Colgate-Palmolive Co. cannot support the claim “Same Whitening Ingredient As Strips” on packaging for Colgate Optic White Toothpaste and should discontinue use of the claim, the National Advertising Division said in an Aug. 14 report.

NAD sided with Procter & Gamble Co. in finding that Colgate’s claim conveys the unsupported message that Optic White provides similar whitening efficacy to Crest 3D White Whitestrips. Colgate provided “insufficiently reliable” evidence for the claim, NAD said in its report on the oral care product giant’s latest advertising claims skirmish.

Optic White’s 1% hydrogen peroxide is “a far smaller percentage” than the approximately 6% in P&G’s 3D White Whitestrips and each product is applied differently, noted NAD, the Council of Better Business Bureaus’ advertising watchdog.

Colgate should conduct tests comparing Optic White toothpaste directly with Whitestrips before claiming comparable effectiveness, NAD said.

Because the ads “contain explicit references to ‘strips’ and impliedly make comparative performance claims … the best evidence would have been a test designed to measure the whitening efficacy” of Optic White and Crest Whitestrips. – NAD

The CBBB division said “there can be no question” that head-to-head comparison studies are needed to make express or implied comparative performance claims.

“Considering that the challenged advertisements contain explicit references to ‘strips’ and impliedly make comparative performance claims as to whitening efficacy, the best evidence would have been a test designed to measure the whitening efficacy of Optic White toothpaste against the P&G’s Crest Whitestrips products. No such testing was submitted by Colgate,” NAD attorneys said.

However, NAD found Colgate provided support for a “more narrowly phrased” claim that Optic White “removes stains that non-whitening fluoride toothpastes do not” and that the product provides whiter teeth in one week as compared to conventional paste. The industry self-regulation group also said Colgate substantiated that the product contains 1% hydrogen peroxide in stable form.

According to the report, New York-based Colgate disagrees with NAD’s recommendation on the “Same Whitening Ingredient” claim, arguing that “this exact and similar ingredient claims have been prevalent in the whitening category for many years.”

Colgate said it will consider NAD’s decision in future marketing plans for Optic White, according to the report, and did not state that it will appeal the decision to the CBBB’s National Advertising Review Board. Both firms have appealed NAD decisions in the past.

The firm aimed to compete with products in the whitening strip category when it launched Optic White in August 2011. Colgate currently does not market whitening strips, and discontinued a paint-on whitener – the Colgate Simply White line – that competed with P&G’s Whitestrips Also see "Colgate Launches Optic White Toothpaste To Compete With Whitening Strips" - Pink Sheet, 1 August, 2011..

Ingredient Altered By Delivery

Cincinnati-based P&G’s challenge in the case focused in large part on the argument that Colgate’s “Same Whitening Ingredient” claim “reasonably conveys the unsupported message” that the peroxide in Optic White provides a significant whitening benefit, comparable to 3D Whitestrips.

In its challenge, P&G maintained that extrinsic or surface stains on teeth exist in the thin saliva layer on the surface of enamel and can be removed by brushing; however, deeper, intrinsic stains are within the enamel and “cannot be removed by the abrasive effect of everyday oral care products.”

P&G said while 3D Whitestrips seal a peroxide gel against the user’s teeth “for a prolonged time to intrinsically whiten teeth,” peroxide in Optic White “begins to dilute the moment it comes in contact with saliva and is virtually gone 30 seconds after brushing begins.” The firm argues that “if any whitening benefit … is conferred by Optic White, it cannot meaningfully be attributed to the peroxide in the product.”

P&G added that Colgate’s implication that Optic White is a comparable substitute to 3D Whitestrips is “a patently misleading attempt to play off of the latter’s equity given that Optic White does not use ‘the same’ whitening ingredient and does not provide the same type of intrinsic whitening as Whitestrips.”

“Literally” Short Of Substantiation

NAD disagreed with Colgate’s arguments that advertising Optic White as containing the same whitening ingredient as strips is “literally truthful” and did not imply comparable results.

In its response to P&G’s challenge, Colgate stated that NAD has not previously found that “it is literally false” to claim one product includes the same ingredient as another when both actually do.

But Colgate’s “argument over-simplifies the analysis of literally truthful claims and the precedent on which Colgate relies,” NAD said. Previous decisions by CBBB divisions pointed out that while it may be literally truthful to claim two products contain a similar agreement, that distinction does not substantiate a claim that both produce comparable results.

Even though labeling states Optic White contains 1% hydrogen peroxide, NAD said consumers are unlikely to distinguish that concentration from the percentage used in whitening strips. “Even if consumers were knowledgeable as to the percentage of peroxide in the [firms’] products, they could nonetheless be misled into believing the two are nonetheless functionally equivalent,” according to the report.

P&G’s challenge also included results of a consumer perception survey it conducted that showed 37% of subjects interpreted the “Same Whitening Ingredient” claim to mean that Optic White was as effective as strips for whitening teeth.

In its own review of the verbatim responses, done in response to Colgate’s questions about the accuracy of the survey in reflecting the subjects’ beliefs, NAD calculated that 21% to 23% took away the implied message that Optic White was as effective as strips. Court rulings and previous NAD decisions hold that approximately 20% or above is considered “adequate” to show confusion with a claim among subjects in a survey, according to the report.

NAD also questioned study results Colgate submitted in the case. Tests with human subjects comparing Optic White to conventional toothpastes and in vitro tests with human molars or animal teeth failed to show the peroxide ingredient was the cause of teeth whitening, according to the New York group’s report.

The decision in the firms’ last advertising dispute went to Colgate. NAD in November 2011 agreed with Colgate’s challenge that P&G made unsubstantiated rapid-relief claims for Crest Sensitivity Treatment & Protection Toothpaste ([A#111101t1]).

Both firms in June 2007 appealed NAD’s decision in a case based on a Colgate challenge. NAD found that P&G’s "dentist-recommended benefits" claim for Crest Pro-Health necessarily communicates the product itself – rather than the intended benefits from its use – is dentist-recommended, but also said P&G provided "reasonable basis" for 12-hour antibacterial claims for the paste Also see "P&G Appeals NAD Decision On “Dentist-Recommended” Crest Pro-Health Ad" - Pink Sheet, 25 June, 2007..

In a September 2007 decision, NARB upheld NAD’s findings in the case.

Colgate Optic White Comparison To P&G Whitestrips Off Target – NAD

More from United States

More from North America