A recent Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) case against ABF Grain Products has exposed regulatory challenges facing industrial bakers operating across UK and EU markets, particularly regarding wholegrain health claims and nutritional standards alignment.

The Regulatory Issue

ABF Grain Products withdrew health claims for its Kingsmill 50/50 bread after the ASA upheld a complaint that the company had used USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans rather than UK guidance to support its "50% of your daily whole grain in 2 slices" claim.

The case (ASA ref. A25-1289336) highlighted two compliance issues under retained Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006:

• Use of non-UK nutritional reference values for health claims

  
  

• Employment of the term "whole grain" which does not appear in the Great Britain Nutrition and Health Claims Register

  
  

Industry Implications

The case underscores a broader regulatory challenge: the absence of a legal definition for "wholegrain" in UK food law. This gap creates uncertainty for manufacturers developing and marketing grain-based products, particularly when operating across multiple jurisdictions.

Under EU Regulation 1924/2006 (retained in UK law), nutrition and health claims must be authorised and listed in the relevant register. The fact that "whole grain" lacks this authorisation while being commonly used in marketing creates a compliance risk for industrial bakers.

Cross-Border Compliance Challenges

For manufacturers serving both UK and EU markets, the divergence between regulatory frameworks creates additional complexity:

• EU market: Health claims must align with EFSA-approved nutrition reference values

  
  

• UK market: Claims must follow UK-specific guidance, not international standards

  
  

• US influence: Some manufacturers appear to default to USDA guidelines, creating compliance gaps

  
  

Technical Considerations

The Kingsmill 50/50 product contains 4.7g fibre per 100g (1.9g per slice). The case suggests that factual nutritional declarations may offer safer regulatory ground than health claims based on undefined terms.

This approach aligns with established practice where manufacturers state measurable nutritional content rather than making comparative health claims that lack regulatory backing.

Regulatory Outlook

Trading standards authorities in Westminster, Buckinghamshire and Surrey are pursuing the matter under the Primary Authority Partnership, indicating that enforcement extends beyond advertising into broader marketing compliance.

The case reflects ongoing post-Brexit regulatory evolution, where UK food law continues to separate from EU frameworks while manufacturers adapt their compliance strategies accordingly.