Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A magazine ad for Liquithrive Sheep was headed "£11 PER EWE EXTRA PROFIT WITH LIQUITHRIVE SHEEP … In an independent study at the Scottish Agriculture College, sheep given Liquithrive Sheep showed an improved performance equivalent to £11 extra profit*". Further text stated "BENEFITS OF DRENCHING EWES PRE-TUPPING Improved conception rates, Less barrens, Tighter lambing, Even sized twins BENEFITS OF DRENCHING EWES PRE-LAMBING Reduced mortality, Improved growth rate, More vigorous lambs, Better weaning weights" and "Organically chelated trace element and vitamin supplement for sheep". Testimonials stated "We now get good conception rates, less barrens, healthy ewes and strong even sized lambs" and "Using Liquithrive Sheep both pre-tupping and lambing gives excellent conception rates, strong vigorous lambs with high birth weights as well as quality colostrums and plenty of milk". A footnote stated "*Price based on 10ltr Liquithrive Sheep and lamb market value £1.75/Kg Live Weight (September 2014) [sic]".
Issue
1. The complainant, an independent sheep consultant, challenged whether the claim "£11 PER EWE EXTRA PROFIT" and listed benefits of the product could be substantiated.
2. The ASA challenged whether the ad made medicinal (veterinary) claims for an unauthorised product.
Response
1. Agri-Lloyd International Ltd said that the claims regarding the listed benefits of the product and the £11 extra profit claim were based on an independent study done by an agricultural college in 1996, which they provided. They highlighted the parts of the report which they said were relevant to each claim. They also provided a summary of the study results which they said demonstrated how the £11 profit claim had been calculated.
2. Agri-Lloyd did not respond regarding the point of complaint.
Assessment
1. Upheld
In relation to the drenching of ewes pre-tupping, the ASA considered the evidence for the claims "less barrens", "tighter lambing" and "even sized lambs". In relation to the benefits of drenching ewes pre-lambing, we considered the evidence for the claims "improved growth rate", "more vigorous lambs" and "better weaning weights".
The study provided was a commercial field trial carried out independently by an agricultural college in 1996 to examine the impact of ewe treatment with Liquithrive Sheep. The trial examined 575 ewes from a commercial Scottish Blackface flock that were either given Liquithrive or left untreated as controls.
In relation to the claim "less barrens" listed under "Benefits Of Drenching Ewes Pre-Tupping" the study stated that the proportion of barren ewes was slightly lower in the treatment group than in the control group. However, it also stated that the difference was not statistically significant. We therefore concluded that the claim "less barrens" had not been substantiated.
In relation to the claim "tighter lambing" listed under "Benefits Of Drenching Ewes Pre-Tupping", the study stated that there were statistically significant differences between the mean lambing date for sheep in the treatment group compared to those in the control group. We sought expert advice. Our expert advised that the design of the field trial was fundamentally flawed in terms of meeting the experimental objectives. They said that important information was not included, such as when in the year the rams were turned into the ewes and whether ewes were already cycling at the time of ram introduction, and no mating records were taken. This meant that information presented regarding the number and proportion of ewes repeating to service was assumption only. Without information on the proportion of ewes mating in different time periods after ram introduction, and the proportion failing to conceive at first mating, in their view it was not possible to tell if any effect was due to the use of the product or was the result of other factors. Taking into account that only one field trial had been provided as substantiation, they did not consider that the evidence supported the claim. Because the evidence provided was not sufficiently robust we concluded that the claim "tighter lambing" had not been substantiated.
In relation to the claim "even sized twins" listed under "Benefits Of Drenching Ewes Pre-Tupping", the study did not specifically refer to this effect and no other evidence was provided to support it. We therefore concluded that the claim "even sized twins" had not been substantiated.
In relation to the claim "improved growth rate" listed under "Benefits Of Drenching Ewes Pre-Lambing", Agri-Lloyd referred to a results table within the study. However, we noted that the study stated there were no statistically significant effects of the treatment on lamb growth rates. We therefore concluded that the claim "improved growth rate" had not been substantiated.
In relation to the claim "more vigorous lambs" listed under "Benefits Of Drenching Ewes Pre-Lambing", Agri-Lloyd referred to a results table within the study. However, we noted that the study stated the differences in the number of lambs born dead or close to dying between the control and treatment groups were not statistically significant. We therefore concluded that the claim "more vigorous lambs" had not been substantiated.
In relation to the claim "better weaning weights" listed under "Benefits Of Drenching Ewes Pre-Lambing", the study stated that the differences in weaning weights between the control and treatment groups were not statistically significant. We therefore concluded that the claim "better weaning weights" had not been substantiated.
In relation to the claim "£11 per ewe extra profit", Agri-Lloyd referred to an economic analysis within the study which stated a financial benefit of £5.85 per treated ewe. They said this had been adjusted to take into account the lamb market value changes from 1996 to date. However, we noted that the majority of measurements in the study saw non-significant effects of the treatment only and also that the study methodology was not robust. We therefore did not consider that the study results were sufficient basis for an increased profit claim. We had also not seen evidence of the lamb market prices at the time of the study and at the time the ad appeared. We also considered that one study was not sufficient basis for a claim that a specific amount of extra profit could be achieved per ewe, because there were a large number of other factors that might affect profit levels and these were likely to vary between flocks. We therefore concluded that the claim "£11 per ewe extra profit" had not been substantiated.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
2. Upheld
We noted that the CAP Code required medicines to have a marketing authorisation from the relevant regulatory body before they were marketed, and that that rule also applied to veterinary claims made for animal products. The relevant regulatory body for veterinary claims was the Veterinary and Medicines Directorate (VMD). The VMD advised that the claims "improved conception rates" and "reduced mortality" suggested a physiological effect by metabolic action, and therefore a medicinal effect. Because the claims presented the product as medicinal and the marketers did not hold a marketing authorisation we concluded that the claims breached the Code.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 12.1 and 12.11 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Agri-Lloyd International Ltd not to make medicinal claims for products without a marketing authorisation. We also told them not to make claims regarding product benefits unless they held robust evidence to support them.
