Taywell Ice Creams has been banned from using a trio of nutritional claims – ‘say no to added sugar’, ‘refined sugar free’ and ‘an extra source of calcium and B vitamins’ – after objections that the products did not meet the claims.
The Advertising Standards Authority upheld the three complaints made about statements on the brand’s website in March, claiming they breached the CAP Code on food, food supplements and associated health and nutritional claims.
Taywell noted it did not consider the phrase ‘say no to added sugar’ to be a nutritional claim but instead a company slogan. However, the ASA ruled it was a nutritional claim as it was likely to have the same meaning to consumers as ‘with no added sugars’.
The ASA assessed the assertion could only be made in cases where the product did not contain mono or disaccharides or other ingredients used for their sweetening properties. However, Taywell Ice Creams contain sweeteners erythritol and steviol glycosides, as well as agave nectar and jaggery. The ads adjudicator therefore concluded the claim breached the advertising code.
The second statement challenged was ‘refined sugar free’. The ASA pointed out this was not an authorised health claim and therefore could not be used in advertising the product.
In its response, Taywell said it was not aware of the second statement until the complaint brought it to their attention, as it was only visible when hovering a cursor over the home page.
As for the third claim, the ASA ruled ‘an extra source of calcium and B vitamins’ was ambiguous and consumers could interpret it as meaning the ice cream contained extra calcium or that it was a source of calcium and B vitamins. The ads watchdog pointed out it had not seen evidence to suggest the product met these standards, and therefore it breached the code.
“The ad must not appear in its current form,” the ruling stated. “We told Taywell Ice Creams Ltd to ensure in future that they [sic] did not make nutrition claims that were not permitted by the Annex of the Regulation, or that did not comply with the conditions of use associated with permitted nutrition claims.”
Alastair Jessel, owner of Taywell, claimed EU regulations covering nutritional claims were ”poorly thought out, poorly written, and it’s very difficult to get over the health benefits of eating products that are 60%-70% less in sugar when you’ve got people fighting over words”.
He added: “Any product that is reducing its sugar content should be applauded. Should we not be fighting sugar instead of fighting ourselves?”
Following the ruling, Taywell complied with the ASA and removed the statements from its site.
No comments yet