An advert for ham featuring naked picnickers prompted 371 complaints but it was misleading claims about meat that saw the Advertising Standards Authority finally pull the commercial.

The television campaign for Richmond ham opened with a man standing in a field and admiring a sandwich while wearing only a cap, before strolling past a group of naked people who were eating a picnic.

The man sang: "Oh Richmond ham, as nature intended, you've nothing to hide Richmond ham, to me you taste blooming splendid," before a voice-over said: "New Richmond ham. Britain's only ham made with 100% natural ingredients."

Most of the complaints to the (ASA) objected that the ad, which was restricted to broadcast outside of children's programming, was offensive and inappropriate for younger viewers.

But some took issue with the ad's claims, pointing out that other producers also made 100% natural products, the ham was processed and made with pork protein and was made in Ireland.

Kerry Foods, which owns the brand, said the ad demonstrated a "well-adjusted, comfortable and completely non-sexual attitude to the human body" and received an overwhelmingly positive response from test audiences.

It maintained the claim that all the ingredients were natural but acknowledged that the ham was made in Ireland, saying that the ad referred to the availability of the product rather than its provenance.

The ASA did not uphold complaints that the nudity was offensive, saying: "Whilst we understood the ad may not appeal to everyone, we considered that it was not sexual in tone and we concluded that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence."

It also rejected concerns about the brand's "100% natural ingredients" claim.

However it did rule that the ad misled consumers by describing the product as "Britain's only ham", saying viewers were likely to interpret this as meaning it was British in origin.

It ruled that the ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.

See more adverts that got the axe:

Loading Slideshow

• Ryanair

  The ASA <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/banned-ryanair-ad_n_1279529.html?1329336365" target="_hplink">banned these Ryanair ads in February 2012</a>, deeming them too "sexually suggestive" to run in newspapers.

• Drop Dead clothing line

  Banned in November 2011 for<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/10/drop-dead-ads-banned-asa_n_1085903.html" target="_hplink"> showing an "underweight" model</a> and sending an "irresponsible" message.

• Marc Jacobs Oh, Lola!

  Banned in November 2011 for <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/09/dakota-fanning-perfume-ad-banned-marc-jacobs_n_1083535.html" target="_hplink">its potential to "sexualise a child."</a>

• L'Oréal's Revitalift Repair 10

  Banned in February 2012, for "misleadingly exaggerated the performance of the product," i.e. smoothing over Rachel Weisz's skin with technology, not makeup.

• Marks & Spencer lingerie

  Banned in November 2011 for <a href="http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/news-features/TMG8924873/Marks-and-Spencer-lingerie-advert-banned-for-being-too-sexy.html" target="_hplink">showing ''objectified women''</a> and images that are ''sexually suggestive'' and likely to be seen by children.

• Lynx Deodorant

  Banned in November 2011 for being <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/26/banned-deodorant-ads-uk-lucy-pinder-lynx_n_1113958.html?1322660080" target="_hplink">"sexually suggestive, indecent, provocative."</a>

• Miu Miu Fall 2011

  Banned in November 2011 for <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/23/hailee-steinfeld-miu-miu-ad-banned_n_1109948.html" target="_hplink">its setting, on a rail road track, being "irresponsible."</a>

• Lancome

  Banned in July 2011 for <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/julia-roberts-loreal-ad-ban_n_910587.html" target="_hplink">"excessive retouching."</a>

• Maybelline's The Eraser

  Banned in July 2011 for "excessive retouching."

• Yves Saint Laurent's Belle D'Opium fragrance

  Banned in February 2011 for suggesting <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/ysl-belle-dopium-ad-banne_n_817455.html" target="_hplink">"the injection of opiates into the body."</a>

• American Apparel Ads

  Some of American Apparel ads (including the one above) were banned by Britain's ASA for gratuitous nudity; a few more were deemed "exploitative" for sexualizing young women. (American Apparel photo)

• Lara Stone for Calvin Klein

  In 2012, Lara Stone posed with a group of male models in this Calvin Klein ad. It was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/calvin-klein-billboard-ba_n_771559.html" target="_blank">promptly banned by Australia's Advertising Standards Bureau</a> after they found it to be "suggestive of violence and rape."

• Bulgari's Julianne Moore Ad

  This ad was pulled in Italy in 2011 after the mayor of Venice found it inappropriate.

• Rimmel's Mascara Ad

  The British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/26/why-was-this-georgia-may-_n_788605.html" target="_blank">banned this ad after they declared it misleading</a> because Georgia May Jagger is wearing false eyelashes -- even though there's a small disclaimer at the bottom that says, "show with lash inserts."

• Brian Atwood's Madison Avenue Ads

  The <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/brian-atwood-ads-banned_n_1824162.html" target="_blank">video of this ad was banned from taxis and the print versions were banned</a> from the facade of Atwood's Madison Avenue store after being found to be too racy.

• Natalie Portman for Dior

  The Advertising Standards Authority<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/natalie-portman-dior-ad-banned-mascara_n_2004837.html" target="_blank"> banned this ad </a>because they felt the ad used excessive "post-production retouching" in order to exaggerate the real effects of the mascara being advertised.

• Tom Ford's Gucci Campaign

  In 2004, this Tom Ford Gucci ad campaign became controversial as women saw the girl's shaved pubic hair as degrading and wrong.

• Rachel Weisz for L'Oreal Paris

  This ad was banned after a complaint from Liberal Democrat Jo Swinson who claimed the ad was "misleadingly exaggerated" in that is makes Weisz look far younger than she actually is and presents a bad image for women.

• American Apparel Sock Ad

  Oh American Apparel, how you love to push the envelope. Here's another one that was banned because the ad is supposed to be promoting socks but it seems more to be exploiting the girl instead.

• Taylor Swift for CoverGirl

  This Taylor Swift mascara ad was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/covergirl-mascara-ad-banned_n_1159957.html" target="_blank">banned by the National Advertising Division of the COuncil of Better Business Bureaus Claims (NAD)</a> after they found the product depiction to be dishonest with it's claims that the mascara will make lashes have "2X more volume" and be "20 percent lighter."

• American Apparel Models

  Again, American Apparel gets in hot water when they apparently use underage models (girls younger than 16) on their website. Britain's ASA <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/american-apparel-sexy-ads-asa-child-models_n_2243360.html#slide=1805970" target="_blank">accused the store of "sexualizing" underage models. </a>