Would this advert survive regulatory scrutiny?
Following discussions at the 111th CA meeting on updating misleading trade names and claims, we’ve hidden a number of potential compliance issues in this disinfectant advertisement. Can you spot them all?
Click here for our post on Linkedin to see how many you found!
Still not sure? We can help!
The 111th CA meeting introduced new words that should not be included in biocidal product trade names: sensitive, soft protection, soft touch, and gentle. These join the existing list of 6 terms (bio, natur…, organic, eco…, green, and safe) . In addition, Articles 69 and 72 of the BPR prohibits misleading terms in advertising including but not limited to: low-risk, non-toxic, harmless, natural, environmentally friendly, non-harmful, non-polluting, ecological, animal friendly or any similar indication.
Wording in advertisements must not describe a biocidal product in a way that is misleading in relation to the risks to human/animal health, the environment or the product’s efficacy. The above phrases can be viewed as minimising any risks present. Even descriptions such as “plant based” or “vegan” are discouraged as they may be considered to infer lower risk. However, if all ingredients can be evidenced as such, it may be allowed. Similarly, the biodegradable and cruelty free claims should be fully substantiated.
It is also important to be wary of making claims regarding how “gentle” a product is for humans or the environment. In 2024, the European Court of Justice ruled that “skin-friendly” on a biocidal product label was misleading, despite the phrase not being included on the above list, as it is covered by the “any similar indication” clause.
Finally, did you spot the 100% efficacy claim? Although not leading to an incorrect perception of safety, misleading customers via exaggerated or unsubstantiated efficacy claims is not permitted.
So, before you choose a trade name or design an advert – stop, think and check the latest available information.