Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2025

Zoe's 'free from ultra-processed foods' Daily30+ ad was banned

The ASA banned a Zoe Daily30+ ad claiming the supplement was 'free from ultra-processed ingredients' — and upheld the ban on appeal.

Zoe · 2025-05-21

What happened

Zoe, the personalised nutrition company, ran a Facebook ad for its Daily30+ supplement claiming the product was 'free from ultra-processed (UPF) ingredients', 'just real food', a 'plant-based wholefood supplement', with 'no ultra-processed pills, no shakes'.

The ASA upheld a complaint that the claim was likely to mislead. Notably, the authority accepted that Daily30+ was not a UPF product under formal definitions — but ruled that what mattered was how consumers would read the claim, which implied the product carried no ultra-processed ingredients in a way that overstated it.

The initial ruling was published on 21 May 2025. Zoe appealed; the ASA rejected the challenge and upheld the ruling, despite an external review that had flagged flaws in the original decision.

Why it happened

  • A company built on data and precision tripped over a claim it could not defend
  • The ad implied a 'free from UPF' purity that the product's own processing did not support
  • Appealing a ruling the ASA had already reviewed, and losing again, stretched the damage
What it costASA ban; 'UPF-free' claim upheld on appealembarrassing

The lesson

A precision brand is held to precision standards. If your product is processed, telling people it is 'free from ultra-processed ingredients' invites a magnifying glass you may not survive on appeal.

Aftermath

Zoe removed the claim after the ruling. The case became a cautionary tale for science-led food brands: the ASA judged the ad on consumer perception rather than on whether the product met a formal definition, and upheld that view again on appeal.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →