Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Vivisection is a subject that rouses strong passions from both sides of the debate. Some marketers have found themselves on the wrong side of an ASA ruling because they have over-claimed, often about the value of animal testing in medical research. During its investigations, the ASA has accepted that animal testing can be relevant for human health and medical progress and that, generally, the scientific community consider it necessary. The ASA has also accepted that, although there are alternatives in some instances, animal testing cannot yet be fully replaced: some drugs that have undergone tests during development have not been released for human use, because tests on animals have demonstrated an unacceptable safety risk. In short, the ASA has so far accepted that animal testing is neither worthless nor avoidable in all circumstances and marketers who are against vivisection should not claim or imply that it is. Although marketers may express their opinions about the merits of vivisection and to raise awareness of the possible alternatives to animal research, some marketers have presented their strongly-held opinions as fact but have been unable to prove their claims (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 22 March 2006).
Anti-vivisection marketing should neither offend nor cause fear or distress. Marketers distributing material that features photographs of animals should consider carefully their targeting; door-drop leaflets with, for example, graphic photographs that could be seen by and could upset children are likely to be unacceptable. Furthermore, marketers should ensure that, if used, photographs should be recent and relevant to both the UK and medical research practice. Some years ago, the ASA upheld a complaint about a circular, concluding that the depicted disemboweled monkey could offend and distress recipients.
Claims that state or imply that experiments are unregulated or that animal welfare is ignored are unlikely to be acceptable. We understand that the Home Office grants licenses for animal experiments only under strict conditions and only if no alternative exists (Association of Medical Research Charities, 5 October 2005).
Last modified : 29 June 2010