Claims “rustic”, “traditional” and “authentic” examined by ASA

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled on advertising from Hovis Ltd t/a Hovis  that complaints should not be upheld concerning internet and social media content (own content and site)  on 28 February 2024

Three webpages and an Instagram post were held not to have misleadingly used the terms “rustic”, “authentic”, “traditional”, “artisanal-inspired bread” and “no artificial preservatives”.  The ruling highlighted the importance of context and specifying what part of the product or process the claim may relate to.  The ASA maintained their position that a consumer would have broad understanding of industrial mass production. Also, the importance for producers to have substantiated all the claims they use in advertising.

The Complaints

The Real Bread Campaign (Sustain), who understood the bread was produced using automated industrial techniques, and that it included artificial preservatives, challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:

1. “rustic”, “authentic” and “traditional”;

2. “artisanal-inspired bread”; and

3. “no artificial preservatives”.

ASA Ruling

The ASA considered that because the Hovis brand was well known, the ads appeared on their own website and Instagram page, and the products were shown in plastic packaging, consumers would understand that the products had been produced on an industrial scale. As such, it was probable that they contained some additional ingredients and processes to those used in handmade breads.

This position underlined that the mere use of these terms would not be persuasive in themselves to inform the entirety of the processes the product would have been subject to and what the consumer would infer from them.

Traditional - The claim “traditional” was made in reference to the starter dough, and not a wider claim that the breads had been made using only traditional processes or ingredients.  The ASA ruled that because consumers would be aware that the breads had been mass-produced, they considered that the claim was not misleading.

Authentic - The claim “authentic” was in reference to the breads’ bloomer shape; it had been baked in a shallow tin and not in a bread tin, and so the claim was specific to this aspect.  The ASA again maintained because consumers would be aware that the breads had been mass-produced that the claim was not misleading.

In relation to another ad that referenced the Rustic Granary Bloomer, the claim ‘authentic’ was made in a specific context about the finish of the bread. Again the ASA maintained, because consumers would understand that the bread had been mass-produced, they considered that the claim was not misleading.

Rustic - Regarding the term “rustic”, the ASA noted Hovis’s comment that it could be defined as meaning simple and often rough in appearance, and typical of the countryside. The ASA heard the breads in the ads were not made using the Chorleywood high speed mixing process, contained fewer additives, included a starter dough in addition to yeast and were not baked in bread tins. The ASA therefore considered that the processes and ingredients used to make the breads were simpler than other mass-produced bread products and would result in loaves of bread that had a less uniformed appearance. Therefore, for those reasons and because consumers would understand that the breads had been mass-produced, they considered that the claim was not misleading.

Artisan-Inspired – The ASA held consumers would understand the reference to “artisanal-inspired bread”, to mean that the breads were premium products that were in the style of an artisan bread, in part because of its taste and shape, rather than having been made using the same ingredients and processes as handmade bread. The claim was therefore held not to be misleading.

No artificial preservatives – The ASA considered that consumers would understand that the products had been produced on an industrial scale and therefore probably contained some ‘additional ingredients’ other than the basic ingredients required to make bread. Where the claim appeared in the ads, the full list of ingredients which stated “Emulsifier: E472e, Flour Treatment Agent: Ascorbic Acid” were clearly visible. Neither E472e (DATEM) nor E300 (ascorbic acid) were classified as a preservative under that additives legislation (Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.)  Consumers could clearly see all the ingredients in the products, including that there were additives, but that these had designations other than preservative.  Therefore, because the breads did not contain any preservatives and the lists of ingredients were presented clearly alongside the claim which made clear that they contained other additives, we concluded that the claim “no artificial preservatives” was not misleading.  Therefore, because the breads did not contain any preservatives and the lists of ingredients were presented clearly alongside the claim which made clear that they contained other additives, the ASA concluded that the claim “no artificial preservatives” was not misleading.

Previous Ruling - Pret a Manger

In April 2018 the ASA had considered some similar issues for Pret a Manger ads Pret A Manger (Europe) Ltd - ASA | CAP Please see Round-Up of ASA Rulings in Food & Drink Sector (April 2018) - Mills & Reeve (mills-reeve.com) 

The ASA held a similar position in that they inferred the reasonable consumer would understand modern methods of operation. In this case the ASA held that consumers would be ‘very familiar’ with the high street sandwich shop industry, including products which had been part-baked off-site or delivered as raw dough and baked in store.

Food Standards Agency (FSA) Guidance

In the current Hovis ruling the ASA did not refer to the FSA guidance document from 2008 Draft Executive Summary of FAC Review of the use of the terms Fresh, Pure, Natural etc (food.gov.uk)  Although the review is now quite old, it is still useful for an overview for advertisers and producers in the use where these words are not defined under legislation.

Some additional pointers on the relevant terms are as follows:

Traditional – “It is misleading to use the term “traditional”, without qualification, simply to distinguish an “original” recipe from subsequent variants. Manufacturers and retailers should pay particular attention to the use of ingredients, particularly additives, and to the use of processes that have not been used in food manufacture for the significant period of time indicated above. They must ensure that the term does not imply a composition or production method that would not be regarded as “traditional” by the average consumer and should consider whether the term “original recipe” or similar expression may be more appropriate. There should be evidence to substantiate the use of the word for the particular product.” (para 70)

Authentic – “The term “authentic” is used:
• to indicate the true origin of a product where the description may be in wider, generic use;
• to convey to consumers that a product has particular characteristics that have not been adjusted for the British palate (e.g. authentic Indian[1]recipe curry dishes);
• to indicate single types of rice, where this is important because they have particular characteristics.” (Para 77)