Ribena case tip of the iceberg?

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Ribena case tip of the iceberg?

The Ribena case highlights researchers’ concerns that health claims about foods may give rise to misleading impressions, says marketing professor Janet Hoek.

Professor Hoek says it is important to build on the lessons leaned in the Ribena case, which saw the company fined $217,000 after admitting it had misled the public over the levels of vitamin C in the drink.

GlaxoSmithKline, which produces Ribena, claimed blackcurrants had four times more vitamin C than oranges, when in fact the product had only very small amounts of the vitamin. Tests also showed Ribena had more sugar than Coca Cola.

Professor Hoek says there a danger that this incident will be seen in isolation. ”It doesn’t take more than an educated guess to realise that other food products marketed as beneficial to health, for example by being low in fat or sugar, may also be misleadingly or deceptively labeled.”

She says it is reassuring that the Commerce Commission took a court case against GlaxoSmithKline but disturbing that the two school girls who did the initial tests on the product in 2004, said they were brushed off when they took their findings to the company, the Advertising Standards Authority and marketing organisation Brandpower.

“However there is now an even higher awareness of the danger of obesity and the importance of consumers having access to correct and easily accessible information about food. The use of health-related claims has a very clear potential to mislead and deceive consumers.

"The Ribena case highlights the need for clear food labeling such as a traffic lights system, where consumers do not need to interpret complex nutrition information before making a purchase decision,” she says.

Professor Hoek says although the Ribena case has received wide publicity, the public are exposed to many advertising claims, at least some of which they will accept at face value. "Over time, consumers become conditioned to respond to claims such as "lite" or "high fibre", which imply a product is healthy when it may, for example, contain very high sugar levels. Marketers are adept at using puffery to imply benefits that do not exist."

She is calling for more research to explore how consumers access, use, understand and respond to health claims. "There is a risk that people's behaviour will be swayed by these claims and, as the Ribena case illustrates, that they may make poor decisions as a result."

Professor Hoek specialises in marketing regulation. Her research has examined consumer deception and public policy issues, including the effects of food marketing on obesity, and the impact of misleading descriptors on tobacco products.

ENDS

© Scoop Media