Joanne Scott

A TV ad for Diet Chef, seen in July 2016, featured a character, Cheryl, talking to her former self two months after starting Diet Chef. The voice-over stated, “Two months after starting with diet chef Cheryl meets her former self.” The former and current Cheryl then had a conversation, “I know how you feel, you can look that good again you know”, “You look, amazing. I never dreamed I could be that slim again”, “It feels good. Why did we wait so long?”, “I just didn’t believe I could do it. I just couldn’t stick to anything”, “I bought a bikini last week, for the first time since this picture”, “I want it, I want what you’ve got”, “You can”, “How?”. The voice-over then stated, “Discover why over a 150,000 people like Cheryl have chosen diet chef to lose weight. Go to dietchef.co.uk now.” The former Cheryl was shown wearing a baggy shirt and with messy hair and appeared distressed, with the current Cheryl shown in a more fitted outfit with a more polished appearance and a happier demeanour. Both versions of the character were played by the same actor.

Twenty-six viewers, who variously believed that the ad exploited women’s insecurities about their bodies by implying that you needed to be slim in order to be attractive and happy and implied that overweight women did not take care of themselves or their appearance, objected that the ad was offensive and irresponsible.

Diet Chef Ltd stated that, as a diet plan company, they recognised that weight control could be a sensitive issue for many consumers. As a result, they took their responsibilities as an advertiser seriously. They said that the ad did not make any statements to the effect that consumers needed to be slim in order to be attractive and happy, or that overweight women did not take care of themselves or their appearances. Neither did they believe that this could be interpreted from the general look and feel of the ad. They stated that the contrast in emotions between the two versions of the character showed the frustration of the former Cheryl, who did not feel able to make a change in her lifestyle or to maintain a controlled diet and so was surprised that she had done so, and the sense of achievement of the current Cheryl, who encouraged her former self to make such a change and suggested how she could do so. They provided a document showing that when playing the former Cheryl, the actor had a BMI of 27.4, which was in the overweight category.

Diet Chef acknowledged that the former version of the character was wearing a baggy shirt and had messy hair while the current version wore a more fitted outfit and looked more polished. However, they did not believe that this implied that overweight women did not take care of themselves or their appearance. Instead, they said the change of appearance reflected the change in her lifestyle and “taking control”. They said that the overall approach of the ad was typical of the “before and after” genre of ads commonly used to advertise weight loss products, and that viewers would see the ad in that context.

They did not believe that the ad was exploitative of women and stated that it was not designed to shame women and did not imply that a certain body type was inferior. As such, they did not believe that the ad was offensive.

Clearcast said that they recognised that weight and body image were sensitive topics and they took this into consideration when working with the agency and the advertiser in the pre-production process. They stated that the ad contained a testimonial from a former customer in which she explained, in her own words, her thoughts and feelings about her struggle with her weight and how she felt, and believed that she looked better when she was in control of her eating habits and at a healthier weight. While the post-diet version of Cheryl wore a more close-fitting top and wore more makeup to show a more obvious manifestation of her physical and emotional achievement, they emphasised that both versions of the character were well-presented. They believed that the ad had been prepared with a sense of responsibility to the audience, ensuring that it faithfully captured the content of the testimonial, and did not suggest that overweight individuals did not take care of themselves or that women needed to be slim to be attractive.

The ASA noted that, while the former version of Cheryl appeared less polished than the current version, who had styled hair and wore more make-up, she did not give the impression that she had neglected her personal appearance. We therefore considered that viewers were unlikely to see the ad as implying that overweight women did not take care of themselves or their appearances, and concluded that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

We noted that the former version of Cheryl appeared distressed after looking at a picture of herself wearing a bikini when she was slimmer, and her voice sounded tearful. When she was presented with the future version of herself and the suggestion that she could look like that as well, the tone in which she said “I want it, I want what you’ve got” and “How?” gave the impression that she was desperate to lose weight. The character’s unhappy demeanour appeared disproportionate to concerns about her weight, especially as she did not appear to be particularly overweight, despite being dressed in baggy clothing. We considered that viewers would understand that her concerns about her weight had had a significant effect on her general well-being. We considered that, overall, the ad focused disproportionately on the former Cheryl’s negative feelings about her appearance, and implied that weight loss was the only solution to her problems. It therefore implied that those with insecurities about their bodies, and particularly their weight, could only achieve happiness and self-confidence through weight loss. We therefore concluded that the ad presented a socially irresponsible approach to body image and breached the Code.

The World Medical Association has lent its weight in support of tough new policies to curb obesity, including taxes on junk food and sugary drinks as well as bans on advertising to children.

“A comprehensive program is needed to prevent and address obesity in all segments of the population, with a specific focus on children”, WMA said in a statement published at its annual meeting in Taiwan.

“The approach must include initiatives on price and availability of nutritious foods, access to education, advertising and marketing, information, labelling and other areas specific to regions and countries’.

WMA called on governments to consider taxes on unhealthy foods and sugary drinks, and use the additional revenue to find research aimed at preventing childhood obesity.

However, it is advertising that appears to be concerning world health leaders the most. Many advertisements are in conflict with nutritional recommendations of medical and scientific bodies. WMA noted, with junk food adverts often scheduled for times when there is a large concentration of child viewers.

The announcement comes in week when campaigners and industry came to blows over the EU pledge, a voluntary agreement made almost 10 years ago in which major manufacturers committed to change the way they advertise to children.

WMA highlighted the scientifically proven link between the extent of media consumption and adverse effects of body weight on children. Whether it’s traditional television marketing or through social networks, video games and websites, WMA said the adverts being used increase children’s emotional response to brands and exploit their trust.

“We know there is a link between the extent of advertising and childhood obesity, and so we are recommending that the advertising of non-nutritious products on television be restricted during programmes that appeal to children”, explained the WMA president.

The BEUC also claim that the results of the industry led EU pledge on marketing to children had been patchy. The nutritional criteria is not strict enough, said the consumer group, as it targeted more action from industry as part of a new campaign.

The EU Pledge secretariat hit back at the claims and states the average child under 12 now sees 88% fewer ads for products that do not meet the Pledge’s nutrition data compared to 2005.

The EU should place mandatory limits on industrially-produced trans-fatty acids (TFA) which may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, infertility, Alzheimer’s, diabetes and obesity for consumers, says a resolution voted on this month. TFA intake is mostly linked to consumption of industrially produced, partially hydrogenated oils.

MEPs mention the fact that, according to the European Commission, only one in three consumers in the EU knows about TFAs which shows that labelling measures are not enough. The Commission should therefore propose an EU legal limit on the industrial TFA content of all foods as soon as possible, and preferably within two years, say MEPs.

MEPs say that there is evidence that Denmark’s introduction of legal limits for industrial TFAs, which brought in a national limit of 2% on trans fats in oils and fats in 2003, was successful, significantly reducing deaths caused by cardiovascular disease.

TFAs tend to be used in cheaper foods, which means that people on lower incomes are most exposed to foodstuffs with a higher TFA content. This in turn increases the potential for widening health inequalities, MEPs say.

The resolution was passed by 586 votes to 19, with 38 abstentions.

What are TFAs?
Trans-fatty acids (TFAs) are unsaturated fats found in foods obtained from ruminants, in some food products of vegetable origin, and in industrially-produced partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. Their consumption has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. High TFA intake is a risk factor for developing coronary heart disease, which accounts for some 660,000 deaths annually in the EU or some 14% of overall mortality, according to the European Commission.

Denmark was the first EU member state to limit the content of trans fats in oils and fats by law in 2003. Similar national legal limits have since been introduced in Austria (2009) Hungary (2013) and Latvia (2015). Voluntary measures to reduce TFA content are in place in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, the UK and Greece. National dietary recommendations on TFAs have been issued in Bulgaria, Malta, Slovakia, the UK and Finland.

In June 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a decision determining that partially hydrogenated oils, the primary dietary source of industrial trans fats in processed foods, were no longer “generally recognized as safe” for use in human food and are to be prohibited by June 2018.

THE STORY SO FAR

Until late 2014, labelling of foods in the UK had largely been controlled by The Food Labelling Regulations 1996 (FLRs). These gave effect to requirements laid down in European directives in areas such as food labelling, nutrition labelling, and labelling of alcohol. Control via directives meant that every Member State was obliged to pass legislation that attained the aims of the directives – a harmonisation process. FLRs also contained UK provisions such as compositional requirements for cream and ice cream, and rules relating to misleading descriptions. The FLRs were largely revoked on 14th December 2014 by the Food Information Regulations 2014 (FIRs).

FIRs were made at UK level, and do not contain much detail in respect of requirements for food information to consumers for pre-packed foods. The detail is held in Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 on the Provision of Food Information to Consumers(FIC). FIC takes the form of a directly applicable European regulation, meaning that every Member State has exactly the same legislation. This is a method of standardisation across Europe.

FIRs contain detail of offences, enforcement provisions and penalties, and also provides for derogated provisions which are those that FIC allows Member States to decide and legislate upon at national level. Examples of these include labelling of foods sold loose, pre-packed for direct sale, or by catering establishments and the method by which allergen information is given to consumers by these Food Business Operators (FBO).

FIC has been in force since November 2011, but has become a legal requirement since 13 December 2014. Any food placed on the market or labelled from this date must comply with FIC. Products that have been labelled or placed on the market before this date can still be sold, even if they have a very long shelf life. However, stocks of non-compliant labels not attached to foods can no longer be used. There are exceptions to the main date in respect of labelling of minced meat (in force from 1 January 2014) and mandatory nutrition labelling (in force from 13 December 2016). However, where nutrition declarations have been given (either voluntarily or to comply with previous legislation), these must comply with FIC format from 13 December 2014. Extended country of origin requirements for ‘popular’ meats came into force on 1 April 2015. Some provisions from Food Labelling Regulations 1996, including compositional requirements for cheese and labelling of alcoholic drinks under 1.2% abv will be retained until 13 December 2018.

The main changes to provision of food labelling information have been well publicised and there is particularly useful guidance available relating to labelling of allergens, nutrition declarations and front of pack labelling. The last of these is voluntary, but has its roots in FIC since the Regulation permits repeating of prescribed nutrition information on the main face of packages.

FIC is littered with further developments (some mandatory, some voluntary) that will be carried out at European level, and so it seems as though change in requirements for food information will be with us for some years to come.

For more information please call +44 345 548 8900 and speak with a member of the team or e-mail enquiries@strawberrystandards.com



When you sell food online into Europe, the food you sell is subject to the full body of EU food law including hygiene & safety, traceability, product withdrawal, recall procedures and labelling.

You must ensure that you make the same level of consumer information available to your customers, via your website, as when the food is bought from a high street retail shop, including;