Advertising regulator backs Chris Packham in ruling that meat and dairy ads misled on climate claims

The decision concerns the “Let’s Eat Balanced” campaign run by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB), which promoted British beef and dairy as having significantly lower carbon footprints than global averages. The AHDB is a statutory lobby group for the British farming industry. 

The ASA upheld the complaint in relation to claims made in national press advertisements, including that British beef has a carbon footprint that’s half the global average and British milk is produced to world class standards and has a carbon footprint a third lower than the global average. 

The ASA found that claims were misleading because they were not substantiated on the basis of full lifecycle emissions. The regulator concluded that consumers would understand these claims to include emissions beyond production and retail, such as consumption and disposal, but the evidence relied upon by the AHDB only covered “cradle-to-retail” emissions.   

As a result, the ASA determined that the claims breached advertising rules requiring environmental claims to be based on the full life cycle of a product unless clearly stated otherwise. It also ruled that the advertisements must not appear again in their current form.   

The ruling represents a significant development in the regulation of environmental claims in food advertising, particularly in relation to the meat and dairy sector. While some aspects of the wider complaint were not upheld, the ASA’s decision confirms that headline carbon footprint claims must be supported by comprehensive lifecycle analysis and presented in a way that does not mislead consumers. 

The ASA also rejected the AHDB’s argument that content on its website fell outside the scope of advertising regulation, confirming that such material can fall within the CAP Code (the UK's rulebook for non-broadcast advertisements) where it is connected to the promotion of products. Although the website content was not ultimately found to be misleading, the finding establishes that future online claims by AHDB may be subject to regulatory scrutiny. 

Represented by law firm Leigh Day, Chris Packham initially made a complaint in early 2024, which the ASA declined to investigate. The complaint was resubmitted following the relaunch of the campaign later that year, which continued to promote the environmental credentials of British meat and dairy while failing to reflect their overall environmental impact compared to alternative foods.   

Chris Packham is represented by Ricardo Gama, partner in the environment team at law firm Leigh Day, with paralegal Lucía Saborío Pérez. 

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 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.”