A recent complaint regarding Kellogg’s advertisement for its Nutri-Grain Vanilla Malt Flavour cereal has been dismissed by the Ad Standards Community Panel.
The complaint, lodged under Case Number 0203-24, alleged that the advertisement was misleading, suggesting it downplayed the high sugar content of the product despite claims of being “light on sugar” and containing “25% less sugar”.
The two versions of the advertisement in question featured a voice-over promoting the new Nutri-Grain flavour as having “25% less sugar” and being “light on sugar,” aiming to appeal to health-conscious consumers. However, the complainant argued that these claims were deceptive, as the cereal still contained 17.7g of sugar per 100g, a significant amount compared to alternatives like Weetbix, which contains only 3g of sugar per 100g. The complaint called this a “serious misrepresentation” of the product’s sugar content.
In its defence, Kellogg argued that both the “25% less sugar” and “light on sugar” claims are legally authorized by the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (ANZFSC). The company clarified that the reduced sugar claim was based on a comparison with the original Nutri-Grain cereal, which contains 24g of sugar per 100g. This met the regulatory requirements, as the reduction exceeded 25%.
Kellogg also noted that the claim “light on sugar” was a relative claim, not to be confused with the absolute claim of being “low in sugar.” The company further emphasized that Nutri-Grain Vanilla Malt Flavour cereal had a 4.5 health star rating and met all criteria for health claims under the ANZFSC.
The Ad Standards Community Panel concluded that the advertisement was not misleading or deceptive under Section 2.1 of the AANA Food and Beverages Code. The Panel determined that the average consumer would understand the claim “light on sugar” compared to the original Nutri-Grain product rather than implying the product was low in sugar. Given that the claims were factually accurate and substantiated by regulatory standards, the Panel dismissed the complaint.
Dangers Of “Sugar-Coating” The Truth
While the complaint was dismissed, it raises important concerns about the advertising of high-sugar foods, especially those marketed as healthier alternatives. The advertising of junk foods often relies on claims like “reduced sugar” or “light,” which can mislead consumers into believing that these products are genuinely healthier despite still containing significant amounts of sugar. With rising concerns about childhood obesity and poor dietary habits, this case highlights the need for stricter scrutiny and transparency in food advertising.
As the debate around junk food advertising continues, consumers are increasingly looking for clearer, more honest representations of the nutritional content of the products they purchase. While Kellogg’s advertisement followed legal guidelines, the broader conversation about responsible food marketing, especially in targeting families and young adults, remains crucial.
Academic research from Australia shows that misleading food labelling, particularly with claims like “light on sugar” or “25% less sugar,” can distort consumer perceptions of healthiness. A study from the University of Sydney revealed that consumers often misinterpret marketing terms such as “low fat” or “light,” assuming that products labelled as such are universally healthier when, in fact, they may still contain significant levels of sugar.
Dr. Christina Pollard, a lead researcher on the study, noted that “misleading claims undermine consumers’ ability to make informed choices, leading them to believe that reduced sugar automatically equates to a healthy option”.
Research from Deakin University’s Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition further supported these concerns, showing that food packaging in Australia often exploits regulatory loopholes. One participant in the study voiced frustration, saying: “I feel deceived when a product that is ‘light’ still contains so much sugar—it’s technically correct but feels like trickery”.
A Cancer Council Victoria report highlighted how loopholes in Australian food labelling allow manufacturers to make relative claims, like “25% less sugar,” while still maintaining high sugar content. According to the report, this practice particularly affects children and families, with experts claiming that these kinds of claims can mislead shoppers into thinking they are making healthier choices when, in reality, they are not.
This sentiment is echoed in broader Australian discourse, where experts argue that while such claims may adhere to legal definitions, they can create false impressions for the average consumer.
