Ad description
A claim on a website for textiles, seen on 1 June 2011, stated "soft to touch & naturally anti-bacterial".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claim that the products were "naturally anti-bacterial" was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Bamboo Textiles Ltd explained that all their products were made from bamboo or a bamboo and cotton mix. They provided two studies which they believed supported the claim.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered the studies provided.
One study measured the growth of two bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Clostridium difficile (CD). on different fabrics including Bamboo Textiles' own fabrics, which were described as being 100% bamboo and 30% cotton/70% bamboo mix. The testing was carried out in laboratory conditions over a 24-hour period. The results of the study showed that 100% bamboo fabric did not inhibit the growth of MRSA or CD, although the 30% cotton/70% bamboo mix fabric did show that growth of these bacteria had been completely inhibited during the testing period. However, we noted the study also tested the same 30% cotton/70% bamboo mix fabric after it had been washed 50 times and found that it did not inhibit the growth of MRSA or CD.
We noted the study had not demonstrated whether the results were statistically significant or that the same results would be achieved when the fabrics were in use in the real world, and we considered that consumers would interpret the claim "naturally anti-bacterial" to mean that the garment was resistant to the growth of bacteria during normal wearing. We also noted the author of the study had expressed caution in relation to the MRSA results and noted it was possible that the 30% cotton and 70% bamboo mix fabric could, due to its texture, retain more bacterial cells than the other fabrics tested. The author had also recommended that further studies be carried out.
We further considered that consumers would wash textile products frequently and the fabric had not been found to have any inhibitory effect on MRSA or CD after it had been washed 50 times. Furthermore, only two species of bacteria had been tested and we considered that Bamboo Textiles had not demonstrated that the results could be extrapolated to other forms of bacteria. For these reasons, we considered that the study had not provided adequate substantiation to support the "anti-bacterial" claim.
The second study measured the growth of MRSA and Klebsiella pneumonia (KP) on a 100% bamboo fabric in laboratory conditions over an 18-hour period. The study stated that the fabric inhibited the growth of both MRSA and KP, although we considered that Bamboo Textiles had not demonstrated that the results were statistically significant or that the results would be replicated in the real world. We also noted the results in relation to MRSA contradicted the other study which found that 100% bamboo fabric did not inhibit the growth of MRSA.
For these reasons, we concluded that Bamboo Textiles had not substantiated the claim that its products were "naturally anti-bacterial" and the claim was therefore misleading.
The claim 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
We told Bamboo Textiles not to repeat the claim that its products were "naturally anti-bacterial" unless they held adequate substantiation.
