The ASA upheld two complaints against Exhale Coffee’s paid Instagram ad, which saw the London-based coffee brand claim that its coffee could protect DNA, slow cellular aging, preserve telomeres and potentially extend lifespan through its polyphenols and antioxidants. It also promoted the coffee as having ‘amazing health benefits’ and supporting gut and brain health.
Exhale made unauthorized health and nutrition claims, the ASA stated. The claims about slowing aging, protecting telomeres and improving longevity were specific health claims, but the company had not provided evidence that these claims were approved for coffee or its ingredients under the GB Nutrition and Health Claims Register.
The authority also found that broader claims about the coffee being “healthy” and supporting overall wellbeing were not backed by an authorized health claim. Claims that the coffee was “high in antioxidants” and polyphenols were also considered unauthorized nutrition claims.
Scientific evidence alone cannot justify health claims
In response, Exhale Coffee said the ad was no longer running and agreed to make any necessary changes.
The company argued that its claims were supported by evidence, pointing to an authorized health claim for olive oil polyphenols on the GB Nutrition and Health Claims Register and explaining that its coffee production process was designed to maximize polyphenol and antioxidant levels.
The company told the ASA it believed it could make broader “healthy coffee” claims because it could substantiate specific health claims. It also argued that the magnesium and potassium content in its recommended serving size met the thresholds required for authorized nutrient health claims.
However, as Jerome Le Bloch, head of scientific affairs at Foodchain ID, told NutraInrgedients, the issue isn’t about whether or not coffee offers health benefits, but simply an issue of breaking the rules.
“Overall, the ASA’s decision is not a judgment on whether coffee may have health benefits; it is a reminder that, in advertising, scientific evidence and regulatory authorization are not the same thing,” Le Bloch said.
“Even well-conducted research cannot be translated into commercial health claims unless those claims have been formally authorized under the applicable legislation.”
He explained that companies may only communicate those benefits as health claims if the relevant authorities have authorized them in accordance with the applicable legislation.
“Statements such as protecting DNA and the communication about a gain in five years of age are interpreted as health claims by the ASA,” Le Bloch said.
He noted that in the UK, as with the EU, companies must obtain prior authorization before making health claims, following a scientific assessment. However, to date, no health claims relating to caffeine or other coffee compounds have received a positive scientific opinion or authorization.
Coffee longevity claims face tougher scrutiny after ASA ruling
Le Bloch believes this ruling is not only relevant for coffee brands.
“It serves as a reminder that coffee is not exempt from the same health claims legislation that applies to all foods, but also reminds all companies claiming anti-aging should be compliant with the regulation,” Le Bloch said.
He suggested this decision should prompt the dietary supplement industry to review how it markets products that claim to promote healthy aging or longevity.
“The ASA’s decision reinforces that even if there is an emerging body of scientific literature suggesting potential biological effects (here of coffee, but may be extended to other ingredients in supplements), advertisers cannot translate those findings into product-specific health claims unless the claims are authorized under the applicable legislation,” Le Bloch said.
He added that the ASA’s decision is likely to discourage some coffee brands from making longevity-related marketing claims. However, he explained that as longevity remains one of the fastest-growing areas in the nutrition and health sector, and coffee is well positioned within this trend, there is a high likelihood brands will continue to communicate outside the rules.
“Overall, I think the legal framework itself is relatively clear,” he said. “The difficulty lies in the gap between scientific research, authorized claims and the marketing needs.”
