ASA Adjudication on Nutricia Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for Cow & Gate Complete Care Follow-on milk, featured a giggling baby. On-screen text stated "Do I look like I need more vitamins and iron?". A second giggling baby was shown. On-screen text stated "Do I look like my tummy's unhappy?". A third giggling baby was shown. On-screen text stated "Do I look worried by other people's germs and sniffles?". The ad showed a pack shot of the product with a baby bottle filled with milk beside it. The scene changed to show a baby being bottle-fed. The voice-over stated "Cow & Gate Complete Care Follow-on Milk provides key nutrients for growth, helps promote healthy digestion, helps support some natural defences." Each of the claimed benefits were shown as on-screen text with a "tick" next to them. They then "fell" into a pack of Cow & Gate Complete Care Follow-on Milk. The voice-over continued "Cow & Gate Complete Care. Because healthy babies are happy babies." On-screen text stated "Because healthy babies are happy babies". Throughout most of the ad, small text appeared at the bottom of the screen: "Follow-on milk should only be used as part of a mixed diet from 6 months. It is not a breast milk substitute. Talk to your healthcare professional." The ad ended with another shot of a giggling baby. The Cow & Gate website address was given.

Issue

The ASA received 62 complaints from viewers, including Baby Milk Action and some healthcare professionals.  A large number of the complainants, who considered that the ad undermined and denigrated breastfeeding, challenged whether it was:

1. offensive and

2. harmful because it could discourage mothers from breastfeeding.

3. A number of other complainants challenged whether the ad made clear that it advertised follow-on milk for babies aged upwards of six months.

BCAP TV Code

Response

1. & 2. Cow & Gate said the ad made clear that it promoted follow-on milk, a product suitable for infants aged six months and over.  They stated that they were aware of the importance and benefits of breastfeeding and noted the Department of Health recommended that infants should be breastfed for at least six months. Cow & Gate therefore always sought to ensure that their ads did not undermine breastfeeding.  Consequently, they believed the ad neither alluded to breastfeeding, nor implied that there were benefits to bottle feeding over breastfeeding.

3. Cow & Gate said the on-screen text "Follow-on milk should only be used as part of a mixed diet from 6 months.  It is not a breast milk substitute.  Talk to your healthcare professional" was clear and legible and appeared on screen for most of the ad.  They added that the voice-over made clear that the product was a follow-on milk: "Cow & Gate Complete Care Follow-on milk provides ...".  Cow & Gate said the ad included two pack shots of follow-on milk stage 3 which featured a picture of a toddler aged over six months.  

Cow & Gate noted some complainants believed the visual showing the baby being cradled while fed implied that the baby was younger than six months.  They confirmed that all the babies featured in the ad were aged over six months and provided us with a copy of the birth certificate of the feeding baby which showed that she was seven months old when the ad was filmed.  Cow & Gate explained that the baby preferred to be fed in that way.

On all three points, Clearcast said they were sensitive to the need not to advertise the follow-on milk as a replacement to breastfeeding because they were aware that breastfeeding was the ideal way of providing a baby with its required nutrients.  On-screen text was included to ensure that the ad did not target breastfeeding mothers whose children were aged under six months.  They added that the voice-over also made clear that the product was a follow-on milk and was therefore not a product for babies under six months.

Clearcast acknowledged that the advertising of follow-on milk was sensitive but disagreed that the ad was offensive.  They believed the product was never positioned as an alternative to breastfeeding and did not suggest that the use of follow-on milk was superior to breastfeeding.  Clearcast added that the voice-over and on-screen text contained all relevant information about the appropriate use of the product.  

Assessment

1. & 2. Not upheld

The ASA understood that the complainants found the ad offensive because they considered that it undermined and denigrated breastfeeding and were concerned that this could be harmful in that it could discourage mothers from breastfeeding.

We noted the ad included the on-screen text "Follow-on milk should only be used as part of a mixed diet from 6 months.  It is not a breast milk substitute.  Talk to your healthcare professional" and we considered that made clear that the product was not intended as a substitute for breastfeeding.  We noted the ad did not denigrate breastfeeding or suggest that bottle feeding was preferable; it simply made viewers aware that Cow & Gate offered a follow-on milk for babies aged six months and upwards.  We considered that, given the context of the whole ad, viewers were unlikely to infer that breastfeeding was not the preferred option nor be discouraged from breastfeeding.  While we did not dismiss lightly the offence that some viewers may have taken from the ad, we considered that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to most viewers and concluded that it was unlikely to cause harm in the way the viewers feared.

On points (1) and (2), we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence) and 6.7 (Health and Safety) but did not find it in breach.

3. Not upheld

We noted the ad featured babies who were all over six months old.  Although we noted the concern that the image of the baby being cradled while fed could be interpreted as a reference to a baby under six months old, we considered that most viewers would believe the cradled baby and the other babies featured looked older than six months.  We noted the ad included on-screen text which made clear that it advertised follow-on milk for babies over six months, the voiceover made clear the product was follow-on milk and pack shots of the product were also shown which were labelled "follow-on milk".

We concluded that the ad as a whole made sufficiently clear that the ad promoted a follow-on milk for babies over six months only.  

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.3 (Qualifications) and 5.4.2(b) (Superimposed text) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)