ASA Adjudication on Paddocks Farm Partnership Ltd

Ad

A magazine ad and ad feature for Verm-X parasite control pellets which appeared in a specialist magazine about Alpacas.

a. The magazine ad stated "Verm-X®Natural control of all known internal parasites 100% HERBAL ... Internal Parasite Control Verm-X is available in liquid, treat, nugget and powder form for a wide range of animals including cats, dogs, goats, hamsters, sheep, alpacas, rabbits, guinea pigs, horses, poultry, pigs, game birds and racing pigeons."

b. The ad feature stated " ... Verm-X The pellets are a natural blend of the highest quality ingredients including the special Verm-X herbal stock formula which controls all known internal parasites ... a highly effective measure of controlling internal parasites ... with no known resistance ...".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the efficacy of the product could be substantiated, in particular the claims:

1. "... control of all known internal parasites ... " in ad (a) and "... which controls all known internal parasites... " in ad (b), and

2. "no known resistance" in ad (b).  

3. The complainant also challenged whether the name "Verm-X®" misleadingly implied efficacy.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. & 2. Paddocks Farm Partnership (PFP) said Verm-X was not a medicinal product but a complementary herbal feedstuff and provided the ASA with a list of its ingredients and the Verm-X Company brochure, which included testimonials from satisfied customers.  They said they consulted the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) who approved the wording that was used in the ad, including the claim "internal parasite control", and sent a copy of a letter from the VMD, dated December 2003, as evidence of that.  

PFP also submitted an article from an equestrian magazine dated April 2006 which detailed a study carried out by an Equine Science Honours student.  The article stated that the results of the study showed Verm-X was ovicidally effective and reduced larval hatching of small redworms by 91.3%.  PFP said they understood the study produced no negative side effects.  As the study was carried out only on horses, PFP provided a statement from a veterinary consultant who stated that herbal dosages could be extrapolated from one species to another using the principle of proportionate dosing, bearing in mind the differences between species.  He said it would be fair to assume that results from one species could be extrapolated to other species.  The veterinary consultant also stated that he knew of no published study demonstrating, in vivo, resistance to herbs with anthelmintic effects, i.e. the ability to expel parasitic worms.  PFP pointed out that, to their knowledge, none of the herbal wormers available for use on alpacas had in fact been tested on alpacas and conventional wormers for sheep and cattle were used under advice from the veterinary profession.  

PFP also submitted an abstract from an online resource which stated that garlic, one of the ingredients of Verm-X, "had broad spectrum activity against" certain parasites.

3. PFP noted the complainant believed, as the word "verm" was Latin for worm, when coupled with "X", the product name could misleadingly imply that it was effective at getting rid of parasites.  They said they had been unaware of that meaning and argued that the same would be true for most people reading the ads.  They pointed out that the ads appeared in a specialist alpaca magazine that provided information, support and events for alpaca owners and gave no suggestion to support the notion that the readership was informed and would therefore interpret the meaning of the name "Verm-X" in the same way as the complainant.  PFP said, in further support of their argument, that they had not found any conventional wormers available on the market which referred to the term 'verm'.

Assessment

1. & 2. Upheld

The ASA noted the evidence supplied by PFP.  We noted the letter from the VMD was dated December 2003 and related to claims made on the Verm-X website at that time, including the claim "internal parasite control in horses and ponies".  The letter stated that the VMD considered the wording was suitable for the marketing of non-medicinal products in the UK without a marketing authorisation and said, while they did not consider the wording implied that Verm-X was medicinal by presentation, they told PFP that they should not infer that the VMD were satisfied that the product was safe and had granted approval for its intended use.  

While we noted the magazine article reporting the results of the study showed Verm-X reduced larval hatching by 91.3%, we noted the study was carried out only on horses and related to one type of parasitic worm.  We noted the ads claimed Verm-X controlled "all" known internal parasites yet the evidence referred only to the products efficacy in relation to small redworms in horses.  In addition, we noted we had not seen a copy of the study itself.  

We noted the ads featured a number of animals and readers were likely to infer that the efficacy of the product had been successfully tested in all but we had not seen evidence of that.  We noted the statement from the veterinary consultant with regard to the principle of proportionate dosing and his belief that it was fair to assume that results from one species could be extrapolated to other species.  We noted the veterinary consultant said he knew of no recorded trial demonstrating, in vivo, resistance to herbs with anthelmintic effects.  However, in order to justify the claim "no known resistance" for Verm-X, we would have expected to see sound results based on robust, in vivo controlled trials testing Verm-X on all known internal parasites affecting each type of animal featured in the ad.

We concluded that the evidence was insufficiently robust to support the claims "... control of all known internal parasites ... " in ad (a), "... which controls all known internal parasites ... " in ad (b) and  "no known resistance" in ad (b) and could therefore mislead.

On points (1) and (2), the ads breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health and beauty products and therapies - General).

3. Not upheld

We noted Verm-X was a registered trademark and that PFP said they were not aware of the Latin roots of their product name.  From our own research we found one other wormer on the market with the word 'verm' in the product name.  We nevertheless considered that the Latin derivation and meaning of the word was unlikely to be known by most readers and concluded that the product name 'Verm-X' was unlikely to mislead with regard to its efficacy.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health and beauty products and therapies - General) but did not find them in breach.

Action

The ads must not appear again in their current form.  We told PFP to remove the claims "... control of all known internal parasites ... ", "... which controls all known internal parasites... " and "no known resistance" from their advertising and to avoid making claims along those lines in future ads.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)