Will Plenish’s ‘immunity’ ad trigger a health marketing clampdown?

Food and drink marketing in the UK is awash with unscrupulous health claims, according to freelance nutritionist Claire Baseley.

Highlighting an advert from Plenish’s ‘Give it a shot’ campaign, which rolled out across nationwide OOH advertising, display and paid social media this January, Baseley told The Grocer the overstatement of authorised health claims in food and drink marketing was rife.

“There are thousands of unauthorised health claims, mainly being made by small brands in and around the cognitive, immune health and gut health space,” she said. “There’s also a lack of awareness around not just the legislation, but what is and isn’t appropriate claim wording.”

“They [Plenish] are not alone, particularly in making this kind of overstatement or exaggeration of the authorised wording. It’s something that is absolutely prolific, particularly because people are concerned about their immune function post-Covid.”

Baseley is correct in stating that interest in health and wellness has grown since the pandemic. Surveyed by Circana in September 2024, some 40% of shoppers ranked health as their top priority when buying groceries, more than price (39%).

And with 39% of consumers changing their food and drink choices to improve their mental wellbeing, functional food is an increasingly big business.

But why does Baseley believe Plenish (and other brands) are guilty of stretching the boundaries of approved health claims? And should the Advertising Standards Authority – which is responsible for regulating food and drink advertising – be doing more to address the issue?

A health-focused marketing minefield

With a growing cohort of health-oriented food and drink products – from functional shots to lion’s mane teas and collagen powders – appearing on supermarket shelves, brands are having to shout even louder in their efforts to stand out.

The issue, however, is that only health and nutrition claims listed in the Great Britain Nutrition and Health Claims Register are authorised to be used in product marketing. Health claims referring to general benefits are only permitted if accompanied by a specific, authorised health claim – and must be presented clearly and (this is the tricky bit) without exaggeration.

Clearly, this is a potential minefield for marketers to navigate. As Baseley points out, brands use hyperbole because they “want to catch the consumer’s eye”.

Plenish owner Carlsberg-Britvic was quick to argue its generalised health claim of “boosted immunity” was accompanied by the authorised claim that products high in vitamin C help contribute “to the normal function of the immune system”.

Baseley, however, wasn’t convinced. The strapline – which said Plenish’s shots “won’t harm your dignity but will boost your immunity” was guilty of conflating “normal immune function” with “boosted immunity”, she said.

The latter, she believes, “suggests that you are not going to get sick” and “engenders the belief in the consumer that they’re somehow vaccinated”.

Ultimately, the decision as to whether Plenish’s advert – or any others, for that matter – falls foul of the rules comes down to the ASA.

In a ruling over social media ads posted by Revival Shots in 2020, the ASA concluded the claim Revival’s products could “boost immunity” was guilty of exaggerating authorised health claims around vitamin C and D. The ads were found to be in breach of the CAP Code.

And in 2023, it investigated an ad in which the term ‘probiotic’ featured in the product name ‘Smart Probiotic’. In the context of the ads as a whole, consumers were likely to understand the term ‘probiotic’ as describing a substance that contributed to the general good health of the gut, the watchdog said.

As this was a general health claim unaccompanied by an authorised specific health claim, the ad also breached the CAP code.

Is the ASA’s proactive enforcement needed?

Evidently, then, health claims in marketing are firmly on the ASA’s radar. But in its response to enquiries about Plenish’s advert, the watchdog said it could not investigate unless a complaint was made.

“Without going through our formal processes, we can’t say whether the claims are a problem under our rules,” a spokeswoman said. “But we encourage anyone who has concerns about an ad they’ve seen to get in touch.”

But – given the explosion of brands marketing themselves with functional or other health benefits in the past few years, and the importance of ensuring consumers aren’t being misled regarding matters of health – wouldn’t it be wise for the ASA consider a broader investigation to identify non-compliance?

Time and resource would certainly be needed to launch such an investigation, but the ASA has itself talked up its new AI-assisted ad-assessment technology in recent years. 

“We’re increasingly using AI to identify ads which may be problematic and to support our compliance work,” it said in 2023. It also pledged to ”invest more in our preventative and proactive work than our reactive complaints casework” in order to stay on top of the evolving media landscape. 

Plus, just last year it found the time to undertake a proactive body of work around unregulated investments, finding four fine wine trading platforms and two whisky investment companies guilty of failing to adequately communicate the risks of using their platforms.

While the importance of such work ought not be dismissed, it’s hard to make the argument that regulating booze investment is more worthwhile than ensuring consumers aren’t being duped about the health benefits of the food and drink they are consuming.