A radio advertisement stating that “fizzy drinks and fruit juice make our children sick” led to the severe distress of a child, who questioned whether her school was poisoning her by giving her fruit juice to drink.
This in turn prompted her father to turn to the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB), who found that the advertisement by the Healthy Living Alliance was misleading. It found that the advertisement went too far in its shock value, leading the public, especially children, to believe that the consumption of sugary drinks will in all cases lead to chronic illness.
HEALA.org, a non-profit organisation, used the advert to inspire the public to sign a petition in favour of the sugar tax. After the ARB ruled against it, the organisation turned to the Advertising Appeal Committee (AAC) to take a second look at the facts of the case. The complaint was that the advert creates the impression that any consumption of sugary drinks will cause disease.
In defending the radio ad, HEALA said it makes a very narrow claim – that “sugary beverages make children ill by leading to obesity, heart disease and diabetes later in life”. It argued the advertisement does not claim definitively that consuming sugar-sweetened drinks will always cause this disease, it said.
HEALA pointed out that its website provides research and scientific information in support of its position on sugar consumption. HEALA’s advocacy is not based on opinion or speculation but anchored in robust scientific evidence and validated through context-specific expertise, it was argued.
Heala said that it is a non-profit civil society organisation that used this campaign to improve consumer awareness about the health promotion levy and to try garner support for a sugar tax.
All the advert seeks to do is make consumers aware of a potential problem and encourage them to sign a petition on HEALA’s website, it said. The advertisement was advocacy rather than advertising and is therefore exempt from the provisions on misleading advertising, it told the appeal tribunal.
The tribunal, however, said the issue of sugar consumption, the extent of consumption and the impacts thereof on health are clearly issues that are the subject of some controversy.
“The advertisement in our view clearly contains expressions of fact rather than opinion. That this is so, is clear from HEALA’s own response to the complaint in which it refers to its website containing extensive research and scientific information in support of its position on sugar consumption,” the tribunal said.
It added that HEALA’s own description of the contents of its advertisement and of the information to which consumers are directed suggests that this advertisement is not conveying an opinion but rather a series of facts.
“All advertisements should be legal, decent, honest and truthful. Listening to the advertisement, it is clear that the message that a reasonable consumer would receive is that any consumption of fizzy sugary drinks leads to disease,” the committee said.
It found that the advertisement is clearly designed to shock the consumer sufficiently that they visit the HEALA website, sign the petition and stop drinking sugary drinks. “The thrust of the advertisement is that any consumption of sugary drinks will lead to disease and this is clearly not accurate.”
Although finding the advertisement is misleading, the committee recognised and commended the work that HEALA is doing in the interests of public health. It ruled the advertisement must not be aired in its current form.
