Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Before claiming that a product is safe, marketers should ensure that they hold evidence to substantiate its safety (Rule 12.9). Rule 12.10 prevents marketers suggesting that their product is safe merely because it is "natural" or that it is generally safer because it omits an ingredient in common use. Many advertisers have not given adequate substantiation to the ASA when asked to prove claims that asserted the safety of their products. Examples include "100% natural & safe", a popular claim for penis enlargement pills (Knightsbridge Medical, 29 November 2006, and Nature's Cures, 25 July 2007), “easy” cosmetic surgery (Harley Medical Group Ltd, 5 December 2007, complaint 3) and “safe” laser hair removal (Depilex Hair and Beauty Studios, 14 February 2001).
On the other hand, other advertisers have satisfied the ASA that their safety claims are justified. For example, London Aculight Clinic cited a published, peer-reviewed paper to prove that a “safe” claim was justified for its laser skin treatment (London Aculight Clinic, 3 August 2005). It should, therefore, be acceptable for marketers of treatments using the same N-Lite pulsed dye laser to claim safety. Marketers who make safety claims about treatments using other lasers should ensure they hold either a similar body of evidence or documentary evidence demonstrating that their laser is substantially equivalent to the N-Lite pulsed dye laser.
It is, of course, legitimate for marketers to highlight the benefits of using their “natural” products but they should be wary of any approach that implies that another marketer’s product is unsafe. A magazine ad for The Purist Company stated "your hair and skin care products may be toxic … Eight out of ten shampoos sold in the UK contain sulfate cleansers … Some contain sodium laureth sulfate (SLES) which undergoes a chemical process to make it less irritating but may leave it contaminated with 1,4 dioxane - shown to cause cancer in animals …”. Although the ASA acknowledged that Purist had intended to convey that, unlike other widely available cosmetic products, its brand did not contain artificial cleansing agents, the ASA concluded that, because it had not seen adequate evidence that cosmetic products could be toxic, the ad was misleading and alarmist (The Purist Company Pty Ltd, 7 February 2007).
The same requirement for marketers to hold substantive evidence exists in relation to comparative safety claims. For example, the ASA has upheld complaints that challenged the claims “oil is safer than gas” and “Chinese medicine is … safer than western medicine” because the advertisers could not provide rigorous, objective evidence to support those safety claims (Great Chinese Herbal Medicine Ltd, 7 December 2005, and Ever Well Ltd, 4 January 2006). In 2007, the ASA ruled that an ad promoting the use of reinforced concrete was misleading and denigrated the steel construction industry, because it had implied that steel was less safe than reinforced concrete as a building material (British Association of Reinforcement, 14 March 2007).
As well as rule 4.5, which specifically refers to encouraging or condoning unsafe practices, the Code also refers to safety elsewhere. For example, rule 8.3 states "Promoters must do everything reasonable to ensure that their promotions, including product samples, are safe and cause no harm to consumers or their property." Also, promoters should provide relevant safety advice.
Rule 4.2 states "Marketing communications must not cause fear or distress without justifiable reason". The ASA has investigated ads for elctrical services (The Maintenance Group Ltd. 16 June 2010), and anti-burglary locks (Lock Safe UK Ltd. 14 January 2009) under this rule.
Rule 11.6 states "If a product has never had a demonstrably adverse effect on the environment, marketing communications must not imply that the formulation has changed to improve the product in the way claimed."
Rule 18.12 states that alcohol marcoms should not associate drinking alcohol with activities that require sobriety.
Rule 19.5 states “Safety claims must not exaggerate the benefit to consumers. Marketers must not make absolute claims about safety unless they hold evidence to substantiate them.”
See ‘Safety’.
Last modified : 06 August 2010