Ad description
A paid-for Facebook ad by Nutrition Geeks, a supplement brand, seen on 23 May 2026, stated “Struggling with […] strength […]? […] Clinically backed to support muscle strength […]”. It included an image with superimposed text which stated “FROM PANCAKE TO PEACH Creatine fuels the muscle your protein can’t build alone”. Beneath was a ‘before’ and ‘after’ drawing of a bottom that was more shapely in the ‘after’ drawing. Below that was an image of the product with text that stated “[…] Muscle Definition”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad included health claims that were in breach of the Code.
Response
Unicorn Brands Ltd t/a Nutrition Geeks said the ad promoted their Pure Creatine Monohydrate product, which provided 3.5g of creatine per serving. It was developed with reference to the authorised health claim for creatine on the Great Britain Nutrition and Health Claims Register (the GB NHC Register) and the underlying scientific opinion of the European Foods Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies.
They said that the relevant authorised claim on the GB NHC Register was “Creatine increases physical performance in successive bursts of short-term, high intensity exercise”. The conditions of use required that the food provided a daily intake of 3 g of creatine and that the consumer was informed that the beneficial effect was obtained from a daily intake of 3 g of creatine on adults performing high-intensity exercise. They believed the conditions of use were met because their product provided 3.5 g of creatine per serving and the ad was targeted at adults undertaking high-intensity training.
They said the Department of Health’s General Principles on Flexibility of Wording for Health Claims recognised that advertisers could adapt the wording of an authorised claim, provided the adapted wording had the same meaning for consumers as the authorised claim and did not exaggerate it. They believed the wording of the ad was an acceptable adaptation of the authorised claim based on their understanding of previous ASA rulings which referred to “support” in an adapted claim, which they said was a weaker verb than the word “increases” which appeared in the authorised claim. The EFSA opinion that underlined the GB NHC Register entry stated that “muscle mass and strength are major determinants of physical performance”. They did not believe their adapted wording breached the Code.
Regarding the other claims and imagery in the ad, they said that “Creatine fuels the muscle your protein can’t build alone” went beyond the meaning of the authorised claim and would not be used in future. They also said that the claim “FROM PANCAKE TO PEACH” with the before and after drawings and reference to “muscle definition” could be understood as promising a specific change in body shape and conveyed an appearance-related benefit that was not the meaning of the authorised claim. Those elements had been withdrawn. They said the ad would not be used again.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code required that only health claims authorised on the GB NHC Register were permitted in marketing communications for foods. The Code defined health claims as those that stated, suggested or implied a relationship between a food, drink or ingredient and health. It also stated that marketing communications that contain nutrition or health claims must be supported by documentary evidence to show they meet the conditions of use associated with the relevant claim, as specified in the applicable register, and that claims must be presented clearly and without exaggeration.
The ad promoted a creatine food supplement and stated “Clinically backed to support muscle strength”. It also included the text “FROM PANCAKE TO PEACH”, “Creatine fuels the muscle your protein can’t build alone” and “Muscle Definition”, alongside a before-and-after style illustration of a bottom that appeared more shapely in the ‘after’ image. The ASA considered those claims and images would be understood by consumers to mean that taking the product would improve muscle strength, build muscle and change body shape, which we considered were specific health claims for the purposes of the Code.
The only authorised claims on the GB NHC Register for creatine were “Daily creatine consumption can enhance the effect of resistance training on muscle strength in adults over the age of 55” and “Creatine increases physical performance in successive bursts of short-term, high intensity exercise”.
We accepted that some flexibility could be exercised in rewording authorised claims, provided that the reworded claim was likely to have the same meaning for consumers as the authorised claim. We acknowledged Nutrition Geeks’ view that because the product provided 3.5 g of creatine per serving, the wording “support muscle strength” was a permissible adaptation of the authorised claim. However, we considered the claim “Clinically backed to support muscle strength” did not have the same meaning for consumers as either of the authorised claims. The ad referred broadly to muscle strength, without making clear either the limitation to adults over the age of 55 or the specific context of successive bursts of short-term, high intensity exercise. We considered consumers were likely to understand the claim as a general benefit for muscle strength, rather than the more limited effects, set out in the authorised claims. For that reason, we considered it went beyond the meaning of the authorised claims.
We further considered that the claim “Creatine fuels the muscle your protein can’t build alone”, particularly when read with “FROM PANCAKE TO PEACH”, the before-and-after illustration and the claim “Muscle Definition”, would be understood as meaning that the product could build muscle and produce a more defined, shapelier bottom. We considered that was a materially different and stronger claim than either of the authorised claims for creatine. The authorised claims did not state that creatine built muscle, changed body shape, or produced muscle definition, nor did they support the comparison with protein. We therefore considered those claims and images exaggerated the effect of creatine and did not have the same meaning for consumers as the authorised claims.
Because the health claims in the ad were not claims listed as authorised on the GB NHC register, and did not have the same meaning for consumers as the authorised claims for creatine, we concluded that the ad breached the Code.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 15.1, 15.1.1 and 15.7 (Food, food supplements and associated health or nutrition claims).
Action
The ad must not appear in the form complained of. We told Unicorn Brands Ltd t/a Nutrition Geeks to ensure any specific health and nutrition claims made in their future advertising were authorised on the GB NHC Register and complied with the conditions of use for those claims.
