Background
On 7 April 2025, the Advertising Codes were updated to reflect the revocation and restatement of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs – the legislation from which the majority of the CAP and BCAP rules on misleading advertising derived) by the Unfair Commercial Practices provisions in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA).
On that date, the wording of a number of the rules in the Advertising Codes was changed to reflect relevant changes introduced by the DMCCA on 6 April 2025. Given that the complaint that formed the subject of this ruling was received before 7 April 2025, the ASA considered the ads and complaint under the wording of the rules that existed prior to 7 April 2025, and the Ruling (and references to rules within it) should therefore be read in line with this wording, available here – CAP Code and BCAP Code.
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website, www.viridian-nutrition.com, and a magazine ad for Viridian International, an online retailer of vitamin supplements:
a. The website, seen on 9 July 2024, featured a page that stated, “No Junk” in large text alongside an image of the Viridian High Five Formula multivitamin product. Further text stated, “Shockingly, Mass Produced Supplements Contain Up To 50% Ultra-Processed Junk!” Under the heading “What On Earth Is In Your Supplement?” a list entitled “Mass Produced Supplements” contained images of supplements in a variety of formats, alongside lists of ingredients. A cross symbol was next to each product’s ingredient list. A list entitled “Viridian Nutrition Supplements” contained images of capsules. Text next to the capsule at the bottom of the list stated, “Pure Vitamins. No Junk” alongside a tick symbol.
Another page on the website entitled “What’s in Your Supplement?” stated, “Pure: If an ingredients [sic] is there, it's there for a reason. Our supplements contain 100% active ingredients in the highest natural potency with no fillers, binders, glues, irradiation or lubricants from mass production - nothing!”
b. The press ad, seen in True Health magazine on 1 August 2024, stated, “No Junk” in large text alongside an image of a Viridian product. Further text stated, “Say No to Ultra Processed Supplements, Feel Good with Pure Vitamins”. Text below stated, “What On Earth is in Your Supplement?” Many supplements contain ineffective fillers, Viridian only uses pure and active ingredients. Ask an expert at an independent health store, #DigDeeper at Viridian-Nutrition.com/NoJunk”.
Issue
The Health Food Manufacturers' Association (HFMA) challenged whether:
- the claims in ads (a) and (b) that Viridian’s own products contained “no junk”, “100% active ingredients”, “only uses […] active ingredients” and were “pure”, and implied claims that they were not “ultra processed” were misleading and could be substantiated; and
- the ads discredited and denigrated another product.
Response
1. Viridian International Ltd t/a Viridian said the ads focused on the ingredients which many manufacturers added to their supplements and contrasted this with Viridian’s own products which did not contain the highlighted excipients (substances other than the active ingredient) and added ingredients. They said the ads did not identify any brands or specific products; they used general language – “mass-produced supplements” – and the images in ad (a) were digitally-created generic representations rather than photographs. Nevertheless, they had reviewed numerous competitor products to verify that the ingredients listed in ad (a) were contained in other available supplements. They supplied to the ASA a list of key excipients and a broad selection of UK supplement brands that used them. They said that showed they had reviewed the market as a whole.
The campaign was designed to enhance consumer choice and build awareness that there was a difference between products in terms of ingredients. They believed consumers would understand from the ad that some other supplements contained the listed ingredients but that those substances would not be found in Viridian supplements. They pointed out that the ingredients lists for their own products could be found on their website.
Viridian said they used the phrase “no junk” to highlight that Viridian did not use any excipients that were frequently added to many other brand supplement products, especially mass-market brands. They shared data in support of their argument that the additives were not of nutritional benefit and were potentially detrimental. They provided a report in support of their claims about the additives, which referenced independent studies. The report was titled “No Junk – The Viridian Dejunk Your Life Report” and was commissioned by Viridian.
Viridian pointed out that there was no legal definition for the word “junk” and no restriction on its usage. They stated it was possible for legally permitted products to be determined “junk”; they gave the example of “junk food”, a well-known term which consumers would understand as referring to items that contained ingredients that were not ‘good for you’. They referred to the report which highlighted independent research into common excipients used across the market.
Viridian said it was reasonable to state that all the ingredients in their formulations were active because they all supported the body. The capsule shell, although not a nutrient, was an active component of the product in its role as a necessary delivery vehicle; without it, the powder would not be in a swallowable form. The addition of a wholefood base containing alfalfa, spirulina and bilberry provided nutrients and other compounds to support the body. They said the difference between their capsules and other tablets and capsules was that the excipients used in the latter could have potentially detrimental effects as evidenced by the research provided. They gave examples of other supplement formats which they believed did not contain active ingredients, such as binding and bulking agents in tablets, acids, carbonates and flavourings for effervescent products, and gelling bases and sugars for gummies. They again referred to the report, which contained references to independent studies on the effects of excipients. They pointed out that although additives were used in other supplements at current assumed safe levels, people were likely to consume multiple sources of additives, from supplements and from food. They said scientific studies pointed to the negative health consequences associated with accumulation of additives. Viridian said “active” was commonly defined as “working or engaging or ready to engage” and that consumers would therefore understand it as meaning that Viridian products would make a positive difference for them and that there would not be any detrimental effects from the ingredients.
Viridian said they defined “pure” as being something to which nothing had been added. They did not add any synthetic ingredients to their formulations. They said the list in ad (a) clearly set out the ingredients used in other products. As a result, consumers would understand “pure” as meaning that Viridian did not include any fillers, binders, glues, irradiation or lubricants from mass production or any other artificial additives.
Viridian gave examples of the phrase “ultra processed” being used to reference junk foods and items containing added chemicals. They cited a national news website article that stated, “There is no single definition of ultra-processed food, but in general they contain ingredients not used in home cooking. Many are chemicals, colourings and sweeteners, used to improve the food’s appearance, taste or texture”. Viridian said many of the added ingredients in ultra processed foods were included to support the manufacturing and operations process – for example, to extend a product’s shelf life. They said their ingredients list showed that the same ingredients used in such food products were also used in food supplements, in the form of artificial fillers, binders, preservatives, flavourings and colours. They therefore believed those supplements could be classed as ultra processed. In contrast, Viridian products did not contain any of those ingredients.
Viridian acknowledged that the terms “no junk” and “ultra processed” needed clear definition when they were used in advertising. For that reason, ad (b) directed consumers to their website (ad (a)) which contained detailed information. They believed the list made clear exactly what their product avoided and so defined what they meant by “junk” ingredients. Additionally, ad (a) linked to their report which gave specific examples alongside information from independent research.
Viridian explained that the capsule shells for their own products were composed of cellulose extracted from wood pulp (hydroxypropylmethylcellulose). They believed there was no independent data to show that this substance had any detrimental effects on the body. They said they added no synthetic chemical ingredients to the finished capsule, in contrast to the excipients listed for other brands in ad (a).
2. Viridian said the ads did not state that any competitor’s brand was “junk” nor did they use language that attacked any company’s reputation. They added that they respected their competitors’ standing. They said “junk” was used with reference to ingredients rather than to manufacturers; the phrasing focused on what they omitted from their own products. They believed the reference to “ineffective fillers” was factually correct and referred to the research which they said confirmed that those ingredients did not provide nutritional benefits.
Assessment
1. Upheld
Ad (a) featured the claims “No Junk”, “Pure Vitamins”, “Pure: If an ingredients [sic] is there, it's there for a reason” and “Our supplements contain 100% active ingredients in the highest natural potency with no fillers, binders, glues, irradiation or lubricants from mass production - nothing!” It also claimed that other mass-produced supplements contained “up to 50% Ultra-Processed Junk”. Ad (b) referred to “Ultra Processed Supplements” and also stated, “Many supplements contain ineffective fillers, Viridian only uses pure and active ingredients” underneath the statement “No Junk”.
The ASA understood that the term “junk” did not have a specific definition. We considered that many consumers were likely to draw a comparison with junk food, which was widely perceived as offering little nutritional benefit. With reference to those foods, some might also view “junk” as associated with negative health outcomes. We considered that, in the context of ads referring to “pure vitamins” in Viridian supplements and to “ineffective fillers” in other supplements, consumers were likely to understand “No Junk” to mean that Viridian products were of a higher quality than competitor products due to containing “pure” ingredients and not “ineffective fillers”. Additionally, they were likely to understand that the additional ingredients in other supplements provided little or no nutritional benefit and could potentially have negative health outcomes. We considered consumers were likely to understand from the term “pure” in the ads that Viridian supplements contained solely the specified vitamins or mineral components and did not contain any additional ingredients.
We considered consumers were likely to understand from the references to “ultra-processed” in the ads that other supplements were ultra-processed and that, by implication, Viridian’s own products were not. We understood that there was no single, universally agreed definition for ultra-processed foods (UPFs); the term had been introduced in 2009 as part of the NOVA classification system, which focused on foods rather than food supplements. NOVA characterised foods based on the level of industrial processing they had undergone. We acknowledged that the term was now used more generally, as alluded to by Viridian. We considered, however, that consumers’ interpretation of the term might not be fully aligned with the NOVA definition and that they were unlikely to be able to accurately categorise foods using the system. Instead, consumers were likely to understand in general terms that UPFs were “unhealthy” and that non-UPFs were “healthy”. We also considered that at least a significant proportion of consumers would expect UPFs to involve intensive manufacturing processes. In this context of the ads, we considered that consumers were likely to understand that Viridian products would have undergone minimal processing to take them from raw ingredient to finished capsule.
We assessed Viridian’s ingredients and their manufacturing process. We understood that a very small number of their products were sold in liquid or tablet form; however, the ads promoted capsules, and our assessment therefore focused on capsule production. The report provided by Viridian included a guide by Viridian’s registered nutrition practitioner. The guide explained that Viridian capsules contained natural compounds such as alfalfa in cases where active ingredient doses were present in small quantities and therefore required a carrier. Questionnaires were sent out to every ingredient supplier to ensure that no genetically modified compound was used at any point. The report stated, “our supplements contain no artificial ingredients whatsoever… they’re always made slowly, in small batches and to strict manufacturing standards […] our ingredients […] contain none of the substances that you find in mass market supplements”. The report went on to list common additives: artificial colours, flavourings, sugar, artificial sweeteners, fillers, lubricants, preservatives, anti-caking agents, coatings and binders/glues. Viridian did not comment specifically on their manufacturing process. However, the report stated, “we avoid manufacturing aids – known as excipients – like binders, additives or flowing agents” and that they regularly carried out audits of the locations of their farming and extraction process to establish and check the supply chain of ingredients.
The website stated that the supplements were manufactured in the UK to GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices) standards and stated that the products were manufactured in small batches to avoid using machine lubricants. The website also stated, “Slow manufacture is the style of food supplement manufacture that allows the removal of all non-nutritive compounds such as magnesium stearate. It is semi-automatic and led by operators that ensures the nutrients are deposited correctly into the capsules. Once the active ingredients are deposited in the capsule any remaining space is filled with a wholefood base of either [sic] or combination of alfalfa, spirulina and bilberry.” The capsule shells were made from cellulose.
With reference to the term “ultra-processed”, we noted the HFMA’s concern that there were limited numbers of raw material suppliers, and their view that it was common practice for vitamin and mineral manufacturers to use additives in the production of raw materials for essential technological purposes. We acknowledged that Viridian had taken measures to monitor their raw ingredient suppliers in order to minimise the presence of additives at source. However, we had not seen any evidence to show that their manufacturing techniques involved a level of processing that consumers were unlikely to see as intensive. For example, we had not seen evidence demonstrating that the removal of non-nutritive compounds, or the extraction and formation of cellulose into a capsule, would not involve extensive processing. We considered that Viridian had not demonstrated that their manufacturing was in line with likely consumer expectations of minimal processing. We considered that the implied reference to the products not being ultra-processed was misleading.
With reference to the terms “pure” and “no junk”, we acknowledged that Viridian intended to highlight that their products did not contain additional ingredients associated with mass production and that were of no nutritional benefit. We considered, however, that the carrier fillers and the cellulose shell were likely to be seen by consumers as additional ingredients. Because additional ingredients were present, we considered that consumers were unlikely to view the product as “pure”. We also considered that because those additional ingredients did not carry a specific nutritional benefit, and in the context of ads that focused on “pure” ingredients and contrasted that with “ineffective fillers,” consumers would be unlikely to see the products as containing “no junk”.
We also understood from Viridian’s response that they considered excipients commonly added to other supplement products could potentially have detrimental health effects. As referenced above, we considered that was also an implication consumers were likely to take from the ad. However, food laws, including those relating specifically to additives, were designed to ensure the safety of ingredients in foods and supplements. For example, the HFMA had noted that the excipients listed in ad (a) were permitted ingredients at safe levels. We understood that assessments of safety levels included consideration of the likely levels of substances that would be consumed from all dietary sources. Viridian had not provided evidence to show that the specific additives and other ingredients at the levels found in competitor products had negative effects on health. We therefore considered that the claims “pure” and “no junk” were misleading.
With reference to the term “active”, ad (a) stated, “Our supplements contain 100% active ingredients in the highest natural potency with no fillers, binders, glues, irradiation or lubricants from mass production - nothing!”. Ad (b) stated, “Viridian only uses pure and active ingredients”. We considered that consumers were likely to understand from the ads that every ingredient was active. We also considered that in the context of an ad for a food supplement, consumers were likely to see “active” as meaning a substance that was included because it had a nutritional or physiological effect on the body.
Viridian stated in their report “Sometimes a supplement will require something added to it if it’s only a small quantity. For example, the amount of daily vitamin D needed is so small, it needs something to carry it […W]here the key actives are small, natural compounds such as alfalfa, which can be beneficial, are added.” The Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 required that products be labelled to give the amount of any vitamin or mineral or other substance with a nutritional or physiological effect which characterised the product. We noted, however, the plant cellulose capsule and the carrier bases (alfalfa, spirulina and bilberry) where used, were included in the ingredient list, and described as a “base” but their quantities were not specified. The inclusion of the carrier base information in a table of ingredients, which listed the amount and nutrient reference value of each vitamin and mineral, reinforced that the base was separate from the nutrient content of the product and was not factored into those calculations. We further noted the website, which stated, “Once the active ingredients are deposited in the capsule any remaining space is filled with a wholefood base […]”, clearly differentiated between the “active” ingredients and the carrier base, We understood therefore that the capsule and carrier bases present were therefore not “active” ingredients in the way that consumers were likely to understand that term. We considered that the claims “100% active ingredients” and “only uses […] active ingredients” were likely to mislead.
We concluded that the claims in ads (a) and (b) that Viridian’s own products contained “no junk”, “100% active ingredients”, “only uses […] active ingredients” and were “pure”, and implied claims that they were not “ultra processed”, had not been substantiated and were likely to mislead.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not discredit or denigrate another product or marketer. The rule applied irrespective of whether or not a claim was true, if it appeared in a comparative advertisement and was expressed in terms which were insulting, derogatory or demeaning. Ads which included comparisons with competitors which went beyond a robust and objective comparison of their products or services risked breaching that rule.
Ad (a) featured images of supplements alongside a list of the added ingredients for each. We acknowledged that the images were generic and intended to represent the supplement market as a whole. However, we considered that consumers were likely to associate the images with other products on the market and the types of ingredients they might include. We also considered that the references to “Mass produced supplements” in ad (a) and “Say No to Ultra Processed Supplements” in ad (b) meant that consumers were likely to understand the claims overall as a comparison between Viridian products and the rest of the nutritional supplement market.
Both ads stated “No Junk”, and ad (a) additionally featured the claim “Shockingly, Mass Produced Supplements Contain Up to 50% Ultra-Processed Junk!”. We considered that the term “junk” suggested that Viridian products were of a higher quality due to containing “pure” ingredients and being without the “fillers” of competitors’ products, and that accordingly consumers should avoid those competitor products. In that context, we considered “junk” to be a pejorative comment which suggested that consumers should avoid purchasing competitor products because they contained ingredients that were of little or no value. We also considered that the demeaning tone was added to by the mention of “ineffective fillers” in ad (b) and the question “What On Earth is in Your Supplement?” in both ads.
We considered that those references went beyond a factual and informative comparison about the relative nutritional benefits of the products and were denigratory to other supplements on the market. We therefore concluded that the ads discredited and denigrated other nutritional supplements and breached the Code.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.42 (Imitation and denigration).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Viridian International Ltd t/a Viridian not to refer to their own products as containing “no junk”, “pure” or as containing 100% active ingredients in the absence of adequate evidence. We also told them to avoid implying that their products were not “ultra processed”. Finally, we told them to ensure that they did not discredit or denigrate competitors’ products.
