The Advertising Standards Authority has upheld a complaint against Ceva Animal Health concerning Adaptil, and told the company not to claim or imply that the product could treat anxiety related and behavioural issues associated with owner separation unless it held adequate evidence to demonstrate that was the case.

The ASA had received a complaint challenging whether the claims in a TV advert for Adaptil regarding the alleviation of anxiety and improved behaviour were misleading and could be substantiated.

In response Ceva Animal Health Ltd provided a number of studies which it said showed that Adaptil had anxiety reducing properties. The studies assessed the use of Adaptil collars, sprays and diffusers. The comany said that Adaptil was proven to help adult dogs cope in challenging or worrying situations; it helped to promote learning and ensured puppies became well-behaved, confident and resilient dogs, thereby reducing the likelihood of anxiety related behaviour problems developing in later life.

Ceva Animal Health said the method of how consumers used Adaptil (collar, spray or diffuser) was not the most important influence as to how the product worked and that all delivery mechanisms included the same synthetic analogue of the dog appeasing pheremone (DAP), a pheromone which they said helped relax dogs and was also Adaptil’s main ingredient.

Ceva Animal Health said that the ad directed owners to Adaptil as a complementary option alongside behavioural advice to help dogs cope with being separated from their owner and that any additional help required should be sought from a behaviourist or vet. They said they worked with a number of specialists, behaviourists and vets who used Adaptil in cases of separation anxiety to help their patients be in a more positive emotional state during behavioural therapy.

However, the ASA ruled that because the advertiser had not submitted sufficient evidence to support its efficacy claims regarding behavioural and anxiety-related issues associated with owner separation, the authority concluded the ad’s claims were likely to mislead.

The ASA’s full ruling can be viewed by clicking here