Coles will overhaul its food branding and change its labelling claims in the face of mounting criticism from consumers and health experts over alleged misleading and unethical practices.
The giant supermarket chain has spent more than two years defending its 'SmartBuy' and 'You'll Love Coles' logos against allegations of piggy-backing off the Australian Heart Foundation's well-known heart tick symbol - and possibly duping consumers in the process.
On Saturday, the day after the Sydney Morning Herald notified Coles it was planning to publish an analysis of the supermarket's generic brand food products and labelling practices, the company said it was gradually phasing out its trademark tick, an exercise that could cost the company tens of millions of dollars.
The company denied it was removing the tick as a response to customer complaints or public pressure.
"[The logo] never intended to imply that the products are endorsed by the Heart Foundation, and we don't believe it conveys that impression," a Coles spokesman, Jim Cooper, said.
"However, under the new Coles management team our house-brand imagery is being progressively redesigned, and the tick will not be part of the new packaging."
The Herald's analysis found that many of the budget-priced SmartBuy foods featuring the prominent red tick on a white circular background (as opposed to the foundation's white tick on a red circular background) had significantly higher levels of saturated fats, and in some cases higher levels of dangerous trans fatty acids, than their pricier 'You'll Love Coles' shelfmates.
In the case of hamburger patties there were 20pc more saturated fats in the SmartBuy product, while in the two Coles home-branded peanut butters, the cheaper product had almost 70pc more saturated fat.
At Woolworths stores, where far fewer Home Brand products compete with the retailer's more upmarket 'Select' brand, the difference in saturated fat content in the few products that were comparable was less marked.
The exception was a canola-based margarine with double the saturated fat content.
Moreover, Coles brands of canola and vegetable oil which use a second logo (a red heart-shaped symbol similar to the Heart Foundation's logo) to promote the products' "cholesterol free" properties actually raise cholesterol levels when consumed, due to the exceptionally high level of trans fats in the products.
Responding to the findings Coles said it was inaccurate to compare dissimilar products.
"Beef patties and hamburgers are two different products, so it's not valid to compare their fat contents," Mr Cooper said.
The more expensive peanut butter contained high-oleic peanuts, that were naturally lower in saturated fats he added.
"We did this to give the product a point of difference in the market," he said.
Coles conceded, however, that the level of trans fat in some of its oils was too high and promised to remove the "cholesterol free" logo and "reconfigure" the products over the next few months.
The poorer quality home-brand products have prompted nutrition and health experts to question whether low-income familiesare compromising their health by choosing cheaper generic brands.
The Heart Foundation had sought legal advice over Coles's use of the tick along with a number of other copy-cat logos, but was told the common-use defence would make successful legal action unlikely.
"Consumers are angry because they believe our brand is being copied by businesses to suggest that their products are healthier options when in many cases they are not," said the foundation's national director for healthy weight, Susan Anderson.
"The supermarkets through their ad campaigns lead us to believe that lower cost items are as good as branded products but that isn't always the case… Supermarkets must take responsibility for the nutrition of their products and therefore the health of their customers."
A leading nutritionist, Rosemary Stanton, said it was "sad and unnecessary" that low-income families had to accept products that could harm their health, and described the addition of trans fats to a product such as canola oil as "shameful".
Ken Triggs, an 84-year-old retiree who had a heart bypass 14 years ago, agrees.
"I'd been using the canola oil for some time before I read the fine print on the label saying it contained 4.6pc trans fatty acids … I was very shocked and angry because since the operation I've been very careful about my diet."
Mr Triggs said he complained to Coles last March but never received a response.
Coles declined to say how much the rebranding would cost on the grounds it was commercially sensitive information.
BP's rebranding of its petrol stations in 2006 cost as much as $200 million.
Email a friend