GuruNanda, a natural wellness brand, is set to appeal a recommendation from the National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs. The recommendation, made in response to a challenge by Procter & Gamble (P&G), urges GuruNanda to discontinue claims about the effectiveness of its teeth-whitening products.
The controversy centers around claims made in GuruNanda’s advertisements for its oil pulling and teeth whitening products. NAD’s investigation found that the company’s assertions—specifically that its oil pulling products offer “natural teeth whitening” and that its Pro Formula Whitening Gel Pen provides “dazzle from first application”—lacked sufficient evidence.
NAD’s recommendation emphasizes its commitment to enforcing truthful advertising and safeguarding consumers. The organization found that GuruNanda’s claims were not adequately supported by reliable data, leading to its call for the removal of these assertions.
The Claims Under Scrutiny
GuruNanda’s marketing materials stated that its oil pulling products could provide “natural teeth whitening,” while the company also advertised its Whitening Gel Pen as delivering “dazzle from first application.” In its investigation, NAD determined that the studies GuruNanda presented to support these claims were not robust enough to validate the effectiveness of the products.
Natural Teeth Whitening Claim
The “natural teeth whitening” claim appeared prominently on the labels and website of GuruNanda’s oil pulling products.
To back up this assertion, the company provided two studies. However, NAD found that these studies did not meet the necessary standards to substantiate the whitening benefits, leading to its recommendation for the claim to be discontinued.
NAD emphasized that any efficacy-related advertising must be supported by credible, well-conducted research. In this case, the studies did not provide sufficient evidence, leaving the whitening claims unsubstantiated.
GuruNanda has expressed its intention to appeal NAD’s decision, signaling its commitment to defending its advertising practices. The case highlights the ongoing scrutiny of health and wellness claims in the marketplace, with consumer protection at the forefront of regulatory efforts.
