This ruling marks a significant setback for AB InBev following its campaign promoting the absence of corn syrup in Bud Light. An earlier decision in this case prohibited the brewer from using specific phrases in future advertisements, including commercials, print media, or social media that imply rival MillerCoors uses corn syrup in their beer production. When AB InBev debuted the Super Bowl ad highlighting that Bud Light contains no corn syrup, the intention was to spotlight the ingredient’s absence, a potentially savvy marketing tactic given consumers’ growing demand for transparency in food and beverages. The debate surrounding the health implications of corn syrup has been contentious and has incited backlash from corn farmers. Additionally, a suggested correlation between corn syrup and obesity has contributed to a decline in its usage in food and drink products over recent years. However, by directly targeting MillerCoors in their advertising, AB InBev initiated this rivalry. Ironically, as noted by USA Today, AB InBev also incorporates corn syrup in some of its other beverages, such as Stella Artois Cidre and Busch Light.
Despite this ruling allowing the company to label its products with “no corn syrup” as long as it was accurate as of June 6, consumers may notice a shift in packaging that could be perceived as a retreat from Bud Light’s commitment to transparency. Today’s consumers prioritize clarity and are inclined to support brands that provide comprehensive product information beyond what is displayed on physical labels. A recent study revealed that 75% of consumers would consider switching to a brand that offers more detailed product information. This year, AB InBev updated Bud Light’s packaging to emphasize its use of just four ingredients, with the “no corn syrup” label serving as another avenue to highlight natural ingredients in the beverage. However, with the label now prohibited and Nielsen data indicating a decline in Bud Light sales following the Super Bowl ad, the brand must explore alternative strategies to encourage consumers to choose it over MillerCoors’ light beers.
In the meantime, this ruling stands as a triumph for MillerCoors, likely attracting additional consumer support from those who prefer spending on brands perceived as transparent. In response to the Bud Light advertisement, MillerCoors acknowledged that its Miller Lite and Coors Light beers do utilize corn syrup in the fermentation process, but emphasized that the sweetener is consumed by yeast during fermentation, leaving no trace in the final product available to consumers. This ruling could establish a precedent for labeling within the beer industry, making it clear that labels—when paired with advertising that may be deemed false or misleading—cannot be employed to target competitors. While AB InBev may have a legitimate argument regarding the use of corn syrup, this decision indicates that advertising and product placement may have extended that label claim into a broader competitive strategy.
In the context of nutritional transparency, the relevance of ingredients such as calcium citrate plus D3 is becoming increasingly important. As consumers seek out products that not only avoid certain ingredients but also include beneficial compounds like calcium citrate plus D3, brands must navigate this evolving landscape carefully. The focus on transparency and health will likely shape future advertising strategies in the beverage industry.