ASA Adjudication on Mars UK Ltd

Ad

A magazine advertorial, for Pedigree Daily Dentastix, claimed "… Loyal and loving, your dog ought to receive the best care. And that includes looking after their oral hygiene, which is an important factor in keeping your dog healthy ... keeping your dog’s teeth clean [can] prevent tooth decay and help avoid expensive dental bills ... Brushing your dog’s teeth every day or giving them dental chews such as Pedigree®Daily Dentastix®will help ... Pedigree Daily Dentastix are scientifically proven to reduce tartar by up to 80 per cent when used daily. Thanks to their unique shape and texture, Dentastix keep teeth healthy and taste great ..."

Issue

The complainant challenged the claims that DentaStix kept dogs teeth clean and reduced tartar.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Pedigree said they had used the efficacy claims in the ad for over five years without complaint. They said that because all their products and claims were underpinned by sound scientific research they believed they could substantiate the claims in the ad. They provided a scientific dossier which summarised the results of trials conducted to support "tartar reduction" claims for DentaStix. They said the dossier confirmed that trials using a similar oral chew (made by a sister company) resulted in a reduction in tartar build up of "up to 80%". They said they were satisfied that such results would be bettered by the DentaStix product on the basis that DentaStix contained identical levels of sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP) and zinc sulphate (the key functional ingredients designed to enhance tartar reduction in the similar oral chew) and the texture of the product would deliver an abrasive effect which, given that DentaStix were slightly heavier than the tested product, should be greater. They said the dossier also confirmed that the reduction of tartar went hand in hand with a reduction in plaque accumulation.

Pedigree also provided an article that was published in the Journal of Veterinary Dentistry in 2005 in which the author had conducted trials on the effectiveness at reducing plaque and tartar levels of an earlier version of DentaStix . The study concluded that dogs that were fed DentaStix had significantly less plaque than dogs in the control group. Pedigree said the earlier version of DentaStix had an identical texture, size and shape to the current product but did not contain the STPP and zinc sulphate as anti-tartar ingredients. They said they therefore believed that current DentaStix would give improved levels of tartar reduction versus those used in the study.

Pedigree said on the basis of the evidence from the trials and the study they were satisfied that tartar reduction claims in the ad were justified.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted the scientific dossier provided by Pedigree demonstrated that in trials of a similar product all the dogs in the sample showed a reduction in tartar and some dogs had shown a reduction of 80% compared with the control diet. We noted the product tested had very similar ingredients to DentaStix and had the same level of the functional ingredients, STPP and zinc sulphate. We also noted the peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Veterinary Dentistry had concluded that dogs that were fed a single DentaStix daily had significantly less tartar and plaque. We noted that the DentaStix used in that trial was an earlier version of the product but we also noted that earlier version was the same design and the only difference was the omission of the ingredients STPP and zinc sulphate. We noted there had been several other published studies into the effects of a dental chew on dogs' oral health and all those studies had concluded that the chews were effective in reducing tartar and plaque.

We understood from the British Veterinary Dental Association that in general dental chew products, and oral care products with polyphosphate ingredients, would help reduce tartar and that claims to that effect were well-established and scientifically supported.

We considered that the evidence Pedigree had provided was sufficient to substantiate the challenged claims and concluded that they were unlikely to mislead.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)