ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Unilever Home and Personal Care UK Ltd

Complaint

Objections to a poster, for Domestos. Text stated "KILL FLU GERMS IT'S SELF DEFENCE MILLIONS OF GERMS WILL DIE" next to an image of a bottle of bleach cleaning spray. The complainants challenged whether the ad:

1. misleadingly implied that the product could destroy the germs that caused flu and

2. preyed on people's fear of contracting flu, which had been heightened by recent news reports about the potential avian flu pandemic.

CAP Code

Adjudication

Unilever UK Home & Personal Care (Unilever) asserted that the term "germ" was a broad one and was widely accepted as covering all types of micro-organisms, including viruses, and, because flu was a viral infection, to refer to "flu germs" was therefore not misleading.

Unilever argued that, although viruses were commonly thought to spread via the air, it was established expert opinion that they could also spread significantly via contact with surfaces. They explained that the flu virus was shed in large numbers by an infected person and would be spread to surfaces contacted by their hands. They said a person who touched a surface infected with the flu germ could contract the virus when their contaminated hands came into contact with their eyes, nose or mouth. They argued that a regular hygienic cleaning regime, with a suitable product, of frequent hand-contact surfaces such as taps, switches, handles and phones was an effective way of reducing the risk of flu. They sent several articles, including one from The World Health Organization (WHO), which stated the flu virus could remain viable on environmental surfaces and was believed transmissible by hands or fomites (an inanimate object or substance capable of transmitting infectious organisms from one individual to another). Unilever also sent evidence to show the level of sodium hypochlorite in their product was enough to kill many germs, including flu viruses.

Unilever pointed out that the ad made no mention of avian flu. They asserted that their intention was to educate people about the role of hygienic cleaning of surfaces using bleach to kill all kinds of germs, including flu; they had found that people were not aware that flu, and other germs, could be contracted from surfaces or killed by bleach. They asserted that the ad was about common flu and was scheduled in November and December, a time of year when people generally caught flu; their intention was not to prey on people's fears about avian flu.

1. Complaints not upheld

The ASA noted it was accepted that a virus could be defined as a type of germ. Although the flu virus was most likely to be spread through droplet transmission, i.e. coughs and sneezes, we noted flu could remain active on surfaces for a period of time and could be transmitted via hands or fomites. We considered that the product could kill flu germs and that the ad was unlikely to mislead.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 6.1 (Honesty) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

2. Complaints not upheld

We noted the ad made no mention of avian flu. We also noted the ad appeared at a time that many people were concerned about contracting common flu. We considered that the ad merely stated that the product could kill flu germs. We concluded that the ad did not unduly prey on people's fears of contracting common or avian flu and did not breach the Code.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clause 9.1 (Fear and distress) but did not find it in breach.