forests

The advert was displayed on the Guardian Environment Blog website at least on the March 28, 2011, probably longer. We believe it constitutes a breach of the British code of advertising, sales promotion and direct marketing.

Already on January 9, 2008 and on August 27, 2009 the ASA found that a TV advert and a print advert respectively by MPOC with equivalent claims about the sustainability of palm oil breached rules and should not reappear.

MPOC have chosen to disrespect the ASA’s ruling and have continued to produce misleading adverts about the sustainability of palm oil.

Friends of the Earth is worried that future adverts of MPOC will continue to ignore the Code and asks the ASA to utilise the full range of penalties at its disposal in response.

In particular Friends of the Earth suggests that:

• MPOC publish an advert of the same size that explains that their previous advert was misleading.
• The ASA advises UK media not to publish any adverts of MPOC for a substantial period, as they consistently mislead.

Relevant articles of the Code

SUBSTANTIATION

3.1 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation.

3.2 If there is a significant division of informed opinion about any claims made in a marketing communication they should not be portrayed as generally agreed.

TRUTHFULNESS

7.1 No marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.

ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS

49.2 Claims such as ‘environmentally friendly’ or ‘wholly biodegradable’ should not be used without qualification unless marketers can provide convincing evidence that their product will cause no environmental damage when taking into account the full life cycle of the product. Qualified claims and comparisons such as ‘greener’ or ‘friendlier’ may be acceptable if marketers can substantiate that their product provides an overall improvement in environmental terms either against their competitors’ or their own previous products.

49.3 Where there is a significant division of scientific opinion or where evidence is inconclusive this should be reflected in any statements made in the marketing communication. Marketers should not suggest that their claims command universal acceptance if that is not the case.

Areas of complaint

1. The banner advert says ”Sustainable. Food Security. Societal Advancement. This is Palm Oil.”

This is contravention of principle 49.2 as the use of the term “Sustainable” in this context implies that palm oil is a particularly environmentally friendly product, while the marketer cannot provide convincing evidence that palm oil will cause no environmental damage when taking into account the full life cycle of the product. 

The use of the term "sustainable" in this context is also in breach of
-    principle 3.1 as the claim that palm oil is always sustainable cannot be substantiated.
-    principle 3.2 as MPOC portrays their claims in a way that suggests they generally accepted, despite that there is significant division of informed opinion about the environmental and social impacts of palm oil.
-    principle 7.1 as MPOC misleads the reader by making inaccurate claims in contradiction to generally accepted evidence for major negative environmental impacts of palm oil plantations.
-    principle 49.2 the claim  that palm oil is “sustainable” is similar to “environmental friendly” and the marketer cannot provide convincing evidence that palm oil will cause no environmental damage when taking account the full life cycle.  
-    principle 49.3 as the ad suggest that the claim that palm oil is sustainable command universal acceptance while this is not the case.

The revelations come as the European Commission re-considers its attempt to redefine palm oil plantations as "forests" in their draft guidance to EU countries aiming to prevent unsustainable biofuels, and discussions surrounding the use of industry-led certification schemes to meet EU standards continue.

Adrian Bebb, food and agriculture campaign coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe said: "Illegal deforestation, land-grabbing and the breach of environmental laws are the reality behind Europe’s palm oil use. Europe’s biofuel target and palm-oil obsession are driving this destruction, and companies like the IOI Group, that promote themselves as green and responsible, are putting profit before both people and the planet, sacrificing forests for Europe’s food and fuel."

According to the United Nations the rapid increase in palm oil plantation acreage is now the primary cause of permanent rainforest loss in Indonesia.

The Friends of the Earth investigation exposes the actions of the Malaysian-based IOI Group, the largest palm oil company in the world and one of the driving forces behind 'green' certification schemes for palm oil. The research reveals that IOI is responsible for illegal deforestation, the encroachment upon protected peat lands, and land-grabbing at the expense of local rice farmers in the Indonesian province of West Kalimantan.

IOI Group is a leading member of the Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC), one of the most active lobby groups pushing for palm oil to be used as a biofuel in the EU, and co-founder of the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). The majority of palm oil comes to Europe via the Netherlands where IOI operate a number of facilities. The food-multinational Unilever and the Finnish biofuel producer Neste Oil are among the buyers of IOI's palm oil.

"By attempting to redefine industrial palm oil plantations as forests, forests will become fair game for conversion into damaging biofuel plantations. The resulting green house gas emissions from deforestation mean that EU biofuel targets end up fuelling climate change rather than curbing it. All efforts should be made to prevent the use of palm oil in biofuels" Adrian Bebb concluded.

further information

• Read the report here
• Find out more about our work resisting agrofuels

The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruling followed a Friends of the Earth Europe/International complaint against an advert by the Malaysian Palm Oil Council.

MPOC's statement that palm oil is the 'only product able to sustainably and efficiently meet a larger portion of the world's increasing demand for oil crop-based consumer good, foodstuffs and biofuels' was found misleading.

Also the statement that palm oil contributes to alleviation of poverty was misleading, as 'there was not a consensus of the economic impact of palm oil on local communities'.

The ASA further stated that the certification scheme of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil was 'still the subject of debate'. Therefore, making a claim that palm oil could be wholly sustainable, which cannot be substantiated, was deemed to be misleading.

Our corporate campaigner Paul de Clerck said:

'We are pleased that the ASA has ruled that palm oil cannot be qualified as sustainable. The Malaysian palm oil industry continues to lie about the negative environmental and social impacts of palm oil. The vast scale of palm oil production means that it cannot be sustainable - it destroys forests, increases carbon emissions, and forces local communities in developing countries off their land'.

• View the original complain here
• Read the ASA ruling here

Photo credit: Helen Buckland. Logging deforestation for palm oil production.