ASA Adjudication on The National Farmers Union Development Company Ltd

Ad

National and regional press ads by the National Farmers Union featured an image of a cow lying dead on the floor. Beneath the image the headline text stated "SHE NEEDED INDECISION ON TB LIKE SHE NEEDED A HOLE IN THE HEAD" in large letters. Further text at the bottom of the page stated "In 2007, 28,000 cattle were lost to TB. This year that figure will be closer to 40,000 unless action is taken to eradicate TB from infected badgers. It's time to take the politics out of animal disease control. Please support our call for positive action on bovine TB, including the appointment of a separate animal health body that makes decisions based on scientific facts, not sentimentality. Call 0870 XXX XXX ... ".

Issue

Vegetarians International Voice for Animals (Viva!) and the Badger Trust challenged whether:

1. the ad was misleading, because it implied the spread of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) was solely caused by badgers.

Viva! challenged whether:

2. the claim "Please support our call for positive action on bovine TB, including the appointment of a separate animal health body that makes decisions based on scientific facts, not sentimentality" was misleading, because it implied the 10-year study on bTB by the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) on which the government based its recommendations was grounded in sentimentality.

3. Viva!, the Badger Trust and a member of the public challenged whether the ad was misleading because it implied a cull of badgers was the best solution for the control of bTB, which they argued was not supported by the Independent Scientific Group's report.

4. Viva! and one member of the public challenged whether the image and the headline were misleading and gratuitous because they believed that was the fate of all cows intended for slaughter, not only those with bTB.

5. The Badger Trust and one member of the public believed the ad was distressing and offensive.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. The National Farmers Union (NFU) said the wording of the ad indicated that the number of cattle lost to TB infection would continue to rise if steps were not taken to remove infected badgers. They said that despite years of cattle controls, including pre-movement testing, tracing of cattle and strict on-farm bio security, figures showed the number of cases was increasing. They sent figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) that showed the number of cattle slaughtered as a result of TB had increased between 1996 and 2008. They said the government had recognised that the reports by the ISG and Sir David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to HM Government and Head of the Government Office for Science, both recognised that badger culling could have an overall beneficial effect, but differed on the degree of benefit that might be achieved.

2. The NFU asserted that the outcome of the ISG's report had been the source of some controversy due to the way the culling trials were designed and because the ISG admitted its findings were not based purely on science. They quoted an extract from the ISG's second report on bTB published in December 1999 that stated "Implicit in our approach is the recognition that the widespread elimination of badgers from large tracts of the countryside would not be politically or socially acceptable, hence we have sought to explore a much wider consideration of the problem and its possible solutions."

They asserted that Professor Bourne, in his evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on June 18, 2007 had made it clear that Defra was not basing its decision on science, despite his recommendations to do so. They sent a copy of the minutes from that meeting and underlined Professor Bourne's comment "it would be really helpful if Defra embraced the science and stimulated discussions with the NFU in particular based on science to develop science-based policies. I have seen no sign of that."

The NFU said that the Secretary of State Hilary Benn, in his address to farmers at the NFU annual conference in 2007, made it clear that public acceptability was one of the criteria on which he would base his decision. They said Professor Bourne, in his evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, acknowledged that sentiment played a part in the decision-making process on badger culling.

They emphasised that the call for an independent body on animal disease control was not solely an NFU initiative, but part of a wider industry and government move to establish a body similar to the Food Standards Agency that could put tough decisions, such as the issuing of licences for the culling of wildlife, in the hands of a body that was not political.  

3. The NFU said they did not consider that the ad implied a cull was the best solution. They said the ad sought to establish that culling badgers should be part of the solution. They pointed out that Sir David King had submitted his report "Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers" to the Secretary of State on 30 July 2007. In that report Sir David King stated "Badgers are a clear source of infection for cattle. Reducing the density of badgers in those areas of England where there is a significant level of TB in cattle also reduces the incidence of TB in cattle in the same area ... Removal of badgers is the best option available at the moment to reduce the reservoir of infection in wildlife."  

4. The NFU said the image used was clearly that of a dairy cow and as a representative image was designed to portray an animal that was not destined for slaughter as its primary end use, as a beef animal would be.  They said the image was neither misleading nor was it gratuitous, and that the aim of the ad was to make clear that dairy cows that should have a productive life as milk animals were being lost to TB.  They acknowledged that dairy cows went to slaughter at the end of their productive life, but emphasised that the purpose of the ad was to show that cows with TB had to be slaughtered before they reached the end of their productive life.  They said great effort had been taken to source an image of a cow which had been slaughtered because of bTB but was in all other respects a healthy animal.

5. The NFU said they had made every effort to reduce the visual impact of the image by removal of the blood, and sent an image of the cow before they had amended it. They said they had ensured the image used was a small feature in the ad rather than a main feature. They said they had only received one complaint, despite the ad running in regional and national press.  

The Midland News Association said they considered the ad suitable for a country newspaper with a strong focus on countryside issues.

The Western Daily Press said they had received no complaints about the ad and emphasised that their readership was completely appraised of the issues surrounding the badger debate. They said the NFU advertisement, whilst hard-hitting, would not have come as much of a surprise to their readers.

The Times said that to the best of their knowledge they had not received any complaints about the ad. They said they considered the ad was suitable for their readership, and many of their readers would be familiar with the issue it addressed. They said the image of the cow was appropriate given the subject matter and unlikely to cause widespread offence or distress to their readers.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA considered the evidence sent by the NFU.  We noted that, although both the ISG's report and Sir David King's report reached different conclusions about the overall effectiveness of a badger cull on the number of cases of bTB, they both concluded that badgers played a role in the spread of bTB. We accepted that the purpose of the ad was to draw attention to a significant factor in the spread of bTB. However, we also noted that the ad stated "In 2007, 28,000 cattle were lost to TB. This year that figure will be closer to 40,000 unless action is taken to eradicate TB from infected badgers".  

Although we accepted that, according to Defra's published data the figure of 40,000 represented a reasonable prediction of the number of cattle that might be lost to bTB in 2008, we noted that neither Sir David King's report nor the ISG's report identified in clear and unequivocal terms the extent to which cattle to cattle transmissions could be separated from badger to cattle transmissions.

Because the ad stated that the number of cattle lost to bTB in 2008 would be closer to 40,000 unless action was taken "to eradicate TB from infected badgers", we considered it implied the spread of bTB was solely caused by the badger. Because that view was not supported by either Sir David King's report or the ISG's report we concluded the ad was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Not upheld

We accepted the evidence sent showed public support for the badger had been a consideration in the government's decision-making process. Because the ad did not mention the ISG report, we concluded readers were unlikely to infer from the ad that it was calling that particular report sentimental.  Although we accepted some readers may see the reference to "an animal health body that makes its decisions based on scientific fact, not sentimentality" as implying the government's decision not to implement a badger cull was not based on wholly scientific considerations, we considered the evidence sent showed public support for the badger had been a factor in the governments decision-making process. We therefore concluded the claim was not misleading.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

3. Not upheld

We considered the evidence sent by the NFU. Although we noted there was a difference in opinion between Sir David King's report and the ISG report on the effectiveness of a badger cull in reducing the number of cases of bTB, we noted the text in the ad did not call explicitly for a cull of badgers, and stated instead that action needed to be taken "to eradicate TB from infected badgers".  We therefore considered the ad did not imply a cull was the best solution for the control of bTB, and the main message readers would take from the ad was that it was calling for action to be taken on the issue of bTB, with particular reference to the formation of a separate animal health body that was not linked to a particular political party.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

4. Not upheld

We considered the NFU's comments. Although we noted dairy cows went to slaughter once they reached the end of their productive life, we considered that the condition of the cow in the ad indicated it had been slaughtered before it had reached the end of its productive life, and was relevant to the point made in the ad about the number of cattle lost to bTB.  We therefore concluded it was neither misleading nor gratuitous.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

5. Not upheld

We noted the NFU's and the publishers comments.  We noted the NFU had taken care to reduce the impact of the image by removing the blood from it.  Although we considered that the image might cause offence to some, we concluded it was unlikely to cause widespread offence or distress and was acceptable in the context of an ad setting out the NFUs concern about the number of cattle lost to bTB.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clause 5.1 (Decency) and  9.1 (Fear and distress) but did not find it in breach.

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)