ASA Adjudication on Merial Animal Health Ltd

Ad

An ad in a trade journal, for IVOMEC Super fluke treatment for cattle, stated " … there is nothing better than IVOMEC Super for controlling fluke, worms and external parasites in one convenient low volume treatment - some things just can't be improved."

Issue

Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Ltd (Norbrook), who believed they produced a superior fluke treatment, challenged whether Merial Animal Health (Merial) could substantiate the claim.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Merial asserted that most cattle receiving a fluke treatment in the United Kingdom in the autumn housing season were in the 200 - 500 kg weight range. They said IVOMEC Super was administered at a dose-rate of 1ml per 50 kg, which was the lowest volume dose rate in the injectable fluke, worm and external parasite category, but Norbrook's fluke treatment was administered at a dose rate of 1ml per 25 kg. They said the maximum volume of injection was 10ml for both products. They asserted that, because of the different dose rates, all cattle in the 200 - 500 kg weight range treated with IVOMEC Super would require only one injection, whereas cattle over 250 kg would require more than one injection if treated with Norbrook's product. Merial argued that to administer more than one injection was time consuming, more expensive and less welfare friendly and involved greater animal handling stress; they also argued that using their product required less packaging and produced less waste. They sent the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) for IVOMEC Super and Norbrook's treatment, which showed both were licensed by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) to treat fluke.

Based on an independent market share survey carried out on their behalf, Merial estimated that the average weight of animals treated with IVOMEC Super was around 300 - 350 kg. They believed around 25% of animals treated with IVOMEC Super were under 250 kg and around 15% were over 500 kg. They said the survey showed IVOMEC Super was used to treat cattle of all ages.

Merial said there was one other product on the market that provided the same fluke treatment as IVOMEC Super at the same low dose rate of 1ml per 50 kg. They pointed out, however, that the ad did not state that their product was the only low volume fluke treatment but merely that there was no better low volume treatment; they believed therefore that the ad was not misleading.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted the dose rates of IVOMEC Super and Norbrook's treatment. We noted the volume of IVOMEC Super required to treat cattle was 50% lower than the volume of Norbrook's treatment required to treat an animal of the same weight. We also noted the ad made clear that IVOMEC Super was administered "in one convenient low volume treatment". We noted that, although Norbrook's treatment and IVOMEC Super were both licensed to treat fluke, Norbrook's product was not a low volume treatment.

We noted Merial believed, based on independent research, the average weight of animals treated with their product was 300 - 350kg. We also noted, however, that Norbrook believed at least 50% of the animals targeted for their treatment would be under 250 kg. Norbrook said fluke treatment was used mostly on calves, hence the lower weight of the animals; Merial said their and Norbrooks product could be used to treat cattle of all ages and independent market research supported that a large proportion of cattle receiving their treatment weighed over 250 kg. We noted the ad did not refer to the average weight of cattle or the percentage of animals that would require only one dose of any fluke treatment; it merely stated that IVOMEC Super was a "low volume treatment". We considered that a reasonable percentage of animals would require only one dose of IVOMEC Super and therefore the volume of the treatment was a significant specification of the product. We also considered that people who required a fluke treatment for their animals were likely to understand that the weight of the animal was relevant to whether a treatment could be administered in one injection.

We noted another low volume product that provided the same fluke treatment as IVOMEC Super was available. We considered, however, that the ad implied there was no superior low volume fluke treatment to IVOMEC Super, which we understood to be the case, not that IVOMEC Super was the only or the best low volume fluke treatment. We concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)