New York, NY – August 23, 2005 – The Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program (ERSP) has determined that Milestone Scientific, Inc. (”Milestone”), marketers of the Ionic White Tooth Whitening System, have provided a reasonable basis for their general performance and safety claims, but could not support specific stain removal, comparative, or specific safety claims. The marketer’s advertising was reviewed pursuant to a challenge from Thane International, Inc.

ERSP, the electronic direct-response industry’s self-regulatory forum supervised by the National Advertising Review Council (NARC), asked Milestone to provide substantiation for core claims that include:

-“You will see a dramatic difference after the very first application. ”
-“You will notice your teeth will continue to whiten several days after the first application.”
-“It is the exact same thing as the dentist” and “No sensitivity or pain ”

ERSP dete rmined that Milestone provided a reasonable basis for its establishment claim and the monadic performance claims for Ionic White and did conclude that the marketer’s “free” claim was not inappropriately communicated in the advertisement. ERSP determined, however, that the evidence presented by the marketer did not support claims targeting the specific types of stains that were removed, the performance of Ionic White after just one application, and the value of continued use of the product. Further, ERSP determined that all references to comparative superiority should be removed until Milestone has data that supports such claims. Finally, ERSP found that the marketer provided a reasonable basis for general claims of product safety, but could not support specific safety and sensitivity claims..

Milestone, in response to the ERSP decision, announced it “is pleased that ERSP concluded that a substantial number of the claims investigated by ERSP were supported by clinical data … [and] provided a reasonable basis for Milestone’s general claims of Ionic White’s safety.”

“Although Milestone respectfully disagrees with some of the findings and standards employed by ERSP in interpreting claims and some of the conclusions of ERSP, it nevertheless agrees, in the interest of consumer confidence, to take ERSP’s recommendations into consideration and appropriately modify its future advertising.”