&c1=usa&c2=(none)&c3=MediaGuardian&c4=Advertising+(media),Media,ASA+(media)&c5=&c6=Claire+Cozens&c7=2001_01_17){kind=small}
- guardian.co.uk, Wednesday January 17 2001 12.34 GMT
The makers of Ribena Tooth Kind will no longer be able to claim that the product does not cause tooth decay, the high court ruled today.
In a landmark case, the drinks company lost its battle to overturn an Advertising Standards Authority ruling that its claim was misleading.
Drugs giant SmithKline Beecham, which owns Ribena, took the ASA's ruling to a judicial review because it believed it should be allowed to carry on making the claims.
The company said it had the support of the British Dental Association, which had accredited the product.
But Mr Justice Hunt today said the claim "cannot be justified in such terms", adding, "the ASA were not only justified in coming to their conclusion but were duty bound to do so".
The ruling will delight parents and consumer watchdogs who have campaigned for clear and honest labelling on products, particularly those targeting children.
"I am delighted that the court has upheld our adjudication. The ASA has been vindicated and this judgement acknowledges that we conduct ourselves in a thorough and professional manner," said Christopher Graham, director general of the ASA.
"The outcome is a boost for the self-regulation of non-broadcast advertising and should increase confidence in the ASA's independence and ability to deliver sound and well thought through adjudications," he added.
In its adjudication, published in July 2000, the ASA had asked the advertisers to delete the claim made in a trade press advertisement that "Ribena Tooth Kind does not encourage tooth decay".
The ASA also asked the advertisers not to repeat a poster advertisement showing Ribena Tooth Kind bottles as bristles on a toothbrush, because, without a qualifying statement, it implied that the product actively benefited oral health.
The Hon Mr Justice Hunt said in his judgement: "This was indeed an absolute claim and is acknowledged to be so. It cannot be justified in such terms and the ASA were not only justified in coming to their conclusion but were duty bound to do so."
The judge rejected a claim that an expert adviser employed by the ASA was biased against SmithKline Beecham and that the ASA had not given proper weight to the British Dental Association, which had accredited the product.
He also rejected the claim that the ASA had unnecessarily restricted free speech.
He said that the advertising codes used by the ASA were "entirely consistent" with Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, adding that the codes did not impose a blanket ban, but that claims for any product had to be substantiated.
