ASA Adjudication on Animal Abuse Injustice & Defence Society Ltd

Ad

A national press ad for Animal Aid included a photograph labelled “UNDERCOVER VIDEO”, of a man as he appeared to stamp on a pig while holding an electric prod. The ad stated “ACT NOW TO STOP THIS BRUTALITY! A sow lies thrashing and screaming on the killing room floor, in agony from the electric shock that is meant to stun her humanely, but doesn’t. A ewe is stunned while her terrified lamb suckles her. As her unconscious body is dragged to the killing rig, the poor lamb follows. Our investigator filmed this cruelty secretly … British law demands that animals be humanely killed - what we saw showed that slaughterhouses routinely ignore the law and brutalise animals. And they get away with it, because there is no effective monitoring system. We need CCTV in every abattoir to prevent this terror. The RSPCA and even the government’s own Food Standards Agency (FSA) support our demand, but there is much work needed to make the FSA’s verbal commitment a reality …”

Issue

The complainant challenged whether:

1. the claim "slaughterhouses routinely ignore the law and brutalise animals" was misleading because abattoirs were required to have fully trained animal welfare officers;

2. the claim "there is no effective monitoring system" was misleading because abattoirs were policed by the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) via meat inspectors and official veterinary surgeons;

3. the claim "The RSPCA and even the governments own Food Standards Agency (FSA) support our demand" could be substantiated; and

4. the ad misleadingly implied that ewes were routinely and knowingly slaughtered whilst lambs were suckling.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Animal Aid said they had been secretly filming UK slaughterhouses since 2009, resulting in some licences being revoked and legal action taken against slaughterers, and explained that it was that investigation which formed the context for the ad and their general campaign to have CCTV in all UK slaughterhouses.

1. Animal Aid said that UK abattoirs were not required to have fully trained welfare officers until new regulations come into force in 2013. They said that, despite the presence of official veterinarians, legal breaches were still occurring. Animal Aid said they conducted an investigation into seven red meat slaughterhouses and found legal breaches of the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations in six of them. Animal Aid provided details of the breaches at the six abattoirs including DVD footage. Because breaches occurred in six out of seven, or 85%, of slaughterhouses, Animal Aid believed that animal abuses happened despite the level of checks in place.

2. Animal Aid believed that the number of breaches they identified indicated that the current monitoring system was ineffective. They provided several quotes from trade journals and meat suppliers that expressed their opinion that official vets were often too busy to spot animal welfare problems and that they were in support of Animal Aid's campaign. Animal Aid also supplied a quote from the President of the Veterinary Public Health Association (VPHA) that stated "We [vets] audit food business operators (FBO) operations - we dont provide continual supervision. Its an FBOs responsibility to provide continual welfare provision through its staff". Animal Aid said that irrespective of the fact that it was the duty of abattoirs or of vets to ensure high welfare standards were maintained, the breaches they uncovered showed that the monitoring system was not effective.

3. Animal Aid sent the ASA quotes from the Chief Executive of the FSA which said he "intended to develop a detailed plan for the industry within six months" for the installation of CCTV in slaughterhouses. A quote from an FSA spokesperson said "The MHS and Defra support the provision of CCTV as a way of helping food business operators comply with legislation". Animal Aid also sent us an article which quoted the RSPCAs Deputy Head of the Farm Animal Science Department that stated "The RSPCA whole-heartedly supports Animal Aid's campaign, calling for CCTV to be installed across abattoirs across the country". Animal Aid therefore believed the claim had been substantiated.

4. Animal Aid said they were careful to state "A ewe is stunned" and refer to the incident in the singular, to avoid the implication that the event had happened several times or that it was routine. They explained that they cited the incident as an example of the poor practice and distressing scenes they believed to be prevalent within UK abattoirs.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted that Animal Aid had conducted undercover investigations into seven abattoirs and believed they had found instances of legislative breaches and animal cruelty. We also noted their assertion that these instances were evidence of the fact that current monitoring processes were ineffective. We considered that, whilst Animal Aid believed they had shown evidence of malpractice in a small number of slaughterhouses, those instances were not objective evidence of the fact that breaches were occurring in all or the majority of slaughterhouses on a routine basis or that monitoring systems were generally ineffective. We considered that the claim "slaughterhouses routinely ignore the law and brutalise animals" was likely to exaggerate the prevalence of on-going animal abuse in slaughterhouses and concluded the ad was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Upheld

We understood that Animal Aid did not believe that monitoring systems were effective. However, we noted that the MHS conducted spot checks on abattoirs and enforced legislation on animal welfare at the time of slaughter. We also understood that official veterinary surgeons carried out inspections. Although we acknowledged that Animal Aid believed CCTV systems were needed in abattoirs to ensure effective monitoring, we considered that the claim "there is no effective monitoring system" implied that no active attempt was made to monitor their practices in relation to animal welfare. We considered that, without further clarification, the claim was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

3. Not upheld

We noted that the RSPCA and the FSA had both made public statements supporting the proposal to place CCTV cameras in abattoirs and therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead in that respect.

On this point, we investigated under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 8.1 (Matters of opinion) but did not find the ad in breach.

4. Not upheld

We noted that the ad stated "A sow lies thrashing and screaming on the killing room floor, in agony from the electric shock that is meant to stun her humanely, but doesnt. A ewe is stunned while her terrified lamb suckles her" and noted Animal Aid's argument that the events had been referred to in the singular. We considered that readers would understand those claims as a narrative of individual experiences Animal Aid believed they had uncovered as a result of their undercover filming and considered that readers were unlikely to infer from the phrasing of the claim that ewes were slaughtered in such circumstances intentionally and on a routine basis. We concluded the ad was likely to be understood as Animal Aid's comment on the event they had filmed and was therefore unlikely to mislead readers about the nature of such incidents.

On this point, we investigated under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 8.1 (Matters of opinion) but did not find the ad in breach.

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)