“Non-Toxic” Claims Require Extensive Substantiation

Making a “Certified Non-Toxic” claim on a mouthwash triggered a competitor challenge.

According to the National Advertising Division (NAD) comments, the substantiation provided by the company was not sufficient to support the claim.

👉From NAD. “In support of the “Certified Non-Toxic” claim, Oral Essentials submitted two cytotoxicity studies (one for its sensitivity mouthwash and one for its whitening mouthwash) and a certification statement from MADE SAFE, a third-party certification program that verifies ingredient safety and non-toxicity. Oral Essentials mouthwashes were certified by MADE SAFE at the time of manufacture.”

👉From NAD. “Strong evidence is needed for non-toxic claims due to potential health and environmental risks as well as the potential for consumers to misuse the product or take away a broader message about the product’s safety that is not supported by the claim.”

👉Apparently, the cytotoxicity studies did not exactly match the and did not address the “real-world” effects. From NAD. “NAD found Oral Essentials’ cytotoxicity studies did not support the challenged claims such studies do not reflect the real-world effects on humans and only address one form of toxicity. Additionally, the study formulations contained one less ingredient and differed from the current product ingredients.”

It seems the position is that making a “Certified Non-Toxic” claim on a mouthwash label may give some consumers the idea that they can drink the whole bottle or put it in their eyes with no safety issues. I expect people to have more common sense than this, but I guess it is possible for a consumer to think that “Non-Toxic” means they can go nuts with it. I assume the same rationale would apply to toothpaste or any other product that is sparingly used internally.

🔹Don’t rely on certifications: The company also relied on a “MADE SAFE” certification, but this did not substantiate the claim because it was unclear to NAD which real-world factors were evaluated in the certification process, and the company's certification had expired in October 2024.

At Supplement Advisory Group, my regulatory consulting company, I often share the “less-is-more” principle with clients. This means that every aspect of packaging will be scrutinized, and if it’s not necessary for marketing, removing it is a good idea. This is not always a popular opinion, but it is important to measure risk and reward while keeping substantiation in mind.

Read more about the case here.

DATE ORIGINALLY POSTED: 1/15/25

Disclaimer: The educational information provided here is for informational purposes only. Contact an attorney for specific legal advice. Rule #1 in compliance is to ensure marketing is truthful and not misleading.