Zoe supplement ad banned over ultra-processed claims
An advert for nutrition brand Zoe featuring Dragons' Den star Steven Bartlett has been banned for misleadingly claiming that a supplement did not contain any ultra-processed ingredients.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that Zoe's Daily30+ 'plant-based wholefood supplement' contained at least two ingredients – chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast flakes – that were not whole foods and had been through more than a minimal level of processing.
The ASA said a Facebook ad for the product was therefore likely to mislead consumers by implying it did not contain any ingredients that would be considered ultra-processed.
Zoe said it strongly refuted the ruling and was in the process of appealing against it.
The ad, which stated the supplement contained chicory inulin, included a testimonial from Bartlett, who is an investor in Zoe, which read: 'This is a supplement revolution. No ultra-processed pills, no shakes, just real food.'
The complainant, a professor in nutrition and food science who the ASA has not named, challenged whether Bartlett's claim misleadingly implied that the product did not contain any ultra-processed ingredients (UPFs).
Responding to the complaint, Zoe said the ad did not claim Daily 30+ was not ultra-processed, or that it did not include any UPFs.
Instead, the ad explained the product was not an ultra-processed pill, unlike other supplements that would be considered ultra-processed because they contained artificial flavourings and additives.
Zoe said the advertised product was a combination of 32 different foods including vegetables, fruits, seeds and mushrooms, that was to be put directly on to other food to increase fibre intake.
While some ingredients were powdered, the only liquid ingredient was chicory root inulin, used in the product for its fibre health benefit.
Similarly, nutritional yeast flakes, which Zoe described as a commonly used culinary ingredient, was a form of heated yeast, had known health benefits that included B-vitamins and minerals and was a good source of protein.
They explained that none of the ingredients were typical UPF ingredients and the processes used could be replicated in a small-scale home kitchen.
It added that the product was a plant mix that was distinctly different from UPF products high in additives, fat, salt and sugar that were associated with poor health outcomes, and that labelling of their product as UPF on the basis of a higher level of processing of two ingredients would create a misunderstanding and increase consumer misinformation.
The ASA acknowledged that there was no universally accepted definition of UPFs, but it considered consumers would understand the claim 'wholefood supplement' to mean the product comprised solely of wholefood ingredients.
It said Bartlett's testimony would have contributed to this overall impression.
The ASA said: 'We acknowledged consumers were likely to understand that most food products had been subject to some level of processing, for example cleaning or chopping. They were unlikely to consider foods that had undergone that minimal level of processing to be UPFs.
'However, at least two ingredients, chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast flakes, were not whole foods and had been through more than a minimal level of processing.
'Nutritional yeast was manufactured, and chicory root inulin was extracted using an industrial process. For the latter, the extraction process included slicing and steeping, purification using carbonated water as well as evaporation, partial enzymatic hydrolysis (adding of enzymes) and filtration.
'While some of those processes were relatively simple in isolation, we considered the number of stages used in processing went beyond what consumers would interpret as minimal and we considered they would likely understand chicory root inulin as UPFs.'
It said it considered Bartlett's testimony to imply that the product did not contain any ingredients that consumers would interpret as ultra-processed 'when that was not the case and was therefore likely to mislead'.
It ruled that the ad must not appear in the form complained about, adding: 'We told Zoe not to make claims that their products did not contain UPF ingredients if consumers were likely to interpret the ingredients to be ultra-processed.'
Zoe co-founder Professor Tim Spector said: 'We categorically reject the idea that this advert is misleading, or that Daily30+ – or any of its ingredients – could be classed as ultra-processed.
'The ad clearly states that Daily30+ doesn't contain ultra-processed pills or shakes. That's because it doesn't. It is made entirely from whole food ingredients, and is designed to be added to meals – not taken as a pill or a shake. The claim is factually accurate and irrefutable.'
He added: 'We fully stand by Daily30+'s integrity, its health benefits for consumers, and our expertise in nutrition science and improving public health.
'To go after a product that is designed to improve health whilst doing very little about the harmful marketing and advertising of unhealthy junk food to children and vulnerable individuals is nothing short of disgraceful.'
A spokesman for Bartlett said: 'For the avoidance of any doubt, this ruling is not against Steven Bartlett whatsoever. The advert was not posted by Steven, nor did it appear on any of his channels. It was posted by Zoe Ltd on their own channel.
'The ASA issued this ruling after receiving a single complaint from a member of the public, and it is directed solely at Zoe Ltd. It is for Zoe Ltd to debate the merits of the ruling.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Peter Krykant obituary
The drugs policy campaigner Peter Krykant, who has died suddenly aged 48, advanced the cause of the harm reduction movement through a transformative act of civil disobedience. Fitting out a van as a mobile safer drug consumption space and making it available to Glasgow's most vulnerable homeless addicts broke the law. And it also – eventually – broke the stalemate around UK drugs policy, propelled Scotland's drug deaths crisis further up the political agenda and, most importantly, saved lives. Krykant's law-breaking plan coalesced in February 2020 after he attended what he saw as another talking shop – a Scottish government conference focused on drug deaths, which took place 24 hours before a UK government summit on the same subject, at the same Glasgow venue. It seemed to him a ludicrous show of escalating tensions between the two administrations. 'The conferences were the final straw, and the fact that [a drug consumption room pilot] is being used as a political football,' he told the Guardian a week later. 'As a person who went through my own trauma – drug use and street homelessness issues many years ago – I cannot stand back.' Within days of announcing his plan to purchase a vehicle and customise it as a mobile safer-injecting suite, Krykant had raised more than £2,000. He was immediately sacked from his job as an HIV outreach worker at the charity Waverley Care. Undeterred by the looming global Covid pandemic, Krykant recognised that, as services contracted, the homeless drug users who congregated around Trongate in Glasgow were even more in need. So he struck out in the midst of lockdown, first in a minibus nicknamed 'the Tank' and later in a converted ambulance, providing clean water, needles and swabs, as well as supplies of naloxone, the potentially life-saving drug that reverses the effects of opioid overdose. Rules included using your own drugs, and agreeing to an overdose intervention if needed. Writing in the Guardian, Krykant later explained: 'Overdose prevention services are an internationally recognised way of reducing drug-related harms. It benefits everyone by supporting the most vulnerable and saving taxpayers' money on ambulance callouts, hospital admissions and council clean-up teams.' The local police largely tolerated his activity, although he was charged in October 2020 for obstructing officers attempting to search his van – the charges were later dropped. He continued operating until May 2021. More than 1,000 injections were supervised, and nine overdoses reversed. 'It was the trust people had in Peter, the cup of tea and the Mars bar, that really helped them and is hard to quantify,' said the MSP Paul Sweeney, who became a close friend when the pair volunteered together at the van. 'He proved all the naysayers and the procrastinators wrong. He never said it was a silver bullet but Peter knew firsthand the particular risks for people who inject on the street and saw that this intervention could directly save lives.' Krykant was always insistent that addiction should be understood in the wider context of poverty and inequality, a message he took around the doorsteps of his local Holyrood constituency of Falkirk East when he stood for the Scottish parliament elections in May 2021. A Guardian film, which followed his campaign, captures his younger son, aglow with pride, explaining to the producers: 'I've got three reasons you should vote for my dad: because he's honest, reliable and he listens to people's suggestions.' But the responsibility he evidently carried for every individual he helped, the memories they stirred of his own trauma as well as escalating public scrutiny, took their toll and Krykant relapsed. He had talked openly about darker currents in his childhood in the village of Maddiston, near Falkirk; trauma and sexual abuse that would lead him to start taking drugs when he was 11. He left school with no formal qualifications, and by his late teens he was sleeping rough and injecting heroin. But eventually he found support to live drug-free, and worked successfully in sales for over a decade, first in Brighton, and later returning north of the border, where he subsequently trained as an addiction support worker. During this time he married and started a family, taking market research work to fit around caring for his two young sons. Krykant had continued his advocacy work in recent years, passing the van on to the Transform Drug Policy Foundation and embarking on a tour across the UK. Lately he worked at the harm reduction charity Cranstoun, where he developed an overdose response app called BuddyUp and represented the organisation at events around the world. When the UK's first legal drug consumption room, the Thistle, opened its doors in Glasgow this January, there were many who drew a direct line from his minibus to its airy vestibule. Others felt his contribution had been sidelined to make way for more mainstream voices, or that his vulnerabilities had been exploited by those who desired the frisson of his lived experience for their campaigns. This winter, say friends, Krykant found himself at his lowest ebb. His marriage had collapsed, he had lost his job and he was struggling to support himself, worrying about the impact this had on his sons. Martin Powell, who drove the van on its UK tour, said: 'He was the catalyst and without him we might still be waiting. Without question there are people alive today who would not be without Peter Krykant. It's an absolute tragedy that he isn't one of them.' Krykant is survived by his sons. Peter Krykant, campaigner, born 13 November 1976; died 9 June 2025
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Assisted dying Bill not now or never moment, says Cleverly ahead of crucial vote
Legalising assisted dying would 'correct the profound injustices of the status quo', parliament has heard, but opposition MPs insisted this is not a 'now or never' moment. The House of Commons is debating a Bill to change the law in England and Wales, ahead of a crunch afternoon vote. The outcome would lead to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill either clearing the House of Commons and moving to the Lords, or falling completely – with a warning the latter could mean the issue might not return to Westminster for a decade. The relatively narrow majority of 55 from the historic yes vote in November means every vote will count on Friday. Some MPs have already confirmed they will switch sides to oppose a Bill they describe as 'drastically weakened', after a High Court judge safeguard was scrapped and replaced with expert panels. As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and the three-member panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater has insisted the multidisciplinary panels represent a strengthening of the legislation, incorporating wider expert knowledge to assess assisted dying applications. Opening her debate, Ms Leadbeater said her Bill is 'cogent' and 'workable', with 'one simple thread running through it – the need to correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it'. She pushed back on concerns raised about the Bill by some doctors and medical bodies, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych), noting: 'We have different views in this House and different people in different professions have different views.' She noted that all the royal colleges have a neutral position on assisted dying. Some members of RCPsych also wrote recently to distance themselves from the college's criticism of the Bill and pledge their support for it. MPs have a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines – although voting is not mandatory and others present on Friday could formally abstain. Ms Leadbeater warned that choosing not to support the assisted dying Bill is 'not a neutral act', but rather 'a vote for the status quo'. Repeating her warning that the issue is unlikely to be broached again for a decade if her Bill fails, she told the Commons: 'It fills me with despair to think MPs could be here in another 10 years' time hearing the same stories.' But, leading opposition to the Bill, Conservative former minister Sir James said while this is 'an important moment', there will be 'plenty of opportunities' in future for the issue to be discussed. Sir James said: 'I disagree with her (Ms Leadbeater's) assessment that it is now or never, and it is this Bill or no Bill, and that to vote against this at third reading is a vote to maintain the status quo. 'None of those things are true. There will be plenty of opportunities.' The Bill would fall if 28 MPs switched directly from voting yes to no, but only if all other MPs voted the same way as in November, including those who abstained. Ms Leadbeater this week appeared to remain confident her Bill will pass, acknowledging that while she expected 'some small movement in the middle', she did not 'anticipate that that majority would be heavily eroded'. All eyes will be on whether Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and senior colleagues continue their support for the Bill. Sir Keir indicated earlier this week that he had not changed his mind since voting yes last year, saying his 'position is long-standing and well-known'. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described Ms Leadbeater's work on the proposed legislation as 'extremely helpful', but confirmed in April that he still intended to vote against it. Ahead of the debate, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch urged her MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide'. A vote must be called before 2.30pm, as per parliamentary procedure. Friday's session began with considerations of outstanding amendments to the Bill, including one to prevent a person meeting the requirements for an assisted death 'solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking'. The amendment – accepted without the need for a vote – combined with existing safeguards in the Bill, would rule out people with eating disorders falling into its scope, Ms Leadbeater has said. Another amendment, requiring ministers to report within a year of the Bill passing on how assisted dying could affect palliative care, was also approved by MPs. Marie Curie welcomed the amendment, but warned that 'this will not on its own make the improvements needed to guarantee everyone is able to access the palliative care they need' and urged a palliative care strategy for England 'supported by a sustainable funding settlement – which puts palliative and end of life care at the heart of NHS priorities for the coming years'. Supporters and opponents of a change in the law gathered at Westminster early on Friday, holding placards saying 'Let us choose' and 'Don't make doctors killers'. Among the high-profile supporters were Dame Prue Leith, who said she is 'quietly confident' about the outcome of the vote, and Dame Esther Rantzen's daughter Rebecca Wilcox. Opposition campaigner and disability advocate George Fielding turned out to urge parliamentarians to vote no, saying: 'What MPs are deciding on is whether they want to give people assistance to die before they have assistance to live.' A YouGov poll of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, surveyed last month and published on Thursday, suggested public support for the Bill remains at 73% – unchanged from November. The proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle has risen slightly, to 75% from 73% in November.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Sunscreens RANKED - from best buys to those to avoid at all costs... as consumer watchdog reveals one 'ineffective' £28 cream could pose safety risk
A £28 sunscreen, marketed as 'perfect for the whole family', has failed a safety test carried out by Which?—despite claiming to be 'especially suitable' for children. The revelation may have left consumers asking which sun creams they can actually trust. Consumer watchdog Which? tested 15 popular SPF50 and SPF30 products from high-street names and supermarkets, using strict international safety standards. Each was assessed for ultraviolet (UV) protection and SPF protection, and rated for ease of use by a panel of volunteers. Two were labelled 'Don't Buys' after failing key tests, while seven earned a 'Best Buy' status, scoring highest overall. Another two were also labelled 'great value' options, for offering people a cost-effective option to protect against the sun's UV rays. To trial the creams, scientists applied a small amount on volunteers' backs, before shining a lamp on the patch to simulate the sun's rays. The time it takes for the skin to become red was then measured. In another test, scientists took a sample of the cream and spread it onto a glass plate to measure the absorption of UV radiation directly. To pass, the sunscreen needed to provide at least one third of the claimed SPF. For example, a sunscreen with an SPF of 30 will take 30 times longer to damage your skin compared to no protection at all. Here we reveal the full list of 2025 test results, ranked from most to least effective. Lidl Cien Sun Protect Spray SPF30 The bargain product was given the 'great value' seal of approval by the watchdog, after the panel found it passed both key tests, was easy to apply and 'smelled great'. They did, however, note it felt 'a bit greasy on skin' after application. £3.49 Shop Boots Soltan Protect & Moisturise Lotion SPF30 Which? said the product offered 'excellent UVA and UVB protection'. UVA and UVB protection are both crucial in sunscreen because they address different types of harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun, which can raise the risk of skin damage and cancer. UVB rays are primarily responsible for sunburn, while UVA rays penetrate deeper, causing premature aging and wrinkles. £5.50 Shop Nivea Sun Protect & Moisture Lotion SPF30 The product passed both SPF and UVA tests. It's only downside, Which? said, was the cost. £8.65 Shop Sainsbury's SPF30 Moisturising Lotion The consumer watchdog had no major concerns with the product it said and provides exactly the level of sun protection that it claims. £5.75 Shop Superdrug Solait Sun Spray SPF30 Which? said the product 'delivers on SPF and UVA claims' and 'no major issues' at all. £5.50 Shop The factor 30's to avoid Morrisons Moisturising Sun Spray SPF30 Price: £3.75/200ml After testing the product twice, Morrisons sun spray failed to provide the 'claimed level of protection from UVB rays', Which? said. After informing Morrisons of its results, the supermarket giant told Which? it was looking closely at the data and working with its supplier to carry out additional independent testing. Ultrasun Family SPF30 Price: £28/150ml Ultrasun's product passed the SPF test but didn't meet the minimum required UVA level for an SPF30 product in either the initial or repeat test. Responding to the findings, the company said: 'Ultrasun is fully confident in our testing protocols. 'As an independent brand delivering very high UVB and UVA protection options for over 30 years, our detailed testing processes continue to not only meet but surpass industry standards. 'Our chosen testing protocol is one of the strictest available, and our UVB and UVA filters are tested both in-vitro and in-vivo. 'We conclusively support the results of our independent tests which found the Ultrasun Family SPF30 reached a UVB-SPF in vivo of 31.4 and a UVA-PF in vitro of 13.1, which equates to a 92% UVA absorbance.' Garnier Ambre Solaire Sensitive Advanced Sun Spray SPF50+ Garnier's SPF50 spray passed both tests and was 'easy to apply', the watchdog said. But it noted, the product—which is sold at the likes of Asda, Boots, Morrisons and Sainsbury's—was an expensive option. £8.00 Shop Nivea Sun Protect & Moisture Spray SPF50+ One of the most recognisable products on the market, Nivea's SPF50+ spray passed both SPF and UVA tests. It's only downside, Which? said, was the cost. £7.00 Shop Sainsbury's SPF50+ Moisturising Spray Lotion The watchdog said Sainsbury's spray provides the level of sun protection it claimed it does and there were no major downsides to the product at all. £5.75 Shop SPF50+ Children's Recommendations Childs Farm SPF50+ Sun Cream Fragrance-Free Which? said the product offers 'excellent sun protection' and passed both key tests. The sunscreen, sold online on Amazon as well as in Boots, does 'feel a bit greasy', it noted. £12 Shop
