In January 2010 it successfully forced Cape Oil and Margarine to acknowledge it mislead consumers by claiming its product is a margarine, when it is in fact a spread. The TV ad claimed that "We all enjoy great tasting margarines" and "For a margarine that offers value, versatility and a taste your family will love, switch to Sunshine D."
Initial complaint
The initial complaint also related to claims used in promotional packaging and in a Brand Power TV ad that "Sunshine D Lite is rich in vitamins A, D, E & Omega 3 and 6 essential fatty acids which helps maintain a healthy heart" and that "Sunshine D Lite now offers more nutritional value:
Cape Oil and Margarine agreed to stop using the phrases in question.
Now Cape Oil and Margarine has failed in an appeal against a second ASA ruling stating it must withdraw claims that "Sunshine D Lite now offers more nutritional value: calcium for building strong bones and teeth, iron for improving memory and energy, zinc for strengthening immunity and healthy skin..."
Again lodged by Unilever SA, the latest complaint called for proof "that eating Sunshine D Lite, in the normal quantities that a hypothetical reasonable consumer would eat, would give rise to the health benefits referred to in the various claims".
Cape Oil and Margarine responded that "there was no dispute that the there was added calcium, iron and zinc in the product."
Attorney speak
You guessed right - this is attorney speak for "let's confuse the issue."
Attorneys Adams & Adams sent the ASA documentation which showed that calcium, iron and zinc served the purposes referred to. But the ASA would have none of this. It rightly pointed out that "none of the published articles and documents submitted in substantiation of the claims dealt specifically with the product in issue".
On rejecting the appeal lodged by Cape Oil and Margarine, the Advertising Industry Tribunal provided further clarification on the original ASA ruling. While the ASA and Unilever did not dispute that the individual elements deliver the claimed benefit, they did dispute that a normal serving of a product is sufficient to contribute to the claimed benefits. The Department of Health also confirmed that the claims by Sunshine D Lite contravened food labelling regulations.
"Could not counter submission"
"While the appellant tried to make much of the fact that a 100g portion of the product contains at least 15 % of the RDA, it could not counter the submission by the respondent that it could by no stretch of the imagination be said that 100g would constitute a reasonable serving size or even a reasonable daily intake of margarine," the Advertising Industry Tribunal said in its ruling.
"Accordingly, we agree with the Directorate that the appellant failed to substantiate the claims as required. We are of the view that they are also misleading because they create the impression that if they eat the product, consumers will obtain at least some level of the benefits referred to in the claims, when in fact according to the appellant's own evidence, it is only in conjunction with a healthy diet that the product may (if at all) help to provide the benefits associated with these elements."
Nobody likes watching the biggest kid on the block punching down the smaller guys - even if it does so within the rules and regulations set by governing bodies. Just like nobody likes being sold claims of nonsense health benefits. Consumers can take heart in that Sunshine D Lite must feel a little like they do right about now. My only question is: if Unilever keeps such a close eye on its competitors - who keeps an eye on Unilever?
For more, go to www.asasa.org.za.
