The ASA and eco claims
When you start a business with the intention of doing something better for people, for the planet or for an industry that has been slow to change, you accept that the path will not be straightforward.
You learn quickly that trying to do the right thing is one challenge, but communicating it clearly, accurately and responsibly is another entirely. This week’s ASA ruling involving Cheeky Panda was a reminder of that.
It was not about product safety, fairness or legality. And it certainly wasn’t about whether bamboo carries environmental benefits as a material. It came down to clarity of words and the very high bar now expected of any brand making environmental statements, even when those statements come from a place of genuine intention.
We’ve always tried to push an industry not known for its sustainability credentials to do better. When you are working with new materials, challenging long-standing norms and advocating for positive environmental impact, the instinct is to explain why your choices are better. But consumers do not see the testing, the supply chain detail, the research or the trade-offs. They see the words on the page. And those words matter.
The ruling centred on something simple. Our language blurred the line between describing the properties of a material and what a consumer might interpret as a claim about a finished product. We intended to highlight the characteristics of bamboo, its rapid growth, its renewability and the biodegradability of its fibres under specific tested conditions. But without very specific qualification, that language could be read more broadly.
This experience highlights the complexity founders now navigate. Sustainability is not a marketing message. It is a technical, evidence-based discipline. And simplicity, however well-intentioned, can risk overstepping clarity.
Responsible business does not mean perfection from day one. If rulings like this push the sector towards stronger standards, better communication and greater accountability, that is ultimately a positive outcome for brands, for consumers and for the planet.
Julie Chen is co-founder and CEO of Cheeky Panda
HFSS ignores artificial sweeteners
The recent changes to HFSS regulations are a welcome signal that government and industry are finally taking consumer health seriously. But a glaring gap in the conversation remains: artificial sweeteners.
While sugar rightly remains under scrutiny, many brands have quietly reformulated to dodge HFSS by replacing sugar with artificial alternatives. On paper, this looks like progress. In reality, we’re swapping one problem for another.
Artificial sweeteners now dominate the soft drinks aisle, yet they sit largely outside the regulatory spotlight. This is despite growing consumer concern, emerging research, and widespread confusion about their long-term health impacts. If HFSS is truly about improving public health outcomes, it can’t ignore what people are consuming more of as a result of these rules.
Reformulation shouldn’t be about navigating the system; it should be about making genuinely better products. That means fewer ingredients, more transparency, and real food choices that people understand and trust.
HFSS has the power to drive positive change, but only if it reflects the full picture. Leaving artificial sweeteners out of the debate risks undermining the very progress these regulations are designed to achieve.
It’s time we broadened the conversation to talk about not just about how much sugar we consume, but what we’re replacing it with.
Jack Scott is co-founder of Dash
Scottish mackerel prices
We support Scottish mackerel, fished by Scottish boats, landed in Fraserburgh, Scotland and packed there as well. This is the best mackerel: scomber scombrus.
The Scottish mackerel boats have been fishing sustainably from historic catch shares, and have worked incredibly hard to get others who exploit this resource to stop overfishing. The fishery is now incredibly close to that happening.
But prices have shot up. We opted to stick with our supply base with our ‘know your fishers’ approach. Most viable alternatives are scientifically in a much worse place, with old data and very limited knowledge.
There are many other species of mackerel that are not even a cousin species to scomber scombrus. Many brands have switched to jack mackerel, which we taste tested in two different panels a year ago with a unanimous “yuck” verdict!
Switching to jack mackerel is like moving from olive oil to sunflower oil: it’s not at all the same thing and it’s a lot cheaper. We think supporting our supply chain during difficult times is the bedrock of responsible sourcing.
Charles Redfern is founder of Fish 4 Ever
No comments yet