Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A Facebook ad and website page for Huel:
a. The paid-for Facebook ad, seen on 29 August 2022 and 6 September 2022, featured text at the top which stated “Huel helps keep money in your pockets. An entire month’s worth of Huel works out at less than £50. Huel isn’t just the healthy option with perfectly balanced protein, carbs, fats and fibres, it’s the smart option too”. Below that, it featured an image of a smoothie in a glass with a backdrop of vegetables and pulses, next to the large text “WANT TO SAVE MONEY ON FOOD?”. Underneath that text, information was provided about the amount of protein, vitamins, minerals and calories in the product, and that it was “vegan”. Further text then stated “34 MEALS FOR £1.51 PER MEAL”. Below the image, text stated “All The Nutrients You Need. 1 Meal” with a link titled “Shop now”.
b. The page on Huel’s website www.uk.huel.com, seen on 29 August 2022, featured the headline “FIVE WAYS TO SAVE MONEY ON FOOD” with an image of someone eating a bowl of food whilst looking at their phone. Text below stated “In this day and age, spending money can often feel a little too easy, while eating well can feel harder than it should. Is there a way to eat healthy while saving money? Absolutely! Eating healthily doesn’t need to break the bank – read on for five ways you can save money on your food”. This was followed by five suggestions. The first was titled “Embrace Processed Food & Meal Replacements”, under which text included “… while we’ll never call Huel a meal replacement, it is often thought as such in this context. Huel is another great example of processed food being able to help you save money on food”. The text contained links to buy Huel, as well as links to other web pages about Huel products being more than a meal replacement.
Issue
1. Two complainants challenged whether proposing meal replacement products as a way of saving money on food was irresponsible and misleading.
2. The ASA challenged whether the claim “Huel isn’t just the healthy option …” in ad (a) was a general health claim which was not accompanied by an authorised health claim, as required by the Code.
Response
1. Huel said that it had been their mission to make complete, convenient food that was affordable, since their business had started in 2015. They said it had not been a response to the financial crisis, although they understood that it was a significant consideration to consumers at the time the ad was published. They said that it was a nutritionally complete meal in itself. They also said the ad was a reference to the cost per meal of £1.51 based on 34 meals a month which would equate to just over one meal per day for a month. The ad therefore did not advocate the substitution of all meals. They also said that if Huel was used to substitute more expensive convenience foods that had a similar nutritional profile for one meal a day then it would represent a cost saving. Therefore they did not believe the ad was misleading, and regretted any confusion that may have been perceived by their ads. They said they would be taking steps to remove or amend the ads without delay.
2. They said that their internal processes had not been followed correctly and had allowed the claim to be included in the ad without the accompanying specific authorised health claim. They said they would be taking immediate steps to update the ad and review all other live ads to ensure full compliance with the CAP Code.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ads were seen at a time of worsening financial crisis, during which increasing energy and food costs, as well as rising inflation, were having a significant impact on people in the UK. The ASA considered consumers would view the ads in the context of that financial backdrop.
We considered that the claims in ad (a), “Huel helps keep money in your pockets” and “An entire month’s worth of Huel works out at less than £50”, and the prominent text “WANT TO SAVE MONEY ON FOOD?” would be interpreted by consumers to mean that Huel products could be used as a way to save money on a monthly food bill, and that a month’s worth of Huel could be purchased for less than £50. We considered in that context consumers would likely compare the cost of a month’s supply of Huel, eaten for every meal, to the cost of a month’s supply of ‘traditional’ meals.We acknowledged the ad included the text “34 MEALS FOR £1.51 PER MEAL”, and that on the basis of eating Huel once a day, it would cost less than £50 for a month’s supply. However, that text was at the bottom of the image in a less prominent position than the claims referenced above. Based on the overall presentation of the ad, we considered it did not make sufficiently clear to consumers that the cost saving was only based on consuming one Huel product a day and was not the equivalent to a month’s worth of food covering all meals.
Ad (b), titled “Five Ways to Save Money on Food”, began with a few sentences discussing that “Eating healthily doesn’t need to break the bank” and to “read on for five ways you can save money on your food, while also getting all the good stuff your body needs to thrive”. The first section, headed “Embrace Processed Food & Meal Replacements” referred to the cost, product longevity and convenience benefits of processed foods, giving the examples of frozen and tinned foods such as fruits and legumes compared to their fresh or dry equivalents. This was followed by a paragraph about Huel, including the claim “while we’ll never call it a meal replacement, it is often thought as such in this context. Huel is another great example of processed food being able to save you money on food”. In the context of the previous paragraph, we considered that claim would be interpreted by consumers to mean that Huel products provided all the nutritional benefits of the types of processed foods referenced and could be eaten instead of ‘traditional’ meals that were based around such foods. It therefore implied that the products could save consumers money in the same way those other types of processed food products did when compared to fresh or dry ingredients – with the added convenience of being ready very quickly without the need for cooking equipment.
We acknowledged that Huel had said that their products would save money when compared to other expensive convenience foods. However, we did not consider that the ads made that comparison, and instead considered that they implied to consumers that the product was being used to replace a ‘traditional’ meal (in the case of ad (b) one which included processed foods), and not specifically a convenience food.
We noted that one portion of Huel contained 400 calories, and therefore, in order for consumers to meet the average daily recommended calorie intakes, an adult woman would need to consume five portions per day and an adult male would need to consume slightly over six portions per day. For women, 150 portions of Huel across an average month of 30 days would cost around £350 (with more portions, at a greater cost, for men). Huel had not provided evidence to show that this would be a saving compared to a month’s worth of ‘traditional’ meals. For that reason we concluded ads (a) and (b) were misleading.
Additionally, we considered that the ads did not make clear that a ‘traditional’ diet of three meals per day could not be directly replaced with three portions of Huel per day while still consuming sufficient calories. In that context we concluded the ads were also irresponsible.
We welcomed Huel’s actions to amend their advertising. However, we concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code rules
1.3
1.3
Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society.
(Social Responsibility),
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code required that references to general benefits of a nutrient or food for overall good health or health-related well-being were acceptable only if accompanied by a specific authorised health claim.
We considered that the claim “Huel isn’t just a healthy option …” was a general health claim, because it referred to the general benefits of a nutrient or food for overall good health or health related well-being. However, it was not accompanied by a specific authorised health claim.
We welcomed Huel’s immediate actions to amend their advertising. However, we concluded that the ad breached the Code because it included a general health claim that was not accompanied by a specific authorised health claim.
On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 15.2 15.2 References to general benefits of a nutrient or food for overall good health or health-related well-being are acceptable only if accompanied by a specific authorised health claim. (Food, Food Supplements and associated health or nutrition claims).
Action
The ads must not appear in the form complained about. We told Huel Ltd to ensure that their ads did not state or imply that eating Huel for all meals instead of a ‘traditional’ diet was cheaper, unless they held adequate substantiation. We also told them to ensure their ads did not imply that three portions of Huel per day contained sufficient calories. We told them not to make general health claims unless they were accompanied by a specific authorised health claim.
