Watchdog Bans Huel’s Advert for Second Time
A food supplement firm Huel has once again found itself in hot water as a watchdog has banned one of its adverts for the second time. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ruled against the company for making unsubstantiated claims about the health benefits of its products and their cost relative to fruits and vegetables.
The problematic advert in question was a post on Huel’s Instagram account featuring company founder Julian Hearn claiming that their product, Huel Daily Greens, was packed with superfoods to supercharge health. The post mentioned gut-friendly probiotics, essential vitamins and minerals, and other nutrients essential for overall well-being.
However, the ASA received a complaint regarding the comparison made in the advert between Huel’s product and fresh green vegetables. The claim that Huel was “substantially cheaper” than an equivalent portion of greens was also called into question.
Huel admitted that the ad had been shortened due to an editing error, leading to the misleading comparison. The company assured the ASA that steps were being taken to prevent such errors in the future. The ASA requires that all health claims for food and food supplements be authorized, clear, and free from exaggeration.
ASA’s Ruling and Huel’s Past Ad Bans
The ASA ruled that the advert must not appear again due to the unsubstantiated claims made by Huel. This is not the first time the company has faced backlash from the watchdog. In fact, just last month, another Huel advert was banned for failing to disclose its commercial relationship with celebrity entrepreneur Steven Bartlett.
In February 2023, Huel faced yet another ban for an advert suggesting that its replacement shakes could save people money on their food bills. The advert claimed that a month’s supply of the meal supplement could cost less than £50 without clarifying that this was based on having one meal replacement per day.
These repeated bans by the ASA raise concerns about the marketing practices of Huel and the accuracy of the claims they make about their products. Consumers rely on advertising to make informed decisions about the products they purchase, and it is crucial that companies like Huel adhere to regulations to ensure transparency and accountability.
Implications for Consumers and the Industry
The banning of Huel’s advert for the second time highlights the need for greater scrutiny of health claims made by food supplement companies. Consumers must be able to trust that the products they are purchasing are safe, effective, and accurately represented in marketing materials.
Furthermore, the repeated bans against Huel could have broader implications for the industry as a whole. Companies that make unsubstantiated claims about their products risk damaging consumer trust and facing regulatory action. It is essential for all companies in the food supplement industry to adhere to advertising standards and prioritize transparency in their marketing efforts.
In conclusion, the banning of Huel’s advert by the ASA for the second time underscores the importance of truthfulness and accuracy in advertising, particularly when it comes to health claims. Consumers deserve to have access to reliable information about the products they consume, and companies must take responsibility for ensuring that their marketing materials are clear, honest, and compliant with regulations.
