Marketers should not claim that animals raised organically are better provided for than they are and should take care to ensure claims do not go further than the evidence held. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld complaints against an ad which was considered to make a claim that organically farmed animals experienced better conditions than non-organically farmed animals because, although the advertiser provided evidence which showed that organically farmed animals experienced high animal welfare conditions, the ASA did not consider that it showed that in all cases, organically farmed animals experienced better conditions than non-organically farmed animals (Organic Trade Board t/a Why I Love Organic, 13 July 2011).
Absolute statements regarding animal welfare must be backed up with evidence. An ad which claimed that none of the advertiser’s cows suffered from mastitis was found to be misleading because the advertiser did not supply the ASA with evidence to substantiate the claim (HaLove, 1 May 2013).
See ‘Organic foods‘.
Source: Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP)
Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the ASA. CAP’s AdviceOnline entries provide guidance on interpreting the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing.
How can we help!
At LS Consultancy, we provide a cost-effective and timely Copy Advice to make sure all your advertising and campaigns are compliant, clear and suitable for their purpose.