Background

Summary of Council decision:

Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.

Ad description

The website waterinabox.co.uk, seen in February 2018, promoted recyclable carton packaged water. The ad featured the heading “THE BOX”. Below that was the sub-heading “QUENCH YOUR THIRST RESPONSIBLY” and underneath that was further text that stated, “Sadly plastic bottles are made from non-renewable resources and their greenhouse gas emissions are significantly higher than those of our boxes”. Underneath that, was an infographic which featured the claim “NO PET NO HEALTH THREAT FROM LEACHING”. Further text stated “Our Box does not contain PET so there is no health threat from leaching”.

The ad also featured a second infographic of an image of a truck with the text, “1 MILLION BOXES ON 1 TRUCK COMPARED TO 58 TRUCKS NEEDED TO TRANSPORT 1 MILLION PLASTIC BOTTLES”.

Issue

The Natural Hydration Council challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:

1. “NO PET NO HEALTH THREAT FROM LEACHING”.

2. “1 MILLION BOXES ON 1 TRUCK COMPARED TO 58 TRUCKS NEEDED TO TRANSPORT 1 MILLION PLASTIC BOTTLES”.

Response

1. Vivid Water Ltd t/a Vivid Water in a Box stated that the issue of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) leaching into plastic bottles was well known and a newspaper article had been recently published on this topic. Vivid Water believed that the ad was not claiming that PET leached into bottled water, but rather that PET leaching would not occur with their carton packaged water because it was made from polymer that was not PET-based. To support that, Vivid Water provided an email they received from the carton manufacturer, which stated that their cartons were not made from PET, but from polyethylene.

2. Vivid Water stated that they worked with the carton industry trade body when making the claim “1 MILLION BOXES ON 1 TRUCK COMPARED TO 58 TRUCKS NEEDED TO TRANSPORT 1 MILLION PLASTIC BOTTLES”, and provided a copy of an email they received from the carton industry trade body to support the claim.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA considered that consumers would interpret the claim “NO PET NO HEALTH THREAT FROM LEACHING” in the context of an ad for environmentally friendly carton packaged water, to mean that plastic packaging for bottled water presented health risks compared to carton based packaging.

Vivid Water believed that PET found in plastic packaging leached plastic toxins into the water. However, the Natural Hydration Council argued that PET was safe to use as a packaging material for water, and that it complied with all European and national legal requirements.

To support the claim, Vivid Water referred to a newspaper article and an email they received from the carton manufacturer. The article referred to an American study that tested leading brands of bottled water in Australia, and found a high proportion of bottles that were contaminated with plastic debris including PET. However, Vivid Water did not provide us with a full copy of that study demonstrating that PET in bottled water presented health risks. Furthermore, the email from the carton manufacturer did not reference or contain evidence that PET packaging carried health risks.

Because we had not seen evidence that PET bottled water presented health risks, we concluded that the claim “NO PET NO HEALTH THREAT FROM LEACHING” had not been substantiated and was misleading.

On that point, the ad breached 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).

2. Upheld

We considered consumers would interpret the claim “1 MILLION BOXES ON 1 TRUCK COMPARED TO 58 TRUCKS NEEDED TO TRANSPORT 1 MILLION PLASTIC BOTTLES” to mean that one truck was required to transport one million boxes of the advertised product compared to 58 trucks needed to transport the same number of plastic bottled water.

We understood that the claim was based on information Vivid Water received from an email from the carton industry trade body. We noted that such information was included in that email, but was not however, supported with any comparative data. In the absence of such evidence, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated, and was therefore misleading.

On that point, the ad 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),  3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product.  (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) and  11.1 11.1 The basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information.  (Environmental claims).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Vivid Water Ltd that their future advertising must not suggest that polyethylene terephthalate (PET) based packaging for bottled water presented health risks, unless they held adequate evidence to support such a claim. Furthermore, they must ensure that they held adequate evidence when comparing the number of vehicles required to transport the advertised product as against plastic bottled water.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

11.1     3.1     3.33     3.7    


More on