Sweetener Spat Provokes Recommendation to Discontinue “Natural” Ad Claims
The Council of Better Business Bureaus’ National Advertising Division (NAD), which serves as the investigative arm of the advertising industry’s voluntary self-regulation program, has recommended that Heartland Sweeteners cease making some claims about its Ideal® sweetener product. The recommendation apparently followed a complaint by Merisant Co., a Heartland competitor, that Ideal® is not “natural” or “more than 99 percent natural” as the company claims because the majority of its sweetness comes from the artificial sweetener sucralose. While Heartland agreed that its sweetener contains sucralose, the company contends that the natural sweetener Xylitol is the product’s main ingredient.
According to NAD, Ideal® as a whole may be “more than 99% natural,” but “the context in which it is presented may still cause it to convey a message that is false or misleading to consumers.” NAD found that the product’s sweetness is “not due primarily to Xylitol, but, rather, the synthetic sucralose it contains, and the artificial ingredients that make up one percent of the advertiser’s product are not inconsequential or insignificant. Given that the artificial sweetener contained in the product provides approximately 80% of the product’s sweetness and considering the audience to whom the product is directed— health conscious consumers seeking low or no-calorie sugar substitutes (or sweetening agents) that are not artificial—NAD determined that it was not accurate for the advertiser to promote its artificial sweeter, Ideal, as ‘natural’ or as ‘more than 99% natural’ or as being ‘different from other no calorie sweeteners on the market.’”
Heartland has reportedly indicated that it intends to appeal the NAD recommendation to the National Advertising Review Board, contending that its advertising claims are entirely accurate. According to a company statement, “The NAD ruling is factually unsupported and may have dramatic and unintended adverse consequences for the market for non-sugar sweeteners.” The company expects to prevail in its appeal, but even if unsuccessful is apparently not required to change its claims because the NAD lacks any enforcement authority. See NAD News Release, January 11, 2010; FoodNavigator-USA.com, January 25, 2010.
