Huel was founded in 2015 by entrepreneurs Julian Hearn and James Collier, who named it by combining ‘human’ and ‘fuel’
(Picture: Tesco)Huel meal replacement shake advertisements that implied consumers might reduce their food expenses have been banned for misleading consumers.
As the cost of living crisis hit, one Facebook ad claimed that "Huel helps keep money in your pockets".
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) noted that Huel failed to demonstrate that its goods were less expensive than conventional foods.
What is Huel?
Huel is a meal replacement shake founded in 2015 by entrepreneurs Julian Hearn and James Collier, who named it by combining “human” and “fuel”.
It is made from oats, peas, rice, flaxseeds and coconut.
Its makers assert that its powders offer "full nutrition” when combined with water and are a nutritious alternative for regular meals. It can allegedly "help you lose, gain, or maintain weight”.
The business encourages its clients to refer to themselves as "Hueligans", while social media collaborations with fitness gurus have been arranged as sponsorship.
Actor Idris Elba, broadcaster Jonathan Ross, and social media personality Grace Beverley, the creator of the fitness brands Tala and Shreddy, announced their investment in the company in December.
Why have Huel’s advertisements been banned?
A Huel Facebook advertisement stated in August and September 2022 that the brand "helps keep money in your wallets" and that a month's supply costs less than £50. A second advertisement on the company’s website said Huel may “save money on groceries”.
The UK’s advertising industry regulator the ASA ruled that Huel didn’t make it clear enough that the £50 claim was based on having one meal replacement per day.
The ASA said a typical woman would need to consume five Huel servings to meet her daily calorie needs.
A typical man would need to eat more food, which would cost roughly £350 per month.
The watchdog also alleged that Huel made unsubstantiated claims about being a "healthy option”.
Huel said that it did not consider the advertisements to be deceptive. It apologised for "any uncertainty that may have been perceived by their ads”.
It added that the £50 claim was based on having 34 Huel meals each month at a cost of £1.51 each. Even though it was stated in a manner the ASA found ambiguous, Huel said this was acknowledged in the ad's bottom language.
The company stressed it had never said that Huel shakes should replace all meals.
