A mother is upset that her son is often teased about being short. She tries various methods to increase his height, even going to the extent of keeping him hanging from a parallel bar. Nothing works. But then the child begins to have the health drink, Complan, and hey presto! He starts to become taller.

The advertisement has infuriated consumer groups and the authorities alike. For it not only discriminates against short children — the child is called a “half ticket” by his friends in the ad — it also makes nutritional claims that may not hold up to scrutiny.

In fact, after receiving complaints from the Indian Academy of Paediatrics (IAP) and the Association for Consumers’ Action on Safety & Health (Acash), the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration recently filed a chargesheet against food major Heinz India (the makers of Complan), terming the offence as “an exaggerated advertisement on television channels”.

Of course, this is not the first time that companies have made “exaggerated” claims for their products. There are television commercials of baby oils that show an infant growing faster and walking sooner after being massaged regularly with the oil. Or those that claim that an iron-rich cereal or a calcium-rich biscuit can work wonders for a child’s intelligence.

This despite the fact that in some cases the claims may be totally contrary to the facts. For example, paediatrician Dr Santanu Ray speaks of instances where infants massaged with baby oils develop rashes. “We advise mothers not to massage babies below six months of age with oil, as it might lead to the clogging of sebacious pores and lead to rashes.”

Experts say that it is always easier for companies to woo parents by targeting children. “Parents have a tendency to follow flashy ads that promise to make their children sharper, stronger and taller,” says clinical psychologist Rajyasree Bandopadhyay.

But don’t all advertisements tend to pump up the products they are selling? Then how do you distinguish between harmless exaggeration and harmful misinformation?

Heinz India defends itself by saying that its claims are based on a scientific study conducted by the department of food science and nutrition of a well known Tamil Nadu university. In response to The Telegraph’s queries, a company spokesperson, who did not wish to be named, replied in an email, “The study, conducted on 900 children from different backgrounds in the age group of 7-12, proves that children who drink Complan along with a regular diet grow faster compared to those who had only a regular diet.”

But paediatrician Dr R.K. Anand, who in the late ’70s helped to formulate the Infant Milk Substitute Act (that stopped using pictures of babies on baby food tins to lure mothers into buying these products), says that there are loopholes in the Complan study. “There were three control groups — one put on usual diet, another on usual diet plus Complan and the third group on usual diet plus Complan and milk. The company claims that the third group grows the best. Interestingly, the study did not include a group that was given the usual diet plus milk. The question is, do our children, especially those from poor backgrounds, need the usual diet plus milk or the usual diet plus Complan?”

Besides, says Dr Anand, growth and how tall a child will be depend more on genetic factors, weight at birth, lack of breastfeeding, and so on, rather than on the intake of health drinks.

Consumer activists also point out that the Complan study was a company-sponsored one and hence cannot be completely relied upon. “How can we accept the data as independent and fair,” asks Bejon Misra, an expert on consumer affairs. Besides, the maximum number of malnourished children in India is found to be below the age of five years. Yet the study was conducted on children between seven and 12 years.

Moreover, there is a protocol for using clinical studies that are to be cited as evidence for a promotional. “Such studies have to be registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India, under the drug controller of the Government of India. If not, the study cannot be quoted as evidence,” says Dr Arun Bal of Acash.

Heinz India claims that its study was published in The Indian Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics, an internationally indexed journal. “But that’s not the authorised body,” counters Dr Bal.

But does the advertising industry also not have a responsibility to filter out potentially contentious ads of this nature? Says Alan Collaco, secretary general of the Advertisements Standard Council of India (Asci), “We demand that ads should be honest. If based on any independent research study, the source and date of the study has to be mentioned along with the ad. The advertisement agencies have to keep a copy of the research data and in case of a complaint they too have to substantiate the claim in the advertisement by producing the relevant papers.”

Asci also has a code of conduct and the guidelines that advertisements need to be follow. Anybody who feels that a particular advertisement is in violation of these guidelines can lodge a complaint at asci@vsnl.com.

The 63rd World Health Assembly in May this year passed a resolution on how to market food and non-alcoholic beverages to children. It stressed that television advertising was influencing a child’s preference, purchase and consumption of foods. The assembly suggested independent and transparent monitoring of claims made in ads by the private sector at national and international levels.

Till such a practice is implemented, consumers need to keep their eyes and ears open and not trust every fabulous claim made by advertisements.