Steven bartlett ad for tim spector's zoe daily30+ banned for upf free claim

THE AUTHORITY SAYS SOME OF THE INGREDIENTS USED WOULD BE UNDERSTOOD TO BE ULTRA-PROCESSED NEIL SHAW Assistant Editor 06:35, 21 May 2025 An advert for nutrition brand Zoe featuring Dragons’

Den star Steven Bartlett has been banned for misleadingly claiming that a supplement did not contain any ultra-processed ingredients. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that

Zoe’s Daily30+ “plant-based wholefood supplement” contained at least two ingredients – chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast flakes – that were not whole foods and had been through more

than a minimal level of processing. The ASA said a Facebook ad for the product was therefore likely to mislead consumers by implying it did not contain any ingredients that would be

considered ultra-processed. Zoe said it strongly refuted the ruling and was in the process of appealing against it. The ad, which stated the supplement contained chicory inulin, included a

testimonial from Bartlett, who is an investor in Zoe, which read: “This is a supplement revolution. No ultra-processed pills, no shakes, just real food.” The complainant, a professor in

nutrition and food science who the ASA has not named, challenged whether Bartlett’s claim misleadingly implied that the product did not contain any ultra-processed ingredients (UPFs).

Responding to the complaint, Zoe said the ad did not claim Daily 30+ was not ultra-processed, or that it did not include any UPFs. Instead, the ad explained the product was not an

ultra-processed pill, unlike other supplements that would be considered ultra-processed because they contained artificial flavourings and additives. Zoe said the advertised product was a

combination of 32 different foods including vegetables, fruits, seeds and mushrooms, that was to be put directly on to other food to increase fibre intake. While some ingredients were

powdered, the only liquid ingredient was chicory root inulin, used in the product for its fibre health benefit. Similarly, nutritional yeast flakes, which Zoe described as a commonly used

culinary ingredient, was a form of heated yeast, had known health benefits that included B-vitamins and minerals and was a good source of protein. Article continues below They explained that

none of the ingredients were typical UPF ingredients and the processes used could be replicated in a small-scale home kitchen. It added that the product was a plant mix that was distinctly

different from UPF products high in additives, fat, salt and sugar that were associated with poor health outcomes, and that labelling of their product as UPF on the basis of a higher level

of processing of two ingredients would create a misunderstanding and increase consumer misinformation. The ASA acknowledged that there was no universally accepted definition of UPFs, but it

considered consumers would understand the claim “wholefood supplement” to mean the product comprised solely of wholefood ingredients. It said Bartlett’s testimony would have contributed to

this overall impression. The ASA said: “We acknowledged consumers were likely to understand that most food products had been subject to some level of processing, for example cleaning or

chopping. They were unlikely to consider foods that had undergone that minimal level of processing to be UPFs. However, at least two ingredients, chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast

flakes, were not whole foods and had been through more than a minimal level of processing. “Nutritional yeast was manufactured, and chicory root inulin was extracted using an industrial

process. For the latter, the extraction process included slicing and steeping, purification using carbonated water as well as evaporation, partial enzymatic hydrolysis (adding of enzymes)

and filtration. While some of those processes were relatively simple in isolation, we considered the number of stages used in processing went beyond what consumers would interpret as minimal

and we considered they would likely understand chicory root inulin as UPFs.” It said it considered Bartlett’s testimony to imply that the product did not contain any ingredients that

consumers would interpret as ultra-processed “when that was not the case and was therefore likely to mislead”. It ruled that the ad must not appear in the form complained about, adding: “We

told Zoe not to make claims that their products did not contain UPF ingredients if consumers were likely to interpret the ingredients to be ultra-processed.” Zoe co-founder Professor Tim

Spector said: “We categorically reject the idea that this advert is misleading, or that Daily30+ – or any of its ingredients – could be classed as ultra-processed. The ad clearly states that

Daily30+ doesn’t contain ultra-processed pills or shakes. That’s because it doesn’t. It is made entirely from whole food ingredients, and is designed to be added to meals – not taken as a

pill or a shake. The claim is factually accurate and irrefutable.” He added: “We fully stand by Daily30+’s integrity, its health benefits for consumers, and our expertise in nutrition

science and improving public health. To go after a product that is designed to improve health whilst doing very little about the harmful marketing and advertising of unhealthy junk food to

children and vulnerable individuals is nothing short of disgraceful.” A spokesman for Bartlett said: “For the avoidance of any doubt, this ruling is not against Steven Bartlett whatsoever.

The advert was not posted by Steven, nor did it appear on any of his channels. It was posted by Zoe Ltd on their own channel. Article continues below “The ASA issued this ruling after

receiving a single complaint from a member of the public, and it is directed solely at Zoe Ltd. It is for Zoe Ltd to debate the merits of the ruling.”