Advertisment
The advertisement featured an image of a can of Wurth Ultra 2040 Spray which contained pictures of various machinery parts. The word “LUBRICATING” encircled the bottom of the can. The text accompanying the image referred to the following:
“Magic Orf Spray…One spray of this Ultra 2040 is excellent at killing Orf…”
Complaint
The complainant considered that there was no basis to the claim that one spray of the oil lubricant could kill Orf(1) which they said was caused by a virus. The complainant queried whether the advertisers had any scientific evidence to substantiate their claim as they considered that veterinary medications were subject to strict licencing and testing laws.
(1) Orf is a contagious disease of sheep caused by a pox virus. It can affect other species less commonly including man. Infected animals often recover in a period of weeks though carrier sheep may harbour infection and act as a source for other animals for long periods. The clinical consequences of infection are determined by the strain of virus, the immune resistance of the animal infected and other factors. Various strains have varying ability to cause mild or serious disease. Source: https://www.msd-animal-health.ie/species/sheep/orf/
Response
The advertisers said the online product listing no longer suggested any connection with the treatment of Orf.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
The Executive checked the advertisers’ website and noted that all references to Orf had been removed.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
The Complaints Committee noted the Code requirement that “Before offering a marketing communication for publication, advertisers should satisfy themselves that they will be able to provide documentary evidence to substantiate all claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective…” (4.10). While noting that the claim had been removed, no substantiation had been provided for the claim originally made in the advertisement. In the circumstances, the Committee concluded that the advertising at the time of complaint had the potential to mislead and was therefore in breach of Sections 4.1, 4.4, 4.9 and 4.10 of the Code.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The advertising should not run in the same format again unless substantiation is available for the claim made.
