ASA Adjudication on Klinge Foods Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for Lo Salt, showed regular salt and Lo Salt balancing on a seesaw; on-screen text stated "66% LESS SODIUM THAN REGULAR SALTS". A voice-over stated "Many bread eaters choose wholemeal these days. Many who like butter switch to spreads. So if you like to add salt, why not try Lo Salt. With 66% less sodium than regular salts, but with no loss of salt taste, Lo Salt is the healthier alternative". The ad showed a table of fruit, vegetables, bread, potatoes and a saucepan with salt being added to it. It ended with a shot of the product; on-screen text stated "BALANCED FOR LIFE BALANCED FOR FLAVOUR ...".

Issue

The complainant, a medical doctor, thought the claim "healthier alternative" was misleading, because Lo Salt contained over 50% potassium chloride.  He therefore argued Lo Salt was worse for the human body than regular salt.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Klinge stated that regular salts were composed almost solely of sodium chloride.  The only additional element was an anti-caking agent added at very low percentages.  They said it was well publicised that too much sodium chloride could be harmful and was associated with high blood pressure.  They said salt use at home should ideally be eliminated but, in cases where it could not be avoided, a healthier, low sodium alternative such as their product should be used.

Klinge explained that Lo Salt consisted of a maximum of 33.3% sodium chloride and a minimum of 66.6% potassium chloride.  A minimal amount of anti-caking agent, magnesium carbonate, was added at a maximum of 0.5%.

They said that too little potassium in the diet could contribute to high blood pressure, and increasing potassium intake might help to lower blood pressure.  They argued that, while it was true that potassium consumption was not medically advisable for certain groups, the ad was too short to make the inclusion of a health warning feasible and that risk was disproportionate to the benefits which could be realised if people with high blood pressure switched from regular salt to Lo Salt.  Klinge submitted two letters from the Chairman of the Blood Pressure Association (BPA), which stated that the Association would prefer consumers to avoid salt entirely but if they had to add it to their food, Lo Salt was a better choice than regular salt.  The letters advised that available evidence, based on epidemiological studies in humans, careful studies in animals and treatment trials, suggested that increasing potassium intake would have a benefit in lowering blood pressure, not only in those with raised blood pressure but also in those with normal blood pressure.  The BPA Chairman had seen no evidence that children aged four to six years and elderly people could not handle a reasonably large amount of potassium.  He said increasing potassium intake and reducing sodium chloride intake would be likely to reduce deaths from strokes and heart attacks caused by high blood pressure.

The BPA Chairman said patients with severe renal failure and some people with diabetes, particularly when untreated or not controlled, ought to have a medical assessment before increasing their potassium intake; outside of that, there was no evidence that potassium chloride had any harmful effect.

Clearcast acknowledged that the Government advised that consumers could benefit from cutting down on salt in the form of sodium chloride.  They argued that, although Lo Salt was not inherently healthy, humans needed a certain amount of salt in their diet and, given the evidence they received, they were satisfied that Lo Salt could be described as a healthier alternative to ordinary sodium chloride.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA considered that the ad would be interpreted as claiming that, for all consumers, Lo Salt was healthier than regular salt (sodium chloride), not that Lo Salt was inherently healthy.

We noted Lo Salt consisted mostly of potassium chloride and asked the Food Standards Agency (FSA) for their expert opinion on whether Lo Salt was healthier than regular salt.  They said, because it contained less sodium than regular salt, it might be a healthier alternative.  Their website stated that most people in the UK ate much more salt (sodium chloride) than they should and too much salt was linked to an increase in blood pressure, which could in turn increase the risk of stroke and heart attacks.  They advised people to cut down on salt. However, they did not recommend the use of salt replacers such as Lo Salt.  Instead they encouraged consumers to become accustomed to a reduced salt taste, so that manufacturers could then reduce the salt levels in their products.  Although salt replacers could reduce the amount of salt added when cooking at home or at the table, most of the salt consumers ate was in processed foods.  Their advice was that little or no salt should be added during the preparation and cooking stages of food.

The FSA explained that, although potassium played an essential role in the body's normal metabolism, evidence regarding the effect of increased potassium intake on reducing blood pressure was inconsistent and a recent meta-analysis concluded that there was no robust evidence that potassium supplementation reduced blood pressure.  They also advised that potassium chloride intake of 3.0 - 3.9 g per day might cause a risk of hyperkalaemia (high blood potassium) in children aged four to six years.  They added that the elderly might also be at risk because their kidneys might become less able with age to remove potassium from the blood.  They said infants, elderly people and patients with conditions such as pre-existing hyperkalaemia, renal disease, acidosis, insulin deficiency or digitalis intoxication should not take potassium supplementation or use products like Lo Salt, which contained a high proportion of potassium, without first seeking medical advice.

We understood that 3.0 - 3.9 g of potassium chloride equated approximately to a 5 g spoonful of Lo Salt.  We considered it was unlikely that such an amount of Lo Salt would be added to a childs diet, and therefore considered only excessive amounts of Lo Salt might cause a risk of hyperkalaemia in children.  We considered the ad did not encourage excessive consumption of Lo Salt.

We noted Klinge and the BPA Chairman disagreed with the FSA over whether potassium supplementation reduced blood pressure.  We also noted there was disagreement over whether choosing a product containing almost 70% potassium chloride over regular salt was advisable for the elderly and children aged four to six years.  However, all agreed that people with renal disease or diabetes should seek medical advice before using high potassium products such as Lo Salt.

We considered that the healthiest option was to not add salt to food at all.  However, if salt had to be added, we considered a product containing almost 70% potassium chloride might be a healthier choice than regular salt for some people, but might not be a healthier alternative for people with renal disease or diabetes, and perhaps also certain other groups.  Because we considered the ad suggested Lo Salt was definitely healthier than regular salt for everyone, and because that was unlikely to be the case, we concluded that the claim "healthier alternative" was likely to mislead.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence), 5.2.2 (Implications) and 8.3.1 (Accuracy in food advertising).

Action

The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)