New Decisions: Diet Products, Free Range Eggs and More

The following decisions have been published:

• Complaint 19/015 3M, Television, Not Upheld
• Complaint 19/036 Optislim, Television, Not Upheld
• Complaint 19/128 Liv’s Apothecary, Digital Marketing, Settled
• Complaint 19/130 Nature in Balance, Digital Marketing, Settled
• Complaint 19/132 Lion, Out of Home, Not Upheld
• Complaint 19/133 Z Energy, Out of Home, Settled
• Complaint 19/138 Griffins Food Company, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 19/143 Moola, Radio, Not Upheld
• Complaint 19/149 John Tamihere, Radio, Upheld
• Complaint 19/165 Rebel Sport, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 19/168 Heinz Wattie’s, Digital Marketing, Not Upheld
• Complaint 19/169 Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, Poster, No Ground to Proceed
• Complaint 19/170 Spark, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 19/172 Spark, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 19/177 Air Cycle, Poster, Settled
• Complaint 19/179 Life Pharmacy, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 19/180 Pak N Save, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 19/184 Secret Sound, Poster, Settled
• Complaint 19/186 For the Protection of Zion Trust, Newspaper, No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 19/187 2 Degrees, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 19/188 NZTA, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 19/189 ASB Bank, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 19/190 Pharmabroker Sales, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 19/192 Brand Developers, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 19/193 Mondelez NZ, Cadbury, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 19/194 Pet Refuge, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 19/196 Chorus, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 19/199 NZTA, Television, No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 19/200 Care Alliance, Digital Marketing, No Grounds to Proceed
• Complaint 19/201 Kai Point Coal, Print, No Grounds to Proceed

Product Comparison Was Not Misleading

The Optipharm television advertisement for Optislim says in part: “Optislim or Optifast – The names are similar, the ingredients are similar, so which one should you chose?”  The advertisement compares price and where the ingredients are sourced.

The Complainant said Optislim and Optifast are  not comparable, because Optislim contains wheat and is therefore not gluten-free like Optifast.

The Advertiser said both products are low calorie meal replacement shakes and are therefore comparable products.  The products were compared because they have a similar name and similar ingredients but there is price difference.  The Advertiser said Optislim is aimed at the average consumer and not intended to address dietary needs of specific groups.

The Complaints Board said the products featured in the advertisement are sufficiently alike to make the comparison between the two meaningful. The Complaints Board agreed that consumers who did have specific dietary restrictions are likely to be well versed in verifying ingredients at point of purchase and are therefore unlikely to be misled or deceived by the claims made in the advertisement. The Complaints Board said the comparative claim made in the advertisement were clear and consumers were unlikely to be misled. Accordingly, the complaint was Not Upheld.

Certification of Free Range Eggs Queried

Heinz Wattie’s website advertisement for Original Mayonnaise said in part “Making a mayonnaise with the finest ingredients, including free range eggs, unsurprisingly gives the greatest flavours.”

The Complainant said the use of the phrase “free range eggs” in the advertisement was misleading because the term “free range” can have a range of definitions and the certification should be defined.

The Advertiser said it is generally understood that the term “free range” refers to hens which have access to the outdoors. The Advertiser said the farms where they source their eggs meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare (Layer Hens) Code of Welfare 2012 and this code states “barns with access to outdoors are usually referred to as free range systems”, the minimum amount of space for free range hens is 1 hectare per 2,500 hens and no amount of time outdoors is specified.

The Complaints Board agreed the advertisement was not misleading because the phrase “free range eggs” in the advertisement meets the definition of “free range” in the Animal Welfare (Layer Hens) Code of Welfare 2012, which is the current industry standard. Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Not Upheld.