Ad description

A TV and YouTube ad for GlaxoSmithKline’s Aquafresh 24-hour Sugar Acid Protection toothpaste, seen on 7 July 2015:

a. The TV ad featured a cartoon super hero and featured him within a circle of sugary products. The ad then showed him knocking over the products. A voice-over stated, “Sugar can attack anytime. Get around the clock defence against everyday sugars with Aquafresh 24-hour sugar acid protection toothpastes. Aquafresh, 24-hour sugar acid protection.” On-screen text stated “Protection provided by fluoride, with twice-daily brushing”.

b. The YouTube ad was a similar but extended version of the TV ad.

Issue

Colgate-Palmolive challenged, in relation to fluoride, whether the claims “Get around the clock defence against everyday sugars with Aquafresh 24-hour sugar acid protection toothpaste” and “24-hour sugar acid protection”, in ads (a) and (b), were misleading and could be substantiated.

Response

GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare UK Trading Ltd (GSK) said they had withdrawn the ad. They provided a short paper titled “Fluoride toothpastes and reductions in caries”. GSK also provided expert opinion by three dental academics who, they said, all agreed that twice daily brushing with a fluoride toothpaste could provide continuous protection against sugar acid which they believed supported the “24-hour sugar acid protection” claim. They also provided several published papers which they believed showed that fluoride had a continuous protective effect and therefore substantiated the 24-hour sugar acid protection claim. GSK said the ad was intended to be fun and engaging and explained, in a consumer friendly way how fluoride toothpastes prevented dental caries when used twice daily. They said the term ‘sugar acid’ aided consumer understanding of the complex process that described the metabolism of dietary sugars by bacteria that produced acid which caused decay. Further, the references to “protection” and “24 hour” described the continuous role fluoride played in the protection of enamel against the effects of sugar acid.

Clearcast said they had sought expert advice regarding the 24-hour claim. Their expert agreed that regular use of fluoridated toothpaste could provide good anti-cariogenic activity, that is, help prevent cavities. However, the expert was concerned that consumers viewing the ad may have assumed that Aquafresh’s 24-hour sugar acid protection toothpaste had an ingredient in addition to fluoride. Clearcast did not consider that the viewer would assume that the product had an additional ‘special’ ingredient.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted that the ads featured the cartoon man knocking down a number of ‘sugary’ foods and snacks, including a doughnut, jam, chocolate and pizza, while the voice-over stated, “Sugar can attack at any time”. In that context, we considered that consumers would understand the claims “get around the clock defence against everyday sugars” and “24-hour sugar acid protection” in ads (a) and (b) to mean that Aquafresh 24-hour sugar acid protection toothpaste would protect a user's teeth from the effects of acid in the mouth caused by the regular consumption of sugary foods. Further, given the on-screen reference to “twice-daily brushing” we considered that consumers were likely to understand that protection from the product lasted for the length of time between regular brushing.

We understood that Aquafresh 24-hour sugar acid protection contained ‘standard’ fluoride rather than an additional ingredient or formulation. We acknowledged the letters from GSK’s independent experts regarding the scientific basis for the benefits of regular use of fluoride containing toothpastes. We concurred with their conclusions because we considered that the benefit of brushing with fluoride toothpaste against dental caries was generally established. We acknowledged the range of papers provided by GSK which confirmed the beneficial effect of regular brushing with fluoride toothpaste on tooth enamel and we understood from them that while the level of fluoride in the mouth reduced significantly after brushing, any residual fluoride was likely to provide ongoing benefit for several hours afterwards.

However, we understood that while regular brushing with a fluoride toothpaste offered protection against acids formed when sugars came into contact with bacteria in the mouth, there was no guarantee of the longevity of that protection because a number of factors were likely to mitigate the level of protection afforded. For example, the frequent consumption of food that contained natural or added sugars between brushing, whether brushing occurred before or after acid causing food and drink was consumed, rinsing behaviour after brushing and salivary flow-rate could all affect the degree of protection provided by fluoride.

Because the ads implied that Aquafresh 24-hour sugar acid protection provided continuous protection against sugar acid, when we understood that the level of protection afforded could be compromised by the frequent consumption of sugary food, we concluded the claims were misleading and had not been substantiated.

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),  3.12 3.12 Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service.  (Exaggeration) and  11.2 11.2 If they are necessary for the assessment of claims, broadcasters must, before the advertisement is broadcast, obtain generally accepted scientific evidence and independent expert advice.  (Medicines, medical devices, treatments and health).

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),  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.   (Exaggeration) and  12.1 12.1 Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).

Action

The ads must not appear again in their current form. We welcomed the assurance from GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare (UK) Trading Ltd that the ads had been withdrawn. We told them not to imply that Aquafresh 24-hour sugar acid protection provided continuous protection between brushing from frequent consumption of sugary foods.

BCAP Code

11.2     3.1     3.12     3.9    

CAP Code (Edition 12)

12.1     3.1     3.11     3.7    


More on