Water purifier ads are telling us lies: use of RTI exposes tall claims!
Pune: according to recent reports, claims made by the giant multinational company Hindustan Unilever (HUL) in its ads that it has the endorsement for its water purifier ‘Pureit’ from the National Institute of Virology [NIV] and that their product supposedly kills/removes one crore viruses in one litre of water has run into big trouble. Mumbai-based Dr Arvind Shenoy, an expert consumer product researcher decided to invoke the RTI Act on this matter and got the inside information recently.
It now turns out that the product was neither endorsed by the NIV nor is the claim made in the ad factual. Which is why a letter written by the director of National Institute of Virology on 2 June 2011 to the company states ‘It is brought to my attention that your company is advertising Pureit regularly on TV. The said advertisement is quoting explicitly NIV’s report that the purifier kills one crore viruses in a litre of water. We have clearly reported in our paper that experiments were conducted using 0.67×105 Hepatitis E virus particles per litre of water. Hence, your advertisements are not based on facts. You are requested to refrain from twisting and misrepresenting the facts. Failing to take immediate corrective measures may force us to resort to legal action against your company’.
However, Dr Shenoy who has a copy of the test report published by NIV researchers in the Journal of Tropical Medicine and International Health, Vol 14, pages 1-7, 2009, says the brand Pureit has been mentioned in the published test report (4th sentence on page 889). Mentioning a brand in such an internationally reputed journal is a violation of the norms of the US EPA’s international ethical and scientific protocol. The tests involved 8 units – Unit 1 – Zero B, Unit 2 – Eureka Aqua Flow, Unit 3 – Orpat, Unit 4 – Krystalle, Unit 5 – Eureka Aquasure on Tap, Unit 6 – Anjali B-Free, Unit 7 – Aqua Plus (hollow fibre membrane), and Unit 8 – Pureit (from Hindustan Unilever. Curiously, however, the report specifically mentioned Unit number eight as Pureit, which may give the impression that the tests were sponsored by Pureit.
As for the extent and the quality of purification of water, the conclusions of the report is an eye opener, as it says categorically – ‘These same samples showed free and total chlorine levels that were adequate to ensure proper elimination of bacterial contaminants, but were unable to remove pathogenic viruses’. Did the ads miss the difference between bacteria and viruses or the mix up was intentional!
The fact remains that although the NIV in its 2nd June letter had threatened legal action if HUL does not “immediately” rectify the false information, even after nearly two months, the NIV has not yet served a legal notice to the multinational company. This controversy thus remains unresolved yet.