Background
Summary of Council decision:
One issue investigated. Not upheld.
Ad description
A website for Winterton Brothers, www.wintertonbros.co.uk, a halal chicken supplier, seen on 15 January 2018, featured a logo with the text “100% HALAL CHICKEN”.
Issue
The complainant, who understood the animals were stunned before being slaughtered, challenged whether the claim “100% halal chicken” was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Winterton Brothers Ltd said they purchased their chicken from halal certified suppliers. They supplied a certificate issued by Halal Consultations to Highbury Poultry Farm Product Ltd, which stated that they had been accredited by Halal Consultations to carry out halal slaughtering. They said the process for slaughtering used by their suppliers involved stunning in most cases and that this was true for most halal chicken on the market.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA considered consumers were likely to interpret the claim “100% halal chicken” to mean that 100% of the chicken obtained from Winterton Brothers was produced in a way that was consistent with standards for halal slaughter.
We noted that Guidance for halal and kosher slaughter published on www.gov.uk stated that all animals must be stunned before slaughter unless they were being religiously slaughtered for halal or kosher meat. However, it did not state that meat from animals that had been stunned could not be described as halal. The website of the Halal Food Authority stated that they did allow the stunning of birds and animals, provided that process did not kill the animals and that it was carried out by certain approved methods.
Although we recognised that there was some division of opinion on the role of stunning in the halal slaughtering process, the requirements for halal slaughter did not appear to prohibit stunning and we understood that the vast majority of halal meat sold in the UK was slaughtered using that method. Because Winterton Brothers demonstrated that their meat was produced in accordance with the generally accepted standards for halal slaughter, we concluded that the claim “100% halal chicken” was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
