Ad description
Claims on EcoSolutions website aimed at members of the public for its Home Strip Paint & Varnish Remover, which appeared on 18 April 2011, stated "Home Strip is a revolutionary new paint stripper that is safer to its user and the environment. Home Strip is ideal for use by do-it-yourself enthusiasts, as well as professional users". Under a list of product features, the website stated "Non-irritant - does not cause skin burns - safe to use around children and pets".
Claims on the same website aimed at trade customers for the trade version of the product stated "Trade Strip Paint & Varnish Remover is a revolutionary new paint stripper that is totally safe to its user and the environment". Under a list of product features, the website stated "Non-irritant - does not cause skin burns - safe to use around children and pets".
Issue
1. A member of the public challenged whether the safety claims, in relation to humans and pets, made about both products were misleading and could be substantiated.
2. The ASA challenged whether the claim "Trade Strip Paint & Varnish Remover is...totally safe to ... the environment" was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. Eco Solutions explained that Home Strip and Trade Strip were identical products with the exception of container size and labelling. They provided a copy of a report on triethylphosphate (TEP) prepared by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The report concluded that “on the basis of the known facts and properties, triethylphosphate does not represent a health risk for the consumer or the population”. Eco Solutions explained that TEP was the only classified ingredient in their technology and that the volume of TEP in their products was below 10%. They believed that the report substantiated their claim that their products were “non-irritant”.
Eco Solutions provided a copy of the toxicity assessment for Home Strip® and they believed that the assessment substantiated their claim that the product did not cause skin burns.
Eco Solutions explained that the formulation of Home Strip® was being used and sold in the children’s education market as a stain remover, but it was rebranded under another name. They added that from May 1997 to June 2007, they held an EC type examination certificate which was required when assessing the safety of toys. That certificate meant that the product’s formulation could be used as a children’s toy in paint sets and other similar products. They explained that the EC type examination certificate changed in 2007 and that it was no longer applicable to their product. They said that the same formulation as Home Strip® was still being used in the children’s education market and sent details of the stain remover product which was labelled as suitable for use by children aged five years and over. They believed that they had substantiated their claims that the product was safe to use around children.
Eco Solutions acknowledged that the labelling on Home Strip® and Trade Strip® stated that the products should be kept away from children and pets, but they did not consider that that contradicted their website claims that they were “safe to use around children and pets”. They stated that the products were safe to use in the presence of children and pets as they had no harmful fumes. They believed that it was common sense to keep the products out of the reach of children and pets to ensure that there was no risk of accidental damage to floors, other paintwork and furniture. They said that they also followed the labelling guidelines stated in the toxicity assessment.
Eco Solutions believed that the toxicity assessment showed that their products did not present a risk to the user. They did not consider that their claims were misleading. Nevertheless, they agreed to remove the claims “non-irritant” and “safe to use around children and pets”.
2. Eco Solutions did not believe the claim “Trade Strip & Varnish Remover is ... totally safe to ... the environment” was misleading because their product had a volatile organic compound (VOC) content of 0.000004%. They explained that VOCs damaged the environment and that their product was a replacement for competitive products which could contain a VOC content of up to 95%. They believed that the extremely low level of VOC content meant that the product was safe for the environment. Nevertheless, they agreed to remove the claim “Trade Strip ... is totally safe to ... the environment”.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that the toxicity assessment provided by Eco Solutions assessed the effect of exposure of the Home Strip® product, rather than TEP alone, on the skin, on the eye, ingestion and inhalation of the product. We noted that the toxicity assessment stated “if used as directed use of the product should be uneventful”. However, we also noted that the same assessment stated that the product may cause slight skin irritation, especially if exposure was prolonged and/or repeated. However, it also stated that under normal conditions of use, exposure time would be short and that the likelihood of causing skin irritancy would be very low. The assessment stated further that contact with damaged, inflamed or compromised skin might result in stinging. The assessment said that repeated exposure to the product was unlikely to: produce an allergy by skin contact; result in phototoxic effects; and that it was unlikely to cause damage to internal organs following absorption through the skin. We considered that the claim “does not cause skin burns” for both products had been substantiated.
However, we noted the toxicity assessment stated that accidental exposure of the eye to the product may result in eye irritation; that if ingested, the product may cause slight, transient irritation to the mouth and digestive tract; and that inhalation of the product’s vapour may cause irritation to the nose and upper respiratory tract.
We considered that the claim “non-irritant” was likely to be interpreted as suggesting that the products would not cause irritation to the user if accidentally spilt, inhaled or ingested. We considered that the toxicity assessment showed that whilst the risk of irritation may be small, there was, nevertheless, still a risk of irritation to the user.
We noted that the labelling guidelines stated that the products should be kept away from the eyes and children, and that users should wear protective gloves, as well as washing hands thoroughly after use and not to apply the product to damaged, inflamed or compromised skin. Although Eco Solutions stated that the same formulation was used in a stain remover product suitable for use by children, we also noted that the labelling guidelines and instructions for use stated that the product was only suitable for use by children aged five years and over. We noted the certificate provided by EcoSolutions but also that since 2007, the product as a stain remover for use in the children’s education market had not been subject to that particular certification process. We considered that the claim “safe to use around children” implied there would be no harmful effects should children come into contact with the products and given that there was a risk of irritation we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading. We did not consider that the evidence provided by Eco Solutions substantiated the safety claims “non-irritant” and “safe to use around pets” and therefore concluded that those claims were also misleading.
On this point, the website 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 noted that Eco Solutions believed that the extremely low level of VOC content in their product meant that it was safe for the environment. We considered that the claim “... totally safe to ... the environment” was likely to be interpreted as saying that the product had no environmental impact. We considered that the claim was an absolute one and that it needed to be supported by a high level of substantiation. As we had not seen such evidence we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point, the website 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), 11.3 11.3 Absolute claims must be supported by a high level of substantiation. Comparative claims such as "greener" or "friendlier" can be justified, for example, if the advertised product provides a total environmental benefit over that of the marketer's previous product or competitor products and the basis of the comparison is clear. and 11.4 11.4 Marketers must base environmental claims on the full life cycle of the advertised product, unless the marketing communication states otherwise, and must make clear the limits of the life cycle. If a general claim cannot be justified, a more limited claim about specific aspects of a product might be justifiable. Marketers must ensure claims that are based on only part of the advertised product's life cycle do not mislead consumers about the product's total environmental impact. (Environmental claims).
Action
We welcomed Eco Solutions’ decision to remove the claims “non-irritant”, “safe to use around children and pets”, and “Trade Strip ... is totally safe to its user and the environment”. We told them not to make safety or environmental claims about their products unless they held evidence to substantiate them.
