Background
This Ruling replaces that published on 21 May 2025. The wording of the assessment has changed but the decision to uphold the complaint remains.
Ad description
A paid-for Facebook ad for Zoe, a food supplement retailer, seen on 19 September 2024, stated, “Daily30+ is a plant-based wholefood supplement…[poo emoji] Contains chicory inulin”. Below that further text stated, “This is a supplement revolution. No ultra-processed pills, no shakes, just real food. Steven Barlett [sic]”.
Issue
The complainant, a professor in nutrition and food science, challenged whether the claim “This is a supplement revolution. No ultra-processed pills, no shakes, just real food” misleadingly implied that the product did not contain any ultra-processed ingredients.
Response
ZOE Ltd said they were a science and nutrition company that participated in research and produced publications with the aim to support consumers to understand Ultra Processed Foods (UPFs) and improve their health and wellbeing.
They said the ad did not claim Daily 30+ was not ultra-processed, or that it did not include any ultra-processed ingredients. Instead, the ad had been designed to explain that within the supplement category the product, designed as a real food supplement, was not an ultra-processed pill, unlike other supplements that would be considered ultra-processed because they contained artificial flavourings and additives. They said “wholefood supplement” was an accurate description because the product was made of whole foods with no added preservatives, sweeteners or flavour enhancers and they were confident their product met the requirement for classification of a supplement.
They highlighted that there was no universally accepted single, legal or scientific established definition of UPFs. They referenced the NOVA classification system, which they said helped demonstrate the effects of high UPF consumption when products were formulated mostly or entirely of substances extracted from foods or derived from food constituents, which included snacks, drinks and ready meals. They explained the classification system was not designed to be applied to individual ingredients, but rather an entire product.
They cited the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee report ‘Recipe for health: a plan to fix our broken food system’ which stated that UPFs were typically calorie-dense foods with few valuable nutrients, that lacked fibre, contained high levels of unhealthy fats, refined sugar and salt, and the ingredients of which had been altered. A further report from 2019 ‘Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them’ set out a similar definition. Their product did not fit the NOVA classification criteria, nor did it fit any of the definitions or characteristics outlined in the reports.
The complainant had referred to a blog post on the ZOE website that they said suggested a product was ultra processed when it was produced using industrial-scale production methods and contained ingredients that would not be recognised or used in home cooking. ZOE said that definition had been taken out of context. The post had been written for a general audience and explained that a product could not be classified as a UPF just because industrial-scale production methods (such as canning, fermenting, freezing, and drying) had been used during the manufacturing process.
ZOE said the advertised product was a combination of 32 different foods, that included vegetables, fruits, seeds and mushrooms, that was put directly onto other foods to increase fibre intake. Since they restricted the amount of ingredients that were finely ground, the product was designed to retain the food matrix of its ingredients. All ingredients went through the standard cleaning process for wholefoods, which included the removal of shell, soil and small stones where necessary. Whole seeds and nibbed nuts were used in the product, and while some ingredients were powdered, the only liquid ingredient was the chicory root inulin. Inulin was a well-researched fibre and chicory root was a natural, rich source of inulin. It also had proven health benefits, an authorised health claim, and was used in the product for its fibre health benefit. Similarly, nutritional yeast flakes, a form of heated yeast, had known health benefits that included B-vitamins and minerals and was a good source of protein. They said it was a commonly used culinary ingredient.
They also said there was nothing ‘unhealthy’ about either ingredient that made up only a small percentage of the overall product, and that the chicory root inulin specifically was extracted using a typical process that they believed was not relevant to the product’s overall NOVA classification. They explained that none of the ingredients were typical UPF ingredients and the processes used could be replicated in a small-scale home kitchen. They had highlighted that their product was a plant mix that was distinctly different from UPF products high in additives, fat, salt and sugar that are associated with poor health outcomes. Labelling their product as UPF on the basis of a higher level of processing of two ingredients would therefore create a misunderstanding and increase consumer misinformation.
Assessment
Upheld
The ad stated that the product was a ‘plant-based wholefood supplement’. A quote within the ad also stated, “This is a supplement revolution. No ultra-processed pills, no shakes, just real food”. The ad also contained an image of a pasta dish, topped with what appeared to be different types of seeds, with a tin labelled “Zoe” alongside it, and we understood that image to be of the “Daily30+” product sprinkled on a meal. The ASA considered that the references to “pills” and “shakes” were likely to be taken by consumers as comparing the product favourably to supplements taken in tablet form and “health shakes”, both of which would be associated with high levels of processing. In contrast the Daily30+ was described as “wholefood” and “real food”.
The ad was likely to be aimed at consumers seeking a healthier diet who were trying to avoid or minimise industrially produced products. The ad explicitly used the term “ultra-processed”, which we considered had gained prominence in public discourse and was notably discussed in the House of Lords report ‘Recipe for health: a plan to fix our broken food system’ that referenced that the term had “caught the public imagination”. However, we also understood there was no single, universally accepted definition of “ultra-processed”. Without reference to a technical definition, and in the context in which the ad presented the term, we considered those consumers were likely to interpret “ultra-processed” in plain, commonly understood terms, as products or ingredients created using complex or industrial processes not replicable in a typical domestic kitchen.
By contrast, we considered consumers would understand “wholefood” to mean food and food ingredients that were intact or close to their original state, prepared only through simple steps such as washing, peeling, chopping, drying or grinding. We considered the claim “just real food” reinforced and clarified that by indicating the product comprised only recognisable, kitchen-cupboard, or otherwise minimally processed ingredients, rather than foodstuffs that had been altered through multiple processing stages, produced via complex or industrial processes.
Where a product comprised wholefoods and recognisable kitchen-cupboard ingredients prepared only through simple steps, we considered consumers would understand that it was not “ultra-processed”. Therefore, we considered the claims “wholefood” and “just real food” conveyed that Daily30+ was materially different from typical supplements, because it comprised only wholefoods or other domestic, kitchen-recognisable ingredients and excluded ingredients produced by complex or industrial methods.
Against that background, and consistent with that wider public discourse, we considered that at least a significant minority of the target audience, driven by a preference for foods perceived as being close to their original form, among other health and environmental considerations, would, as a matter of principle, seek to avoid products they regarded as “ultra-processed”. For those consumers, the implication that the product contained only wholefoods or domestic-kitchen recognisable ingredients processed no more than by simple steps, would be central to how they viewed the advertised product.
We understood the product combined fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts and mushrooms, with some whole, nibbed or powdered, and accepted that consumers would regard those ingredients as wholefood or domestic kitchen-recognisable ingredients. However, it also included chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast flakes. Chicory root inulin was an isolated fibre obtained via multiple processing steps, that included slicing and steeping, purification using carbonated water, evaporation, partial enzymatic hydrolysis (adding of enzymes) and filtration. While some of these processes were relatively simple in isolation, others were not. This process meant that a single constituent of chicory root had been separated and concentrated from the original food by way of a complex process, producing an ingredient consumers would not typically be capable of replicating in a domestic kitchen and which they would recognise as a manufactured formulation from chicory. In the context of “wholefood supplement” and “just real food”, we considered consumers would see such an industrially extracted isolate as inconsistent with wholefood or a food that had undergone limited levels of processing.
Nutritional yeast flakes were manufactured by culturing yeast and heat-deactivating it before further processing into flakes. The end product was a deactivated, processed ingredient rather than a recognisable wholefood. We considered the multiple stages involved went beyond simple household preparation and would be recognised as an manufactured formulation of natural yeast. Therefore, we considered that it was more likely to be associated with manufactured or processed components, which consumers associated with conventional supplements, than “wholefoods” or “just real food”.
We accepted that both ingredients were included because of their nutritional benefits and that they were not “unhealthy”. We also accepted that each represented a small proportion of the product, and that the processes described were common across the food industry. However, their nutritional benefits, the amount included or the absence of preservatives, sweeteners or flavour enhancers, did not alter the impression created by the ad. It was likely, therefore, to influence at least a significant minority of consumers who were motivated in seeking to avoid what they considered were ingredients that were manufactured formulations of foodstuffs made using complex or industrial processes not typically replicable in a domestic kitchen. Because Daily30+ included the ingredients chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast flakes, produced using complex processes not replicable in a typical domestic kitchen, we concluded the ad was likely to mislead.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.1 (Misleading advertising).
Action
The ad must not appear in the form complained of. We told ZOE Ltd not to make claims that, when viewed in context, were likely to mislead in relation to the level of processing of the ingredients in a product, for example, because of associated claims referring to product ingredients, wholefoods and “just real food”.
