Two ads for Huel have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for implying that eating its products as everyday meal replacements is cheaper than consuming ‘traditional’ diets.
A Facebook and website page ad both claimed that the general public could save money on their monthly food bills by replacing meals with Huel shakes.
The social media ad read: “Huel helps keep money in your pockets. An entire month’s worth of Huel works out at less than £50. Huel isn’t just the healthy option with perfectly balanced protein, carbs, fats and fibres, it’s the smart option too.” Further text then added: “34 meals for £1.51 per meal.”
Complainants challenged whether proposing meal replacement products as a way of saving money on food was irresponsible and misleading. The ASA itself also enquired as to whether the claim “Huel isn’t just the healthy option …” was a general health claim which was not accompanied by an authorised health claim, as required by the Committee of Advertising Practise (CAP) code.
The food brand responded to the enquiries by stating that its ads had “not been a response to the financial crisis”, adding that substituting more expensive convenience foods for one meal a day would represent a cost saving. The company also admitted that it did not advocate the substitution of all meals and that its ads only referenced replacing one meal a day for a month. Huel also affirmed that it would take “immediate steps” in updating the ads so that they contained authorised health claims.
Subscribe to Marketing Beat for free
Sign up here to get the latest marketing news sent straight to your inbox each morning
Nevertheless, the advertising watchdog considered that consumers would view the ads in the context of that financial backdrop. The ad authority also believed that people would interpret the ads to mean that Huel products provided all the nutritional benefits of the types of processed foods referenced and could be eaten instead of ‘traditional’ meals that were based around such foods. It noted that one portion of Huel only contained 400 calories, meaning that an adult male would have to consumer six shakes a day to equal the recommended average daily recommended calorie intake.
The ASA also concluded that Huel had breached its codes in not accompanying a general health claim with a specific authorised health claim.
“We told Huel to ensure that their ads did not state or imply that eating Huel for all meals instead of a ‘traditional’ diet was cheaper, unless they held adequate substantiation,” the ASA added. “We also told them to ensure their ads did not imply that three portions of Huel per day contained sufficient calories.”
