Oatly ads banned for misleading climate claims

What level of substantiation do you need to make green climate claims?

The key takeaway

Don’t underestimate the level of substantiation required for green claims. Multiple sources are likely to be needed, not just the evidence of one climate expert. 

The background

Two TV ads, a paid for Facebook posts, a paid for Twitter post and two press ads for Oatly were investigated by the ASA after receiving 109 complaints, including from the campaign group A Greener World. The complainants challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:

• Claim 1: “Oatly generates 73% less CO2e vs. milk.”
• Claim 2: “The dairy and meat industries emit more CO2e than all the world’s planes, trains, cars, boats etc., combined.”
• Claim 3: “Today, more than 25% of the world’s greenhouse gases are generated by the food industry, and meat and dairy account for more than half of that.”
• Claim 4: “Climate experts say cutting dairy and meat products from our diets is the single biggest lifestyle change we can make to reduce our environmental impact.”, and 
• Claim 5: “If everyone in the world adopted a vegan diet, it would reduce food’s annual greenhouse emissions by 6.6bn metric tons (a 49% reduction).”

In response to the complaints Oatly noted: 

• Claim 1: They had commissioned CarbonCloud, independent product life cycle assessment experts, to calculate the emissions of Oatly Barista Edition oat milk and British whole cow’s milk. The climate footprint was assessed from cradle to store. Oatly further noted that because the calculation did not account for the whole life cycles of the products, they had included the qualification “from grower to grocer”.
  
  
• Claim 2: Oatly said they drew a comparison between the CO2e emissions from the global meat and dairy industry and the transport industry because the impact of transport on climate change was more widely understood than the impact from food choices. They referred to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) report: Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities; and the UK Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change in support of the claim.
  
  
• Claim 3: Oatly pointed to an extract from a report authored by a climate expert, that they said substantiated the claim. The meta-analysis that formed the basis of the report consolidated worldwide data on the environmental impact of various food production systems. In Oatly’s opinion, particularly in the context of the ad, which made a number of references to “plant based” eating, consumers would likely understand the phrase “meat and dairy” in contrast to that to mean all animal products.
  
  
• Claim 4: Again, Oatly relied on a quote from a climate expert which they said substantiated their claim. 
  
  
• Claim 5: Oatly also provided extracts from the same meta-analysis, relied upon to substantiate claims 3 and 4 and also relied on a report from the Institute for Climate Economics: Food policies and climate: a literature review, that they said substantiated the claim.

The development

Although Oatly provided evidence to support its claims, the ASA found that it had failed to substantiate four out of five of them, as follows:

• Claim 1: The ASA considered that consumers would understand this claim to mean that all Oatly products generated 73% less CO2e when, in fact, the evidence they had provided only concerned Oatly’s Barista edition oat drink.
  
  
• Claim 2: Oatly referred to greenhouse gas emissions reports in support of this claim. However, the ASA took exception to the fact that whilst the assessment of the environmental impact of the meat and dairy industry took account of full product life cycles, the transport assessment only accounted for parts of it.
  
  
• Claim 3: This claim was found to be misleading as consumers would understand it to relate to meat and dairy only. However, the evidence submitted by Oatly also incorporated the egg and aquaculture industries. 
  
  
• Claim 4: By relying on the opinion of just one climate expert, the ASA found that Oatly had overstated the view that the evidence supported.

Oatly were however successful in substantiating the following claim:

• Claim 5: In support of this claim, Oatly successfully pointed to a comprehensive review, which consolidated data relating to the environmental impact of moving from traditional diets to vegan diets. They could therefore substantiate the claim. 

Why is this important?

The ASA’s ruling reinforces the deepening regulatory focus on green claims in the food and drink sector and the zero-tolerance approach being taken. Additionally, the ruling highlights the need for comprehensive substantiation of green claims from various sources rather than reliance on the opinion of one expert. 

The ruling also demonstrates that brands have to be absolutely crystal clear with their claims and how they will be perceived by consumers. It is shows that it is safer to take a more literal approach rather than relying on what consumers would likely understand a claim to mean. 

Any practical tips?

Be extremely careful with each and every green claim you seek to make. It’s increasingly likely that they will be scrutinised. Solid substantiation is key and must be backed by multiple sources.