Latest news with #Daily30+
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Prof Tim Spector: ‘Big Food flings around health halos with impunity'
At Zoe, the personalised nutrition company that I co-founded, we've consistently faced challenges in communicating the science behind what we do. Terms such as 'personalised nutrition' or 'evidence-based' are often met with scepticism – not because they lack substance, but because they don't slot neatly into outdated regulatory frameworks. The wholefood fibre supplement that we've created, the Daily30+, does contain some very minimally processed ingredients, namely chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast (both of which are widely accepted as beneficial for health and as culinary ingredients – both nutritious and helpful). And, because of this, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) have upheld that we were misleading customers by using the phrase 'no ultra-processed pills, no shakes, just real food' in one of our ads. Daily30+ is an innovative supplement designed for public health and tested for efficacy in a human trial. It is the first of its kind, so naturally, we face scrutiny. While other companies produce concoctions and powders with no evidence to support their benefits, Zoe ran a randomised controlled trial with 399 participants to test our product – we put our money where our mouth is. Yet, we are the ones facing backlash as huge food companies use labelling and marketing tactics to actively mislead consumers into buying unhealthy products dressed in health halos – wolf in sheep's clothing on every aisle. I won't dwell on the details or relitigate the matter further. Instead, I want to use this wrong-headed decision to frame one of the many issues with our broken food system: While a product that is high in fibre (something more than 90 per cent of us are deficient in and we're all desperately lacking) gets penalised, other brands (particularly the big food companies) are free to make blatantly misleading claims on categorically unhealthy products with no pushback whatsoever. Next time you're in a supermarket, look at the claims on highly-processed pre-packaged food items. You will soon see that virtually all of them carry vague or misleading health claims on the front of the pack with bright colours and fancy fonts. For instance, the trendy 'high in protein' claim is almost ubiquitous alongside 'only 99 calories' on unhealthy snacks. When a consumer reads this on a label, they are hoodwinked into thinking that if it's higher in protein or lower in calories, it must be healthier and better to eat than other foods. What you are not told is that the average person in the UK already consumes more protein than they need: protein deficiency is not an issue in the UK or most of the developed world. Unless you have a specific health condition, are an older adult, or are working incredibly hard at the gym, you probably get enough protein. Importantly, these food labels don't tell you that when you consume much more protein than you need, some of it is converted into energy, which, if it isn't used, is stored for later use as body fat. Before the advent of the high-protein craze, you probably remember the shelves overflowing with 'low-fat' products. Again, in the consumer's mind, fat is the enemy – 'fat makes you fat' is the common misconception. Meanwhile, these low-fat products are often worse than the full-fat versions and high in added sugars, emulsifiers, and other unhealthy additives. Casting our minds even further back, you may remember the 'low-sugar' craze. Again, these products were often high in unhealthy fats, sweeteners and other chemicals that do not support good health. Take CocoPops, for example, where the front of the box promises to 'support your family's health' yet it contains around 20 per cent of your child's added sugar intake in a tiny portion. How absurd. We refer to these claims as 'health halos'. They signal to the consumer that a product is healthy when the reality is often the opposite. This is what regulatory bodies should be tackling head-on. Health halos mislead customers who want to eat well, but are confused by the bombardment of mixed messages. We saw this cause absolute outrage following a BBC Panorama investigation which highlighted how baby food pouches and snacks are lacking in key nutrients and can be as high in sugar as Coca-Cola, all the while marketing themselves as 'ideal as finger food' or as a good 'first taste' from four months old, before children should start complementary feeding. Food labelling, marketing and advertising are not delivering the right guardrails to protect public health, even for the most vulnerable groups like babies, so consumers have no choice but to take matters into their own hands, and spend their hard earned money on foods that will actually support their health. The ASA is an important body; it intends to ensure transparency in advertising, which is vital work. Manufacturers are free to use health halos with wanton abandon demonstrates that the food industry and its regulation is not set up with consumers' health in mind. People are vulnerable to misinformation, and Big Food capitalises on it. With obesity and diabetes rates on the rise, we sorely need change. Today, there is a substantial disconnect between the rules that guide food advertising and the recent advances in nutrition science. The ongoing debate surrounding processed and ultra-processed foods is highly nuanced, and scaremongering doesn't help. The latest research shows that some ultra-processed foods are robustly associated with health risks, including fizzy drinks and processed meat products. However, other ultra-processed products, such as wholewheat bread or fortified, low-sugar and high-fibre breakfast cereals, can support health. Blanket bans and demonising all processed foods are unhelpful and simply miss the mark. This is what happens when we're still tied to old-fashioned rules – unlike Switzerland, for example, who have updated their frameworks, the UK has missed the chance to modernise. It's a classic case of clinging to an old system and outdated science instead of embracing the rare opportunities Brexit could offer to improve our food system and labelling. At a time when our national health is in serious decline, it's deeply frustrating to see truly nutritious, health-promoting products being treated in the same way as processed junk such as sugary cereals, synthetic energy drinks, protein bars and sweets devoid of any nutritional value. Once again, we're seeing how regulation fails to keep pace with science or to serve public health. It's time for a change. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Wales Online
21-05-2025
- Health
- Wales Online
Steven Bartlett ad for Tim Spector's Zoe Daily30+ banned for UPF free claim
Steven Bartlett ad for Tim Spector's Zoe Daily30+ banned for UPF free claim The authority says some of the ingredients used would be understood to be ultra-processed The advert featured a testimonial from Steve Bartlett 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. Article continues below 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. Article continues below '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.'
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
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.' Sign in to access your portfolio
Glasgow Times
21-05-2025
- Health
- Glasgow Times
Zoe supplement ad banned over ultra-processed claims
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.' Zoe's Daily30+ Facebook ad (ASA/PA) 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.'
South Wales Guardian
21-05-2025
- Health
- South Wales Guardian
Zoe supplement ad banned over ultra-processed claims
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.'
