Ofquack's 'Kitemark' is Deflated

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

I understand from little dickie birds that the newly launched Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC), or Ofquack to give it its official title, has been seeing a few lawyers' letters flying backwards and forwards between itself and other organisations.

The CNHC was set up by the Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health and the Department of Health to form a voluntary register for quacks, charlatans, mountebanks and other hawkers of dubious medical practices, so that the public can have 'confidence' in them with a government approved stamp. Maggie Dunn, co-Chair of the CNHC, believes "there are going to be a significant commercial advantages to signing up". No doubt, Maggie.

Criticism of the new body has been widespread with commentaries in the Economist and the FT. As the Oxfordshire MP Evan Harris was reported to have said in an article in the Guardian (False Assurances),
This register is an attempt to give legitimacy to a business model founded on deceiving the public with pseudo-scientific and misleading health claims.

One way Ofquack was going to allow its registrants to differentiate themselves from unregistered and obviously 'bad' quacks was by allowing its members to display a 'kitemark'. Their home page said,

Our key function is to enhance public protection, by setting standards for registration with CNHC. We anticipate that obtaining the CNHC "kitemark" will swiftly be recognised as the hallmark of quality for the sector.

In an interview with the Foundation for Integrated Health, Maggie Dunn said,
Complementary healthcare practitioners have been working in some cases for a couple of decades to get here. They don't want just another register. They want a proper regulator who can offer a kitemark and a gold standard.

Members will be able to proudly display their 'Kitemark'.

When you register you will be sent a certificate, incorporating the CNHC kitemark, for public display, showing the details of your entry on the CNHC Register. You will also be able to use the kitemark in your publicity materials. People will also be able to search the Register on-line to check that you are registered.

Now, the only problem is that the only organisation that is allowed to award kitemarks is the British Standards Institute. They say,

The Kitemark® is the world's premier symbol of trust, integrity and quality. Manufacturers having this associated with their product or service will reassure customers and specifiers alike that they have satisfied the most rigorous of quality processes.

And it looks like a number of troublemakers have let the BSI know how the CNHC are using their registered trademark. A comment from 'zeno' on a recent thread of mine (Ofquack's Toothless Squawk)reports that the BSI have taken action,

"Thank you for your enquiry and your concern for Kitemark. Please be assured that we take the protection of our trademark extremely seriously and all potential mis-usage is reported to our Group Legal department where we have a team specialised in Intellectual Property and its protection.

The legal team have been in contact with CNHC about their use of Kitemark and the Co-Chair of this organisation has assured us that they did not intend to mis-use Kitemark, have issued sincere apologies and have committed to put this in writing along with a commitment not to use the word again.

If you re-visit the links you should see that they have removed reference to Kitemark. Naturally should CNHC be interested in commissioning a standard and a Kitemark scheme then BSI would be only to happy to discuss this with them.

Thank once again for your query and I hope that this clarifies the situation and our action."

The CNHC have rapidly updated their web site to remove all traces of their fledgling 'kitemark'.

I find it rather remarkable that the CNHC, after taking years to get set up, has got such basic things wrong. I do think this rather supports my view that Ofquack is nothing but a thin veneer of so-called regulation being applied to dubious practices to keep both Prince Charles happy and to allow the government to say they are 'getting tough' on quacks. The result is nothing but an official rubber stamp on a deluded trade that does nothing to protect people from the absurdity of alternative medicine.

And one can only speculate what extra costs have now been incurred. How much printed material and certificates will have to be reworked?

(PS Ta Dr* T for the logo)

Labels: , ,

 


21 Comments:

Blogger zeno said...

:-)

A small result, but we need to keep OfQuack on their toes.

BSI said: "Naturally should CNHC be interested in commissioning a standard and a Kitemark scheme then BSI would be only to happy to discuss this with them."

As someone who has helped write European Standards representing the BSI, I want to be a fly on the wall when they discuss a British Standard for Reiki or homoeopathy!

04 February, 2009 13:34  
Anonymous SciencePunk said...

What, you mean the CNHC isn't going to apply for BSI's rigorous testing?

04 February, 2009 14:06  
Anonymous Blue Wode said...

Another great piece. However, the CNHC link in your opening paragraph appears to be down. Any idea why?

04 February, 2009 16:14  
Blogger Le Canard Noir said...

link fixed

04 February, 2009 16:21  
Blogger Warhelmet said...

They could go down the ISO9000 route.

04 February, 2009 18:13  
Blogger Dr* T said...

I am deeply honoured to see the OfQuack logo used! As you may notice in the detail, I'm not very adept at photoshopping.

T

04 February, 2009 19:27  
Anonymous UKdietitian said...

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then I guess Registered Dietitians should be flattered that Nut Nutritionists want SO much to be like them at a superficial contact level that they copy the HPC check scheme 'tick' - see http://www.hpcheck.org

Lets hope CNHC come up with an alt.logo to match their alt.qualifications.

I'd suggest 'OfQuack' within a red triangle, similar to road warning markings.

Or perhaps an exclamation mark with the whole text in red to make it easy for gullible punters to recognise a deluded nutritionism profession if ever there was one....

04 February, 2009 23:24  
Blogger John H said...

Good post Canard.

So """a voluntary register for quacks, charlatans, mountebanks and other hawkers of dubious medical practices""" will provide """significant commercial advantages""" for those signing up.

That more or less sums up the entire quack industry.

Mendacious nonsense with no scientific basis. At least Zappa was being honest when he said he was only in it for the money.

It heartens me to see the stand the BSI have taken on the hijacking of the kitemark.

I love the thought thay MY totally useless pixy dust pills might be kitemarked but YOUR equally useless pixy dust pills do not come up to scratch.

We are trying to establish who could best write about this drivel and the current forerunners are Swift, Kafka, Orwell and Vonnegut.
Any other contributions from writers familiar with perverting reality are welcome.

05 February, 2009 10:55  
Blogger Claire said...

"We are trying to establish who could best write about this drivel and the current forerunners are Swift, Kafka, Orwell and Vonnegut.
Any other contributions from writers familiar with perverting reality are welcome." [JohnH]

Flann O'Brien?

05 February, 2009 15:11  
Blogger John H said...

Good suggestion Claire.

But nothing along the lines of The Third Policeman which I thought was rubbish.

05 February, 2009 19:06  
Blogger Dr* T said...

**pokes John H in the eye**

That's my favourite book.....
[/derail]

05 February, 2009 20:43  
Blogger John H said...

Well thanks for the poke in the eye Dr* T.

Here am I thinking you were a man of discourse, academic debate and erudition and your opening gambit is to resort to physical violence.

At least you didn't call me a Nazi/Stalinist/Extreme Liberal.

The Third Policeman is still rubbish though. If I was a pomo twat I would write four pages on signifiers but suffice to say that the obvious ending rather diminished the surrealism of the opening.

06 February, 2009 10:02  
Anonymous Sean Ellis said...

Once again, here's a link to the Number 10 petition requiring evidence of efficacy and safety be made a requirement for CNHC approval.

07 February, 2009 16:40  
Anonymous Andrew Clegg said...

Hey Andy,

Not sure if you'd spotted this already, but you got mentioned in this fortnight's Private Eye! There's a column about the CNHC in the serious bits at the back, and they credited you with the term 'OfQuack'.

I've had a couple of letters published pointing out health balls, but that's much cooler.

08 February, 2009 15:13  
Blogger zeno said...

Andrew said: "they credited you with the term 'OfQuack'"

Don't tell him that! He'll be wanting royalties for it... :-)

Sean: you were wanting publicity for your petition: a letter to Private Eye might work?

08 February, 2009 15:38  
Anonymous Sean Ellis said...

@zeno: Thanks; done. Don't know why I didn't think of it before.

09 February, 2009 15:09  
Anonymous Dr Aust said...

Perhaps Andy could licence a small duck logo to CNHC for use by "registered practitioners".

They could call it "The Quackmark"

09 February, 2009 22:24  
Blogger Le Canard Noir said...

Dr Aust - you are a genius.

And by the way, I met your dad on Saturday and he bought me a pint. A gentleman too.

09 February, 2009 22:30  
Anonymous Sean Ellis said...

OfQuack now has a twitter feed. Follow ofquack for news and alerts!

27 February, 2009 22:29  
Blogger zeno said...

After OfQuack breaking their own Privacy Policy, abrogating their responsibilities about ensuring their quacks are of good character to other organisations, cocking up trying to fix said breach of their Privacy Policy, they may also be breaking the Data Protection Act!

22 March, 2009 00:45  
Blogger zeno said...

There's more...

What's the connection between OfQuack and a Mexican holiday rental company?

And do OfQuack care about their quack's personal data as much as they care about whether any of the quack therapies actually work?

Loads of details here.

23 March, 2009 02:10  

Post a Comment

Please review my comments policy. Remember, posting as 'Anonymous' marks you out as an idiot.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

About Me

The Quackometer has been developed by Andy Lewis. If you wish to get in contact then please read the FAQ and then email me. Details in the About section.

Subscribe

Get email alerts when the blog is updated.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Tools

Get the QuackSafeTM Surfing 4 in 1 Toolbar. Access the quackometer from any web page.

 

Subscribe to the Quackometer Blog by Email

Find out more

Visit the Quackometer Amazon Store. Buy books there and help support the quackometer