Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A radio ad for Cadbury Delights, heard on 18 January 2025, stated, “Some people might describe Cadbury Delights as just another Cadbury bar. A bit samey. Very familiar. Honestly, we'd be chuffed if they did. Because Delights have that same chocolatey Cadbury taste you've had a million times before. Same soft nougat, same gooey caramel. But they're only 91 calories. So, samey is exactly what we're going for. Cadbury Delights. Same Cadbury, only 91 calories.”
Issue
- One complainant, a registered nutritionist, challenged whether the claim “only 91 calories” was a nutrition claim that breached the Code.
- The ASA challenged whether the ad made an implied “energy reduced” comparative nutrition claim, which breached the Code.
Response
1. Mondelez UK Ltd t/a Cadbury said that the ad was submitted to Radiocentre and was approved. They also confirmed that the ad was no longer being broadcast. Their intention with the claim “only 91 calories” was to provide factual information about the product’s calorific content per bar, rather than to make a “low energy” nutrition claim. They had conducted consumer research, including qualitative surveys and creative testing, to understand consumers’ interpretation of the ad. The research indicated that factual calorie information was a significant factor for their consumers, who appreciated knowing the calorie content of their products. The statement was created in line with Cadbury brand’s tone of voice while also providing relevant calorie information. They did not intend to give a misleading impression of the nutrition or health benefits of the product. They said that they would amend the statement in future ads to address the complainant’s concerns and ensure there was no implication of a nutritional claim.
2. They understood the ASA’s concern that the ad could be interpreted as making an “energy reduced” comparative nutrition claim. Their consumer research provided insights into how consumers perceived the overall messaging of the ad. The majority of consumers understood that the ad as to be highlighting the taste of Cadbury Delights and suggesting that it delivered the same taste experience as other Cadbury chocolate products that they enjoyed. They also confirmed that Cadbury Delights used the same Cadbury chocolate found in most Cadbury-branded chocolate bars. Their intention was to emphasise the consistent Cadbury experience, not to make an “energy reduced” comparative claim.
1. & 2. Radiocentre said that during the course of the campaign submissions, they had initially cleared the claim “contains 91 calories” and they had not identified that the claim had changed to “only 91 calories”.
Assessment
1. Upheld
Only nutrition claims authorised on the Great Britain nutrition and health claims register (the GB NHC Register) could be made in ads promoting food or drink products. The BCAP Code defined a nutrition claim as any claim which stated, suggested or implied that a food (or drink) had particular beneficial nutritional properties due to the amount of calories, nutrients or other substances it contained, did not contain, or contained in reduced or increased proportions. In addition, the advertiser must ensure that the product met the conditions of use associated with the authorised claim.
The ASA considered that in the context of the ad, which compared Cadbury Delights bars with other Cadbury products, the use of the statement “only 91 calories”, spoken twice in quick succession during the ad, served to emphasise that 91 calories was a low amount of calories for a chocolate bar. We therefore considered that listeners would understand the claim “only 91 calories” as a low calorie claim, which was equivalent to the “low energy” nutrition claim authorised on the GB NHC Register. The conditions of use for that claim allowed it to be made only where a product did not contain more than 40 kcal per 100 g for solids. We understood, however, that Cadbury Delights products contained either 413 or 415 kcal per 100 g, depending on the flavour of the product.
We concluded that the claim “only 91 calories” was a “low energy” nutrition claim, but the Cadbury Delights products did not meet the conditions of use for that claim, and it therefore breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached BCAP Code rules 13.4, 13.4.1 and 13.4.2 (Food, food supplements and associated health and nutrition claims).
2. Upheld
As referenced above, the ad compared Cadbury Delights bars with other Cadbury products, emphasising their similarity while implying that Cadbury Delights were low in calories. We considered that, in addition to that interpretation, listeners were also likely to interpret the claim “[…] Delights have that same chocolatey Cadbury taste […] Same soft nougat, same gooey caramel. But they're only 91 calories” to mean that by choosing a Cadbury Delights bar, they would get the same ingredients and taste experience as with other Cadbury bars, but with fewer calories. We therefore considered listeners were likely understand the ad to be implying that Cadbury Delights were a comparable, reduced-calorie alternative to other Cadbury chocolate bars, particularly those that featured nougat or caramel. Because of this, we considered that the ad included an implied “energy reduced” comparative nutrition claim.
The BCAP code stated that comparative nutrition claims must compare the difference in the claimed nutrient to a range of foods of the same category which did not have the composition that allowed them to bear a nutrition claim. In the case of “energy reduced” comparative nutrition claims, the conditions of use stated on the GB NHC Register included that the energy value must be reduced by at least 30%, with an indication of the characteristics which made the food reduced in its total energy value. However, we understood that none of the Cadbury Delights products had 30% fewer calories than other Cadbury chocolate bars.
We concluded that the ad made an “energy reduced” comparative nutrition claim in relation to Cadbury Delights products, but the products did not meet the conditions of use for that claim, and it therefore breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached BCAP Code rules 13.4, 13.4.1, 13.4.2, 13.5.1, 13.5.2 and 13.5.3 (Food, food supplements and associated health and nutrition claims).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Mondelez UK Ltd t/a Cadbury to ensure that when making nutrition and comparative nutrition claims they held evidence to show that the relevant products met the conditions of use for the claim.
BCAP Code
13.4.1 13.4.2 13.5.1 13.5.3 13.4 13.5.2
