The British Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) has banned a recent Huel advertisement, marking its third prohibition in two months.
- The ban involved claims about the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of Huel’s products compared to traditional vegetables.
- Huel’s Instagram post included statements about providing essential nutrients and being gut-friendly, which were deemed unsubstantiated by the ASA.
- The ASA ruling follows similar criticisms in August for not disclosing a key influencer’s investment in the company.
- Huel acknowledged editing errors in the advert and accepted the need for clearer substantiation of previous health claims.
The British Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) has again intervened regarding promotional content from the meal supplement company Huel, marking the third instance within a two-month timeframe. This latest incident concerns an Instagram post from April, where Huel purported benefits of its product in a manner deemed misleading by the advertising authority. The advert suggested that the product equated to traditional greens in terms of health benefits while being more cost-effective.
Central to the ASA’s concerns was the Instagram post featuring Julian Hearn, founder of Huel. In the post, Hearn claimed their product offered a wide array of greens in a single format, purportedly equivalent or superior to conventional consumption, and significantly cheaper. The post also highlighted the inclusion of probiotics, essential vitamins, and minerals that purportedly support reduced fatigue, healthy skin, and overall wellness.
However, the ASA flagged these assertions as insufficiently substantiated, especially the comparisons with fresh produce and claims of cost-effectiveness. The company’s defence pointed to an editing error, suggesting that the controversial post was intended to compare Huel with leading daily greens products, rather than fresh produce. Despite providing evidence of being cheaper than competitors, the ASA ruled that these comparisons, alongside health claims, were inadequately communicated in the social media post.
This ruling builds on a previous decision from August, where an advert was critiqued for failing to disclose the involvement of a notable investor and director in its promotions. Alongside Huel, another company associated with the investor faced similar regulatory action, indicating a broader scrutiny of promotional tactics linked to influential figures.
Huel, while defending the specific health qualities of their product, acknowledged that certain claims, such as being ‘gut-friendly’, could not be conclusively evidenced, necessitating a revision of their public communications strategies to align with regulatory standards.
The ASA’s actions highlight the importance of substantiated advertising claims, urging companies to rigorously evaluate promotional content and ensure transparency.
