Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A national press ad, for the animal charity Animal Aid, was headlined "Genetically modified in Britain BRED TO SUFFER!" and featured an image of a mouse with a large growth on its side. Text stated "Your money is paying for the creation of genetically modified animals who are programmed to suffer seizures and burst hearts and to rip at their own flesh. CRUEL TO ANIMALS - BAD FOR PEOPLE". The ad referred to "Animal Aid's landmark new Science Corrupted report and accompanying film" which made further claims about experiments carried out in the UK. Text continued "Many of these experiments are funded by medical research charities. Please help us to convince them to fund only state-of-the-art, cruelty-free methods, such as tissue cultures and computer modelling - research that applies directly to people." Under the headline "Please help stop this pointless cruelty" was a tear off form which readers could fill out to obtain further information or to donate money.
Issue
Understanding Animal Research, challenged whether the claim "Genetically modified in Britain" in conjunction with the image of the mouse was misleading, because they understood that:
1. the image had been taken at an American laboratory; and
2. the visible tumour was a xenograft and was not a result of the mouse's genetic modification.
3. They also challenged whether the claim "Your money is paying for the creation of genetically modified animals who are programmed to suffer seizures and burst hearts and to rip at their own flesh" was misleading, because it implied that those events occurred in Britain and were funded by the British public, whereas the Science Corrupted report referred to in the ad stated that those instances had occurred outside of the UK.
Response
1. & 2. Animal Abuse Injustice & Defence Society Ltd t/a Animal Aid stated that the ad had followed the publication Science Corrupted, a report which described the suffering of genetically modified mice (GM mice) and which concentrated on, but was not specific to, the UK. They stated that many lines of GM animals were exchanged between research institutions and sometimes between countries. In addition, procedures and experiments undertaken in one laboratory were often repetitively mimicked in another. They stated that, due to official secrecy, it was not possible to find out which kinds of mice were kept in any given centre or the kind of procedures that were carried out. They believed that published scientific papers currently represented the best available information source, but could not be regarded as complete.
They acknowledged that the pictured mouse was supplied by an American institution and was a xenograft model of cancer. They undertook not to use the graphic again in connection with GM mouse material.
They stated that experiments to induce cancer in GM mice were extremely prevalent in the UK and had produced animals with visible tumour burdens, which many people would find distressing and unacceptable. They referred to a paper entitled 'An inbred colony of oncogene transgenic mice: diversity of tumours and potential as a therapeutic model', which they stated made clear that large, externally visible, sometimes ulcerated tumours were allowed to develop in mice. They considered that the appearance of mice with those tumours, especially if large and ulcerated, would be very similar to the image used in the ad.
They stated it was extremely difficult to obtain images from the animal research establishment of GM mice with disfiguring or deforming lesions, and even more so to obtain permission to publish them. Given the descriptions of the lesions in print, they considered that the xenograft image was a fair representation of the appearance, deformity and consequent suffering endured by those mice that had tumours produced by genetic alteration.
3. They stated there were published scientific papers which demonstrated how experiments to create GM mice, and to then subject them to experiments involving artificially induced heart attacks with a risk of cardiac rupture ('burst hearts'), had been conducted in Britain and been funded by the British public. They stated that the 'programming' (a shorthand term used in the ad to mean genetic alteration) was to produce mice that would be more or less prone to suffer certain types of cardiac events, including ventricular rupture. They did not think it was relevant to focus on whether or not those GM mice were more protected or more susceptible to such events.
They also pointed out that the ad did not expressly state that the ad's claims were directly related to the content described in the Science Corrupted report.
They referred to two papers ('Mitochondrial cyclophilin-D as a potential therapeutic target for post-myocardial infarction heart failure' and 'nNOS gene deletion exacerbates pathological left ventricular remodeling and functional deterioration after myocardial infarction') which they stated described how two groups of mice (GM and wild type) were subjected to surgically induced heart attacks. They stated that the work in one paper was co-funded by the British Heart Foundation and the other was funded by the British Heart Foundation. They did not consider that it was an exaggeration of over-grooming behaviour to state that animals were 'ripping at their own flesh', when it resulted in hair removal and skin lesions. They stated that self-injuring GM mouse 'models' of obsessive‒compulsive disorder (OCD) were described in UK scientific literature; they referred to a paper entitled 'Cross-species models of OCD spectrum disorders'. They acknowledged that the references in that review pertained to US experiments, but considered its content illustrated that the UK research establishment endorsed the production of, and experimentation on, self-injuring mouse models and that there were clear channels of research information exchange and communication across the Atlantic.
They stated that the headline claim set out that GM mice were created in Britain, and that much of their breeding involved suffering (whether in the form of inbuilt disease states or subsequent experimentation). They provided a paper (‘Aberrant GABA receptor-mediated inhibition in cortico-thalamic networks of succinic semialdehyde dehydrogenase deficient mice’) which set out that researchers in Britain used GM mice prone to suffer seizures and that one of the team was a UK based research fellow.
They also pointed out that the ad stated in bold italicised print, "many of these experiments are funded by medical research charities", referring to charities in the plural. They stated that the content of the ad did not only relate to heart disease research, but also related to, for example, epilepsy and cancer, in the case of the image used. They believed that the ad's text would be understood to be making a complaint about invasive experiments on GM mice, many of which were funded by medical research charities. They stated that they did not say or imply that the experiments were funded by general taxation, although many of them had been in part, because they were often conducted in universities, which received public funding.
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA understood that the complainants maintained that UK laboratory animal legislation was different, and in some cases stricter, than that found in other countries such as the USA.
Although we considered that some readers might infer that the image depicted was simply representative of the type of experimental work carried out in the UK, we noted that the ad featured the mouse below the headline claim "Genetically modified in Britain" and sought to obtain donations from readers based in the UK. We therefore considered that most readers would understand from the ad that the particular growth depicted on the mouse's side was a result of genetic modification and of experimentation carried out in the UK. We understood that the pictured mouse was supplied by an American institution, the visible growth was a xenograft, and the mouse had not been genetically modified.
In addition, although the advertisers had referred to papers which described experimentation on mice, we noted that we had not seen documentary evidence that experimentation in the UK had produced tumours of the type depicted in the image as a result of genetic modification.
We therefore concluded that the claim "Genetically modified in Britain" in conjunction with the image of the mouse was likely to mislead.
We welcomed the advertisers' assurance that they would not use the image again in future ads.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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).
3. Upheld
We noted that the ad stated "Genetically modified in Britain" and was placed by an organisation based in the UK, which was soliciting support from UK readers. Although we noted that the ad did not expressly state where "Your money is paying for the creation of genetically modified animals who are programmed to suffer seizures and burst hearts and to rip at their own flesh" was taking place, we considered that consumers would infer that the references in the ad were to UK-based experiments or were representative of the general work carried out in the UK by scientists in the field of animal research.
We considered we had not seen sufficient documentation to support the claim that the two studies ('Mitochondrial cyclophilin-D as a potential therapeutic target for post-myocardial infarction heart failure' and 'nNOS gene deletion exacerbates pathological left ventricular remodeling and functional deterioration after myocardial infarction') referred to by the advertisers had produced "genetically modified animals" which had been "programmed to suffer seizures and burst hearts and to rip at their own flesh".
We noted that the full study (‘Aberrant GABA receptor-mediated inhibition in cortico-thalamic networks of succinic semialdehyde dehydrogenase deficient mice) which had been provided referred to an examination on "mice that replicate human SSADH deficiency and exhibit typical absence seizures" and understood it related to a study carried out in the UK. We noted that the 'Methods' section stated "Breeding pairs of heterozygous SSADH deficient mice were obtained from Jackson Laboratories (Bar Harbor, ME, U.S.A). Offspring were genotyped as described previously, and experiments performed on postnatal day ... and WT littermates." We therefore considered that that supported the reference that UK-based experiments had involved "genetically modified animals who are programmed to suffer seizures".
However, although we understood that the abstract of "Cross-species models of OCD spectrum disorders" referred to "Notable examples include obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and trichotillomania (repetitive hair-pulling)", we did not consider that we had seen sufficient evidence to support the further claim that genetically modified animals “programmed to have burst hearts and to rip at their own flesh” were being produced in the UK.
Notwithstanding the above, we understood that the studies to which the advertisers had referred were funded or co-funded by the British Heart Foundation, and, in the case of the full study, by the Wellcome Trust. We acknowledged that copy in the ad stated that "many of these experiments are funded by medical research charities". However, we noted that that text did not appear next to the opening claim "Your money" and did not consider it was clear that charitable funding was intended as the basis of that claim.
Therefore, in the absence of further clarifying text, we considered that consumers would infer from the claim "Your money is paying for the creation of ..." that public money was being spent on experiments in the UK which produced "genetically modified animals who are programmed to suffer seizures and burst hearts and to rip at their own flesh". Whilst we acknowledged that the British Heart Foundation was a British charity, we considered that many readers would not be regular donators to that charity and, moreover, did not consider that the ad made the basis of the funding clear. We noted that the advertisers also maintained that experiments conducted in universities received public funding, but considered that the ad inferred that public money went directly to experiments of the type described in the ad and did not make the wider funding context clear. In light of that we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(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).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
