ACCC fines Unilever and Smith’s $10K over misleading Paddle Pop Rainbow and Sakata Rice Snacks packaging

Unilever Australia Limited and The Smith’s Snackfood Company Pty Ltd have been fined $10,800 each by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) over their respective products, Paddle Pop Rainbow and Sakata Paws Pizza Supreme Rick Snacks. The competition watchdog said the two junk food giants misled consumers with its nutrition packaging.

According to the ACCC, both companies made false or misleading representation on the packaging of their products. Unilever’s Paddle Pop Rainbow packing (10 pack) had a logo on the front, back and one side with the words “School Canteen Approved,” with a tick symbol. Smith’s Sakata Paws Pizza Supreme Rick Snacks also had a logo that says “Meets School Canteen Guidelines,” including an image of a sandwich and apple.

And although both products included disclaimers that said these met the “Amber” criteria of National Healthy School Canteens Guidelines, these were in small font size and on a different side to the logos. Therefore, the disclaimers were found to be insufficient in correcting the misleading representations created by the logos.

The “Amber” category of the NHSC Guidelines means the products should be “selected carefully” rather than eaten regularly or in large amounts.

“The ACCC believes both companies were using logos to claim that these products were a healthy option for school canteens to supply to children when they were not,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said in a statement.

Court further explained that school canteen managers, parents and caregivers rely upon products’ packaging and labelling in determining the nutrition of the products. Both Unilever and Smith’s said they would stop using the logos on their products’ packaging.

The move follows the investigation by consumer group Choice last year. According to Choice, the logos not only had no bearing on the healthiness of the products, they were also created by the food companies themselves.

“The dodgy logos were deployed to fool consumers into thinking they were making a healthy choice for their kids,” Choice spokesperson Tom Godfrey said.

The penalty payment of $10,800 each by Unilever and Smith’s is not an admission of breaching of the Australian Consumer Law. ACCC explained that it can issue an infringement notice where it has reasonable ground to believe that they have broken certain consumer protection laws.