Friday, January 02, 2015

Sugar Puffs rapped by advertising watchdog for suggesting that its 'honey goodness' was healthy for children

The Honey Monster has been slapped down by advertising watchdogs for suggesting honey is good for children.

The cereal that the character promotes, Sugar Puffs, has been banned from claiming it contains 'honey goodness' – as honey is just as bad for the body as sugar.

The Advertising Standards Authority ruled that the boast amounts to a bogus health claim.

Sales of honey are soaring, apparently because of the belief that as a natural product it is better for you. But health experts point out that once honey is consumed it behaves the same way in the body as sugar.

The advert on the cereal's website carried the claims: 'Yummy Honey Goodness For A Monsterfied Breakfast... 20% More Honey'.

This idea that the cereal – which contains 8.6 grams of sugar per 30g serving – was full of goodness was backed up by claims that it was low in fat and salt and a good source of fibre, vitamins and iron.

The ruling came after a complaint by the Children's Food Campaign, which said there was no specific authorised health claim to back up the honey goodness line.

Halo Foods, which owns the Honey Monster brand, said it had increased the amount of honey in the cereal while reducing the amount of sugar as part of a re-launch.

It said the website and the cereal's packaging provided detailed information about the ingredients and the company was 'transparent' about the sugar content of the product.

Halo Foods said it did not intend to make any specific health claims in association with honey and had therefore amended its website to remove any reference to the word goodness.


As recently as two years ago, the official advice was that fat is bad for you and carbohydrates (such as sugar) are good for you.  The advice now is the exact reverse of that.  It must set heads spinning for anybody who tries to do the right thing  -- including the firm above.


Jerry Doctor said...

How is "honey goodness" a health claim? Can't it simply mean it tastes good - like honey?

Can Campbell's no longer say their soup is "Mmm, Mmm, Good" because it contains a lot of sodium? When KFC tells me their chicken is 'finger licking good" are they trying to convince me it's a health food?

Am I sick of people forcing their opinions on me for my own "good?" Darn right I am!

Anonymous said...

What about Monsters? Surely someone can have an issue there.

Olaf Koenders said...

In Australia KFC's slogan went from the ancient "finger lickin' good" to "so good" because "finger lickin'" implied excessive oil, fat or something.

Every 20 years fashion changes to and from bug-eyed sunglasses, bell-bottom pants, black leggings with long jumpers etc.

Same with the so-called "health" industry. They've got no idea what they're on about.

I remember back in the late 70's red meat was good for you but potatoes had too much starch. Then red meat was a no-no and potatoes had god-ordained fibre. It's since swung around again.

If you have a slogan on your product these days, expect it to somehow be wrong or racist tomorrow.

The only way health "authorities" can justify their existence is to mess with the system constantly. Meanwhile, I saw a documentary on a 23 year old that hadn't eaten anything but fries since she was a toddler, without apparent ill effects.

If you can give your kid honey sandwiches for school lunch but not candy sprinkle ones after this new "decision", it's a wonder nobody forces these authorities and standards organisations to prove exactly what they currently claim and justify what they claimed every time in the past.

Bird of Paradise said...

Soon Toucan Sam,Snap,Crackle & Pop as well as Digum the From,tony the tiger,the Trix Rabbit and Captian Crunch to be placed on a list of crinimals by the usial wheatgerm inhaling heath freaks