Background
Summary of Council decision:
Five issues were investigated, of which two were Not upheld and three were Upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad, a press ad and claims on a website for a deodorant:
a. The TV ad stated, "Your underarm skin contains a diversity of natural bacteria, essential to keeping skin healthy. If this diversity is disrupted it can affect your skin's health. New Sanex antiperspirants fight odour causing bacteria and leave a beneficial mix of bacteria. Sanex, keep skin healthy".
b. The press ad featured a woman with her arm raised, and an image of white bacterial shapes was imposed over her armpit beside text which read "Bioresponse." Beneath this image, text read "Did you know your skin's natural bacteria* is essential?” The asterisk led to small print which read "Bacterial Flora". Further text, next to an image of bottles of Sanex deodorant, stated "Your underarm skin contains natural bacteria* that is essential to keep it healthy. When this bacteria is affected your skin can be left vulnerable. New Sanex deodorants, with active Bioresponse, eliminate odour-causing bacteria, whilst respecting your skin's natural bacteria, to keep it protected and healthy. New Sanex deodorants. Work with your skin, not against it".
c. Claims on www.colgate.co.uk stated on the 'Our History' tab, in the '2013' section, "Bioresponse. Introducing Sanex Bioresponse, a new generation of antiperspirants that work against odour causing bacteria whilst respecting your skin's natural bacteria* to keep it protected and healthy. *bacterial flora".
Issue
Unilever challenged whether:
1. the claim that the product "[fights] odour causing bacteria and [leaves] a beneficial mix of bacteria" in ad (a) was misleading because they understood that odour causing bacteria was itself a part of skin's natural bacterial flora, rather than a separate entity;
2. the claims the product "[eliminates] odour-causing bacteria, whilst respecting your skin's natural bacteria" in ad (b) and "[works] against odour causing bacteria whilst respecting your skin's natural bacteria" in ad (c) were misleading, for the same reason;
3. the claims in ad (a) that the product could "fight" one type of bacteria, namely "odour causing bacteria", and leave "a beneficial mix of bacteria" were misleading and could be substantiated, because they understood that the product contained the ingredient aluminium chlorohydrate (ACH), which fought all forms of bacteria;
4. the claims in ads (b) and (c) that the product could "eliminate" or "work against" one type of bacteria, namely "odour causing bacteria" and leave "natural bacteria" were misleading and could be substantiated, for the same reason; and
5. the claims that "If [bacterial diversity] is disrupted it can affect your skin's health" in ad (a) and that when underarm bacteria is affected "your skin can be left vulnerable" in ad (b) were misleading and could be substantiated, because they understood that a reduction in the levels of bacteria following an application of deodorant would not cause the skin to become vulnerable.
Response
1. - 4. Colgate-Palmolive (UK) Ltd (Colgate) said that normal skin exhibited a dominance of beneficial flora (including Staphylococcus epidermidis), a diverse mix of phyla (including firmicutes, proteobacteria and bacteroidetes) and CFU values (the total abundance of bacteria on the skin) greater than 10 to the power three. They said that their data showed that CFU values were greatly reduced after product use, but the remaining bacteria still exhibited the former two features of normal skin, and did not cause dysbiosis or microbial imbalance. They said that their product did not remove so much bacteria as to be detrimental to the skin's health and did not alter the skin's natural bacterial diversity. They accepted that odour-causing bacteria was part of the normal resident flora on the skin and that such diversity was good for the skin's health, but explained that recent studies demonstrated that odour-causing bacteria fell into a distinct and separate group, which could be distinguished from other types of flora. They provided three academic studies to demonstrate that point.
They explained that, while the specific odour-causing bacteria, was part of the skin's natural bacteria flora, if left unchecked and untreated, it created an unpleasant body odour and has not been shown to be beneficial to human health. They said the studies demonstrated that specific odour-causing bacteria reacted differently to other types of bacteria when tested in favourable conditions designed to inhibit growth. They pointed out that one of the conclusions of the academic studies was that it was possible to develop a product designed to specifically fight that type of flora. They provided two sets of clinical data by two research institutes, including detailed methodologies and summaries, to show that the product completely eradicated specific odour-causing bacteria after product use over a number of applications. They also provided a letter from a doctor which set out the key points of the data, including that the diversity of bacteria on the skin remained similar before and after product use. They pointed out that removing all bacteria was harmful and their product sought to eliminate body odour while ensuring the flora remained diverse.
Colgate said that their product did include ACH, but the unique combination of ingredients ensured that it had the overall effect of maintaining the skin's natural bacterial diversity, while reducing and eliminating specific odour-causing bacteria. They said the report from the research institute demonstrated, in line with recently published papers, that the ACH-formula was effective against specific odour-causing bacteria eradicating it after product-use over a number of applications, whereas other commensal bacteria (all three other types of phyla which were found naturally on the skin and encompassing many bacterial species) survived on the skin after that time and the flora was dominated by phyla firmicutes which included beneficial species such as Staphylococcus epidermis. They pointed out that the doctor fully confirmed the results in his letter. They provided two further studies to substantiate the claim.
5. Colgate said that it was generally known that antiperspirants could affect the skin's properties and bacterial flora, especially if they were formulated with inter alia, very low pH values, high cumulative effects or contained anti-bacterial ingredients. They said that those factors could affect the skin's natural flora and could, therefore, leave skin vulnerable to dermatological problems. They provided three studies which they said demonstrated that a normal mix of bacteria was associated with health and was beneficial; disruption of diversity could cause skin problems. They said their research demonstrated the product completely eradicates specific odour-causing bacteria, but still left a beneficial mix of bacteria.
1. - 5. Clearcast said that the claims were reviewed by an expert and they believed there was enough data to interpret the claims in such a way that the ad could be approved. They provided the consultant's reports and Colgate's response to the consultant's comments. They said they understood the product did leave a majority of skin-friendly bacteria and, while there was no evidence to suggest that was a healthy outcome, they believed they could approve the ad on that basis. They said they understood that the product was not damaging for the skin.
Assessment
1. & 3. Not upheld
The ASA took expert advice. We considered consumers would understand the claims to mean that the product fought odour-causing types of bacteria, leaving a "beneficial mix of bacteria" on the skin.
Colgate provided clinical studies to demonstrate that the product, after a number of applications, eliminated a specific type of bacterium (Corynebacterium). They provided academic papers that demonstrated that Corynebacteria was considered to be the primary cause of malodour. We noted two of the academic papers explained that other types of bacteria also caused malodour and understood that the product contained the ingredient ACH, which reduced total counts of all types of bacteria. However, we considered the clinical studies demonstrated that a beneficial mix of bacteria was left on the skin after product use. While we considered it was likely, therefore, that other malodour-causing bacteria would be present on the skin and the total number of bacteria would be reduced after a number of applications of the product, we considered the product did "fight" the bacteria that primarily caused malodour, and left a beneficial mix of bacteria on the skin. Because of that, we concluded the ad was not misleading.
On those points, we investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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), but did not find it in breach.
2. & 4. Upheld
We considered consumers would understand the claims to mean that the product eliminated all odour-causing types of bacteria, leaving "natural bacteria" on the skin, which did not produce odour.
While Colgate provided clinical studies to demonstrate that the product, after a number of applications, eliminated a specific type of bacterium (Corynebacterium), and provided academic papers, which demonstrated that Corynebacteria was considered to be the primary cause of malodour. Two of the academic papers explained that other types of bacteria also caused malodour. It was likely, therefore, that other malodour-causing bacteria would be present on the skin after a number of applications of the product. Because of that, while we considered the product did "work" against odour-causing bacteria as claimed in ad (c), it was possible that it did not eliminate it entirely, as claimed in ad (b). We also considered the first part of the claims would be considered in the context of the second part of the claims, which stated "whilst respecting your skin's natural bacteria".
The product included the ingredient ACH, which reduced total counts of all types of bacteria. One of the clinical studies showed that the product did not specifically target Corynebacteria, but also targeted other bacteria not associated with malodour formation. That test found that two types of bacteria, which were not known to be odour-causing, were not detected after application of the product, which we considered contradicted the implied claim that the product only targeted odour-causing bacteria and left other "natural" bacteria. Another of the academic papers expressed the view that healthy skin required a diverse bacterial community that included Corynebacterium and its absence would cause a disruption in the bacterial community that existed under healthy conditions. It also pointed out the benefits of Corynebacterium to the skin. We considered those conclusions contradicted the implied claim that the eliminated bacterium was not natural to the skin. Because the evidence did not substantiate the likely interpretation of the claims in their entirety, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On those points, ads (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements 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).
5. Upheld
We considered consumers would interpret the claims, in the context of an ad promoting a new type of deodorant, to mean that the use of most deodorants or antiperspirants disrupted bacterial diversity and might therefore have a negative impact on the skin's health. We considered the claims "Sanex, keep skin healthy" in ad (a), when viewed alongside the claim "If [bacterial diversity] is disrupted it can affect your skin's health", and "Work with your skin, not against it" and "Leading the way in caring skin" in ad (b), when viewed alongside the claim that when underarm bacteria is affected "your skin can be left vulnerable" contributed to that impression. While Colgate provided three academic studies to substantiate the claims, we noted the evidence referred to the effect of products on those with vulnerable skin conditions. They did not show the effect of repeated applications of antiperspirant on people with generally healthy skin, which we considered was necessary for the evidence to be relevant to the statements made in the ads. While Colgate provided evidence to demonstrate that elimination of some types of bacteria disrupted the skin's healthy ecology, they did not submit any data that showed the use of deodorants and antiperspirants had a widespread detrimental health effect on the skin flora. In the absence of that evidence, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On that point, ad (a) breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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 3.38 3.38 Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons) and ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements 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 3.38 3.38 Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear in its current form. We told Colgate-Palmolive (UK) Ltd to ensure future advertising for Sanex did not misleading imply the product could eradicate all types of odour-causing bacteria, and only targeted odour-causing bacteria, that the specific types of bacteria it did eliminate were not "natural", and that antiperspirants generally had a negative impact on the skin's health.
