Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and three Not upheld.
Ad description
A press ad and poster ad from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) featured an image of a syringe and bullet at the top of the page. Headline text stated "VACCINATE OR EXTERMINATE? The UK government wants to shoot England's badgers. We want to vaccinate them - and save their lives". Text in the body copy stated "The government's proposed badger cull could begin at any time, despite scientific evidence that slaughtering thousands of England's badgers is unlikely to stop the spread of bovine TB in cattle. Will you help us continue our campaign to stop the cull? Text BADGER to XXXXX and give £3 today to help save England's badgers. NOW SIGN THE PETITION that could stop the cull. Go to www.rspca.org.uk/badger # stopthecull".
Issue
Simon Hart MP, the Farmers' Union of Wales, Antoinette Sandbach AM (Shadow Minister for Rural Affairs in Wales) and 116 members of the public complained about the ads.
1. Most complainants challenged whether the ads, and in particular the use of the term "exterminate" was misleading, because they believed it was inaccurate and alarmist because the proposed cull was a trial to be conducted in only two areas of the country.
2. The Farmers' Union of Wales and 15 other complainants challenged whether the suggestion that vaccination was a viable alternative to a cull was misleading and could be substantiated.
3. Four complainants challenged whether the claim "we want to vaccinate them" was misleading, because they believed it implied that the RSPCA would undertake the vaccinations itself, which they understood was not the case.
4. Simon Hart MP also challenged whether the claim "... scientific evidence that slaughtering thousands of England's badgers is unlikely to stop the spread of bovine TB in cattle" was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. The RSPCA said the word "exterminate" was used carefully and deliberately. They said it had a literal meaning, that of total eradication, and a common use, that of killing on a massive scale. They said the proposed cull of badgers in Somerset and Gloucestershire was based on an assertion that at least 70% of the estimated badger population would need to be killed in a given area to have the desired impact on the spread of bovine tuberculosis (bTB). They said that information from the government's Policy on bTB and Badger Control in England highlighted that it was possible that more than 70% of the badger population in the pilot areas would be killed. The RSPCA said the view from a government advisory body was that "The outcome for local [badger] populations is more uncertain ... On this basis it is our view that the local disappearance of the badger in some areas cannot be ruled out". They said that this view was supported by two scientists in a letter to a scientific journal. The RSPCA said that letter stated that culling a particular number of badgers "Could remove anywhere between 51% of the resident population ... and 100%". They said this illustrated that there was a real risk that badger populations in some areas of the cull could be wiped out completely. They said the claim was not alarmist or exaggerated because the government had stated that once the humaneness and efficacy of the culls in the two pilot areas had been assessed as an acceptable culling technique, it intended to roll the cull programme out across a very large area of England. The RSPCA said whilst the culls may not result in the total eradication of badgers in England as a whole, it was possible that in certain areas within the cull zones the loss of badgers could be total.
The RSPCA said at the time the ad appeared there was a high level of public knowledge about the badger cull and this was supported with a range of available information. They said hundreds of thousands of people had signed an e-petition and responded to a Defra consultation. They also said they had e-mailed their supporters with information, published press releases and updated their website with information on their badger campaign. In addition, they said there had been substantial media coverage on the issue and those sources of information had included the 70% cull benchmark; therefore consumers would have been aware that not all badgers would be culled.
The RSPCA said the play on the words "vaccinate" and "exterminate" was an important and effective way of drawing the viewer into the ad and the use of the question mark firmly and clearly indicated that the issue was a matter for debate and was not an absolute statement. They said that at the time the ads were placed, the pilot trials had not commenced and it was fair to say that it was unclear, until such time as the pilot culls had taken place and the results evaluated, what effect it would have had on the badger population.
2. The RSPCA said badger vaccination was the path the Welsh Government had chosen in relation to their Intensive Action Area in Pembrokeshire after they had abandoned a cull. They said that badger vaccination avoided the risk of "perturbation", when surviving badgers roam wider than the culling area, which increased the risk of disease transmission from badgers to cattle. They said an injectable badger vaccination Badger BCG was licensed for use from March 2010, and in 2012 over 2,500 badgers were vaccinated, most of which were in the Intensive Action Area in Wales and the Badger Vaccine Deployment Area in Gloucestershire. They also said that conservation organisations and private individuals had vaccinated badgers which indicated that this route was feasible and contradicted the claims that vaccination was impractical or not viable. They said there was good evidence that vaccination was safe and provided at least partial protection in badgers as it was shown to reduce the severity of bTB and perturbation. They said vaccinated badgers showed a reduction in lesions and bacterial count compared to unvaccinated animals.
The RSPCA submitted a report from the Welsh Government which they believed supported that view. They said an additional government department report stated "A vaccine that reduces the excretion of M.bovis bacteria [the bacterium that causes TB in cattle] is a powerful tool. An effective programme of badger vaccination in areas where badgers are the suspected source of TB in cattle would be expected to reduce TB transmission of the disease between species ... Although vaccination is costly, scope exists for economies of scale but this will need a more coordinated national approach to badger vaccination to enable equipment and information to be shared more effectively".
The RSPCA said another government department report showed that vaccination in a wild badger population significantly reduced the risk of bTB infection in vaccinated badgers and unvaccinated cubs. They said unvaccinated susceptible cubs were indirectly protected from disease transmission through the "herd immunity" effect and therefore there was no need to vaccinate 100% of susceptible animals to achieve a protective effect. They said a significant percentage of wild badgers that received a vaccine were likely to become resistant to infection and/or disease and would play a part in the reduction of disease transfer between badgers and cattle. Furthermore, they said repeated vaccination in an area was likely to reduce the level of bTB infection and disease in the local badger population and therefore reduce the risk to local cattle. They said a study had shown that through vaccination modelling the difference between the outcome of culling or vaccinating badgers could be quite modest. They said vaccination would not cure already infected animals. However, since the prevalence of bTB in badger populations was relatively low and because the typical lifespan of a badger was three to five years, infected animals would die off naturally and the risk to cattle would reduce.
3. The RSPCA said the phrase "we want to vaccinate them" made clear their scientifically based policy of opposition to the government's position on culling and that they preferred the alternative approach of vaccination. They said the phrase had not implied that the RSPCA would literally take on the role of vaccinating badgers. They said they were prepared to work with, and in some cases, fund local vaccination of badgers by farmers or landowners who chose not to participate in badger culling.
4. The RSPCA said the statement was clearly qualified and had not stated that the proposed cull would not stop the spread of bTB, but that it was "unlikely" to stop the spread. They submitted independent scientific evidence and documents from the UK and Welsh Governments, which they said supported the claim that badger culling could increase the spread of bTB in badgers because of the perturbation effect across the landscape. They said the government's own predictions suggested culling would achieve only a 16% reduction in herd breakdowns within culled areas. They said there was a considerable body of highly respected scientific opinion that considered the culling policy was "very unlikely" to contribute to bTB eradication and it also risked increasing bTB.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA understood that a minimum number of badgers had to be culled to be effective against the spread of bTB. However, while we acknowledged that a whole badger population could theoretically be removed through culling, it was also possible that the number of animals culled could be significantly lower. There was uncertainty around the number of badgers that would be culled, but we noted that "VACCINATE OR EXTERMINATE?" was followed by "The UK government wants to shoot England's badgers". We acknowledged the RSPCA's assertion that the e-petitions, consultations, press coverage and their own campaigning materials ensured consumers would be aware of the 70% cull benchmark and they would therefore be aware that not all badgers would be culled. However, we considered that, in general, it was likely that consumers who had responded to the various petitions and consultations and the recipients of the RSPCA's own communication were likely to be particularly concerned by the forthcoming cull and would therefore have taken an active engagement with the various pieces of information. We considered that the wider, general population, who had not taken an active interest in the proposed cull, would not be aware of the proportion of the badger population that was expected to be culled as part of the government's plans and we therefore considered that consumers were likely to interpret the claim, along with the text "The UK government wants to shoot England's badgers", to mean that all badgers would be eradicated in the cull areas. On that basis, we concluded the claim was likely to mislead.
On this point the ads breached rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising).
2. Not upheld
We understood that the debate around culling and vaccination was complex with arguments for and against each method of control. We noted that one Welsh Government study stated that "No trials [have been] undertaken to assess whether the vaccination of badgers would reduce the number of bTB cattle herd breakdowns ... however it is logical to assume that over time this would be the case". Notwithstanding the arguments for and against each method of bTB control, we noted that the RSPCA had not claimed that vaccination was preferable or more effective than culling. We considered the ads had made clear that the RSPCA preferred vaccination to culling without commenting on the relative effectiveness of those approaches. We therefore concluded the claim was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ads under 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 them in breach.
3. Not upheld
We considered that the ads conveyed the RSPCA's preference to vaccinate rather than cull. However, we considered that they had not gone so far as to claim that the RSPCA would carry out the vaccination and we therefore concluded that the ads were not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ads under 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 them in breach.
4. Not upheld
We acknowledged the evidence sent by the RSPCA which highlighted the issues that surrounded culling and the subsequent effects on badgers and cattle. We noted that at the time the ad appeared, the cull had not yet begun and a post-cull assessment had not been conducted. However, the documents submitted indicated that, whilst there was likely to be a reduction in the spread of bTB in the cull area, this was not absolute and the spread would not therefore be "stopped", as the ads also stated.
We considered that the ads clearly stated that there was scientific evidence to support the claim and it did not state that the evidence was universally accepted. Because the ads had not made a definitive claim, and because we had seen evidence that suggested the proposed cull was unlikely to stop the spread of bTB in the cull areas, we concluded the claim was not misleading and had been substantiated.
On this point we investigated the ads 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 them in breach.
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told the RSPCA not to use language in future advertising that implied the whole badger population in the cull areas would be culled.
