Ad description

Claims on www.seercentre.org.uk promoted rockdust for gardeners. Text stated "SEER Rockdust - 420 million years old, freshly ground, untreated volcanic rock from Scottish quarries. Decades of rigorous gardening trials and scientific analysis shows SEER Rockdust to be safe to add to soils and compost. Whilst chemical fertilisers may produce more immediate visual results, SEER Rockdust adds a huge range of mineral and trace elements for long term soil health. Thanks to the activities of the soil and compost fauna (from microbes to worms) remineralised soil and compost produces the following benefits: BOOSTS organic soil fertility, HIGHER nutritional value, LONGER shelf life of produce, LUSHER lawns, BIGGER healthier crops, BETTER flavour (vegetables taste like they used to!), INCREASED pest resistance (less reliance on pesticides!) IMPROVED drought resistance. SEER Rockdust also works as a COMPOST ACTIVATOR, encouraging microbial activity, creating a higher temperature, reducing odour, locking in more nitrogen and improving fertility of the compost".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the efficacy claims for SEER Rockdust were misleading and could be substantiated.

Response

The SEER Centre Trust explained that soil contained minerals that were depleted over time as a result of crop harvesting. They stated that no fertiliser or plant food replaced all the micro minerals and trace elements and therefore soils and food were becoming mineral deficient. They provided documentation in support of their claims and references to documents concerning mineral deficiency and also provided a mineral analysis of Rockdust, showing a breakdown of the elements it contained and a mineral comparison of a SEER Centre carrot with a supermarket carrot, as well as photographs of their remineralised gardens, showing comparative photos of crops grown in soil and rockdusted soil. They stated there were 37 documented testimonials from customers.

They stated that there were other movements using similar products who were achieving similar results. They provided a link to an article about a combined research database and a paper on a similar product showing the benefits, which they stated were similar to their own results.

They also provided studies entitled "Investigation into the Fertility Levels of Terraces at the SEER Centre"; "Study on the mineral depletion of the foods available to us as a nation over the period 1940-1991"; "Using Rock Dust Helps To Control Atmospheric CO2 buildup and the Greenhouse effect" and a literature review entitled "The Use of GroundRock Powders in Agriculture: A Survey of the Literature on Granites, Feldspars, Micas and Basalts: Eliot Coleman - The Small Farm Research Association, Harborside, Maine, USA". They referred to a study entitled 'Rockdust and Mineralised Compost' from the Scottish Agricultural Colleges (1998). They also provided abstracts from additional studies, relating to basalt rock dusts as a viable source of soil minerals; rock dust as natural fertiliser; retaining nitrogen in the composting process; yield via improved fertility; plant disease; and silicon and plant diseases. They also provided a study on crop yield in relation to Riesling grapes in the Clare Valley and text from a DVD provided to UN Delegations at COP15.

They acknowledged that the complainant had referred to research from Glasgow University, which he considered did not support the ad's claims. They stated other papers provided contradictory findings to the one provided by the complainant. They stated the study was carried out in a flat field at the SEER Centre and the quarry material used was substandard, weathered quarry and stated that it became apparent during the first few months of the trial that quarry waste would not produce the results that they had been achieving for 20 years. They said their subsequent quality control specifications became more rigorous and that scientists agreed that soil and compost were amongst the most complex materials in the natural world.

They said they had never received any complaints, which also indicated confidence in the product from its customers.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA considered that consumers would infer from that ad's claims that the use of the SEER Rockdust in soil would boost soil fertility and produce stronger and healthier crops, which were less likely to fail than crops grown without SEER Rockdust or which had relied on other chemical fertilisers.

We noted that the advertisers provided information about the effects of the mineralisation of soil, alongside documentation in support of the efficacy of the product. However, we considered that the papers, testimonials, references and photographs were not sufficient to support the claims, on the basis that they did not show clear and comparative results that the product would boost soil fertility and produce stronger and healthier crops or that the testing had been carried out under appropriate and robust conditions, which related to the product at hand.

We noted we had seen two studies which had considered the efficacy of the product in more detail. Although we acknowledged that one study stated that there were trends suggesting that there might be a benefit to applying rockdust to soil, we noted it also concluded that that premise had not been proven and that the evidence was inconclusive. We noted that another study carried out by Glasgow University also concluded that that SEER Rockdust could not be proven to be a useful soil fertility amendment. We noted the advertisers' reservations regarding the quality of the soil in which that study was carried out, but considered that, to support the claims, the advertisers should provide documentation which showed that the product improved soil fertility and produce.

Therefore, because we did not consider that we had seen sufficient substantiation to support the claims that the use of the SEER Rockdust in soil would boost soil fertility and produce stronger and healthier crops, we concluded that the claims were likely to mislead.

The claims 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

The claims must not appear again in their current form. We told the advertisers to ensure they held sufficient substantiation for their advertising claims.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.11     3.7    


More on