DairyNZ to fight ‘dirty’ ad ruling
DairyNZ says it will appeal the Advertising Standards Authority ruling that Greenpeace’s ‘‘dirty dairying’’ advert did not breach advertising principles.
Both Greenpeace and DairyNZ received embargoed copies of the ruling in December, which said they had until January 23 to appeal the ruling, chief executive Tim Mackle said.
‘‘We received the ruling; we are not happy with the outcome, so we’ll appeal that.’’
He maintained that the advert was misleading in the picture it painted of the dairy industry.
The dairy lobby group was behind one of the 12 complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) over the advertisement.
While the ASA process risked further legitimising Greenpeace’s view of the dairy industry in the eyes of the public, appealing the advert was about doing what was right, Mackle said.
‘‘We don’t believe that standing by and allowing these activist groups to pitch messages and stories any way they like to the public is acceptable.
‘‘We believe it’s the right thing to do in this case and that’s really based on the good work dairy farmers have done in the last five to seven years around environmental initatives.’’
Rather than ‘‘admitting defeat’’, the right thing to do was to point out that this kind of advertising was not appropriate, Mackle said.
He also rejected any claims that, in complaining about the advert, the dairy industry was attempting to brush the environmental issues it faced under the carpet.
‘‘We’re not covering anything up. That’s a nonsense. Our issue is
"We would encourage DairyNZ to concentrate its resources into addressing the very real problems of river degradation." Advertising Standards Authority
with that ad and how it is pitched.’’
However, Greenpeace says the dairy industry shot itself in the foot by complaining about the ad.
In its ruling, the watchdog found Greenpeace didn’t breach advertising principles – and gave the dairy industry a tune-up in its ruling.
The one-minute television advertisement also said the Government was ‘‘allowing our precious rivers to be destroyed’’.
Complainants claimed statements and images in the advert were ‘‘false and misleading’’.
However, the ASA rejected all of the complaints. Its complaints board said the statements in the advertisement ‘‘would not come as a surprise’’ to most Kiwis.
‘‘We would encourage DairyNZ to concentrate its resources into addressing the very real problems of river degradation, rather than trying to pretend the problem doesn’t exist.’’
Greenpeace sustainable agriculture campaigner Genevieve Toop said the group was not surprised at the ruling.
She said the ASA accepted Greenpeace’s position that ‘‘the impact of industrial dairy farming on water quality is widely documented’’.
Attempts by the industrial dairying lobby to get the video banned actually had the opposite effect, Toop said.
‘‘It became known as ‘the ad they didn’t want you to see’.’’
Following DairyNZ’s complaint, more than a quarter of a million New Zealanders went online and viewed it on Greenpeace’s Facebook page.
Greenpeace provided the ASA with a 13-page file of scientific evidence pointing to nitrate and pathogen pollution of the country’s waterways as a result of industrial dairying.
Toop said the Government’s own figures show 62 per cent of New Zealand’s monitored rivers are already unsafe for swimming, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has repeatedly drawn a clear link between industrial dairying and water pollution.
‘‘Industrial dairying is being confronted with its own truth, and doesn’t like it,’’ Toop said. ‘‘The decision by the ASA confirms that we have a major problem.’’
She said Greenpeace would engage the public in its efforts to stop the construction of big irrigation schemes, even though those have the support of the Government.
‘‘[The industry’s] failed complaint has only served to strengthen our resolve.’’