ASA Adjudication on The Purist Company Pty Ltd

Ad

A magazine ad for The Purist Company was headlined “your hair and skin care products may be toxic”. Further text continued “Eight out of ten shampoos sold in the UK contain ‘sulfate’ cleansers like sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), others contain olefin sulfonates. Some contain sodium laureth sulfate (SLES) which undergoes a chemical process to make it less irritating but may leave it contaminated with 1,4 dioxane - shown to cause cancer in animals¹. Other ingredients to be wary of are parabens, phthalates, propylene glycol, petrochemical cleansers, ethoxylates, mineral oils, DEA, silicones together with artificial colours and synthetic fragrances, the two leading causes of allergy and sensitisation in all cosmetics. Skin tissue readily absorbs these toxic chemicals which can be avoided by using products that are made with natural alternatives. Surveys show that at least 50% of women believe they have sensitive skin. At risk are those with a recognised skin condition or just dry, red or itchy skin or scalp, infants, chemotherapy patients and the elderly … The Purist Company is … committed to producing hair, skin and body care products using high quality botanical ingredients, certified organic where possible and GMO free, that are pure and gentle, yet highly effective. All [A’kin] products from The Purist Company are vegan and formulated without animal ingredients, animal testing or the use of potentially toxic sulfates or parabens”. Small print text stated “¹Ref: “Dangerous Beauty” by …”.

Issue

The Cosmetic Toiletry & Perfumery Association Ltd (CTPA) believed the ad was misleading and alarmist, because it implied lawfully marketed cosmetic products were toxic and, therefore, harmful to consumers.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

The Purist Company (Purist) said eight out of ten shampoos sold in the UK contained sulphate cleansers, for example, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS). They sent detailed documentation and peer reviewed articles to show the effect of SLS on the skin, immune system, vital internal organs and hair, which demonstrated that, in concentration, SLS had an irritant effect. They explained that ethoxylated sulphates, such as Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES), used in detergents, cosmetics and toiletries, underwent a chemical process to make them less irritating, but that the process often left them contaminated with a substance called 1,4-dioxane, which had been shown to have a carcinogenic effect in animal testing. They said one report by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), published in the US Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program, concluded that the presence of 1,4-dioxane, even in trace amounts, was a cause for concern.

Purist argued that the primary causes of allergic reactions to personal care products were artificial fragrances and preservatives. They sent examples of studies to demonstrate that at least 50% of women tested believed they had sensitive skin. They pointed out that they deliberately avoided the use of any sulfates in their Alchemy and Akin brands; they therefore believed, as a result, their personal care ranges were gentler and more luxurious, offering premier care for even the most delicate and sensitive of skin types.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA understood Purist intended to convey that, unlike other widely available cosmetic products, their Akin brand did not contain artificial cleansing agents such as SLS and SLES, which they believed were often the cause of irritation to users with sensitive skin. We also understood that Cosmetic Regulations in the UK required that products did not cause harm to human health and considered that the headline claim "your hair and skin care products may be toxic", together with references to cancer and the statement "other ingredients to be wary of ..." in the ad, implied some cosmetic products, which were lawfully marketed, were toxic and therefore harmful to health. Because we had not seen sufficient evidence that cosmetic products could be toxic, we concluded that the ad was misleading and alarmist.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 and 3.2 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 9.1 (Fear and distress), 19.1 (Other comparisons) and 50.5 (Health & beauty products and therapies - General).

Action

We told Purist to amend their future ads to remove the implication that some lawful cosmetic products were harmful and advised them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team before doing so.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)