Complaints put squeeze on juice labels

By PHILIPPA STEVENSON agriculture editor

The Commerce Commission is investigating the label claims of a dozen juice drinks in its latest attempt to stamp out misleading marketing.

The inquiry comes after a series of claims by rival firms in the fiercely competitive drinks industry.

In 1996, after a series of Fair Trading Act breaches during the previous decade, the commission issued guidelines for the labelling of orange juice.

This year it had launched prosecutions against two companies when a juice industry newcomer, Charlie's, complained about label and advertising claims by sector market leader, Simply Squeezed.

Double R Softdrinks is due to defend product claims in a court hearing in September, and Rio Beverages is scheduled for an appearance in August.

The tables have been turned on Charlie's, which has also been the subject of a complaint.

Simply Squeezed is also part of the Commerce Commission's inquiry, but Fair Trading director Deborah Battell would not name the full list of companies.

Complaints had been made about 12 or 13 products, and some companies had more than one product on the list, she said.

The commission was concerned about label representations including "pure", "100 per cent", "New Zealand made", and "squeezed" (implying fresh).

The commission was working with the industry, which was prepared to review "grey areas" of definition. The commission was consulting overseas bodies about technical issues, said Battell, who expected inquiries to take at least two months.

The Advertising Standards Complaints Board has already asked Hawkes Bay-based Simply Squeezed to withdraw television advertising of its orange juice, after upholding a complaint made by Marc Ellis of Charlie's.

In a majority decision, the board found that Simply Squeezed breached two principles of the food advertising code, including that by implication "it misled, or was likely to mislead, consumers to believe that the product Simply Squeezed was 100 per cent orange juice".