Latest news with #RSPCAAssured
The Independent
07-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Independent
RSPCA ad campaign cleared following complaints by campaigners
RSPCA adverts promoting 'respect' for animals have been cleared by the regulator following complaints that they misled consumers over welfare standards on 'RSPCA Assured' farms. The YouTube and TV ads featured various animals including computer-augmented cows, chickens and a pig in industrial farming facilities, a bee being run over by a lawnmower, an emaciated dog, a turtle in a suitcase, and a racing greyhound singing Aretha Franklin's version of the song Respect. On-screen text stated: 'Every animal deserves our kindness. Respect. RSPCA for every kind.' Adfree Cities and two other complainants said the ads misleadingly represented the welfare standards afforded to animals farmed under the RSPCA Assured scheme. The RSPCA said viewers would not have interpreted the ads as referring to RSPCA Assured, which accounted for only a small part of its overall work in England and Wales. It explained that the aim of RSPCA Assured was to improve farmed animal welfare by encouraging the industry to adopt higher welfare standards than minimum legal requirements, and to educate consumers on higher welfare options. It said RSPCA standards ensured that additional ethical controls beyond those set out in legislation were observed. This included nose ringing only allowed on animals over a certain size, and rings could not be replaced if they fell out, tail docking could only be carried out within the first 48 hours of life, and was not allowed on free range animals, and beak trimming was only typically permitted on chicks up to 24 hours of age. Referring to Adfree Cities' objection to the RSPCA Assured scheme's certifying of 'intensive' and 'factory' farming, the RSPCA explained that a farm was 'intensive' if it held at least 40,000 poultry, 2,000 pigs, and/or 750 breeding sows per farm, and did not refer to the welfare standards of a farm. It said the RSPCA Assured scheme did not allow practices typically associated with lower welfare farming, such as the use of farrowing crates and cages, while encouraging higher welfare options over lower welfare alternatives. The RSPCA said it was aware of allegations of poor welfare and breaches of welfare standards on farms that were members of the RSPCA Assured scheme. In response, they had followed due procedure in acting to immediately identify the nature of any breaches and sanctioned farms where necessary, which included withdrawing some farms from the scheme. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the complainants were concerned that some of the RSPCA Assured member farms engaged in practices that included beak trimming, nose ringing and tail docking, which were 'contentious' but 'regulated by law'. The ASA said: 'We understood that as a wider organisational effort, the RSPCA engaged with farmers to reduce the use of such practices, such as through reduction in livestock density and increased environmental enrichment.' Further, in response to allegations of mistreatment on RSPCA Assured farms, the organisation had 'quickly inspected and imposed a variety of sanctions on farms found to have breached its standards', the ASA said. Following the allegations, an independent report commissioned by the RSPCA found that while some farms fell short of expectations, overall the scheme was operating effectively with 93% of farms having fewer than five instances of non-compliance across over 500 standards. The ASA said: 'We concluded that the ads were unlikely to mislead about the care standards afforded to animals at RSPCA Assured farms.' An RSPCA spokesman said: 'We welcome the ASA ruling that found there was no foundation for this complaint. 'We have a 200-year history of making real and tangible change for farmed animals through changing laws and continually driving up standards to improve their welfare. The RSPCA's pioneering standards mean we were the first to require CCTV to monitor welfare in slaughterhouses before it became mandatory, to ban the use of battery cages for hens 18 years before it became law, to insist on pasture for dairy cattle, to provide more space for salmon, to end the use of fast-growing meat chickens, and to ban the use of farrowing crates for mother pigs. 'There's much more to be done and we're determined to continue to work with the public, our partners, industry and governments to improve the lives of farm animals now and in the future.' Nicola Wilks, co-director at Adfree Cities, said: 'Currently, the RSPCA is approving standards for animals across thousands of farms that, although above minimum legal standards, most people would think of as cruel. In this context this advert's scenes of free, hand-fed and rescued farm animals are extremely misleading. 'Advertising for the products of intensive farming is everywhere, misleading us about the unhealthy and cramped conditions experienced by animals in factory farms. 'It's disappointing to see the RSPCA's advertising contributing to this culture of misinformation. We will appeal this decision, but we also need broad restrictions on advertising that conceals the way animals are treated in the intensive farming industry.'
Powys County Times
07-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Powys County Times
RSPCA ad campaign cleared following complaints by campaigners
RSPCA adverts promoting 'respect' for animals have been cleared by the regulator following complaints that they misled consumers over welfare standards on 'RSPCA Assured' farms. The YouTube and TV ads featured various animals including computer-augmented cows, chickens and a pig in industrial farming facilities, a bee being run over by a lawnmower, an emaciated dog, a turtle in a suitcase, and a racing greyhound singing Aretha Franklin's version of the song Respect. On-screen text stated: 'Every animal deserves our kindness. Respect. RSPCA for every kind.' Adfree Cities and two other complainants said the ads misleadingly represented the welfare standards afforded to animals farmed under the RSPCA Assured scheme. The RSPCA said viewers would not have interpreted the ads as referring to RSPCA Assured, which accounted for only a small part of its overall work in England and Wales. It explained that the aim of RSPCA Assured was to improve farmed animal welfare by encouraging the industry to adopt higher welfare standards than minimum legal requirements, and to educate consumers on higher welfare options. It said RSPCA standards ensured that additional ethical controls beyond those set out in legislation were observed. This included nose ringing only allowed on animals over a certain size, and rings could not be replaced if they fell out, tail docking could only be carried out within the first 48 hours of life, and was not allowed on free range animals, and beak trimming was only typically permitted on chicks up to 24 hours of age. Referring to Adfree Cities' objection to the RSPCA Assured scheme's certifying of 'intensive' and 'factory' farming, the RSPCA explained that a farm was 'intensive' if it held at least 40,000 poultry, 2,000 pigs, and/or 750 breeding sows per farm, and did not refer to the welfare standards of a farm. It said the RSPCA Assured scheme did not allow practices typically associated with lower welfare farming, such as the use of farrowing crates and cages, while encouraging higher welfare options over lower welfare alternatives. The RSPCA said it was aware of allegations of poor welfare and breaches of welfare standards on farms that were members of the RSPCA Assured scheme. In response, they had followed due procedure in acting to immediately identify the nature of any breaches and sanctioned farms where necessary, which included withdrawing some farms from the scheme. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the complainants were concerned that some of the RSPCA Assured member farms engaged in practices that included beak trimming, nose ringing and tail docking, which were 'contentious' but 'regulated by law'. The ASA said: 'We understood that as a wider organisational effort, the RSPCA engaged with farmers to reduce the use of such practices, such as through reduction in livestock density and increased environmental enrichment.' Further, in response to allegations of mistreatment on RSPCA Assured farms, the organisation had 'quickly inspected and imposed a variety of sanctions on farms found to have breached its standards', the ASA said. Following the allegations, an independent report commissioned by the RSPCA found that while some farms fell short of expectations, overall the scheme was operating effectively with 93% of farms having fewer than five instances of non-compliance across over 500 standards. The ASA said: 'We concluded that the ads were unlikely to mislead about the care standards afforded to animals at RSPCA Assured farms.' An RSPCA spokesman said: 'We welcome the ASA ruling that found there was no foundation for this complaint. 'We have a 200-year history of making real and tangible change for farmed animals through changing laws and continually driving up standards to improve their welfare. The RSPCA's pioneering standards mean we were the first to require CCTV to monitor welfare in slaughterhouses before it became mandatory, to ban the use of battery cages for hens 18 years before it became law, to insist on pasture for dairy cattle, to provide more space for salmon, to end the use of fast-growing meat chickens, and to ban the use of farrowing crates for mother pigs. 'There's much more to be done and we're determined to continue to work with the public, our partners, industry and governments to improve the lives of farm animals now and in the future.' Nicola Wilks, co-director at Adfree Cities, said: 'Currently, the RSPCA is approving standards for animals across thousands of farms that, although above minimum legal standards, most people would think of as cruel. In this context this advert's scenes of free, hand-fed and rescued farm animals are extremely misleading. 'Advertising for the products of intensive farming is everywhere, misleading us about the unhealthy and cramped conditions experienced by animals in factory farms. 'It's disappointing to see the RSPCA's advertising contributing to this culture of misinformation. We will appeal this decision, but we also need broad restrictions on advertising that conceals the way animals are treated in the intensive farming industry.'
Western Telegraph
30-04-2025
- General
- Western Telegraph
RSPCA poultry standards criticised by Pembrokeshire couple
From July 2025, RPSCA Assured, the RSPCA's labelling and assurance scheme, is rolling out a new set of standards including a requirement for free-range egg members to provide 3% of natural daylight in housing. But producers like Stephen and Clare Morgan argue that this will actually diminish welfare in sheds, not improve it. They produce eggs from four flocks of 16,000 hens at Fenton Home Farm, near Haverfordwest, with daylight in the sheds provided by popholes. The Morgans say light levels need to be managed to prevent injurious feather pecking and that forcing poultry businesses to provide minimum levels of daylight is harmful to hens' welfare. When they experienced an isolated issue with feather pecking in one of their flocks, the only way they could manage it was by suppressing light in the housing. 'We tried everything but the only way we could deal with it and calm the birds down was to make their environment darker,'' Stephen explains. But RSPCA Assured suggests that natural daylight helps to reduce incidents of injurious pecking and encourages free-range hens to range by minimising the differences between the inside and outside environment. The new regulations require RSPCA Assured free-range egg members to provide 3% natural daylight to hens, either at the time of refurbishment cycle or by 1 January 2035 – whichever is sooner. The Morgans, who supply their eggs to Kent-based Fridays, reckon that the new standards will add 4p to the price of a dozen eggs. They say eggs imported from Europe will not have to comply with the standards therefore it will put British egg producers at an immediate cost disadvantage. Another of the standards which the Morgans are at odds with RSPCA Assured on is the provision of 20% natural cover on ranges from 1 May 2027 because they fear that density of trees and shrubs will attract wild birds potentially carrying the avian influenza (AI) virus. 'Trees will encourage wild birds to roost and rest and that increases the AI risk to our hens,'' says Clare. 'We don't want wild birds anywhere near our hens.'' While the Morgans welcome any improvements to bird welfare, they say it must be done with 'good scientific evidence''. Kelly Grellier, RSPCA Assured's Chief Commercial Officer, said a number of amendments had been made to the natural daylight standard previously announced 'to ensure the implementation process ties in with a member's planned refurbishment cycle.'' This, she said, would make implementation 'more practical and achievable, whilst still progressing hen welfare''. 'Working together to find solutions gives the greatest chance of achieving this standard, ensuring that all hens experience natural daylight.''
