Ad watchdog saves Pick n Pay's bacon after SPCA complaint

Animal welfare activists have lost their fight to stop Pick n Pay advertising “sow friendly pork”.

The SPCA complained to the ad watchdog that keeping pigs in tiny cages which have been banned in some countries was anything but “friendly”.

Its complaint was dismissed‚ and now its appeal has been rejected by the Advertising Standards Authority’s directorate‚ which said the words “independently audited to meet PnP animal welfare standards” adequately qualified the claim that the pork was “sow friendly”.

In its original complaint‚ the national council of SPCAs said sow crates were metal crates‚ usually with a bare floor‚ which were so narrow that pigs could not turn around and could only stand up and lie down with difficulty.

It said the claim that they were “sow friendly” was deceptive and misleading‚ as they denied pigs freedom of movement‚ the opportunity to interact‚ and the chance to forage and root.

The SPCA asked the ad watchdog to assess Pick n Pay’s claims about the friendliness of the crates in terms of generally accepted standards either in the retail industry or animal welfare circles.

It said any time a pig spent in a sow crate was unnecessary‚ and the fact that the retailer had welfare programmes only lessened the suffering of the pigs but did not eliminate it.

Pick n Pay told the watchdog its pork products were independently audited to meet the retailer’s animal welfare standards‚ which was the basis for the “sow friendly” claim.

It said all suppliers were audited without warning by the South African Meat Industry Company‚ and that it had submitted details of its “sow crate-free” protocol to the Department of Agriculture‚ Forestry and Fisheries.

The retailer also pointed out that there was no proposal to ban or phase out sow crates‚ only a voluntary industry deadline that would take effect in 2020.

The ASA directorate said it was “discomforted” by the SPCA’s descriptions of sow crates but had no mandate to police the pork industry. All it could do was determine whether the “sow friendly pork” claim was likely to mislead customers about pigs’ living conditions and whether the claim had been adequately substantiated.

Pick n Pay’s claim must be evaluated in light of the fact that “pork is farmed and slaughtered meat. It is therefore only ever going to be ‘sow friendly’ up to a point‚ as the consumer will understand.”

The directorate added: “The claim ‘sow friendly’ does not mean that the pigs are not kept in crates... but that the living conditions of pigs in the farms where [Pick n Pay] gets its pork products are independently audited.”

In its appeal‚ the SPCA said the average consumer would struggle to read the words “independently audited to meet PnP welfare standards” on pork labels‚ and repeated its claim that while no law had been broken the retailer could not justify and promote sow crates as “friendly”.

The appeal committee said in its finding it “could not come to the conclusion that when viewed as a whole the qualification of the words ‘sow friendly pork’ were not sufficiently qualified by the words ‘independently audited to meet PnP animal welfare standards’. Accordingly‚ the advertisement was not misleading.”