ASA Adjudication on Biotal Limited

Ad

A regional press ad, for silage inoculants, showed a table that compared the effectiveness of the advertised product “Axcool” in controlling yeasts and moulds in silage at a lower temperature when compared to no additive, an inoculant and a chemical. The text of the table under “No additive” stated “Yeasts (cfu/g) 1,000,000 Moulds (cfu/g) 7,000,000”; under “Chemical” the text stated “Yeasts (cfu/g) 1,000,000 Moulds (cfu/g) 7,000,000” and under “Axcool” the text stated “Yeasts (cfu/g) < 100 Moulds (cfu/g) < 100”. Directly underneath the table, the text stated “Independent trial, 4496 DM grass silage, 3 days after opening”. The body copy of the ad stated “BIOTAL axcool gold for high dry matter grass: prevents yeast and moulds; improves aerobic stability, reduces mycotoxin levels”.

Issue

Kelvin Cave Ltd challenged:

1. the veracity of the results reported in the table, because no source was specified and the results of the "no additive" and "chemical" test were the same and implied the chemical was no more effective than no action;

2. whether the inclusion of columns for both "inoculant" and "axcool" in the table was misleading, because it implied axcool was different from, or performed better than, other inoculants;

3. the claim "prevents yeast and moulds", because he believed the product could only reduce the level and not eliminate them;

4. whether the claim "reduces mycotoxin levels" misleadingly implied that axcool could reduce the mycotoxin levels present at harvest and whether any reduction in mycotoxins post-ensiling could be proved to be the result of treatment with axcool.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Biotal explained that Axcool was an inoculant containing the microbe Lactobacillus buchneri. They provided a copy of the independent trial of Axcool, carried out by the BLT Institute in Germany, from which the results from the table were sourced and they said that they had reflected the results in the table accurately.

2. They explained again that they had only reflected the results of the trial. They said Axcool was different from other inoculants and explained that they held a worldwide patent for Lactobacillus buchneri; they believed the information supplied proved that Axcool was superior to all other inoculants in high dry matter silage situations.

3. They said the ad had not implied that Axcool eliminated moulds and yeasts. They explained that the purpose of adding a silage additive was as a preventative and not as a cure. They pointed out that the trial had showed that the level of yeasts and moulds in the silage was less than 100 per gram of forage and that that low level was insignificant. Because of that, they argued that the claim "prevents yeast and moulds" was not misleading.

4. They explained that mycotoxins came from moulds and that fewer moulds would equate to fewer mycotoxins being produced. They said the effect of Axcool at harvest was not applicable, because, like all inoculants, Axcool was added post harvest. They said that fact was well known and the ensiling process well established in the farming community. They explained that Axcool would have no effect on the mycotoxin level already present in the matter prior to inoculation, because its action was to retard the growth of moulds during the ensiling process. They supplied a copy of a paper by Dr A Bach published in Agriworld that showed that the microbe in Axcool had been used in the ensiling process and had resulted in fewer mycotoxins being present compared to an appropriate control.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted the table in the ad contained information from an independent trial, but that the information had not been accurately transferred. We understood from the trial supplied that the figures for yeasts in "no additive", "chemical" and "inoculant" should have been stated as less than 1,000,000 and not as 1,000,000 total. We also understood that the average figure for the "no additive" for moulds should have been greater than 13,000,000, and not 7,000,000 as stated for that particular trial. We noted Axcool had undergone ten comparative trials but that the table referred to one only. We considered that the discrepancies were mathematical errors, but nevertheless we concluded that Biotal had not proven the veracity of the results presented and that more information on the trials should have been included in the ad to enable a fair comparison.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

2. Not upheld

We noted Biotal's comments and understood that Axcool was an inoculant and that, although the table in the ad was incorrect, the evidence supplied showed that Axcool had performed significantly better than the inoculant used for comparison. We noted different silage inoculants could have been used for the comparative experiment and considered that the ad should have stated which microbe inoculant had been used. We considered that readers of the Cheshire Farmart would be familiar with the ensiling process and would understand from the text of the ad, which stated "The UK market leader in branded silage inoculants", and the table, which stated "inoculant", that Axcool was also an inoculant and that it had performed significantly better than the comparative one. Because we understood that was true, we concluded that the ad did not mislead on that point.

3. Not upheld

We noted the table in the ad stated that the level of moulds and yeasts was less than 100 per gram of forage and not that moulds and yeasts had been eliminated. We considered that the readers of Cheshire Farmart would understand that inoculants were used as a preventative measure. Because of that, and because we understood that the use of Axcool in certain situations could prevent the growth of yeasts and moulds, we concluded that the ad did not mislead on that point.

4. Not upheld

We acknowledged that inoculants would have no effect on the level of mycotoxins already present in the harvest, but we understood that Axcool under certain conditions would retard the growth of moulds and thereby help prevent new mycotoxin formation, as shown by the substantiation supplied by Biotal. We considered that readers of the Cheshire Farmart would understand that mycotoxins were produced by moulds and that inoculants were used in the ensiling process after harvest. We considered that the readers would understand the ad, including the tabulated results, to mean that Axcool had been shown to be effective at preventing moulds during the ensiling process. Because that was true, we did not object to the claim "reduces mycotoxin levels".

On points 2., 3 & 4 we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons), but did not find it in breach.

Action

We told Biotal not to repeat the ad in its current form. We advised them to seek help for amending the ad from the CAP Copy Advice team.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)