Today sees another ruling from the Advertising Standards Authority, this time against the National Anti Vivisection Society.  A leaflet distributed by NAVS claimed that ‘laboratory animals suffer terribly at every stage of their lives’; a statement to which RDS strongly objected, since some animals are often used solely for breeding, as control groups, or purely for observation.  In addition, the UK has world-renowned animal welfare standards.

On this occasion NAVS did not even respond to the ASA’s request for information.  Since NAVS has not adhered to previous rulings (see Behind the times), there is no reason to suppose that it will abide by this latest one.

Incredibly, NAVS is blaming the ASA for its own lack of response!  When approached by The Guardian, NAVS’ Chief Exec Jan Creamer said that the group had had no contact from the ASA:

‘We contacted them yesterday and said what is this all about and they said they had sent us a fax,’ she said.  ‘They’d never received a response so they left it at that.’

‘We exhaust as many avenues as we can to give a fair hearing to the advertiser,’ said an ASA spokesman.  ‘If they don’t respond, we still have to make a ruling.’
Guardian, 26th July 2006, Anti-vivisection claims on suffering were misleading, says advertising authority

I find Creamer’s comments hard to believe.  RDS has had quite a few dealings with the ASA over the years and in our experience it’s very good at communicating – usually by letter, but also the occasional phone call; and it isn’t shy about asking for more info or clarification.  ‘Left it at that’ also doesn’t quite tally with what NAVS has written on its website:

We were initially informed that their principal contact was through a fax which we had no record of, and then later, that they had called our offices and left messages for ‘the marketing department’.

One message on a Saturday when our office was closed, and one when both our Chief Executive and Campaigns Director were in the building. There is no record of these calls in the NAVS telephone log and the ASA does not have the name of the person they spoke to. It appears that the ASA did not make the effort to speak to a person in authority to ensure that the matter was being dealt with.
NAVS media centre, 26th July 2006, NAVS stand by statement: ‘Laboratory animals suffer terribly.’ ASA Criticised

Hmm, the ASA (like most of the working world) isn’t even open on a Saturday!  I dusted off my investigative skills and called the ASA.  I spoke to one of the officers involved in this case who commented:

(i) that post, fax and phone are their standard methods of contact and would have been used (exactly as I expected); and
(ii) for every occasion that they had contacted RDS about the case, they also contacted NAVS ‘and more’ (presumably to try and get a response!).

As this case was raised at the end of April and we have had at least four letters from the ASA (so NAVS will have had more, as well as faxes and phone calls), I’m guessing that the ‘Saturday message’ is a simple date mix-up.  Regardless, how do NAVS account for all of the other missed contact attempts?

Creamer did employ some CYA (Cover Your Arse) speak:

Clearly if there has been a blunder at the NAVS and we did not response [sic], I will investigate this. But I find it extraordinary that the ASA can call our offices and ask to speak to the “marketing department” when I am in the building, not know who they spoke to, and there is no message in our book.
NAVS media centre, 26th July 2006, NAVS stand by statement: ‘Laboratory animals suffer terribly.’ ASA Criticised

Yes, I also find it extraordinary, and in the light of the ASA’s comments above I suggest NAVS trains its staff properly, so that when relevant calls come in and the relevant person is in the building they actually pass on the call – or at the very least make a note of it!

Today’s adjudication comes as NAVS, under its alias Animal Defenders International (ADI), is in the throes of a judicial review about the ban on political broadcast advertising.

Dr Simon Festing, Executive Director of the RDS commented:

NAVS’ disdain for factual accuracy and the rulings of the ASA comes as no surprise.  If they cannot be bothered to abide by – or even respond to – the independent regulatory body for print advertising, then they cannot be trusted to advertise in the broadcast media.