On 11 March 2026, the ASA issued a republished ruling upholding its May 2025 decision, following a months‑long independent review initiated by ZOE.
The ruling centres on the definition of ‘real food’ and what constitutes ‘ultra-processed food’ (UPF) and focuses on the claim: “This is a supplement revolution. No ultra-processed pills, no shakes, just real food”.
The ASA’s earlier 2025 ruling stated that the average consumer would understand “ultra‑processed” as implying, in some way, a health characteristic, as well as meaning minimally processed. The advert also referenced wholefoods, which the ASA found further amplified these implications.
The ASA found the claim “This is a supplement revolution. No ultra-processed pills, no shakes, just real food” to be misleading due to the presence of at least two ingredients: chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast flakes. These weren’t considered wholefoods and had been through more than a minimal level of processing, such that consumers would consider them to be UPFs.
The most recent republished ruling provides some further clarification. The ASA entirely disregards any working legal definitions around what ultra-processed means, such as the NOVA classification used in the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee report Recipe for health: a plan to fix our broken food system. The report stated that UPFs were typically calorie-dense foods with few valuable nutrients, lacking fibre, containing high levels of unhealthy fats, refined sugar and salt, and whose ingredients had been altered. It wasn’t designed to be applied to individual ingredients, but rather an entire product.
The ASA states that it considers the specifics of how certain words may be interpreted and centres this understanding on the perspective of the average consumer, rather than any working industry or legal definition. On this consumer-focused perception point, the following interpretations were provided:
- UPF – products or ingredients created using complex or industrial processes that are not replicable in a typical domestic kitchen.
- Wholefood – food and food ingredients that are intact or close to their original state, prepared only through simple steps such as washing, peeling, chopping, drying or grinding.
- Just real food – reinforces the idea that the product comprised only recognisable, kitchen-cupboard, or otherwise minimally processed ingredients, rather than “foodstuffs” that have been altered through multiple processing stages or produced via complex or industrial processes.
The ASA concluded that where a product comprises wholefoods and recognisable kitchen-cupboard ingredients prepared only through simple steps, consumers would understand that it is not ultra-processed.
Therefore, the inherent underlying premise in the ASA’s latest republished ruling is that consumers understand UPF foods to be food produced by an industrial process. This brings an enormous percentage of the food sector under the UPF umbrella merely by reason of not being replicable in a typical domestic kitchen.
It also brings UPF much more closely into alignment with historic guidance around the term ‘natural’. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) 2008 guidance on certain marketing terms, based on research into consumer understanding of “Criteria for the use of the terms fresh, pure, natural etc. in food labelling,” states that products described as natural should be made using ingredients “produced by nature and not the work of man or interfered with by man”. These ingredients should have been subjected only to necessary processing to render them suitable for human consumption. The guidance has been extensively applied by the ASA.
In United Biscuits (UK) Ltd t/a Go Ahead, the ASA held that, despite a ‘store cupboard analogy’, the level of processing of sunflower oil and fat-reduced cocoa powder meant the natural claim made by United Biscuits was misleading. See Round-Up of ASA Rulings in Food & Drink Sector (March 2018).
It’s also interesting to note that the ASA is not treating wholefoods, or not being UPF, as a health claim under the Health and Nutrition Claims Regulation. Rather, it’s applying the rules on what is misleading to the average consumer.
Reliance on the reasonable consumer’s understanding will also mean there may be uncertainty over how certain claims may be substantiated. The ASA has shown an evolving understanding of certain claims, for instance ‘traditional’, with a shifting acceptance that consumers are aware that modern methods of operation may be necessary alongside such claims.
See Claims “rustic”, “traditional” and “authentic” examined by ASA.
A few practical tips for food businesses wishing to make positive claims on their products are:
- Substantiate claims based on consumer understanding rather than on what the claim actually says
- Consider the entire context of all associated claims and packaging
- Provide additional information to consumers where helpful, but take care that this doesn’t undermine or contradict the original statement or claim
- Obtain legal advice to support your process and due diligence
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.