AUTH/2205/2/09: “Educational grant” BMJ insert ruled an 8‑page advert for Gaviscon Advance (Reckitt Benckiser)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2205/2/09
Complainant	Public health registrar
Company	Reckitt Benckiser
Material	BMJ-distributed supplement/booklet: “Reflux Disease – What Lies Beneath the Surface?” (ref G-NHS-UK-01-09)
Product	Gaviscon Advance
Channel	Insert/supplement distributed with the BMJ (General Practice and Clinical Research editions)
Complaint received	09 February 2009
Case completed	23 April 2009
Applicable Code year	2008
Breach clauses	6.3, 7.2, 9.10, 12.1
No breach	9.7 (upheld on appeal)
Appeal	By complainant (Clause 9.7); unsuccessful
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
Notable cost detail (appeal)	Company stated it paid £7,000 to distribute the supplement in the BMJ; standard double-page spread rates cited total £15,990

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

📋

⌄

A public health registrar complained about a booklet/supplement titled “Reflux Disease – What Lies Beneath the Surface?” distributed with the BMJ (7 February 2009).
The front cover stated it was “Supported by an educational grant from Reckitt Benckiser”, included the company logo, and directed readers to prescribing information for Gaviscon Advance on the back cover.
The complainant alleged it was, in effect, an advertisement for Gaviscon Advance (7 pages plus prescribing information), exceeding the two-page journal advertising limit.
The complainant also alleged the “consensus meeting” framing was a ruse to obtain exemption from the Code’s advertising page limits, and that the content was unbalanced and misleading.
Reckitt Benckiser said the meeting took place in Leeds in May 2008, was facilitated by a third-party agency, and the output was an educational booklet written by an independent medical writer; prescribing information was included because the product was mentioned.
The Panel concluded the booklet was the output of a Reckitt Benckiser advisory board and that third parties were acting on the company’s behalf; the company was responsible under the Code.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 6.3: the material was, in effect, an eight-page advertisement for Gaviscon Advance and exceeded the two-page limit for journal advertising.
Breach of Clause 9.10: the statement “Supported by an educational grant from Reckitt Benckiser” did not accurately reflect the company’s involvement.
Breach of Clause 12.1: the insert was ruled disguised promotion (the sponsorship statement and “consensus meeting” sub-heading created a misleading impression of independence).
Breach of Clause 7.2: the insert was misleading (it appeared to be an independent review and promised advice on managing GORD but did not provide it, while giving detailed advice on LPR in a way that supported Gaviscon Advance).
No breach of Clause 9.7: not extreme in size, format or cost; this was upheld on appeal.
Appeal by complainant (on Clause 9.7) was unsuccessful.

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access