Background
Five issues were investigated, of which four were Upheld and one was Not upheld.
Ad description
Two TV ads, a paid-for Facebook post, a paid-for Twitter post and two press ads for Oatly, an oat drink company:
a. The first TV ad, seen on 16 January 2021, featured a man sneaking into his home and putting a bottle of milk in the fridge. He was interrupted by his son who said, “What have we here? Cow’s milk? Really?” Large, on-screen text stated “NEED HELP TALKING TO DAD ABOUT MILK?”. Smaller text at the bottom of the screen stated “Oatly generates 73% less CO2e vs. milk, calculated from grower to grocer. To verify see www.oatly.com/helpdad”.
b. The second TV ad, seen on 16 January 2021, featured a boy talking to a friend who asked, “Are things still crazy at home?” The boy replied, “Afraid so yeah, he has it in his tea, his coffee, muesli. The other day I caught him drinking from the carton.” The ad featured the same on-screen text as ad (a).
c. The paid-for Tweet, seen on 23 January 2021, included the same video as seen in ad (a) and the caption “The dairy and meat industries emit more CO2e than all the world’s planes, trains, cars, boats etc., combined. Need help talking to dad about milk? Go to oatly.com/helpdad”.
d. The paid-for Facebook post, seen on 26 January 2021, included the same video and caption as ad (c).
e. The first national press ad, seen on 31 January 2021 in The Sunday Times Style Magazine, included the text "Today, more than 25% of the world's greenhouse gases are generated by the food industry, and meat and dairy account for more than half of that".
f. The second national press ad, seen on 16 January 2021 in the Guardian Weekend magazine, featured the headline claim “No egg-scuses”. Text stated “Climate experts say cutting dairy and meat products from our diets is the single biggest lifestyle change we can make to reduce our environmental impact” and “If everyone in the world adopted a vegan diet, it would reduce food’s annual greenhouse emissions by 6.6bn metric tons (a 49% reduction)”.
Issue
The ASA received 109 complaints, including from the campaign group A Greener World.
The complainants challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. “Oatly generates 73% less CO2e vs. milk” in ads (a) and (b);
2. “The dairy and meat industries emit more CO2e than all the world’s planes, trains, cars, boats etc., combined” in ads (c) and (d);
3. “Today, more than 25% of the world's greenhouse gases are generated by the food industry, and meat and dairy account for more than half of that” in ad (e);
4. “Climate experts say cutting dairy and meat products from our diets is the single biggest lifestyle change we can make to reduce our environmental impact” in ad (f); and
5. “If everyone in the world adopted a vegan diet, it would reduce food’s annual greenhouse emissions by 6.6bn metric tons (a 49% reduction)” in ad (f).
Response
1. Oatly UK Ltd said they commissioned CarbonCloud, independent product life cycle assessment experts, to calculate the emissions of Oatly Barista Edition oat drink and British whole cow’s milk. They said these products were chosen for the calculations because they wanted to showcase their Barista Edition product, and whole cow’s milk was the most comparable dairy product to this because of the fat content, taste profile and suitability for speciality coffee drinks.
CarbonCloud used an attributional approach to life cycle accounting in the emissions calculation for Oatly Barista and whole cow’s milk, which accounted for emissions and removals of greenhouse gases generated during a product’s life cycle. It did not take into account avoided emissions, actions taken to mitigate released emissions or carbon offsetting. The climate footprint was assessed from cradle to store. CarbonCloud calculated the climate footprint of Oatly Barista to be 0.44 kg CO2e/kg and included the emissions from agricultural production of oats and rapeseed, processing of ingredients, transport of ingredients, energy consumption in the Oatly factory, packaging and distribution. They calculated the climate footprint of whole cow’s milk to be 1.6 kg CO2e/kg and included the emissions from agriculture, transport of ingredients, energy consumption of the dairy factory, packaging and distribution. In both reports, the following factors were omitted from the emissions calculation: product losses after filling; manufacture of capital goods (e.g. machinery; trucks, infrastructure); overheat operations (e.g. facility lighting, air conditioning); corporate activities and services; transport of the product user to the retail location; and transport of employees to and from work. Oatly said the ad included a link where viewers could obtain the reports and see which products were the subject of the comparison.
Oatly said that because the calculation did not account for whole life cycles of the products, they had included the qualification “from grower to grocer”.
They also said they would amend the claim to clarify that it related specifically to a comparison between Oatly Barista Edition and whole milk.
Clearcast said the CarbonCloud reports for Oatly Barista and whole cow’s milk covered the same parts of the life cycles. They said the claim made clear the comparison and therefore did not require absolute cradle to grave data. The claim was clear to viewers as to what part of the life cycle was being compared and there was no implication through visuals or additional claims that this part of the life cycle would suggest a greater environmental impact.
2. Oatly said they drew a comparison between the CO2e emissions from the global meat and dairy industry and the transport industry because the impact of transport on climate change was more widely understood than the impact from food choices. They referred to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) report: Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities; and the UK Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change in support of the claim.
They said they did not have plans to repeat the claim and had removed organic product posts from their social media channels that made similar claims. They also said they had amended a similar claim on their website to: “Emissions from the global livestock supply chain are estimated at 7.1 Gigatonnes of CO2e per year. That's taking a lifecycle approach and looking at the whole supply chain including emissions from animal digestion and manure but also emissions involved in producing feed, using fertilisers and land usage, as well as processing and transporting meat and dairy. To put that figure in context, the emissions from all the world’s cars, planes, trains, boats, go-carts, etc. combined is estimated at 7.0 Gigatonnes of CO2e (that's driving, flying or sailing them, not making them, extracting fuel or scrapping old cars). So yeah, food choice matters**”. They said any future social media ads making similar claims would reflect that wording.
3. They provided an extract from a meta-analysis by Joseph Poore, a climate expert, published in Science, that they said substantiated the claim that “Today, more than 25% of the world's greenhouse gases are generated by the food industry” and that “meat and dairy account for more than half of that”. The meta-analysis consolidated worldwide data on the environmental impact of various food production systems. They referred to the same IPCC report used to support the claim challenged in Point 2, that they said also substantiated the claim. They highlighted that both sources were listed in small text at the bottom of the ad.
In their opinion, particularly in the context of the ad, which made a number of references to “plant based” eating, consumers would likely understand the phrase “meat and dairy” in contrast to that to mean all animal products. Meat was defined as the flesh of an animal and therefore would include fish. Eggs were also regularly included within dairy.
4. They said the claim “Climate experts say cutting dairy and meat products from our diets is the single biggest lifestyle change we can make to reduce our environmental impact” was based on a quote from Joseph Poore, in a newspaper article published in 2018. The quote was based on the results from the meta-analysis used to support the claim challenged in Point 3. In their opinion, Poore’s view also reflected the views of the authors of the studies referred to within the meta-analysis as well as the authors of the meta-analysis. They provided an extract from the newspaper article that they said supported that Poore’s view was shared by the authors of the study.
They provided the extract from which the quote was adapted, that said following a vegan diet would reduce a person’s environmental impact more than cutting down their flights, buying an electric car, or purchasing sustainable meat and dairy.
5. They provided extracts from the same meta-analysis published in Science used to support the claim in issue 3 and a report from the Institute for Climate Economics: Food policies and climate: a literature review, that they said substantiated the claim “If everyone in the world adopted a vegan diet, it would reduce food’s annual greenhouse emissions by 6.6bn metric tons (a 49% reduction)”.
Assessment
1. Upheld
Ads (a) and (b) featured children questioning their dads’ decision to drink cow’s milk. The ASA considered consumers would understand the claim “Oatly generates 73% less CO2e vs. milk” to mean that all Oatly products generated 73% less CO2e compared to any type of cows’ milk. We therefore expected to see evidence relating to the CO2e produced for all Oatly products and types of cows’ milk. We had only seen evidence for the CO2e generated in the production of Oatly Barista Edition oat drink and whole cow’s milk. While we acknowledged that they would amend the claim to say which products had been included in the analysis, we concluded that because the evidence was not sufficient to support the claim as consumers would understand it, ads (a) and (b) were misleading.
On that point ads (a) and (b) breached BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
The standards objectives, insofar as they relate to advertising, include:
a) that persons under the age of 18 are protected;
b) that material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;
c) that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;
d) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
e) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
f) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with [in particular in respect of television those obligations set out in Articles 3b, 3e,10, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of Directive 89/552/EEC (the Audi Visual Media Services Directive)];
g) that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred"
Section 319(2).
(Misleading advertising),
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is 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) and
9.2
9.2
The basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information.
(Environmental claims).
2. Upheld
Ads (c) and (d) stated “The dairy and meat industries emit more CO2e than all the world’s planes, trains, cars, boats etc., combined. Need help talking to dad about milk? Go to oatly.com/helpdad” alongside the same video seen in ad (a). We considered consumers would understand the claim to mean that worldwide, the transport industry had a lower environmental impact than the meat and dairy industry. We also considered that, in the absence of qualification, consumers would understand that the comparison was based on an equivalent and full life cycle comparison of the emissions from those industries.
We acknowledged the reports Oatly had referenced stated that greenhouse gas emissions were higher for the meat and dairy industry than the transport industry, by 0.1 gigatonnes CO2e. However, we noted the assessments of the environmental impact of the meat and dairy and transport industries had taken into account different parts of their life cycles. The evidence for the environmental impact of the meat and dairy industry took into account the full life cycle, whereas the evidence for the transport industry took into account part of the life cycle; accounting only for the emissions coming directly from using the vehicle. Because equivalent parts of the life cycle had not been accounted for in the emissions figures used to support the claim, the claim overstated the emissions from the meat and dairy industry compared to the transport industry. The difference in emissions between the meat and dairy industry and the transport industry was very small compared to the calculated emissions of 7.1 gigatonnes CO2e and 7.0 gigatonnes CO2e, respectively. We considered it was extremely unlikely that the claim would have been supported if they had used equivalent and full life cycle analysis as implied by the ad. Because the claim would be understood by consumers as based on equivalent and full life cycle analyses when that was not the case, we considered the claim was misleading.We acknowledged that Oatly had told us the claim wouldn’t be repeated. Also, they had amended a similar claim on their website to make clear the nature of the comparison, which we considered was unlikely to mislead consumers because it contained a comprehensive explanation of the comparison.
Some of the complainants had raised concerns because they were aware of the 2019 UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Final Figures report, published by the UK’s Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, that stated the transport sector had greater emissions than the agricultural sector. The report stated that, in 2019, the net emissions in the UK was estimated at 454.8 million tonnes CO2e, and 27% of this was generated by the transport sector and 10% by the agricultural sector. However, as set out above, we considered that the claim in the ad made clear that it referred to worldwide emissions and that the evidence Oatly presented to substantiate the claim was based on worldwide data. We did not therefore consider the claim misleading for that reason.
We concluded that, because the claim would be understood by consumers as based on equivalent and full life cycle analyses when that was not the case, ads (c) and (d) were misleading.
On that point ads (c) and (d) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
The standards objectives, insofar as they relate to advertising, include:
a) that persons under the age of 18 are protected;
b) that material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;
c) that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;
d) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
e) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
f) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with [in particular in respect of television those obligations set out in Articles 3b, 3e,10, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of Directive 89/552/EEC (the Audi Visual Media Services Directive)];
g) that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred"
Section 319(2).
(Misleading advertising),
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),
11.1
11.1
The basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information.
11.3
11.3
Absolute claims must be supported by a high level of substantiation. Comparative claims such as "greener" or "friendlier" can be justified, for example, if the advertised product provides a total environmental benefit over that of the marketer's previous product or competitor products and the basis of the comparison is clear.
and
11.4
11.4
Marketers must base environmental claims on the full life cycle of the advertised product, unless the marketing communication states otherwise, and must make clear the limits of the life cycle. If a general claim cannot be justified, a more limited claim about specific aspects of a product might be justifiable. Marketers must ensure claims that are based on only part of the advertised product's life cycle do not mislead consumers about the product's total environmental impact.
(Environmental claims).
3. Upheld
Ad (e) stated “Today, more than 25% of the world’s greenhouse gases are generated by the food industry …”, in the context of an ad that discussed plant based diets and the role people could play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We understood that there were both natural and human generated greenhouse gases. However, taking the claim in the context of the whole ad, we considered that consumers would understand that Oatly were describing greenhouse gases caused by human activities only. We considered the evidence relating to the environmental impact of the food industry. The figure was taken from a comprehensive review that consolidated environmental data from 38,700 farms and 1,600 processors, packaging types and retailers, across the world. They calculated the food supply chain created approximately 13.7 billion metric tons of CO2e, which was 26% of the human generated greenhouse gas emissions. We therefore considered that the evidence substantiated that part of the claim.
The claim in ad (e) continued, “meat and dairy account for more than half of that”. We considered that some consumers might have understood “meat and dairy” to be an all-encompassing term that also included eggs, fish, shellfish and other organisms in water environments, but that many would not. We noted that the evidence discussed the greenhouse gas emissions for meat, aquaculture (including fish and shellfish), eggs and dairy, concluding that those together accounted for 56-58% of the food industry’s emissions. We understood that the egg and aquaculture industries would have been a significant contributor to the figure for greenhouse gas emissions reported in the evidence. Because the claim would be understood by many consumers as relating only to meat and dairy, as defined narrowly, when that was not the case, we concluded that ad (e) was misleading.
On that point ad (e) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
The standards objectives, insofar as they relate to advertising, include:
a) that persons under the age of 18 are protected;
b) that material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;
c) that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;
d) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
e) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
f) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with [in particular in respect of television those obligations set out in Articles 3b, 3e,10, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of Directive 89/552/EEC (the Audi Visual Media Services Directive)];
g) that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred"
Section 319(2).
(Misleading advertising),
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) and
11.1
11.1
The basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information.
(Environmental claims).
4. Upheld
Ad (f) stated “Climate experts say cutting dairy and meat products from our diets is the single biggest lifestyle change we can make to reduce our environmental impact”. We considered consumers would understand this to be a definitive, objective claim that was based on scientific consensus. The article referenced by Oatly presented the opinion of one climate expert, who had said, “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth”. We acknowledged that Joseph Poore was a climate expert, who had published the meta-analysis which we considered to be good quality, and his opinion was evidence based. However, the evidence only provided the opinion of one climate expert and the word “probably” had been omitted from the claim, and therefore the ad overstated what the evidence supported. We concluded that, because the claim had not be substantiated, on that basis ad (f) was misleading.
On that point ad (f) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
The standards objectives, insofar as they relate to advertising, include:
a) that persons under the age of 18 are protected;
b) that material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;
c) that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;
d) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
e) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
f) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with [in particular in respect of television those obligations set out in Articles 3b, 3e,10, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of Directive 89/552/EEC (the Audi Visual Media Services Directive)];
g) that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred"
Section 319(2).
(Misleading advertising),
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) and
11.1
11.1
The basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information.
(Environmental claims).
5. Not upheld
Ad (f) stated “If everyone in the world adopted a vegan diet, it would reduce food’s annual greenhouse emissions by 6.6bn metric tons (a 49% reduction)”. We considered consumers would understand the term “vegan diet” to mean a diet that excluded animal products. We considered the evidence relating to the environmental impact of moving from current diets to a vegan diet. The figure was taken from the same comprehensive review that Oatly used to support the claim in issue 3. The authors calculated that moving from current diets to one that excluded animal products would reduce the annual food’s greenhouse gas emissions by 6.6 billion metric tons of CO2e, which is a 49% reduction. We therefore concluded, because the claim had been substantiated, that on that basis ad (f) was not misleading.
On that point, we investigated ad (f) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
The standards objectives, insofar as they relate to advertising, include:
a) that persons under the age of 18 are protected;
b) that material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;
c) that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;
d) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
e) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
f) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with [in particular in respect of television those obligations set out in Articles 3b, 3e,10, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 of Directive 89/552/EEC (the Audi Visual Media Services Directive)];
g) that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred"
Section 319(2).
(Misleading advertising),
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) and
11.1
11.1
The basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information.
(Environmental claims), but did not find it in breach.
Action
The ads must not appear again in the forms complained about. We told Oatly UK Ltd to ensure that the basis of any environmental claim was made clear, including what parts of the life cycle had been included and which excluded. We also told them to ensure they held adequate evidence to substantiate environmental claims made in their ads as they would be understood by consumers.
