At the center of the most recent debate is when a manufacturer is responsible for substantiating claims made by third-party reviews on retail websites that the manufacturer reposts. The case also examined the nutritional value of fruit and vegetable juice concentrate and how it compares to the nutrition of whole fruits and vegetables.
NAD determined that third-party product reviews “significantly influence consumer purchasing decisions,” and if they are “incentivized and lack proper disclosures consumers can be misled.” It further determined that General Mills was unable to substantiate some of the claims in reposted third-party reviews and made by influencers and that the claims should be discontinued.
PIM Brands vs General Mills
Welch’s Fruit Snack maker PIM Brands accused General Mills of making unsubstantiated and misleading claims by reposting specific consumer reviews that said Mott’s Fruit Flavored Snacks “contain fruits and vegetables, are healthy wholesome and nutritious, and the fruit and vegetable juice” in them provides nutritional benefits.
According to the NAD case, the reviews incentivized and reposted by General Mills included claims that Mott’s Fruit Flavored Snacks are a “great way” for kids to “eat fruits and vegetables,” and are made “with real fruits and vegetables and no artificial colors.”
PIM also took issue with posts from social media influencers that claimed “Mott’s Fruit Flavored Snacks are made with real fruit and veggie juice!” which brings “peace of mind knowing that I’m offering my little ones a snack that contains wholesome ingredients.”
General Mills countered that none of the challenged claims convey a message, “either explicitly or implicitly, that Mott’s Fruit Flavored Snacks are a substitute for fruit and vegetables.” Rather, according to the NAD filing it said that the “advertising is truthful and is consistent with the label because Mott’s Fruit Flavored Snacks contain fruit and vegetable juice as ingredients” and the snacks are presented as a complement to a healthy diet, not as a replacement for fruit and vegetables.
Is fruit juice concentrate nutritionally equivalent to whole fruit?
While NAD agreed that some of the disputed claims on the retailer websites did not convey the message that Mott’s Fruit Flavored snacks contain fruits and vegetables, are healthy and wholesome or that the fruit and vegetable juice concentrate in them provides nutritional benefits, it determined that some social media posts and re-posted reviews reasonably conveyed these messages.
It further dismissed General Mill’s argument based on an academic declaration that the fruit juice concentrate in the snacks provided similar nutritional benefits to a serving of 100% fruit juice.
Joanne Slavin, professor in the College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, “opined that fruit juice concentrate is a concentrated form of fruit juice,” and that 100% fruit juice can fulfill suggested intake from the fruit group. NAD determined “there was no evidence in the record that there was a sufficient quantity of fruit concentrate in Mott’s Fruit Flavored Snacks to provide a nutritional benefit or that the fruit concentrate in Mott’s Fruit Flavored Snacks is equivalent in nutritional benefit to 100% fruit juice.”
As such, the professor’s “declaration does not demonstrate the specific benefits of the fruit or vegetable concentrate,” and General Mills should, therefore, discontinue the challenged reposted reviews, influence posts and select claims on its website, according to NAD.
NAD reported that General Mills agreed to follow this recommendation.
Previous fruit snack case examined where the line is between humor, truth
The dispute is the second between the two fruit snack makers this year, and while this decision favored PIM Brands the first sided with General Mills.
Earlier this fall, NAD determined PIM Brands went too far in ads it intended to humorously highlight the difference between its fruit snacks and those of competitors, including General Mills, which brought the case to NAD.
