GM Food / M Wells / 8739
Ruling of the : ASA Directorate
In the matter between:
Mr Mark Wells	Complainant(s)/Appellant(s)
Monsant SA (Pty) Ltd	Respondent

18 Jun 2007

Mr Wells lodged a consumer complaint against a Monsanto print advertisement referring to genetically modified grain products, featured in the February 2007 edition of the You magazine.

The advertisement features the heading “Is your food SAFE?” and contains an image of a woman with two children in a kitchen looking at a cake.

Below the sub-heading, “Biotechnology - the true facts” it states, “This is one of the most extensively tested and controlled types of food, and no negative reactions have ever been reported.”

COMPLAINT
The complainant submitted that the claim “no negative reactions have ever been reported” is false, as there are numerous scientific papers citing the dangerous effects of these products. One such a study was submitted by the complainant. The complainant added that the advertisements should carry a warning about possible side effects.

RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE CODE OF ADVERTISING PRACTICE
In light of the complaint the following clauses of the Code were taken into account:

• Section II, Clause 4.1 - Substantiation

• Section II, Clause 4.2.1 - Misleading claims

RESPONSE
The respondent addressed the Directorate at length, and submitted, inter alia, the following:

• It has a strict code of conduct by which it does business globally and would not release products into the market if it feels that its products have not been tested enough and to the satisfaction of the authorities in those countries.
  
  
• All biotech crops currently approved for commercialisation world-wide have been thoroughly assessed by scientific and regulatory authorities for food, feed and environmental safety according to internationally agreed guidelines and principles. They have been found to be as wholesome, nutritious and safe as conventional crops and foods.
  
  
• The study relied upon by the complainant relates to an ingredient-gene known as MON 863. None of the respondent’s products contain this particular ingredient.
  
  
• So far there has not been any evidence of adverse consequences on ecology or environment. Biotech maize has no effect on human beings, animals, fishes and soil micro organisms.
  
  
• The respondent also submitted a wealth of studies that contradict the complaint.

ASA DIRECTORATE RULING
The ASA Directorate considered all the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties.

Clause 4.1 of Section II states, inter alia, that advertisers shall hold documentary evidence to support all claims that are capable of objective substantiation.

Clause 4.1.4 states that documentary evidence, other than survey data, shall emanate from or be evaluated by a person or entity which is independent, credible, and an expert in the particular field to which the claims relate and be acceptable to the ASA.

The complainant submitted that the respondent’s claim that its genetically modified (GM) food “is one of the most extensively tested and controlled types of food, and no negative reactions have ever been reported” is false as there are numerous independent scientific papers that cite the dangerous effects of these products. The complainant further added that the respondent’s rat feeding study caused serious damage to the liver and kidneys of rats during trials of its GM maize.

The respondent submitted a wealth of documentation relating to the safety of biotechnology. In addition, it argued that five independent experts have received the data and concluded that the MON 863 ingredient has no adverse effect as claimed by the complainant. It argued that rather than focussing on one or two isolated studies, it would be better to focus on the benefits of biotech corn.

The problem the Directorate is faced with is that it is not a scientific body in a position to interpret the information. Hence, it required the respondent to furnish it with a report emanating from an independent, credible, expert to confirm and verify the exact claims made in its advertisement according to the requirements of Clause 4.1 of Section II.

The respondent subsequently submitted a letter from Covance Laboratories in the United States of America (Virginia), that stated inter alia, the following “Covance is an independent Contract Research Organization that performs contract safety research (preclinical and clinical) for clients worldwide and is not affiliated with Monsanto Company.”

At this time it needs to be clarified that whether or not the study submitted by the complainant is accurate and applicable to the respondent is not a material factor. The relative benefits of biotech corn is not the issue under consideration. The complainant contested the claims that the respondent’s products have had no negative reports. In terms of Clause 4.1 of Section II, the onus is therefore on the respondent to provide independent verification of this claim.

The studies submitted by the respondent make no reference to claims made in the advertisement that “no negative reactions have ever been reported”.

The claim “This is one of the most extensively tested and controlled types of food, and no negative reactions have ever been reported” goes beyond merely indicating safety. It expressly states that, out of all the studies done in this field, no negative effect have ever been reported.

However, there is nothing in the respondent’s submissions to unequivocally verify that no negative reactions have ever been reported

The respondent’s submissions from Covance Laboratories did not include any verification for the respondent’s claim that “This is one of the most extensively tested and controlled types of food, and no negative reactions have ever been reported…”.

Accordingly, the claim “… no negative reactions have ever been reported” is currently unsubstantiated and in breach of Clause 4.1 of Section II of the Code.

Given the above finding:

• The claim must be withdrawn;
  
  
• The process to withdraw the claim must be actioned with immediate effect upon receipt of ruling;
  
  
• The withdrawal of the claim must be completed within the deadlines stipulated by Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide; and
  
  
• The claim may not be used again in its current format until new substantiation has been submitted, evaluated, and a new ruling is made.

Given the above, it is not necessary to consider Clause 4.2.1 of Section II at this time.

The complaint is upheld.