The UK’s independent regulatory body for advertising announced today that it stands by its decision ruling against an ad for Zoe’s wholefood supplement, noting that it breached codes through misleading advertising, despite an external assessment identifying flaws in its ruling.
Dr. Spector, co-founder of the nutrition brand, said he was stunned by the ASA’s decision, saying it was a “profound failure of logic that flies in the face of established nutritional science and expert opinion.”
“To suggest that advertising a scientifically proven supplement made of whole-food ingredients is ‘misleading’ is a victory for pedantry over public health,” he added.
ASA flags ‘just real food’ claims for Zoe Daily30+ amid UPF controversy
The original ad in question was a paid-for Facebook ad seen on Sept. 19, 2024 for Daily30+, which presented the product as a “plant-based wholefood supplement” and claimed it contained “no ultra-processed pills, no shakes, just real food.”
The mix includes several fruits, vegetables, mushrooms, herbs, spices, nuts, seeds, quinoa, red lentils, chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast flakes.
Chicory root inulin is an isolated fiber produced through several industrial processes, including purification, evaporation, enzymatic treatment and filtration, and similarly, nutritional yeast flakes are produced through culturing, heat deactivation and further processing.
Because the product contained ingredients created through industrial processing, the ASA concluded that the claims “wholefood supplement” and “just real food” could mislead consumers who wanted to avoid ultra-processed products.
The ASA further argued that consumers generally associate UPFs with being unhealthy rather than aligning with formal classification systems like NOVA, the classification system for defining processed foods, which organizes food according to the extent and purpose of food processing.
Zoe challenges ASA ruling
Following the original ruling issedu last year, Zoe approached the Advertising Standards Board of Finance (ASBOF), the organization that raises and manages the funding for the UK’s advertising self-regulation system, for an external assessment of the decision.
Backed by the findings of the external assessment, Zoe contested the ASA’s decision, arguing that there is no single universally accepted legal or scientific definition of UPFs. The company instead referred to the NOVA classification system which highlights the health impacts of diets high in UPFs—typically products such as snacks, drinks and ready meals that are formulated mostly or entirely from substances extracted or derived from foods, rather than individual ingredients.
Zoe also cited the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee report “Recipe for Health: A Plan to Fix Our Broken Food System”, which describes UPFs as typically calorie-dense foods with limited nutritional value, low fiber and high levels of unhealthy fats, refined sugar and salt, often containing altered ingredients. It stated that its product did not match the NOVA criteria or these report definitions.
The company said that the 32 food ingredients only underwent standard whole-food cleaning processes, such as removing shells, soil or stones.
Zoe said chicory root inulin is a well-researched fiber naturally found in chicory root, and nutritional yeast flakes are a heated yeast product commonly used in cooking. It argued both ingredients are healthy, make up only a small proportion of the product, and that extracting chicory root inulin uses a standard process that does not affect the product’s overall NOVA classification.
ASA rules ‘wholefood supplement’ claims misleading
The ASA upheld its original ruling, arguing that consumers would interpret the claims as meaning the product differed from typical supplements by containing only whole foods or minimally processed ingredients, and that the ad targeted consumers seeking healthier diets and trying to avoid industrially produced or UPFs.
“We accepted that both ingredients were included because of their nutritional benefits and that they were not ‘unhealthy’,” the authority noted.
“We also accepted that each represented a small proportion of the product, and that the processes described were common across the food industry. However, their nutritional benefits, the amount included or the absence of preservatives, sweeteners or flavor enhancers, did not alter the impression created by the ad.
“It was likely, therefore, to influence at least a significant minority of consumers who were motivated in seeking to avoid what they considered were ingredients that were manufactured formulations of foodstuffs made using complex or industrial processes not typically replicable in a domestic kitchen.”
Zoe rejects ASA ruling
Dr. Spector believes the new ruling ignored the ‘substantial flaws’ in the original ruling identified by the ASA’s Independent Reviewer.
“It is patronizing for the ASA to claim UK consumers cannot tell the difference between health-promoting processed plants and obviously unhealthy industrially processed junk food,” he said.
“The ASA has effectively ruled that healthy, fiber-rich ingredients like chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast should be viewed through the same lens as highly processed foods like children’s cereals or snacks, simply because they are professionally prepared.
“This is an absurd, unscientific standard; by this logic, everyday staples like olive oil and flour should also be branded as ‘ultra-processed’.”
Dr. Spector said the health benefits of the supplement are proven by a randomized controlled trial, and he believes that at a time when the UK diet is dominated by harmful junk food, to criticize a product that supports health is a “disgraceful misuse of regulatory power”.
“This decision fuels consumer confusion and protects the status quo of the junk food industry, which also funds the ASA,” he said.