,The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ruled that a poster advertisement by Wild Nutrition Ltd promoting its supplements as “Food-Grown” was misleading to consumers. The decision followed a complaint regarding a poster displayed in a London Underground station in July 2025 that featured the headline “Wild Nutrition” and the claim “Wild by nature Food-Grown supplements, backed by science.”
The complainant argued that the claim “Food-Grown” could mislead consumers into believing that the supplements were derived directly from natural food sources, whereas the products were allegedly manufactured using synthetic nutrient inputs.
In its response, Wild Nutrition stated that the advertisement was no longer in circulation and clarified that “Food-Grown” was a registered trademark used to describe the company’s formulation approach rather than a literal statement about how the supplements were produced. The company explained that its manufacturing process involves combining a single nutrient—approved in forms recognised by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)—with a glycoprotein blend. This mixture is then introduced into a live culture system such as baker’s yeast, a probiotic strain, or citrus pulp, where the nutrient is metabolised and reintegrated into a food complex over approximately 72 hours before being harvested, dried, and encapsulated.
Wild Nutrition also provided product documentation, including certificates of analysis, technical data sheets, and scientific studies suggesting improved bioavailability for certain nutrients—such as vitamin D, zinc, vitamin C, and coenzyme Q10—compared with conventional synthetic forms.
However, after reviewing the evidence, the ASA concluded that the wording used in the advertisement, particularly the phrase “Food-Grown supplements” combined with the tagline “Wild by nature,” was likely to lead consumers to believe that the nutrients were directly derived from whole foods or natural sources rather than produced using isolated nutrient compounds. The regulator determined that the manufacturing process described by the company begins with standalone nutrient compounds, some of which are typically produced through chemical synthesis, rather than being extracted from whole foods.
Because the advertising claim did not clearly explain this process and could therefore create a misleading impression about the origin of the ingredients, the ASA found that the claim lacked adequate substantiation. As a result, the advertisement was deemed to breach the CAP Code (Edition 12), specifically rules 3.1 and 3.3 relating to misleading advertising and rule 3.7 concerning substantiation of claims.
The ASA ordered that the advertisement must not appear again in its current form and instructed Wild Nutrition to ensure that future marketing communications do not imply that supplement ingredients are entirely derived from food or natural sources unless this can be substantiated.
Consumer News Region