Background
Summary of Council decision:
Six points were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad, YouTube video and pages on the website www.blanx.co.uk for whitening toothpaste and treatments:
a. A TV ad for a toothpaste, Blanx White Shock. The ad featured characters who spoke Italian; English subtitles were included. The first scene depicted two women adjusting their hair in front of a mirror. One of the women spoke to the other and the English subtitles read "You look like a beached whale." The woman who was spoken to smiled in response, showing her white teeth. The next scene featured a man ringing the door bell of an apartment. The same woman answered the door and the man spoke to her and raised his hand to show a dog lead. The English subtitle read "I lost your Chihuahua." The woman smiled in response, showing her white teeth.
A female voice-over stated in English, "Keep smiling because Blanx White Shock from Italy is the only whitening toothpaste with Actilux that reacts to lights, so the more you smile, the whiter your teeth get." During the voice-over, the ad showed an image of the product and a close-up shot of the woman's smile, revealing a set of white teeth with a graphic super-imposed to give the effect that light was reflecting off her teeth.
The ad then showed the woman sitting at an outdoor cafe with a man. The man spoke to the woman and the English subtitles read "I'm leaving you for your brother." The woman smiled in response which showed her white teeth. The female voice-over then stated "Blanx White Shock, now available with Ledx Accelerator", accompanied by a graphic depicting toothpaste from the product being deposited on a toothbrush, with a blue light emitting from the opening of the tube, with on-screen text stating "ALSO WITH LIGHT ACCELERATOR". The female voice-over then stated "Stunning whiteness from Italy."
b. The YouTube video was identical to the TV ad – ad (a).
c. Text on the website page titled 'ACTILUX FORMULA' stated, "Actilux® ... The new innovation in whitening. Every day, our teeth are attacked by organic molecules and bacteria that cause dirt, yellowing and bad breath. Actilux® naturally fights to restore whiteness and radiance to your smile ... Thanks to its micro-crystals, Actilux® binds to the enamel of your teeth during regular brushing, creating an invisible barrier that blocks the causes of yellowing. Its photocatalytic active ingredient lasts all day and is activated by light, thus destroying dirt molecules and naturally whitening your teeth. The secret is light. Actilux® is activated by light, in way [sic] that does not damage your teeth, instead wiping away the "bad" dirt molecules, keeping your mouth clean and your gums hydrated. Day after day, with each smile, thanks to the joint effort of light and Actilux®, your teeth are whitened and they regain their natural radiance".
d. Text on the website page titled 'THE SMILE CYCLE' stated, "The surprising effect of Blanx White Shock is activated by the light and lasts all day. The more you smile, the more light reaches your teeth and the whiter your smile becomes…".
e. Text on the website page titled 'FAQS' stated "How does BlanX White Shock formula work? BlanX White Shock formula contains an internationally patented ingredient called Actilux®, which reacts to light to help whiten teeth naturally.
Actilux® has a photo-catalytic effect - breaking down organic dirt and bacteria using light, washing away dirt via the lotus effect. Dirt particles are picked up by water droplets (saliva) due to a complex micro and nanoscopic architecture of the surface, which minimises adhesion.
How does the LED light whiten my teeth? The LED light works as an accelerator to boost the Actilux® in the BlanX White Shock formula, activating the formula as it passed through the tube. You can also use the light on the end of the toothpaste tube to boost the formula whist on your teeth by holding the light in front of your mouth for 1 minute everyday ...
How long will it take to whiten my teeth? The appearance of teeth can vary depending on dentine & enamel colour and on what food & drink you consume so the natural whiteness of teeth can vary from person to person. BlanX White Shock formula gets to work straight away and stays active all day long, helping to whitening your teeth every time they are exposed to light. So the more you smile, the whiter they should become. Just as the original BlanX range restores teeth to their natural whiteness, BlanX White Shock formula aims to improve the whiteness of your teeth, helping to return to their natural splendor".
f. Text on the website page titled 'Products' stated, "From the BlanX laboratories comes BlanX White Shock, the new range of products with a revolutionary patented formula with Actilux®, the active ingredient that uses the power of light to whiten teeth. Guaranteed effective and safe! This new formula whitens teeth in a completely natural way and is effective from the very first time it's used".
g. Text on the website page titled 'Blanx White Shock 50ml + LED Accelerator with Actilux' stated, "This BlanX White Shock toothpaste comes with LED accelerator for a more intense whitening action. The LED lights up each time you use Blanx White Shock, activating the paste as soon as it comes out of the tube onto the toothbrush. Thanks to the specially designed LED light, Actilux's whitening action is multiplied".
h. Text on the website page titled 'BlanX White Shock Treatments 30ml + LED bite with Actilux' stated, "This intensive BlanX White Shock Treatment has been formulated for daily use with the LED bite that can be placed in the mouth after every brushing, for 1 - 10 minutes, for an even more intense whitening treatment. The treatment works quickly, effectively and safely to regain your teeth's natural radiance. Use BlanX White Shock Treatment for 2 weeks, 4 times a year, and get teeth up to 4 shades whiter".
Issue
The ASA received complaints from two members of the public, who saw ad (a) and Colgate-Palmolive (UK) Ltd, who saw ads (b) to (h).
The complainants and Colgate-Palmolive challenged whether:
1. the claims in ads (a) – (d), (e) and (f) implying BlanX White Shock toothpastes, which contained the ingredient Actilux, reacted to light;
2. the claims in ads (a), (b), (e) and (g) implying that the LED light enhanced or accelerated the whitening process;
3. the claims in ads (c), (d) and (e) implying that the product worked all day;
4. the claims in ads (e) and (f) implying that the product was effective in whitening teeth from first use;
5. the claim in ad (h) "Use BlanX White Shock Treatment for 2 weeks, 4 times a year, and get teeth up to 4 shades whiter"; and
6. the claims in ads (c), (e) and (f) implying that the product was capable of whitening teeth "naturally"
were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Coswell SpA said that the TV ad had been approved by Clearcast following significant and robust challenges about their claims.
Coswell explained that the ingredient "Actilux", which was a patented invention, was an inorganic microcluster with an apatitic core surface consisting of biomimetic hydroxyapatite, activated with photocatalitic inorganic crystals that reacted under light. They stated that the invention related to the use of oral care and oral hygiene products in preventing and eliminating dental stains and plaque. The patent also related to a kit that comprised at least one of the oral hygiene products and optionally a device that emitted light with a wavelength of between 280 nm and 450 nm (UVB–UVA-Vis).
They stated that when BlanX White Shock toothpaste was used, the Actilux microparticles contained in the toothpaste would connect to the enamel and the apatitic core of the particles would remain bound to the enamel surface, producing a coating which could persist all day. They further explained that Actilux was not aggressive on the enamel, its action would remain continuous over time and intensify in both solar and artificial light. The whitening effects were irreversible, unlike with peroxides, and continued with each application. They also explained that Actilux would become hydrophilic on gum and teeth in the presence of light and would revert back to being hydrophobic in the lack of light, and thereby establishing a self-cleaning process known as the "lotus effect".
Coswell provided a number of trials produced in Italy by the Chemical Centre, the Tuscany Stomatological Institute and the University of Pavia. They also provided a number of published peer-reviewed studies which examined the properties and remineralisation of carbonate-hydroxyapatite nanocrystals on dental material; the photocatalytic, hydrophilic and antibacterial activities of titanium dioxide; the effects of acidic food and drinks on enamel, dentine and tooth-coloured filling materials; and the safety of using peroxides as a whitening ingredient and a general review of whitening toothpastes. Coswell also stated that their product had been on sale for more than 18 months all over the EU, demonstrating that customers were satisfied with the product.
In response to the TV ad, Clearcast said that having carefully considered Coswell's substantiation in consultation with their dental expert, they did not consider the claims about the products' capabilities to be misleading in respect of the way in which the product functioned and their whitening effects. They stated that the visual treatment showed the woman on different occasions going about her daily life, with no change to the colour in her teeth and was simply a visual metaphor to describe the effects of using the product. They stated that the demonstration sequence, which alluded to the effect of light on the product and the blue spots representing the ingredient Actilux, was an accurate representation of how the product worked.
Clearcast stated that they had evidence to demonstrate the two-fold effect of the product in whitening teeth and also the ability of the product to further whiten with exposure to light which was communicated to viewers with the "keep smiling" motif. They did not consider the ad exaggerated the efficacy of the products; they were satisfied from the evidence supplied to them that the product worked as described in the voice-over and was capable of increasing whiteness by exposure to light. Clearcast stated that given that smiling, in the manner that was shown in the visuals, necessitated the opening of the mouth, they believed it was reasonable to use smiling as a motif in describing how the product worked.
Assessment
The ASA understood that the BlanX White Shock range consisted of whitening toothpastes, one of which contained an LED light attachment, mouthwash, gel pen and an intensive treatment with an "LED bite" device.
We noted that, during the course of the investigation, Coswell submitted further evidence that consisted of in vitro tests that post-dated the publication and broadcast of the ads. However, we were minded that CAP and BCAP Codes required advertisers already to hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers were likely to regard as objective and were capable of objective substantiation, we therefore based our assessment on the body of evidence held by Coswell at the time the ads appeared.
The ASA took expert advice.
1. Upheld
We noted that the studies published in peer-reviewed journals that Coswell provided consisted of: in vitro tests that evaluated the remineralisation of enamel and dentine through the use of carbonate hydroxyapatite toothpastes; a study that examined the remineralising effect on dentine using an electron microscopy scanner; one study that compared the remineralisation effect of toothpastes with carbonate hydroxyapatite nanocrystals against toothpastes with fluoride ions; and one that compared the performance of fluoride toothpaste against that of a carbonate hydroxyapatite toothpaste in repairing enamel erosion caused by soft drinks. We noted that the carbonate hydroxyapatite toothpastes used in some of the studies were from another range of toothpastes that was also manufactured by Coswell. However, based on the information available, the formula of the hydroxyapatite toothpaste tested in the studies did not appear to be equivalent to that of White BlanX Shock.
We considered the published studies, some of which involved tests in laboratory conditions, that examined the photocatalytic and hydrophilic properties, and the resulting antibacterial activities of titanium dioxide, which we understood to be a component of Actilux. Although this supported Coswell's assertion that the photocatalytic properties of titanium dioxide had been generally recognised by the scientific community, we noted that the published studies did not relate specifically to titanium dioxide as found in Actilux in the marketed product.
We noted that the studies conducted by the Chemical Centre in Italy, a laboratory in Bologna specialising in analysis research and nanotechnology, involved in vitro tests that examined the photocatalytic properties of Actilux and the antibacterial properties of Blanx White Shock toothpaste against Streptococcus mutans, and was compared against other toothpastes. The in vitro study that examined the photocatalytic properties of the active ingredient Actilux found evidence of photodegradation when it was exposed to sunlight for 180 minutes. We noted that the results of the study could be considered as an indication of the inherent photocatalytic activity of Actilux in isolation or in laboratory conditions. However, we had not seen evidence that the rate of photodegradation measured in this test would also occur when Actilux was contained in the toothpaste and used by consumers.
We also considered the in vivo study conducted by the University of Pavia in Italy titled "Clinical and Domestic Handling to Keep the Smile of a Patient", which Coswell stated had been published in Italian in the journal, Cosmetic Dentistry. The purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of BlanX White Shock toothpaste in destroying bacteria and breaking down the organic remains on teeth that caused discolouration. The University stated that the trial was conducted using the toothpaste with an LED device and provided details of the batch from which the product tested had originated.
We noted that the study involved three groups of 20 participants aged between 20 and 50. All were patients treated in the Department of Dental Hygiene at the University of Pavia who were suffering from varying types and degrees of dental discolouration by causes such as diet and smoking, with their hard and soft tissues within the oral cavity being in a good stage of health. The University said that they interviewed the participants and found that 60% drank fizzy drinks, 40% smoked regularly and 0% took medicinal drugs, and that the subjects were distributed homogeneously throughout the three groups. All patients underwent an oral hygiene consultation and a removal of risk factors and other causes of dental discolouration to ensure that the state of their oral hygiene was uniform at the start of the trial.
We noted the first group examined the effectiveness of the toothpaste in sunlight. The participants were provided with a tube of this toothpaste which they were required to use at least twice every day for a period of one month. The second group examined the effectiveness of the toothpaste combined with illumination directly from a dental chair lamp. The tooth shades of the participants in this group were measured before and after a layer of the toothpaste was applied on the participants' teeth for 20 minutes. The third group examined the whitening effects of the toothpaste with a similar method used in the second group, with illumination from an LED lamp. The tooth shades of the participants in this group were also measured after a single application of 20 minutes. The University of Pavia clarified that the tooth shades of the subjects in all three groups were measured using a micro spectroshade spectrophotometer, before and after the treatments.
We noted that the measurements of the changes in tooth shades were taken against a modified scale of the VITA teeth colour scale, and an average value of shade improvement for each of the three groups was calculated. The study found that there was a statistical improvement of 21% in tooth shades among the first group, 7% for the second group and 25% for the third group. The study then concluded that the results from the first and third groups complied with the parameters necessary to define a treatment as being "clinically effective" and that such parameters, established by the American Dental Association, provided for minimum improvement of two shades. The study also included some photographs that showed the whiteness of teeth pre- and post-treatment.
We were concerned that control groups for both legs of the trials, namely the in-home use and single application, had not been referred to in the study. The University of Pavia clarified that the second group, which examined the effect of single application under a dentist chair lamp, was used as a control group, as the neon light emitted from the lamp was insufficient to activate Actilux, unlike sunlight and LED light. However, we noted that there was no other information in the body of evidence submitted that discussed the effects of neon light on Actilux and would support the suitability of the second group as a control group for the second leg.
There also appeared to have been a lack of blinding procedures, which we understood was not indicative of good clinical practice, and it was also unclear from the study whether or not random sampling was carried out. We noted that the study did not detail the basis on which the participants were selected and there was a lack of commentary regarding whether the sample was representative of the general population at which the product range was also targeted. The study also did not comment on the statistical significance of the results or provide any information about the calibration used by the observer who took the shade data.
We considered that consumers, upon viewing the claims in the ads, such as "the more you smile, the more light reaches your teeth, and the whiter your smile becomes", would understand that the toothpaste contained an ingredient, Actilux, that reacted to light and whitened teeth, and increased exposure to natural light through smiling would also increase the whiteness of teeth. We also noted that the graphics in ads (a) and (b) depicting a set of teeth with a number of blue dots which simulated the intended action of Actilux, and a flash of light that caused the set of teeth to whiten. We considered that this further reinforced the impression that increased exposure to natural light through smiling after using the product would increase whiteness of teeth.
Although the study found a statistical improvement of 21% amongst participants who used the toothpaste twice daily for a period of one month without the aid of an artificial light source, we were concerned that there had not been a suitable control group for this leg of the trial and that potential variables, such as changes in participants' oral hygiene habits during the trial period, had not been accounted for. We did not consider the results from this group were sufficiently robust in substantiating the efficacy claims implying that Actilux, when used in the form of the advertised product, would whiten teeth through its reaction to natural light and increased exposure would also increase its whitening effects.
Notwithstanding our concerns regarding the suitability of the second test group as the control group in the second leg of the trial, we noted that the study reported an average improvement of 7% for the second group and 25% for the third group. However, we were concerned that the method of single application for 20 minutes without brushing was unlikely to reflect consumers' ordinary usage of the toothpaste. We did not consider that the results from these two groups were adequate support for the claims that implied that, in normal usage, the Actilux in the toothpaste would react to natural light and whiten teeth. Furthermore, we noted that some of the claims in question were efficacy claims that related to the entire product range in general. However, it would appear from the information available that some of the products in the range, such as the mouthwash and the gel pen, had not been tested in the trials.
For the reasons set out above, we considered the evidence was not adequately robust in substantiating the claims for the whitening effects of toothpaste that contained Actilux when exposed to natural light. We therefore concluded the claims were misleading.
On this point, the ad 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 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Exaggeration) and 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 3.12 3.12 Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service. (Exaggeration).
2. Upheld
We noted that ads (a) and (b) contained references to an "LED accelerator" that was sold with the BlanX White Shock 50 ml toothpaste. We also noted that the claims implying that the LED light accelerated the whitening process, which appeared in ad (e) and (g), were made in reference to the BlanX White Shock 50 ml toothpaste with an LED light attachment.
We noted that text in ad (e) stated "The LED light works as an accelerator to boost the Actilux in the BlanX White Shock formula, activating the formula as it passed through the tube. You can also use the light on the end of the toothpaste tube to boost the formula whilst on your teeth by holding the light in front of your mouth for 1 minute everyday". We also noted that text in ad (g) stated "The LED lights up each time you use Blanx White Shock, activating the paste as soon as it comes out of the tube onto the toothbrush. Thanks to the specially designed LED light, Actilux's whitening action is multiplied". We considered that consumers, upon viewing these claims, would expect that the use of the LED light attachment in the manner suggested in the ads would result in a greater whitening effect than if they were to use the products with exposure to natural light only.
Although the references to an "LED accelerator" in ads (a) and (b) were not accompanied by an explicit efficacy claim stated by the voice-over, we considered that the name of the LED light and the graphic sequence depicting the LED light from the tube being shone on the toothpaste were likely to give the impression that the LED light feature would activate or accelerate the whitening properties of the formula, if consumers used the LED light in the manner suggested in ads (a) and (b).
We noted that the comparative tests in the in vivo trial conducted by the University of Pavia found that the use of an LED light source produced better results than the use of a dental chair lamp. However, we noted that the study did not examine the whitening effects from the proposed usage in ad (e), namely to shine the LED light on users' teeth for one minute, or evaluate the degree of acceleration that would be achieved if the LED light was shone on the product in the manner shown in ads (a) and (b), and also that stated in ad (g). We also noted the flaws in the trial outlined above.
We considered that the method of application in the comparative tests was unlikely to be consistent with normal usage of the product by ordinary consumers. On this basis, we did not consider the results of the trial were sufficiently robust in supporting the claims that implied that the LED light attached to the product would accelerate the whitening process. We therefore concluded that the claims were misleading.
On this point, the ad 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 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Exaggeration) and 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 3.12 3.12 Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service. (Exaggeration).
3. Upheld
We considered that consumers would interpret the claims in ads (c), (d) and (e) to mean that Actilux, as an active ingredient within the toothpaste, would remain effective on users' teeth for 24 hours, or in-between uses, in whitening teeth. We also noted ad (c) contained the wording "Actilux binds to the enamel of your teeth during regular brushing, creating an invisible barrier that blocks the causes of yellowing", which further suggested that Actilux would be coated on users' teeth through normal brushing and would stop the yellowing of teeth.
We noted that one of the in vitro studies published in a peer-reviewed journal submitted by Coswell, evaluated the remineralisation of bovine enamel and dentine subsurface lesions through the use of carbonate nano-hydroxyapatite toothpastes, including two products from a different range that was also manufactured by Coswell, and were compared against amine fluoride toothpaste. The study involved brushing the demineralised bovine teeth specimens twice daily for two weeks in remineralising solutions that contained the toothpastes and the results suggested that toothpastes containing nano-hydropxyapatite revealed higher remineralising effects compared to amine fluoride toothpaste. Another peer-reviewed study also examined the extent of remineralisation of carbonate hydroxyapatite on dentine surfaces at various time intervals up to six hours. However, based on the information available, it was unclear whether the formula of hydropxyapatite toothpastes tested in these studies was equivalent to that of the advertised product. Further, Coswell did not provide comments on the link between the remineralisation effects of hydroxyapatite toothpastes and the claimed capability of Actilux in remaining active all day on users' teeth and the resulting whitening effects.
We also noted that the in vitro study conducted by the Chemical Centre observed the photocatalytic properties of Actilux for the duration of 180 minutes, rather than for the entire 24-hour period. However, we had not seen evidence that examined and monitored the activity of Actilux, when contained in the whitening toothpaste and applied to users' teeth, throughout a 24-hour period as implied by the claims. On this basis, we considered that the claims implying that Actilux in the form contained in the product would remain effective for 24 hours had not been substantiated and concluded that the claims were misleading.
On this point, the ad 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 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Exaggeration).
4. Upheld
We considered that consumers were likely to understand that the whitening activities of the product would commence on first use when reading the claims in ad (e) that "BlanX White Shock formula gets to work straight away ..." and in ad (f) that "... is effective from the very first time it's used ...". We considered that consumers were unlikely to expect a significant improvement in whiteness after the first use. It was likely, however, that most consumers would expect to see some degree of change.
We noted that the study conducted by University of Pavia examined the whitening effects after a single application under different lighting conditions. These did not including natural light, which we considered should also have been included, as the claims in question related to the range in general, and one of the products in the range was not sold with an LED light. We noted that 40% of the participants who underwent the test with light from a dental chair experienced at least an improvement of one unit in shade and 85% for the test with LED light. However, we considered that the method used in the single application, namely that a layer of the product was left on the participants' teeth for 20 minutes, was unlikely to be consistent with the manner in which ordinary consumers would use the toothpaste, notwithstanding whether an artificial light source had been used to accelerate the process.
For the above reasons, as well as the other methodological flaws previously noted, we did not consider the trial results for single application of the product were sufficiently robust to support the claims implying that the product would be effective from first use and concluded that the claims were misleading.
On this point, the ad 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 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Exaggeration).
5. Upheld
We understood that the product advertised in ad (h) was a whitening kit that consisted of a treatment with a more concentrated formula than the BlanX White Shock toothpaste and an "LED bite" device that emitted LED light which could be placed in the mouth during the treatment in order to aid acceleration of the whitening process.
We considered the study conducted by the Tuscany Stomatological Institute, which measured the tooth shades of 30 participants of both sexes between the ages of 20 and 70 against the VITA scale before and after the application of 'Blanx Shock gel', which the Institute clarified during the course of the investigation was the toothpaste commercially available and provided the batch number. The results table gave the shade code for the initial colour and the end colour, and a number from 1 to 4 representing the ‘level of improvement’ between these shades. The study stated that the application of the treatment was accompanied by the use of a lamp for 10 minutes to activate the formula. The Institute clarified that the LED lamp used in the study had the same technical characteristics and light wavelength as the LED brace sold with the product and that all participants had their teeth cleaned to ensure that they were of the same level of oral hygiene prior to the start of the treatment.
The study found that all participants experienced improvement of at least one unit on the VITA shade scale and some achieved an improvement of three units, with an average improvement of 1.53 units amongst all participants. The study also recorded that 21 participants underwent further treatments at intervals of one or two weeks after the initial treatment, with 7 out of 21 participants experiencing a further improvement in shade of one unit on the VITA scale.
We noted from the information available that the study did not appear to have been blinded or that a control group existed, which the Institute asserted was not appropriate as the purpose of the trial was to determine change in tooth shade after one application and considered that it would therefore not have been a valid parameter of comparison. We also noted that the study did not specify the frequency and the application of the subsequent treatments undertaken by the 21 participants or detail test results for these subsequent treatments. There was also a lack of commentary regarding the basis on which the participants were selected or comment on any confounding factors, such as smoking or dietary habits of participants or other relevant variables. Although we noted the Institute's view that patient selection criteria and relating differential factors were irrelevant given the objective of the study, we noted the study did not comment on whether the sample was representative of the general population at which the product range was also targeted. The study also did not comment on the statistical significance of the results or provide any information about the calibration used by the observer who took the shade data.
We considered that consumers, upon viewing the claim and the proposed usage of the LED bite for 1 to 10 minutes in ad (h), would expect that a reasonable proportion of users would experience an improvement of 4 units in tooth shades if they adhered to the regime stated in the ad. We also considered that consumers would expect some degree of improvement after using the product for the minimum proposed time stated in the ad. We noted that the study only observed the effects of a single application with the maximum proposed time of 10 minutes, but had not examined the effects of using the LED bite at different time increments.
Notwithstanding our concerns regarding the methodology of the study, we noted that the results indicated that all participants experienced an improvement of at least one unit after a single application of 10 minutes, and some experienced a further improvement of one unit following subsequent applications. However, the study did not examine the whitening effects of using the product in accordance with the regime stated in the ad "Use Blanx White Shock Treatment for 2 weeks, 4 times a year". Further, we noted that the only participant whose ‘level of improvement’ was recorded as ‘4’ had only a single shade of difference between their initial and end colours, and that no participants had therefore improved by four shades.
For the reasons outlined above, we considered that the evidence provided by Coswell was not sufficiently robust in substantiating the claim in ad (h) and concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point, the ad 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 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Exaggeration).
6. Upheld
We noted that the claim in ad (c) stated "Its photocatalytic active ingredient lasts all day and is activated by light, thus destroying dirt molecules and naturally whitening your teeth"; ad (e) stated "BlanX White Shock contains an internationally patented ingredient called Actilux, which reacts to light to help white teeth naturally" and ad (f) stated "This new formula whitens teeth in a completely natural way...".
We also noted that the claim in ad (c) was followed by text that stated "Actilux is activated by light, in a way that does not damage your teeth, instead wiping away the "bad" dirt molecules". The claim in ad (f) was also accompanied by text that stated "It does not attack the enamel. The level of tooth abrasion is very low because it does not contain peroxides, optical whiteners or abrasive silica that can irritate and destroy the enamel".
We considered that consumers were likely to understand that the references to "natural", within the context in which the claims in the ad appeared, referred to the whitening process, rather than the products itself being "natural". The overall impression created by the ads was that the product was capable of whitening teeth "naturally" by relying on the interaction between the active ingredient, Actilux, and natural light, rather than through the use of other common whitening ingredients, such as peroxides, optical whiteners and silica, which could cause irritation and damage tooth enamel.
For the reasons stated above, we did not consider that the evidence supplied by the advertiser adequately demonstrated that the product whitened teeth in the manner described and concluded that the claims that the product was capable of whitening teeth "naturally" had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
On this point, the ad 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 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Exaggeration).
Action
The ads must not appear in their current forms. We told Coswell SpA to ensure that they held adequate and robust evidence to substantiate the claims and that their ads did not exaggerate the capability or performance of their products.
