Anti-hangover drug under fire for advertising with "alcohol"
The dietary supplement Kaex makes no secret of the purpose for which it was developed. This is a thorn in the side of the Thurgau Cantonal Laboratory.
Young entrepreneur Pedro Schmid launched his Kaex development on Coop shelves at the end of 2018, thereby launching a success story. The anti-hangover remedy was sold out for weeks. And now even Migros is including it in its range, while negotiations are also underway with the German drugstore chain Müller, as the Switzerland at the weekend reports.
The food supplement, which consists of natural substances, is scientifically proven to keep the negative effects of alcohol consumption in check.
However, the product's success also brought it into the focus of various authorities. While the responsible laboratory in Zurich had no objections to Kaex, the laboratory in Thurgau objected to the product. The reason: the printed advertising violated the ban on deception. This, according to the Switzerland at the weekendstates that a foodstuff may not make claims about properties that it does not possess or that are not scientifically proven.
The packaging says "after alcohol" and a green cross is printed on it. The message: "To improve symptoms the day after consuming (too much) alcohol." However, this is not a slogan that would actually be banned in this form, but rather the interpretation of the inspector of the Thurgau Cantonal Laboratory.
Karola Krell, a lawyer specializing in food law, is "critical" of the green cross. Any kind of presentation that gives food the appearance of a remedy is prohibited. However, in the end it always depends on the overall presentation and how the average consumer understands it. "Individual statements must not be taken out of context and evaluated", she told the newspaper. Likewise, one is not always responsible for a hidden message.
The situation is therefore unclear. Kaex inventor Schmid now has two options: Adapt the packaging accordingly or go to court. He will probably refrain from doing so, although he feels he is in the right and sees himself confirmed by three independent expert opinions. But a residual risk remains. "If we were a large company and not a small start-up, we would definitely go to court".
