Home > Code of Ethics > Advocacy > New Decisions: Advocacy, Animal Rights and More

New Decisions: Advocacy, Animal Rights and More

Provocative anti-fluoridation ad encourages viewers to find out more

The Complaints Board received six complaints about a Fluoride Free New Zealand television advertisement. The Complainants said the advertisement contained misleading information and played on fear to get its message across.  The Advertiser stated that

We have prepared our advertisement with a due sense of responsibility, with attention to the fair and robust treatment of matters which concern the public, as this is our raison d’être.

The Complaints Board confirmed that the advertisement was advocacy advertising.  Advocacy advertising is often characterised by parties having differing views that are expressed in robust terms. The Complaints Board does not take a view on the issue being presented, its role is to ensure there is fair play and the right of free expression is not unduly restricted.

To assist in coming to its decision the Complaints Board reviewed a recent precedent decision.  In this decision the Appeal Board agreed that the clear identification of the Advertiser and their position was essential to provide context for the consumer. If such identification was clear, then the content of the advertisement should be interpreted by applying the spirit of the Code rather than looking for technical breaches.

The Complaints Board agreed that both the identity and the position of the Advertiser were clear and the comments made in the advertisement were supported.

The Board discussed the tone of the advertisement and how the advertisement might be frightening for vulnerable people but agreed the Advertiser had a justifiable reason to state their case in this way. The Complaints Board noted while the advertisement was attention-grabbing it also encouraged the viewer to find out more about this topic for themselves.

The Complaints Board agreed the advertisement was provocative and could be offensive to people and groups who held an opposite view to the one presented. However, this did not make it misleading and robust opinion was allowable under the provisions of Rule 11 of the Code of Ethics.

The Complaints Board noted the concerns of the Complainants, particularly that the advertisement played on fear. The majority of the Complaints Board however decided that the advertisement did not reach the threshold required to breach the Code of Ethics.

The Complaints Board ruled to Not Uphold the complaint. Read more…

Colostrum Skin Cream Decison

A skincare company, The Cream, published a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ factsheet about their product on their website and also distributed to customers. A complaint was made stating the claims about the suitability of the product for vegans, whether animals were harmed in the making of the product that the product had PETA approval were unsubstantiated and likely to mislead.

The Complaints Board stated that The Advertiser did not make an outright claim that this product is suitable for vegans. The Advertiser said that as no animals are harmed in the process of manufacturing the product then vegans “should have no issue using The Cream”. The Complaints Board said the comments in the advertisement relating to veganism did not contain anything which was likely to deceive or mislead consumers.  The Complaints Board ruled there was no breach of Basic Principle 4 or Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics in relation to this part of the complaint.

It was then considered whether any harm is caused to animals in the making of this product. The Advertiser provided substantiation for how the colostrum was collected and the Complaints Board confirmed that it is not its role to decide on the merits of current farming methods and whether farm animals could be said to be exploited. The Complaints Board ruled this aspect of the complaint was Not Upheld.

The Advertiser commented their marketing department had made an error in stating they were PETA approved, as this has never been the case. The Advertiser said this was noticed and corrected on the website in March 2015. In light of the self-regulatory actions of the Advertiser in amending its website, and taking further action to ensure the outdated FAQ document is no longer distributed, the Complaints Board ruled this part of the complaint was Settled.

The Complaints Board ruled to Not Uphold the complaint in part and to Settle the complaint in part.  Read more…

The following decisions were released on 29 September 2016: