ASA Adjudication on Sara Lee Household & Body Care UK Ltd

Ad

A magazine ad, for Sanex Natur Protect deodorant, stated “DON’T WORRY, WE DON’T LIKE LOTS OF CHEMICALS EITHER … Sanex Naturprotect deodorant replaces the active artificial chemical with the natural Alum. More natural, but highly effective.”

Issue

Unilever, who believed the claim "more natural, but highly effective" implied the product would be equally effective as antiperspirants containing the chemical ACH, challenged whether the ad was misleading.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Sara Lee Household & Body Care UK Ltd (Sara Lee) said the term "deodorant" was generally accepted to mean the product would remove or conceal body odour  created by an interaction between sweat and bacteria on the skin.  In contrast, an antiperspirants function was to prevent or reduce perspiration which would reduce the appearance of sweat patches in the underarm area. Because an antiperspirant would inhibit the production of sweat, it would therefore reduce the amount of interaction with perspiration and bacteria on the skin thus reducing malodour as a secondary effect.  Sara Lee said  the text "Sanex Naturprotect deodorant" made clear the product was a deodorant and did not have an antiperspirant effect.  Sara Lee said that the sentence structure of the claim made clear that two points were being made about the product: it was natural, and "highly effective".  They said the ad did not make a comparison between products, which was clear from the fact the ad made no reference to the products compared or the basis of any supposed comparison.

Sara Lee sent three trials in support of the claim that the natural ingredient, potassium alum, was effective in malodour reduction.  The studies assessed the natural ingredient in both aerosol and roll-on form and tested how varying levels of potassium alum affected malodour control.  The studies included a mixture of blind and double blinded tests, self-assessment and expert evaluation and tested participants at regular intervals after application of the product.  The proportion of potassium alum differed between the aerosol and roll-on deodorant products but the trials showed the percentage of the ingredient contained in the products "significantly reduced" malodour.  Sara Lee argued that the trials showed that Naturprotect products were "highly effective" at controlling body odour through the use of the active ingredient potassium alum.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted Unilever's concern that the removal of ACH, or similar, and the use of potassium alum as a replacement meant the product would not function as an antiperspirant.  We also noted Sara Lee's argument that the ad claimed only that the product was "highly effective" and did not make any comparative claims with its own products or other ACH antiperspirant products or claim that Naturprotect was "more effective" than a product containing ACH.  We considered that readers would not infer from the ad that the product was effective in preventing sweating or any other characteristic attributable specifically to antiperspirants.  We also considered that the ad made clear the product was a deodorant and that the claim "highly effective" was likely to be understood in that context.  We noted the trials sent by Sara Lee showed potassium alum significantly reduced malodour, the primary function of a deodorant.  Because the ad made clear it was advertising a deodorant and made no other comparison to products containing ACH or products which had an antiperspirant function, we concluded the ad was unlikely to mislead.

The ad was investigated 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 required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)