Ad description
A TV ad for Oral B Pro Expert Toothpaste featured a woman standing alongside a screen, which contained the text "Dr Uchenna Okoye, Dentist". Ms Okoye stated, "I've seen a lot of teeth that look great, until I look at the gum line. The problem is if you have plaque along the gum line, it can lead to gum problems, in fact one in two adults might have gum problems and not even know it." On-screen text stated "1 in 2 has gum problems". Ms Okoye further stated, "That's why I recommend Oral B Pro-Expert Premium Gum Protection toothpaste. It helps reduce plaque at the gum line and it's even been clinically proven to reduce it in just four weeks. It also protects these areas dentists check most. New Oral B Pro Expert Premium Gum Protection toothpaste."
Issue
Nine complainants challenged whether the on-screen text "1 in 2 has gum problems" was misleading because it contradicted the voice-over "… one in two adults might have gum problems and not even know it".
Response
Procter & Gamble (P&G) provided copies of clinical studies which they believed substantiated the claim that "1 in 2 adults have gum problems". They said the Adult Dental Health Survey 2009 reported that "a reasonable sized minority of dentate adults (17%) had healthy periodontal issues", and believed it was fair to conclude from this that the remaining 83% had some kind of gum problem. They said that a study titled "The Oral Cleanliness and Periodontal Health of UK adults in 1998" showed that 54% of all dentate adults (persons who had one or more of their permanent teeth), had periodontal pocketing greater than 3.5 mm, which was a sign of unhealthy gums.
They further believed the claim was supported by the Epidemiology and Risk Factors of Periodontal Disease study which stated that prevalence of gingivitis (gum problems) was greater than 50%. The periodontal diseases in Europe report discussed that the occurrence of gingivitis was found in 80% of people examined and that a small proportion of these exhibited severe wide-spread periodontitis (inflammation of the tissue around the teeth, often causing shrinkage of the gums and loosening of the teeth); mild gingivitis was common and most adults (more than one in two) demonstrated some loss of probing attachment.
With regard to the challenge that the statements in the ad relating to gum disease contradicted each other, they said that Ms Okoye's statement was correct and referred to the fact that individuals may not be aware of their gum problems and that this statement was not misleading and did not contradict the claim that one in two adults had gum problems.
Clearcast said this issue was considered when the ad was cleared, but that based on their consultants feedback which stated that the absolute claims was acceptable, they considered the conditional claim would not be misleading. They added that they took the view that the voice-over carried more weight than on-screen text as far as the viewer impact was concerned and that in this context the visual text would be seen merely as a bullet point to accompany the more detailed voice-over where the claim was softened somewhat.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted the ad stated that plaque was one of the major causes of gum disease and considered that viewers would understand that the prevalence of gum problems referenced in the ad was as a direct result of plaque. We understood that "gum problems" would be understood by viewers as gum disease ranging from very mild to serious and considered that this was indicated by the reference in the ad to the fact that some people may not know they had a gum problem.
We noted the Adult Dental Health Survey 2009 reported that 17% of British adults had very healthy teeth and gums. However, we considered that this alone could not be automatically extrapolated to demonstrate that the remaining 87% had "gum problems" or that these gum problems were caused by plaque. However, we noted the same report stated that 45% of adults had at least one periodontal pocket and understood that the cause of pocketing was plaque. We noted the 1998 survey reported that 72% of adults had visible plaque and reported that plaque was common cause of gum disease. We also noted the survey stated that 54% of the 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. respondents had a moderate form of gum disease (pocketing). Although we were a little concerned about whether the 15-year-old survey could be used to support statements relating to gum disease in 2013, because we understood new oral health technology and consumer understanding may have affected plaque levels and subsequent gum disease, we noted the 2009 survey also reported similar levels of pocketing.
We noted the remaining reports referenced high levels (in excess of 50%) of various types of gum problems and gum disease in both Europe and the US and again noted that plaque was cited as a significant cause. We noted the studies were all published in peer reviewed journals and that the sample sizes (where relevant) were sufficiently large in order to be considered statistically significant.
We therefore considered that collectively, the evidence demonstrated that it was fair to conclude that one in two adults were likely to have some form of gum problem.
Although we understood the ad contained both a definitive and conditional statement with regard to likelihood that one in two adults had a gum problem, we considered that within the context of the ad as a whole, the claims "1 in 2 has gum problems" and "in fact one in two adults might have gum problems and not even know it" would be understood by viewers as a reference to the fact that statistically speaking, one in two adults had some form of gum problem and that some of those who did, may not even be aware of it. Because both statements were accurate, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.
We investigated the ad under 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 3.10 3.10 Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Qualification) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action required.
