HBW Insight is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

ACT Dry Mouth Claims Get Parched In Industry Self-Regulation Review

This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet

Executive Summary

Sanofi and GSK appeal Council of Better Business Bureaus investigative arm's recommendations from review of  ACT Dry Mouth ad claims. GSK disagrees that Sanofi's could continue using a claim of "moisturizes dry mouth" and Sanofi disagrees that it did not substantiate claims that established ACT Dry Mouth, marketed with cavity prevention claims, as providing benefits similar to GSK's Biodene, which has pre-market approval for an indication of lubricating and coating the interior of the mouth and gums with moisture.

You may also be interested in...



ACT Dry Mouth 'Immediate,' 'Moisturizing,' 'Lubricating' Claims OK In Review Appeal

Council of Better Business Bureaus' advertising review appeals panel says Sanofi didn't support claiming ACT Dry Mouth Lozenges "are uniquely formulated to stimulate saliva flow” because no evidence supported uniqueness. On review of initial findings from August 2018 on GSK challenge, which markets Biotene dry mouth products, panel considered appeals by both firms.

Consumer Health Ad Claim Reviews: NutriO2, SmartMouth, Active Iron

Cancer claims for supplement sent for FTC scrutiny; Mouthwash bad breath claims stink to NAD; and UK iron superiority claim withers.

Prestige Brands Stands By Nix Lice 'Kill' Claims Despite NAD Objection

Prestige Brands declines to comply with NAD recommendations to discontinue “kill” claims for its Nix Ultra lice treatment product, arguing that “eliminating” lice infestation is tantamount to “killing” the bugs. In response, NAD refers the firm's ad claims to FTC.

Related Content

Topics

Related Companies

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

RS121794

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel