Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd Delta 1200 Welton Road Delta Business Park Swindon Wiltshire SN5 7XZ Number of complaints: 1

Date: 16 July 2008 Media: Television Sector: Household Agency: Euro RSCG

Ad
An ad for Dettol Antibacterial Surface Cleanser Spray stated "Fact: you can immunise your family against many infectious diseases, but not the most common of all - food poisoning, often caught from raw meat and the surfaces it touches".  The ad showed portions of raw chicken, which were laid directly onto a kitchen work surface, being skewered and then carried across to an oven; liquid dripped from the raw meat across the work surface as the chicken was transported.  On-screen text stated "Use Biocides safely.  Always read the label and product information before use".  A woman was shown spraying the surface cleaner over the dirtied surface and wiping it immediately with a cloth.  She then cleaned the inside of an empty fridge in the same way.  A child peeled an orange and ate it directly from the just cleaned worktop area. The voice-over continued "But use Dettol Surface Cleanser to kill 99.9% of bacteria wherever food has been prepared or stored without leaving a taste in your mouth. Dettol protects. Fact."  On-screen text at the end of the ad included a 'ticked' list, which stated "MRSA  E. coli  Salmonella  Flu Virus".

Issue
One viewer, an Environmental Health Officer, believed the ad was misleading and could cause harm, because it implied the product would kill bacteria immediately whereas she understood that contact with surfaces was necessary for at least two minutes before it became effective.

BCAP TV Advertising Code:

5.1;5.2.1;5.2.2;6.7

Response
Reckitt Benckiser (RB) explained that the product contained a recognised antibacterial agent, benzalkonium chloride, which was used in certain household cleaning and disinfectant products.  They explained that tests using the formulated product typically involved a four- to five-minute contact period although the time was varied to establish the speed of bacterial destruction.  They pointed out that the ad in this case showed raw chicken, which was a potential source of salmonella, campylobacter and Escherichia coli organisms that could lead to gastrointestinal infection, and said tests had shown that the product formulation was efficacious after 30 seconds exposure to an extremely high level, which equated to greater than 99.999% elimination, on all three organisms.  They also pointed out that the ad claimed to combat 99.9% of bacteria, a slightly lower figure, and believed, therefore, that degree of performance could be achieved in less than 30 seconds.  They said they had submitted evidence to substantiate the claim to Clearcast for approval prior to the ad's broadcast.

RB added that the treated surface would also benefit from the mechanical removal of bacteria provided by the damp cloth; the bacteria on the cloth would be rapidly destroyed and the surface would remain moistened by the product, and subject to its active ingredient, until dry, which typically took three to four minutes.  They pointed out that on-screen text advised viewers to read the pack instructions, which stated 'spray directly onto the surface and wipe over with a clean damp cloth and allow to dry'.  They explained that they advised consumers to allow the surface to dry to ensure that the product had more than adequate time to destroy the bacteria and to clarify that the product should not be rinsed away after use; they asserted, however, that the surface would be bacterially clean after 30 seconds.  They believed, because the product was as effective as claimed when used as directed on the pack, the ad did not mislead or encourage dangerous behaviour.

Clearcast said they had received independent confirmation of the product's efficacy and were content that the ad reflected its capability without giving a misleading impression; they submitted evidence they had assessed prior to clearing the ad.  They added that they were not aware of any harm being brought to viewers as a result of the ad's demonstration.

Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA acknowledged the complainant's concern that the ad implied the product would kill bacteria immediately whereas she understood that contact with surfaces was necessary for at least two minutes before it became effective.  While we appreciated that concern, we considered that the ad's implication was that the surface would be safe for use shortly after being treated with the product, but did not necessarily imply an instant effect.

We assessed the evidence submitted by RB.  We noted it demonstrated that Dettol Antibacterial Surface Cleanser Spray would eliminate 99.9% of salmonella as well as the other bacteria listed in the ad, E. coli, influenza and MRSA, within 30 seconds.  We noted, in view of this, the time taken for the product to take effect was not as lengthy as the complainant had believed.  We also considered that the time lapse shown in the ad was indicative of the very short time it took for the product to kill 99.9% of bacteria.

Furthermore, we considered that viewers would understand that it was important to use the product in line with its instructions and noted on-screen text advised "Use Biocides safely.  Always read the label and product information before use".  We noted the product information clarified that users should "Wipe over with a CLEAN damp cloth & ALLOW TO DRY".  We acknowledged RB's explanation that the mechanical action of the cloth removed some bacteria immediately and the product would eliminate the remainder on the surface to the claimed degree without difficulty if it was allowed to dry.  We accepted their explanation that the instructions to allow the surface to dry was both to give the product more than adequate time to work and to inform consumers that the product should not be rinsed away.

In view of the evidence that the product was effective in 30 seconds and that on-screen text advised consumers to read the label, we concluded that the ad did not mislead about the product's ability to eliminate bacteria or encourage viewers to use the product in a way that was potentially harmful to them.

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence), 5.2.2 (Implications) and 6.7 (Health and safety) but did not find it in breach.

Action
No action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)