ASA Adjudication on Sea & Land Power and Energy Ltd

Ad

A newsletter, for a wind farm development, included a section on 'Common Wind Energy Questions'. Under a subheading 'Safety' the newsletter stated "Over the last 23 years 68,000 wind turbines have been installed around the world and in that period no member of the public has ever been harmed by the normal operation of wind turbines (BWEA - http.bwea.com/emergy/myths.html)". Text under another subheading 'Property Prices' stated "One of the most recent studies in the UK (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and Oxford Brookes University, March 2007) has shown no clear relationship between the proximity of wind farms and property prices".

Issue

The 4Villages pressure group challenged whether the claim:

1. "no member of the public has ever been harmed by the normal operation of wind turbines" was misleading; and

2. that the RICS study had "shown no clear relationship between the proximity of wind farms and property prices" was misleading because it misrepresented the findings of the study.

CAP Code

Response

Sea & Land Power and Energy Ltd (SLP) maintained that the newsletter under investigation was public relations material and was therefore beyond the remit of the CAP Code.

1. SLP said the claim was taken from a British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) article, which sought to dispel the myths about wind energy. They sent a copy of the article and pointed out that the newsletter included a link to it. SLP believed the context of the word harm was clear from the ad. They pointed out that the section in the ad which contained the challenged claim began with the statement "Wind energy technology has no associated emissions, harmful pollutants or waste products". They also pointed out that previous sections of the newsletter had dealt with the question of adverse health effects.

2. SLP said the newsletter stated that the relationship between the proximity of wind farms and property prices was not clear, rather than there being no relationship at all. They maintained that they had accurately represented the findings of the study and pointed out that the newsletter invited readers to view the report in full to draw their own conclusions.

Assessment

The ASA considered that the newsletter was an ad for the purposes of the Code.

1. Not upheld

We noted the newsletter quoted from a BWEA article on wind power myths, which cited the effects of emissions, harmful pollutants and waste products focusing primarily on low frequency noise and infrasound (LFN/IS).  We noted the BWEA article cited a comprehensive study on LFN/IS by Dr Geoff Leventhall to support the claim used in the newsletter. We understood from a previous ASA adjudication that, although wind farms produced LFN/IS, there was no evidence that proved those emissions posed a risk to human health.

We noted the paragraph in which the claim appeared was headed "Safety" and began with the claim "Wind energy technology has no associated emissions, harmful pollutants or waste products" and considered that readers would see the claim in that context.  We noted the evidence sent by the complainants, which related to accidents involving wind turbines. We considered, however, that incidents such as road crashes due to driver distraction and injury caused by ice thrown from the blades, were rare and readers were unlikely to regard them as being related to the normal operation of the wind turbines.  Furthermore, we considered that readers were unlikely to infer that the claim referred to conditions such as stress.

Because a previous ASA investigation found that there was no evidence to show that LFN/IS from wind farms caused adverse health effects and because the evidence sent by the complainants did not contradict that view, we concluded that the claim was unlikely to mislead.

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

2. Not upheld

We noted the RICS and Oxford Brookes University study found that "there was a limited linear relationship between house prices and distance." Although we noted the study identified several trends and issues related to the impact of wind farms, we considered that the conclusion was that any findings should be taken with caution due to the limited data available. We also considered that the newsletter was unlikely to lead readers to believe that there was no relationship between the two factors and noted that SLP had provided readers with a link to the full text of the report.

Because we considered that SLP had accurately reflected the findings of the study and had not implied that there was no link whatsoever between the two factors, we concluded the newsletter was unlikely to mislead.

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

Action

No further action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)