Beanz do not mean claims: Heinz UK ad banned for suggestive comparison to protein shake

26 Jul 2018 --- A television advertisement for Heinz Beanz has been banned by the UK’s Advertising Standards Agency, after a complainant challenged whether the ad included a nutrition claim which complied with the UK’s advertising codes. It is the second time the ad has been banned, after it had been edited following a previous ASA decision. 

With the current surge in protein claims on NPD in recent years, suppliers have been keen to add nutritional claims on relatively standard fare in a whole host of diverse product categories. This decision must highlight how brands should tread carefully when comparing standard food products with those that have been specifically developed with protein boosting properties in mind and could therefore be an indirect win for the sports nutrition sector.

The advert, which aired in February 2018, depicts a man arriving home to his family and being asked whether he was hungry. The man subsequently says: “Yeah I'm on a new regime” before taking a drink from the fridge and saying: “Dean calls the ‘three Ps’ … This is the last P: Protein, with high fiber and minimal fat.” 

In response, the woman says: “Right. We’re just having some beans.” The screen displays text stating: “High in protein. High in Fiber. Low in Fat,” then displaying a can of Heinz Beanz with the accompanying text, “Good for you, without going on about it.”

In response to the ASA decision, HJ Heinz Foods UK Ltd reportedly said that the ad “made the authorized nutrition claims that a portion of Heinz Beanz was high in protein, high in fiber and low in fat.”

Heinz had edited the ad following a previous ASA decision and reportedly said that it did not make a comparative nutrition claim. The edited ad had been approved by ad clearance agency Clearcast, which said it did not believe that the ad compared the two food products shown in the ad, or made the claim that the two food products had the same or similar nutritional values. They considered that the ad instead made the authorized nutrition claims that a portion of Heinz Beanz was high in protein, high in fibre and low in fat.

According to Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (the Regulation), which was reflected in the BCAP Code, only nutrition claims listed in the Annex of the Regulation are permitted in ads promoting foods. Marketers must ensure the food met the conditions of use associated with the claims in question. EC and Department of Health Guidance noted that the claim “as much as,” or any claim having the same meaning, was considered to be a nutrition claim and as such must be listed in the Annex. 

However, that claim was not listed in the Annex and therefore such claims were not permitted. The ASA acknowledged that Heinz Beans were able to make the nutrition claims “High in Protein”, “High in Fibre” and “Low in Fat” about their beans.

Noting that the drink in the ad had a thick texture, was contained in a protein shaker-style flask and was being consumed after what appeared to be an exercise session, ASA reports that consumers would understand that the man was consuming a protein shake that was also high in fiber and low in fat. 

In the context of the man’s statements, the woman’s statement “Right. We’re just having some beans” could be interpreted by viewers to mean that the beans had as much protein, fiber and fat as the protein shake that had just been displayed, particularly as directly afterwards, the text “High in protein. High in Fibre. Low in Fat” appeared next to the bowl of beans. 

As such, “the overall impression created by the ad was that Heinz Beanz contained as much protein, fibre and fat as a typical protein shake. We considered consumers would therefore interpret the ad as presenting Heinz Beanz as a tastier and more appetising, but nutritionally equivalent, alternative to consuming a protein shake,” ASA says. “Because we considered that the ad made a nutrition claim which was not permitted in the Annex to the Regulation, we concluded that the claims were in breach of the Code.”