ASA Adjudication on Philips Electronics UK Ltd

Ad

An ad for baby care accessories, in Boots Health & Beauty magazine, featured a baby feeding bottle. Text next to an image of the product stated "SLEEP WELL. The new Philips Avent Feeding Bottle ... is clinically proven to reduce colic and help settle your baby, especially at night. It has a soft, naturally shaped teat to encourage proper latch-on, which makes it easy to combine breast and bottle-feeding".

Issue

1. One complainant challenged whether the claim that the bottle was "clinically proven to reduce colic and help settle your baby" was misleading and could be substantiated.

2. Another complainant challenged whether the implied claim that breast-feeding babies would adapt to the bottle without difficulty, and that the transition between breast feeding and bottle feeding would therefore be easy, was misleading and could be substantiated.

CAP Code

Response

1. Philips Electronics UK Ltd (Philips) said they invested heavily in clinical research with world-renowned institutions, such as the Institute of Child Health (ICH) in London. They provided copies of two clinical trials conducted by ICH involving the Avent bottles, one supported the claim "clinically proven to reduce colic" and the other supported the claim "clinically proven to ... help settle your baby", and pointed out that they were the first company in the world to produce an anti-colic bottle backed by a randomised clinical trial.

2. Philips said the ad communicated that the process of combining breast and bottle feeding was easier with the availability of products such as the Avent feeding bottle, specifically because of the softness and natural shape of its teat. They did not consider that the word "easy" would be interpreted by consumers as an absolute standard. Philips argued that the ad did not advocate a preference for bottle feeding over breast feeding, and pointed out that the ad used the word "combine".

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA understood that, when using a conventional feeding bottle, a baby created a vacuum in the bottle that might hinder sucking. We also understood that the Avent bottle had been designed to counter that effect by allowing air to enter the bottle as the baby sucked, thereby avoiding a vacuum.

We noted that the first study, which was a published conference paper, assessed the relationship between bottle type and colic in babies. We understood that babies were randomly assigned to a breastfed group, anti-vacuum (Avent) group or conventional bottle group, and were assessed at two and six weeks of age through the use of diaries kept by mothers, which recorded different aspects of their babies' behaviour. We noted that the results of the study showed that at two weeks old babies on the anti-vacuum bottle spent significantly more time awake and content, and that there was a significant trend to less recorded colic than with the conventional bottle. We noted that the anti-vacuum group recorded a duration of colic that was closer to that of the breastfed babies, who recorded the least amount and duration of colic. However, we also noted that at six weeks of age there were no reported differences between the anti-vacuum and conventional bottles.

We considered that the study supported a claim that the product was clinically proven to reduce colic in babies at two weeks of age, but noted that the ad made a general claim that we considered would be understood by consumers to refer to babies of all ages. We therefore concluded that the study did not support the claim made in the ad.

We noted that the second paper was a summary of an unpublished study that assessed whether feeding with anti-vacuum bottles influenced milk intake and growth and infant behaviour. We understood that the study compared the effects of two different anti-vacuum bottles, including Avent, but did not assess how those bottles compared with a conventional bottle. We also understood that the babies were randomised to the two bottles and assessed at two weeks of age through parental diaries that recorded their babies' behaviour. We noted that at two weeks the study showed that, whilst fussing (or settling a baby) was the single commonest crying behaviour during the trial, babies using the Avent bottle had significantly less reported fussing than those using the other anti-vacuum bottle, and that that difference was greatest at night.

We considered that the study supported a claim that the product was "clinically proven to ... help settle your baby" at two weeks of age when compared to a competitor's anti-vacuum bottle. We also considered, however, that consumers were likely to understand the claim to refer to all babies and to be a comparison with conventional bottles. We therefore concluded that the study did not support the claim made in the ad.

We concluded that the claim "Clinically proven to reduce colic and help settle your baby" had not been substantiated and was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Not upheld

We noted the complainant's concern that the claim, "... makes it easy to combine breast and bottle-feeding", implied that breast-fed babies would adapt to the Avent bottle without difficulty. We also noted, however, that the claim appeared in the same sentence as qualifying text that stated "It has a soft, naturally shaped teat to encourage proper latch-on ...". We considered that consumers would understand the claim, in that context, to mean that the shape and texture of the teat could help a baby to latch-on to the bottle, which we understood to be the case. We also considered that most consumers would understand that the ease with which mothers could combine breast and bottle feeding would vary between individual babies. We therefore did not consider that consumers were likely to interpret the ad to mean that the combination of breast and bottle feeding would always be easy with the Avent bottle, but rather that the design of the teat meant that the bottle could help with combined breast and bottle feeding. We therefore considered that the claim was not misleading.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)