ASA Adjudication on Guardian Land Ltd
Guardian Land Ltd
Stanley House
69–71 Hamilton Road
Motherwell
Lanarkshire
ML1 3DG
Date:
15 February 2012
Media:
Internet (on own site)
Sector:
Business
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
A11-173755
Ad
Claims on a website, for a product designed to aid the resting process of roasted meats, viewed on 5 October 2011, featured text on the home page that stated "Roastcosy is the latest 'must have' kitchen gadget to relax & rest your Sunday roast without losing heat. Made of high quality stainless steel & flexible chainmail it can be applied before or after cooking ... No more burning, only perfect browning & crisping Reduces food shrinkage & retains more natural juices ... As seen on Dragons' Den! ... Retains more natural juices & enhances flavours".
Text on the 'About' page stated "More about your Roastcosy ... Reduces Moisture Loss ... Retains natural juices and enhances flavours ... Retains Core Heat Temperatures ... Stays warm allowing your roast to rest & relax without losing its heat ... Roastcosy is dishwasher proof, easy-clean and protects oven interiors from fat spit & spray".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "No more burning";
2. "Only perfect browning & crisping";
3. "Reduces food shrinkage";
4. "Retains more natural juices";
5. "Protects oven interiors from fat spit & spray"; and
6. "Stays warm allowing your roast to rest & relax without losing its heat".
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
Guardian Land provided a test report which had been carried out by a third party which they said supported claims 1, 3, 4, and 6. They also provided a product review carried out by a third party which they said supported claims 1, 4 and 6.
Guardian Land said:
1. the advertised product evenly distributed heat across the surface of the meat and that that reduced localised burning;
2. the meat caramelised through direct contact between the meat and the product, and the even distribution of heat which enhanced browning and crisping;
3. the advertised product acted as a semi-barrier which retained more moisture than a completely uncovered joint, but not as much moisture as foil retained;
4. the advertised product helped retain juices by reducing moisture loss during the cooking process;
5. the product consisted of a stainless steel mesh barrier which reduced spit and spray;
6. the advertised product allowed the meat to rest and relax and reduced heat loss.
Assessment
1., 4. & 6. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers were likely to interpret the claims to mean that independent testing had demonstrated that using the product in accordance with the instructions resulted in the benefits claimed.
We noted the product review did not rely on objective testing. As such, we were concerned that it was not sufficient to substantiate the objective claims made within the ad.
We were concerned that the report, by a third party, provided no methodology as to how the tests were conducted. We were also concerned that the tests had been carried out on a single piece of meat and had not demonstrated that the results were reproducible or representative of the results consumers were likely to experience.
We considered that we had not seen adequate documentary evidence to substantiate the claims and therefore concluded that the claims were misleading and breached the Code.
On these points, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).
2. Not upheld
We noted the claim commented on the texture and appearance of the meat after using the product. In that context, we considered that the claim was likely to be understood as a reflection of the advertiser's subjective view and was not capable of objective substantiation.
On that basis, we concluded that the ad was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.6 (Misleading advertising) but did not find it in breach.
3. Upheld
We considered that consumers were likely to interpret the claim to mean that independent testing had demonstrated that using the product in accordance with the instructions reduced food shrinkage. As outlined in points 1, 2 and 4 above, we were concerned that the third-party report provided no methodology as to how the test was conducted and that the test had been carried out on a single piece of meat.
Since we had not seen adequate documentary evidence to substantiate the claim, we concluded that the claim was misleading and breached the Code.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).
5. Upheld
We considered that consumers were likely to interpret the claim to mean that independent testing had demonstrated that using the product in accordance with the instructions, would prevent 'fat spit and spray' from hitting the interior of the oven.
We noted that the third party report commented that, from extended use the advertised product demonstrated a significant reduction in fat spit and spray. However, we noted the report did not comment on whether the advertised product would prevent “fat spit and spray” altogether. We were also concerned that the report did not include any specific tests upon which that assessment was made.
On that basis, we considered that we had not seen adequate documentary evidence to demonstrate that the advertised product prevented “fat spit and spray” from hitting the interior of the oven. We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading and breached the Code.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Guardian Land to ensure that they hold robust substantiation for all claims in future.
