ASA Adjudication on Renewable Fuels Association

Ad

A national press ad was headed "OPEC RAKES IN BILLIONS, BUT BLAMES BIOFUELS - CONFUSED?" Body copy stated: "An Open Letter to the President of OPEC From the World's Biofuels Industries." The letter was addressed to President Khelil and was signed by the Renewable Fuels Association, the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, the European Bioethanol Fuel Association and the Sugarcane Industry Association. In the letter, they defended themselves against reports that OPEC believed the presence of bioethanol in the fuel market "is responsible for 40% of the rise in world oil prices." A heading stated "To sustainably supply the fuel needs of a growing world population, new renewable sources of energy must be brought to the marketplace." Body copy stated "We are proud of our efforts to provide a lower priced, renewable fuel to the world today. As the world biofuels industry evolves, new feedstocks and technologies will usher in greater production and begin to supplant even larger volumes of petroleum. This movement toward diversified energy supplies, increased efficiency and greater competition is crucial to the sustainability of future generations, including those in OPEC nations." Large text at the bottom of the page stated "BIOFUELS - A ... SUSTAINABLE ANSWER TO OPEC'S OIL."

Issue

George Monbiot, an environmental journalist, challenged whether the claim "BIOFUELS - A ... SUSTAINABLE ANSWER TO OPEC'S OIL" was misleading.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) said the Oxford English Dictionary defined sustainable as "able to be sustained" and "(of industry, development or agriculture) avoiding depletion of natural resources." They believed biofuels met with that definition of sustainability. They said the feedstocks for biofuel production - grains, vegetable oils and sugarcane, which they expected to be joined by grasses, wood chips and other agricultural wastes in the near future - were renewable, plant-based resources which could be grown and harvested or collected each year. They said that, by contrast, there was no disagreement that fossil fuels were a finite resource and many researchers had concluded that alternative sources of energy needed to be found. They said that relying on plant-based feedstocks would not deplete or damage the plant material itself, whereas the use of oil caused permanent damage to that resource.

RFA said they wished to address three main points the complainant had raised.

RFA said there was considerable evidence to suggest biofuels were not primary contributors to the global food crisis and that other factors had been found to be greater contributors. They said that, in the UK, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) listed adverse weather conditions, a reduction in stocks, international trade restrictions, speculative investments and growing demand from emerging economies in addition to biofuel production as factors which impacted on food prices and availability. They said similar views had been expressed in a briefing for the European Parliament by the Overseas Development Institute and ProForest and by the United States Departments of Agriculture and Energy, Informa Economics and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, among others. They also noted that commodity prices, particularly those of maize, soybeans and wheat, had fallen since June 2008 despite the increase in production of biofuels. They believed that showed biofuel production did not contribute to higher grain and food prices and the global food crisis.

RFA said it was not correct to state that, in almost all cases, biofuels caused greater carbon emissions than petroleum. RFA said the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research had compared 13 bioenergy paths with energy production from fossil fuels and found the greenhouse balance was positive, although not as positive as with natural gas. RFA said the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United State Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory had also concluded that the production and use cycle of biofuels resulted in reduced greenhouse gas emissions compared with gasoline. They believed it was also important to note that work to improve the carbon footprint of biofuels was continuing.

They said it was also not correct to suggest that biofuels were responsible for an expansion of agricultural land into wildlife habitat and the loss of biodiversity. RFA said the OECD had stated that the agricultural and land-use trends identified as impacting on the world's ecosystems would continue independently of biofuel production. RFA cited a report by the Economic Research Service of the US Department of Agriculture which had found 2.2 million acres of farmland were converted to urban uses each year. They said, nevertheless, that ethanol production represented approximately 1% of total harvested agricultural area worldwide, excluding pastureland. They said research had shown there was significant global capacity to expand agricultural land use without jeopardising land use for forest or other sensitive environmental ecosystems.

RFA concluded by stating biofuels must also be considered in terms of economic sustainability. They believed reliance on petroleum as a finite resource was likely to lead to greater volatility in petroleum pricing and, consequently, economic harm. They believed biofuel production offered a route away from petroleum dependence and an economic and development opportunity for developing nations. They said they did not intend to run the ad again but believed, nevertheless, that their evidence substantiated the claim.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA acknowledged that fossil fuels such as oil and coal were a finite resource and that developing alternatives was a widely reported part of the current global political and business agenda. We noted the arguments put forward by RFA in support of the claim that biofuels were sustainable, which included that the feedstocks were renewable rather than a finite resource. We also noted that references and reports from Defra, the Overseas Development Institute, the United States Departments of Agriculture and Energy, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation and other, similar bodies which the RFA believed refuted the allegations that biofuels had been found to be primary contributors to the global food crisis, that in almost all cases, biofuels caused greater carbon emissions than petroleum and that biofuels were responsible for an expansion of agricultural land into wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity, and which they therefore also considered substantiated the "sustainable" claim.

We also noted, however, that a review commissioned in the UK by the Secretary of State for Transport, the Gallagher Review of the indirect effects of biofuels production, concluded that, while there was definitely a future for sustainable production of biofuels, there were a number of provisions that needed to be observed. The review concluded there was likely to be sufficient land to meet the needs of food, animal feed and biofuel production to 2020 but that policies needed to be in place to ensure biofuel production targeted idle or marginal land. Without those policies, the review considered biofuel production would result in net greenhouse emissions and loss of biodiversity through habitat destruction in the period to 2020 and that consideration also needed to be given to the period beyond 2020. The review concluded that an EU-wide obligation needed to be set up to encourage production techniques that did not impact on agricultural land and that, outside the EU, stronger policies were needed to slow rates of deforestation, especially in South America, Africa and parts of South-East Asia; that, while there was some potential for the poor to benefit from biofuel production, rises in food prices caused by biofuel production were likely and that interventions by governments were required to alleviate the effects on the most vulnerable. The review concluded that it should be possible to establish a genuinely sustainable biofuel production industry provided that robust, comprehensive and mandatory sustainability standards were developed and implemented; that the risks of indirect effects could be significantly reduced by ensuring the production of feedstock for biofuels took place on idle and marginal land; that technologies that utilized appropriate wastes and residues needed to be encouraged; and that, until adequate controls to address the indirect effects of biofuel production were in place and found to be effective, the introduction of biofuels should be significantly slowed.

We noted the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "sustainable" RFA had put forward. We considered, however, that the term was used and understood in many different ways. Although the RFA had not referred to it specifically in their response, we understood initiatives were currently attempting to work on the development, implementation and verification of credible global standards for the sustainable production and use of biofuels. We noted a final certification system had, however, not yet been agreed. We also noted RFA believed biofuels should also be considered in terms of economic sustainability. We considered, however, that most readers were likely to consider the concept of sustainability primarily in environmental terms in the context of the ad. We understood the best practice guidance on environmental claims in Defra's "Green Claims Code" stated that, although sustainability was a widely used term, it was not defined by a common methodology when applied to products and that, therefore, claims containing the words "sustainability" or "sustainable" should be avoided. We concluded that, despite the documentation RFA had provided and the arguments they had made, in the light of the advice given by Defra on the use of the claims "sustainability" and "sustainable" and the conclusions of the Gallagher Review, RFA's evidence did not substantiate the claim and that, at the present time, references to biofuels in general as "sustainable" were likely to mislead.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 3.2 (Division of informed opinion), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 49.1, 49.2 and 49.3 (Environmental claims).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told RFA to remove the claim "BIOFUELS - A ... SUSTAINABLE ANSWER TO OPEC'S OIL" from their ad.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)