ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Soil Association

Complaint

Objection to a leaflet for donations to the Soil Association. Text on the front of the leaflet stated "Does your food leave a bad taste? Demonstrate good taste - support the Soil Association". Text inside the leaflet stated "The bitter taste of industrial farming. The Soil Association believes the search for cheaper food has forced farming towards a system of mass production ... Just ?3 a month can help change how food is produced. The Soil Association believes in farming that works with nature, not against it. Organic farming produces healthy food with a more environmentally friendly approach that: Reduces public exposure to chemicals and additives. Excludes GM ingredients. Is more humane to animals. Preserves wildlife. If giant agrochemical companies leave a bad taste in your mouth, why not demonstrate good taste - and support the Soil Association?"

The complainant challenged the claims:

1. "Organic farming produces healthy food" because he believed there was no guarantee, whatever the farming method used, that the food would be healthy;

2. "a more environmentally friendly approach" and

3. "more humane to animals"

CAP Code

Adjudication

1. Complaint upheld

The advertisers said they had not claimed that food produced by organic farming methods was healthier than that produced by other methods; they said they had followed advice from the CAP Copy Advice team before publishing the leaflet. The advertisers submitted many papers that they believed showed organically produced crops contained less nitrate, more essential minerals, vitamins and anti-oxidants than conventionally produced crops. The advertisers also sent a paper published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal about the microbiological examination of ready-to-eat organic vegetables from retail outlets in the UK; the researchers tested over 3,000 samples of organic vegetables and found no evidence of L. monocytogenes, Salmonella, Campylobacter or E. coli 0157 and very little evidence of other microbiological contaminants.

The Authority acknowledged that the advertisers had sought copy advice on an earlier version of the leaflet and had followed that advice; it noted the wording of the leaflet was intended to communicate that organic food was safe to eat. Although the complainant pointed out that, in July 2004, the Food Standards Agency had ordered the withdrawal of a range of organic alfalfa products that had been contaminated with Salmonella, the Authority nevertheless considered that the advertisers'' submission showed the overall agricultural, hygiene, harvesting and production practices associated with ready-to-eat organic vegetables was good. It noted, however, the study had not compared organically-produced vegetables with those produced by conventional farming methods. It considered that, in the context of a leaflet encouraging donations to help promote organic produce over that produced by industrial farming, readers were likely to interpret the claim "Organic farming produces healthy food" to imply that organic food was healthier than non-organic food and eating organic food would have no harmful effects. The Authority noted the advertisers'' submission on the content of organically and conventionally produced food and noted the submission indicated a trend for organically-produced crops to contain less nitrate than conventionally-produced crops. It nevertheless considered that it did not show organically-produced food conveyed noticeable health benefits over and above the same food when conventionally produced or that a diet of organic food could guarantee no harmful effects. The Authority considered that the advertisers had not substantiated the claim and asked them to amend it.

2. Complaint not upheld

The advertisers asserted that the claim was true; they sent a copy of the Department of the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) "Action Plan to Develop Organic Food and Farming in England", which was DEFRA''s Business case to the Treasury on the proposed entry-level stewardship scheme for farmers, and a copy of the Soil Association''s Organic Food and Farming Report 2003.

The Authority noted the submission and considered that the evidence from DEFRA showed that, when comparing conventional and organic farming systems for ecosystem, soil quality, water quality, air quality and resource use, organic farming generally scored better in terms of biodiversity, soil quality, nitrate and pesticide pollution, ammonia, methane and carbon dioxide emissions, energy efficiency, nutrient balance and controlled waste. It noted there was insufficient evidence to assess the effect of organic farming methods in phosphorus loss, survival of human pathogens and nitrous oxide emissions. The Authority understood that the complainant believed most organic food sold in the UK was imported and that that resulted in transportation emissions such as carbon dioxide. It also noted DEFRA''s Business case to the Treasury stated that it aimed to increase the market share for domestically produced organic produce from 30% to a level similar to the market share for conventional UK produce of 74.7%. The Authority considered that readers of the leaflet would be likely to understand the claim in the context of the leaflet''s appeal for donations to support the "organic food and farming movement"; it noted the leaflet encouraged donations because only 4% of UK farmland was under organic production. The Authority noted importation of organic produce from abroad by air, road and sea would have an adverse effect on the environment when compared to the transportation cost of the equivalent food produced conventionally in the UK. It nevertheless considered that, because the leaflet solicited donations in the UK to help promote the production of food in the UK by organic farming methods, the transportation cost of imported organic food outside the UK was not relevant to the context of the claim. The Authority concluded that the claim was acceptable in the context of comparing organic farming with industrial farming in the UK.

3. Complaint upheld

The advertisers said the claim should be interpreted as "more humane than conditions on an average farm"; they said they had followed advice from the CAP Copy Advice team before publishing the leaflet but had chosen to use the claim "more humane to animals". The advertisers sent: their latest report on organic farming and animal welfare entitled "Batteries not included"; a report published by the Compassion in World Farming Trust (CIWF Trust) in 2000; a comparative study of welfare assurance schemes published in the October 2000 edition of the Journal of the Institute of Agricultural Management and a letter from the authors of the study in 2003 and several quotations from animal welfare organisations.

The Authority acknowledged that the advertisers had sought copy advice on an earlier version of the leaflet and had followed that advice. It noted the sources for the advertisers'' submission agreed that the organic system had the potential to deliver good animal welfare. The Authority noted that there were six welfare categories in the comparative study, which included, nutrition and housing, and noted that the study had concluded that the advertisers'' standards exceeded the minimum requirements of the MAFF codes across most categories, despite pointing out that the qualitative nature of the standards made it difficult to confirm breaches. The Authority also noted that the letter from the authors of the study pointed out that there was no consensus over what constituted the ''best'' animal welfare and that the study had not investigated the implementation of the standards by monitoring and controlling procedures. The Authority considered that, in the context of a leaflet encouraging donations to help promote organic produce over industrially-farmed produce, the claim "more humane to animals" implied the organic system was more humane to animals than industrial farming techniques. Because the advertisers had not sent comparative studies showing indicators of animal welfare, such as mortality rates, lameness or disease levels, that proved animals kept and disposed of under their organic standards were treated more humanely, the Authority considered that the advertisers had not substantiated the claim that organic farming methods were more humane to animals than industrial farming techniques. The Authority concluded that the advertisers had not justified the claim and asked them to delete it until they could substantiate it.