Fat-free claims that added up to nothing

Normally Ms A only buys organic or natural yoghurt. But when she saw the advertisement for Danone’s new range of Shape yoghurts ‘now with added nothing’ in New Woman and BBC Good Food magazines she decided to give them a try.

 

 

Further convincing her was the ad’s statements that Shape is ‘simply a virtually fat free yoghurt packed with real fruit. And because there are no artificial sweeteners, preservatives or colorants, the delicious natural fruit flavours can really come through’.

 

Even the product’s name, Shape, was appealing, suggesting the product was good for those conscious about their weight.

 

It was therefore with astonishment that when Ms A got the yoghurts home, she saw 11 items on the ingredients list, including glucose and fructose syrup, sugar, colour (anthocyanins), stabilizers  (guar gum, pectin), flavouring and acidity regulator (potassium citrate).

 

Little wonder that Ms A decided to contact the ASA via its online complaints form. Eight other complaints from across the UK followed, including one from a pregnant woman who had bought Shape to specifically to avoid chemicals. All of them challenged the claim ‘now with added nothing’ because of the additives. Meanwhile, Danone’s competitor Muller Dairy (UK) Ltd challenged the claim ‘virtually fat free’ because the yoghurt contained 0.9% fat, which is above the 0.3% threshold stipulated in dairy industry guidelines.

 

Food advertising is currently a major concern among the public.  The ASA investigated the complaints immediately by referring to the CAP Code. Indeed, it is the ASA’s responsibility to act against advertisers in a firm but fair manner if the CAP Code appears to have been breached.

 

Sure enough, this seemed to be the case and a formal investigation was launched. It turned out that a total of three clauses of the code had been broken – among them the fact that ‘no marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.’ The two complaints were therefore upheld.

 

The advertisers responded to the first complaint by saying they believed consumers would appreciate the exclusion from their yoghurts of those well-known additives which are common to other dairy products. But they did acknowledge that, because their yoghurts contained a minimal amount of less well-known additives, the claim could be seen to mislead. They agreed not to print the advertisement again and guaranteed that the claim would not be used in future marketing communications.

 

In defence of the second complaint, the advertisers said that no statutory definition of ‘virtually fat free’ in fact existed and so they had asked consumers to help them define the fat content of their yoghurts. But again, they accepted that to avoid confusing consumers, they wouldn’t use the claim again.

 

Whilst ASA welcomed the advertisers’ assurances, the organisation published a full adjudication on its website. Publication of the ruling brought high profile coverage on programmes including Today on Radio 4 and Breakfast on BBC1. Both the regional and trade press also covered the story.

 

By publishing its rulings the ASA helps consumers in the UK become aware of the fact that the complaints were upheld; the bad publicity generated by an adjudication upholding complaints should deter other advertisers from making similar unsubstantiated claims.