Shirt made of seaweed has none

[jimtron]

From the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/business/14seaweed.html?hp):

Lululemon, which has received positive media coverage for its fabrics, also says the VitaSea clothing, made from seaweed fiber supplied by a company called SeaCell, reduces stress and provides anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, hydrating and detoxifying benefits.But according to lab tests, the VitaSea garments tested negative for seaweed. Or maybe the seaweed was diluted to homeopathic ratios?

eta, Lululemon calls their clerks "educators" and prints a "manifesto" on their shopping bags:The manifesto includes messages like, “Stress is related to 99% of all illness,” “Friends are more important than money,” and “Coke, Pepsi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/pepsico_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and all other pops will be known as the cigarettes of the future. Colas are not a substitute for water. They are just another cheap drug made to look great by advertising.”What's the next one, "Hypocrisy is a virtue?"

[quixotecoyote]

from the article:

The Times commissioned its test after an investor who is shorting Lululemon’s stock — betting that its price will fall — provided Chemir’s test results to The Times.

Isn't that a completely illegal example of insider trading?

[WildCat]

Isn't that a completely illegal example of insider trading?
Only if his information came from within the company, and nothing indicates it did.

[grunion]

The real lulu lies in Lululemon's claims for the clothing, designed to appeal to the yoga-and-herbal-supplements crowd. They claim that "the VitaSea clothing, made from seaweed fiber supplied by a company called SeaCell, reduces stress and provides anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, hydrating and detoxifying benefits." So not only is there no seaweed, but even if there was they should be nailed on these fraudulent claims.

One expects that the insiders can take the edge off some of their stock losses by applying for the $1 million.

[jimtron]

The real lulu lies in Lululemon's claims for the clothing, designed to appeal to the yoga-and-herbal-supplements crowd. They claim that "the VitaSea clothing, made from seaweed fiber supplied by a company called SeaCell, reduces stress and provides anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, hydrating and detoxifying benefits." So not only is there no seaweed, but even if there was they should be nailed on these fraudulent claims.

One expects that the insiders can take the edge off some of their stock losses by applying for the $1 million.

I agree. It sounds like they have a good product that people like, but they shouldn't be making bogus health claims.

[NobbyNobbs]

from the article:



Isn't that a completely illegal example of insider trading?

Not at all. He saw what the company claimed, said to himself, "That's BS. And I can prove it. In fact, I'll put money on the fact." He plunks down his bet, calls their bluff, chemical tests prove him right, he gets paid off.

It would be insider trading if his buddy, who happens to work in the factory, says to him, "Psst, Joe, this product is total crap. The stock would plummet if anybody ever found out."

[quixotecoyote]

Not at all. He saw what the company claimed, said to himself, "That's BS. And I can prove it. In fact, I'll put money on the fact." He plunks down his bet, calls their bluff, chemical tests prove him right, he gets paid off.

It would be insider trading if his buddy, who happens to work in the factory, says to him, "Psst, Joe, this product is total crap. The stock would plummet if anybody ever found out."

I didn't think it was legal to manipulate stock prices this way. You're an investor in a company. You're pretty sure that company is selling a fraudulent product. You short sell your stock and then out the company to drive the stock prices down.

Seems fishy.

[Dan O.]

The SEC web site talks about Pump and Dump but that apparently is only illegal if the information pumping the stock is false.

I would like to see the fallout if it turns out that the shirts really do have the advertised seaweed fibers and the labs were testing for the wrong substance. The investor's action would be a fraudulent stock manipulation and the NYTimes may be charged as an accessory because they knew the investor had shorted the stock at the time they ran the story.

[jimtron]

I'm no expert on finance, but isn't it perfectly legal to openly discuss public companies, and offer one's unvarnished opinion? I agree with previous posts that it's only a problem with insider, private information. Anyone is free to speculate on the future of a publicly traded company, and to predict success or doom.

Why would it be a "fradulent stock maniputlation" to sell short and speculate a downward turn? Unless this alleged lack of seaweed would be considered insider info.

[LTC8K6]

Maybe he should hit Kinoki and their idiotic foot pad claims next... :D

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm having a real problem with "seaweed fibers". No seaweed I've ever seen or touched appeared to be fibrous what-so-ever. Any Phycologists present?

[Dan O.]

I'm no expert on finance, but isn't it perfectly legal to openly discuss public companies, and offer one's unvarnished opinion? I agree with previous posts that it's only a problem with insider, private information. Anyone is free to speculate on the future of a publicly traded company, and to predict success or doom.

Why would it be a "fradulent stock maniputlation" to sell short and speculate a downward turn? Unless this alleged lack of seaweed would be considered insider info.

Your freedom to speculate ends when you intentionally spread "false or misleading statements with respect to any material fact" in order to manipulate the stock price. [Section 9(a)(4) of the Securities and Exchange Act]

[jimtron]

Your freedom to speculate ends when you intentionally spread "false or misleading statements with respect to any material fact" in order to manipulate the stock price. [Section 9(a)(4) of the Securities and Exchange Act]

So far the lack of seaweed in the seaweed garments appears to be true--though it's hard to say for sure at this point. If the company responds with evidence that the garments do in fact contain seaweed, that's a different story. From the NYT article it seemed like Lulumon was passing the buck more than denying the allegation (IIRC).

[fls]

I'm having a real problem with "seaweed fibers". No seaweed I've ever seen or touched appeared to be fibrous what-so-ever. Any Phycologists present?

There are a number of fibres (rayon/viscose being the earliest example) that are known as 'regenerated'. The starting material (cellulose in the case of rayon, seaweed in the case of seacell) is broken down mechanically/chemically into a viscous solution. This viscous material is extruded through very fine nozzles into a bath with causes the material to solidify on contact into filaments. These filaments are then processed like any other fibre.

There has been an explosion in interest for these fibres in recent years. Examples are Lyocel/Tencel which also uses cellulose, soysilk (by-products of soy processing), silk latte (milk proteins), bamboo, ingeo (corn), crabyon (chitin), and seacell (seaweed).

Claims about anti-bacterial, anti-inflammatory, and other healing properties are made about most of them. I always took that as a marketing gimmick. I'm not sure how important that is, as practical issues such as fibre characteristics (e.g. elasticity, resilience, absorbance), are more relevant.

Linda

[Dan O.]

Maybe I need to present an analogy so the viewers of this thread can understand whet took place.

The "investor" stole your car that you had stored at the Broker parking garage by paying off the parking attendant that you trusted to watch after your property and sold this car to your neighbor. Then he proceeded to tell the neighbor all the bad stories about the car so the neighbor would want to get rid of it. The "investor" buys it back at a discount and returns it to the garage. When you return to pick up your car you find that its value has fallen significantly and your neighbor no longer wants to buy it.

How is it that this behavior is viewed as legitimate?

[Jekyll]

Maybe I need to present an analogy so the viewers of this thread can understand whet took place.

The "investor" stole your car that you had stored at the Broker parking garage by paying off the parking attendant that you trusted to watch after your property and sold this car to your neighbor. Then he proceeded to tell the neighbor all the bad stories about the car so the neighbor would want to get rid of it. The "investor" buys it back at a discount and returns it to the garage. When you return to pick up your car you find that its value has fallen significantly and your neighbor no longer wants to buy it.

How is it that this behavior is viewed as legitimate?

Because all the stories were true and the investor didn't steal anything?

The story actually works like this:

Person A: I want that car *points* by the end of next week.
Investor: Cool, give me 10 K now and I'll get that car for you by then.
Goes to person B who owns the car.
Investor: Your car (which actually has no transmission) has no transmission can I buy it from you for 3 k?
Person B: Ummm, sure, seeing as its worthless.
Investor to person A: Here you go.

It's no more immoral than anything else going on in the stock market.

[Dan O.]

You are confusing a futures contract with a short sales. The short sale with market manipulation is abusive and should be illegal even if the information is factual.

Would you loan me your shares in XYZ corp so I can sell them to new investors before telling the world that XYZ corp is overvalued? The overvaluation means that your shares are actually worth $1000 less than the current market value. But instead of you just loosing that $1000, I'll bring in another investor that will also loose $1000 and therefore double the number of investors that will be looking to sell when the value drops and at the same time, the number of investors looking to buy the stock has been reduced. So instead of dropping the $1000 to the new natural value, the price is going to overshoot and drop $2000 or more before the market learns what has happened and corrects itself. I walk away with a couple grand with almost no risk. Oh, and thanks for the loan sucker.


So far, nobody has provided evidence that the company claims with regard to the use of seaweed fibers is false. For instance, what exactly is the company claim?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

There are a number of fibres (rayon/viscose being the earliest example) that are known as 'regenerated'. The starting material (cellulose in the case of rayon, seaweed in the case of seacell) is broken down mechanically/chemically into a viscous solution. This viscous material is extruded through very fine nozzles into a bath with causes the material to solidify on contact into filaments. These filaments are then processed like any other fibre.

There has been an explosion in interest for these fibres in recent years. Examples are Lyocel/Tencel which also uses cellulose, soysilk (by-products of soy processing), silk latte (milk proteins), bamboo, ingeo (corn), crabyon (chitin), and seacell (seaweed).

Claims about anti-bacterial, anti-inflammatory, and other healing properties are made about most of them. I always took that as a marketing gimmick. I'm not sure how important that is, as practical issues such as fibre characteristics (e.g. elasticity, resilience, absorbance), are more relevant.

Linda

I knew most of that before I posted and can conceive of a fibre made from seaweed by breaking it down and reconstituting it somehow. I also did some Google and found SeaCell®. However, here is the explanation of what SeaCell® is from: http://www.underwear-options.com/seacellfibers.html

Basically, Seacell textile fiber is the result of a simple idea: the natural cellulose-based Lyocell fiber acts as the carrier for a natural, health-promoting substance -- seaweed.

This means that there is no seaweed fibre in Seacell. So I am still wondering whether anyone is actulaly turning seaweed into fibre or whether its just a scam misunderstanding. :D

[jimtron]

Dan O: Did you read the article mentioned in the OP? Here are a couple excerpts:

The fabric, according to product tags, “releases marine amino acids, minerals and vitamins into the skin upon contact with moisture.” Lululemon, which has received positive media coverage for its fabrics, also says the VitaSea clothing, made from seaweed fiber supplied by a company called SeaCell, reduces stress and provides anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, hydrating and detoxifying benefits.
The New York Times commissioned a laboratory test of a Lululemon shirt made of VitaSea, and reviewed a similar test performed at another lab, and both came to the same conclusion: there was no significant difference in mineral levels between the VitaSea fabric and cotton T-shirts.
When told about the findings, Lululemon’s founder said he could not dispute them.The Times commissioned its test after an investor who is shorting Lululemon’s stock — betting that its price will fall — provided Chemir’s test results to The Times.

We're all free to openly criticize the products made by publicly traded companies, and report faults we find. We're free to buy the stocks or short them. There's an entire industry devoted to rating companies and stocks and making suggestions. I don't see the problem.

[Dan O.]

"made from seaweed fiber supplied by a company called SeaCell" -- is this a fact or a lie?

[jimtron]

"made from seaweed fiber supplied by a company called SeaCell" -- is this a fact or a lie?
Dan, what do you think?

The above quote is a claim made by Lululemon. Two tests were done showing no seaweed. The company did not dispute this. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's an unfounded claim (ie, lie).

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Based on the info I found on Google and posted previously, I think it is possible that SeaCell does intially contain some seaweed but not as fibre. At the first wash the "anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, hydrating and detoxifying benefits" are applied to the trap in your sink.

[fls]

This means that there is no seaweed fibre in Seacell. So I am still wondering whether anyone is actulaly turning seaweed into fibre or whether its just a scam misunderstanding. :D

I think it was simply a mis-statement in the article - saying fibre made from seaweed, rather than seaweed fibre would have made it a bit clearer. But some of the claims about the properties depend upon the presence of silver, which presumably the NYT tested for. It does make you wonder. Whether or not they are actually adding seaweed powder to the lyocell, it doesn't look like it is changing the character of the resultant fibre in any meaningful way. Either they have to admit it doesn't change anything, or that they were fraudulent.

On the other hand, it doesn't strike me that the kind of people who would buy into that stuff in the first place care about whether claims are backed up by real data anyway.

Linda

[brodski]

I didn't think it was legal to manipulate stock prices this way. You're an investor in a company. You're pretty sure that company is selling a fraudulent product. You short sell your stock and then out the company to drive the stock prices down.

Seems fishy.

If he's shorting the stock, he isn't an investor yet, but will temporarily be one in the future.

[NobbyNobbs]

And here I just today finished reading "The King of Torts", by John Grisham.

[Spindrift]

Maybe it's homeopathic seaweed?

[Jekyll]

You are confusing a futures contract with a short sales. The short sale with market manipulation is abusive and should be illegal even if the information is factual.

Would you loan me your shares in XYZ corp so I can sell them to new investors before telling the world that XYZ corp is overvalued? The overvaluation means that your shares are actually worth $1000 less than the current market value. But instead of you just loosing that $1000, I'll bring in another investor that will also loose $1000 and therefore double the number of investors that will be looking to sell when the value drops and at the same time, the number of investors looking to buy the stock has been reduced. So instead of dropping the $1000 to the new natural value, the price is going to overshoot and drop $2000 or more before the market learns what has happened and corrects itself. I walk away with a couple grand with almost no risk. Oh, and thanks for the loan sucker.

Yes, I just read that he was betting against the stock and assumed he was playing the futures.

Still, he's renting rather than stealing stock, and yes he makes money at
expense of additional people losing, but this is always how people expect to make money with a short sale.

[Dan O.]

Because he made money it must be OK?? Anyone with enough resources can and do manipulate the market daily, bouncing it up and down with timed news releases. And we accept it because this is the way they have always made money!?

Allowing this kind of market manipulation destroys the trust in the market. Why should I invest in stocks or mutual funds if a manipulator can steal a large percentage of the funds with full blessing of the law?


What is the name of this masked thief that is stealing from our retirement accounts? The news article forgot to mention that.

[jimtron]

Because he made money it must be OK?? Anyone with enough resources can and do manipulate the market daily, bouncing it up and down with timed news releases. And we accept it because this is the way they have always made money!?

Allowing this kind of market manipulation destroys the trust in the market. Why should I invest in stocks or mutual funds if a manipulator can steal a large percentage of the funds with full blessing of the law?


What is the name of this masked thief that is stealing from our retirement accounts? The news article forgot to mention that.

Dan, what kind of restrictions or regulations would you suggest to avoid this?

[Dan O.]

Dan, what kind of restrictions or regulations would you suggest to avoid this?

Getting rid of short sales would be a start. Alternatively, if you want to gamble on stock market shifts, do it in a casino with other gamblers but take it out of the market.

[jimtron]

Getting rid of short sales would be a start. Alternatively, if you want to gamble on stock market shifts, do it in a casino with other gamblers but take it out of the market.

Are you just against shorting, or the general idea of the stock market? It seems to me even without shorting, it's still all about gambling, and in a sense some people gaining at the expense of others.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I think it was simply a mis-statement in the article - saying fibre made from seaweed, rather than seaweed fibre would have made it a bit clearer. But some of the claims about the properties depend upon the presence of silver, which presumably the NYT tested for. It does make you wonder. Whether or not they are actually adding seaweed powder to the lyocell, it doesn't look like it is changing the character of the resultant fibre in any meaningful way. Either they have to admit it doesn't change anything, or that they were fraudulent.

On the other hand, it doesn't strike me that the kind of people who would buy into that stuff in the first place care about whether claims are backed up by real data anyway.

Linda

I didn't read the NYT article (so sue me :)) but I would have thought that the element to search for would be iodine.

Iodine used to be an antiseptic :D. I suppose it might be useful to counter the possibilty of goiter -- but how much would you absorbe through your skin? :boggled:

[Dan O.]

The market provides the means to capitalize corporations. Owning stock is owning a piece of that corporation. I think getting rid of shorts, derivatives, classes of shares and all the other fancy trading games will help stabilize the market so it better reflects the underlying business instead of the game. Perhaps day-trading should also be treated as gambling.

[Dan O.]

I didn't read the NYT article (so sue me :)) but I would have thought that the element to search for would be iodine.

Iodine used to be an antiseptic :D. I suppose it might be useful to counter the possibilty of goiter -- but how much would you absorbe through your skin? :boggled:

The element to search for would be whatever difference there is between the fibers produced from seaweed and whatever alternative fiber is presumed to have been used. You can't just say "I think iodine would be in seaweed fibers" and claim the fibers aren't from seaweed because you didn't find iodine.

[Jekyll]

The market provides the means to capitalize corporations. Owning stock is owning a piece of that corporation. I think getting rid of shorts, derivatives, classes of shares and all the other fancy trading games will help stabilize the market so it better reflects the underlying business instead of the game. Perhaps day-trading should also be treated as gambling.

There was quite a cool paper I remember reading a while back by E.T. Jaynes speculating that, as with thermodynamics, it was all the small random perturbations, small, not necessarily well thought out short term buys, that slightly perturbs the market and drive it towards stable equilibrium.

Basically, his theory was that these 'gamblers' make the invisible hand of the market work better with faster convergence and more stability.

Unfortunately, I can't find the paper on google.

[fls]

I didn't read the NYT article (so sue me :)) but I would have thought that the element to search for would be iodine.

Iodine used to be an antiseptic :D. I suppose it might be useful to counter the possibilty of goiter -- but how much would you absorbe through your skin? :boggled:

It just says vitamins and minerals in the article. I was going by reports on the antibacterial properties of seacell which stated it was due to the silver. At least silver would be somewhat uncommon and more likely to persist, but presumably whatever they chose to test for was reasonable.

However, while the absence of these things don't necessarily mean the absence of seaweed (I think), it does mean that the clothing can't fulfill the health claims (how can it supply vitamins and minerals to the skin if the vitamins and minerals aren't present in the first place?). But the claim was nonsensical to begin with. It would be just as silly to buy into the claim before the tests were done as it would be after the tests were done. Logically, the testing shouldn't have had any difference on the stocks, unless it demonstrated fraud - i.e. that the company lied about adding seaweed.

Linda

[Dan O.]

There was quite a cool paper I remember reading a while back by E.T. Jaynes speculating that, as with thermodynamics, it was all the small random perturbations, small, not necessarily well thought out short term buys, that slightly perturbs the market and drive it towards stable equilibrium.

Basically, his theory was that these 'gamblers' make the invisible hand of the market work better with faster convergence and more stability.

I understand what you are talking about. For years, I've wanted to send Greenspan a pair of fuzzy dice for setting interest rates. Investors were reading too much into every little tweak and lost track of the long term.

But I think there will be enough individual investors in the market to provide the necessary noise as long as confidence in the market is maintained.

As for this investor trying to manipulate the market, is it still a crime if the manipulations fail and he looses money? Did the investor actually tell the times that he was shorting the stock or did they figure it out on their own and play a short squeeze against him?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

LuLuLemon is fighting back!
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/277069

But even better is the article in the National Post.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=589fb9e5-c143-48f4-99b7-7171630e8546&p=2

I mean who cannot help but like a story in which the words "hippy-dippy flapdoodle" appear? :eye-poppi

[drkitten]

Because he made money it must be OK?? Anyone with enough resources can and do manipulate the market daily, bouncing it up and down with timed news releases. And we accept it because this is the way they have always made money!?

No, it's okay because he didn't do anything wrong.

He didn't use "insider information" to get his test results; he used publically available information. Anyone who likes can buy a shirt from Lululemon and run any test they like on it.

Anyone can publicize the results of such a test if they run it.

As to the existing investors who lose money as a results of his actions -- tough noogies. They knew there was an element of risk in any investment (the brokers are very good about making sure you read that particular boilerplate), and one of the elements of risk is the possibility of fraud on the part of the company in which you invest. In theory, the investors should have done "due diligence" before they invested and made sure that the product was as advertised. The fact that they invested in a fraudulent company is their problem, not the whistle-blowers.





Allowing this kind of market manipulation destroys the trust in the market. Why should I invest in stocks or mutual funds if a manipulator can steal a large percentage of the funds with full blessing of the law?

Except that he's not stealing. If I sell you shares in a fur-bearing trout ranch, and you lose 95% of your stake when someone points out that trout don't have fur, no one "stole" anything.

He did do his due diligence. He found that the stock was overvalued. The reason that it was overvalued was because it was apparently making false claims that were the underlying basis for a major product line.


What is the name of this masked thief that is stealing from our retirement accounts? The news article forgot to mention that.[/QUOTE]

[Dan O.]

No, it's okay because he didn't do anything wrong.

we shall wait and sea.

[Wolfman]

Another point to raise here is that this was not "insider information" that only this investor knew about. It was a public investigation, and all other investors had the option to buy/sell this stock based on their anticipated expectations of the outcome. If they expected the tests to vindicate the company's claims, then buying stock now would be a good idea; if they expected the tests to prove the claims wrong, then selling the stock now would be a good idea.

And if they were paralyzed by indecision, then they really shouldn't be playing the stock market in the first place.

This guy made a smart play. Heck, I personally hope that similar tactics can be used in future to keep other companies who make fraudulent claims accountable, also. Make a profit while exposing a scam -- that's my idea of a sharp businessman.

[jimtron]

Make a profit while exposing a scam -- that's my idea of a sharp businessman.

He could have made a tidy sum if he had discovered (before the general public) the house of cards that Enron had become, and shorted the stock. I was reading somewhere--I think the New Yorker, that the information showing the fraud and impending disaster of Enron was not covertly hidden; it was publicly available, but was a proverbial needle in a haystack.

[Wolfman]

Yup, completely true. The most canny investors will do active research of public information and try to predict what direction a company is going to take. Nothing illegal about it, so long as the information used is public.

There is, however, the issue of stock manipulation. If this guy had forced such an investigation, and then it was found that the product did in fact have such fibers, but he nevertheless profited because the stock value had decreased due to rumors generated by his investigation, he could have faced a lawsuit. Profiting by making false claims in order to increase or decrease the value of a stock can get you in big trouble.

[drkitten]

There is, however, the issue of stock manipulation. If this guy had forced such an investigation, and then it was found that the product did in fact have such fibers, but he nevertheless profited because the stock value had decreased due to rumors generated by his investigation, he could have faced a lawsuit. Profiting by making false claims in order to increase or decrease the value of a stock can get you in big trouble.

I think it would still need to be established that he knew the claims were false when he made them. If the testing lab screwed up for some reason, for example, but he published the report that he genuinely received from them, then he's still legally in the clear.

[Wolfman]

I think it would still need to be established that he knew the claims were false when he made them. If the testing lab screwed up for some reason, for example, but he published the report that he genuinely received from them, then he's still legally in the clear.If he did the short-selling and public info thing after receiving the report, I'd tend to agree with you.

But I don't think that's what he did. He did some basic research on his own, that led him to the conclusion that the company's claims were false. He then asked for a public investigation, and short-sold that company's stocks based on anticipation that the stock value would decrease when the results of that investigation were published.

Now, let's say that the results came back to say that the company's claims were valid (or at least that there was no proof that they were not valid); but due to rumors generated by the investigation, the stock price decreased anyway. He would still make a profit, but he would have made that profit by creating a false negative perception of the company.

I'm not sure exactly what the legal status of such a situation would be, but at the very least it would be likely to cause an investigation, and quite possibly charges of stock manipulation.

[drkitten]

If he did the short-selling and public info thing after receiving the report, I'd tend to agree with you.

But I don't think that's what he did. He did some basic research on his own, that led him to the conclusion that the company's claims were false.

Yes, and if the conclusions (based on his preliminary research) were reasonable, he still did nothing wrong.

He then asked for a public investigation, and short-sold that company's stocks based on anticipation that the stock value would decrease when the results of that investigation were published.

Again, there's no implication that he knew (or even should have known) that the results that he publicized were false.



Now, let's say that the results came back to say that the company's claims were valid (or at least that there was no proof that they were not valid); but due to rumors generated by the investigation, the stock price decreased anyway. He would still make a profit, but he would have made that profit by creating a false negative perception of the company.

But the negative perception isn't intentionally false, which is a necessary element of stock manipulation.



I'm not sure exactly what the legal status of such a situation would be, but at the very least it would be likely to cause an investigation, and quite possibly charges of stock manipulation.

I would be extremely surprised if this hypothetical situation even generated an investigation.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

And in other WooWoo (sorry LuLu) news Canada's Competition Bureau has ruled that there is no proof Lululemon's seaweed impregated clothing is therapeutic.

In a statement last night, the regulatory agency said the Vancouver-based yoga wear retailer has agreed to immediately remove all tags and other product notices that contain "unsubstantiated" claims of therapeutic or performance benefits from its seaweed-infused line of clothing in its nearly 40 retail stores across Canada.

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/277265

[jimtron]

And in other WooWoo (sorry LuLu) news Canada's Competition Bureau has ruled that there is no proof Lululemon's seaweed impregated clothing is therapeutic.



http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/277265

Big Pharma strikes again! :D

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Big Pharma strikes again! :D

Na. It's actually the dulce growers and gatherers of the Maritime Provinces in Canada protecting their territory from the upstarts in BC. :D