27 november 2014, by matthew appleby, be the first to commentthe advertising standards authority has investigated three issues, all of which were not upheld, relating to b&q&39s easygrow teabag technology petpacked bedding, which replaced polystyrene packaging this year. two were videos on a video sharing network for b&q and were challenged by styropack.the first video, titled "easygrow our greenest ever bedding plants", featured an animated gardener explaining the production process for easygrow plants. she said, "... the old style polystyrene bedding trays really are a nuisance ... they break up and leave bits of polystyrene blowing all over the garden and worse they can&39t be recycled ..."the second video, titled "when gardening isn&39t green" featured actress emilia fox. she said, "... polystyrene can&39t be recycled easily &hellip not only does it create a huge amount of waste we can&39t get rid of, it&39s also believed to have a devastating effect on wildlife ..."styropack uk challenged whether the claims1. "the old style polystyrene bedding trays ... can&39t be recycled" in ad a misleadingly implied polystyrene could not be effectively recycled2. "polystyrene can&39t be recycled easily &hellip" in ad b misleadingly implied polystyrene could not be effectively recycled and3. "polystyrene is also believed to have a devastating effect on wildlife" in ad b could be substantiated.b&q acknowledged that there was a process by which it was physically possible for polystyrene to be recycled. they said the statements in both ads, however, were aimed at uk consumers and were intended to be understood in that context they believed it was clear that the statements related to the ability of consumers to recycle polystyrene. they explained that local authorities did not collect expanded polystyrene eps for recycling from homes and did not accept polystyrene for recycling at local recycling facilities.there were a few consumer recycling points that had been set up by manufacturers on a voluntary basis to provide a service to their local community, but there were relatively few facilities within the uk six, as of may 2014 that would recycle polystyrene. consumers would therefore need to visit one of those centres to deposit polystyrene waste. they believed, for the average consumer, polystyrene trays were nonrecyclable.b&q pointed out that the claim was conditional, but regardless, understood that the effect of plastic debris on wildlife had been well documented. they referred to a report by the european commission, "plastic waste ecological & human health impacts", which documented the findings of several studies concerning the effect of plastic materials on wildlife in various locations across the world as a result of ingestion and entanglement at sea and inadequate waste management on land. they sent references to news articles from around the world, which spoke about the effect of polystyrene foam on wildlife in different scenarios.the asa decided the challenge was "not upheld".it said "the asa understood that the recycling of polystyrene was not currently offered by local authorities as part of their waste management services. we also understood that polystyrene was recyclable and that many businesses used a recycling process."the ad&39s narration talked about the large quantity of polystyrene trays b&q were accustomed to selling in spring and went on to say they were &39difficult&39 to dispose of, ending up in landfill, and later stated "&hellip they can&39t be recycled. i hate filling up the dustbin with them &hellip we&39re filling up landfill sites with polystyrene that takes thousands of years to degrade. the easygrow tray is made from recycled plastic bottles and the material can be recycled again and again, completely eliminating waste &hellip". we acknowledged b&q&39s argument that the intended message of the ad was that domestic gardeners experienced difficulty in recycling polystyrene and considered that the target audience for the ad consisted of that group, domestic gardeners, likely to shop at b&q for bedding plants."the claim "they can&39t be recycled" was an absolute one, but given the context of the overall message, which included scenes of domestic wheelie bins and the narration from the perspective of a domestic gardener, we concluded that it was likely to be interpreted as a comment on the difficulty of recycling polystyrene for domestic gardeners at whom the ad was targeted, not that polystyrene as a material could not be effectively recycled. the claim was unlikely to mislead as a result."on this point, we investigated ad a under cap code rule 3.1 misleading advertising but did not find it in breach."ad b was narrated by emilia fox and from her position as &39a keen gardener&39. she explained that she saw her gardening activity as a way of supporting nature and working with the environment and claimed, "but the truth is, gardening isn&39t always green &hellip people like me have been buying bedding plants in polystyrene trays ... polystyrene can&39t be recycled easily and takes hundreds and hundreds of years to degrade. not only does it create a huge amount of waste we can&39t get rid of &hellip" the ad went on to discuss the easygrow product from b&q, explaining that "gardeners can enjoy their garden knowing that they aren&39t adding to the huge amount of nonbiodegradable waste"."we understood that it was possible to recycle polystyrene, including the polystyrene trays used by gardeners, and the difficulty the ad spoke about was in relation to the convenience for domestic gardeners in finding and making use of a recycling facility. we considered that in the overall context of the ad, the claim "polystyrene can&39t be recycled easily" was likely to be understood as meaning that it was not easy for domestic gardeners to recycle their polystyrene trays, unlike the easygrow product promoted by b&q. we concluded that, in this context, the claim was unlikely to mislead."on this point, we investigated ad b under cap code rule 3.1 misleading advertising but did not find it in breach."ad b stated "&hellip it&39s also believed to have a devastating effect on wildlife" in relation to polystyrene. b&q had explained their view that this was a conditional claim and that the effect of plastic debris on wildlife was well known."we noted the claim was expressed conditionally. the news articles submitted spoke about the large quantities of polystyrene discarded as litter and reported on the potential danger of polystyrene on wildlife as a result, particularly in relation to marine life, because it could be mistaken for food, presenting a choking hazard or an erroneous feeling of &39fullness&39 if ingested, resulting in malnutrition or starvation."we acknowledged, therefore, that the reports indicated a belief that large amounts of discarded plastic products could be problematic. while they did not use the specific language incorporated in the ad, that the effect was &39devastating&39, we considered that consumers were likely to understand the intended meaning it was widely acknowledged that discarded plastics, particularly those which reached the sea, were believed to have a highly negative impact on the wellbeing of wildlife with which it came into contact."we concluded that the claim was unlikely to mislead."on this point, we investigated ad b under cap code rules 3.1 misleading advertising and 3.7 substantiation but did not find it in breach.""no further action required."
