ASA Adjudication on Altro Ltd

Ad

An ad in a brochure, which was inserted into a trade magazine, and a trade press ad for Altro seamless PVC. Text at the head of both stated “the future is safer with altro”. a. The brochure ad depicted a bathroom wall divided into two halves. On one half of the wall was covered with seamless PVC and appeared clean and on the other half, which was covered with ceramic tiling, dirt was highlighted by Ultra Violet lighting. Text stated “PROTECTING YOU FROM WHAT YOU CAN SEE AND WHAT YOU CAN’T”. Further text below stated “Fine cracks and grout mean many wall and floor ceramic surfaces harbour a dirty secret. Opt for Altro’s seamless PVC with integral biocide and bacteria will have nowhere to hide. And because they are seamless, they are also easier to clean. An incredibly clean surface means a squeaky-clean hygiene record … ”. b. The trade press ad was also divided into two halves. It showed seamless PVC flooring on one half and tiled flooring on the other, leading up to a court room door. Text stated “PROTECTING YOU FROM SLIPS HERE AND TRIPS HERE”. Further text below stated “In today’s litigious world, it’s nice to know your supplier was the first to offer lifetime slip resistance. Whether you’re fitting back-of-house or in public environments, using Altro means any allegations of slipping won’t have a leg to stand on … ”.

Issue

The Tile Association challenged whether:

1. ad (a) misleadingly implied Altro seamless PVC was more hygienic, impermeable and easier to clean than ceramic tiled surfaces;

2. ad (b) misleadingly implied ceramic floor tiles were a slip and trip hazard; and

3. ad (b) misleadingly implied ceramic floor tiles were more of a slip and trip hazard than Altro's products.

CAP Code

Response

1. Altro said they had asked a research organisation to conduct tests to verify the performance of their product Altro Whiterock in terms of permeability and suitability for food preparation areas. The results, which had also been confirmed by more recent tests, appeared to conclude that Altro Whiterock was suitable for use in food production areas whereas a glazed ceramic tile with non-epoxy grout was unsuitable.  They sent the results of those tests as well as the research organisations guidelines, which they said also established the relationship between water absorption and the risk of contamination of floors in food production areas. They had confirmed that if the material on a wall or floor was cracked, damaged or porous (in the case of grout), microorganisms that might be present in any liquids on those surfaces would be absorbed into the material and there could be a risk of microbiological cross contamination.

They provided a laboratory report on a test, in which grouted tiles and seamless PVC in a kitchen environment were subjected to a two-month period of contamination and cleaning, using detergent and disinfectant.  Altro believed the results clearly showed that more microorganisms remained on the tiled surface, particularly in the joints between them.  The conclusions of the report stated that, in general, joins, grooves and irregular surfaces should be avoided where hygienic cleaning was required.  They also sent an EC Directive, which stated that wall finishes should be non-absorbent, recommendations made by the Scottish Health Service on infection control in the built environment and a customer testimonial and case study to demonstrate a positive response to the product.

2. & 3. Altro sent the results of independent tests related to slipping, which indicated that all of their products tested showed a low potential for slipping under both dry and wet conditions whereas glazed ceramic tiles were unsatisfactory because they showed a high potential for slipping under wet conditions.

They provided a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) document to show that safety flooring, along with safety quarry and safety ceramic tiles, was classified as having a low potential for slipping.  Standard quarry tiles and some ceramic tiles had a possible potential for slipping and other ceramic tiles had high slip potential; similarly some safety vinyl flooring had a possible slip potential.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted the first test submitted by Altro was conducted only on quarry floor tiles, and ceramic tiles and wall tiles were not used. In addition it stated that "results of surface contamination studies are very variable and it is necessary to run sufficient tests to produce a useful average or to show a real trend".  Furthermore, it appeared to suggest that Altro and smooth (grade A) quarry tiles produced similar results.   We noted the second test was conducted on only one type of glazed ceramic tile, specifically with non-epoxy grout. It stated " ... the grout was probably responsible for the water uptake" observed for the ceramic tiles.  We considered the tests were not sufficiently wide-ranging to support the claims in the ad about ceramic tiled surfaces in general.

We noted the general recommendations of the EC Directive and the Scottish Health Service but considered they alone did not substantiate the claims in the ad. Similarly, a testimonial or case study alone could not be accepted as substantiation under the Code.  We considered the claims that "Fine cracks and grout mean many wall and floor ceramic surfaces harbour a dirty secret.  Opt for Altro's seamless PVC with integral biocide and bacteria will have nowhere to hide.  And because they are seamless, they are also easier to clean ... " were likely to be interpreted to imply that Altros products were more hygienic, impermeable and easier to clean than all ceramic tiled surfaces.  We therefore considered, in the absence of robust evidence, for example controlled scientific trial or peer reviewed evidence that compared Altros products with all ceramic tiled surfaces, those claims were misleading.  We concluded that the comparison was not fair and the ad was likely to mislead.

On this point, ad (a) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

2. & 3. Upheld

We noted that some of the surfaces referred to in the HSE document had high or medium slipping potential but that several surfaces, not only safety vinyl and including safety ceramic tiles, were classified as having a low slipping potential. We also noted the information in that document was general and not specific to Altro products.  We noted the first test Altro sent, which was carried out in 1995, related to the four surfaces compared, only one of which was a ceramic tile, and stated "The results relate only to the samples tested and to the particular tests carried out and cannot prove that the product is generally fit for any intended purpose".  It also stated that the results for the Altro product were satisfactory ... However, the low surface roughness gives some cause for concern".  We noted the second test compared Altro products with one another but did not compare them with other surfaces.  We also noted that the evidence provided related only to slipping and not to tripping.

We considered ad (b), in particular the text "PROTECTING YOU FROM SLIPS HERE  AND TRIPS HERE" and " ... using Altro means any allegations of slipping wont have a leg to stand on", implied that most other surfaces, including ceramic tiles, were a slip and trip hazard.  We also considered the text " ... its nice to know your supplier was the first to offer lifetime slip resistance" was likely to be interpreted to suggest Altros product was less of a slip and trip hazard compared to other surfaces, including ceramic tiles.  Because the evidence Altro sent did not specifically compare Altros products with other surfaces, including ceramic tiles, and related only to slipping, we considered it was insufficient to substantiate the implied claims that most other surfaces, including ceramic tiles, were a slip and trip hazard and were more of a slip and trip hazard than Altros product.  We therefore concluded that the comparison was not fair and the ad was likely to mislead.

On these points, ad (b) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

Action

The ads must not appear again in the current form.  We told Altro not to make claims for which they did not hold robust substantiation.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)