Young's Seafood Ltd Ross House Wickham Road Grimsby DN31 3SW Number of complaints: 1

Date: 1 October 2008 Media: Television Sector: Food and drink

Ad
A TV ad for fish fillets showed a plate of fish and chips with a fork cutting into the battered fillet of fish. The voice-over stated "Young's Chip Shop Fish Fillets are made with a blend rich in sunflower oil, so they're better for you because they're now less than 5% saturated fat." Small text in the top right-hand corner of the screen stated "Reduced by 40% vs 2006" as the text "LESS THAN 5% SATURATED FAT" appeared in large letters over the plate of fish and chips. The voice-over continued "And they're better for you because they're a natural source of omega 3." The text "OMEGA 3" appeared over the fish. The voice-over stated "Young's Chip Shop. Same great taste, now better for you". The shot cut to a packet of Young's Chip Shop fish fillets placed between a knife and fork. The on-screen text stated "Same great taste, now better for you."

Issue
Birds Eye Iglo Group Ltd (Birds Eye) challenged whether the ad was misleading because:

1. it implied the product was low in saturated fat, and

2. it exaggerated the nutritional benefits of the product.

BCAP TV Advertising Code:

5.1;8.3.1(a);8.3.1(b);8.3.1(d);5.2.2

Response
1. Young's Seafood Ltd (Young's) said the claim made in the ad was not that the product was low in saturated fat, but that it was lower in saturated fat than it had been previously. They said that was made clear by the voice-over stating "they're now less than 5% saturated fat" and the on-screen text "Reduced by 40% vs 2006". They sent copies of the Nutritional Profile Certificates for their 2006 battered cod product and the Chip Shop Alaska Pollock fish fillets featured in the ad. The certificates showed that the saturated fat content of the advertised product was 4.6 g, as opposed to 7.4 g for the 2006 product. They said that, using the Food Standard Agency's nutritional profiling model, the product had an overall score of 3, against 13 for the 2006 Chip Shop product. They said that because the advertised product scored less than 4 it was considered low enough in fat, salt and sugar to appear within the context of children's programming.

Clearcast said the ad did not imply the product was low in saturated fat. They said the copy stated that the product had less than 5% saturated fat, and the purpose of the ad was to underline the fact that the fat content of the product had been reduced from 7.4 g to 4.6 g.

2. Young's said the claim made in the ad was that the product was "now better for you". They said that claim was substantiated by the significant reduction in saturated fat compared to the 2006 product and the omega 3 content of the Alaska Pollock used. They said the claim "reduced by 40% vs 2006" applied to the whole range of Chip Shop products. They emphasised that the saturated fat content of the advertised product now represented 20.5% of the Guideline Daily Amount, rather than 40%. They argued that the generally accepted level for a significant reduction in a macronutrient was 30%, according to the EU Regulation 1924/2006 on Nutrition and Health Claims made on foods, and the reduction in saturated fat between the 2006 product and the advertised product exceeded that. They said that since the UK COMA report of 1994 reduction of dietary saturated fat had continued to be a government recommendation and it was generally accepted that reducing fat intake was beneficial to health.  

Young's said one portion of the advertised product provided 90 mg of long chain omega 3 after it had been cooked. They said that equated to 20% of the recommended daily intake. They said the generally accepted threshold for nutritional significance was 15% of the recommended daily intake according to EU Directive 90/496/EEC. They said the amount of omega 3 in the advertised product exceeded that.   

Clearcast said they did not agree that the ad exaggerated the nutritional benefit of the product. They said Young's had couched the benefit in terms of an improvement story. They said Young's had worked hard to reduce the fat content of the product so that it was no longer classified as an HFSS (High Fat Salt Sugar) product. They said the fish used to make the Chip Shop Fish Fillets contained omega 3. They said their nutritional consultant had advised them that there were benefits to omega 3 but they were marginal. They said they believed the omega 3 claim taken with the very significant reduction in saturated fat justified the "now better for you" claim.

Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered the evidence sent by Young's. We noted their assertion that the aim of the ad was to show that the saturated fat content of the product had been reduced since 2006. However, because the text "Reduced by 40% vs 2006" appeared only very briefly on the screen in small letters at the same time as the large text "LESS THAN 5% SATURATED FAT", we considered it was likely to be missed by the viewer.  Although we noted Young's assertion that the voice-over "now less than 5% fat" and the strap line "Same great taste, now better for you" emphasised the comparison with the previous product, we considered that the overriding impression created by the ad was that the product was low in saturated fat, and not simply that it was lower in saturated fat than the previous product. We noted that for a product to be low in saturated fat under EU Regulation 1924/2006 it should have no more than 1.5 g of saturated fat per 100 g of food product. Because the Chip Shop fillets had 4.6g of saturated fat per 100 g of fish, but the ad implied the product was low in saturated fat, we concluded the ad was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.2 (Implications), and 8.3.1(a), 8.3.1(b) and 8.3.1(d) (Accuracy in food advertising).

2. Upheld
We noted Young's assertion that the ad did not exaggerate the nutritional benefits of the product because the Alaska Pollock used to make the fillets contained a nutritionally significant amount of omega 3, and the product had around 40% less saturated fat than the previous product. However, because the voice-over stated that the fish fillets were "better for you" because they contained omega 3, we considered it implied a health benefit as result of the omega 3 content. Although we accepted that current guidance from the Food Standards Agency stated that omega 3 had been shown to protect against coronary heart disease, we noted that its benefits were generally felt when it was used as a substitute for saturated fats. Because the fish fillets were not low in saturated fat, but were rated medium, we considered the health benefit of the omega 3 in the product was likely to be mitigated by the saturated fat content. We therefore concluded the ad exaggerated the nutritional benefits of the prodcut and was misleading.   

On this point the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.2 (Implications), and 8.3.1(a), 8.3.1(b) and 8.3.1(d) (Accuracy in food advertising).

Action
The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)