Background
On 7 April 2025, the Advertising Codes were updated to reflect the revocation and restatement of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs – the legislation from which the majority of the CAP and BCAP rules on misleading advertising is derived) by the Unfair Commercial Practices provisions in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA). On that date, the wording of a number of the rules in the Advertising Codes was changed to reflect relevant changes introduced by the DMCCA on 6 April 2025. Given that the complaints that formed the subject of this ruling were received before 7 April 2025, the ASA considered the ads and complaints under the wording of the rules that existed prior to 7 April 2025, and the Ruling (and references to rules within it) should therefore be read in line with this wording, available here – CAP Code and BCAP Code.
Ad description
A YouTube video, TV ad and a poster for the RSPCA, seen in May 2024:
a. The YouTube video, on the RSPCA’s own account, featured various animals including computer-augmented cows, chickens, and a pig in industrial farming facilities, an emaciated dog, a turtle in a suitcase, and a racing greyhound singing Aretha Franklin’s version of the song “Respect”. That was followed by a scene of a snail being picked up and placed on a potted plant with a voice-over that stated, “What a sight to behold. One snail, delivered safely from harm’s way.” On-screen text then stated, “EVERY ANIMAL DESERVES OUR KINDNESS. RESPECT. RSPCA FOR EVERY KIND. SEARCH. SHARE. SUPPORT”.
b. The TV ad was a shorter version of ad (a) and featured various animals including computer-augmented cows and chickens in what appeared to be intensive farming facilities, an emaciated dog, a bee being runover by a lawnmower and an abandoned kitten singing Aretha Franklin’s version of the song “Respect”. That was followed by footage of animals being looked after and cared for. On-screen text then stated “EVERY ANIMAL DESERVES OUR KINDNESS. RESPECT. RSPCA FOR EVERY KIND. SEARCH. SHARE. SUPPORT”.
c. The poster featured images of a sheep, a dog, a rat and a fox, and text that stated “RSPCA […] FOR EVERY KIND […] Every kind of animal deserves our kindness”.
Issue
Adfree Cities and two other complainants, challenged whether the ads misleadingly represented the welfare standards afforded to animals farmed under the RSPCA Assured scheme.
Response
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) explained that the purpose of the ad campaign was to encourage people to rethink their relationships with all animals and treat them with kindness and respect. The campaign was part of a new brand strategy designed to respond to the growing challenges faced by animals worldwide and to encourage people to reappraise the RSPCA, and animal welfare, as an important cause of our time. Rather than shock, the campaign was intended to start conversations about animal welfare, offer hope, and leave people feeling inspired and motivated. The ad campaign was not about any one aspect of the RSPCA’s work. Instead, it had an all-encompassing message urging people to rethink their relationships with all animals – including domestic and companion animals, wildlife, animals used in science and farmed animals – not just the small percentage that were reared on farms which were members of the RSPCA Assured scheme. The campaign was not about the scheme, did not contain any logos or references to it and did not encourage people to engage with it.
RSPCA Assured was a not-for-profit charity that administered a farmed animal welfare assurance scheme, based on the RSPCA’s farm animal welfare standards. While RSPCA Assured was part of the RSPCA Group, it was a separately registered charity and was a subsidiary of the Group. RSPCA Assured accounted for only four per cent of the Group’s total expenditure in 2023, and three per cent of the Group’s employee headcount. RSPCA Assured accounted for only a small part of the RSPCA’s overall work in England and Wales, and its work in relation to the welfare of farmed animals. People would therefore not have interpreted the ad campaign as referring to RSPCA Assured.
The aim of the RSPCA Assured scheme was to improve farmed animal welfare by encouraging the farming industries to adopt higher welfare standards than minimum legal requirements in key welfare areas, and to educate consumers on higher welfare options. The purpose was to drive up standards of farms through continuous incremental change. They were designed to be stretching, while remaining commercially viable. Some farming practices were permitted in limited, specific circumstances, under rigorous controls, and the RSPCA was working with the industry to develop alternatives. They said routine tail docking and nose ringing were generally proscribed by law, except for in exceptional circumstances where there was an animal welfare case for their use. The RSPCA standards ensured additional ethical controls, beyond those set out in legislation, were observed – nose ringing was only allowed once on animals over a certain size, and rings could not be replaced if they fell out; tail docking could only be carried out within the first 48 hours of life, and was not allowed on free range animals. The need for both procedures had to be assessed quarterly. Beak trimming was only typically permitted on chicks up to 24 hours of age. They encouraged farmers to increase herd inspection, reduce stock densities, and increase environmental enrichment provision to decrease the need for such measures.
The complainants had objected to what it understood was the RSPCA Assured scheme’s certifying of “intensive” and “factory” farming. The RSPCA explained that “intensive farming” was a term used by the Environment Agency in its classification of farms based on the number of livestock they held. A farm was “intensive” if it held at least 40,000 poultry, 2,000 pigs, and/or 750 breeding sows per farm. The term did not, therefore, refer to the welfare standards of a farm – for example, it was possible an intensive farm could have very high welfare standards; it was also possible a smaller, non-intensive farm could have very low welfare standards. Regarding “factory” farming, they said there was no one agreed definition of “factory”, or lower welfare, farming, It was, however, typically characterised by the use of cages, crates, very low space allowances and barren environments. It also involved the use of breeds that had been selected for increased productivity at the expense of their health. The primary aim of the farming type was to maximise production at the expense of animal welfare. The RSPCA Assured scheme did not allow practices typically associated with lower welfare farming, such as the use of farrowing crates and cages was prohibited; environmental enrichment for animals was required; and space requirements for animals went beyond the minimum set out in legislation.
The RSPCA Assured scheme encouraged and facilitated higher welfare options over lower welfare alternatives. To use the RSPCA Assured label on meat, fish, or dairy products, hatcheries, farms, hauliers, and abattoirs had to have been assessed and confirmed to have met the RSPCA’s higher farmed animal welfare standards. RSPCA Assured members were audited to the welfare standards by Supply Chain In-Sites (SCI), who held the scheme’s UK Accreditation Service (UKAS) accreditation to the standard ISO 17065. UKAS was the National Accreditation Body for the UK and had been appointed by the government to assess and accredit organisations that provided services including certification and inspection. As part of the accreditation process, SCI carried out internal audits. In turn, UKAS conducted audits of SCI which included how certification of the scheme’s members was awarded and to ensure all standards were being observed. Assessments were carried out at least yearly, and were typically announced ahead of time, although some were unannounced. The majority of animals farmed in the UK were not reared on RSPCA Assured member farms and were therefore not reared to RSPCA welfare standards. Because of that, much of the RSPCA’s farmed animals work focused on improving welfare across the entire farming industry and raising awareness through campaigns, working with industry bodies, processors and retailers to push for incremental changes.
The RSPCA was aware of allegations of poor welfare and breaches of the RSPCA welfare standards on farms that were members of the RSPCA Assured scheme. In response, they had followed due procedure in acting to immediately identify the nature of any breaches and sanctioned farms where necessary, which included withdrawing some farms from the scheme. They had also commissioned a consultancy firm to conduct an independent review of 200 farms. The review found the scheme was operating effectively to assure animal welfare on member farms, making a tangible improvement to millions of animals’ lives. The report also found no significant indication that there were widespread animal welfare concerns across the programme of unannounced visits undertaken by the consultancy firm. Where non-compliance was found, immediate actions and follow-up were taken by the RSPCA. The RSCPA said that despite routine welfare assessments, a degree of non-conformance was to be expected within any assurance scheme, as part of the normal audit process.
Clearcast said that while the RSPCA was known for establishing welfare standards for major farm animal species, they viewed ad (b) as a prompt for viewers to reflect on the treatment of animals, as opposed to a specific commentary on farming practices. The visuals in the ad were provocative, but the RSPCA had assured them that the farming practices shown did not align with their own endorsed standards.
Assessment
Not upheld
The RSPCA was an established and well-known animal welfare charity whose name and aims were familiar to many people in the UK. The charity had a long history of campaigning on animal welfare issues and were associated with advocacy in that area.
The ASA understood RSPCA Assured, a subsidiary of the RSPCA Group, was a not-for-profit organisation that administered a scheme that set welfare standards for certain farmed animals that went beyond legal minimum standards. The scheme was aimed at improving welfare for those animals, and products from farms certified under the scheme could display the scheme logo and label on their packaging.
Ads (a) and (b) showed animals in a number of adverse situations including in farms, gardens and in nature. The second half of each ad changed the focus; it featured scenes of animals being treated with compassion and kindness. Ad (c) showed neutral images of animals as either headshots or in outdoor environments.
We acknowledged the RSPCA’s comments that RSPCA Assured accounted for only a small part of the RSPCA Group’s overall work in England and Wales, and its work in relation to the welfare of farmed animals, and that people would therefore not have interpreted the ad campaign as referring to RSPCA Assured. However, we considered that people would understand its message as one about the RSPCA’s overall charitable aims, and given the inclusion of farm animals in the ads, that those included welfare standards relating to farming. While RSCPA Assured was a separately registered charity, it was a subsidiary of the RSPCA Group that used the RSPCA name. The RSPCA was responsible for approving, updating and ensuring compliance with the standards used by RSCPA Assured, which was a vehicle through which the RSPCA furthered its objectives in relation to animal welfare standards in farming, using the RSCPA name. We considered that people would understand the ads as reinforcing the RSPCA’s message that all animals should be respected. They would expect the RSPCA’s own standards, including those that it approved for the RSPCA Assured scheme, to support the delivery of high-quality welfare to all animals, including farmed animals, which featured prominently in the ads.
The complainants were concerned that the RSPCA Assured scheme certified farms that engaged in “intensive” farming. Those who saw the ads would not expect this from the ads’ message of respecting all animals. Such farming typically featured large numbers of animals in low levels of space, without environmental enrichment, and the use of cages and crates.
We understood that while it was possible for farms classed as “intensive” under the Environment Agency definition to be RSPCA Assured, we understood that the RSPCA Assured scheme did not allow the practices associated with lower welfare farming that were depicted in ads (a) and (b) – the use of farrowing cages and crates was prohibited under the scheme, and environmental enrichment and space requirements for animals went beyond the minimum provided for in law.
The complainants were also concerned that some of the RSPCA Assured member farms engaged in practices that included beak trimming, nose ringing and tail docking. We considered the average person was unlikely to have a detailed awareness of the use of those specific practices in farming.
We acknowledged that some of those practices were contentious and understood they were regulated by law. People would expect an animal welfare scheme to have enforceable standards for the relevant farmed animals and that the specific practices were only carried out for welfare reasons, and in a way that complied with all applicable laws. We further understood that tail docking and the use of nose rings, were only lawful in exceptional circumstances, for animal welfare reasons and as a last resort where other measures had not worked. The RSPCA Assured scheme sought to place additional requirements on the use of such methods, beyond legally prescribed minimum welfare standards. For example, tail docking on RSPCA Assured member farms was only allowed in the first 48 hours of life, whereas the law did not include such a restriction. The scheme also set limits on the amount of tail that could be removed. Similarly, beak trimming was only permitted within the first 24 hours of life, and with infrared equipment. We understood that as a wider organisational effort, the RSPCA engaged with farmers to reduce the use of such practices, such as through reduction in livestock density and increased environmental enrichment.
The complainants were also concerned that some members had been found to have examples of serious poor practice and mistreatment of animals, including at salmon farms. We understood that RSPCA Assured farms were assessed at least once annually, and that those assessments were independently verified by a UKAS-recognised body. We further understood that RSPCA Assured imposed sanctions, which could include revocation of membership, on non-compliant members, and that in response to allegations of mistreatment on RSPCA Assured farms – contemporaneous with the time of the ads’ publication – it had quickly inspected and imposed a variety of sanctions on farms found to have breached its standards.
In addition, following those allegations, the RSPCA had commissioned an independent report into the performance of the RSPCA Assured scheme, published in October 2024. That report involved inspections of a random sample of member farms to whom unannounced visits were made. The report found that while some farms fell short of expectations, overall, the scheme was operating effectively with 93% of farms having fewer than five instances of non-compliance across over 500 standards. While a number of farms had fallen short of the RSPCA’s standards, those practices were unrepresentative. The report stated that a higher instance of non-compliance was found at salmon farms, but attributed that to the higher number of standards to which those farms had to conform.
We had not seen evidence that non-compliance with RSPCA Assured standards was a widespread issue in the RSPCA Assured scheme. We also acknowledged that in any assurance scheme some members would encounter compliance issues. We noted that furthermore, remedial policies and actions were in place and were activated for farms that encountered compliance issues.
We concluded that the ads were unlikely to mislead about the care standards afforded to animals at RSPCA Assured farms.
We investigated ads (a) and (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), but did not find them in breach.
We investigated ad (b) under BCAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.2 (Misleading advertising), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
