“30% Less Fat” Claim Censured by Ad Watchdog
The U.K. Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld complaints against
a TV commercial claiming that Kellogg’s “Special K Multi Grain Porridge”
contained “30% less fat than other porridges.” According to ASA, which
received complaints from PepsiCo Inc. and 14 other competitors, Kellogg
Marketing and Sales Co. (UK) Ltd. argued that the advertisement’s reduced-fat
comparative claim complied with the Annex to EC Regulation 1924/2006 on
Nutrition and Health Claims Made on Food.
To this end, Kellogg provided ASA and Clearcast with the data and methods
used to conduct product comparisons under this regulation. The company
reportedly explained that all varieties of Special K porridges contained 5.5
percent fat or less, whereas the top 75 percent of porridge products on
the market contained an average fat content of 7.84 percent. “Kellogg also
pointed out than none of the products included in the comparison had a
fat content of 5.5% or less,” noted ASA. “They believed that the voice-over
and super clearly explained the basis of the comparison by stating that
the product had at least 30% less fat than the average fat content of most
porridge products on the market.”
Although ASA agreed that the products selected as the basis of the
comparison “were in the same category of food and were therefore ‘alternatives
for consumption,’” the authority ultimately upheld the complaints on
two grounds. First, the ruling found that the comparison did not include
enough products to show “the range of fat content within the food category
‘porridge,’” noting that the ones selected “on the basis of market share could
lead to porridges with above average fat contents being over-represented.”
Second, ASA determined that, contrary to the regulation’s instructions, the
comparison did not feature products ready for consumption: “[T]he addition
of milk to the dry Kellogg and comparator products would result in a reduction
in the percentage difference of fat between the products.”
“Because we had not seen evidence that the comparator products selected
were representative of the category, and the comparative claim was based on
the fat content of Special K porridge and the comparator products when they
were dry and therefore cannot be consumed as porridge, we concluded that
the comparative nutrition claim was in breach of the Code,” concluded ASA.
Issue 537
