the company provided a number of studies it said supported the product’s effectiveness, including a 2025 publication in Pharmacognosy Reviews concluding that the extract relieves symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia.
Advertising Regulatory Board examines the claims
The Advertising Regulatory Board considered the matter under Clause 4.2.1 of Section II of the Code of Advertising Practice, which states that advertisements must not contain statements or presentations likely to mislead consumers.
The Directorate first examined the wording used in the advertisement. It rejected the advertiser’s explanation that the phrase “that works” merely referred to the product’s intended design.
The ruling stated that the claim appeared unconditional. The Directorate explained, "It does not find anything conditional in the wording 'that works.'"
The regulator also observed that the claims on the website were similarly definitive, noting there was "nothing conditional about the website’s claims to 'improve,' 'relieve,' or 'reduce' the symptoms of an enlarged prostate."
According to the Directorate, the advert presented efficacy as a key selling point. It noted that describing the product as a "solution…that works" implied it was effective and potentially superior to other remedies.
Substantiation requirement becomes decisive
Under Clause 4.1 of the Code of Advertising Practice, advertisers must possess documentary evidence supporting claims capable of objective verification before publishing advertising.
The Directorate emphasised that such evidence must be evaluated by an independent and credible expert in the relevant field. It noted that determining medical efficacy lies outside the regulator's mandate.
The ruling stated that the advertiser had acknowledged the existence of conflicting scientific studies regarding saw palmetto. Because of this, the Directorate held that the evidence submitted could not be accepted without independent expert evaluation.
The decision explained, "This conflict in scientific outcomes cannot be explained away by the Advertiser, who, by the very function of its role as the Advertiser, cannot be an independent expert."
The Directorate also expressed concern that the advertiser seemed to accept that the product might not deliver the advertised results for some consumers.
Advertising must be withdrawn
After considering the evidence, the Advertising Regulatory Board concluded that SA Natural Products failed to provide sufficient substantiation for the efficacy claims in its Prostasan advertising.
The Directorate therefore found the advertiser in breach of Clause 4.1 of Section II of the Code of Advertising Practice.
As a sanction, the advertiser was instructed to withdraw any advertising for Prostasan that states the product “works” or resolves symptoms of an enlarged prostate without qualification. The ruling allows the company to resubmit substantiation for future evaluation, but until then, the claims may not be used.
The decision formally upheld the consumer complaint.
Get your news on the go. Clickhere to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
