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
08/665 AWAP 08/022 DECISION Special Meeting 9 February 2009 Convened Pursuant to Rule 3 of the Constitution of the Advertising Standards Complaints Board Complaint 08/665 AWAP 08/022 Complainant: Frucor Beverages (NZ) Limited Advertisement: Zeagold Foods Complaint: The neck tag for SeJuice orange juice was placed on bottles of juice in the supermarket. On one side it said: “Did it hurt? When you fell out of heaven.” get fresh SeJuice. The other side said: Also available in these irresistible flavours orange envy tropical passion berry affair feijoa fling get fresh SeJuice. 2 08/665 AWAP 08/022 Other necktags followed the same format, but included different ‘pick up lines’. The Complainant, Frucor Beverages (NZ) Limited, said: “We would like to make a formal complaint about an advertisement in the form of a neck tag that is being attached to the Pinto Limited product SeJuice Orange Envy. The Advertisement The neck tag is a bright orange rectangular piece of card that containing the text "get fresh" and the brand name "SeJuice". A copy of the Advertisement is attached as Appendix 1. [We note that the Advertising Standards Authority has previously deemed that claims contained in "neck tags" constitute advertisements over which the Advertising Standards Authority has jurisdiction (Decision 106/09).] Background SeJuice Orange Envy is an orange juice product comprised of predominantly reconstituted juice sold in supermarkets in 1 and 2 litre plastic bottles with handles. It has recently come to our attention that bottles of SeJuice Orange Envy have been sold bearing neck tags with the words "get fresh" prominently displayed next to the SeJuice brand. It is shelved in the chiller section in close proximity to Arano, Simply Squeezed, Signature Range and Charlie's branded orange juice products. Those products all contain squeezed orange juice as the main ingredient. The SeJuice Orange Envy packaging is similar in appearance to products in the Arano, Simply Squeezed and Signature Range orange juice ranges. The SeJuice Orange Envy labelling lists the following ingredients (in order of ingoing weight): "reconstituted orange juice, orange juice, orange pulp, sugar, flavour, preservative (202)". The fact that reconstituted juice is listed first confirms that the SeJuice product contains more reconstituted juice than fresh juice. A number of other ingredients, in particular flavour and preservative (202), are not ingredients that a consumer would expect to find in "fresh" orange juice. Other juices which are comprised of predominantly reconstituted juice, and which would be understood by consumers not to be "fresh" juice, are marketed: a) In the general supermarket aisles (ie outside chiller space); and b) In 1 Litre tetrapak cartons or 3 Litre clear plastic bottles. Juices marketed in the chiller section and which bear the word "fresh" contain only freshly squeezed juice. Relevant provisions of the Advertising Standards Codes 3 08/665 AWAP 08/022 We consider that the Advertisement is in breach of the following Principles and Guidelines under the Code for Advertising Food and the Code of Ethics: Code for Advertising of Food Principle 1 - Advertisements should comply with the laws of New Zealand and appropriate industry Code of Ethics. 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. Guideline 4(d) - Claims in an advertisement should not be inconsistent with information on the label or packaging of the food. Code of Ethics Basic Principle 3 - No advertisement should be misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive the consumer. The complaint The Advertisement is false and misleading in that it implies that the SeJuice Orange Envy product is "fresh" orange juice, when it is predominantly reconstituted juice and contains preservatives. The term "fresh" is generally understood by consumers (in relation to food) as "retaining the original properties unimpaired: not deteriorated; not canned or frozen; not preserved by pickling, salting, drying, etc." The process of reconstitution means that the juice used in SeJuice is not "fresh" as that term is commonly understood by consumers. Consumers generally understand the term "fresh" when applied to juice to mean that the product is freshly squeezed juice which has not undergone any artificial alteration or process, rather than juice that is made up of both fresh and reconstituted juice. The term "fresh" as applied to SeJuice is accordingly misleading, particularly as the ingredients list discloses that the product contains more reconstituted juice than fresh juice (and also contains sugar, flavour and preservative). In November 2006 the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the Australian equivalent of the New Zealand Commerce Commission") published a "Food Descriptors Guideline to the Trade Practices Act" for use by the food and beverage industry to ensure compliance with the Australian Trade Practices Act. (As you will be aware, the relevant provisions of the Trade Practices Act are identical to the prohibition against misleading or deceptive advertising contained in Basic Principle 3 of the Advertising Code of Ethics.) That guideline contains the following statement: 4 08/665 AWAP 08/022 "The term "fresh" may be used as part of a brand name. When used as a brand name, the term [fresh] should not be used to give an impression that the product is 'fresh' when it is not." As the relevant provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 are in all material respects the same as the relevant provisions of the Advertising Standards Codes (and the New Zealand Fair Trading Act) the Australian guidelines and case law are instructive in the New Zealand context. The New Zealand and Australian Courts and the ACCC have consistently stated that claims that a juice is fresh are misleading and deceptive when they are used to denote a product that contains a significant proportion of reconstituted juice, or juice that can not be accurately described as fresh. The following examples are illustrative of this: (a) The High Court of New Zealand in the Commerce Commission v The Fresh Juice Company (1997) 8 TCLR 131 found that claims (which included representations in advertising) that an orange juice was "fresh" when in fact the juice was pasteurized, and contained preservatives were misleading to the public and a breach of s9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986. The Court noted that it was no answer to rely on the compliance with food regulations and the inconspicuous notice on the containers of the juice. (As you will be aware, s 9 of the Fair Trading Act is in all material respects similar to the prohibition against misleading or deceptive advertising contained in Basic Principle 3 of the Advertising Code of Ethics.) (b) The Federal Court in Australia has found that the label claims 'Florida Fresh' and Fresh Premium' orange juice were misleading and deceptive in breach of the Trade Practices Act in that they implied the goods were 'fresh' when the goods contained reconstituted orange juice and preservatives. (c) In 2006 the Australian entity Just Squeezed Group agreed to provide a court enforceable undertaking to the ACCC under s87B of the Trade Practices Act 1974 Act for certain of its products. Just Squeezed Group agreed to stop manufacturing fruit juice under the brand name 'Just Squeezed Fruit Juice' after the ACCC raised concerns that the labelling misrepresented the contents of its products. Of the juice products made by the Just Squeezed Group, only one contained fresh juice, ranging from 25 per cent and 75 per cent, depending on seasonal factors. The rest of the range contained reconstituted juice. Although the ingredients on the product labels listed reconstituted juice, the prominence of the word 'Just Squeezed' on the labels, together with images of fruit and words such as 'Orange Juice' and 'Apple Juice', created an impression that each product was made directly from the fruit shown on the labels and did not contain reconstituted juice. In the context of the Just Squeezed case, the chairman of the ACCC stated: "Many consumers of fruit juice have a preference for products that contain only fresh juice and are prepared to pay more for them. Therefore, businesses must be careful about how they label their products to avoid any misrepresentations about their contents." 5 08/665 AWAP 08/022 The NZ Juice and Beverage Association (of which Pinto Limited is a member) has produced a Voluntary Code of Practice ("Fruit Juice Quality Descriptor 1 Representations Guidelines") that is aimed at ensuring accurate and truthful labelling on juice products. A stated aim of the Code of Practice is to signify compliance with the relevant Food Regulations and Fair Trading requirements. The SeJuice packaging bears a logo that signals compliance with the NZ Juice and Beverage Association Code. The use of the words "get fresh" as applied to juice containing reconstituted juice, sugar and preservatives does not comply with clause 3.1 of the NZ Juice and Beverage Association Voluntary Code of Practice, which provides: "3.1 Fresh Fruit juice can only be referred to as `fresh' if it meets the following criteria and is in line with the Food Standards Codes on 'Mechanical Extraction': • Must not contain, or have ever contained food additives such as flavouring or colouring agents, preservatives, artificial or synthetic ingredients or added vitamins or minerals. • Must not contain any juice which has undergone a concentration process. • Must not have been subjected to a high temperature treatment. • Must not be stored frozen or contain frozen juice. • Should have a shortened shelf-life as compared to similar "non-fresh" products in the market-place and must not be stored for more than 48 hours from the time of extraction prior to finished product packaging. • No flavours can be added. • No vitamin C can be added." Conclusion In conclusion, the Advertisement breaches Advertising Standards Codes in that it creates (or is likely to create) a misleading and deceptive impression about the composition of SeJuice Orange Envy. The words "get fresh" imply that the SeJuice product is fresh juice when it is in fact made of predominantly reconstituted juice and contains preservatives, which is not considered by consumers to be "fresh". In addition, the use of the term "fresh" breaches the New Zealand Juice and Beverage Association Code, and accordingly breaches Principle One of the Code for Advertising Food.” The Chairman ruled that the following provisions were relevant: Code of Ethics 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 of Food 6 08/665 AWAP 08/022 Principle 1 - Advertisements should comply with the laws of New Zealand and appropriate industry Code of Ethics. 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. Guideline 4(c) Food advertisements containing obvious hyperbole, identifiable as such are not considered misleading. Guideline 4(d) Claims in an advertisement should not be inconsistent with information on the label or packaging of the food. Procedure: The Chairman ruled to deal with the matter by “adjudication with attendance of the parties” pursuant to Rule 3 of the Complaints Procedures of the Advertising Standards Complaints Board. This system was designed to resolve disputed between competitors. Accordingly, the Chairman appointed a Panel. The Panel: Ms J. Robson, Chairman of the Advertising Standards Complaints Board. Co-panelists, Mr A. Haronga (Alternate), public member of the Advertising Standards Complaints Appeal Board and Mr R. Moffat, industry member of the Advertising Standards Complaints Appeal Board. The Complainant, Frucor Beverages (NZ) Limited, was represented by Mr C. Bergstrom, Chief Executive Officer, and Mr S. Wright, Business Unit Manager – Arano. The Advertiser, Zeagold Foods, chose not to attend. The Advertiser, Zeagold Foods, said: “We acknowledge the complaint from Mr. Bergstrom, and support his efforts to uphold the standards of our industry. Introduction Much of what is in the body of the complaint is technically accurate and does not require challenging. The focus of the complaint is on the meaning of the word "fresh" alone. But "fresh" is not the only word on the neck tag. It is the overall impression of the advertisement that is relevant. The word fresh is part of the phrase "get fresh". To "get fresh" is to be flirty or to be overly forward or familiar with someone. This part of the brand obviously plays on 7 08/665 AWAP 08/022 from the other part SeJuice, which sounds the same as seduce. The names of the flavours and cheeky phrases used emphasise this theme. Consumers will understand and appreciate the fun and flirtatious theme of the SeJuice branding. Consumers will not be misled or deceived. This is particularly so when you consider the other brands in the fruit drinks market, such as the complainant's FRESH UP and JUST JUICE names, and the drinks that our products sit next to in stores. The complainant's assertion that there is a distinction between chilled and other juices is without basis. It is simply an attempt to sideline the significance of the complainant's own `fresh' branding. Seen in context the use of "get fresh" is simply fanciful hyperbole. This is something the ASA codes, the New Zealand Juice and Beverage Associate guidelines and the courts all recognise as not being misleading. In any event the neck tag labels, in the form complained of, are no longer being applied. I now comment in more detail. The ASA codes relevant to the complaint The ASA letter of 12 January 2009 identifies the codes relevant to the complaint. Code of Ethics-Rule 2 This rule requires truthful presentations. Deceptive or misleading advertisements are not acceptable. Importantly "obvious hyperbole, identifiable as such, is not considered to be misleading". Code for advertising of food-Principle 4 including guidelines Principle 4 is similar to the above Rule 2. Deceptive or misleading advertisements are not acceptable. Guideline 4(d) says advertisements should not be inconsistent with information on the label or packaging of the food. Also relevant is guideline 4(c). That guideline says: "Food advertisements containing obvious hyperbole, identifiable as such, are not considered misleading". Code for advertising of food-Principle 1 Advertisements should comply with New Zealand law and industry codes of ethics. We take this to mean the New Zealand Juice and Beverage Association guidelines. For the reasons given in this letter the ASA codes or other codes have not been breached. Points of agreement 8 08/665 AWAP 08/022 I can confirm certain salient points. 1. The ingredient list, as provided by the complainant, is accurate, ie the product is a blend of reconstituted and NFC juice. 2. The product is shelved in the chilled juice section of the supermarket (if it were not it would have a very short shelf life). 3. SeJuice Orange Envy is not, by the definitions given in section 3.1 of the NZJBA Juice Descriptor Guidelines, "fresh". We are not describing it as such, nor are we claiming that it does meet this definition. 4. The product has had a neck tag, which was predominantly a "saucy" chat up line followed by the phrase "get fresh" and the name SeJuice. Of these three elements, the phrase "get fresh" is actually the least prominent. Inaccuracies in the complaint There are several points that are not accurate or are unclear in the complaint and these should be noted thus: 1. There is no basis for implying, as the complainant does, that because a juice is in the chiller it is fresh. A chiller preserves the shelf life of the product, whether it is cheese, milk, meat, fish or juice. Our juices and smoothies are in the chiller to extend their life. Sometimes a product may be in the chiller simply to make it cold. 2. Although implied by the complainant, the other juices typically in the chiller at a supermarket do not meet the criteria for fresh set out in section 3.1 of the NZJBA Juice Descriptor Guidelines. Charlie's orange juice is well known to have been pasteurised; Simply Squeezed, Signature Range and Arano all contain reconstituted juice; McCoy Pure Squeezed Orange Juice has a shelf life of at least 8 months therefore none of these are "fresh". To imply that the SeJuice Orange Envy is making a claim to being fresh by association is clearly not supported by the facts. 3. It is common to find chilled cans of FRESH UP juice or packs of JUST JUICE in the chiller of a supermarket, dairy or service station. There is no consumer expectation that chilled juice means fresh juice. Attached are photographs from a Wellington supermarket showing the complainant's FRESH UP and JUST JUICE in a chiller next to one and two litre juice products. 4. Not all orange products that are in close proximity to SeJuice Orange Envy in supermarket chillers contain squeezed orange as the main ingredient, eg Supreme Orange Nectar from Simply Squeezed which contains only 65% orange juice in total. The overall impression of the neck tag label The phrase "get fresh" is a common phrase which is used to describe a person who is being overly familiar with another. This is totally consistent with the branding strategy of using the word SeJuice (a play on seduce), the products names "Apple Temptation", "Lime Lust", "Berry Affair", "Tropical Passion", and the plethora of dodgy chat up lines. 9 08/665 AWAP 08/022 For example: "Your eyes are blue, like the ocean. And baby, I'm lost at sea" "Are your parents bakers? Cos you sure are a cutie pie!" "If I said you had a beautiful body would you hold it against me?" "Are you a parking ticket? Cos you've got fine written all over you" "Is your dad a thief? Because he stole the stars and put them in your eyes" "Hi, my name is Fred Flintstone and I can make your bed rock" "Did it hurt? When you fell out of heaven" "Are we near the airport or is that just my heart taking off?" Attached are examples of how these phrases appear. Consumers are savvy enough to get the message and not be misled. Particularly given the other branding in the market and the nature of the other products. Other branding in the market The complainant's own FRESH UP brand is a prime example of how the word `fresh' is used by other traders. The FRESH UP product does not meet the NZJBA guidelines for fresh. Other examples are JUST JUICE, which is not just juice and SIMPLY SQUEEZED, which is more than just squeezed juice. If consumers can live with such branding then there should be no difficulty with the fun of our advertisements. Consumers will not look at the word fresh and read it in isolation from the rest of our branding. As an aside, notwithstanding the regulations and guidelines, consumers' understanding of fresh, is generally different from that of the technical people involved in the product. I cite "fresh" milk, which as we all know has undergone a process of skimming, pasteurisation, homogenisation, and standardisation. Technically, fresh milk is as it comes straight from a cow, but to most people, milk is fresh if it hasn't started to sour in the fridge. No consumers have complained No consumers have complained about our branding. The complaint comes from a competitor not an ordinary member of the public. The New Zealand Juice and Beverage Associate Guidelines The complainant only refers to section 3.1 of the NZJBA Juice Descriptor Guidelines. But the other guidelines make it clear that any use of 'fresh' must be seen in context. It is a matter of overall impression. 10 08/665 AWAP 08/022 Section 3.0 and 3.2 of the NZJBA Juice Descriptor Guidelines refers to "fresh" in the following passages: Note that, even if the following words cannot be used as descriptors, it may still be possible to use them on the label, provided they do not mislead the consumer into believing that the word is being used to represent the quality of the product, e.g. 'naturally' good for you. It is important to remember that it is not the use of the individual words that may mislead the consumer but the overall impression created by label and associated advertising. "Fresh Style" descriptors could be acceptable providing the product had a flavour associated with fresh juice. However, the whole descriptor must be printed clearly and the perception that the product could be "fresh" must be avoided (Reference: Fair trading Guidelines from the Commerce Commission). In this respect we feel that we are not contravening the NZJBA guidelines. The overall impression created by the labelling, the branding and the associated marketing is aimed at urging the consumers to exercise their romantic inclinations. The New Zealand Juice and Beverage Association have raised the use of fresh to our attention. We have explained the fun and cheeky nature of the use of 'get fresh'. Trade mark application for SeJuice get fresh Further, a trademark application has been accepted by the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand for the phrase "get fresh" in association with SeJuice. We attach the details of this application. The Commissioner of Trade Marks has examined our application, including for deceptiveness, and has accepted our application. However, the complainant has now objected to the trade mark. I understand it will take many months before we can put our case at a hearing. Other cases and the position in Australia The complainant refers to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) and other cases. The ACCC like the New Zealand Commerce Commission and the NZJBA do not say that `fresh' can only be used on juice that meets the technical description of fruit. The examples referred to by the complainant all seem to be about situations where the word fresh could only be taken as being 'fresh' in the technical sense. The ACCC's own guidelines, the NZJBA guidelines, the Commerce Commission guidelines and importantly the ASA Guidelines make it clear it is a matter of overall impression. The complainant cites several cases where the term "fresh" or "squeezed" has been disallowed but omits the fact that in this country, the brand "Simply Squeezed" persist, and Frucor's own brands FRESH UP and JUST JUICE (used on products 11 08/665 AWAP 08/022 that are not just juice) contain potentially misleading descriptors. We believe that our own trademark is no less valid than those mentioned above. Conclusion In conclusion, "fresh" has not been used as a descriptor the direction of the branding and marketing creates an overall impression of a flirtatious product, setting a framework which appropriately includes "get fresh" the presentation in the chilled section of the supermarket is amongst juices which are also non-fresh juices the fact that the juice contains reconstituted juice and preservatives does not in itself create a misleading impression as the other products mentioned above may not be referred to as "fresh" either the complainant has educated consumers to understand that the word 'fresh' can be used in branding, through the use of FRESH UP, without technical adherence to the industry guidelines.” Oral Submissions Mr Bergstrom and Mr Wright, representing the Complainant, made oral submissions in line with their written submissions, and in response to the submissions forwarded in writing by the Advertiser, and responded to questions posed by members of the panel. The Chairman was satisfied that there was no new evidence introduced in the oral submissions. Deliberation The Panel confirmed that it had read and taken into account all the written and oral submissions made in relation to the complaint. It also identified the advertisement which was the subject of the complaint, which was an orange neck tag with the text “Did it hurt? When you fell out of heaven” at the top of the tag and the words “get fresh SeJuice” at the bottom. On the rear of the tag various other juice flavours were listed with the text “get fresh SeJuice” appearing again at the bottom of the advertisement. It confirmed that the advertisement was to be considered against Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics and Principle 4 of the Code for Advertising of Food, both of which prohibited misleading advertising. The advertisement was also to be considered against Principle 4 Guideline 4(c) of the Code for Advertising of Food, which made provision for obvious hyperbole in advertising, and the panel noted that this provision was also made in Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics. Also relevant to the complaint’s consideration was 4 Guideline 4(d) of the Code for Advertising of Food 12 08/665 AWAP 08/022 which required claims in an advertisement to be consistent with information on the label or packaging of the food. The Panel noted that the complaint had also been made under Principle 1 of the Code for Advertising of Food, which required food advertisements to comply with the laws of New Zealand and appropriate industry Codes of Ethics. The Panel confirmed that in this case the appropriate industry Code was the New Zealand Juice and Beverage Association (NZJBA) Juice Descriptor Guidelines. However, as the Panel was advised that there was an ongoing discussion about the advertisement’s compliance with the guidelines with the appropriate industry body, in this instance it was of the view that it was not in a position to properly consider the complaint under Principle 1 and accordingly elected to not include this principle in its consideration of the complaint before it. In consideration of the substance of the complaint before it, the Panel noted that the Complainant objected to the use of the term ‘fresh’ in the neck tag advertisement for the SeJuice product. It noted the Complainant’s view that the use of the word ‘fresh’ in this advertisement was misleading, as it implied the product contained only fresh orange juice, when it did not. Turning to the advertisement, the Panel noted that it contained a phrase that could be considered a ‘pick-up’ line, in this case “Did it hurt? When you fell out of heaven”. It noted the Advertiser’s advice that there was a variety of other pick-up lines on the other advertisements, and that these were part of their “branding strategy of using the word SeJuice (a play on seduce)”. The Panel noted that this theme was continued with the names of the drink flavours, such as ‘Lime Lust’ and ‘Berry Affair’. The Panel observed that one of the dictionary meanings of the word fresh, listed by the New Zealand Oxford English Dictionary, was “cheeky, presumptuous” and further noted the contention of the Advertiser that this was the intended meaning of the word ‘fresh’ in the advertisement. The Panel acknowledged the Complainant’s contention that another meaning of the word fresh in this advertisement was that of a product descriptor, that is, fresh juice. The Panel noted Paragraph 3.1 of the New Zealand Juice and Beverage Association (NZJBA) Juice Descriptor Guidelines, where it said, in part, that a product referred to as fresh “Must not contain, or have ever contained food additives such as flavouring or colouring agents, preservatives, artificial or synthetic ingredients or added vitamins or minerals”. The Panel observed that the ingredients of the SeJuice product contained, among other ingredients, flavour and preservative. Having made this observation the Panel was of the view that the SeJuice product could not be regarded as a fresh juice product. The Panel noted that the Advertiser did not contest this, and that they had said “We are not describing [the product] as [fresh], nor are we claiming that it does meet this definition”. Having confirmed that the SeJuice product was not a fresh juice product, the Panel then considered whether the neck tag advertisement gave the impression that it was, as alleged by the Complainant. 13 08/665 AWAP 08/022 The Panel noted that the statement ‘get fresh’ appeared on a neck tag which was placed around the lid of the juice bottle. The panel was of the view that a statement on a neck tag was likely to be viewed by consumers as a description of the product, rather than as purely an abstract marketing campaign, because of its close proximity to the actual product being sold. Turning to the phrase “get fresh SeJuice”, the Panel was of the view that this text could, in the absence of any grammatical pause between the words ‘fresh’ and ‘SeJuice’, be read as a complete directive sentence. The Panel said that consumers reading this sentence would understand the word ‘fresh’ to be a descriptor of the product they were being directed to buy. The Panel was of the view that the statement, as it appeared on a neck tag, and the phrase itself, would be likely to suggest to the consumer that one of the meanings of the word ‘fresh’ in the advertisement, was as a descriptor of the product. The Panel was of the view that this perception was further enhanced by the way that the SeJuice product was packaged and presented, which was in a way similar to other fresh juice products. Having made these observations, the Panel was of the view that the phrase ‘get fresh’ was likely to be interpreted by consumers as both a descriptor of the product, as well as reference to someone being “cheeky, presumptuous”, as per the SeJuice branding strategy. As the product could not be considered purely fresh orange juice, the panel said the advertisement was misleading. Accordingly the Panel said that the advertisement was in breach of Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics and Principle 4 of the Code for Advertising of Food. The Panel then considered whether the advertisement was saved by hyperbole, provision for which was allowed in Principle 4 Guideline 4(c) of the Code for Advertising of Food, and also in Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics. The Panel, having concluded above that a consumer was likely to be mislead into thinking that the word ‘fresh’ in the advertisement also was a description of the product, was of the view that the advertisement could not be considered to contain “obvious hyperbole, identifiable as such”. Accordingly it ruled that the advertisement was not saved by Principle 4 Guideline 4(c) of the Code for Advertising of Food, or, as noted above, by the provision for “obvious hyperbole, identifiable as such” in Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics. Having concluded that the advertisement made a claim about the SeJuice product that was inconsistent with the product itself, as detailed on its label and packaging, the Panel also said that the advertisement was in breach of Principle 4 Guideline 4(d) of the Code for Advertising of Food. Accordingly, the Panel ruled to uphold the complaint. Decision: Complaint Upheld