ASA Adjudication on Lawn Smart Ltd

Ad

A leaflet, for Lawnsmart, was headlined "Do you want a weed and moss free, healthy lawn?" In a question and answer section, the leaflet stated "Commercial weed killers are much stronger and are applied by our licensed operators. Our products are totally safe for you, your children and the (sic) wildlife".

Issue

The complainant, who noted commercial weed killers were stronger than those available over the counter, challenged whether Lawnsmart could substantiate their claims that their product was safe.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Lawnsmart said the service they provided featured four stages of safety, which was incorporated into their operating system. Those stages were the safety of their weedkillers, the training of their operatives, their practices for risk assessment and the use of pre-visit notification of customers.

Lawnsmart said their weed killers were subject to marketing authorisation by the Pesticides Safety Directorate. They pointed out that, as part of that authorisation, a safety sheet was created for the product, which defined how it should be used and identified areas of danger to humans and animals. Lawnsmart maintained that their weed killers posed no risk to humans or animals when applied correctly and sent copies of the product safety sheets. Lawnsmart also pointed out that their operators received training from the National Proficiency Tests Council on the safe application of herbicide and pesticide products along with the wider safety implications of their role.

Lawnsmart said they carried out risk assessments of all sites with prospective clients to identify potential hazards. One of the key areas of that assessment was to ensure that the potential customer was aware of any action they needed to take with regard to the safety of their family or pets. They pointed out that any issues raised in the risk assessment were put in writing to the customer as part of their invoice. Lawnsmart said their computer system operated 'tags' for each customer, which indicated, for instance, whether an individual had a pet. They maintained that such 'tags' ensured that they contacted customers by telephone prior to a visit to warn them of the need for safety precautions in relation to a particular issue.

Assessment

Complaint upheld

The ASA noted the safety sheets sent by Lawnsmart. We also noted the pesticide products were hazardous to humans and pets unless they were used correctly. We considered that most consumers were unlikely to have a detailed understanding of pesticides and the procedures for their safe use. Although we acknowledged the safety processes and precautions integrated into Lawnsmarts service, we considered that the claim in the questions section of the mailing was likely to be viewed by recipients as a reference to the safety of the actual pesticide product as opposed to the overall Lawnsmart service. Because those products were inherently hazardous unless they were used correctly, we concluded the claim was likely to mislead.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 10.1 (Safety).

Action

We told Lawnsmart that the claim should not appear again in its present form.