ASA Adjudication on Unilever UK Ltd

Ad

A magazine ad for a range of fabric conditioners had the headline "get back to nature". Underneath was an image of the aloe vera, cotton extract and jojoba oil products from the range, surrounded by flowers, stems and leaves. Text at the bottom of the ad stated "Blended with simple, natural ingredients, the new range of Comfort naturals infuses your clothes with beautiful fragrances inspired by nature. Each one is dermatologically tested and our research into skincare is validated by the British Skin Foundation. Follow your instincts and get back to nature".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether:

1. the ad misleadingly implied that the products were made of 100% natural ingredients, and

2. the claim "dermatologically tested" was misleading, because it implied that the product would be suitable for people with allergies.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Unilever UK (Unilever) said the aim of the ad was to convey the fact that the products left clothes with delicate, fresh fragrances and were kind to skin. They said the ad did not directly or indirectly state that the products were comprised of 100% natural ingredients. They argued that the term 'natural' was always qualified in the ad by other phrases that indicated that the products contained natural ingredients combined with other ingredients. They pointed out that the pack shots featured in the ad featured clear descriptions of the fragrance of the particular product and one of the natural extracts it contained, for instance "A fresh olive blossom fragrance blended with cotton extract", and that body copy text below the pack shots stated "Blended with simple, natural ingredients ... infuses your clothes with beautiful fragrances". Unilever said the term 'blend' meant to combine two or more different components, and they argued that consumers would understand the ad to mean that the products contained some natural ingredients combined with other ingredients which were not necessarily natural.

Unilever explained that each product in the range contained the natural ingredient referred to on the product pack, namely Gossypium herbaceum (cotton seed extract), Aloe barbadensis (aloe vera extract) and Simmondsia chinensis seed oil (jojoba oil). They said the fragrance of each variant also contained one or more natural oils, certified to be natural by their fragrance supplier. Unilever said there were a number of other products on the market which similarly branded their products as 'naturals', but which did not contain 100% natural ingredients. They said the imagery of cotton flower, aloe and orchid flowers and leaves, which was linked to the fragrance of the product, was a common device used in product advertising to illustrate the fragrance with visual clues. Unilever provided copies of other ads for similar products.

2. Unilever said the ad did not state or imply that the products would be suitable for people with allergies. They said the claim that the products had been "dermatologically tested" meant that they were suitable for people with sensitive skin. Unilever said a significant proportion of the population considered they had sensitive skin. Unilever explained that 'sensitive skin' was used to refer to those individuals who were likely to experience a non-specific irritant reaction, as opposed to individuals who were allergic to and suffered from immune system reactions triggered by contact with specific substances.

Unilever said, while there was no uniform definition of the phrase "dermatologically tested", the phrase was factually correct because all three products had been dermatologically tested using one of the internationally recognised standard test methods on people with sensitive skin. They submitted a copy of the test method and results, which they said showed that the products had very low potential to cause irritancy. Unilever said the ad made no mention of allergies and they did not believe the term "dermatologically tested" automatically implied, or would be understood by consumers to mean, that the product was suitable for allergy sufferers, as other terms such as 'hypoallergenic' were typically used in those circumstances.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted Unilever's response. We noted that the body copy text stated that the products were "blended with simple, natural ingredients" and that text on the pack shots also stated that the products had been "blended with" aloe vera extract, cotton extract and jojoba oil. We considered that consumers were likely to understand the term "blended with" to mean that those particular natural ingredients named on the product had been used in combination with other fabric conditioner ingredients that might not be natural. We understood that each of the products did contain the relevant botanical extract along with other ingredients. We also noted that text on the pack shots clarified that the term 'naturals' also referred to the particular fragrances of the products (olive blossom, aloe or white orchid), and we considered that the body copy claim "beautiful fragrances inspired by nature" would be understood by consumers to mean that the products' fragrances had been influenced by natural fragrances, rather than created using natural ingredients only. Because we considered that the ad did not imply that the products were made with 100% natural ingredients, we concluded that on this point the ad was not misleading.

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

2. Not upheld

We noted the test methodology and results provided. We noted that the tests had been carried out on normal, healthy volunteers with sensitive skin and that the results showed all three products in the Naturals range had a "very low potential for cutaneous irritancy", and that it was unlikely that the products would cause irritancy under conditions of everyday use. We noted that the pack shots of the products featured in the ad stated that the products were for "sensitive skin", and we considered that the test results supported that claim. We considered that the term "dermatologically tested" implied that the products has been tested for general skin irritation, and we did not consider that consumers were likely to understand from that term that the products would be particularly suitable for people who suffered from specific allergic conditions. We therefore concluded that on this point the ad was not misleading.

On this point 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 necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)