From the consumer protection files of HuMuSz

All a mother can give: (powdered) milk, (powdered) eggs

We have won! It’s unbelievable but sometimes it does happen… We applied for a legal procedure at the Competition Authority because of the misleading advert of „Kinder milk chocolate bar”. The Competition Authority upheld our complaint and established the fact that consumers were misled about the product.

The case started like this: we compared the ingredients showed on the wrapping of the Kinder milk chocolate bar with the statements made in the advert. Since there were differences, we called the attention of the Competition Authority to the fact that the product contains powdered milk instead of „milk cream” and powdered eggs instead of „fresh eggs”. What the producer calls „best cereals” in the advert is actually wheat flour and bran according to the producer’s own ingredients list. We rated the advert’s claims, according to which the Kinder milk chocolate bar is „the best nutriment for elevenses and mid-afternoon snacks” and is „the best what a mother can give”, as bamboozlement.

In the course of the legal procedure of the Competition Authority, „milk cream” turned out to be what it is: a cosmetic expression (like hand lotion). However, no violation of lawful rights was found in this aspect since it is obvious to the average consumer that the product is not for external use, and that it should be eaten instead.

Nevertheless, evidence was found that eggs and powdered eggs are not the same according to their respective standard descriptions. Furthermore, „if eggs are not identical with powdered eggs, then powdered eggs cannot be called fresh eggs” – pointed out the decision.

Also, the „best nutriment” label proved to be false since Ferrero Hungary Ltd. should have backed up this pretentious statement with evidence. It couldn’t and the Competition Authority ruled that vegetables and fruits are obviously more nutritious food for children than sweets. On its own, the Competition Authority also found that the advert’s claim, according to which the product is rich in calcium and vitamins, can mislead buyers. The best part of the decision was that the Kinder milk chocolate bar didn’t qualifies for a dairy product because it doesn’t contain any milk…

Although Ferrero’s sentimental slogan about the relationship between mothers and their children can hardly be assessed by legal standards, it didn’t pass unnoticed. The Competition Authority worded its decision carefully but they were decisive enough to impose a fine of 1,000,000 HUF (cca. 4000 €) on Ferrero Hungary Ltd. for misleading consumers with its advertisement.

Winter 2004

Toothpaste adverts to battle scoliosis

According to a survey, students in junior schools carry 4-5 while upper school students haul more than 5 kilograms a day to school – sometimes as much as 7 kilograms. The study found that students carry 12-18 % of their weight with themselves to school on weekly average. There seems to be a logical solution to the problem: if there were lockers in classrooms, students wouldn’t be required to drag all of their textbooks and copybooks to schools every day. But there is no money in the budget to get lockers – as there is no money for a lot of other things. Hey, no problem – our resourceful Minister of Education seems to have cut the Gordian knot: advertisements are the solution. That is, schools can sell the surface of the lockers for promotional purposes to get enough money to buy the lockers. Of course, only those adverts can appear on lockers that are not prohibited in schools – for example, toothpaste ads. Next could be the adverts of coke brands, fast food chains and, of course, mobile phones.

No, they could not! HuMuSz issued a disapproving statement criticizing the idea. In our opinion, an advertisement promoting toothpaste doesn’t urge children to clean teeth regularly as the Minister of Education thinks it only encourages them to use a certain brand of toothpaste. It is beyond doubt though that children must be taught at an early age to clean their teeth every day. Ministers responsible for the health of children should promote education instead of brand ads of different companies. We also find it hypocritical that companies can advertise their products in schools. We reprehend their adverts of yogurt, peanut butter, cocoa-powder etc. that use slogans as „healthy lifestyle” and the misleading promotional campaigns of packaging companies which emphasize how great packaged milk is (packaged in combined paper and plastic wrapping).

The story of the shrinked shopping mall

Size does not matter

(GATE Green Club, member organization of HuMuSz)

Shopping malls have appeared around big cities since the early nineties but now they inch closer and closer to downtown, increasing traffic level, air pollution and noise level. The city has an more and more manifested industrial character because concrete replaces green areas around the site of shopping malls, reducing the value of real estates and spoiling the townscape.

In Gödöllő (a small town close to Budapest), the provisional environmental impact assessment of the construction of a Tesco supermarket – which will be built above the town’s drinking water supply – was made available last February. Since we (GATE Green Club and Oak Tree Environmentalist Association) were not convinced that the project would not cause environmental damages, we framed our standing point and sent it to the authorities and the town management. We asked the latter to encourage more public involvement so that we can discuss the arguments and counter-arguments at a personal meeting.

After we had been trying to convince the town management about our concerns in vain for weeks, we attempted to raise awareness in the inhabitants of the town (90 % of local shopkeepers put our banners in their shop-windows willingly). Our action was followed by a forum and a libel suit. We compiled several materials to further the correct decision of the environmental protection authority while we asked them to require a more detailed environmental impact assessment of the project. One year after the announcement of the provisional environmental impact assessment, the project received the environmental authorization. However, we gave an appeal based on quite strong arguments. And here comes the trickery: the investor submitted a new blueprint for the construction, which contained a supermarket of a smaller surface. And because constructions whose surface don’t reach 10,000 m² don’t require environmental authorization, the investor got the building permit immediately. Only one thing passed unnoticed: our association wasn’t notified about the decision and was left out of the process of issuing the construction permit – which creates the legal ground for another appeal. This is an opportunity to assert our democratic rights and our green club won’t miss it.

(Note: The new Tesco in Gödöllő had a grand opening on May 2oo5…)

Which one do you choose?

As we told you about in the last issue of Kukabúvár, HuMuSz initiated a legal procedure against Pepsi Co. because the company decried the deposit system in an advert, urging consumers to buy drinks in one-way bottles. They said that returnable bottles are battered and getting them requires a great amount of queuing up.

Since then a couple of things happened. We cover the developments in the following.

We initiated several administrative procedures that are still underway. The Competition Authority has been investigating our petition for four months. The competent environmental protection authority hasn’t been able to finish the procedure which started 150 days ago. The Consumer Protection Authority, however, fined Pepsi Co. because the company’s advert was contrary to the Economic Advertisement Act. The amount of the fine is 250,000 HUF (cca. 1000 €. Oh my God, isn’t that too much for Pepsi?). At the same time, the Consumer Protection Authority banned the advert in question – which actually was already over for two months when the verdict came out (What else could have we done? We laughed and cried at the same time.)

However, the justification of the Authority reinforced the arguments of HuMuSz: the advert of Pepsi Co. urged consumers to follow an environmentally damaging behaviour since it promoted one-way bottles instead of returnable ones.

The Committee of Advertisement Ethics reconsidered the Pepsi case

The Committee of Advertisement Ethics, after it had disapproved the practice of Pepsi Co., reconsidered the case upon the company’s request – an unexpected development. The second position taken up in the case by the Committee was not as outspoken as the first: it neither confirmed nor withdrew its original resolution. The most interesting point is that the Committee found unusual that HuMuSz publicised the Committee’s report. Nevertheless, we make public the second report too, since committee reports is being publicised.

The reaction of the Ministry of Environmental Protection

The Ministry’s tardy response came after our email and postcard sending campaign (however, they ignored our petition sent in October, in which we call the attention of the Ministry to the fact that the advert campaign of Pepsi Co. was a direct result of the inadequate legislation of the portfolio and the replacement of product fee with licence fee). It seems that many agree with us since countless postcards and emails were sent to the Waste Management Department of the Ministry, criticising the portfolio because of the spread of one-way drink containers. Following the postcard and email campaign, the Ministry sent a 7-8 page letter, which dealt with EU-directives, the Hungarian legislation and the future system of licence fee. The current Pepsi case was mentioned only in the post scriptum, dismissing it as a simple case of advertisement ethics.

Choose returnable bottles

We also tried to encourage the existing deposit-return systems with our postcard campaign so we sent heartening postcards to Szobi Szörp PLC. because it introduced its new, returnable containers. We wrote the following on the postcards: „I am glad that your company put on the market the Golden Valley fruit juices in returnable bottles in a world of one-way drinks containers. I hope the company will use this environment-friendly system for other products as well in the near future”. Since then, however, Golden Valley juices in returnable containers have become rare. We wouldn’t be surprised if soon they were withdrawn from market altogether…