Huel sees second advert banned over 'misleading' claims
by Jo Tweedy For Mailonline · Mail OnlinePlant-based food brand Huel has been criticised again by the Advertising Standards Agency - the second time in two months - over 'misleading' claims about its products, including suggesting that a portion of its Daily Greens powder worked out cheaper than fresh green veg.
The company, which takes its name from the words 'human fuel' shortened, was previously in hot water with the advertising watchdog in August after Dragon's Den star Steven Bartlett failed to make clear in Facebook posts promoting Huel that he had a financial interest in the company.
Today, a video featuring the company's co-founder Julian Hearn was found to have once again breached the advertising code.
In the video, posted to Instagram earlier this year, Hearn is heard saying: 'You’ve been told your whole life to eat greens, and a lot of people can’t get that amount of greens into their diet […] we’ve taken a very broad range of greens, so you get a product which is equally good, or in my eyes better, but you get it substantially cheaper.'
However, the ASA ruled that's Hearn's claims on nutrition wasn't a 'permitted comparative nutrient claim' and amounted to a breach of the code.
The watchdog also took Huel to task on the claim that the brand's Daily Greens powder, which costs 'from £1.50' per portion, was 'substantially cheaper' than the average cost per day of fresh green veg for one person.
The summary on the 25th September ruling read: 'An Instagram video made non-permitted comparative nutrition claims and compared foods that weren’t in the same category.
'It also made misleading pricing claims and contained general health claims that weren’t accompanied by an authorised specific health claim.'
MailOnline has contacted Huel for comment.
On August 14th, two paid-for posts that had been shared to Facebook in February and March, in which Steven Bartlett praised Huel products, were deemed a breach of the ASA code because they failed to be transparent that the millionaire entrepreneur was one of the company directors.
Huel disputed the ban at the time, arguing it was clear from the ads there is a commercial relationship and that consumers do not need to know the 'exact nature' of those relationships.
Huel, known for its vitamin-enriched food items - whose ads featured Bartlett stating that its Daily Greens powder was the 'best product' it had released, argued that consumers had no doubt about the existence of such commercial relationships when they saw the endorsement within a paid-for ad taken out by a company.
This expectation removed the need for the commercial relationship to be explicitly stated, Huel claimed.
However the ASA found that many consumers were unlikely to understand from the ads that Bartlett had a financial interest in Huel's performance.
It said: 'We considered that Bartlett's directorship was material to consumers' understanding of the ads, and so relevant for them in making an informed decision about the advertised product.
'Because the ads omitted material information about Steven Bartlett's position as a director at Huel, we concluded they were likely to mislead.'