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 in their response stated that they have intentionally not classified rice and wheat as fillers as they carry inherent nutritional value. Their products are digested better as they contain 4% of crude fibre. Adequate fibre intake is critical for dogs to have a healthy digestive system. They have categorically defined the term ‘Chicken by-product’ as being exclusive of chicken livers. They have also included ‘Hydrolyzed Chicken Liver’ in the list of ingredients. As claim support data, the advertiser provided the following documents – (1) Images of the product packaging, (2) Certificate of Analysis detailing the nutritional benefits provided by the product. 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 - the claim `0% Fillers’: The pack does not clarity what is a filler and hence exploits lack of experience or knowledge of the consumer. 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 provided technical justification on the claim of “Better Digestibility”. They further submitted Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats (VetBooks.ir), and Peer reviewed study. They also assured that they are changing the packaging to remove the claim, “0% by product and made without harmful by-product”. 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 – “0% fillers” The CCC noted that wheat and rice, which are included in the product’s composition, serve as significant sources of fiber and carbohydrates, both of which provide nutritional value to the dog food. These ingredients cannot be classified as fillers, as the term “fillers” in the food industry typically refers to substances added solely to increase volume without contributing any nutritional benefit. Furthermore, the ingredient list and the nutritional analysis submitted by the advertiser confirm that no non-nutritive filler materials have been used in the product. Based on this evidence, the CCC did not consider the claim of “0% fillers” to be objectionable. The said claim is not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD. Claim – “Better Digestibility” The CCC discussed that although the advertiser has explained the role of fiber in enhancing digestion, the claim, “Better digestibility”, implies a comparative claim, suggesting superiority over other similar food products for dogs. The advertiser has not provided scientific studies or food trials demonstrating this improved digestibility, either through comparisons with control groups or with other comparative products. Claim – “0% by product and Made without harmful by-product” The CCC discussed that according to the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) definition, chicken liver is classified as a poultry by-product, thereby contradicting the claim of containing no by-products. Further, the claim, “made without harmful by-products” could mislead consumers into believing that by-products in general are harmful. The CCC further discussed that most by-products and by-product meals are commonly used in pet and livestock foods as valuable sources of protein and minerals. Although the advertiser claims their product is free from harmful by-products, they have not specified which by-products they consider harmful. In the absence of such evidence, the claim remains unsubstantiated. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the product packaging claims, “Better Digestibility”, and “0% by product and Made without harmful 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