Following news that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint against Viridian Nutrition’s ‘No Junk’ campaign, the company has said it doesn’t believe the ruling is in the public interest.
The ASA upheld two complaints made by the Health Food Manufacturers’ Association (HFMA) regarding an advert and associated web page as part of the Viridian ‘No Junk’ campaign. The HFMA challenged whether Viridian’s own products contained “no junk”, “100% active ingredients”, “only uses […] active ingredients” and were “pure”, and implied claims that they were not “ultra processed” were misleading and could be substantiated, and whether the ads discredited and denigrated another product.
As part of its response to the ASA, Viridian said the ads focused on the ingredients which many manufacturers added to their supplements and contrasted this with Viridian’s own products which did not contain the highlighted excipients (substances other than the active ingredient) and added ingredients. They said the ads did not identify any brands or specific products. They supplied to the ASA a list of key excipients and a broad selection of UK supplement brands that used them. They said that showed they had reviewed the market as a whole.
But in its detailed ruling, which can be found at www.asa.org.uk, the ASA concluded that the claims in ads (a) and (b) that Viridian’s own products contained “no junk”, “100% active ingredients”, “only uses […] active ingredients” and were “pure”, and implied claims that they were not “ultra processed”, had not been substantiated and were likely to mislead. It also said in the ruling that it considered consumers were likely to understand from the references to “ultra-processed” in the ads that other supplements were ultra-processed and that, by implication, Viridian’s own products were not.
The ASA said: “We understood that there was no single, universally agreed definition for ultra-processed foods (UPFs); the term had been introduced in 2009 as part of the NOVA classification system, which focused on foods rather than food supplements. NOVA characterised foods based on the level of industrial processing they had undergone. We acknowledged that the term was now used more generally, as alluded to by Viridian. We considered, however, that consumers’ interpretation of the term might not be fully aligned with the NOVA definition and that they were unlikely to be able to accurately categorise foods using the system. Instead, consumers were likely to understand in general terms that UPFs were “unhealthy” and that non-UPFs were “healthy”. We also considered that at least a significant proportion of consumers would expect UPFs to involve intensive manufacturing processes. In this context of the ads, we considered that consumers were likely to understand that Viridian products would have undergone minimal processing to take them from raw ingredient to finished capsule.”
It also upheld the second complaint around denigrating another product, saying that it considered that consumers were likely to associate the images with other products on the market and the types of ingredients they might include. It also considered that the references to “Mass produced supplements” in ad (a) and “Say No to Ultra Processed Supplements” in ad (b) meant that consumers were likely to understand the claims overall as a comparison between Viridian products and the rest of the nutritional supplement market.
It went on: “We considered that the term “junk” suggested that Viridian products were of a higher quality due to containing “pure” ingredients and being without the “fillers” of competitors’ products, and that accordingly consumers should avoid those competitor products. In that context, we considered “junk” to be a pejorative comment which suggested that consumers should avoid purchasing competitor products because they “contained ingredients that were of little or no value. We also considered that the demeaning tone was added to by the mention of “ineffective fillers” in ad (b) and the question “What On Earth is in Your Supplement?” in both ads.
But responding to the ruling, Viridian Managing Director, Holly Thallon Steenson, commented: “Our ‘No Junk’ campaign clearly hit a nerve with our competitors, who chose to persuade the HFMA Council to lodge the complaint with the ASA. While we acknowledge the decision and will amend the campaign, I am deeply disappointed by this ASA ruling. At the heart of the issue is the use of fillers, binders and other artificial additives. Using the terms ‘junk’ and ‘ultra-processed’, daring to spotlight label small print, and shining a floodlight on the darker corners of food supplement manufacturing have been noticed.
“I wish to reassure everyone that Viridian will continue to champion clean manufacturing and the right of the public to choose additive-free supplements. I want to thank the Viridian creative team for the campaign concept, and acknowledge the independent doctors, journalists and researchers who contributed to the supporting Viridian No Junk White Paper, which evidenced all our claims. Our research tells us that people care about this issue so the natural products industry must respond or risk disappointing health store customers.”
In a statement to Health Food Business, Martin Last, Director General HFMA, commented: “The HFMA seek to establish a level playing field for claims made for food supplements. We follow our CAP Code and encourage and support our members to adhere to that code which mirrors the standards set by advertising standards. Our CLEAR CHECK service enables manufacturers to check any advertising or labelling copy to ensure compliance prior to publication, to avoid being later subject to investigations from authorities. We note the comments raised by ASA in this case and endeavour to continue to support members and non-members alike in these matters.”
