ASA Adjudications

Beiersdorf UK Ltd
2010 Solihull Parkway
Birmingham Business Park
Birmingham
B37 7YS
Number of complaints: 11
Date:25 July 2007
Media:Television
Sector:Health and beauty
Agency:TBWA London

Ad
A TV ad for DNAge Nivea Visage stated:  "... Introducing DNAge.  Nivea Visage's revolution in face care.  Containing folic acid ... it increases cell renewal ... And helps protect your DNA from cell damage ...".
Issue
The viewers questioned whether the product increased cell renewal and could help protect your DNA from cell damage.
BCAP TV Advertising Code: 5.2.1;5.1;5.2.2

Response
Beiersdorf UK Ltd (Beiersdorf) provided several scientific studies in support of the claims.  They said temporary protection against skin damage from environmental influences was a recognised cosmetic claim.  They explained that DNAge contained sun protection factor (SPF 15) which protected the skin from Ultra Violet (UV) rays.  Beiersdorf said they believed that exposure of unprotected skin to UV radiation from the sun and the subsequent replication of damage that had not and could not be repaired was a main cause of premature skin ageing.  They explained that, the SPF15 in DNAge protected the DNA contained in the nucleus of skin cells from UV exposure and that that slowed down the premature ageing process.  Beiersdorf provided details of the Comet Assay test which they maintained showed that, applied topically, DNAge reduced the level of solar-induced DNA damage of the skin nuclei.

They maintained that the rate of skin cell renewal was affected by many factors including the level of hydration and environmental damage.  They argued that DNAge hydrated the skin and in turn increased its cell renewal.   Beiersdorf provided a study designed to show that topically applied DNAge Day cream increased the cell turnover demonstrated by a reduction in corneocyte size and by faster removal of surface skin colourisation caused by the self-tanning ingredient DHA.  They said the study showed that, moisturisation which was measured by corneometer, showed statistically significant increases in skin hydration when DNAge was applied.  Cell renewal results based on corneocyte size showed significant differences between the treated and untreated product, and that the skin treated with DNAge showed significantly faster shedding of the DHA colourisation of the surface of the skin cells.  They also provided a study which they maintained showed that cell renewal was increased by topically applied folic acid.   The subjects were tested for skin hydration by corneometer and cell renewal by reduced cornoecyte size.  The results showed that skin hydration results were higher for the skin treated with the product and that the cell renewal results based on corneocyte size showed significant differences between the skin treated with the product and that not treated.  They said that, since the ad was first shown, they had amended the claim "Nivea Visage's revolution in face care" to "The latest innovation from Nivea Visage" and "it increases cell renewal" to "it increases surface cell renewal".

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said they had approved the ad for transmission after consulting an expert.  They believed the evidence provided by Beiersdorf fully substantiated the claim.  The BACC said they endorsed the comments of the advertiser.




Assessment
Upheld
The ASA obtained independent expert advice to assess the evidence sent by Beiersdorf.  We noted that all the clinical trials were controlled and blinded.  However, we also noted that all the trials were carried out on either the arm, upper arm or inner forearm which we understood was not a good model for facial skin, the area which DNAge cream would be applied.  The forearm had less sun exposure and there were clear differences in the quality and make up of the skin between the face and forearm, therefore data obtained via the arm could not necessarily be extrapolated to an equal effect on facial skin.  

We acknowledged that the Comet Assay test demonstrated that the product helped protect the skin from sun damage.  Beiersdorf confirmed that DNAge Day cream contained an SPF of 15.  

We understood, from the expert, that there was some evidence to show that DNAge increased the cell turnover by a reduction in corneocyte size and by faster removal of surface skin colourisation.   The product slightly increased turnover of the surface layers of the skin (stratum corneum) but there was no evidence that the complete skin renewal cycle was affected.  However, because the testing was carried out on the inner arm, the data could not reliably be transferred to facial skin.  We also understood that the tests on turnover were all carried out on groups that were at the lower end of stratum corneum turnover before the treatment started and, therefore, might not be representative of all consumers.  

We understood, from the expert, that the study which maintained that cell renewal was increased by topically applied folic acid showed that, when treated for an equal period of time, the product with the active ingredient folic acid showed no benefit over and above the control treatment without folic acid.  While acknowledging that part of the study appeared to indicate that the active treatment produced smaller corneocytes than the two comparison treatments, because the tests were carried out on the inner arm, the results should not be exptrapolated to facial skin.

We considered that the test evidence provided by Beiersdorf showed that DNAge had the properties of a moisturiser and that the Day cream could help protect skin from potential damage caused by the sun. Because DNAge Night cream did not contain a SPF of 15, we considered the claim to protect the skin from damage caused by the sun applied to the Day cream only.  While we welcomed Beiersdorf''s amendments to the ad, we considered that the claim "...revolution in face care.  Containing folic acid ... it increases cell renewal" was a breakthrough claim that was likely to be seen to indicate a physiological effect.  Because the evidence provided by Beiersdorf did not support the "cell renewal" claim we concluded it was misleading.  

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.2.2 (Implications).
Action
The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

back | top