A story about the Green Claims Code and why it matters. Jane Shaw
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?
read on… ethicalbusinessmarketing.com
