Beyond dumb
None of those things are showing you the product ingredients
Huel is showing you its apparent ingredients, except none of the ingredients, are actually in there
A better example
A Mcdonalds burger advertised using a juicy steak, theres beef in the burger but its certainly not steak
Huel certainly doesnt have coconut in it…
Actually funnily enough Cadbury’s changed the labelling on their chocolate bars and replaced the imperial measurements listing to comply with EU regulations on metric labelling of ingredients.
They agreed with Trading Standards they could keep the image from their branding as it was a marketing image indicative of the raw ingredients. So although I was being flippant, it wasn’t such a dumb example. It’s perfectly normal practice for food manufacturers to show idealised versions of their raw ingredients. The actual ingredients list for Cadbury Dairy Milk lists it as *the equivalent of 426ml of fresh liquid milk in every 227g bar. Equivalent of could be anything. It could be milk powder which would be very different to what they show in their marketing. Legally as long as the actual ingredients list is correct it’s fine.
I’m still waiting for some Vitalite that tastes of a sunshine wearing shades
No one cares if a chocolate bar has milk in it though, its a chocolate bar, youre buying it for taste and nothing else
Huel is being bought for health reasons, so the ingredients inside it matter a lot
Coconut is not in huel, that is a fact,what is in huel is a powdered version of an oil found in a coconut, and it is such a minute amount it makes up less than 1% of the product. In my opinion considering it isnt in the product and even if it was the amount is so tiny as to not even register, to then show large vibrant chunks of coconut is misleading to say the least
I suspect we will just have to agree to disagree. If you are buying a bar of milk chocolate that is advertised as being super creamy and tasty, or you are buying a convenient powdered food because it’s advertised as nutritionally balanced then in both cases as long as the product meets the objective and the list of ingredients is accurate what is the problem?
How is it not a problem for Cadbury’s to imply with their advertising images that it contains fresh whole milk, even though technically it is described in a way that could be a powdered milk derivative, but it is a problem for Huel’s advertising to show pictures of their ingredients as indicative of the preprocessed version of their powdered ingredients?
I’m not seeing the difference. And neither are Trading Standards. All advertising and marketing is there to present the best possible image of the product. Has anyone actually ever had a BK Whopper that looks anything like the marketing pictures?! There is a whole industry of food photography which involves no real food at all. Adverts showing cream on cups of steaming coffee? That’s dry ice and shaving foam covered with hairspray to keep it looking good.
I guess I just don’t get the slightly obsessive posting about Huel’s marketing when it’s no more or less misleading than 99.9% of the rest of the food adverts we see everyday.
P.S. I’d prefer it if you can keep the discussion civil and polite rather than posting insults like this:
Well how about not posting a snarky remark to me in the first place, go and look at your own actions first, how about that
As for the rest of the post ill reply tomorrow
This thread Needs more popcorn…
Surely hugh_ler is a misnomer…as it doesn’t contain any Huel but myprotein or something…!
Huel doesn’t contain soy…but who knows…it doesn’t contain porcelain bowls either.
Where are you sourcing that popcorn from though? It better not be any of that filthy Chinese popcorn. Plus make sure you don’t show any pictures of corn kernels or stalks of corn as that would be horribly misleading 
And please - no pop, either.
Speaking of which, do Rice Crispies still “allegedly” contain Snap, Crackle and Pop? In what proportions? Is the balance correct? (The Snap:Pop ratio is particularly critical, from what I’ve heard). From whence is the Crackle sourced? I remember when the Pop used to come from Liverpool, then Manchester, but I think it’s a lot more processed and manufactured these days.
I demand answers! And once I have them, I’ll demand answers again, to more or less the same questions…
Rice Crispies are garbage. Lots of fresh air added in processing to make them puff up which we all know is very bad for you.
All the sources (which don’t actually exist so I won’t quote them) say that an excess of pop in your diet is very, very bad. It can lead to EDS (embarrassing dancing syndrome) which is not only harmful to your social standing, especially the common “Dad Dancing” strain, but can cause massive damage to your knees should it result in you attempting simultaneous air guitar/knee slides.
Buyer beware!
I was trying to make a joke. Sometimes hard via the medium of text though! 
Some people think Huel does contain soy.
Having said that. I am known to occasionally make a joke here, and most of them fail too. 
And that’s another example right there! As you say, there’s lots of fresh air in Rice Crispies, but nowhere do they show a picture of fresh air on the box. Hand me the phone…
My understanding of the advertising rules is that a company’s product must display per 100g everything that the product contains. The picture on the front should be a representation of the product and not make a claim. A company can therefore chose to represent a lifestyle choice or goal or the ingredients to convey the intended representation to the consumer.
For example, Maximuscle use a graphic of a ‘6 pack’ on most of their products; clearly Maximuscle does not contain human ‘6 pack’ and consuming the product necessarily lead to a ‘6 pack’ as displayed. In a similar way, Huel represents the ingredients. Neither product makes a claim of what the product will ‘do’. For example they can write ‘a healthy combination…’ but not ‘will make you healthy.’