The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint made in relation to a claim that one spray of an oil lubricant “could kill Orf”, which it said was not substantiated.
According to the ASA it received a complaint in relation to an advertisement which “featured an image of a can of Wurth Ultra 2040 Spray which contained pictures of various machinery parts”.
The text accompanying the image referred to the following: “Magic Orf Spray…One spray of this Ultra 2040 is excellent at killing Orf…”
The ASA specified that the claims were made by an “advertiser” and not by the manufacturer of Wurth Ultra 2040 Spray.
It listed the advertiser in its recent complaints decision list as the “Sheep School” and said the advertisement had been online.
According to the authority, which is responsible for promoting, regulating and enforcing standards in marketing communications in Ireland, it received a complaint that “there was no basis to the claim, made by the Sheep School’s advertisement.
Orf
Orf is a very painful condition of sheep, which causes scabby lesions around the nose, the inside and outside of the mouth and on other parts of the body including the feet.
The complainant told the ASA that it considered “that there was no basis to the claim that one spray of the oil lubricant could kill Orf which they said was caused by a virus”.
The ASA added: “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”.
In response to the complaints process, the advertisers then informed the ASA that the “online product listing no longer suggested any connection with the treatment of Orf”.
Complaint
According to the ASA its complaints committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response in the context of the Code of Standards for Advertising and Marketing Communications in Ireland.
Its 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”.
This committee also noted that while the claim had been removed “no substantiation had been provided for the claim originally made in the advertisement”.
The ASA stated: “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”.