ASA Adjudication on Colgate-Palmolive (UK) Ltd

Ad

A TV ad which aired in the autumn of 2007, for Colgate Plax mouthwash, showed a man brushing his teeth. A voice-over stated "Did you know Colgate Plax removes significantly more plaque?" On-screen text stated "At 6 months use". A bottle of the product appeared on-screen. The ad then showed a bar chart with two columns, one of which seemed approximately twice as tall as the other. The taller column was labelled "Colgate Plax". Large text beside the bar chart stated "More plaque removal"; smaller text stated "With a regular fluoride toothpaste". The voice-over continued "Yep, significantly more plaque than brushing alone. Colgate Plax has a clinically proven formula that fights plaque bacteria for 12 hours." The ad showed mouthwash flowing over a set of teeth; a clock and the text "12 hour protection" were at the top of the screen. The next scene showed the man rinsing his mouth with the product; the voice-over stated "Feel the difference?" and the man smiled and nodded. The voice-over then stated "Colgate Plax 12 hour plaque fighting. Better than brushing alone ...".

Issue

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Services EAME Ltd challenged:

1. the claims "Colgate Plax has a clinically proven formula that fights plaque bacteria for 12 hours", "12 hour protection" and "12 hour plaque fighting", because they believed the product's active ingredient was present in insufficient levels to be effective for 12 hours; and

2. whether Colgate-Palmolive could substantiate the impression given by the bar chart that Colgate Plax was twice as effective at fighting plaque than brushing alone.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Colgate-Palmolive said the ad was no longer appearing and there were no current plans to broadcast it again in its current form.  They explained that the active ingredient of Colgate Plax was cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) at 0.05%.

1. Colgate-Palmolive forwarded the ASA copies of the two studies which they had sent to Clearcast in 2007 in support of the claims before the ad was cleared for broadcast: a six-month double-blind clinical study and a five-day double-blind parallel clinical study.  Both studies involved subjects rinsing twice daily after brushing.  In the six-month study, plaque scores were taken after three months' use and again after six months' use.  In the five-day study, plaque scores were taken after five days.  Results of the six month study showed there was a statistically significant reduction in both supragingival (above the gum) plaque and gingivitis (inflammation of the gums) compared to the control group and the five day study concluded that there was a "supragingival plaque removal effect of at least 12 hours' duration since an average of twelve hours elapsed for all subjects between the final rinsing/brushing procedure and the plaque evaluation at the conclusion of the study."

In addition, Colgate-Palmolive sent four further studies, three of which had been carried out since the ad was cleared for broadcast.  All but one of those studies again involved subjects rinsing after brushing and plaque scores being taken after either 24 hours or seven days.   The results showed that a mouthwash containing 0.05% CPC delivered a more effective anti-plaque benefit than brushing alone.

The most recent of those studies (unpublished and dated January 2009) involved subjects rinsing after brushing, some with Colgate Plax and some with a control mouthwash; plaque sampling was conducted 12 hours after a single use.  The study reported that one use of Colgate Plax resulted in mean percentage reductions in anaerobic bacteria of 29.98%.  14 days of twice daily use of Colgate Plax resulted in mean percentage reductions in anaerobic bacteria of 57.9%.

Colgate-Palmolive stated that the protocols followed in their studies were industry standard.  They felt all the studies provided robust support of the 12-hour protection claims.  They argued that clinical trials conducted on mouth rinse products typically featured plaque or bacteria readings taken at 12-hour intervals over a reasonable period of time, such as five days or seven days plus.  They said that made sense because consumers tended to use mouthwash in the morning and at night (every 12 hours).  They also pointed out that, in one of the studies, a measurement was taken 12 hours after a single use; they argued that if the product was shown to work 12 hours after use, it was certainly protecting for 12 hours.

Clearcast said they had sent the two studies they had received prior to broadcast to their expert, who considered the claims had been substantiated.

2. Colgate-Palmolive said the bar chart was not intended to show a specific result with respect to plaque removal with Colgate Plax compared to brushing alone and pointed out that no specific figure was quoted.  They said it was intended to be an illustrative representation of the results obtained from a number of studies which demonstrated significant plaque reduction with Colgate Plax in addition to daily brushing.  They believed the bar chart communicated those results in a user friendly way.

Clearcast did not consider the bar chart to be misleading.  They pointed out that there were no numbers attached and said the bar chart was an attempt to show, in a consumer friendly manner, that Colgate Plax was significantly effective.

Assessment

THIS ADJUDICATION REPLACES THAT PUBLISHED ON 25TH MARCH 2009.  THE VERDICT HAS CHANGED, MAKING THE COMPLAINT UPHELD.

1.  Upheld

The ASA considered that the claims "Colgate Plax has a clinically proven formula that fights plaque bacteria for 12 hours", "12 hour protection" and "12 hour plaque fighting" gave the impression that Colgate Plax afforded protection against plaque bacteria for 12 hours if used only once or occasionally.   We sought expert advice on all six studies. Our expert did not consider that the three studies which had been available before the ad was cleared for broadcast in 2007 provided adequate substantiation for the claims. However, after seeing the January 2009 study he said the reduction in bacteria of approximately 30% was clinically meaningful.  Although he shared our reservations about the study, he nevertheless concluded that enough evidence had now been provided to justify a claim for 12 hours duration of action.

We noted our expert's findings: that the product had an immediate effect after its first use, and also that its efficacy increased when used on an ongoing basis.  We acknowledged that consumers who used mouthwash usually did so on an ongoing basis, not as a one-off application, and considered that viewers of the ad were likely to be concerned only about whether the product was effective in providing protection against plaque and whether an effect was demonstrable 12 hours after using Colgate Plax.  We noted that in light of the 2009 study the expert had decided that there was now enough reasonable data to support a claim of up to 12 hours' action for Colgate Plax.  Although Colgate-Palmolive had eventually been able to substantiate that the active ingredient in Colgate Plax was present in sufficient levels to be effective in the way implied by the ad's references to 12-hour protection and 12-hour plaque fighting, we considered that at time when the ad was broadcast Colgate Palmolive did not have evidence adequate to substantiate the claim that the efficacy of Colgate Plax had been clinically proven.

On this point, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.2.2 (Implications).

2. Upheld

We noted both Colgate-Palmolive and Clearcast's argument that the bar chart was a visual representation of the general results achieved by using Colgate Plax versus brushing alone and was not intended to show a specific result.  Although we noted that the 'vertical' axis of the bar chart was not labelled, we considered the overall impression given was that using Colgate Plax was twice as effective at removing plaque as brushing alone, because the column labelled "Colgate Plax" seemed approximately twice as tall as the other column.

We noted Clearcast's expert stated that Colgate Plax removed 25% more plaque than brushing alone.  We therefore considered that the bar chart in the ad could mislead by implying that Colgate Plax was twice as effective as brushing alone.

On this point, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), and 5.2.2 (Implications).

Action

The ad should not be broadcast again in its current form unless the bar chart is amended or removed.  We reminded Colgate-Palmolive of the requirement to hold adequate substantiation to support claims prior to the appearance of the ad.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)