Antitartar Tooth‐Paste: The Statistical Story

L. Paul Fatti and Michael J. Greenacre

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 1991, vol. 154, issue 1, 101-105

Abstract: A 20‐month legal battle between Colgate–Palmolive and Elida–Gibbs, a subsidiary of Unilever, ended in June 1989. Colgate (the plaintiff) accused Unilever of false advertising claims and criticized the scientific evidence put forward by Unilever on both clinical and statistical grounds. The main statistical criticisms were poor experimental design, unreliable data and a result which was unrelated to the product claim. Unilever relied chiefly on the principles of randomization and double‐blindness to defend the validity of their findings. The authors, who were statistical advisers to the opposing parties, recount the statistical issues involved in this case.

Date: 1991
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.2307/2982700

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:154:y:1991:i:1:p:101-105

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://ordering.onli ... 1111/(ISSN)1467-985X

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A is currently edited by A. Chevalier and L. Sharples

More articles in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A from Royal Statistical Society Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().