Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A poster displayed on London Underground trains for TePe, an oral health care product company, seen on 7 April 2018 included text which stated “A TePe can get you to 100% clean … Your toothbrush only cleans up to 60% of your teeth … No wonder 94% of dental hygienists recommend them*”. Small print at the bottom of the ad read “*Source A survey of dental hygienists in the UK, Eaton et al (2012)”.
Issue
The complainant has challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1.“A TePe can get you to 100% clean”; and
2.“No wonder 94% of dental hygienists recommend them”.
Response
1. & 2. TePe Oral Hygiene Products Ltd t/a TePe said that a normal toothbrush could only clean three sides of a tooth, which was up to 60% of the total surface area. They explained that interdental cleaning products were designed to access the 40% of the tooth’s surfaces that could not be cleaned with the standard brush. They said that interdental brushes were considered to be more effective in plaque removal because the filaments of the brushes filled the spaces that were too small for the toothbrush to reach, including above and below the gum line.
They further said that the claim “94% of dental hygienists recommend them” was based on a survey of dental hygienists undertaken in 2011 and published in “Dental Health Magazine” in July 2015. They provided us with a copy of the paper.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ad contained references to normal toothbrushes and the proportion of the tooth they could clean such as “Thankfully, using a TePe Interdental Brush … you can clean the area of your teeth and gums that your toothbrush cannot reach”. The ASA considered, in the context of the whole ad, that consumers would understand the claim “A TePe can get you to 100% clean” to mean that using a TePe would clean the parts of their teeth that a normal toothbrush would not reach. We understood from TePe that the brush allowed consumers to clean in between their teeth and reach below the gum line and that the 100% claim was in reference to the surface area of the tooth which could be cleaned when using a TePe in conjunction with a toothbrush. On that basis, we concluded that the ad was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under 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),
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(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), but we did not find it in breach.
2.Not upheld
We considered that consumers would understand that the claim “94% of dental hygienists recommend them” to mean that in the study referenced in the small print, 94% of dental hygienists had recommended that patients should use interdental brushes. TePe provided us with a copy of the referenced paper. We noted that the study was originally published in the British Dental Journal and was conducted in 2011. The study was a questionnaire conducted on a sample of 10% of the Dental Hygienists and Therapists registered with the General Dental Council, with a total of 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. respondents. The study included questions about the type of oral hygiene products Dental Hygienists and Dental Hygienist Therapists recommended to their patients. In response to a question about whether they recommended interdental brushes to their patients, 96.5% responded that they did.
We considered that the survey was conducted on a sufficient number of Dental Hygienists and Dental Hygienist Therapists to substantiate the claim “94% of dental hygienists recommend them” and as it was clear that the claim was based on the study, we concluded that the ad was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications 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), but we did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action required.
