Britannia Industries Limited - Britannia

Recommendation: Not Upheld | Medium: General Public

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 claim on the product packaging, or alternately to substantiate the claim with supporting data. The advertiser was also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail and replied seeking for an extension to submit their response. The deadlines stipulated by Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) procedure exist keeping in mind the immediate and widespread impact that advertisements have on the public. Consequently, any action which is needed to be taken with respect to the same is required to be prompt and urgent. It is for this purpose that the deadlines, as stipulated, are set for advertisers/broadcasters etc., and the CCC itself makes it a priority to deal with every complaint before it as expeditiously as possible. However, as a special gesture, the advertiser was granted an extension of additional three business days to respond. The advertiser responded that their product uses the term "Sugar Free" in full compliance with FSSAI regulations. They clarified that "No Added Sugar" is not mentioned anywhere on the pack, and all the ingredients are approved under the relevant food safety regulations. They emphasized that the product does not claim to be for diabetics, nor does it link to any medical condition. On the term “NutriChoice” the advertiser stated that it is a registered trademark used since 1998, recognized as inherently distinctive by the Trademark Registry. In support of their response, the advertiser provided front and back images of the product packaging and copy of trademark certificate. 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 advertiser. The CCC viewed the product packaging, considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response, and the expert’s opinion presented at the meeting. The CCC observed that “NutriChoice” is a registered trademark that has been in continuous use by the advertiser for several years. It is a coined term with no established meaning in the nutritional or medical context. The CCC discussed that such terms, when used purely as brand names, are not restricted under food labelling regulations, provided they are not accompanied by specific health or nutritional claims that could mislead consumers. The trademark appears on the pack solely as a brand name and is identified as the property of the advertiser. The CCC discussed that, regarding the product's composition, the use of refined wheat flour (maida) and palm oil is permitted under food safety regulations. It was noted that maida is a common ingredient in baked goods and, while not ideal for individuals who are diabetic, its inclusion does not violate any regulatory norms. Similarly, palm oil is an approved ingredient under FSSAI regulations and is used in the food industry for its specific functional properties. It is not considered a contributor to diabetes. Its inclusion in the product does not render the use of the brand name misleading, particularly when the list of ingredients and nutritional information is provided in compliance with applicable FSSAI labelling requirements. The CCC noted that while the complaint mentioned the term “No Added Sugar”, the advertiser has confirmed that this does not appear on the product packaging. Instead, the label uses “Sugar Free” which is permitted under the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, when sugar content is within prescribed limits. The pack does not make any direct or implied claims of being suitable for diabetics or offering health benefits. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the term “NutriChoice” is used as a brand name and does not imply any nutritional or health claim. Hence the term “NutriChoice” is not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.