'Vacuum blending' - healthier or not?

We received an alert via social media about this vacuum blender from Beko. The product claims, “Some nutrients can get lost during juicing. Vacuum Blending technology removes the air inside the jug before blending, eliminating any oxidation of the ingredients inside. As a result, a greater portion of vitamins and nutrients are preserved, and your juice stays fresher for longer.”

We also see another claim from Appliances Online, "…this blender’s vacuum technology will produce more flavourful results. ".

What do you think, is it true? :thinking: Please share your thoughts below, including evidence where possible.


It sounds like the marketing department’s latest gimmick idea to me!
I don’t think that the mashed up fruit is going to suffer much oxidation in the few minutes between blending and drinking.
Storing the drink under vacuum (not too hard a vacuum though, the drink will boil!) for the next day would probably be of some benefit though. Cut apples certainly discolour, perhaps through oxidation, over a period depending on variety, of 15 mins upwards.


Four points…

  1. Yes, air may oxidise nutrients, but won’t occur in the few seconds it claims it blends foods.
  2. No, it would be impossible to get a perfect vacuum which removes all the oxygen in the blender. It may remove some creating a lower pressure. Unless it removes all oxygen, it still has the chance to oxidise.
  3. The blades will potentially cavitate increasing surface area in contact with oxygen remaining within the blender. This cavitation will negate any miniscule benefits of the low pressure,
  4. If the blades spin at 23000rpm, they will produce heat. This heat will impact on nutrients more than a bit of oxidising for a few seconds.

While the rate of nutrient oxidising may be lower under low pressure conditions likely to exist in the blender, tiny difference will be negligible and potentially not measurable.

I believe the marketing claims are widely overstated and intentionally misleading.

Edit: oxidisation of food nutrients takes time, and far more than a few seconds in a blender. Maybe if the blended food wasn’t eaten immediately and was to be stored for a few days, a true vacuum may delay oxidisation, and have some effect. Maybe if Beko had said that if the blended food was not going to be eaten immediately and stored for a few days, place the blender in the fridge and plug it in to maintain the ‘vacuum’ in the blender, then their claims may be plausible.


Sounds like a contender for a Spot-A-Shonky.


Reads like “Puffery”, I think it is “Puffery” and because that is acceptable practice the claims are unlikely to be changed.


It does, but the ACCC defines puffery as…

‘Puffery’ is a term used to describe wildly exaggerated or vague claims about a product or service that no one could possibly treat seriously.

The website wording seems to be written in a way which is sincrere and factual (they are serious in their claims)…

Vacuum Technology: Keep more nutrients, vitamins and minerals in the ingredients. Use the Vacuum function and the blender will suck out air from the inside of the cup before mixing.

potentially putting a step further than puffery…namely misleading.


Maybe someone at Beko is also a Yello fan (like me)…

and thought it was possible. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Edit: Maybe Beko takes us all to be suckers.


I agree it is misleading but we have seen this before and the claims continue for products without censure.

There is no amount of what greater means, so if it saves 0.01% that is greater than 0% so is a greater saving. Eliminating any oxidation, a reasonable person might think that is wildly over exaggerated, Fresher for longer indeed it may for a few seconds or minutes…another vague claim.

More flaourful results again is perhaps seen as exaggerated or vague on how much more flavourful it is. They don’t give any figure to assess the claims by, so a tiny little more flavourful it could be and thus simply puffery.

Vague and undefined on how much difference.


This text is written to sound scientific to make it believable.

It is not so wildly exagerated or vague (up to 40% more vitamin C) that it passes as puffery.

In my opinion the text is designed to mislead.


Up to 40% more is vague, it never has to achieve 40% more it just has to achieve more than a 0% increase. It’s somewhat like Milo and it’s claim of 4 stars, by Nestle measurement it was but by others it wasn’t. It was a voluntary withdrawal from the battle, perhaps to reduce the backlash by some. The ACCC will be the ones who need to decide if the claims are “misleading” and not just puffery. Puffery can be and is misleading it is just the amount it misleads by that determines the line crossing or not. Text written to sound like something else happens all the time. I dislike what is done, but it is so similar to other items in it’s clever use of words that it slips through even if just by the skin of it’s teeth. I hope it is found to have crossed the line between what they say is puffery and what is misleading and deceptive…I just doubt it will.

I often think of jewellery store sales with up to 70% off…one item on sale may be 69% off (it’s up to but doesn’t make 70%), the rest could be 5% off but they haven’t lied/deceived, they have just not told us the very fine detail of the sale pronouncement. It’s a legal con.


There are two selling points.

One based on linking technology (vacuum) to science (oxidation of product). This is not puffery. They are both facts. They are presented together and lead to one conclusion. What is being offered as a benefit is factual. Of course there are no conditions stated as for a formal scientific analysis or evidence based report.

The second in marketing terms makes varies claims concerning the outcome or benefits. They are certainly clearly stated. They are as @grahroll suggests in my reading imprecise leaving the door to protection being “puffery” open.

I hope they fail in their promotion and the ACCC calls the product out for what it is. In the interim any retailer stocking the product scores the same level of mistrust.

When it comes to technology, and what consumers supposedly realise as too good to be true. The Hiclone supposed fuel saver device remains in the marketplace despite the wisdom of science saying otherwise.

Also too challenging for the ACCC, who are after all just a bunch of lawyers who come to rely on others to handle technology. Apparently this includes a reliance on the general office staff to plug their mobiles in to charge. Well, have you ever seen a lawyer plug their mobile in to charge on TV? They can’t even remember how to turn on silent for court appearances. :rofl:


If one looks at the Beko video (seen on the Appliance Online website linked in the original post by @BrendanMays), it is very precise in its marketing. The following words are used (exact wording shown as text in the video)…

  • no air contact
  • no oxidisation
  • removes the air
  • max nutrition
  • prevents oxidisation of fruits and vegetables
  • preserves vitamins and nutrients
  • 40% extra vitamin C
  • better taste
  • stays fresh, smooth, full of nutrition…even overnight
  • nutrition maximised

The wording in bold is very clear in its meaning and wouldn’t be what would be called puffery, unlike the unbolded wording. There is no little *, ~, ^ or # for one to have to read some fine print qualifying what it meant by these. Even the manuals or product spec sheets are silent on their claims.

The first groups of wording makes the claim it removes the air so there is no air contact and so there is no oxidisation (even in a laboratory it is impossible to remove all the air and create a true vacuum). Beko must have a scientific breakthrough in their blender.

The second wording is it states ‘40% extra vitamin C’ (it must have a dispensary function for ascorbic acid built in which they don’t advertise or make known). It also claims it preserves vitamins and nutrients. Preserves means no loss of (or to maintain the level of) vitamins or nutrients…hhhmmm…


I agree, any food product could say ‘better taste’ and it means nothing, I can’t get excited one way or the other if they say that kind of thing. OTOH specific claims ought to be backed with evidence. It would be simple enough to test, produce a range of foods with and without the vacuum applied. Panel test for taste and lab test for nutrients. Where is it?


To say the vacuum mixing does that is an interesting claim, since Vitamin C is often added as an antioxidant!


No air contact? Seems to be puffery to me as it is in contact with air throughout…a reasonable person would understand this.

No oxidisation? Similar to the one above

Removes the air? It does some removal which may affect storage etc, and then it becomes the same as above

Max nutrition? Throwaway line, puffery

Prevents oxidisation of fruits and vegetables? Doesn’t say how much so I think it is puffery as even if it only prevents a small amount of oxidisation it meets the broad claim.

preserves vitamins and nutrients? No definition of amount so again I think it is puffery as even a small amount of preservation meets the criteria.

better taste? Subjective so puffery

stays fresh, smooth, full of nutrition…even overnight? again broad statement and only needs to remain fresh smooth (and what is “full of nutrition” meaning) overnight, when did the overnight storage commence and in what conditions…puffery

nutrition maximised? No definition attached to what they mean by maximised…it could easily be “for the conditions it was stored under” or “for the length of time we measured it for”…puffery.

The only one where they could more easily fail is the " 40% extra vitamin C" but for what fruit, vegetable or mix and for how long before this was measured. If oxidising is retarded for some period of time this extra 40% could be the case compared to a juice that is exposed normally to air for the same measured time.

As I said above I don’t like it but they seem to have ticked the boxes to avoid penalty, this is only my opinion of course. The only way this is going to really pass or fail is if the claims are subjected to scrutiny by the Authority vested with the power to call this out and the Authority in this case is the ACCC.

There of course is the case for further tightening of puffery definition and laws. This could help stop this stuff even appearing. Puffery should be a thing long gone, if a claim is subjective then they need to make clear it is and under what conditions. If they make a statement of benefits they need to show (or link to) the evidence that proves the claims. But the law allows this abuse of language and claims and that’s what needs to change.


The ACCC? Looks like the sellers have nothing to worry about.