Foodwatch's "golden cream puff": nominations for Arla, Zentis, Mars, Danone and Hochland

Icon: enlarge

The cream puffs nominations: "Grünländer Cheese" from Hochland, "Be-Kind Protein Bar" from Mars, organic "Weidemilch" from Arla, fruit spread "50% less sugar" from Zentis and the "Volvic Bio Rooibos Tea" from Danone Waters

Our diet is currently determined by three major trends - it should be as healthy, practical and sustainable as possible. Of the around 40,000 new food products that come onto the market every year, more and more are marketed in exactly the same way: as a CO2 reducer, as a protein blast or as a healthy snack for in between.

The consumer organization Foodwatch wants to make it clear that this is often more appearances than it is with its nominations for the "golden cream puff" award, which SPIEGEL has received. The five products that made it into the final selection for the "brazen advertising lie of the year" praise themselves as being particularly climate-friendly, animal-friendly or low in sugar. But consumers would be "deceived or ripped off", says Manuel Wiemann from Foodwatch. "The food industry shamelessly exploits people's desire for sustainable or healthy products."

Consumers can vote on candidates

In order to draw attention to such consumer deception, Foodwatch is now offering the negative price for the tenth year. Consumers can vote on the five candidates online until September 6th: These include the long-life "pasture milk" from Arla, the "Be-Kind protein bar" from Mars, the "Grünland cheese" from Hochland, the fruit spread "50% less Zucker "from Zentis and the" Volvic Organic Rooibos Tea "from Danone Waters. The product with the most votes will receive the "golden cream puff".

Foodwatch selected the cream puff candidates above all from the more than 200 submissions on its own complaint platform "Cheat Reporter": over the past ten months, consumers have submitted products there and proposed them for this year's election. Foodwatch selected four of the five cream puff candidates from this platform; the organization proposed one itself.

The main criterion in the selection is the largest possible bandwidth. "We want to show: Deception does not stop at anyone, not even organic or health products," says Wiemann. Not only organic manufacturers, but also many conventional producers have jumped on the organic and health trend and want to participate in this growing market. The Foodwatch nominations show that these products are not always climate savers and fat reducers.

The problem: fuzzy laws

This is also demonstrated by the winners of recent years, including the Actimel drinking yoghurt from Danone, the milk slices from Ferrero and the sugar-coated children's tomato sauce from the organic manufacturer Zwergenwiese. Zwergenwiese was the first manufacturer to accept the "golden cream puff" and announced that it would revise the recipes of its children's products.

Unfortunately, little has changed about the problem behind the "advertising lies". Because the existing laws are fuzzy and not far-reaching enough, criticizes Foodwatch. Although EU food law generally prohibits deception, manufacturers could advertise their products across the board with false statements.

Tiny font, print on transparent film

Sometimes crucial information is missing on the packaging, sometimes it is misleading or illegible. "In the case of the Be-Kind bar from Mars, for example, the font is so small that it can hardly be read. In other cases, producers print dark blue font on a light blue background. Or immediately on transparent film - you can use the product visible underneath then no longer read. " But all of this is legal: only a certain minimum font size is prescribed, and that is not even sufficient, says Wiemann. The Mars company did not comment on the allegations. "Under EU law, deception is forbidden, but our examples show that de facto this is not the case," said Wiemann.

The rooibos tea from Danone Waters , on the other hand, stands for misleading quantities: it only contains 0.26 percent rooibos infusion, 92 percent is flavored mineral water, Foodwatch has found. "The amount of ingredients advertised must be on the front," demands Wiemann. Otherwise it would be misleading, which in turn is prohibited. But according to the Food Information Ordinance, the information in the small print is sufficient. Danone Waters did not comment on the allegations.

"Dishonest" product front: the Arla "pasture milk"

The Arla "pasture milk" is also an example of a "dishonest" product front: "-71 percent CO2" is written on the front - although it is only explained on the product side that this only applies to the beverage carton. However, according to the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (Ifeu), this only accounts for 2.5 percent of the emissions from this milk carton, the majority of which is due to the milk itself. In relation to the total greenhouse gas balance of an average H-organic whole milk, this results in CO2 emissions. Saving packaging only reduces emissions by less than two percent, writes Foodwatch. The Arla Foods dairy cooperative was also not available for comment.

The "Grünland cheese" from Hochland , on the other hand, promises more animal welfare than it delivers: While the imprint "Milk from free range cows" suggests lush meadows, the cows are in the stable for this cheese, as Hochland only states on the back of the packaging. So they are not connected there, hence the "free-wheeling" marketing. Foodwatch criticizes that the term is fictitious and not legally defined. Hochland is thus violating Article 16 of the EU basic regulation on food law, according to which "the advertising and presentation of food (...) must not mislead consumers".

Hochland defends itself against the allegations: "The fact that the term" free range cows "refers to cows kept in the barn is clearly indicated on the back of the packaging. (...) No advertising material shows or mentions that the cows are outside of the barn, for example in a pasture. We therefore do not consider the term 'free range cows' to be misleading, "wrote a spokeswoman on request.

The fifth candidate, the "50% less sugar" fruit spread from Zentis , on the other hand, falls into the price cheat category: The product does keep its health promise - 50 percent less sugar in the fruit spread. According to Zentis Foodwatch, however, the sugar that has been dropped has been replaced by water - and the product has been made twice as expensive. This hefty surcharge only becomes clear if you look very closely.

Zentis does not deny the allegations, but refers to increased production costs: Sugar is central as a flavor carrier, for binding and preserving fruit spreads. To replace this, the recipe has been changed: "This leads to increased production costs," writes Zentis. In addition, the sugar reduction leads to shorter best-before dates, which in turn means smaller production quantities and more logistics costs. "That leads to higher costs in production and transport," writes the company.

The NutriScore has also had little effect so far

With its "Clarity and Truth" initiative, the federal government recognized the problem as early as 2011, but there are still no better laws or comprehensive protection. "That is why we are calling on Federal Food Minister Klöckner during the German EU Council Presidency to campaign for the missing laws," says the consumer advocate.

The "NutriScore" food traffic light has not changed the situation so far. After the industry tried for a long time with the support of Julia Klöckner to implement a confusing format, in the end the NutriScore prevailed. This shows how much sugar or fat a product contains. But the NutriScore is not only voluntary for companies, it is also currently in danger of being watered down.