Last week, it was reported that two women from Leicester were seriously ill in hospital after drinking an aloe vera juice drink. There was no suggestion the brand was at fault. It seems the cause of their illness was that the aloe vera container was contaminated with ketamine.

But there is a second, unanswered question in this story – why were the women taking what they believed to be aloe vera to begin with?

The product mentioned in the story, Gayatri brand aloe vera juice, is marketed online with a variety of exciting health benefits, calling it "useful" in the treatment of digestive system conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

Were these women motivated to drink this by the promise of similar health benefits? And if so, were the women right to believe what they were told?

The advice from the National Health Service is that in the treatment of IBS "there is fair evidence of no significant effect of aloe vera compared with placebo" and also warns that "there are potentially serious adverse effects".

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) recommends in its 2007 draft guidelines that "primary care clinicians should discourage the use of aloe vera in the treatment of IBS".

You may wonder how traders can get away with making unproven claims of efficacy for health products. The problem is not an absence of law.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 protect us not only from traders trying to market their product with outright lies but also from traders who make claims without first verifying that they have the evidence to back them up.

The regulations enable an enforcement agency, such as trading standards or Office of Fair Trading, to request that a trader provides "evidence to the accuracy of any factual claim".

If the trader fails to provide evidence, or has inadequate evidence, the agency can then take legal action. In extreme cases, the enforcement agency can apply to the court for sanctions against the trader.

It is easy to see why it is so important to place the onus of evidence on to the trader making the claim.

In most cases, it would be impossible for an enforcement agency to tell the difference between an outright lie and a simple lack of interest in verifying the truth.

Arguably the harm done either way is identifiable.

There is little practical difference between claiming something you know not to be true and claiming something you do not know to be true.

So, if the regulations exist, why do these claims persist? The problem, unsurprisingly, appears to be with an almost complete lack of enforcement by councils, coupled with huge regional variation in interest in tackling the problem.

In 2009, after finding that a large number of chiropractic practices around the UK were claiming on their websites to be able to treat infant colic with a back massage, I made complaints to trading standards offices in 88 councils.

The variation of response was shocking.

At the extreme end of efficiency was Kate Alexander from trading standards in Hounslow.

Not only did she reply to my letter almost immediately and ensure that the practice in question removed the claims, she proactively sought out other practitioners in the region and advised them of their obligations under the Act.

With most councils, including Leicestershire, practitioners were simply contacted and advised to remove the claims.

But at the other end of the scale, were bodies that seemed almost hostile to the prospect of enforcement.

Several authorities told me they would only take complaints from local residents, creating themselves unnecessary paperwork as I contacted my local authority and had them log receipt of the complaint before transferring it back to the original authority.

Without doubt, the worst authorities were Edinburgh and Milton Keynes.

Both councils were convinced by "evidence" provided by the practitioners – a review subsequently commissioned by the General Chiropractic Council concluded that there is none – and, despite several attempts under the Freedom of Information Act, these councils have refused to pass this "evidence" on to me.

Several authorities, including Leicester City Council, seemed to misunderstand the very legislation that it is their duty to enforce, claiming they were "not aware of irrefutable evidence to prove that the treatment cannot help".

This is not an isolated response from an authority.

Leicestershire Trading Standards failed to prevent a company claiming that its herbs could help with liver cancer until my MP intervened.

Leicester City Council has failed to stop an implausible allergy testing service from operating in Leicester, despite multiple complaints dating back to last year.

When I contacted Leicester Trading Standards with robust recorded evidence of a man claiming he had psychic powers in return for large sums of money, they were not even bothered about getting a copy of the recordings.

I do not want to give the impression that it is all bad – and there have been some notable successes, including an allergy testing company that was shut down within a few days of complaints being issued.

Let us not forget that there are other organisations, such as the Advertising Standards Authority, which are particularly good at assessing evidence and issuing adjudications, even if they do lack the teeth to enforce the regulations.

But while consumer protection regulations go largely unenforced, it is only a matter of time before people are harmed – not by contamination in this Leicester example, but by their belief in misleading claims.

Will Leicester Trading Standards decide to take action against services such as the dubious allergy test in Leicester soon.

Or do we need to wait until someone, convinced from the test that they are not allergic to nuts, becomes a statistic of anaphylactic shock?

Skeptics in the Pub - who are they?

Skeptics in the Pub is a monthly lecture series held in a number of cities, 

including Leicester.

Speakers are usually scientists or a prominent sceptic  and the talks range from subjects, such as alternative medicine to religious beliefs.

http://leicester.skepticsinthepub.org