Sainsbury’s ‘feed a family for £50’ ads are banned

A SAINSBURY’S campaign offering to ‘feed your family for £50 a week’ has been banned for misleading shoppers.

The high-profile adverts claimed a family of four would be able to eat three healthy meals a day on a recession-busting budget.

But customers complained that the meal plans did not provide sufficient calories, meaning additional food would have to be bought.

They said the weekly cost did not include a number of ‘store cupboard’ ingredients that had to be purchased separately.

They were also concerned that a warning that the weekly plans were not suitable for children under four was buried in the terms and conditions.

The Advertising Standards Authority has now ruled that the supermarket was in breach of rules including those covering misleading advertising, substantiaabove tion and prices. The watchdog said that the TV, press and online adverts must not be used again in their current form.

The decision is an embarrassment for Sainsbury’s at a time when it is fighting to erode Tesco’s dominance as the country’s number one supermarket.

An ASA spokesman said: ‘Because the ads claimed that readers could meet all their family food needs for a week for £50, when that was not the case, we concluded that Sainsbury’s had overclaimed and that the ads were misleading on this point.

‘The meal plans also listed store cupboard ingredients which were not included in the headline price of £50, such as olive oil, dried mixed herbs, fresh garlic, mustard, tomato puree and stock cubes.

‘ We understood that a significant number of consumers would have to buy ingredients in addition to those listed on the meal plans, bringing the cost £50. Because we considered that the ads implied the advertised meals plans were suitable for children under four years of age when that was not the case, and because we understood that customers with children under four would therefore have to alter the meal plans and buy additional food for that age group, we concluded that the ad was misleading.’

The campaign ran throughout May and June last year and followed the company’s Jamie Oliverled ‘ Feed your family for a fiver’ adverts, which started in 2008. Adverts included pictures of three meals with the words: ‘ 28 breakfasts, 28 lunches, 28 dinners, 1 happy family.’

Shoppers were urged to ‘ follow our meal plan, three meals a day, seven days a week’.

But food experts voiced concerns about the plans, which worked out at 60p per meal per person. The average prison meal costs £2.10.

Toast and sandwiches featured heavily, including three breakfasts of toast and jam in one weekly plan. They said the meals provided only around 1,600 calories a day. Defending the campaign yesterday, Sainsbury’s said the meals were not intended to provide all the calories needed every day and were supposed to be supplemented by drinks and snacks.

But nutritionist Helen Money branded the meal plans irresponsible. ‘If you didn’t read the terms and conditions you would end up losing weight, which can have a dangerous impact on your health if you’re healthy or underweight,’ she said.

‘Men are meant to have around 2,500 calories, so it’s 1,000 calories less than they should be having, which is equivalent to losing 2lb a week. That is at the top end of weight loss recommendations.’

Sainsbury’s said it had developed the meals with the British Nutrition Foundation and there had been only six complaints out of four million customers who became involved with the initiative.

It declined to say whether it would run the campaign again, although the meal plans were still available online yesterday. A spokesman said: ‘We are surprised and disappointed that the ASA has come to this judgment as it does not reflect the feedback we have had from our customers.

‘Our campaign has been very popular with customers who clearly understood that a handful of ingredients in the meals plans would have come from their cupboards.

‘We worked closely with independent experts and still believe that our meal plans provide nutritious and tasty family meals in a cost-effective way.’