Ad description
Ads distributed at the London Coffee Festival and at the Caffe Culture Show in London promoted a sweetener.
a. An ad in an event booklet stated "We created Natvia because we wanted a healthy, natural alternative to artificial sweeteners and sugar. And it seems so do lots of people. Give the people what they want and let them enjoy a 100% natural sweetener", "100% NATURAL ... to make The Unique Natvia Blend we use the freshest tips of Stevia plants. We blend the Stevia with a naturally occurring nectar (known as Erythritol) ... Absolutely nothing artificial All natural with no bitter aftertaste". Text visible on the product packaging shown in the ad also stated "the 100% Natural Sweetener".
b. A leaflet and a free sample pack made the same claims as ad (a) and also stated "100% natural".
Issue
Merisant UK Ltd challenged whether the claims "100% natural sweetener", "100% NATURAL" and "100% natural" were misleading and could be substantiated, because they understood that the commercial production of erythritol typically involved ion exchange and other processes.
Response
Natvia Pty Ltd said the ads were no longer appearing. They said they had referred to section (ii) Criteria for the Use of the Terms Fresh, Pure, Natural, etc. in Food Labelling, by the Food Standards Agency, as revised in July 2008, when preparing the ads, and had strictly followed those guidelines. They added that they understood that those guidelines offered "informal, non-binding advice" and, in light of that, there was no legal requirement to adhere to them.
They said the ingredients and the method of manufacture that they used for Natvia Natural Sweetener (Natvia), as well the method of manufacture of the ingredients, had been reviewed by an experienced consultant with a wide knowledge of food law, who held the view that the method used in the manufacture of erythritol in Natvia permitted a claim of 'natural' because ion exchange was not a part of the manufacturing process. They provided further detail regarding the manufacturing process.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA consulted the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and understood that the current and relevant best practice guidance was 'Criteria for the use of the terms fresh, pure, natural etc. in food labelling', revised July 2008, which stated "Other processes such as ... ion exchange purification ... are also not in line with current consumer expectations of ‘natural’, and so if used then products should not be referred to as natural foods or ingredients". We noted that the complainants, who also produced sweeteners containing erythritol, maintained that the commercial production of erythritol typically involved ion exchange and other processes.
Because we understood that the production of erythritol could involve ion exchange, and considered, in light of the guidance, that the use of that process was not in line with consumer expectations of "natural" and should not be used to refer to foods or ingredients where that process had been used, we considered that the onus was on the advertisers to show that ion exchange was not a process used in the production of Natvia. We noted the manufacturing process for Natvia did not involve ion exchange, but considered that all elements of the manufacturing process, and the product itself, should nonetheless fall within the confines of the relevant best practice guidance.
We consulted the Food Standards and Labelling Focus Group to establish whether the production process fell under the best practice definition of 'natural'. We noted that the guidance stated that "the term ‘natural’ without qualification should be used ... to describe single foods, of a traditional nature, to which nothing has been added and which have been subjected only to such processing as to render them suitable for human consumption". We understood that the product was not a "single food".
Although we understood that ion exchange was not a process used to produce Natvia, we nonetheless understood that the production of Nativa went through several processes, including re-crystallisation, which could be equated to 'concentration'. We noted the relevant guidance stated "Processes such as ... concentration ... whilst clearly playing a significant role in both making food safe and preserving it do not accord with current consumer expectations of ‘natural’ foods."
We therefore considered that the production of Natvia fell outside the allowable permitted processes set out in the Fresh Natural Pure guidance. On that basis, although we acknowledged that ion exchange was not a part of the manufacturing process of the erythritol used in Natvia Natural Sweetener, because of the processes we understood that were involved in the production of Nativa, we concluded that the claims "100% natural sweetener", "100% NATURAL" and "100% natural" were likely to mislead.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation) and 3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify. (Qualification).
Action
The claims must not appear again in their current form. We told the advertisers not to claim a product was 100% natural unless it was in line with consumer expectation of the term "natural" and they held supporting evidence for their claims.
