Health app and nutrition brand Zoe has been taken to task by the Advertising Standards Authority for a social media ad claiming its Daily30+ supplement is “just real food”.
The paid-for Facebook ad, which ran late last year, stated that the Daily30+ supplement is a “plant-based wholefood supplement” and quotes Zoe investor Steven Bartlett as saying: “This is a supplement revolution. No ultra-processed pills, no shakes, just real food.”
In its ruling, which said the ad could not appear again, the ASA said that at least two ingredients in the product – chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast flakes – “were not whole foods and had been through more than a minimal level of processing” and “went beyond what consumers would interpret” as minimal processing.
It warned the company not to make claims its products “did not contain UPF ingredients if consumers were likely to interpret the ingredients to be ultra-processed”.
Adding to UPF confusion
Zoe co-founder Professor Tim Spector told The Grocer the ASA’s ruling was “nothing short of disgraceful”.
“This ruling only adds to the confusion in a food system already plagued by misleading information,” Spector said.
In its defence, Zoe argued the ad didn’t claim the product contained no UPFs but rather it “was not an ultra-processed pill, unlike other supplements that would be considered ultra-processed because they contained artificial flavourings and additives”.
It added that “none of the ingredients were typical UPF ingredients” and the processes used “could be replicated in a small-scale home kitchen”.
Spector said the company “categorically rejects the idea that this advert is misleading” and that “any of its ingredients… could be classed as ultra-processed”.
The authority had been investigating following a complaint from an unnamed “professor in nutrition and food science”.
In its ruling, the ASA “acknowledged consumers were likely to understand that most food products had been subject to some level of processing, for example cleaning or chopping” and would be “unlikely to consider” foods that had undergone this minimal level of processing to be UPFs.
“However, at least two ingredients, chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast flakes, were not whole foods and had been through more than a minimal level of processing,” the ASA said.
“Nutritional yeast was manufactured, and chicory root inulin was extracted using an industrial process. For the latter, the extraction process included slicing and steeping, purification using carbonated water as well as evaporation, partial enzymatic hydrolysis (adding of enzymes) and filtration.
“While some of those processes were relatively simple in isolation, we considered the number of stages used in processing went beyond what consumers would interpret as minimal and we considered they would likely understand chicory root inulin as UPFs,” it added.
Public health
Spector said there was “no scientific basis for the ASA’s conclusion – and it risks misleading the public at a time when clarity around healthy eating is more important than ever”.
“Censoring our advert, which encourages increasing consumption of fibre, is counter to public health,” he continued. “To go after a product that is designed to improve health whilst doing very little about the harmful marketing and advertising of unhealthy junk food to children and vulnerable individuals is nothing short of disgraceful.”
It is not the first time Zoe has fallen foul of the advertising authority. In August last year, the ASA ruled on a different advert for Zoe, which pictured investor Bartlett with a patch on his arm alongside a quote stating: “If you haven’t tried Zoe yet, give it a shot. It might just change your life.”
The ASA ruled the advert misleadingly omitted “material information regarding commercial relationships” and that many consumers would take The Diary of a CEO host’s quote as an independent testimonial.
Last year, Zoe made swingeing cuts to its headcount as part of an urgent economy drive. In April, CEO and co-founder Jonathan Wolf said the company needed to reduce costs by 20%, and without cutting staff the brand’s “monthly burn rate will be much too high”.
No comments yet