The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has not withheld complaints regarding two television adverts promoting the UK’s Red Tractor Scheme.
A total of 28 complainants, including the vegan organisation Viva!, contacted the UK authority believing that the scheme did not guarantee animal welfare, and challenged whether the ads were misleading.
The adverts, both of which promised food that is “traceable, safe and farmed with care” and showed a red tractor towing trailers bearing families at kitchen tables, were shown on British TV in September 2018.
The organisation behind the Red Tractor Scheme, Assured Food Standards (AFS) – similar to the Irish equivalent Bord Bia – told the ASA that food and drink claiming to be under the Red Tractor label could be traced from farms to pack and every stage of the supply chain was required to be certified to their standards.
Acknowledging that no scheme could guarantee a particular level of welfare or that all food was risk-free, the ASA said: “Those standards were independently checked regularly by experts and the agreement farmers and food processors signed in order to be Red Tractor certified gave them access to their farm and business anytime unannounced.”
The organisation said there were robust food safety and bio-security standards and procedures in place to help minimise any risk to consumers and any issues were dealt with in a robust manner.
Examples of required standards were given, such as prohibiting electric goads, which were legal under UK Government standards.
The stocking density of chicken houses was lower in Red Tractor standards than both EU and UK legislation and Red Tractor standards required an independent annual inspection and four quarterly visits by a specialist pig vet registered in the Pig Veterinary Society, which was not required by law.
The organisation’s technical advisory panel is made up of experts from across the food chain, including scientists, vets, consumer experts, farms, retailers in the dairy sector and a representative from the RSPCA, according to the ASA in its findings.
Findings
The ASA did not uphold the complaints against the adverts. In its reasoning on its decision, the authority noted that from the ads viewers would interpret that “all of the scheme’s produce had been inspected thoroughly from the origin of production to ensure its safety for consumption”.
In a statement on the matter, the ASA outlined: “We recognised that what constituted an appropriate degree of animal welfare on farms was a subjective issue, but in the context of the ads we considered viewers would understand that the scheme had enforceable standards in place that went beyond those required for the farming of livestock.”
Information provided by AFS was acknowledged in relation to standards in place such as requirements for housing, shelter and handling facilities, feed and water, animal transportation, the responsible use of agricultural chemicals and the animal’s health and welfare.
“Within the health and welfare standards, livestock had to be handled in a way that avoided injury and minimised stress, and quietly and calmly without excessive force.”
Other standard requirements taken into account included inspections of animal health records and veterinary health plans.
In its conclusion on the issue, the ASA reported: “Because standards had been put in place to protect the safety of the Red Tractor scheme’s produce, that those standards went beyond those required for the farming of livestock and a regime of inspection of adherence to those standards was in place, we concluded that the ads were not misleading.”