ASA Adjudication on Mars UK Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for Pedigree Joint Care Plus dog food, showed an elderly dog moving slowly and struggling to walk down some steps whilst a puppy ran off ahead. A voice-over stated "There comes a time when a dog's joints get a bit, you know, not what they were. But with new Pedigree Joint Care Plus you could see a real difference. One treat a day for just six weeks, and you'll soon see why you can't keep a good dog down. New Pedigree Joint Care Plus". The ad showed the elderly dog eating the product, then bounding easily down the steps and outrunning the puppy in a field. On-screen text stated "New Pedigree Joint Care + It's a dog thing".

Issue

1. Four viewers challenged whether the ad exaggerated the likely benefits of the product for dogs with joint problems and could exploit vulnerable viewers.

2. Burns Pet Nutrition challenged whether the ad implied the product provided a medicinal benefit by treating or curing joint stiffness.

BCAP TV Code

Response

1. Mars Petcare (Mars) said they always undertook extensive research to ensure their claims were supported by robust evidence. They sent details of two trials they had carried out in 2006 on dogs using Joint Care Plus. They said the trials showed that, after six weeks of taking the product once a day, 72% of the dogs had demonstrated improved mobility. Mobility was measured by a number of criteria including ability to get up, difficulty when running and ability to climb stairs.

Mars asserted that over 90 customers had contacted them to praise Pedigree Joint Care Plus; they sent a selection of some of that feedback. They argued that the trials and the feedback substantiated that a number of dogs had experienced improved mobility. They argued that the improved mobility claims and images were therefore justified and did not exaggerate the level of improvement the product could provide.

2. Mars said they had agreed the wording "helps ease joint stiffness" for on-pack use with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD); they asserted that the ad was merely intended to reflect that claim. They argued therefore that the ad did not imply the product was medicinal. They said they had taken care to ensure the ad did not indicate that the product treated, prevented, or cured a disease or adverse condition. They pointed out that the voice-over did not refer to specific adverse joint conditions or any discomfort or pain being experienced by the dog; they asserted that it referred only to the joint stiffness which could be experienced by dogs because of age or general wear and tear. They argued that the images in the ad showed a dog with signs of normal joint stiffness experiencing improved mobility, because of easing of joint stiffness from taking Pedigree Joint Care Plus. Mars sent signed confirmation from two vets stating that the images at the start of the ad were a fair representation of a dog suffering from generalised joint stiffness.  

Mars said they had spoken to the VMD about the ad and agreed to amend future ads to take into account their concerns. They believed the VMD would have requested immediate withdrawal of the ad had they believed it implied the product had medicinal benefits.  

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said they had worked very closely with the agency, TBWA London, in order to develop an appropriate script. They said Joint Care Plus was clearly not a licensed product and therefore there had to be no implication that giving the product to dogs would alleviate or cure medical conditions.

They said they had spoken to their veterinary consultant and decided that the phrase "There comes a time when a dog's joints get a bit, you know, not what they were" referred to, among other things, general 'wear and tear' and that Joint Care Plus offered nutritional support rather than a pharmacological intervention in such cases. They believed there was no implication that the product assisted or eased any medical conditions.

They said they had been sent evidence by Mars, which they had sent to a consultant. Their consultant had advised them that the evidence substantiated the claim "... you could see a real difference ... [in] just six weeks ..." and that the inclusion of the word 'could' removed any implication that Joint Care Plus would be effective for all dogs in the  six-week period.

The BACC believed the ad accurately portrayed the effects of the product on most dogs which might have trouble using steps. They referred to the signed statements from the two vets who, on viewing the ad, believed it showed an accurate representation of 'generalised joint stiffness', not a specific adverse condition. They said those statements, combined with the evidence they believed supported the claim '... you could see a real difference in six weeks ...', led them to conclude that the ad was a fair and accurate representation of the effects of Joint Care Plus.

Assessment

1. & 2. Upheld

The ASA contacted the VMD, which confirmed they had agreed with Mars that they considered the claim "ease stiff joints" was not medicinal by presentation, unless there was an implication elsewhere in the ad that the stiffness was symptomatic of an adverse condition or the 'easing' was some form of pain relief. The VMD said, in their view, the dramatic difference in the mobility of the dog in the ad before and after eating Joint Care Plus implied that the product would have a medicinal effect by either relief of discomfort or correction of joint damage. They said they had not requested the immediate withdrawal of the ad because they understood it was intended to run for only a short time and Mars had agreed that they would take into account the VMDs view in future ads.

We considered that Mars had sent evidence to show that some owners and also some vets had perceived a difference in the mobility of some dogs as a result of feeding them the product for six weeks. We also considered, however, that the exaggerated difference between the elderly dogs slow shuffling movements and considerable difficulty in walking at the start of the ad, compared to its energetic running at the end of the ad, implied the product could have a dramatic and medicinal effect on a dogs joints, yet the evidence submitted did not show that a dog who initially struggled to walk would be able to run with ease, and faster than a puppy, after six weeks of taking the product once a day. We concluded that the ad misleadingly implied the product could provide a medicinal benefit to those dogs suffering from joint damage and discomfort, by treating or curing their condition, and therefore exaggerated the likely benefits of the product for dogs with joint problems and could exploit vulnerable viewers.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence), 5.2.2 (Implications), 8.2.3 (Products without a marketing authorisation) and 8.2.9 (Cure).

Action

The ad must not be shown again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)