The "Get unhooked" advert aimed at getting people to quit smoking was the most complained about advert last year.

The Department of Health advert prompted 774 complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

The number of adverts complained about in 2007 was the highest ever at 14,080 and key grievances were violence and misleading claims about being green.

But 2,458 adverts were changed or withdrawn following action by the ASA, it said in its annual report.

So here are the top 10 adverts of 2007, measured by volume of complaints:


1. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH - 774 COMPLAINTS


The controversial ad which could 'frighten and distress youngsters'
As part of the NHS's anti-smoking drive, this television, press, internet and poster ad campaign showed smokers having a fish hook pulled through their cheek, representing their craving for cigarettes.

Many of those who complained said the adverts were offensive, frightening and distressing. The largest group of complaints related to the poster ads and the effect they could have on children.

The ASA found the adverts were unlikely to cause serious offence or distress to adult viewers.

But despite an "ex-kids restriction" - which stops adverts being shown during or around programming aimed at children - two of the television adverts and the poster ads were found to have the potential to frighten and distress youngsters.

These adverts showed people speaking in Caribbean accents while extolling the virtues of the new gum from Cadbury's and drew complaints that they were offensive and racist.

People argued the ads - shown on television and in cinemas - showed stereotypes that ridiculed black or Caribbean people and their culture.

The ASA decided the adverts did not incite racial discrimination but acknowledged that a significant minority of viewers had been unintentionally offended.

Television adverts for Rustlers drew ire from viewers who thought they were sexist and demeaning to women.

The adverts for the microwaveable burgers showed a man and a woman arriving at the man's flat, with the woman agreeing to having a coffee while sitting on a sofa.

The man then punches into a microwave style keypad which sets the sofa rotating, soon revealing the woman wearing just underwear.

The humour in the ads would be unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence the ASA ruled. But it had an ex-kids restriction and was shown during Bugsy Malone, a film that would appeal to children, so complaints about scheduling were upheld.

Furniture giant MFI ran adverts showing couples having arguments that transpired to be within stores.

The campaign had an ex-kids restriction, but viewers still felt they were shocking and disturbing and suggested arguments were part of ordinary home life.

The ASA upheld complaints about one of the adverts, which showed a woman slapping her husband across the face for leaving a toilet seat up.

It did so on the basis that it could cause offence and be seen to be condoning violence.

A campaign on behalf of Marlow foods for their Quorn meat substitute showed a family meal, with the daughter objecting to the eating of Quorn on the basis that it was "her thing".

She brandishes a fork and threatens her brother with the words "touch my food - feel my fork".

Complainants said this was a depiction of a threat of violence and was therefore irresponsible and condoning bullying.

Feeling that the adverts were a light-hearted portrayal of family life, the ASA said it felt it was unlikely to encourage children to copy it, or cause harm to children or seriously offend.

A vicious attack by a crocodile on an unlucky wildebeest featured in this television advert for soft drink Oasis.

Those who complained found it distressing because it trivialised the violent death of an animal. Others also said their children had been frightened by it.

The ASA concluded the advert was likely to be seen as a light-hearted spoof and there were no graphic images of the animal being struck or bitten.

It also decided the fact that it was only cleared for broadcast after 1930 ensured that it would not be seen by children unsupervised.

Heart charity anger over poster
A man naked except for a swimming hat and goggles featured in this poster and national press advert. He was cuddling a woman in a swimsuit on a beach.

Those who complained objected to the nudity, saying it was gratuitous and irrelevant to the product.

Several people also complained that the posters had been placed near to schools in some areas.

The ASA decided the nudity in the ad was not explicit as the men's genitals were covered and it would not cause serious offence.

This television advert showed a dad falling asleep next to a boiling kettle and a tin of formula. The on-screen text stated: "Progress is a follow-on formula. Not intended to replace breastfeeding."

It annoyed some who argued that it was misleading and harmful because it didn't make clear it was advertising formula for babies over six months of age.

Some also argued that it might discourage mothers from breastfeeding.

The ASA concluded that as a whole the advert made it sufficiently clear it was a formula for babies over six months. It also decided it would not discourage breastfeeding among mothers.

"Feeding kids meat is child abuse," stated the poster in question and featured a close-up image of a child eating a burger.

Complaints argued it was irresponsible as it encourage parents to withdraw meat from their child's diet without replacing the nutrients it provides.

People also complained that it trivialised child abuse, was offensive and distressing to parents who fed their children meat and misleadingly implied that eating meat could lead to obesity.

The message was "anti-meat" said the ASA, but parents were likely to understand that if you withdraw a food from a child's diet the nutrients that food provides should be replaced.

It accepted some might find the wording of the ad inappropriate but decided it did not trivialise child abuse or mislead consumers.

It featured the naked top half of a woman with an enlarged 10 pence piece covering each breast and appeared on the side of buses.

People complained the advert portrayed women as sexual objects, was pornographic and appeared on buses where children could view it.

The ASA decided the ad was not overtly sexual in nature and the amount of flesh revealed was no different to that in a bikini.

While it agreed the ad would be distasteful to some, it could not be argued to be pornographic and wasn't likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

I remember the "Duck on a Hot Pan" ad. It killed a lot of careers. Then, there was the "Girl's Ass with Legs Crossed" ad. I heard Petronas self-censored their own RM1,000,000 commercial featuring Takeshi Kaneshiro. Any more?

The supposed "Duck on a hot Pan" campaign was never an actual campaign. It was a gag concocted by Patrick Teoh during his short stint at TalkRadio (now defunct). A lot of people got angry can called the station to protest. Then they found out it was a joke. And then they called up the station demanding that Patrick Teoh gets the canned because he dared fool them. Which proves the point that only losers call up radio stations.

Someone showed me the ad with a cartoon duck on a hot frying pan (line drawing). Everyone in the studio was laughing. I didn't bother to find out more since I was so busy rushing out some ads at the time. If I remember it correctly, Jerry Mckenna's name was mentioned. Anyway, it happened so long ago. I didn't make an effort to know what the controversy was all about, so yes, I wouldn't know the details.

can't remember.dun care.