ASA Adjudication on Muller Dairy (UK) Ltd

Ad

A poster, for Müllerlight Layer yoghurt, featured an image of a dry crispbread next to an image of a Mullerlight Layer yoghurt. Text stated "If only everything healthy was as tasty as new Müllerlight Layers".

Issue

The complainants challenged whether the description of Müllerlight Layers as "healthy" was misleading, because the product contained stabilisers and artificial sweeteners and was high in sugar.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Müller said they believed yoghurts offered a viable alternative to the "energy-dense, nutritionally poor" snacks and drinks that raised most concern in the debate about obesity.  They said, as a responsible operator, they broadly supported the government's policy aims on diet and health and they produced a range of products, all of which could be consumed as part of a healthy diet and lifestyle.  Müller said they wanted to facilitate consumers making informed choices, because, when eaten in proportion, there were no bad foods, only bad diets.  

Müller highlighted advice on the Food Standards Agency's (FSA) website; it stated "If you're rushing about but want to top up your energy levels, you can still have something healthy ... a carton of low-fat yoghurt or rice pudding".  They pointed out that FSA guidance suggested that older people should eat more calcium-rich foods such as yoghurt.  

Müller said Müllerlight Layers had a significant number of nutritional benefits. They were a high source of protein from the milk constituent and they provided 23% of the recommended daily amount (RDA) of calcium (which was enough to permit calcium/bone health maintenance claims). They were reduced in sugar; almost half (45%) of the sugars were those that were found naturally in the milk and fruit constituents and a maximum of 4.5 g (per 100g) of fructose was added for taste.  In addition they said the product contained other dairy minerals, were low in fat, had a naturally low sodium content and contained fruit.  Muller also said they believed the product's relative satiety was favourable and did not lend them to binge snacking, compared with less healthy choices like confectionary bars or potato crisps. They said all of the Müllerlight Layers products were less than 100 kcal per portion, so were by no means "energy dense".

Müller believed those attributes, along with the FSA advice, justified the "healthy" claim. They sent their Nutrition Profile Certificate, which confirmed that the product did not qualify as a high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) food and had an overall rating of zero on the FSA's profile.

Müller said only additives that had been classified as safe at European level were used in their products.  They said the product contained pectin, which was used as a stabiliser and was a dietary fibre that was found in nearly all fruit and especially in apples.  They said pectin was used because of its thickening properties and pointed out that it was well known for its use in jam.  They said the product also contained aspartame, an artificial sweetener, which had recently been reassessed by the European Food Safety Authority as safe.  They therefore believed the addition of the stabiliser and sweetener did not render the product unhealthy.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA noted Müllerlight Layers contained the stabiliser pectin, and the sweetener aspartame.  We noted, however, that the ad did not claim that the product was natural and we considered that the addition of those ingredients did not in itself invalidate the "healthy" claim.  We also noted Müllerlight Layers contained between 14.2 and 14.5 g of sugar but that 45% of that was found naturally in the fruit and milk constituents.  

We considered that most consumers would understand the claim made in the ad to mean that the product could be accommodated in a healthy diet and would contribute to their recommended daily nutritional needs.   We noted the product had been rated zero on the FSA's profile of HFSS foods and that it contained 23% of the RDA of calcium.

We considered that yoghurts were generally recognised as a healthier alternative to traditional snacks such as crisps and chocolate bars. We considered that consumers were likely to interpret the ad in the context of a comparison with other snacks which were generally regarded as "healthy" but which were not as tasty as Müllerlight Layers.  We concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)