The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled today that a high visibility ad campaign from Viridian could mislead consumers and denigrated other products. 

Viridian said it was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.

The ruling follows a complaint about Viridian’s ‘No Junk’ campaign lodged by the Health Food Manufacturers Association (HFMA), of which Viridian is a prominent member.

The complaint concerned claims and statements made by Viridian on a web page and magazine ad. 

The webpage carried a large headline stating “No Junk” alongside an image of Viridian’s High Five Formula multivitamin product. Further text stated, “Shockingly, Mass Produced Supplements Contain Up To 50% Ultra-Processed Junk!” Under the heading “What On Earth Is In Your Supplement?” a list entitled “Mass Produced Supplements” contained images of supplements in a variety of formats, alongside lists of ingredients. A cross symbol was next to each product’s ingredient list. A list entitled “Viridian Nutrition Supplements” contained images of capsules. Text next to the capsule at the bottom of the list stated, “Pure Vitamins. No Junk” alongside a tick symbol.

Another page on Viridian’s website entitled “What’s in Your Supplement?” stated, “Pure: If an ingredients [sic] is there, it’s there for a reason. Our supplements contain 100% active ingredients in the highest natural potency with no fillers, binders, glues, irradiation or lubricants from mass production – nothing!”. 

The press ad, seen in True Health magazine, stated, “No Junk” in large text alongside an image of a Viridian product. Further text stated, “Say No to Ultra Processed Supplements, Feel Good with Pure Vitamins”. Text below stated, “What On Earth is in Your Supplement?” Many supplements contain ineffective fillers, Viridian only uses pure and active ingredients”.

The HFMA challenged whether:

• The claims that Viridian’s own products contained “no junk”, “only uses active ingredients” and were “pure”, and implied claims that they were not “ultra processed” could be substantiated.

• That the ads discredited and denigrated another product.

In its response to the ASA, Viridian said that the ads focused on the ingredients which many manufacturers added to their supplements, and contrasted this with Viridian’s own products which did not contain the highlighted excipients. It said the ads did not identify specific brands or products and used general language – “mass-produced supplements” – while the images in the ad were digitally-created generic representations rather than photographs. The company said it had reviewed numerous competitor products to verify that the ingredients listed in the ad were contained in other available supplements. And it supplied the ASA with a list of key excipients and a broad selection of UK supplement brands that used them.

Viridian said that the campaign was designed to enhance consumer choice and build awareness that there was a difference between products in terms of ingredients. It said it used the phrase “no junk” to highlight that Viridian did not use any excipients that were frequently added to many other brand supplement products, especially mass-market brands. The company pointed out that there was no legal definition for the word “junk” and no restriction on its usage.

Viridian said it was reasonable to state that all the ingredients in its formulations were ‘active’ because they all supported the body. The capsule shell, although not a nutrient, was an active component of the product in its role as a necessary delivery vehicle. The addition of a wholefood base containing alfalfa, spirulina and bilberry provided nutrients and other compounds helped support the body. Viridian said the difference between its capsules and other tablets and capsules was that the excipients used in the latter could have potentially detrimental effects, as evidenced by the research it had provided to the watchdog. 

Viridian told the ASA it had it not stated that a competitor’s product was junk, or attacked any company’s reputation. 

ASA assessment
Giving its assessment of the case, the ASA said that while it understood that the term “junk” did not have a specific definition, it considered that many consumers were likely to draw a comparison with junk food, which was widely perceived as offering little nutritional benefit. It said: “With reference to those foods, some might also view “junk” as associated with negative health outcomes. We considered that, in the context of ads referring to “pure vitamins” in Viridian supplements and to “ineffective fillers” in other supplements, consumers were likely to understand “No Junk” to mean that Viridian products were of a higher quality than competitor products due to containing “pure” ingredients and not “ineffective fillers”. Additionally, they were likely to understand that the additional ingredients in other supplements provided little or no nutritional benefit and could potentially have negative health outcomes. We considered consumers were likely to understand from the term “pure” in the ads that Viridian supplements contained solely the specified vitamins or mineral components and did not contain any additional ingredients.”

The ASA said it believed Viridian’s use of the term ultra-processed was intended to imply that its products did not contain ultra-processed food (UPF) ingredients, while other products did. The watchdog said that most consumers’ understanding of UPFs would be incomplete and that, broadly, the term would be interpreted as meaning “unhealthy”. The ASA said: “We also considered that at least a significant proportion of consumers would expect UPFs to involve intensive manufacturing processes. In this context of the ads, we considered that consumers were likely to understand that Viridian products would have undergone minimal processing to take them from raw ingredient to finished capsule.” However, after reviewing information about Viridian’s manufacturing processes (and ingredients monitoring), the watchdog said it “had not seen any evidence to show that their (Viridian’s) manufacturing techniques involved a level of processing that consumers were unlikely to see as intensive”. 

After considering detailed information from Viridian about how its products were manufactured, the ASA noted: “We considered that Viridian had not demonstrated that their manufacturing was in line with likely consumer expectations of minimal processing. We considered that the implied reference to the products not being ultra-processed was misleading.” The watchdog also considered that carrier fillers and the cellulose shell (though derived from food or plant-based materials) were likely to be seen by consumers as additional ingredients, and because of these additional ingredients were unlikely to be viewed as “pure”. 

Assessing the ad’s claims that Viridian’s products use only 100% active ingredients, the ASA said: “We considered that consumers were likely to understand from the ads that every ingredient was active. We also considered that in the context of an ad for a food supplement, consumers were likely to see “active” as meaning a substance that was included because it had a nutritional or physiological effect on the body.” The watchdog said that a statement on Viridian’s website noting that “Once the active ingredients are deposited in the capsule any remaining space is filled with a wholefood base […]”, clearly differentiated between the “active” ingredients and the carrier base. The ASA’s assessment was that the capsule and carrier bases present were therefore not “active” ingredients. 

The ASA upheld the HFMA’s complaint of the use of the terms “junk”, “only uses active ingredients”, “pure” and (not) “ultra-processed” and told Viridian not to use the ad again in the form complained of. 

“We considered “junk” to be a pejorative comment which suggested that consumers should avoid purchasing competitor products because they contained ingredients that were of little or no value”

The ASA also upheld the complaint that Viridian had denigrated another product. It said that the CAP Code (non-broadcast advertising code) stated that marketing communications must not discredit or denigrate another product or marketer – irrespective of whether or not a claim was true. In this case, the ASA said that it considered that the imagery and text used in the ads and website meant that consumers were “likely to understand the claims overall as a comparison between Viridian products and the rest of the nutritional supplement market”. The watchdog added that the term “junk” suggested that Viridian products were of a higher quality due to containing “pure” ingredients and being without the “fillers” of competitors’ products. It said: “We considered “junk” to be a pejorative comment which suggested that consumers should avoid purchasing competitor products because they contained ingredients that were of little or no value”. The ASA concluded: “We therefore concluded that the ads discredited and denigrated other nutritional supplements and breached the Code. We told them to ensure that they did not discredit or denigrate competitors’ products (in future).”

Deeply disappointed
Commenting on the ASA ruling, Viridian MD, Holly Thallon Steenson, said: “Our ‘No Junk’ campaign clearly hit a nerve with our competitors, who chose to persuade the HFMA council to lodge the complaint with the ASA.

“Our ‘No Junk’ campaign clearly hit a nerve with our competitors, who chose to persuade the HFMA council to lodge the complaint with the ASA”

“While we acknowledge the decision and will amend our campaign, I am deeply disappointed by this ASA ruling. At the heart of the issue is the use of fillers, binders and other artificial additives. Using the terms ‘junk’ and ‘ultra-processed’, daring to spotlight label small print, and shining a floodlight on the darker corners of food supplement manufacturing have been noticed.

“I wish to reassure everyone that Viridian will continue to champion clean manufacturing and the right of the public to choose additive-free supplements.”

Martin Last, Director General of the HFMA, told Natural Newsdesk: “The HFMA seek to establish a level playing field for claims made for food supplements. We follow our CAP Code and encourage and support our members to adhere to that code which mirrors the standards set by advertising standards. Our CLEAR CHECK service enables manufacturers to check any advertising or labelling copy to ensure compliance prior to publication, to avoid being later subject to investigations from authorities.  We note the comments raised by ASA in this case and endeavour to continue to support members and non-members alike in these matters.

“If we receive complaints from our members, we have a duty to investigate these appropriately, which we do, and any resulting action is always carefully considered and discussed fully with our Council so as to be fair and proportionate to all involved and reflect the current regulatory framework that applies.”