The Advertising Standards Authority has partially upheld complaints from Chris Packham against the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) regarding its ‘Let’s Eat Balanced’ campaign promoting British meat and dairy.
The ASA rejected some complaints. It ruled that TV ads featuring grazing cows did not misleadingly imply all UK cattle are outdoor-reared, noting government data shows 87% of cattle farms use mixed housed and grazing systems. It also found that ads focusing on nutrition and provenance, rather than making explicit environmental benefit claims, were unlikely to mislead consumers.
However, the ASA upheld complaints about two press ads claiming British beef has ‘half’ and British milk has ‘a third lower’ carbon footprint than global averages.
The regulator ruled that the carbon footprint claims were deceptive, as the supporting evidence failed to account for a product’s complete environmental impact from start to finish. According to the ASA, typical consumers would interpret the advertised figures as covering emissions generated after purchase, including cooking and eventual waste, not just those arising from farming and distribution. Yet the data provided by AHDB only covered ‘cradle-to-retail’ emissions.
Consequently, the ASA found the advertisements in breach of standards requiring that green claims reflect a product’s entire lifecycle unless an explicit exception is stated. The ads have been banned from reappearing in their existing format.
The judgement marks an important moment for how environmental assertions are regulated in food marketing, especially within the livestock industry. Although other elements of the challenge were dismissed, the ruling makes clear that simplified carbon comparisons must be backed by thorough lifecycle assessments and presented transparently to avoid misleading the public.
Chris Packham, backed by the law firm Leigh Day, first submitted a complaint in early 2024, but the ASA chose not to take it up at that time. The complaint was put forward again after the campaign was relaunched later the same year, when it once again highlighted the environmental benefits of British meat and dairy without properly addressing their total ecological footprint in comparison with other food options.
Chris Packham said: ‘The science is unambiguous. We are in a climate and nature crisis and equally unambiguous when it comes to solutions. The meat and dairy industry is a very significant contributor to climate breakdown and the leading driver of biodiversity loss both nationally and globally.
‘Our government’s advice is clear too, if we want to survive, we must reduce not increase our meat and dairy consumption. The AHDB campaigns were reckless, irresponsible and dangerous, because they were misleading and rather than offering consumers an opportunity to be part of a positive solution, they directed people to exaggerate the problem. We need scientifically informed change.’
Ricardo Gama, partner in the environment team at law firm Leigh Day, said: ‘The only way to avoid climate disaster is to decarbonise the food system, and that can only be done if people eat less meat and dairy. Chris therefore felt that an advertising campaign trying to get people to eat more British meat and dairy because of its apparent environmental benefits was a clearcut case of greenwashing. He is therefore glad that the advertising regulator has ruled in his favour.
‘This is a clear and important ruling from the ASA. Environmental claims about food products must reflect the full picture. The regulator has confirmed that it is not acceptable to rely on partial data while presenting claims in a way that consumers will understand as covering the entire lifecycle. This decision sends a strong signal to advertisers across the food industry that green claims must be properly evidenced and clearly communicated.’
Photo: Zack Ketz