THE "GOUDEN WINDEI" CONTEST: MISLEADING PRODUCT NAMES?

The

Foodwatch's annual "Gouden Windei’ contest for the most misleading marketing is no longer an unfamiliar phenomenon. In 2011 around 10,000 consumers took part and voted. However, is the advertising of the nominees for the Gouden Windei contest really misleading? Some examples are discussed.

Nestlé FruitFlesje (“FruitBottle”) ended in second place for the Gouden Windei. According to Foodwatch, the name and depictions of strawberries on the packaging are misleading because the product only contains 7 percent strawberry puree. The Advertising Code Committee (RCC) holds that the packaging should be viewed in its entirety. In combination with the other statements on the product, there is no doubt about the product's composition: it is a follow-on milk with fruit flavouring. Not misleading; the RCC dismisses the complaint.

The same applies to the holder of third place in the Gouden Windei contest 2011: Crystal Clear Shine. The packaging does say “Cranberry Elderberry Blossom” but, unlike Foodwatch, the RCC does not believe that the name creates the impression that the product consists for a large part of cranberry and elderberry blossom. It is clear that the product tastes of cranberry and elderberry blossom. The consumer can read the exact quantities of these ingredients on the list of ingredients. The RCC settles the admissibility of the claims in relation to water and aloe vera on the transitional arrangement of the Claims Regulation. Moreover, Vrumona has adequately disputed that health claims should not be made for products containing artificial sweeteners.

The RCC also does not follow Foodwatch for the Limburg Cream of Asparagus soup made by Honig, number 4 in the Gouden Windei contest 2011. According to the RCC, the packaging does not create the wrong expectation for the consumer. Asparagus is actually used in the soup and the minor amount of 0.5 percent is evidenced by the statement of ingredients. The name of the product simply refers to the specific flavour and characteristic ingredients of which the product consists.

The consumer is also not being misled by the texts “46% Fruit filling” and “With lots of extra fruit filling”. Foodwatch thinks it is: a Liga Fruitkick bar only contains 6.7 percent fruit and further mainly sugar and glucose fructose syrup. According to the RCC, the consumer understands that fruit is processed in some form in the filling but that also other possible ingredients are used as well. The list of ingredients is clear. The RCC does not find the promotion of “responsible" inadmissible. Liga is evidently referring here to the presence of grains and fruit and a lower sugar content compared to other fruit bars. Therefore the RCC also dismisses the complaint against number 5 of the Gouden Windei contest 2011.

Hence, the RCC rejects all of Foodwatch's complaints against numbers 2 to 5 of the Gouden Windei collection 2011. In all these cases, the RCC has assumed that the “average careful considerate consumer" looks further than the end of his nose. This consumer sees the entire packaging and reads the ingredients on the label to see what the product contains exactly. This appears to be a different consumer from the people who voted in Foodwatch's Gouden Windei contest. Being placed in the top 5 of the Gouden Windei therefore does not equate being defined as misleading by the Advertising Code Committee!

Kim Braber

Vrumona was assisted in the Crystal Clear case by Ebba Hoogenraad and Kim Braber

Hoogenraad & Haak advocaten

office
Emerald House
Jozef Israëlskade 48-G
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
t +31 (0)20 - 305 3066
www.hoogenhaak.nl

post
PO Box 76780
1070 KB Amsterdam
e info@hoogenhaak.nl
f +31 (0)20 - 305 3069
chamber of commerce 34314579

THE "GOUDEN WINDEI" CONTEST: MISLEADING PRODUCT NAMES?

The