ASA ruling on ZOE Ltd: what “ultra-processed” really means for your marketing

The ASA has ruled against ZOE Ltd for a Facebook ad promoting its “Daily30+” supplement, which claimed: “No ultra-processed pills, no shakes, just real food.” The ASA found this misleading, concluding that consumers would interpret the claim to mean the product contained no ultra-processed ingredients—something ZOE could not substantiate.

This ruling is an important decision which will affect how food and supplement brands can use “ultra-processed” in marketing. The ASA made clear that:

• Consumer perception matters: The ASA applied its own interpretation of how the average consumer understands “ultra-processed” - not technical definitions like NOVA. The ASA ruled that consumers would understand the term to mean minimal processing and also likely, from the context used in the ad "healthy".
• Evidence must match the claim: ZOE’s argument that most of its ingredients were whole foods didn’t hold up. Ingredients like chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast flakes were deemed too processed and it is not enough for most of the ingredients not to be UPFs if the product is being described as not a UPF.
• Context is key: In this case references to “whole foods” amplified the health implication, which raises questions of wider compliance with the regulation around health claims. 

If you’re unsure how your claims stack up, our Food and agribusiness team can help you navigate the regulatory landscape with confidence.
 
For more about this decision please see our full article here.

Our content explained