|
More Uncaged sites:
Contact us:
Uncaged Campaigns,
5th Floor,
Alliance House,
9 Leopold Street,
Sheffield,
S1 2GY, UK
+44 (0) 114 272 2220
info@uncaged.co.uk
| |
iams news
 Ad
watchdog whitewashes Procter & Gamble/IAMS in perverse ruling
After over three years of messing us around, the Advertising
Standards Authority (ASA) has rejected a complaint lodged by Uncaged over
a confusing and misleading animal testing policy statement issued by Procter
& Gamble's pet food subsidiary IAMS. This latest ruling falls
into a pattern of ASA bias against animal protection groups and illustrates
this industry-funded body's lack of credibility.
We are providing this analysis of the complaint in order that you can
judge for yourself.
BACKGROUND
After Uncaged had publicised scientific papers detailing IAMS'
painful and lethal experiments on cats and dogs, IAMS' responded
by issuing a cleverly-worded policy
statement (PDF) in June 2002 in a desperate
effort to improve their public relations. The research policy was vague,
equivocal and, we felt, likely to mislead many consumers in the following
ways:
- IAMS claimed that their experiments would
no longer lead to cats and dogs be killed, but an undercover investigation
suggested otherwise
- The wording of the policy implied that certain aspects of the policy
applied to all the animals used in IAMS research, when in fact the whole
policy only applied to cats and dogs
- IAMS' claim that they would only carry out animal research that
was equivalent to studies acceptable in people was patent rubbish
- IAMS' claim that they would use animals from the 'general
population' (i.e. pets) in their 'studies' (they use
the word 'studies' rather than 'experiments'
to make their research sound more benign!) was misleading because, as
IAMS has quietly admitted elsewhere, they perform laboratory experiments
on purpose-bred animals.
We received many emails from members of the public flummoxed by IAMS'
statement, and so we contacted IAMS for clarification. IAMS did not reply.
The ASA's rules state that an advertiser must have documentary proof
to back up their claims.
Here we focus on points 2 and 3, where we believed our complaint was
100% solid, to demonstrate the perverse nature of the ASA's ruling.
(Click on point 1 to link to further evidence related to these aspects
of the complaint; point 4 is basically covered by point 3 discussed below.)
2. CATS, DOGS... AND OTHER ANIMALS?
What IAMS claimed: In some places, IAMS referred specifically
to testing on cats and dogs, e.g. they specifically claimed that they
would not kill cats and dogs in their experiments. While elsewhere they
referred to animals in general: 'We will not use, in any
studies, animals that are already induced with disease...'
The title of the statement is also very general: 'Research Policy'.
Why we felt it was misleading: It was unclear whether
IAMS' stated policy - or parts of it - covered all animals
or just cats and dogs. We then received confirmation that IAMS were in
fact killing animals apart from cats and dogs in their experiments. Therefore
we complained that readers would assume from IAMS' statement that
the policy covered their animal experimentation practices in general,
not just their treatment of cats and dogs.
We feel that by their ambiguous wording and failure to state in the policy
that it only covered cats and dogs, IAMS were trying to give the impression
that this was their general approach to animal testing. They were exploiting
the fact that most people would be totally unaware that animals apart
from cats and dogs would be used in lethal laboratory experiments for
pet food! Therefore, they were concealing, by omission, their cruel
experiments on animals, which is a breach of the ASA's Codes.
What the ASA have ruled: The ASA seem to have accepted
IAMS' nonsensical argument that because the accompanying pictures
were of cats and dogs and that the leaflet was about cat and dog nutrition,
then readers would infer that the policy referred to cats and dogs only.
Why the ASA are wrong: To us, these factors just compound
the deception. One would expect pictures of cats and dogs in relation
to studies relevant for cat and dog food. Readers may infer that the policy
referred to cats and dogs as the totality of IAMS' animal research,
but not cats and dogs only as opposed to other animals who would be
used in more severe and lethal experiments! IAMS could have easily
made this clear in the statement, but they chose not to. Significantly,
many pro-IAMS letters by supermarkets - which we submitted to the
ASA - also referred to 'animals' rather than specifying cats
and dogs.
The ASA summarily dismissed this evidence and argument.
3. EQUIVALENT TO HUMAN STUDIES?
What IAMS claimed: We were very concerned about IAMS'
claim: 'We will only conduct research that is equivalent to nutritional
or medical studies acceptable on people'. (Note that again, the
term 'research' is used in a general sense, without any clarification
about what species it applies to.)
Why we felt it was misleading: This complaint concerns
readers' interpretation of the ethical claims made by IAMS regarding
their research practices. Therefore, this issue of 'equivalence'
with human studies is a question of ethical equivalence. Central
to research ethics is the issue of 'consent'. Of course, animals
themselves cannot consent to being used in research, which is why the
relevant comparison is with humans who cannot give their consent, e.g.
infants and those with severe mental impairments. The following passage
is from an article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics
(Thomas, 2005: 200):
'Animals, of course, cannot give consent. In a therapeutic setting,
they rely on their owners to give consent on their behalf. The fact
that treatment may be experimental is no bar, provided again that the
particular animal may benefit. As with patients lacking capacity, the
consent of the animal is, in effect, presumed if the treatment is in
it best interests. Animal experiments, by contrast, never benefit the
particular animals experimented upon and are not designed to. This is
why the correct comparison is with non-consensual experiments on people.'
As Thomas points put later on, examples of non-consensual experiments
on people include:
- the barbaric experiments carried out by Nazi and Japanese scientists
during the second world war
- the long-running syphilis experiments on black people in Alabama
over four decades up to the 1970s.
Clearly these are not 'acceptable'. Thus, our central point in regard
to this issue is that the use of cats and dogs who have been bred and
caged in laboratory facilities for the purposes of harmful experimentation
(never mind the admitted inducement of disease and killing of other animals
in experiments) has no acceptable ethical parallel in human studies.
What the ASA have ruled: Firstly, the ASA explicitly
disregarded this central point of our complaint. Instead, the ASA state
that they considered that readers would understand this claim from IAMS
'to mean that the IAMS research would not deliberately injure
or induce disease in animals...', a claim which the ASA
appears to believe is true.
Why the ASA are wrong: This is ludicrous. Even if we
accept the ASA's and IAMS' perverse interpretation of the
policy statement, IAMS themselves contradict this when they admit that
they conduct muscle biopsies (and other, unspecified but likely more severe
procedures) on cats and dogs, that require analgesia (which may mitigate
but unlikely to entirely prevent any pain or discomfort). An invasive,
damaging and painful procedure inflicted for research rather than therapeutic
purposes is clearly a form of 'deliberate injury'.
Moreover, to return to our central objection to IAMS' statement,
the ASA has acknowledged (to us, but fail to mention this important point
in their ruling) that IAMS have admitted the caging of cats and dogs in
laboratories for several months or years at a time. IAMS themselves admit
that this is harmful to animals, and thus this is tantamount to 'deliberate
injury'. Most importantly, no acceptable human medical research
procedure would knowingly include keeping non-consenting humans for lengthy
periods of time in an environment significantly detrimental to their quality
of life. Therefore, even before the infliction of procedures, IAMS are
conducting research on cats and dogs which would not be ethically acceptable
for humans.
Bizarrely, the ASA completely dismissed these issues by stating: 'The
question of whether it is appropriate to perform studies of this nature
on cats and dogs moves outside the scope of the claims in the ad'.
This is total nonsense because IAMS' claims in the ad are
all about the appropriateness and acceptability of their experiments
on cats and dogs, through their comparison with human studies!
CONCLUSION
We made some compelling arguments yet, due to either incompetence, conscious
or unconscious bias, the ASA has completely dismissed the evidence
and arguments we have presented, in favour of a universally indulgent
attitude towards IAMS. On every single point, IAMS have been given the benefit
of any tiny little bit of doubt. No doubt IAMS have very good lawyers and
PR people who probably inhabit the same networks as ASA executives in central
London, but if the ASA were fulfilling its role, it should treat each side's
assertions with equal scepticism and on the basis of merit, not financial
clout.
The
adjudication is so one-sided it is hard not to be incredulous and frustrated
at the fact that the ASA has essentially given IAMS carte blanche to carry
on hoodwinking consumers through half-truths and omission, in direct contradiction
to the ASA's own code of practice.
It must also be pointed out that the ASA appears to systematically operate
double-standards in its stance towards animal protection groups compared
with animal abusers. While the ASA has been extremely lenient towards
IAMS, they consistently adopt a much stricter attitude to the requirements
for substantiation of claims when animal protection groups are the subject
of a complaint.
RELATED LINKS
Uncaged Campaigns 19.04.06 |
