Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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