Ad description
A poster for Wild Nutrition, seen in a London Underground station on 21 July 2025, featured an image of a smiling woman. Headline text stated, “WILD NUTRITION [trademark symbol]”. Smaller text stated, “Wild by nature Food-Grown [trademark symbol] supplements, backed by science”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claim that the supplements were “Food-Grown” was misleading, because they understood that they were created using synthetic materials.
Response
Wild Nutrition Ltd (Wild Nutrition) said the ad was no longer appearing. They said “Food-Grown” was not intended as a literal description of a manufacturing process; it did not mean that the supplements were “grown” like crops or that they were entirely natural in origin. Rather, it was their registered trademark which described their approach to sourcing and formulation. They used ingredients that were as close as possible to their original food form, and believed studies showed those ingredients were better understood, absorbed and retained by the body than standard synthetic forms. They supplied certificates of analysis, product data sheets and product specification sheets for each type of product within their range. They also supplied published studies to demonstrate superior absorption and retention for “Food-Grown” nutrients. They said the comparative data indicated higher absorption or bioavailability for vitamin D, coenzyme Q10, zinc and vitamin C than standard synthetic forms.
Wild Nutrition outlined the manufacturing process for their vitamin and mineral ingredients. An EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) approved form of a single nutrient was combined with a specific glycoprotein mix. The mixture was introduced into a living single-cell system of either baker’s yeast or a probiotic strain or citrus pulp, under controlled conditions. The nutrient was metabolised and re-integrated into a food complex over 72 hours and the resulting complex was harvested, dried and made into capsules. They provided a list that detailed the ingredients of the isolated “starting” nutrients and the food base with which each nutrient was combined to create the final compounds included in the products.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA acknowledged that Wild Nutrition intended the claim “Food-Grown” to describe their approach to formulation, rather than to suggest the supplements were literally “grown” or that the nutrients were wholly natural in origin. However, in the context of the claim “Food-Grown [trademark symbol] supplements”, which was not described or explained in the ad, and the accompanying wording “Wild by nature”, we considered that consumers were likely to understand that the nutrients in the supplements were produced directly from specific food or natural sources and were not made using synthetic vitamin or mineral forms.
The manufacturing process combined an isolated nutrient with a glycoprotein mix and introduced it into a live culture system such as baker’s yeast or a probiotic strain, or into citrus pulp. The nutrient was broken down and re-integrated into the food complex over approximately 72 hours. The resulting food complex was then collected, dried and put into capsules. We understood that the initial nutrient was a standalone compound at the start of the process rather than being present within, or taken from, a whole food or natural source. We considered that differed from the likely consumer understanding of “Food-Grown”, as meaning the nutrients originated directly from food or natural sources.
We further considered that, if any of those starting nutrients were synthetic, that was likely also to be a major consideration for consumers who chose the supplement on the understanding that it was derived wholly from foods or natural ingredients. We understood from Wild Nutrition that in some of their supplement formulations the original nutrient was plant-derived. However, we understood from the ingredients list that some of the other original nutrients were present in forms typically produced via chemical synthesis. We therefore had not seen evidence to show that all formulations included only naturally or food-derived starting nutrients.
We considered the claim “Food-Grown”, as consumers were likely to understand it, to mean ingredients derived from food or natural sources, had not been substantiated and we therefore concluded the ad was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Wild Nutrition Ltd to ensure that their future advertising did not claim their ingredients were entirely derived from food or natural sources if that was not the case.
