ASA Adjudication on Mackie's
Mackie's
Westertown
Rothienorman
Aberdeenshire
AB51 8US
Date:
12 October 2011
Media:
Internet (on own site)
Sector:
Food and drink
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
A11-150642
Ad
A website for Mackie's of Scotland, which was visited on 1 March 2011, made a number of claims in relation to the electricity they generated and used in the production of their goods.
Issue
One reader challenged the following claims:
1. “Mackie’s use roughly 40% of the wind energy generated and export the rest to the Grid”, because he understood the figure was not based on actual production and usage figures.
2. “Wind energy is renewable, economic ...” and “It also makes good financial sense”, because he understood that wind energy was heavily subsidised, which was not clarified in the ad, and was not generally economic.
3. “Scotland is the windiest country in Europe and wind turbines are forecast to generate electricity for approximately 80% of the time”, because he understood that Scotland had not been identified as the windiest place in Europe and he believed the 80% figure was extremely unlikely.
4. “A typical 850KW turbine (like Mackie’s) could provide the amount of power used in 500 homes or to boil 28 million pints of water or run a computer for 7 million hours - that’s 810 years”, because he understood that the figures were not based on the actual output of the turbine.
5. “Good Energy supply to homes and businesses in England, Wales and Scotland and offers a way for households to cut their CO2 pollution by up to 1/3rd”, because he believed the potential CO2 pollution saving to be exaggerated.
6. “Providing products like Mackie’s Ice Cream that are carbon neutral in their production gives consumers a choice”, because he understood that Mackie’s Ice Cream was not carbon neutral.
7. “The wind turbines can produce more electricity than we use”, because he understood that wind power was intermittent and therefore it was unlikely that over a period of time a turbine could produce more electricity than Mackie’s required.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
1. Mackie’s stated that the 40% figure used was based on actual production and usage data available at the time the text was written. They said they had used roughly 30% of the electricity generated on-site in 2010 and they confirmed that they had now updated the website accordingly. They provided details of the total electricity generated by their turbines, the amount used on-site and the amount sold to the national grid for both 2009 and 2010.
2. Mackie’s said these statements appeared in a quote from their managing director and should therefore be regarded as an expression of his opinion. They stated that, before introducing the wind turbines, their energy usage was reaching the maximum available to them and that generating their own electricity made absolute financial sense for their business. Mackie’s provided a rough illustration which demonstrated the estimated value of the energy their turbines produced over a one-year period.
3. Mackie’s pointed out that the website of the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) referred to the UK as the windiest country in Europe. They provided a map that showed the different annual mean wind speeds in areas across the UK (available on the BWEA website but produced for the Department of Trade and Industry in 1998) which they believed showed that Scotland was the windiest country in the UK. They said Scotland was frequently referred to as the windiest country in Europe and they provided a number of references.
Mackie’s provided links to the websites of a national energy provider and one other organisation which stated that wind turbines produced electricity 70–80% of the time.
4. Mackie’s said these figures appeared in a section of the website that discussed wind power generally and that the figures were based on industry average information. They believed that the sentence which began “A typical 850KW turbine (like Mackie’s) could provide ...” made it clear that this information was for illustrative purposes only and that it did not represent one of their own turbine’s output.
Mackie’s stated that they could nevertheless justify the claims based on the output of their own turbines. They referred to the figures provided in response to point 2 regarding the electricity production from their turbines and they provided information from various sources regarding the average amount of electricity required to power a household for a year, boil a litre of water in a kettle and power a laptop computer for an hour. They believed those figures demonstrated that their own turbines produced more electricity than the typical turbine referred to in their illustration.
5. Mackie’s provided information from the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) regarding typical annual domestic energy consumption along with a copy of an Energy Performance Certificate, which stated that the average household generated 6 tonnes of CO2 per year. They referred to guidelines produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) which explained how organisations and individuals could calculate the tonnes of CO2 emitted in the production of the energy that they used. They provided a calculation based on those sources which they believed showed that 1.8 tonnes of the average household CO2 emissions were from electricity consumption. They said that electricity production from renewable resources such as wind did not emit CO2 or other greenhouse gases and they provided a reference to a website to support this. They therefore believed that the average household could save approximately one-third of its annual CO2 emissions if it changed to a renewable electricity supply.
6. Mackie’s stated that their ice cream business was actually carbon positive, not just carbon neutral and that they had deliberately understated this claim. They provided details of a survey commissioned by the Carbon Trust in 2009 which showed the total CO2 emitted by Mackie’s both directly (e.g. from on-site fuel combustion) and indirectly (e.g. emissions generated during the production of electricity bought from the national grid) that year. They pointed out that, when the electricity produced by their turbines that year was converted to tonnes of CO2 using the Defra conversion factor for purchased electricity, the CO2 offset was considerably greater than the total CO2 emitted in the running of their business. Mackie’s also provided invoices for all of the electricity they had purchased from the national grid and sold to the national grid in 2010. They pointed out that they had sold considerably more than they had bought and they believed that their business continued to be carbon positive.
7. Mackie’s said their wind turbines produced nearly three times more electricity than they used and that the evidence they had supplied in response to the other points of complaint demonstrated this.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
We noted that the figure quoted had been correct at the time it was written and that the website had now been updated to display the most up-to-date information. We understood that both the original and revised figure had been based on actual production and usage data and we therefore concluded the ad was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 11.1, 11.3 and 11.7 (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
The ASA noted that the claim “Wind energy is renewable, economic ...” appeared in quotation marks and we understood that it had been presented in this way to identify it as the opinion of Mackie’s managing director. We noted that he went on to say "We are keen to find new ways to cut our energy consumption alongside our other environmental projects. The investment in wind turbines makes good sense for our business because our consumers have told us that it is important for them to know that our ice cream is made with renewable energy. It also makes good financial sense, we are a rural business which needs significant power levels and will continue to need more as we grow". We considered that most readers would understand that those comments referred specifically to the benefits of wind energy for Mackie’s and we therefore concluded that readers would not be misled as to the more general economic benefits of wind energy.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 11.1, 11.3 and 11.7 (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.
3. Not upheld
We noted that each of the references provided by Mackie’s confirmed that Scotland was the windiest country in Europe. We were advised by the Met Office that, in terms of mean wind speeds for wind energy resources, the UK was generally acknowledged as the windiest country in Europe and that Scotland was the windiest country in the UK.
We noted that the references provided by Mackie’s confirmed that wind turbines generally produced electricity 70–80% of the time. We understood that RenewableUK (the trade and professional body for the UK wind and marine renewables industries) estimated that this could be as high as 85%. Because we accepted that Scotland was the windiest country in Europe, we considered it reasonable to assume that wind turbines in the north of Scotland would be towards the top end of these productivity estimates.
We concluded that both statements had been substantiated and were not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 11.1, 11.3 and 11.7 (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.
4. Not upheld
We considered that readers would understand the sentence that began “A typical 850KW turbine (like Mackie’s) could provide ...” to mean that the figures provided were illustrative only. We did not consider that readers would infer that the figures had been taken from the actual output of one of Mackie’s turbines. We nevertheless noted that the output of Mackie’s turbines appeared to be greater than the industry average figures used in the illustration. We concluded that the statement was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 11.1, 11.3 and 11.7 (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.
5. Not upheld
We understood CO2 was calculated by converting the amount of energy consumed in kilowatt hours (kWh) using conversion factors such as those provided by Defra. We understood that the typical medium household gas and electricity consumption figures produced by Ofgem had been updated on 17 January 2011 and that, when those figures were converted from kWh to CO2 using the appropriate Defra conversion factors, Mackie’s estimation of 1.8 tonnes of CO2 from electricity consumption was accurate. We noted that conversion of the Ofgem figures suggested the typical CO2 emitted by the average household each year was less than 6 tonnes and we therefore considered that Mackie’s estimation of the proportion of the total emissions from electricity consumption had been conservative.
We noted that the reference provided by Mackie’s stated that operational CO2 emissions from renewable electricity were zero. We also noted that the Defra conversion factor for renewable electricity was zero. Therefore, because we understood that CO2 emissions from electricity consumption currently accounted for at least one-third of the total CO2 emitted by the average household in one year, we concluded that the claim had not exaggerated the potential CO2 saving and was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 11.1, 11.3 and 11.7 (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.
6. Not upheld
We considered that readers would understand this claim to mean that Mackie’s had achieved zero net emissions in the production of their ice cream. We noted that the survey carried out by the Carbon Trust in 2009 included details of emissions from all sources, including fuel used by sales vehicles, tractors, generators and heating systems as well as purchased electricity. We noted that Mackie’s own figures for that year showed that the total electricity produced by their turbines, including that which was used on-site and that which was sold to the national grid, created a CO2 offset of more than three and a half times the amount of CO2 emitted in the running of their business.
We noted from the invoices provided that in 2010 Mackie’s sold approximately four times more electricity to the national grid than they bought from it and that the total electricity produced by their turbines that year provided a CO2 offset of approximately three times their total emissions in 2009.
Because the amount of CO2 offset by the electricity produced by Mackie’s was significantly greater than the amount emitted in the running of their business in 2009, and because they sold approximately four times more electricity to the national grid than they bought from it in 2010, we concluded that on the basis of the evidence provided to us the claim had been substantiated and was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 11.1, 11.3 and 11.7 (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.
7. Not upheld
We noted that the total electricity used by Mackie’s in 2010, which included electricity bought from the national grid and electricity produced by their turbines, was closer to half of the total generated by the turbines than the third they had suggested. Nevertheless, we considered the turbines clearly generated more electricity than Mackie’s used and we concluded the claim had been substantiated and was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 11.1, 11.3 and 11.7 (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
