Boots 'disappointed' by order to remove nasal spray advert

The Advertising Standards Authority ruled that an advert for the defensive properties of Boots Cold and Flu Defence Nasal Spray is not supported by sufficiently robust evidence

boots-underground-ad-380%20%282%29.jpg
ASA: Boots must not suggest the spray can prevent cold and flu (Photo: Adam Jacobs)

Boots is “disappointed” the advertising regulator has ordered it to remove a poster claiming its nasal spray is "clinically proven to defend against cold and flu".

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the claim on the poster for Boots' Cold and Flu Defence Nasal Spray – which appeared on the London underground – is not supported by “sufficiently robust” evidence.

Boots stressed that the spray, which contains carrageenan, “has been shown in clinical trials to reduce the duration of cold and flu-like symptoms when used as symptoms begin”.

The health and beauty giant has revised its advertising materials “to ensure the intended use of the product is clearly understood”, it told C+D yesterday (November 18).

Boots submitted four studies on the effectiveness of other sprays that contain carrageenan, and one in vitro study on its own spray, the ASA said. The regulator sought “expert advice” before acknowledging that one of these studies provided “some evidence” that a carrageenan nasal spray “could reduce symptoms and duration of viral infections detected in patients, when taken alone and appropriately”.

However, even this study was “not sufficiently robust to show that the nasal spray was clinically proven to treat and prevent colds and flu”, it said in its ruling last week (November 11).

Not intended to prevent cold and flu

The ASA noted Boots’ view that the phrase “defend against” was not intended as a claim that its product could prevent cold or flu infections, but the regulator stressed that consumers would interpret the claim "as a whole" to mean the product has "been shown to have a prophylactic effect”.

The ASA told Boots that the advert must not appear in its current form again, and stressed that its future advertising must not “state or suggest” that the product could be used to treat and prevent cold and flu.

Last month, the ASA upheld a pharmacist’s complaint that an advert claiming that Boots Protect Plus Blue Lenses protect against “harmful” blue light was “misleading”.

Have you ever reported an advert to the ASA?

We want to hear your views, but please express them in the spirit of a constructive, professional debate. For more information about what this means, please click here to see our community principles and information

Sign in or register for free

Latest from News

Contract timeline at a glance: What is happening when?

 
• By 
 • comment

Following the announcement of the long-awaited pharmacy funding deal, C+D sets out a timeline of when changes are due to be implemented over the course of the next year…

‘Cannabliss’ pharmacist pair sanctioned for lack of ‘adequate safeguards’

 
• By 
 • comment

Two pharmacists have received sanctions from the GPhC for failing to “provide assurance” that cannabis based medicinal products (CBMP) were “appropriately prescribed” with “adequate” safeguards in place.

What could the next pharmacy funding deal include?

 
• By 
 • comment

Along with the long-awaited pharmacy funding deal for 2025/26 came several government commitments on what the sector can expect in the future contract – so what exactly has been pledged?

More from Multiples

breaking news

BREAKING: Morrisons to close four pharmacies

 
• By 
 • comment4

Supermarket giant Morrisons has revealed plans to close four of its pharmacies following a "wide-ranging review".

Lloydspharmacy: £40m locum tax ‘directly impacts’ £2.6m staff claims

 
• By 
 • comment0

Fresh liquidation accounts have revealed that Lloydspharmacy has paid half a million pounds to former owners, but that payments for “non-preferential” creditors are “wholly dependent” on a successful tax appeal.