False advertising blow for Beauti Food
TWO household names in the food industry were recently at loggerheads after claims of false advertising.
Tiger Brands, one of South Africa’s largest manufacturers and distributors of packaged goods, took Futurelife, known for its high protein smart food, to the SA Advertising Regulatory Board. This was over alleged unsubstantiated claims made on Futurelife’s product, Beauti Food.
Beauti Food is a dietary meal supplement which comprises a shake and a protein bar. Advertising published on social media and printed on the packaging suggests the product is a solution to anti-ageing and wrinkles.
It claims that it reduces wrinkles in 28 days, improves skin elasticity and firmness, improves skin hydration, increases total body collagen and reverses the signs of ageing. But this was found to be false by the regulatory board.
Spoor and Fisher Attorneys, acting on behalf of Tiger Brands, said the research was only done on the product’s primary ingredient called verisol, which was a bioactive collagen peptide.
They argued that there was no evidence that consuming the product as a whole would produce the results advertised.
Tiger Brands said no tests were conducted to prove the claims and the scientific jargon in the advert had exploited consumer trust and credulity.
It was also concerned with the use of testimonials and claims of no added sugar. The product ingredient list indicated the presence of added glucose syrup.
Attorneys Kisch IP, acting on behalf of Futurelife, said verisol was a bioactive ingredient which remained stable even when included in food products and other supplements.
They argued it allowed consumers to reap the benefits even when consuming this as a food ingredient.
Kisch IP argued Tiger Brands ignored the perspective of a reasonable consumer, who would probably appreciate the significance of collagen as an aid to skin, hair and nail appearance.
They said verisol was sourced from a company named Gelita and they produced documents from Gelita as proof of the efficacy of the ingredient.
It also submitted research articles to argue its case. Kisch said all the claims were contextualised.
Futurelife said the testimonials were derived from an informal study to test the efficacy of the product; and the claim of no added sugar was correct in that consumers interpreted sugar to mean cane sugar.
In its findings, the regulator found that most of the claims were unsubstantiated and that it contravened the code of advertising practice. It did not accept the evidence of Gelita as it was not regarded as independent.
“There is no evidence before the directorate to show that efficacy said to be derived from the consumption of verisol would, as a matter of fact, apply to the advertiser’s product, as a whole, when consumed at the recommended dose.
“The claims in question appear on the advertiser’s packaging and advertising for its Beauti Food product range and are therefore likely to be interpreted as true for these products when consumed at the recommended dose. None of the evidence submitted, however, appears to suggest that any testing was conducted on this product range to prove this.”
The directorate found that the claim of no added sugar was substantiated. However, it did not accept the testimonials.
“From the testimonials submitted, it is clear that the before and after impact on skin condition and appearance as well as nail strength and appearance is based on each customer’s own subjective perception, and not on actual objective measuring.”
All claims – except the claim that the protein bar is low GI – were instructed to be withdrawn. All testimonials must also be taken down from Futurelife’s website.
Alissa Nayanah, senior associate at Adams and Adams and an expert in consumer matters, said the public should do their research to avoid falling victim to false advertising.
“If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Consumers should not accept advertising at face value, especially when it comes to making purchases of a substantial value. A little bit of research into the product can often go a long away.”
She said reading other customer reviews on the product also helped.
“Most advertisers have some kind of platform where consumers can contact them.
“These platforms should not only be used to complain about a product after the purchase has been made, but also to ask the advertiser questions about the product and request information about the claims being made, before the purchase is made.”
She said ultimately it was the advertiser’s responsibility to ensure that they advertised responsibly and did not make false claims that misled consumers.
Nayanah said although a consumer was not entitled to a refund for false claims, some retailers or manufacturers may allow consumers to return the product based on their customer care policy.
“Consumers should engage with retailers or manufacturers to enquire about the possibility of a refund.
“Consumers are entitled to file a consumer complaint with the Advertising Regulatory Board or with the consumer goods and services ombud. Both complaint procedures are free of charge to consumers.”