ASA Adjudication on Usave.tv

Ad

An ad for a silk-filled duvet on U Save. TV claimed “It’s filled with 100% silk and it’s got a very beautiful 100% cotton casing as well. So it’s something that actually helps your body to breathe as you sleep at night … Does that mean that it actually keeps you cool? Because I must admit when the summer starts coming I wake up sometimes in a hot sweat ... Are you using the same duvet that you sleep with in the summer and the winter? You know, yes, I am actually. Well, you don’t have to worry about having a summer duvet or a winter duvet because the moisture will actually just evaporate. This is absolutely breathable. So this could actually be a summer duvet and a winter duvet? … The thing that I find quite amazing about this is the fact it keeps you warm in the winter yet it lets you breathe in the summer as well and so you actually save money on not having to buy a summer duvet and a winter duvet. You have this one all the year round. Absolutely, and so you don’t have to worry about storage so much because you’ve only got the one.” “It’s great news for allergy sufferers as well … There are health properties along with this as well, real benefits for your health. Now because it doesn’t actually retain any moisture it means bed bugs can’t actually live in here. They are not welcome. It’s the bed bugs isn’t it that actually cause the problems. It’s the droppings of bed bugs which causes asthma and eczema and your itchy skin … It’s 100% hypo-allergenic … it actually breathes with your skin … It will actually adjust to your temperature as well: so when you are sleeping in the winter it keeps you warm, in the summer it will keep you cool … It’s got great health properties as well: asthma sufferers, allergy sufferers, hello, this is for you!” The voice-over on the offer page stated “… including health properties – which help relieve itching caused by skin conditions, 100% breathable …”. Another ad, for a memory pillow, claimed “this pillow is

Issue

BCAP staff challenged whether the duvet would:

1.  help the body to breathe;  

2.  prevent bed bugs and their droppings and thereby help asthma and eczema sufferers;

3.  be 100% hypo-allergenic;

4.  adjust to the bodys temperature and be warm in the winter and cool in the summer.

5.  BCAP staff challenged whether the pillow would reduce snoring and help relieve pain.

BCAP TV Code

Response

U Save TV submitted evidence of a study that demonstrated the effectiveness of a special sericin-free silk fabric in the treatment of young children affected by atopic dermatitis (AD).  The study explained "silk also helps to maintain the body temperature, by reducing the excessive sweating and moisture loss that can worsen xerosis" although "the type of silk fabric generally used for clothes is not particularly helpful in the care and dressing of children with AD as it reduces transpiration and may cause discomfort when in direct contact with the skin."  The study stated "the clothes used in the present study are made of woven silk where the special properties of silk are enhanced: the fabric allows the skin to breathe and the sensation does not bother the wearer; it also has a high capacity to absorb sweat and serious exudates (up to 30% of its weight without becoming damp)".  The study stated the fabric had a waterproof, durable, antimicrobial finish.  The study noted that "recent studies have suggested that cotton may also present a roughness that irritates the skin of children affected by AD".  The study tested children wearing the special silk clothes against a control group that wore cotton clothing.  The study concluded that "the use of sericin-free silk products would appear to alleviate the symptoms of AD".  

The studys introduction stated that one of the many factors known to worsen AD was house dust mite.

The study explained that "the final textile products of silk are mostly non-allergenic.

1.  U Save TV explained that they had meant to state merely that silk was used as the ultimate breathable material; with its large fibres reducing thermo conductivity, either trapping air next to the skin to keep one warm in the cold or drawing it away from the body in hotter temperatures.  The broadcaster admitted the statement could mislead.

2.  U Save TV acknowledged that they did not have enough evidence to substantiate the claim.

3.  U Save TV maintained that house dust mites were a frequent cause of allergic reactions and that one of their favourite locations was bedding.  They claimed that house dust mites would not, or perhaps could not, live in silk.  They added that, provided the rest of the bedding was washed regularly to keep it "mite-free", that source of allergy could be controlled.

4.  U Save TV maintained that silk-filled clothing was used by explorers in the Amazon jungle and in Alaska because of the silks natural properties.  But they conceded that the claim was merely a suggestion and that it could apply also to other types of bedding.

5.   U Save TV submitted no evidence and said the claim had been removed from the ad.

Assessment

1.   Upheld

The ASA considered that evidence from a study on specially treated silk clothing could not be extrapolated to a duvet that was filled with a different type of silk and had a cotton casing.  We considered that the claim was misleading.

2.  Upheld

We noted that no evidence was presented to show that house dust mites were unable to live in silk-filled duvets or that a cotton-cased duvet would produce the improvements described in the study.  We considered that the claims were misleading.

3.  Upheld

Because no evidence was presented to show that house dust mites were unable to live in silk filled duvets and because the duvet had a cotton casing, we considered that the claim was misleading.  

4.  Upheld

We noted no evidence was presented to support the claim that the duvet would adjust to the bodys temperature or be warm in the winter and cool in the summer.  We considered that the claims were misleading.

5.  Upheld

We welcomed the broadcasters action but nevertheless considered that the claims were misleading.

We concluded that the ads breached rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.1 (Evidence) of the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code.

Action

The ads must not be shown again in their present form and the products should not be advertised without adequate substantiation for the claims made.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)