Beech-Nut Says It Has Permanently Discontinued Claims Challenged by Nestle, Maker of Gerber Products
New York, NY – Nov. 14, 2017 – The Beech-Nut Nutrition Company has said it will discontinue all advertising claims challenged by Nestle Nutrition U.S. before the National Advertising Division. Nestle, maker of Gerber infant foods, challenged claims made in advertising for Beech-Nut infant cereal products.
NAD is an investigative unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation and is administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus.
In response to NAD’s initial inquiry, Beech-Nut said that it had decided for unrelated business reasons to permanently discontinue several of the claims at issue before Gerber filed a challenge. Further, Beech-Nut stated that it has discontinued all of the advertising at the center of the challenger’s complaint and argued that NAD should administratively close the proceedings.
NAD determined that many of the claims continued to appear in the marketplace after it opened its inquiry. NAD declined to administratively close the matter. However, in reliance on the advertiser’s representation that the claims have been permanently discontinued, NAD did not review the claims on their merits. The voluntarily discontinued claims will be treated, for compliance purposes, as though NAD recommended their discontinuance and the advertiser agreed to comply.
Discontinued claims include:
- Stage 1 sensitive oatmeal cereal “has all the tastiness of oatmeal with smaller proteins that are gentler on your baby’s tummy”
- Stage 1 sensitive oatmeal cereal is “formulated to be gentle on baby’s tummy”
- “Beech-Nut Natural Complete Oatmeal Cereal Canister”
- “Natural”
- “Sensitive”
- “Complete” nutrition
- “More than any other baby cereal”
- Beech-Nut Cereals in pouches are “natural’
- “0” grams of sugar
Beech-Nut Nutrition Company appreciates the NAD’s determination to not review the challenged claims on their merits because the company has permanently discontinued the challenged claims.
Note: A recommendation by NAD to modify or discontinue a claim is not a finding of wrongdoing and an advertiser’s voluntary discontinuance or modification of claims should not be construed as an admission of impropriety. It is the policy of NAD not to endorse any company, product, or service. Decisions finding that advertising claims have been substantiated should not be construed as endorsements.
Subscribe to the Ad Law Insights or Privacy Initiatives newsletters for an exclusive monthly analysis and insider perspectives on the latest trends and case decisions in advertising law and data privacy.
Latest Decisions
Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council Recommends Valentus Discontinue Earnings and Product Performance Claims
McLean, VA – December 23, 2024 – The Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council (DSSRC) recommended Valentus, a direct selling company that sells nutritional and lifestyle products, discontinue earnings and health-related product performance claims made on social media and on the Valentus website.
Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council Refers Olive Tree Earnings Claims to the FTC and California AG for Possible Enforcement Action
McLean, VA – December 20, 2024 – The Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council (DSSRC) referred Olive Tree to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and California Attorney General's Office for possible enforcement action after Olive Tree failed to respond to a DSSRC inquiry into earnings claims.
Children’s Advertising Review Unit Recommends JustPlay Discontinue or Modify Daisy the Yoga Goat Claims
New York, NY – December 19, 2024 - The Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) launched an investigation into advertising for Just Play’s furReal Daisy the Yoga Goat seeking to determine if the toy’s product packaging and commercial advertisements comply with CARU’s Self-Regulatory Guidelines for Children’s Advertising.
In National Advertising Division Fast-Track SWIFT Challenge, Oral Essentials Voluntarily Modifies “Made in USA” Claims
New York, NY – December 19, 2024 – In a National Advertising Division challenge, Oral Essentials agreed to permanently modify its claim that certain Oral Essentials oral healthcare products are “Made in USA.”