ASA Adjudications Snapshot -January 2010

This article provides a selection of the most interesting ASA adjudications from January and a summary of the key issues considered in the adjudications.

This month, the ASA particularly considered implied health claims in relation to food and drink products, the requirement to prominently display any significant conditions of an ad and a range of complaints that various ads were irresponsible or contained damaging stereotypes.

To view the article in full, please see below:

Full Article

This month, the ASA particularly considered implied health claims in relation to food and drink products, the requirement to prominently display any significant conditions of an ad and a range of complaints that various ads were irresponsible or contained damaging stereotypes.

FOOD AND DRINK

1. Premier Foods Group Ltd, 16 December 2009 ("as good today as it's always been" claim)

2. HJ Heinz Company Ltd, 13 January 2010 (implied children's health claims and regulatory authorisation)

3. Unilever UK Ltd, 13 January 2010 (long term heart health claims)

   ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS

4. Finnair, 6 January 2010 ("eco-smart" claims)

   ALCOHOL

5. InBev UK Ltd, 7 January 2010 ("good times they're out there" claim in relation to alcohol product)

   GAMBLING

6. Prime Online Ltd t/a PrimeScratchCards.com, 27 January 2010 (irresponsibility)

   OTHER

7. Marcoms Associate Garmin (Europe) Ltd, 13 January 2010 (disqualifying competitors in sales promotions)

8. Reed Online, 20 January 2010 (German stereotyping complaints upheld)

9. Virgin Media, 20 January 2010 (bold comparative advertising claims)

10. Directgov t/a Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency, 27 January 2010 (limited advertising time insufficient justification for omitting significant conditions)

11. J Sainsbury plc, 27 January 2010 (significant conditions must be listed on front-page flash)

    FOOD AND DRINK

1. Premier Foods Group Ltd, 16 December 2009

   A TV ad for Hovis opened with a sepia-tinted Victorian scene of a young girl wandering down a cobbled street into a bakery, where individual loaves were being loaded into an oven. An accompanying voiceover stated, "At Hovis, we've always taken pride in baking bread for everyone. That's what we've taken your favourite bread and created a new range of rolls...". The scene then transformed into a present day view of the bakery, accompanied by a voiceover, which claimed: "Hovis. As good today as it's always been".

   Complaint/decision

   The Real Bread Campaign challenged whether the ad, and particularly the claim, "As good today as it's always been", was misleading for a number of reasons. In particular, they believed that the modern Hovis loaf was made to a different recipe from the original and now included additives, salt and sugar, an unspecified improver and undeclared processing aids. They further complained that the use of modern transportation methods, greater travelling distances of raw materials and finished products, and changes in packaging all impacted more adversely on the environment that Hovis's original produce.

   The ASA did not uphold any of the complaints against Premier Foods, for the reasons given below.

   First, the ASA considered that viewers were likely to understand these claims to mean that Hovis continued to meet the need of their customers just as it had since it began producing bread. The claims did not suggest that modern Hovis loaves are manufactured in exactly the same way as they have been historically, but implied that Hovis has retained its brand values and high standards.

   The ASA understood that all ingredients incorporated into Hovis products were listed on the packaging in accordance with relevant labelling legislation and that the ad did not mislead consumers in this regard.

   The ASA acknowledged the complainant's concerns about the socio-economic and environmental issues arising from modernisation and the expansion of production, particularly in the context of the claim "as good today as it's always been". However, the ASA concluded that socio-economic and environmental issues were not relevant in the context of the claims made in the ad. The ASA felt that viewers were likely to interpret the ad in the context of the addition of new types of rolls to the Hovis product range, rather than as a comment on the evolution of Hovis as a business model or the corporate practices of Premier Foods more generally.

   The decision not to uphold any of these complaints demonstrates the ASA taking a pragmatic approach and focussing on how claims are likely to be interpreted by viewers within the wider context created by the ad.

2. HJ Heinz Company Ltd, 13 January 2010

   A TV ad for Heinz Nurture showed an adult leafing through the pages of a book entitled "Baby Nutrition", which featured chapters entitled "Nourish", "Protect" and "Develop" alongside images of a child at different development stages. The final image showed a child standing and walking unaided by an adult, and drinking from a child's drinking cup. The accompanying voiceover stated, "As it grows, a baby needs a special combination of nutrients to sustain the incredible growth in its brain, body and immune system. To provide for those three essential aspects of growth, Heinz created new Nurture, an advanced complete follow-on formula to help nourish, protect and develop your baby". On-screen text stated "Complete Follow-On-Formula to be used in conjunction with a balanced weaning diet from 6 months. Not intended to replace breast feeding". The ad ended with the image of the product, which was labelled "HEINZ nurture ... FOLLOW-ON-MILK ..." and further on-screen text that stated, "New Nurture helps nourish, protect and develop your baby."

   Complaint/decision

   Three viewers believed the ad was misleading because, amongst other things, they considered that it implied health claims with regard to children's immunity and development that could not be substantiated.

   The ASA considered that the ad's claim to help "nourish, protect and develop" a baby's brain, body and immune system implied a specific health benefit from nurturing. As the claim referred to children's health and development, the transitional requirements of the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation were such that the claims could only be made if they complied with national provisions on food advertising before 19 January 2007 and an application for authorisation of the claim had been submitted before 19 January 2008. The ASA accepted that an application for use of claims in relation to all of Nurture's constituents had been submitted, but that only claims in relation to omega-3 and children's development had been in use in accordance with national provisions before January 2007.

   Heinz submitted evidence that showed that claims for prebiotics and nucleotides "helping to support natural defences" were in use prior to the Regulation in accordance with national provisions and so Heinz believed that this requirement was satisfactorily fulfilled. However, the ASA disagreed, considering that most reasonable consumers were unlikely to consider that the claim "helps to support natural defences" had exactly the same meaning as the word "protect". The ASA believed that "protect" implied a much greater degree...