Ad description
A website for Hydra International, www.hydra-aqua.com, advertised pond supplies:
a. Text on the product page for "Hydra DR-64T" stated "Biological solution for Duckweed Control in garden ponds. Starves off existing duckweed growth and improves water quality to prevent reappearance".
b. Text on the product page for "Hydra LC-99" stated "Use Hydra LC-99 biological treatment for duckweed control and elimination in your lakes", "A safe and natural solution for preventing the growth of duckweed" and "The after effects mean that once the existing infestation has been removed its return is inhibited so that the duckweed will find it very difficult to return".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claims that the products could control and eliminate duckweed were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Hydra International Ltd stated that both products contained a complex blend of ingredients that sequestered and removed essential nutrients and micronutrients from water, which prevented duckweed from producing chlorophyll and thereby reproducing. They provided copies of the product labels and supplied an external test report for each product that tested their effectiveness as a treatment for duckweed, as well as the raw data from these tests. They also sent images and feedback from a number of customers who had used the products and were happy with the results.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA took advice from an ecology expert on the evidence submitted in support of the claims. The expert said there was no proper description of the methods used in the reports, and noted that critical details were insufficiently described or absent from the methodology.
The expert raised questions about the design and analytical approach of the studies, and said the test conditions described were artificial and therefore unlikely to be applicable to a range of ponds under a range of natural conditions. They noted that the controls had been treated differently to the other concentrations in the tests and were therefore not comparable. They said the statistical approach to analysing the data was unclear, simplistic and non-standard and the results were not reliable.
On the basis of the expert's advice, we considered we had not seen sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims and we concluded they were misleading.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 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) and 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Hydra International Ltd not to state or imply that their products could control, eliminate or otherwise affect the growth of duckweed unless they had sufficient supporting evidence.
