ASA Adjudications

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals t/a PETA
PO Box 36668
London
SE1 1WA
Number of complaints: 67
Date:24 January 2007
Media:Poster
Sector:Non-commercial

Ad
A poster for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) showed a photograph of an overweight child eating a burger.  Text stated "Feeding kids meat is child abuse  FIGHT THE FAT  GO VEG  PeTA.org.uk".  
Issue
The ASA received complaints about the ad from The National Farmers' Union, Hughes Butchers, the Guild of Welsh Lamb and Beef Suppliers, the International Meat Trade Association Incorporated and members of the public.

1. The National Farmers' Union, Hughes Butchers, the Guild of Welsh Lamb and Beef Suppliers, the International Meat Trade Association Incorporated and the majority of the public complainants believed the ad was irresponsible, because it could encourage parents to withdraw meat from their children's diet without replacing the nutrients meat provided.

2.  A large number of the public complainants felt that the ad trivialised child abuse.

Slightly fewer public complainants believed the ad:

3.  was offensive and insensitive to victims, and the relatives of victims, of child abuse and

4.  was offensive and distressing to parents who fed their children meat.

Fewer still public complainants challenged whether the ad:

5.  used an undue appeal to parents' concerns about childhood obesity and

6.  was misleading, because it implied eating meat, rather than excessive amounts, could lead to obesity.

7.  A minority of public complainants thought the ad unfairly denigrated parents who fed their children meat.

The CAP Code: 2.2;5.1;7.1;8.1;9.2;9.1

Response
PETA said scientific research demonstrated the harmful effects of eating meat on people generally and on children in particular.  They sent references to articles published by several authors and organisations to demonstrate their arguments that feeding meat to children was harmful to their health and also that causing serious harm to a child in this way could be considered child abuse.  They said the American Dietetic Association (ADA) stated that fewer vegetarians than meat-eaters died from ischemic heart disease and vegetarians had lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes and prostate and colon cancer than meat-eaters; they also claimed that vegetarians tended to be slimmer than meat-eaters.  They said, according to some authors, meat-eating children were shorter and had lower IQs than vegetarian children and were also at an increased risk of obesity and other diseases.  They added that other authors reported that meat-eaters were approximately 70% more likely to get cancer than vegetarians and lived, on average, six to ten years less.

PETA argued that meat-based diets contributed to early signs of atherosclerotic damage, a condition involving the build-up of cholesterol and fat in the arteries, in 60% of children and young adults.  They explained that high levels of cholesterol, which was found only in animal products, resulted in a high risk of major coronary heart disease; meat-eaters had 2.5 times more cardiac problems than vegans.  They said the cause of many health problems was meat-related childhood obesity and the levels of obesity in children under 11 years of age had trebled since the 1980s.  They pointed out that obesity increased the risk of developing a number of diseases, including heart disease, strokes and type 2 diabetes.  They said, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, 32% of boys and 38% of girls born in 2000 were predicted to develop diabetes during their lifetime.  They argued that meat-eaters had three times the obesity rate of vegetarians and nine times the obesity rate of vegans.  They said there were also proven links between meat consumption and illnesses such as food poisoning and Alzheimer's disease.

PETA argued that definitions of child abuse varied and were not limited to acts of physical violence.  They pointed out that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) stated that physical abuse included giving children harmful substances such as drugs, alcohol or poison and that, if a parent or carer deliberately caused illness to a child, that was a form of physical abuse.  They believed it was therefore rational that feeding a child a diet likely to provoke severe health effects was tantamount to abuse.  

They said the ad used humorous imagery that was intended to appeal to parents.  They pointed out that no efforts to heighten fear or distress on a level disproportionate to the risks of eating meat were made.  They added, however, that the documented health risks of feeding meat to children were severe and intrinsically frightening and asserted that there was no way to educate the public about the far-reaching health implications of a meat-based diet without causing fear or distress to some degree.  

PETA argued that it was implicit that consumers who had been warned against a particular food product should find another way to get the nutrients they needed.  They said the ad did not merely advise parents to cut meat from their children's diet but actively encouraged them to "GO VEG".  They said the fact that there were millions of healthy vegetarians was proof that the vegetarian diet provided all necessary ingredients.  They also said nutritionists explained that, providing a vegetarian diet was well-balanced, it should provide all the nutrients needed by the body as well as health benefits in the form of prevention and treatment of certain diseases.  They added that the ad included their website address where consumers could find detailed information about nutrition and a healthy vegetarian diet.

PETA maintained that the ad was intended solely to encourage healthy dietary choices for children; it was therefore designed out of a sense of social responsibility.  They said the statement "Feeding kids meat is child abuse" was a statement of fact, given that meat was significantly harmful to health, and believed it was not restricted only to PETA's opinion.  They added that PETA did not profit from the ad in any way.
Assessment
1.  Not upheld
While the ASA appreciated that the ad carried an 'anti-meat' message and was intended to promote a meat-free lifestyle, we considered that parents were likely to realise that, if a food was withdrawn from a child's diet, the nutrients that food provided should be replaced.  We considered that parents were unlikely to withdraw meat from their children's diet without having an alternative source for its nutrients as a result of seeing the ad.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clause 2.2 (Responsible advertising) but did not find it in breach.

2.  Not upheld
While we recognised that some viewers would find the text used in the ad inappropriate, we understood that PETA had intended to convey that, in their opinion, feeding meat to children, and thereby exposing them to potentially harmful influences, was tantamount to abuse.  We considered that, in that context, the ad did not trivialise child abuse.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 5.1 (Decency) and 8.1 (Matters of opinion) but did not find it in breach.

3.  Not upheld
We understood that, for some people, particularly those directly affected by it, any reference to child abuse in an ad was likely to be deemed inappropriate and shocking.  We also noted PETA's very strong objections to meat-eating and the reasons why they asserted that it was apt to use hard-hitting language in support of their aim.  We appreciated that the issue of child abuse was extremely sensitive and should not be treated flippantly.  We considered, however, that in this instance the claim was likely to be seen as a demonstration of the very fervent beliefs of PETA and was, therefore, unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to those affected by child abuse.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 5.1 (Decency) and 8.1 (Matters of opinion) but did not find it in breach.

4.  Not upheld
We noted PETA used imagery, which they intended to be humorous, and hard-hitting text to highlight their belief that meat-eating was bad for children's health.  While we appreciated that some consumers were likely to disagree with PETA's belief and find the imagery and text distasteful, we considered that, overall, the ad was likely to be seen as an expression of an extreme point of view and was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or distress to parents who fed their children meat.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 5.1 (Decency), 8.1 (Matters of opinion) and 9.1 (Fear and distress) but did not find it in breach.

5.  Not upheld
While we acknowledged that the ad alluded to obesity, we considered that consumers were likely to recognise that it represented PETA's opinion that meat-eating was largely responsible for obesity amongst children, which they believed was extremely important and alarming.  We considered that the ad, in that context, did not make an undue appeal to fear.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 8.1 (Matters of opinion), 9.1 and 9.2 (Fear and distress) but did not find it in breach.

6.  Not upheld
We understood that, in PETA's view, meat contributed to increasing levels of childhood obesity.  We considered, however, that it was generally understood by consumers that meat-eating, in the context of a sensible and balanced diet, was not the primary cause of obesity, which was exacerbated by poor overall nutrition and lack of exercise.  We concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead consumers into believing meat-eating was responsible for obesity.    

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 8.1 (Matters of opinion) but did not find it in breach.

7.  Not upheld
We understood that some complainants, who fed meat to their children, found the ad unfair and insulting.  We considered, however, that it was likely to be seen as highlighting PETA's anti-meat stance and encouraging parents to adopt their philosophy by turning to vegetarianism.  We recognised that the view PETA expressed in the ad was likely to be deemed incongruous by some but considered that it was unlikely to be seen as denigrating parents who included meat in their children's diet.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 8.1 (Matters of opinion) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No action necessary.


Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)

back | top