**Steven Bartlett Endorsed Zoe Supplement Advert Banned Over UPF-Free Claim**
An advertisement for Zoe, a nutrition brand known for its data-driven approach to health, has come under scrutiny after the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that its marketing misled consumers. The controversy centres around a claim that Zoe’s Daily30+ supplement contains no ultra-processed foods (UPFs), with the ASA concluding that at least two of its ingredients would reasonably be understood as ultra-processed.
The advert in question featured businessman and Dragons’ Den investor Steven Bartlett, who promoted the supplement with an enthusiastic testimonial, describing Zoe’s Daily30+ as part of a “supplement revolution.” Bartlett asserted, “No ultra-processed pills, no shakes, just real food.” However, concerns were raised about the accuracy of such claims, specifically relating to whether the supplement truly contains no UPFs.
A formal challenge was raised by a professor specialising in nutrition and food science, whose identity has not been disclosed by the ASA. The complaint focused on the inclusion of chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast flakes in the product, ingredients which, the regulator argued, have both been subjected to more than minimal processing, pushing them into the realm of ultra-processed foods.
In their response, Zoe strongly rejected the suggestion that their Daily30+ was misleadingly marketed. The company stated that their supplement is fundamentally different from what consumers typically recognise as UPFs, which tend to be high in artificial additives, unhealthy fats, salts, and sugars. Zoe further clarified that their blend, comprising 32 plant-based ingredients, is primarily constructed from vegetables, fruits, seeds, and mushrooms, and is meant to be sprinkled onto meals, not taken as a pill or shake.
Zoe emphasised that chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast flakes, while processed, are commonly found in home cooking and cited the health benefits associated with them, such as added vitamins and increased fibre content. The company insisted these ingredients do not fall into the category of ultra-processed foods as commonly defined, further criticising the lack of clarity around what constitutes a UPF.
Nevertheless, the ASA maintained its stance, pointing to the various industrial steps involved in producing chicory root inulin—ranging from slicing, soaking, and purification to filtration and enzymatic treatment—and describing this as exceeding the minimal processing consumers might expect from ‘whole foods’. The regulator argued that most consumers would interpret the phrase “wholefood supplement” as meaning entirely unprocessed or minimally processed ingredients.
In its ruling, the ASA stated, “We considered that consumers would likely understand the product to contain only wholefood ingredients due to the claim ‘wholefood supplement’ and the testimonial provided by Steven Bartlett. However, at least two ingredients were subject to more than minimal processing and could be reasonably viewed as ultra-processed.” As a result, the ASA ruled the advert misleading and instructed Zoe not to repeat such claims in the same form.
Reacting to the outcome, Professor Tim Spector, Zoe co-founder and noted scientific advisor, voiced strong disagreement, stating, “We categorically reject the idea that this advert is misleading, or that Daily30+ – or any of its ingredients – could be classed as ultra-processed. The product is made from whole foods and is designed to be added to meals. The claim is factually accurate and irrefutable.” Spector also criticised the ASA’s decision as prioritising technicalities over public health, especially when more pressing concerns around the advertising of junk food persist.
A spokesperson for Steven Bartlett clarified that the ruling did not implicate Bartlett personally, as the advert was both produced and posted by Zoe and did not appear on Bartlett’s own platforms. The ASA’s ruling, they noted, stemmed from a single public complaint and is directed entirely at Zoe Ltd.
This episode highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the definition of ultra-processed foods, a term with no single, universally accepted scientific or legal standard. As the demand for cleaner ingredient lists grows and influencer-driven marketing remains prominent, manufacturers and regulators alike continue to grapple with the nuances of how best to communicate the nature and benefits of food products to the public.