An advert featuring Steven Bartlett has been banned for misleading customers that its supplement doesn’t contain any ultra-processed ingredients.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) instructed the nutrition brand Zoe, founded by health expert Professor Tim Spector, to cease displaying the advertisement following a complaint.
The ad was for Zoe’s Daily 30+ ‘plant-based wholefood supplement’ a powder designed to sprinkled on other food to boost its nutritional content.
The disputed Facebook ad featured a testimonial from Bartlett stating, ‘This is a supplement revolution. No ultra-processed pills, no shakes, just real food.’
The ASA ruled in favor of an unidentified professor specializing in nutrition and food science who contended that the statement was deceptive since the product actually contained ultra-processed ingredients.
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are those that have undergone significant modification from their natural state and include those with added colourings, sweeteners and preservatives that extend shelf life.
ASA found two of the 32 ingredients in Zoe’s supplement chicory root inulin, a type of fibre, and nutritional yeast had undergone ‘more than a minimal level of processing’.
In its ruling ASA said Bartlett’s statement ‘implied the product did not contain any ingredients that consumers would interpret as ultra-processed when that was not the case, and was therefore likely to mislead.’
An advert by nutrition brand Zoe which featured Steven Bartlett, has been banned over false claims that a supplement did not contain any ultra-processed ingredients
The nutrition brand Zoe, co-founded by health guru Professor Tim Spector, strongly refuted the ASA’s ruling that the product was likely to mislead consumers by implying it did not contain any ingredients that would be considered ultra-processed
Zoe, which the former Dragon’s Den star is an investor of, strongly refuted ASA’s decision.
The company said the advert didn’t claim its supplement was free of UPFs but rather it was not ‘was not an ultra-processed pill, unlike other supplements’.
However, ASA ruled in favour of the complaint: ‘The ad must not appear in the form complained of.’
ASA added that Zoe must not ‘make claims that their products did not contain UPFs ingredients if consumers were likely to interpret the ingredients to be ultra-processed’.
Zoe’s Daily 30+ is a combination of 32 different foods including vegetables, fruits, seeds and mushrooms, that was to be put directly on to other food to increase fibre intake.
One of these is chicory inulin which is extracted from the roots using solvents like ethanol and is then purified and dried.
While chicory root itself is a whole food, extracted inulin is a processed ingredient often used in supplements.
Nutritional yeast flakes are commonly used as a vegan cheese supplement and are a source of source of B vitamins and protein, which can boost the immune system.
The ASA found chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast flakes in Zoe’s Daily 30+ ‘plant-based wholefood supplement’—which they say are not whole foods and had been through more than a minimal level of processing
The supplement is not naturally occurring and is manufactured from a strain of yeast, that is heated as part of its manufacturing process and then dried and broken down into flakes making it a processed food.
ASA said customers would likely identify both ingredients as UPFs.
‘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 said.
Professor Spector said: ‘We categorically reject the idea that this advert is misleading, or that Daily30+ – or any of its ingredients – could be classed as ultra-processed. The ad clearly states that Daily30+ doesn’t contain ultra-processed pills or shakes.
‘That’s because it doesn’t. It is made entirely from whole food ingredients, and is designed to be added to meals – not taken as a pill or a shake. The claim is factually accurate and irrefutable.’
He added: ‘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.’
A spokesman for Bartlett said: ‘For the avoidance of any doubt, this ruling is not against Steven Bartlett whatsoever. The advert was not posted by Steven, nor did it appear on any of his channels. It was posted by Zoe Ltd on their own channel.’
Professor Gunter Kuhnle, an expert in nutrition and food science at the University of Reading, told MailOnline the case demonstrated the problems with defining UPFs.
Nutritionists split food into three groups based on the amount of processing they have gone through. Minimally processed foods, like apples, are usually exactly how they appear in nature. Processed foods, like apple sauce, have gone through at least one level of processing that has changed their original form. In contrast, ultra-processed foods like apple jelly babies, have gone through multiple levels of processing and are usually full of extra fats, colours and preservatives
Food experts have set out which options can be ‘part of a healthy diet’. Baked beans, fish fingers and wholemeal bread all make the cut, according to the British Nutrition Foundation (BNF). Tomato-based pasta sauces, wholegrain breakfast cereals and fruit yoghurts are also ‘healthier processed foods’, the charity said
‘The entire case-from the complaint to the defence and the judgement really highlights the main problem of UPF, a lack of a clear definition which means it is used as people like, and a huge confusion by the consumer,’ he said.
UPF is a food processing term not one that assesses if a food is healthy or unhealthy.
It means, under the system, a high salt and fat frozen pizza is as much a UPF as a wholemeal loaf of bread or fish fingers which both have health benefits.
Professor Kuhnle continued: ‘What this really highlights in my opinion is the key problem of the UPF discussion-it has moved to arguing about individual foods, trying to find things ‘wrong’ with them, whether it’s coco-pops, bread or some Zoe-supplements.
‘That creates a lot of noise, but won’t really address the core problem that – I would hope – everyone wants to address.
‘In the end, we all want to create a food system that makes it easy for a consumer to have a healthy diet. Some UPFs are indicators that this doesn’t work at the moment – but UPFs can also be part of the solution by providing affordable and healthy foods.’
