Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad showed a mother tidying up and hearing her baby crying. The voice-over stated "Is it Colic? Is it Vomiting? Is it Eczema? Is it Diarrhoea? If your baby has been suffering two or more of these symptoms, for several weeks and particularly after feeding, it could be an indicator of something else like cow's milk allergy. Cow's milk allergy affects tens of thousands of babies in the UK, but can be managed with a change of diet. To find out more, visit [website address] or freephone Allergy UK on 01322 xxx xxx."
Issue
A viewer challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "Cow's milk allergy affects tens of thousands of babies in the UK"; and
2. "If your baby has been suffering two or more of these symptoms, for several weeks and particularly after feeding, it could be an indicator of ... cow's milk allergy"
Response
1. Mead Johnson Nutrition (UK) Ltd said that the UK recorded 812,970 live births in 2012. They provided a number of studies and articles which supported the view that the incidence rate for cow's milk allergy (CMA) was in the range of 2.0−7.5% of infants. The basis of their claim was made on the incidence rate of CMA multiplied by the number of UK live births in 2012. On that basis, they said the range of infants affected by CMA was from 16,259 to 60,973. Taking that into account, they believed the term "tens of thousands of babies in the UK" accurately reflected the number range of babies, rather than a specific or definitive number, affected by CMA and the claim was not misleading.
2. Mead Johnson referred to the National Institution of Clinical Excellence's (NICE) guidance which stated that possible symptoms and signs of CMA included colicky abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhoea, infantile colic and eczema. They also provided an article published in the British Medical Journal which listed the same symptoms as being those of CMA. They submitted a study which cited that the most frequent symptoms of CMA included vomiting, diarrhoea, eczema and persistent distress or colic. Additionally, they provided a copy of World Allergy Organisation (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against CMA guidelines which stated that CMA symptoms included vomiting and colicky abdominal pain, diarrhoea as well as atopic dermatitis (eczema). Given the wide body of evidence which supported that the symptoms listed in the ad were indicative of CMA, they did not consider the ad was misleading.
Clearcast said their consultant agreed that the symptoms referred to in the ad were the most common of someone with CMA. They considered the ad had not made any absolute claims, rather it highlighted the possibility that those symptoms could be indicative of CMA and that viewers should seek more information from a health professional. They noted the NHS Choices website stated that symptoms of milk intolerance could include "…diarrhoea, vomiting, stomach cramps… [and also]… eczema". They therefore considered the ad's claims "Is it colic? Is it vomiting? Is it diarrhoea? Is it eczema?" were in line with NHS guidance on CMA symptoms. For those reasons, they were happy to clear the ad for broadcast.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA understood the complainant was concerned the ad did not include information about the basis of Mead Johnson's claims. We noted, however, that information was not required to be in the ad but that the Code did require Mead Johnson to hold evidence in support of them.
The ad did not claim that a specific number of babies were affected by CMA; rather it had referred to "tens of thousands of babies in the UK". We assessed the evidence in support of the claim which included the Statistical Bulletins for birth rates in 2012 for England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, along with published articles in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and a number of studies which looked at CMA. We were satisfied that the BMJ articles as well as the studies provided supported Mead Johnson's understanding of the range of incidence rate of CMA amongst infants. We noted the basis for the calculation behind the claim and considered that Mead Johnson had provided evidence to support both their calculation and their claim. Therefore, we concluded the claim "Cow's milk allergy affects tens of thousands of babies in the UK" had been substantiated and was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We understood the complainant was concerned that the symptoms listed in the ad were not in line with current NHS guidance on CMA. However, we understood both NICE and NHS guidance stated that CMA symptoms included skin rashes, diarrhoea, vomiting, stomach cramps and difficult breathing. In addition, we understood NHS guidance stated that symptoms of milk intolerance included diarrhoea, vomiting and stomach cramps and could include eczema. We understood colic was the term used for when babies, who were otherwise healthy and well cared for, cried excessively.
We noted the complainant's view, but we considered the symptoms referred to in the ad were in line with current NICE and NHS guidance for CMA symptoms. Furthermore, we considered the additional evidence provided by Mead Johnson further supported their claim that the symptoms referred to in the ad could also be seen in babies with CMA. For those reasons, we considered the ad's claims that colic, vomiting, diarrhoea and eczema could be reasons why the baby was crying and that they were indicative of CMA had been substantiated. We therefore concluded the ad was not misleading and did not breach the Code.
On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
