Background

Four issues were investigated, of which three were Upheld and one was Not Upheld.

Ad description

A TV ad, an insert in the regional press and a website in May 2011:

a. The TV ad featured children of various ages eating different types of food. Superimposed text at the bottom of the screen stated "Children of different ages, specifically those under 4, have varying nutritional needs. See sainsburys.co.uk/fifty". A voice-over stated "Love it. Loathe it. Wolf it. Turn their noses up at it. Whatever they do with it, they get through a lot of it. That's why at Sainsbury's you can now feed a family of four, for a week, for just fifty quid". Superimposed text at the bottom of the screen stated "Follow our meal plan, 3 meals a day, 7 days a week. Selected stores and availability. See online". Text in an orange roundel stated "Feed Your Family For £50". On-screen text at the end of the ad stated "Find the £50 meal plan at sainsburys.co.uk/fifty".

b. The insert featured pictures of three meals on the front cover and had the title "28 Breakfasts 28 Lunches 28 Dinners 1 Happy Family" in a white circle. Text below stated "Look inside to find out how you can feed a family of four for a week for £50". Text in an orange roundel stated "Feed Your Family For £50". The inside of the insert had the headline "No really, we've done the maths" and featured the same meal plan as in ad (b). Small print at the bottom of the page stated "WE HAVE WORKED WITH NUTRITIONISTS AT THE BRITISH NUTRITION FOUNDATION TO ENSURE THIS MENU IS NUTRITIONALLY BALANCED. HEALTHY SNACKS SUCH AS LOWER FAT DAIRY PRODUCTS AND FRUIT AND VEGETABLES ARE RECOMMENDED AS WELL AS REGULAR PHYSICAL ACTIVITY. ALL ITEMS SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY. BASED ON A FAMILY OF 4. PRICES CORRECT AT TIME OF GOING TO PRINT, 04/11 - SEE INSTORE FOR DETAILS. OFFERS END 24/05/11. WHERE WHOLE PACKS ARE NOT USED IN THE RECIPE, WE HAVE STILL INCLUDED THE FULL PACK PRICE IN THE CALCULATION. ALL ITEMS ARE SAINSBURY'S OWN BRAND, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. PRICES AND LINES VARY IN SAINSBURY'S LOCALS, CENTRALS, AND ONLINE". A Sainsbury's receipt totalling £49.99 was pictured next to the planner. Text in a roundel beneath the receipt stated "Feed Your Family For £50".

c. The website was headlined "Feed your family for £50; 3 meals a day. For 4 people. For 7 days" and was divided into different tabbed areas. Under a tab titled "Explore the meal plan" the site gave details of various weekly meal plans, divided into days which included individual meals and their nutritional information.

Issue

The ASA received seven complaints:

1. Three complainants who had seen ad (a), two who had seen ad (b) and two who had seen ad (c), challenged whether the claim that readers could feed their family for a week for £50 was misleading and could be substantiated because they understood that the meal plans did not provide sufficient calories to meet the needs of a family of four, and additional food would therefore have to be purchased.

2. One complainant challenged whether the same claim, in ads (a) and (c), was misleading because they understood that the headline price of £50 did not include a number of store cupboard ingredients which needed to be purchased separately.

3. Two complainants challenged whether the same claim, in ad (a), was misleading, because they understood that the meal plans were not suitable for those under four years of age and that additional food would therefore have to be bought.

4. One complainant challenged whether ad (a) condoned detrimental practices and poor nutritional habits in children because it featured children who were under four years of age, but promoted meal plans that were not suitable for that age group.

Response

1. Sainsbury's said the campaign's main message was "Feed Your Family for £50" and that the additional explanation "28 breakfasts, 28 Lunches, 28 Dinners, 1 Happy Family" was also provided. They explained that the overall message never included drinks or snacks, although healthy drinks and snacks such as low-fat dairy products and fruit and vegetables, were recommended. They said the terms and conditions clearly stated that the meal plans were devised to provide on average at least 75% of calorie requirements, based on the UK adult Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) of 2000 kcal per day. They said the remainder should be provided by healthy snacks and drinks including low-fat dairy products, fruits and vegetables and cereal-based high-fibre snacks. They explained that the plans were deliberately engineered not to provide all of an adult's calorie requirements, since that would make no allowance for drinks and snacks consumed in addition to the three meals provided for in the meal plan, and could result in overconsumption of calories for those following the plan.

Sainsbury's said snacking was widespread in the UK diet and that 61.3% of adults and 28.3% of children in England were overweight or obese. They said both Sainsbury's and the British Nutrition Foundation (BNF) were particularly aware of the risks associated with engineering the plans to provide all 100% of an adult's calorie requirements within three meals and making no allowance for additional snacking and consumption of calorie-containing drinks.

Sainsbury's said the meal plans provided a balance of food from the four main food groups as recommended by the Department of Health's (DH) eat-well plate model. Each day provided a minimum of five portions of fruit or vegetables and, based on the provision of 75% of calorie requirements, each meal plan provided at least 85% of several key vitamins and minerals based on the Reference Nutrient Intakes (RNIs) for adults. They said the British Nutrition Foundation advised them on which vitamins and minerals to include based on National Diet and Nutrition Survey data indicating those vitamins and minerals which were most commonly inadequate in the UK diet.

Clearcast said, when approving ad (a), they received an assurance that viewers could feed a family of four for a week for £50. They said the agency had also provided a meal planner with an assurance that it had been endorsed by the BNF. They said their expectation was that the BNF would have already considered whether the calorie requirements for the meal plans were sufficient.

2. Sainsbury's said they had been using the store cupboard ingredient principle since 2009 and that it was an approach that was commonly used in food magazines. They said wherever a full quantity of an ingredient hadn't been used in a recipe but was integral to a meal, the price of the whole item was included in the price of the overall meal. For example, the mayonnaise used in an egg mayonnaise sandwich was fully included as part of the £50 in one of the meals. They said, in contrast, the use of mustard suggested for a toad in a hole was not included in the calculation as this was a suggestion and the meal could still be enjoyed without it. They said this was clearly identified as a store cupboard ingredient and not included in the receipt clearly shown on every meal plan.

Sainsbury's said they took the inclusion of store cupboard ingredients seriously and regularly commissioned research through Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS) to understand what customers had in their store cupboards. They said that research had always been conducted with over 1000 respondents and the store cupboard ingredients used across the 63 meals for the plan were included in a panel survey. They said they had used those surveys since 2009 to ensure their store cupboard ingredients list remained realistic and provided their recent survey data on a confidential basis.

3. & 4. Sainsbury said the meal plans had been developed with the British Nutrition Foundation to provide nutritionally balanced meals for adults and older children. They said children under four years of age had differing nutritional needs to older children and, because of this, the terms and conditions of the £50 meal planner website clearly stated that the meal plans, as written, were not designed to meet the nutritional requirements of children under four. They said, for advice on preparing nutritionally balanced meals for children under four, and for recipe suggestions and advice on adapting adult recipes and portion sizes, customers were directed to a specific area of their website dedicated to food for that age group.

Sainsbury's said, additionally, for the first meal plan online, they had featured the message "cooking for under 4's?" as a link to their 'little ones' website. They said they had received no feedback from customers on the suitability or unsuitability of the plan for under fours, aside from customers positively discussing adapting the plans for young children. They said, in that light, it was decided that advising customers that the meal plan was not suitable for under fours and guiding them to their customer helpline team and the 'little ones' website with tips on adapting meals was helpful. They said their customer service helpline team had tips to advise parents, for example where a cheese and ham sandwich was judged as containing too much salt for children under four, they suggested that parents who did want to adapt the planner for their younger child remove the ham from the sandwich, to ensure that it did not exceed the salt requirements for children of this age and that the portion size was appropriate.

Sainsbury's said their non-broadcast advertising carried the statement "We've worked with nutritionists at the British Nutrition Foundation to ensure this meal plan is nutritionally balanced for adults and older children. Children of different ages, specifically those under 4, have varying nutritional needs". They said their TV advertising was approved by Clearcast and stated "Children of different ages specifically those under 4, have varying nutritional needs". They said, although their plan would suit families where parents were practised at adapting foods such as sandwiches to make them suitable for children under four, the fact that their television advertising stated very clearly "not suitable for under 4s" made it clear to families with children under four that some of the plan was not suitable. They said the first run of non-broadcast advertising did not include this explanatory statement but did state "for terms and conditions see our website" where they made the correction. They said that statement was then included in every piece of advertising going forward.

Clearcast said they accepted that ad (a) featured some children who appeared to be under 4 but did not believe that the ad was misleading. They said they had advised the agency to include superimposed text to notify viewers that under 4s had varying nutritional needs, which had been included.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA understood from the response provided by Sainsbury's that the meal plans were structured to provide at least 75% of calorie requirements on the basis that the remaining 25% would be made up with supplementary intake such as healthy snacks and drinks. We sought advice from the DH who explained that, while there were no formal rules on what to base such a meal plan, there was voluntary guidance and usual practice. They said the DH's published voluntary guidance on daily calorie intake suggested that 80% of calories should come from meals and for 20% to come from food and drink consumed between meals. They said there was also some evidence that people got a third of their daily calorie intake from snacks. They said in light of the ratios in the voluntary guidance, they considered that Sainsbury's decision to structure the meal plans to provide 75% of calorie requirements was a reasonable one.

We noted the advice from the DH and we understood that Sainsbury's had therefore acted responsibly in structuring the meal plans in a way that gave sufficient leeway for customers to eat and drink outside the plans without exceeding their recommended calorie intake. We considered, however, that readers and viewers generally and particularly those who needed to feed a family on a limited budget, would infer from the claim "That's why at Sainsbury's you can now feed a family of four, for a week, for just fifty quid" in ad (a) and the similar claims in ads (b) and (c), that, for £50 the meal plans would provide enough food to meet all of their family's food needs for a week.

Although we noted that ads (a), (b) and (c) also stated "3 meals a day, 7 days a week", "28 Breakfasts 28 Lunches 28 Dinners 1 Happy Family" and "3 meals a day. For 4 people. For 7 days" respectively, we considered that readers and viewers were still likely to expect that the food provided would meet all of their calorie requirements for a week.

We also noted that ad (a) did not mention snacks and, while ad (b) stated in the small print "HEALTHY SNACKS SUCH AS LOWER FAT DAIRY PRODUCTS AND FRUIT AND VEGETABLES ARE RECOMMENDED", we considered that that did not make clear if the snacks to which it was referring were included in the shopping list and £50 cost, or whether Sainsbury's were suggesting that they should be bought and consumed in addition.

The DH also noted that the meal planners were based on the average woman's requirement of 2000 kcal a day and explained that that was usual practice when looking at diet plans for a population unless specifically identifying gender groups. We considered, however, that in the specific context of ads for meal plans which claimed to meet all of a family's food needs, the ads should also have made clear what model they had used as a basis for calculating calories.

Although we understood that Sainsbury's had structured the meal plans responsibly in terms of calorific guidance, because the ads claimed that readers could meet all their families food needs for a week for £50, when that was not the case, we concluded that Sainsbury's had over claimed and that the ads were misleading on this point.

On this point ad (a) breached BCAP Code rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and 3.2 (Misleading advertising),  3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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)  3.10 3.10 Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification) and  3.18 3.18 Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product or service depicted in the advertisement.  (Prices).

On this point ads (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and 3.3, (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),  3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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.  (Qualification) and  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.   (Prices).

2. Upheld

We noted that the published meal plans also listed store cupboard ingredients which were not included in the headline price of £50, such as olive oil, dried mixed herbs, fresh garlic, mustard, tomato puree, stock cubes and plain flour. We noted that Sainsbury's had submitted TNS research that they said showed that consumers already had those items in their cupboards at home. However, we noted that the percentage of people who had each of those ingredients at home varied considerably and was, for some of the ingredients, quite low. We consequently understood that a significant number of consumers would have to buy additional ingredients in addition to those listed on the meal plans, bringing the total cost above £50.

Because we understood that many customers would have to spend more than £50 to obtain all the ingredients necessary for the meal plans, we concluded that, on this point, the claim was misleading.

On this point ad (a) breached BCAP Code rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and 3.2 (Misleading advertising),  3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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)  3.10 3.10 Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification) and  3.18 3.18 Price statements must not mislead by omission, undue emphasis or distortion. They must relate to the product or service depicted in the advertisement.  (Prices).

On this point ad (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and 3.3, (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),  3.9 3.9 Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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.  (Qualification) and  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.   (Prices).

3. Upheld

We noted that ad (a) featured a number of scenes in which children of various ages were seen playing and eating. Although we noted many of those children were clearly over four years old and, in some cases, appeared to be young teenagers, we noted that the ad also featured some much younger children and two who clearly were under two years old. We considered that viewers were likely to interpret that imagery, and the claim "you can now feed a family of four, for a week, for just fifty quid" to mean that the advertised meal plans were suitable for all age groups.

We understood, however, from the response provided by Sainsbury's that the meal plans were not designed to meet the nutritional requirements of children under four. Although we noted that on-screen text stated "Children of different ages specifically those under 4, have varying nutritional needs", we did not consider that that statement went far enough in clarifying that the meal plans were not suitable for under fours and instead contradicted the impression, given by the images, that the meal plans were suitable for that age group.

Because we considered that the ads implied that the advertised meal plans were suitable for children under four years of age when that was not the case, and because we understood that customers with children under four would therefore have to alter the meal plans and buy additional food for that age group, we concluded that ad (a) was misleading on this point.

On this point ad (a) breached BCAP Code rules  3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and 3.2 (Misleading advertising) and  3.10 3.10 Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification).

4. Not upheld

We noted that the BCAP Code required ads to avoid anything likely to condone or encourage poor nutritional habits in children. Although we considered, for the reasons given in point 3 above, that ad (a) misleadingly implied that the meal plans were suitable for under fours, we noted that it did not show children under four eating food which was identifiable either as being healthy or unhealthy for them. We noted that viewers who were interested in finding out more about the meal plans were directed to the website where they would find out that the meal plans were not suitable for children under four. We therefore concluded that the ad did not breach the Code on this point.

On this point we investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules  5.3 5.3 Advertisements must not condone or encourage practices that are detrimental to children's health.  (Children) and  13.2 13.2 Advertisements must avoid anything likely to condone or encourage poor nutritional habits or an unhealthy lifestyle, especially in children.  (Food, food supplements and associated health or nutrition claims) but did not find it in breach.

Action

Ad (a) must not be shown again in its current form.

Ads (b) and (c) must not appear again in their current form.

We told Sainsbury's to ensure that ads featuring meal plans explained how the calorific content of those plans had been calculated and made clear if they were not designed to meet all calorie requirements.

We told Sainsbury's to ensure that headline prices for meal plans included any integral store cupboard ingredients, unless they held evidence that most or all customers would already have those ingredients at home.

We told Sainsbury's to exercise caution when producing ads for foods which featured children of an age for which those foods were not suitable.

BCAP Code

13.2     3.1     3.10     3.18     3.9     5.3    

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.17     3.7     3.9    


More on