Associated Press
January 7, 2005
Judge: Listerine No Replacement For Floss, Despite Claim By Ads
NEW YORK -- An advertising campaign that says the mouthwash Listerine
is as effective as floss at fighting tooth and gum decay is false and
misleading and poses a public health risk because it can undermine the
message of dental professionals, a judge has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Denny Chin said in a decision signed Thursday and
made public Friday that he will order Pfizer, the maker of Listerine,
to stop the advertising campaign.
"Dentists and hygienists have been telling their patients for decades
to floss daily," Chin wrote. "They have been doing so for good reason.
The benefits of flossing are real -- they are not a `myth.' Pfizer's
implicit message that Listerine can replace floss is false and
misleading."
The judge ruled after McNeil-PPC Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson &
Johnson, filed a lawsuit saying that false claims in the advertising
campaign that began last June posed an unfair threat against its sales
of dental floss.
Pfizer in print ads had featured a Listerine bottle balanced equally on
a scale opposite a floss container with the words: "Listerine
antiseptic is clinically proven to be as effective as floss at reducing
plaque and gingivitis between the teeth."
The campaign also featured a television commercial titled the "Big
Bang." In it, the commercial announces that Listerine is as effective
as floss and that clinical tests prove it, though it does add that
there is no replacement for flossing.
The judge said "substantial evidence" demonstrates that flossing is
important in reducing tooth decay and gum disease and that it cannot be
replaced by rinsing with a mouthwash.
The judge also noted that the authors of articles on which Pfizer based
its advertising campaign had emphasized that dental professionals
should continue to recommend daily flossing and cautioned that they
were not suggesting that mouthrinse be used instead of floss.
Messages left with Pfizer and McNeil-PPC Friday were not immediately
returned.
-----------------------------------------
Joel M. Eichen - 08 Jan 2005 00:53 GMT
Hiya,
Barry posted something similar.
I added this to Barry's post.
LOOK AT THE LINKS added!
Photos there.
Joel
I cut and pasted from SMD. It was plain text.
One of those little bots added the links.
AMAZING!
Joel
[IMG]http://tinypic.com/174ldv[/IMG]
BARRY WROTE,
barry1818 is Offline:
Member Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3
listerine can't advertise-mouthwash as good as flossing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a decision today a judge ruled that Listerine's ad, that it is as
good as flossing is misleading.
What was interesting about the article is it didn't mention any dental
associations or organizations that were involved in this matter.
If the judge had ruled in favor of Listerine, the practice of
dentistry would then be looking at how to practice being mandated from
the bench. Is it conceivable that he could have gone the other
way--yes it is, and one only has to look at all the cases that are
reversed on appeal to see the problem with a profession, dentistry,
that is allowing another profession, the law, dictate how to practice.
I have ofter stated that a profession must be proactive in these
areas, and when they fail, and others start making the rules, the
profession starts to go into a trade association status.
Barry1817@aol.com
Located here:
http://www.dentalcom.net/forum/showthread.php?t=823
>Associated Press
>January 7, 2005
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>
>-----------------------------------------
ChuckMSRD - 08 Jan 2005 10:08 GMT
>In a decision today a judge ruled that Listerine's ad, that it is as
>good as flossing is misleading.
I always thought that the listerine statement was inaccurate, but what is this
judge's background in dental / hygiene training to be the deciding factor?
Tony Bad - 09 Jan 2005 03:32 GMT
> >In a decision today a judge ruled that Listerine's ad, that it is as
> >good as flossing is misleading.
>
> I always thought that the listerine statement was inaccurate, but what is this
> judge's background in dental / hygiene training to be the deciding factor?
I think it is a good question, but one I don't hear asked when lawmakers and
judges make rulings of other matters associated with science or health. I
have read many posts about the great deeds of various legislators, or
victories in court associated with health related topics, and find most of
these rulings or legislations are made by people who seem uninformed. Some
times I may agree with the decision, but wonder how they ever got there.
Seems they just listen to the voice in their head (or ear) that is the
loudest.
T
John Chewter - 09 Jan 2005 10:50 GMT
That's what expert witnesses are for.

Signature
John Chewter
http://www.keyneimage.co.uk
>
>> >In a decision today a judge ruled that Listerine's ad, that it is as
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> T