ASA Adjudication on Birds Eye Ltd

Ad

A radio ad for Birds Eye stated "Here's a little something to get your teeth into. Did you know that five tasty Birds Eye Chicken Dippers contain less saturated fat than one sausage? Oh yes, just another reason why Birds Eye is good mood food".

Issue

1. A listener believed the ad was misleading because it did not state what type of sausage the comparison was based on; he believed some sausages had less fat than Chicken Dippers.

2. The ASA challenged whether the comparison in the ad was fair.

BCAP Radio Code

Response

1. Birds Eye said the Good Mood Food campaign aimed to highlight the benefits of their products in a light hearted manner.  They said five chicken dippers had 1.9 g of saturated fat and the sausage in the comparison had 2.2 g of saturated fat.  They said they based the comparison in the ad on a supermarket branded frozen thick pork sausage because they believed that was representative of the average sausage, in terms of size, type of meat, meat content and where it was purchased.  Birds Eye also said the sausage contained less saturated fat than other similar sausages, some of which contained up to 8 g of saturated fat each.  They said they had referred to five Chicken Dippers because that was the recommended portion size for a child, and allowed a comparison with one thick sausage.  

Birds Eye said they had not stated the brand or type of sausage in the ad because they had not wanted to be seen to denigrate a competitors product.  They were also limited by time and believed the average consumer would have understood the general type of product being referred to; they felt they had taken a responsible and conservative approach to the comparison and therefore did not believe listeners would be misled.  

The RACC said they felt the comparison between frozen chicken pieces and frozen sausages was a fair one and sent the evidence on which they had based their approval of the claim "five Birds Eye Chicken Dippers have less saturated fat than one cooked [brand name] pork sausage".  

2. Birds Eye said they had selected sausages as the basis of their comparison because, frozen or fresh, they were competing products for the average UK meal time; the aim of the ad was to give mums ideas and highlight the benefits and ease of serving Birds Eye products at a family meal.  In preparing the campaign, they had looked at various products that competed with Birds Eye; their aim was to make general comparisons with other tea-time product groups.  They provided data on the products consumed at the average family tea time in the UK and on the comparisons they had undertaken with that range of products.  

They believed the ad provided information relevant to consumers decision making on what to serve their families and, in light of issues surrounding child obesity, felt it was important to present consumers with information on saturated fat content.  The ad was not however intended to make any health claims or to discourage listeners from eating sausages.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted the information provided by Birds Eye showed that, of a selection of around 20 different sausages, only one, which was specifically a low fat sausage, had less saturated fat per sausage or per 100 g than the type of sausage used in the comparison.   We acknowledged that some low fat sausages might have less fat per 100 g than Chicken Dippers but were satisfied that the sausage used as a basis of the comparison was typical of that generally eaten in the UK.  We therefore considered that there was no need to state in the ad the type of sausage that had been compared. Because Birds Eye had based the comparison on a sausage that was relatively low in fat but contained approximately 75% more saturated fat per 100 g than chicken dippers, we considered that the ad was not misleading.  

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code section 2 rule 3 (Misleadingness) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

The ASA noted the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulations stated that a comparison could only be made between foods of the same category.  We noted Birds Eye had intended to make comparisons with tea-time products and to highlight the difference in saturated fat contents.  We considered that it was reasonable to compare Chicken Dippers and sausages because they were interchangeable as part of a main meal.  We also noted Birds Eye had taken steps to ensure that the sausage referred to in the ad was representative of products from the same group and contained at least 30 per cent more saturated fat than Chicken Dippers, as per the  Regulations requirement for reduced claims.

We noted the Regulations also stated that a comparison should relate to the same quantity of food.  We noted Birds Eye had compared the saturated fat content of 100 g of chicken dippers with a 40 g sausage.  However, we also noted chicken dippers contained significantly less fat than the sausage if compared on a per 100 g basis and the Food Standards Agency considered that the ad was within the spirit of the overall purpose of regulation, which was to ensure consumers were not misled.  We concluded that the comparison was fair.  

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code section 2 rule 6 (Fair comparisons) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)