Putting Teeth Into the Law

A U.S. District judge in Manhattan has sided with Johnson & Johnson in its false-advertising lawsuit against Listerine. According to Judge Denny Chin (whose vaguely oral-sounding name should set off alarm bells among tort reform advocates), Pfizer Inc.'s claim that Listerine "is clinically proven to be as effective as floss at reducing plaque and gingivitis between the teeth" creates an implicit message that Listerine can replace floss, which Chin calls "false and misleading."

As a Rutgers alumnus I'm supposed to like Johnson & Johnson (or maybe I'm supposed to hate Johnson & Johnson; I forget), and I believe anybody who pays full price for Listerine, when absolutely identical generics are available at a third the price, is a chump. However, within the narrow wording of its ads, Pfizer is clearly not putting forth an implicit anti-floss message. Dig the extra detail from the New York Law Journal:

Pfizer's advertising campaign was originally targeted at the professional dental community but expanded in June to reach a broad consumer audience. A current television commercial says "Listerine's as effective as floss at fighting plaque and gingivitis. Clinical studies prove it."

The TV ads also say "there's no replacement for flossing," while print ads contain the words "floss daily" in small print. The American Dental Association approved Pfizer's campaign on the condition that the company not promote a message that consumers should stop flossing.

Pfizer sponsored the clinical studies referred to in its ads. In the two six-month studies, twice-daily rinsing with Listerine was shown to be more effective than flossing among subjects with mild or moderate gingivitis, but researchers in both cases expressed concern that subjects might not be employing proper flossing technique. The studies also did not include anyone with severe gingivitis or periodontitis, a more serious gum disease.

Any competent dentist will tell you to floss and gargle (and not with Scope for God's sake: you might as well be rinsing with Dr. Pepper). If there is an un-level playing field in advertising the two products, there are several reasons for it. Few people are thinking about the longterm problems of plaque and gingivitis when they brush. In terms of immediate reward, Listerine is an easy sell because its aesthetic payoff—the pleasing sensation that your mouth is as devoid of life as the surface of the moon—is immediate and well known. (This is why I don't see the point in flavored Listerines.) To advertise flossing, however, you've got to show the actual process, which means a) you've got to acknowledge that people should be using dental tape, not floss; and b) you've got to show the disgusting gunk that comes out from between your teeth and gums. It's aesthetically pleasing (though laborious) to get that stuff out of your own mouth, but I'd doubt anybody wants to watch it on TV—not in this Tivo age.

Does anybody base their dental care decisions on the threat of plaque or gingivitis? (I'm pretty conscientious about tooth care, and I don't even know what plaque and gingivitis are.) These medical terms have always struck me as losing ad propositions. The reality is that even the best brushers, flossers, and rinsers end up with mouths full of broken crockery—the incompatibility of human lifespans and toothspans is one of the best arguments against intelligent design I know. We'll solve that problem when shark DNA can be used to create better dentitia in humans. Meanwhile, shore those fragments against your ruin: brush, floss, and rinse every day.