Why Tesco’s ads fell foul of the ASA (but Sainsbury’s didn’t)
A story about the Green Claims Code and why it matters.
This week the Advertising Standards Authority made one of its most important rulings yet under the Green Claims Code - and it’s enraged many in the environmental movement. Tesco made a claim that its plant-based range is a greener option than eating meat. The ASA disagreed - and ruled that Tesco’s claim was misleading.
There have been cries of “Corruption!”; and accusations of meat industry lobbying are flying around - but the real story is a little more interesting than that.
Photo by Ralph (Ravi) Kayden on Unsplash
First things first
This is not an article about the merits (or not) of veganism; of regenerative farming or anything else. In the words of the ASA:
“The ASA acknowledged that it was generally accepted amongst the scientific community that diets which included meat, and particularly red meat, had a greater environmental impact than plant-based diets, and that switching to a more plant-based diet was a way in which individuals could reduce their overall environmental impact.”
The ASA has summarised the ‘scientific consensus’. That’s where the science is on the matter; and that is where I am on the matter. And it’s not up for debate.
The bit no one’s talking about
But if the ASA themselves are so clear on the scientific consensus about the benefits of a plant-based diet, why did they rule against Tesco?
It’s worth taking a moment to consider the most overlooked part of this story.
Tesco claimed that a plant-based diet is better for the planet and our health. The ads were censured by the ASA for making misleading and unsubstantiated claims.
On the same day the Tesco ruling was announced, the ASA released their ruling on another case.
Sainsbury’s claimed that a plant-based diet is better for the planet and our health. The ads were not censured by the ASA, who ruled that these claims were neither misleading nor unsubstantiated.
Yes, you read that correctly.
Now, I’m going to be blunt. All those claims of corruption, lobbying, poor legislation, poor decision making etc etc etc. Please, let’s put them to bed.
Because this is a really simple story. Tesco broke the rules laid out in the Green Claims Code. Sainsbury’s didn’t.
That’s it. That’s the story.
Confused, much?
For anyone with the slightest interest in the Green Claims Code, these two rulings are probably the most important illustration yet of what the Code means in practice.
For months, the ASA and CMA have worked hard to help businesses adapt to the Code. And two things come up time and time again.
Claims must be substantiated.
Claims must take into account the full lifecycle of a product - everything from its manufacture to its transport to its disposal.
There’s a crucial difference between the Sainsbury’s case and the Tesco case. Sainsbury’s made general statements - ‘claims’ - about how a plant-based diet can be better for the planet and our health.
Tesco’s claims related to specific products in its Plant Chef range.
Tesco didn’t say that, in general terms, a plant-based diet is better for the planet and our health. If they had, it’s unlikely that the complaints would have been upheld - because that claim is based on the scientific consensus.
Tesco’s claim was specific: that the Plant Chef products being advertised are better for the planet than their meat-based equivalent products.
Now, it may or may not be true that the products in the range are ‘better’. But that’s not the point. The issue is that Tesco had no evidence for that claim. They could not substantiate it.
There’s an interesting part of the ASA ruling against Tesco:
“The ASA acknowledged that it was generally accepted amongst the scientific community that diets which included meat, and particularly red meat, had a greater environmental impact than plant-based diets, and that switching to a more plant-based diet was a way in which individuals could reduce their overall environmental impact.
However, we also recognised that specific plant-based products, particularly processed products which could contain a number of different ingredients sourced from around the world, could nevertheless contain ingredients or be produced and transported by methods that had a high carbon or negative environmental impact.
Notwithstanding the general benefits of plant-based diets in broad environmental terms, it would not necessarily always be the case that specific plant-based products would always be guaranteed to have a lower carbon or environmental impact than specific meat-based products.”
The importance of the product lifecycle
And there’s the importance of the lifecycle. In GENERAL terms, plant-based diets have a lower environmental impact.
But when talking about a specific product, Tesco needed to take into account the lifecycle. Where does the soy come from? Is it soy sourced responsibly, or is this product sourced from plantations that are responsible for Amazon deforestation? Has it travelled halfway round the world to be processed alongside ingredients that have also travelled thousands of miles, before being flown even further around the world to sit in an energy-guzzling freezer?
Substantiate, substantiate, substantiate
The Green Claims Code is clear. Claims - especially claims relating to a specific product or service - need to be substantiated. If you make a general claim - like Sainsbury’s did - then the scientific consensus substantiates your claim. If you make a specific claim - like Tesco did - then you need specific evidence relating to that product.
It’s easy for our judgement to be clouded on this because many of us are so passionate about the importance of a plant-based diet. But the Code can only work when it’s based upon clear rules that apply to everyone. If Tesco gets let off the hook because it made unsubstantiated claims about processed food, then how can the ASA possibly censure them next time they make unsubstantiated claims - perhaps about single use baby wipes, or maybe artificial grass?
The only way to get rid of greenwashing is to make sure the Code applies to everyone. And, as Tesco discovered, to stick to it.