Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A regional newspaper ad for bread sold by Iceland Foods, seen in August 2017, stated “Our new luxury bread is crafted using the finest ingredients and a traditional 16 hour slow dough process creating outstanding full flavour”. It also stated that the bread was “Delivered fresh every day”.
Issue
The Real Bread Campaign challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. “Crafted using the finest ingredients”, because they understood that a large number of artificial additives were used across the range;
2. “Crafted using … a traditional 16 hour slow dough process”, because they understood that the products were not crafted using traditional methods; and
3. “Delivered fresh every day”, because they understood that Iceland used preservatives in the range so that the bread could be bought and eaten several days after it had been baked.
Response
1. Iceland Foods Ltd provided a list of ingredients for each of the Luxury bread products. Their third-party supplier confirmed that the bread was made using specifically blended white flour from quality wheat. They stated that there were improvers added to the bread recipe including ascorbic acid and emulsifiers but that only two of the 11 products in the “Luxury Bread” range contained the preservative, potassium sorbate.
Iceland Foods Ltd further stated that they did not claim in the ad that the bread range was crafted using “only” the finest ingredients, but that they were crafted as using the “finest ingredients”.
2. Iceland Foods said that their supplier publicly promoted their “slow dough” process. They stated that the products in the Iceland luxury bread product range were made with a traditional sponge & dough method, where roughly 15–20% of the dough was fermented for 16–24 hours before being added to the rest of the dough to proof before baking. All of the dough was made on traditional spiral mixers for a longer mixing time rather than more modern ‘No time’ Chorleywood processes.
3. Iceland Foods stated that of the 11 breads in their luxury bread range, only two contained preservatives. They stated that their supplier had confirmed that the bread was baked every day during the night so that it was ready to be despatched at 3 am.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would interpret the claim “the finest ingredients” as a subjective rather than an objective claim, particularly because “finest” had no defined meaning. We did not consider that consumers would interpret the claim to mean there would be no artificial additives or improvers. We therefore concluded that the claim “crafted using the finest ingredients” was not misleading.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We considered that consumers would interpret the claim that the bread was made using “a traditional 16 hour slow dough” method to mean that it did not utilise modern industrial processes and that the method took 16 hours to complete. We noted that all of the dough was made using traditional spiral mixers rather than the more modern Chorleywood process. We noted that the bread was supplied by a third party that specialised in these processes, rather than modern industrial processes, and that a portion of the dough was fermented for 16 hours. In this context, we therefore concluded that the claim that the bread was crafted using “a traditional 16 hour slow dough method” was not misleading.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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), but did not find it in breach.
3. Not upheld
We considered that consumers would interpret the claim that the bread was “delivered fresh every day” to mean that Iceland Foods took daily deliveries of bread that had been newly baked. Iceland Foods told us that the bread from their supplier was distributed daily after being baked throughout the night. We did not consider that consumers would expect every loaf of bread being sold in the range to have arrived in the store that day, but that fresh loaves were delivered. Because bread was baked and delivered when fresh, we therefore concluded that the claim that the bread was “delivered fresh every day” was not misleading.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 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), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
