- The claim “Nothing But Fruit” was misleading because the product contains additives.
- Pioneer Food Groceries’ appeal was dismissed, and the earlier ruling was confirmed.
- The Committee held that even minimal additives contradict an absolute claim.
Pioneer Food Groceries (Pty) Limited failed in its appeal against a ruling that found its use of the phrase “Nothing But Fruit” misleading.
In its ruling, the Final Appeal Committee of the Advertising Regulatory Board confirmed that the presence of additives, even in small quantities, makes the claim inaccurate.
Pioneer Food Groceries (Pty) Limited, as the appellant, appealed against a decision of the Advertising Appeals Committee which had upheld part of a complaint brought by Mr Mpe. The complaint concerned the accuracy of the phrase “Nothing But Fruit” in the advertising of the appellant’s fruit juice products.
It was common knowledge that the products contain additives. Pioneer Food Groceries accepted that additives of no more than 0.5 percent are present in the juice. These include citric acid, Vitamin C and flavouring. During oral submissions, counsel for the appellant confirmed that the additives are laboratory-manufactured.
The complaint was that the phrase “Nothing But Fruit” was inaccurate and misleading because, despite the wording, the product contains ingredients other than fruit juice.
Arguments and legal issues
Pioneer Food Groceries argued that it is permitted to describe its products as “100% fruit juice” or “100% fruit juice blend,” and that this supports the use of the phrase “Nothing But Fruit.” It is submitted that these descriptions relate to the nature of the juice and do not exclude the presence of minimal additives.
The Committee rejected this argument and agreed with the Advertising Appeals Committee that the claims are distinct. It held that the acceptance of the “100% fruit juice” wording does not justify the use of “Nothing But Fruit.”
The Committee stated, “Nothing means exactly that, the absence of anything else.” It held that a reasonable consumer would understand the phrase to mean that no additional substances have been added.
The appellant further argued that an average consumer would know that additives are required to ensure a long shelf life. This was rejected. The Committee held that this argument “assumes too much technical knowledge on the part of such a consumer.”
Pioneer Food Groceries also relied on its registered trademark, submitting that preventing the use of “Nothing But Fruit™” would infringe its constitutional rights. This argument was dismissed. The Committee made it clear that there is no right to use a trademark in a misleading manner.
Findings of the Committee
The Committee agreed with the reasoning of the Advertising Appeals Committee and confirmed that the claim is inaccurate.
It stated, “The fact that the additives are minuscule does not detract from the fact that they are there.” The Committee held that the degree of inaccuracy is not relevant.
In endorsing the earlier ruling, the Committee quoted the Advertising Appeals Committee’s reasoning, stating, “A reasonable consumer would not see ‘Nothing But Fruit™’ and likely conclude that no vegetables have been added to a fruit juice. ‘Nothing’ means exactly that, the absence of anything else.”
It further confirmed that the presence of additives contradicts the claim, stating, “The fruit juice contains nothing except fruit. But we know that it does at least one thing, certain permitted additives.”
The Committee also confirmed that the use of the phrase as a trademark does not change its effect in advertising, stating, “It matters not that the claim comes in the form of a trademark… it is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.”
Outcome and order
The Committee dismissed the appeal and confirmed the ruling of the Advertising Appeals Committee dated 29 August 2025.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
