ASA Adjudication on BPEX Ltd

Ad

National press, poster and magazine ads by the British Pig Executive promoted the Quality Pork Standard Mark.

a. The poster was headed "PORK: A GUIDE TO THE CUTS" and featured an illustration of a pig in the style of a butcher's diagram showing different cuts of pork. Instead of naming the cuts of meat the diagram was labelled "1.CUT IN INCOME 2.CUT IN JOBS 3.CUT IN FARMS 4.CUT IN QUALITY 5.CUT IN CONSUMER CHOICE." Further text around the diagram stated "British pig farms have very high welfare standards, assured by the Quality Standard Mark. And well cared-for animals mean better quality meat ... Help the pig farmers. Sign our petition for fairer prices at pigsareworthit.com and always look for the Pork Quality Standard Mark."

b. The press and magazine ads were headlined "Save a rare British breed from extinction. No, we don't mean the pig." Above the text was an image of a smiling farmer standing in the sunshine in a large pen with a pig. The body copy stated "When British pig farmers aren't up to their knees in whatnot, they're increasingly likely to be up to their necks in debt ... Many face financial ruin and are sadly giving up on pigs altogether. So what caused this crisis? Well, pig farmers in the UK already face higher costs than those in Europe, largely due to our higher standards of pig welfare. But the global rise in wheat prices has driven up the cost of feeding pigs worldwide ... ".

Issue

1. Compassion in World Farming and one member of the public challenged whether the claim "British pig farms have very high welfare standards" in the poster campaign was misleading and could be substantiated.

2. Vegetarians International Voice for Animals (Viva!) challenged whether the claim "pig farmers in the UK already face higher costs than those in Europe, largely due to our higher standards of pig welfare" in the press and magazine ads misleadingly exaggerated the standards of pig welfare on UK farms.

CAP Code

Response

1. BPEX Ltd (the British Pig Executive) said they did not accept that the statement "British pig farms have very high welfare standards" meant that the standard of pig welfare was very high. They said it was their fundamental belief that the statement related only to the welfare criteria that were controlled by Quality Standard Mark (QSM) standards. They said they did not see very high welfare per se in pigs as a natural interpretation of the statement. They emphasised that the standards of welfare required by the QSM were in themselves significantly in advance of those required by and generally practised in the rest of the European Union (EU) and went beyond the "Defra Code of Recommendation for the Welfare of Livestock - Pigs". They also said the QSM standards extensively addressed the "five freedoms" as defined by the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC).  They said the QSM had over 130 individual criteria and was accredited to EN45011, the international standard for certification of quality standards. They said UK assured pig meat was the only pig meat in the EU to have any level of veterinary inspection of welfare. They said that veterinary inspections in other EU countries focused on food safety rather than welfare issues.

They said that sow stalls had been banned in 1999 in the UK, but were still permitted in the EU. They explained that pigs kept in sow stalls were unable to turn around or lie down properly. They sent data from the 2006 UK Journal of Farm Management Vol. 12 No. 8 that set out the welfare scores for the attributes of the six dry sow systems. The table showed that the stall system scored the lowest for animal welfare and that the outdoor system scored the highest.

They said that tail docking and teeth clipping could not be carried out unless other measures to improve environmental conditions had been taken, but that they were routinely permitted in the EU.

They said that castration was allowed in the UK but was prohibited by the QSM. They said that castration was the norm in other EU countries and an EU survey in 2007 had revealed that castration was done without anaesthesia. They said that when sick, aggressive, or injured animals were housed in individual pens, those pens had to be large enough for the pig to turn round without difficulty at all times. They said that would not be a requirement in Europe till 2013. They said they estimated that 40% of sows in the UK were managed in outdoor systems and the great majority of sows had access to straw bedding.

2. The British Pig Executive said the cost of production in the UK in 2006 was 12% higher than the EU average, and sent a copy of the December 2007 edition of their survey of the relative costs of pig production in different countries. They said the higher welfare standards required by the QSM came at a financial cost to the farmer because the use of group housing instead of sow stalls meant there was a reduction in breeding performance that had a direct impact on costs of production. They said feed and labour costs were also higher per pig in loose housed systems than in stall systems.  They acknowledged the evidence sent showed Italy had higher production costs than the UK, but said that was because the Italian market was focused on the Parma ham market, which required a much heavier pig and resulted in a much higher feed cost.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA considered the evidence sent by the British Pig Executive. We noted their assertion that the claim "British pig farms have very high welfare standards, assured by the Quality Standard Mark" did not imply the welfare of pigs was in itself very high, but would be understood by readers to mean that the welfare standards were themselves very high. However, because the claim was followed by the text "And well cared-for animals mean better quality meat", we considered it did imply the welfare of the pigs was very high, and not simply that the standards themselves were very high.

Although we accepted that the QSM mark represented higher standards of welfare than some countries in Europe in two areas, the use of sow stalls and the castration of male piglets, we noted there was no clear guidance as to how the welfare of pigs across Europe should be measured. Moreover, we considered that some indicators of UK pig welfare, such as the percentage of piglets tail-docked, the percentage of finishing pigs that had access to straw bedding, and the use of farrowing crates for sows might be seen by some as indicating that the general level of pig welfare in the UK in certain areas should not be described as very high.  

Because the claim "British pig farms have very high welfare standards" was used in the context of an ad that implied a link between the quality of the meat and the standard of care of the pigs, we considered readers would understand the claim to mean that the welfare of the pigs themselves was very high. Because there was no clear guidance as to how to measure pig welfare across Europe, and because there was sufficient doubt as to whether the standard of welfare of pigs on all farms that signed up to the QSM could be described as very high, we concluded the ad was misleading.

Ad (a) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Not upheld

We considered the evidence sent by the British Pig Executive. We noted that pig farmers in the UK faced higher costs than those in Europe with the exception of Italy. We noted that the evidence showed there was a range of factors affecting the cost of pig production in the UK up to 2006, from variable factors such as feed and medical bills to fixed costs such as labour and finance. However, we also noted the evidence demonstrated a direct link between increased costs faced by UK farmers due to the group housing system that they were required by law to adopt in 1999 over the stall system used previously, and still in use in Europe.

We noted that, aside from the initial outlay for the group housing systems, additional costs arose from the less efficient feeding system, greater labour costs and decreased productivity associated with the group housing system. Because the group housing system used in the UK had been introduced to improve welfare standards, and because the British Pig Executive had shown that that system resulted in higher costs for UK farmers, we concluded they had substantiated their claim and the ad was not misleading.  

We investigated ad (b) under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons) but did not find it in breach.

Action

Ad (a) must not appear again in its current form. No further action necessary in respect of ad (b).

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)