Download decision - New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority

10/353
DECISION
Meeting 10 August 2010
Complaint 10/353
Complainant: G. Sanderson
Advertisement: Inghams Enterprises (NZ) Pty Limited
Complaint: An advertisement for Ingham New Fresh Chicken Bag showed a
presenter in miniature, standing on a kitchen counter while a normal sized woman,
worked around him to prepare a roast chicken meal. The advertisement promoted
the Ingham New Fresh Bag, “a pre-packed and leak safe bag”. The presenter goes
onto say: “a delicious family roast ready in no time at all” and “Its 100% New
Zealand raised chicken. There are no added hormones, artificial colours, flavours or
preservatives”. The advertisement ends with a family at their dining table eating the
roast chicken meal and then the Ingham Logo is on screen.
Complainant, G. Sanderson, said:
“Type: Television
Where: TV 1 8.30am Saturday 26th.
Who: Inghams
Product: Chickens
Complaint
Advert for Inghams chickens (admittedly for the drip free pack) but I believe that
people are being misled that all Inghams chickens are free of additives, flavours or
preservatives etc. but the big size 30 and above chickens have hydrolyzed protein
added to tenderise the meat - this has a proportion of MSG what is deadly to people
like me.
Tegal chickens do not have any of the above by way of comparison.
I believe few people would expect a 'fresh' or unprocessed frozen product to be
injected with these products.
As with anything hydrolyzed of autolyzed contains MSG by the way it is created. I got
caught but now read every pack to be sure.”
The Chairman ruled that the following provisions were relevant:
2
10/353
Code of Ethics
Basic Principle 4 All advertisements should be prepared with a due sense of
social responsibility to consumers and to society.
Rule 2 Truthful Presentation - Advertisements should not contain any
statement or visual presentation or create an overall impression which directly or
by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated claim is misleading or
deceptive, is likely to deceive or mislead the consumer, makes false and
misleading representation, abuses the trust of the consumer or exploits his/her
lack of experience or knowledge. (Obvious hyperbole, identifiable as such, is not
considered to be misleading).
Code for Advertising Food
Principle 2 All food advertisements should be prepared with a due sense of social
responsibility to consumers and to society. However advertisements containing
nutrient, nutrition or health claims*, should observe a high standard of social
responsibility.
Principle 4 Advertisements should not by implication, omission, ambiguity or
exaggerated claim mislead or deceive or be likely to mislead or deceive
consumers, abuse the trust of or exploit the lack of knowledge of consumers,
exploit the superstitious or without justifiable reason play on fear.
The Advertiser, Inghams Enterprises (NZ) Pty. Limited, said:
“We refer to your letter whereby you have sought our comments relating to a
complaint lodged by G. Sanderson via email to you.
Ingham have reviewed the advertisement we believe has been the subject of the
complaint.
The advertisement is specific to the new Ingham ‘leak safe' bag used to package
lngham whole fresh chickens. The advertisement claims that there are No Added
Hormones, artificial colours, flavours or preservatives (we attach for your information
the script for the TV Commercial). This commercial is advertising Ingham New Fresh
Bag and is not product specific. This bag in the advertisement contains a fresh plain
(un-marinated) chicken and the advertisement is representative of this finished
product. All fresh plain (un-marinated) chicken does not have any added hormones,
artificial colours, flavours or preservatives and that is included on the ingredient and
nutritional information printed on the bag. At no point does the advertisement state or
make the representation that these claims relate to the entire Ingham product range.
As you are undoubtedly aware, Ingham have a large range of fresh chicken products,
fresh value-enhanced (marinated) chicken products, and further processed (cooked
and crumbed) chicken range of products which are marketed in various types of
packaging. All products are clearly labelled as to their ingredients.
3
10/353
The complainant appears to be confusing several different classes of product
marketed by Ingham and then making the complaint against the fresh chicken leak
safe bag based on the fact that it is an Ingham product.
Ingham value-enhanced products do contain marinades and these are clearly
labelled as to their ingredients. Some of our marinades do contain HVP (Hydrolysed
Vegetable Protein (Soy)) however all chicken product packaging is labelled in
accordance with the FSANZ Food Standards Code, with all added ingredients, food
additives, preservatives and allergens declared where applicable.
Whilst this has not been specifically requested by the ASA, we draw your attention to
FSANZ Food Standards Code where MSG is not considered an allergen by FSANZ
and also that it only needs to be labelled if it has been added to the formulation
(either itself or in a flavour matrix) not if it is naturally intrinsic to HVP. MSG is
naturally present, at various levels, in many ingredients. If the customer is sensitive
to MSG, he/she has to be aware of what ingredients potentially contain high levels of
MSG, review the labels appropriately and then make the decision if the product is
safe for consumption based on their own requirements. Ingham is aware of this and
include on its product package labelling those products that contain Hydrolysed
Vegetable Protein. However, the statement of no added hormones, artificial colours,
flavours or preservatives would still be a true and fair statement to make.
Based on our understanding that the advertisement referred to by the complainant is
for a fresh whole chicken in a leak proof bag, that product contains No Added
Hormones, artificial colours, flavours or preservatives.
We trust the above satisfies your enquiry.”
Commercial Approvals Bureau (CAB) said on behalf of the media:
“We have been asked to respond to this complaint under the following codes:
Code of Ethics- Basic Principle 4
Code of Ethics - Rule 2
Code for Advertising of Food - Principle 2
Code for Advertising of Food - Principle 4
A sole complainant has raised an issue with an Inghams drip-free packet
commercial, claiming that Inghams size 30 chickens contain preservatives/additives.
To the best of CAB's knowledge, Inghams do not produce a size 30 chicken in the
drip-free packet range - therefore the complaint has been brought against a product
that does not exist and is not being advertised in this commercial. Unless new
information to the contrary arises, CAB sees no grounds for the complaint to be
upheld.”
Deliberation
The Complaints Board read all the relevant correspondence and viewed the
television advertisement. It observed that the Complainant, G. Sanderson,
considered the advertisement to be misleading, as in their view, the overall
impression for the consumer would be that all Ingham chicken products were free of
additives, flavours and preservatives and this was not the case.
4
10/353
The Chairman directed the Complaints Board to consider the complaint with
reference to Basic Principle 4 of the Code of Ethics requiring a due sense of social
responsibility and Rule 2, which required the Complaints Board to consider whether
the advertisement contained any statement or visual presentation or created an
overall impression which directly or by implication was misleading or deceptive or
likely to deceive or mislead the consumer. The Chairman also directed the
Complaints Board to consider the requirements of the Code for Advertising of Food,
Principle 2 requiring that advertising be prepared with a due sense of social
responsibility and Principle 4 regarding truthful presentation.
The Complaints Board noted that initially both the Code of Ethics and the Code for
Advertising of Food had been considered relevant to the complaint. In the
Complaints Board view, as the requirements in the two Codes were similar in this
instance and as the concerns related to a food product, it was only required to
consider the complaint in relation to the Code for Advertising of Food.
Turning to the advertisement, which promoted the Ingham New Fresh Bag, the
Complaints Board noted that the Complainant raised an issue relating to the claim in
the advertisement that …“Its 100% New Zealand raised chicken. There are no added
hormones, artificial colours, flavours or preservatives”. The Complaints Board
agreed that advertisers needed to take care with these claims which should be
truthful so as not to mislead the consumer. The Complaints Board then referred to
the response from the Advertiser which advised that the claims in the advertisement
specifically related to the chicken product sold in the “leak safe” bag. The Advertiser
said “This commercial is advertising Ingham New Fresh Bag and is product specific.
This bag in the advertisement contains a fresh plain (un-marinated) chicken and the
advertisement is representative of the finished product.”
The Complaints Board agreed that the advertisement was specific to the product
promoted in the “leak safe” bag, a plain (un-marinated) chicken. The Complaints
Board accepted that the claims in the advertisement were truthful in relation to this
product and were not claims about all of the Ingham chicken products. Therefore, the
Complaints Board was unanimous in its view that the advertisement was not likely to
mislead the consumer and was not in breach of Principle 4 of the Code for
Advertising Food. In addition, it agreed that the advertisement had been prepared
with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and society and was also not
in breach of Principle 2 of the Code.
Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled to not uphold the complaint.
Decision: Complaint Not Upheld