Huel advert banned by watchdog over claim it could replace all food

By Emer Moreau Business reporter

A television and social media advertisement for meal replacement shakes brand Huel has been ruled against by the Advertising Standards Authority, which said it promoted irresponsible dietary practices by implying the products could stand in for all conventional food.

The banned campaign featured Huel's brand ambassador Spencer Matthews in a podcast-style conversation with the company's founder, Julian Hearn. It ran as a sponsored Instagram post and as a YouTube pre-roll advert, and was accompanied by a caption reading: "Here's how our founder uses Huel. Spoiler alert it's not for every meal."

The ASA said viewers watching the ad could be led to believe that abandoning conventional food in favour of Huel was nutritionally sound and entirely compatible with elite-level sporting performance. Huel describes its products as nutritionally complete meals delivered in liquid form.

The centrepiece of the complaint was an anecdote told by Matthews, who recalled meeting a man while competing in an ultramarathon — a 260km race — who said he ate nothing but Huel. Matthews said he was deeply doubtful the man would get to the finish, but added that the competitor won the event comfortably, describing the result as a matter of leaving everyone else "in the dirt".

Hearn, who founded the business in 2015 and is based in Hertfordshire, responded in the advert that ideally people should eat nutritionally complete whole food, but that most people either do not manage that or lack the time to do so, which is the gap Huel is designed to fill.

In its ruling, the watchdog stopped short of finding that the ad directly told consumers to stop eating normal food, noting that it "did not explicitly recommend" wholesale substitution. However, it said that by presenting exclusive consumption of Huel in the context of a super-endurance feat, the advert suggested that replacing conventional food entirely was an acceptable and viable way of eating.

A second, overlapping complaint was also upheld. Two of the four complainants argued that the health claims in the advert breached the ASA's advertising code, and the ASA agreed that Matthews' story implied a beneficial link between drinking Huel and the ability to sustain exceptionally demanding levels of physical and endurance performance.

Responding to the complaints, Huel said the advert had positioned the brand as one part of a balanced diet, for use on occasions when preparing whole food was not practical. The company also pointed to the tone of the exchange itself, noting that Matthews recounted the story as remarkable and unexpected rather than as advice, and reacted to it with what it described as "extreme scepticism and disbelief". At no point, Huel said, did either speaker urge viewers to adopt a diet made up entirely of its products.

The brand later told BBC News that it had complied with the ruling. A spokesperson said: "We do not position Huel as a complete diet replacement or claim that it improves athletic performance."

Huel has previously drawn criticism from the ASA over the way its products are marketed as substitutes for ordinary meals, making this the latest in a running regulatory dispute. The company has also faced scientific questions, with some experts having cast doubt on the value of swapping meals for nutritionally rich drinks.

The business is at a significant point in its history. Huel is currently being acquired by French food and drink group Danone in a deal reported as worth around €1bn, which has received approval from the competition watchdog. The wider market for "complete nutrition" products, sold largely to time-poor, health-conscious shoppers, is thought to be worth $5.9bn (£4.4bn) — meaning Huel's messaging operates in a large and fiercely competitive category.

The ruling is significant beyond the single campaign, because it shows the ASA is prepared to act on implied claims delivered through brand ambassadors and anecdotal storytelling, not just on explicit written or scripted sales pitches. An endorsement from a well-known figure, framed as casual chat rather than a conventional sales message, can still create the impression of a health benefit if the context is persuasive enough.

It also highlights a tension in the advert itself. Hearn's own description of his routine — using Huel for breakfast and lunch during the working week while eating a traditional meal at home — presents the product as a partial convenience tool. The ASA's judgement is that the anecdote of the ultramarathon competitor cut against that nuance, delivering a far more powerful suggestion about what total replacement could achieve.

For consumers, the practical effect of the ban is limited to the advertising. The ruling does not remove Huel products from sale or restrict what the company may say elsewhere; it instead raises the bar for future campaigns, particularly those that rely on a single, extreme personal story to sell a product.

For the fast-growing meal replacement sector, the case is likely to be read closely. Brands competing with Huel have built marketing strategies on nutritional completeness, convenience and fitness, and regulators have now signalled that a product may be nutritious on paper while still being inappropriate as a sole diet. Any future advertising that leans on extraordinary athletic performance to validate that proposition will face a similar test.

The episode ends a debate that Huel says it never intended to open. Matthews' story was, in the company's telling, a piece of podcast storytelling — but the ASA concluded that audiences could reasonably read it as something more, and that was enough to pull the campaign.