The Advertising Regulatory Board has instructed PepsiCo-owned Liqui Fruit to remove or amend wording on its website that implies the fruits it uses are all sourced from local farms, ruling this is misleading.

ARB Rules Against Liqui Fruit Over Claims About Local Farm Sourcing

The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has officially ruled that Liqui Fruit must amend or remove claims on its website that suggest all its fruit ingredients come from local South African farms. According to the regulator, the wording currently used on the brand’s digital platforms may mislead consumers by creating the impression that every fruit used in the production process is locally sourced.

The decision has drawn attention because Liqui Fruit is one of South Africa’s most trusted and widely consumed juice brands. Owned by PepsiCo, the brand is deeply rooted in the country’s agricultural and manufacturing landscape. This ruling raises important questions about transparency, product labelling, and marketing ethics in the local beverage industry.

Why the ARB Found Liqui Fruit’s “Local Farms” Messaging Misleading

The ARB’s review was triggered by a complaint alleging that Liqui Fruit’s website wording could cause consumers to believe the company exclusively relies on South African farms for its fruit supply. After an evaluation, the regulator agreed that the claims lacked clarity and could be interpreted as absolute rather than general.

According to the ARB’s principles, marketing statements must be clear, unambiguous, and factually correct. If a brand suggests that all its raw materials come from a specific source, then consumers should be able to rely on that information without confusion.

In this case, the ARB determined that not all fruit used in Liqui Fruit products is grown locally. While a significant portion may be sourced in South Africa, the wording implied exclusivity—therefore failing the test for transparent communication.

Understanding the Importance of Accurate Sourcing Claims

In today’s marketplace, consumers increasingly value transparency. Words like “local,” “farm fresh,” and “sustainably sourced” influence buying decisions, especially when associated with long-standing brands. When companies suggest that their ingredients come from local farms, consumers often interpret this to mean:

• fresher produce
• support for local farmers
• reduced environmental impact
• higher quality and safety standards
• ethical or community-focused practices

Because of this, sourcing claims—whether on packaging or websites—carry major significance. Incorrect or vague wording can mislead buyers and give a brand an unfair competitive advantage, which is precisely why regulators enforce strict guidelines.

The Liqui Fruit case serves as a reminder that even well-known companies must ensure that every claim is verifiable and communicated precisely.

Liqui Fruit’s Response: Brand Adjustments and Future Compliance

While Liqui Fruit has not issued a public statement contesting the ruling, brands typically respond to ARB directives by adjusting their website copy, marketing materials, or packaging. In this case, the company will likely need to:

• clarify the proportion of local vs imported fruit used
• update website content to remove assumptions of exclusivity
• ensure future campaigns do not repeat the same ambiguous phrasing

Food and beverage companies often rely on both local and imported ingredients due to seasonal availability, demand, and quality standards. This is part of normal operations. However, the key issue is how these practices are communicated to the public.

By complying with the ARB’s instructions, Liqui Fruit can reaffirm its commitment to honesty and maintain trust among its customers.

Why This Ruling Matters for South African Consumers

South Africans are increasingly conscious of where their food and beverages come from. Local sourcing is important for national pride, economic participation, and agricultural sustainability. When a brand states or implies that it supports local farmers, consumers may choose it over competitors for ethical reasons.

The ARB’s intervention ensures that:

• consumers receive truthful, non-misleading information
• brands compete fairly in the marketplace
• marketing messages match the actual production process

This ruling also highlights the role of watchdog organisations in protecting consumer rights. With more people turning to online shopping and brand research, website claims carry as much weight as packaging.

Implications for the Food and Beverage Industry

Liqui Fruit is not the first major brand to be scrutinised for claims about ingredient sourcing, and it is unlikely to be the last. As consumer expectations shift, the industry must become more precise and transparent in the way it communicates.

This ruling sends a message to all manufacturers:

• Avoid broad or absolute claims unless they are fully accurate.
• Be cautious with terms like “local,” “natural,” or “100% sourced from”.
• Provide contextual detail when ingredients come from multiple locations.

Companies that fail to do so risk regulatory complaints, reputational damage, and consumer backlash.

The Bigger Picture: Trust, Transparency, and Consumer Expectations

The Liqui Fruit case highlights a broader trend: South Africans want honesty from their brands. Whether it’s fruit juice, cosmetics, or health foods, consumers expect marketing statements to reflect reality—not exaggeration.

Building trust today requires:

• clear sourcing disclosures
• accurate marketing claims
• openness about production processes
• willingness to correct errors quickly

Brands that invest in transparency often gain long-term loyalty, while those that push boundaries risk losing credibility.

What This Means for Liqui Fruit Customers Going Forward

Most Liqui Fruit consumers are unlikely to change their purchasing habits based solely on this ruling. The brand remains popular, widely available, and strongly associated with quality. However, customers may now pay closer attention to ingredient information and sourcing claims—both from Liqui Fruit and from other beverage brands.

The ruling is ultimately about clarity, not condemnation. It ensures that future website content and marketing messaging more accurately reflect how the company sources its fruit, giving consumers a fair and honest basis for their purchase decisions.