Yahoo Web Search

Search results

  1. POM Wonderful makes claims in promotional materials to have spent tens of millions of dollars for research. There are two broad types of research being sponsored and published. One type regards the proposed health benefits of pomegranate juice, the other type regards chemical analysis and bio-availability of pomegranate extracts and supplements.

  2. Mar 2, 2015 · Unfortunately, merely spending the money was not enough. According to the decision, POM sponsored a relatively small human clinical heart study in 2004, which it featured in advertising, without mentioning two larger studies it conducted in 2005 and 2006 that had contrary findings.

  3. POM appealed to the D.C. Circuit, maintaining that it did have sufficient evidence for its claims, but that it was unnecessary—and practically impossible—to meet FTC’s standard and that the standard violated POM’s First Amendment rights.10 FTC’s findings on appeal are entitled to a deferential 3 Id. at *12. 4 Id. 5 Id. at *21. 6 Id. 7 ...

  4. Feb 6, 2015 · POM Wonderful, its owners and affiliate spent more than $35 million on pomegranate-related medical research, sponsoring more than one hundred studies at forty-four different institutions. POM Wonderful touted the results of some of these studies in its ads and promotional materials without noting the studies’ limitations or the existence of conflicting evidence.

  5. Apr 13, 2015 · The company said it has conducted $35 million-worth of peer-reviewed scientific research concerning pomegranates and pomegranate juice. “Just because you spend a lot of money doing this kind of research doesn’t assure you are going to be able to use it," Mister said. “Companies need to know doing this kind of research is a gamble."

  6. May232012. The FTC vs. POM Wonderful: the latest round. I’ve been following the legal battles between the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the makers of POM juice and other pomegranate juice products with avid interest, mainly because they deal with the credibility of sponsored scientific research. This week, an administrative law judge ...

  7. People also ask

  8. Apr 17, 2013 · In POM, the Commission ruled that POM’s use of qualifiers such as “may, can, preliminary, promising and encouraging” did not change the overall net impression that the “advertisements were claiming clinical proof” because the statements were coupled with medical symbols or noted the millions of dollars POM spent studying the benefits of its products.

  1. People also search for