Drools Pet Food Private Limited - Drools

Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: Industry Member

The ASCI had approached the advertiser for its response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The advertiser was offered an option to seek an Informal Resolution (IR) of the complaint by modifying or withdrawing the claims on the product packaging, or alternately to substantiate the claims with supporting data. The advertiser was also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail and submitted their response. The advertiser stated that their claim regarding the inclusion of BIOPLEX, MYCOSORB, and YEA-SACC is not misleading, as it refers to generally accepted benefits of these ingredients in the pet food industry. They argue that these ingredients are widely known to improve dogs health and performance. In response to the challenge regarding the claim, “0% By Product”, the advertiser clarifies that their definition of “chicken by product” as stated on their website, specifically excludes chicken liver and refers instead to parts like necks, feet, intestines, and undeveloped eggs. In response to the challenge regarding the “0% Fillers” claim, the advertiser maintains that the statement is not misleading, as ingredients like corn, rice, and wheat are not considered fillers in their context due to their nutritional benefits. As claim support data, the advertiser provided the following documents – (1) Research reports outlining the nutritional benefits of BIOPLEX, MYCOSORB, and YEA-SACC; (2) Certificate of Analysis providing the product's nutritional analysis. The advertiser’s response along with the claim support data was referred to an Independent technical expert of ASCI for an opinion in the matter. The expert’s opinion was then shared with the complainant and the advertiser for making additional submissions. In response to the technical expert’s opinion, the complainant responded stating that the claim “Enriched with BIOPLEX, MYSCOSORB, YEA-SACC for better results and improved performance”, is misleading, as it implies overall improvement rather than the specific “gastrointestinal function” these ingredients are proven to support. The term “better results and improved performance” is a comparative and functional claim that lacks peer-reviewed scientific evidence or clinical studies to substantiate a direct link to overall performance improvement, making it unsubstantiated. The complainant argued “0% By Product” is misleading due to lack of clarity on what constitutes a “by product.” The advertiser fails to define it as per AAFCO, which includes parts like heads, feet, and internal organs. The complainant further stated that “0% Fillers” is misleading as the term “filler” is not defined on the pack, exploiting the lack of consumer knowledge and leading to ambiguity and omission. The advertiser had a meeting with the ASCI Secretariat and the technical expert via zoom video conference to discuss their submissions. Post this meeting, the advertiser addressed the queries raised in the expert opinion. The advertiser clarified that organ meats like chicken liver are not considered by products under FSSAI standards. They stated that edible organ meats are categorized as “meat” when fit for human consumption. Chicken liver is described as a highly nutritious ingredient, rich in vitamins, minerals, and high-quality protein, and is widely recognized in the pet food industry as a valuable component not a waste product or filler. The advertiser further submitted FSSAI document on meat and meat products, Official FSSAI reference link, URL and screenshot of updated FSSAI reference on their website. The additional submissions made by the advertiser and the complainant were sent to the technical expert for final opinion. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the product packaging, considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response along with the claim support data, and the expert’s final opinion presented at the meeting. Claim - “Enriched with BIOPLEX, MYSCOSORB, YEA-SACC for better results and improved performance” The CCC discussed that the ingredients cited in this claim - BIOPLEX, MYSCOSORB, and YEA-SACC, are known to help improve digestion in dogs. The advertiser has stated that the inclusion of these trace minerals in the diet is associated with improved results compared to diets where they are not present. However, the advertiser has not submitted any clinical food trials, comparative data, to substantiate this assertion. Even though the ingredients do help with digestion, the claim is likely to mislead consumers to believe that the product improves overall health of the dogs, rather than specifically gastrointestinal function. Claim - “0% By Product” The CCC reviewed the ingredient list and noted that the product contains “chicken liver”. The CCC observed that the advertiser’s website refers to definitions provided by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) for terms like “chicken by product”. According to AAFCO, poultry by products include clean, non-rendered parts of slaughtered poultry such as heads, feet, and internal organs including liver, heart, and gizzard. The CCC discussed that while chicken liver is edible and also used in human food, under AAFCO guidelines, it is still considered a by product when used in pet food. The Indian Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) classifies chicken liver as poultry meat for human food, but these standards do not apply to pet food. Given the absence of clear Indian standards for pet food category, and considering that chicken liver is treated as a by product under AAFCO definitions, the “0% by product” claim on the packaging is inconsistent with the listed ingredients. The claim is therefore considered misleading and not substantiated. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the product packaging claims, “Enriched with BIOPLEX, MYSCOSORB, YEA-SACC for better results and improved performance”, and “0% By Product”, were inadequately substantiated. The claims are misleading by exaggeration and are likely to cause widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The said claims contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. This complaint was UPHELD Claim – “0% Fillers” The CCC discussed that the ingredients listed - corn, wheat, and rice are recognized for their nutritional benefits, especially as sources of fibre and carbohydrates. These are not considered fillers, as they contribute to the overall dietary value of the product. Therefore, the CCC did not consider the said claim to be objectionable. The product packaging claim is not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD