Fruity Dutch advertisements: how misleading are they?
[:nl]In het september nummer van European Food and Feed Law tijdschrift is het "Country Report" voor Nederland verschenen van de hand van Ebba Hoogenraad en Christine Fontaine. Lees het engelstalige artikel hier.
Fruity Dutch advertisements: how misleading are they?
Recently, the Dutch Advertising Code Committee (“RCC”) has made two distinctive decisions regarding advertisements for fruit products. We think these decisions are, to say the least, remarkable and therefore worth discussing.
First, there is a decision about canned fruits. According to the RCC the ad for this product was not misleading, while we thought the RCC would decide otherwise, based on former decisions. Complainant, a private person, objects to a print advertisement of Del Monte canned fruits. In the ad the suggestion is made that canned fruit holds the same nutritional value as fresh fruit. Accompanied by a picture of a slim waist with a tape-measure it also seems like canned fruits can support a healthy (slimming) diet. And, the slogan “it counts for your 2 pieces of fruit a day” implies that the Netherlands Nutrition Centre recommends Del Monte canned fruits. As read the objections of the complainant.
The RCC rejects the complaint. According to the RCC the ad is not in breach of article 1 of the Advertising Code for Food Products. This article is as follows: “In an advertising message for foodstuff, statements referring to taste, portion size and a possible contribution of the commended food to a healthy eating pattern shall be correct and complete”.
We think this decision of the RCC is unexpected. The decision holds that an average consumer will not understand the slogan “it counts for your 2 pieces of fruit a day” as a possibility to replace fresh fruits by canned fruits. But what about the extra sugars that are added to canned fruits? The RCC ignores these extra sugars. It only concludes that by quickly canning the fruits there is less chance to loose nutritional value than by storing fresh fruits in a shop or at home. That may be true, but we expected the RCC would have given some extra attention to the nutritional value in totality of canned fruits, so including the sugars. And as for the picture with the slim waist and a tape-measure? The RCC does not find this an incentive to eat canned fruits if you want to loose some weight. Good news for Del Monte. Bad news for consumers? Maybe not. Indeed, consumers think for themselves and read product labels. So they see the extra sugars added and can draw their own conclusions.
Secondly, there is a decision about blackcurrants. Or do we need to say blueberries? In a TV-commercial for Hero Cassis we see a laboratory filled with all kinds of fruits. The voice-over tells us they are testing “blackcurrants”. Indeed, we know Hero Cassis is made of blackcurrants. Surprisingly, the fruits that are shown are blueberries. And that is why a complaint was made against this TV-commercial. Hero’s defense? It is not the season for blackcurrants and therefore we have used berries that look the most similar.
The RCC decides in favor of Hero. The average consumer will understand that blackcurrants are being used in Hero Cassis. Also, because these are shown on the label of the product. The TV-commercial is only a form of puffery advertisement, common practice in the advertising business. Consumers know this and will therefore not be mislead by the use of blueberries instead of blackcurrants.
At first we were a bit surprised by the blueberry decision, but partially we can follow the reasoning of the RCC. Puffery practice (in language and in pictures) is one of the basic ingredients of successful advertising and permitted. However, we do have some reservations with regard to this decision and the decision about canned fruits. Are they in the spirit of the various food regulations? We doubt it. But maybe this is a good development, testing the limits. Because the regulations becoming more and more strict, sometimes there seems not enough room left for the creativity of advertisers. And we must not forget consumers can think for themselves too.
Ebba Hoogenraad, advocaat reclamerecht en productinformatie
Christine Fontaine, advocaat reclamerecht en productinformatie
EFFL 2012, Volume 7, number 4, page 212
[:en]In the September issue of European Food and Feed Law magazine the "Country Report" for the Netherlands has been written by Ebba Hoogenraad and Christine Fontaine.
Fruity Dutch advertisements: how misleading are they?
Recently, the Dutch Advertising Code Committee (“RCC”) has made two distinctive decisions regarding advertisements for fruit products. We think these decisions are, to say the least, remarkable and therefore worth discussing.
First, there is a decision about canned fruits. According to the RCC the ad for this product was not misleading, while we thought the RCC would decide otherwise, based on former decisions. Complainant, a private person, objects to a print advertisement of Del Monte canned fruits. In the ad the suggestion is made that canned fruit holds the same nutritional value as fresh fruit. Accompanied by a picture of a slim waist with a tape-measure it also seems like canned fruits can support a healthy (slimming) diet. And, the slogan “it counts for your 2 pieces of fruit a day” implies that the Netherlands Nutrition Centre recommends Del Monte canned fruits. As read the objections of the complainant.
The RCC rejects the complaint. According to the RCC the ad is not in breach of article 1 of the Advertising Code for Food Products. This article is as follows: “In an advertising message for foodstuff, statements referring to taste, portion size and a possible contribution of the commended food to a healthy eating pattern shall be correct and complete”.
We think this decision of the RCC is unexpected. The decision holds that an average consumer will not understand the slogan “it counts for your 2 pieces of fruit a day” as a possibility to replace fresh fruits by canned fruits. But what about the extra sugars that are added to canned fruits? The RCC ignores these extra sugars. It only concludes that by quickly canning the fruits there is less chance to loose nutritional value than by storing fresh fruits in a shop or at home. That may be true, but we expected the RCC would have given some extra attention to the nutritional value in totality of canned fruits, so including the sugars. And as for the picture with the slim waist and a tape-measure? The RCC does not find this an incentive to eat canned fruits if you want to loose some weight. Good news for Del Monte. Bad news for consumers? Maybe not. Indeed, consumers think for themselves and read product labels. So they see the extra sugars added and can draw their own conclusions.
Secondly, there is a decision about blackcurrants. Or do we need to say blueberries? In a TV-commercial for Hero Cassis we see a laboratory filled with all kinds of fruits. The voice-over tells us they are testing “blackcurrants”. Indeed, we know Hero Cassis is made of blackcurrants. Surprisingly, the fruits that are shown are blueberries. And that is why a complaint was made against this TV-commercial. Hero’s defense? It is not the season for blackcurrants and therefore we have used berries that look the most similar.
The RCC decides in favor of Hero. The average consumer will understand that blackcurrants are being used in Hero Cassis. Also, because these are shown on the label of the product. The TV-commercial is only a form of puffery advertisement, common practice in the advertising business. Consumers know this and will therefore not be mislead by the use of blueberries instead of blackcurrants.
At first we were a bit surprised by the blueberry decision, but partially we can follow the reasoning of the RCC. Puffery practice (in language and in pictures) is one of the basic ingredients of successful advertising and permitted. However, we do have some reservations with regard to this decision and the decision about canned fruits. Are they in the spirit of the various food regulations? We doubt it. But maybe this is a good development, testing the limits. Because the regulations becoming more and more strict, sometimes there seems not enough room left for the creativity of advertisers. And we must not forget consumers can think for themselves too.
Ebba Hoogenraad, advertising and product information lawyer
Christine Fontaine, advertising and product information lawyer
EFFL 2012, Volume 7, number 4, page 212
[:]