Tag Archives: natural

Thailand: migrant labour investigator ‘not guilty’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Prakanong Court in Bangkok today dismissed a defamation charge brought against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit Company Ltd, which owns a pineapple export factory, due to an “unlawful interrogation process” under section 120 of the criminal procedure code.

Natural Fruit has launched multiple criminal and civil prosecutions against the researcher since February 2013 following his contribution to a Finnwatch report – ‘Cheap has a high price‘ – published that year. The report revealed serious human rights violations at Natural Fruit’s pineapple juice production facilities

Today’s verdict – just the first of four cases filed against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit – related to an interview Hall gave to the global broadcaster Aljazeera on his criminal prosecutions.

“We are relieved and glad that justice has prevailed in this case”, said Sonja Vartiala, the Executive Director of Finnwatch. But she adds that there remain serious problems in working conditions at Natural Fruit: “The question that now must be asked is why Thailand’s authorities have not taken action against the company.”

Three more legal cases await him

The second case, a US$10m civil defamation case, begins tomorrow at Nakhon Pathom Court.

The third case, computer crimes act and criminal defamation charges, will proceed on 17th November at the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court. Dates for a fourth US$4 million civil case have not yet been confirmed.

If Hall is found guilty of the additional criminal and civil cases, he could face up to seven years in prison and be required to pay as much as $14 million in compensation to Natural Fruit.

Hundreds of other international NGOs regard the court proceedings against Andy Hall as “judicial harassment” and see that his important and successful work is being seriously hindered by these actions.

Finnwatch is now demanding that the company drop all the charges against Andy Hall. “Instead of allowing companies to bring human rights activists to court, Thailand needs to prosecute companies like Natural Fruit, who are violating labour rights”, says Vartiala.

Beware Thai fish, seafood, pineapple products

Writing for The Ecologist last month as his prosecution began, Hall denounced the widespread abuse of workers in Thailand’s export-oriented food sector:

“Abuse experienced by migrants in Thailand, often treated as second class citizens or walking ATMs, extends to many export markets. Consumers across the world should be increasingly aware of this. The abuse extends beyond fishing, seafood and pineapples, those products whose abusive supply chains have already been well publicized.

“Exploitation of migrants by employers, officials and brokers is widespread and systematic in Thailand. Thai migration policy has always been a shambles, devoid of long term planning and the rule of law. Corruption and abuse of power are all encompassing features of the migration system here, every day experiences for the workers themselves.”

But he added that whatever the outcome of the trials for him, they were finally bringing the prospect of respite to the workers themselves:

“My harassment is being used effectively by me, consumer groups, trade unions and rights groups as a means of increasing awareness and interest of consumers and importers of Thai products on the systematic nature of migrant exploitation in Thailand and the link to trade, export and corporate social responsibility.

“With more awareness surely comes more pressure for positive change and then eventually the change itself.”

Demonstrations are being held today in Finland, Netherlands, UK and the United States to support Andy Hall.

 

 

The report: ‘Cheap has a high price‘.

 




386071

Thailand: migrant labour investigator ‘not guilty’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Prakanong Court in Bangkok today dismissed a defamation charge brought against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit Company Ltd, which owns a pineapple export factory, due to an “unlawful interrogation process” under section 120 of the criminal procedure code.

Natural Fruit has launched multiple criminal and civil prosecutions against the researcher since February 2013 following his contribution to a Finnwatch report – ‘Cheap has a high price‘ – published that year. The report revealed serious human rights violations at Natural Fruit’s pineapple juice production facilities

Today’s verdict – just the first of four cases filed against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit – related to an interview Hall gave to the global broadcaster Aljazeera on his criminal prosecutions.

“We are relieved and glad that justice has prevailed in this case”, said Sonja Vartiala, the Executive Director of Finnwatch. But she adds that there remain serious problems in working conditions at Natural Fruit: “The question that now must be asked is why Thailand’s authorities have not taken action against the company.”

Three more legal cases await him

The second case, a US$10m civil defamation case, begins tomorrow at Nakhon Pathom Court.

The third case, computer crimes act and criminal defamation charges, will proceed on 17th November at the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court. Dates for a fourth US$4 million civil case have not yet been confirmed.

If Hall is found guilty of the additional criminal and civil cases, he could face up to seven years in prison and be required to pay as much as $14 million in compensation to Natural Fruit.

Hundreds of other international NGOs regard the court proceedings against Andy Hall as “judicial harassment” and see that his important and successful work is being seriously hindered by these actions.

Finnwatch is now demanding that the company drop all the charges against Andy Hall. “Instead of allowing companies to bring human rights activists to court, Thailand needs to prosecute companies like Natural Fruit, who are violating labour rights”, says Vartiala.

Beware Thai fish, seafood, pineapple products

Writing for The Ecologist last month as his prosecution began, Hall denounced the widespread abuse of workers in Thailand’s export-oriented food sector:

“Abuse experienced by migrants in Thailand, often treated as second class citizens or walking ATMs, extends to many export markets. Consumers across the world should be increasingly aware of this. The abuse extends beyond fishing, seafood and pineapples, those products whose abusive supply chains have already been well publicized.

“Exploitation of migrants by employers, officials and brokers is widespread and systematic in Thailand. Thai migration policy has always been a shambles, devoid of long term planning and the rule of law. Corruption and abuse of power are all encompassing features of the migration system here, every day experiences for the workers themselves.”

But he added that whatever the outcome of the trials for him, they were finally bringing the prospect of respite to the workers themselves:

“My harassment is being used effectively by me, consumer groups, trade unions and rights groups as a means of increasing awareness and interest of consumers and importers of Thai products on the systematic nature of migrant exploitation in Thailand and the link to trade, export and corporate social responsibility.

“With more awareness surely comes more pressure for positive change and then eventually the change itself.”

Demonstrations are being held today in Finland, Netherlands, UK and the United States to support Andy Hall.

 

 

The report: ‘Cheap has a high price‘.

 




386071

Thailand: migrant labour investigator ‘not guilty’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Prakanong Court in Bangkok today dismissed a defamation charge brought against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit Company Ltd, which owns a pineapple export factory, due to an “unlawful interrogation process” under section 120 of the criminal procedure code.

Natural Fruit has launched multiple criminal and civil prosecutions against the researcher since February 2013 following his contribution to a Finnwatch report – ‘Cheap has a high price‘ – published that year. The report revealed serious human rights violations at Natural Fruit’s pineapple juice production facilities

Today’s verdict – just the first of four cases filed against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit – related to an interview Hall gave to the global broadcaster Aljazeera on his criminal prosecutions.

“We are relieved and glad that justice has prevailed in this case”, said Sonja Vartiala, the Executive Director of Finnwatch. But she adds that there remain serious problems in working conditions at Natural Fruit: “The question that now must be asked is why Thailand’s authorities have not taken action against the company.”

Three more legal cases await him

The second case, a US$10m civil defamation case, begins tomorrow at Nakhon Pathom Court.

The third case, computer crimes act and criminal defamation charges, will proceed on 17th November at the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court. Dates for a fourth US$4 million civil case have not yet been confirmed.

If Hall is found guilty of the additional criminal and civil cases, he could face up to seven years in prison and be required to pay as much as $14 million in compensation to Natural Fruit.

Hundreds of other international NGOs regard the court proceedings against Andy Hall as “judicial harassment” and see that his important and successful work is being seriously hindered by these actions.

Finnwatch is now demanding that the company drop all the charges against Andy Hall. “Instead of allowing companies to bring human rights activists to court, Thailand needs to prosecute companies like Natural Fruit, who are violating labour rights”, says Vartiala.

Beware Thai fish, seafood, pineapple products

Writing for The Ecologist last month as his prosecution began, Hall denounced the widespread abuse of workers in Thailand’s export-oriented food sector:

“Abuse experienced by migrants in Thailand, often treated as second class citizens or walking ATMs, extends to many export markets. Consumers across the world should be increasingly aware of this. The abuse extends beyond fishing, seafood and pineapples, those products whose abusive supply chains have already been well publicized.

“Exploitation of migrants by employers, officials and brokers is widespread and systematic in Thailand. Thai migration policy has always been a shambles, devoid of long term planning and the rule of law. Corruption and abuse of power are all encompassing features of the migration system here, every day experiences for the workers themselves.”

But he added that whatever the outcome of the trials for him, they were finally bringing the prospect of respite to the workers themselves:

“My harassment is being used effectively by me, consumer groups, trade unions and rights groups as a means of increasing awareness and interest of consumers and importers of Thai products on the systematic nature of migrant exploitation in Thailand and the link to trade, export and corporate social responsibility.

“With more awareness surely comes more pressure for positive change and then eventually the change itself.”

Demonstrations are being held today in Finland, Netherlands, UK and the United States to support Andy Hall.

 

 

The report: ‘Cheap has a high price‘.

 




386071

Thailand: migrant labour investigator ‘not guilty’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Prakanong Court in Bangkok today dismissed a defamation charge brought against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit Company Ltd, which owns a pineapple export factory, due to an “unlawful interrogation process” under section 120 of the criminal procedure code.

Natural Fruit has launched multiple criminal and civil prosecutions against the researcher since February 2013 following his contribution to a Finnwatch report – ‘Cheap has a high price‘ – published that year. The report revealed serious human rights violations at Natural Fruit’s pineapple juice production facilities

Today’s verdict – just the first of four cases filed against Andy Hall by Natural Fruit – related to an interview Hall gave to the global broadcaster Aljazeera on his criminal prosecutions.

“We are relieved and glad that justice has prevailed in this case”, said Sonja Vartiala, the Executive Director of Finnwatch. But she adds that there remain serious problems in working conditions at Natural Fruit: “The question that now must be asked is why Thailand’s authorities have not taken action against the company.”

Three more legal cases await him

The second case, a US$10m civil defamation case, begins tomorrow at Nakhon Pathom Court.

The third case, computer crimes act and criminal defamation charges, will proceed on 17th November at the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court. Dates for a fourth US$4 million civil case have not yet been confirmed.

If Hall is found guilty of the additional criminal and civil cases, he could face up to seven years in prison and be required to pay as much as $14 million in compensation to Natural Fruit.

Hundreds of other international NGOs regard the court proceedings against Andy Hall as “judicial harassment” and see that his important and successful work is being seriously hindered by these actions.

Finnwatch is now demanding that the company drop all the charges against Andy Hall. “Instead of allowing companies to bring human rights activists to court, Thailand needs to prosecute companies like Natural Fruit, who are violating labour rights”, says Vartiala.

Beware Thai fish, seafood, pineapple products

Writing for The Ecologist last month as his prosecution began, Hall denounced the widespread abuse of workers in Thailand’s export-oriented food sector:

“Abuse experienced by migrants in Thailand, often treated as second class citizens or walking ATMs, extends to many export markets. Consumers across the world should be increasingly aware of this. The abuse extends beyond fishing, seafood and pineapples, those products whose abusive supply chains have already been well publicized.

“Exploitation of migrants by employers, officials and brokers is widespread and systematic in Thailand. Thai migration policy has always been a shambles, devoid of long term planning and the rule of law. Corruption and abuse of power are all encompassing features of the migration system here, every day experiences for the workers themselves.”

But he added that whatever the outcome of the trials for him, they were finally bringing the prospect of respite to the workers themselves:

“My harassment is being used effectively by me, consumer groups, trade unions and rights groups as a means of increasing awareness and interest of consumers and importers of Thai products on the systematic nature of migrant exploitation in Thailand and the link to trade, export and corporate social responsibility.

“With more awareness surely comes more pressure for positive change and then eventually the change itself.”

Demonstrations are being held today in Finland, Netherlands, UK and the United States to support Andy Hall.

 

 

The report: ‘Cheap has a high price‘.

 




386071

The struggle for safety: caterpillar against birds Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

Aptly described by the naturalist Arthur-Miles Moss, the life of a caterpillar is a virtual struggle for safety from formidable predators, ruthless parasites, and fatal pathogens. To cope, caterpillars possess an array of anti-predator adaptations, or defenses, which aid them in the struggle. An individual caterpillar might employ camouflage, chemical defenses, hairs, spines, and aggressive behaviors to escape or repel its enemies. Despite the fact that these defenses constitute some of the classic examples of adaption, we still know very little about their effectiveness against predators in a natural community context.

 

The bold, gaudy colors of certain insects have arrested the eye of many a naturalist. Alfred Russel Wallace and Henry Bates, who collected butterflies in the Amazon, proposed an ingenious evolutionary explanation for the flashy appearances of many insects. They argued that conspicuous colors on insects are actually warning signals to would-be predators, such as birds, which advertise underlying chemical defenses. The stronger the signal, the clearer would be the message: “Don’t mess with me, I’m poisonous.” Thorough experimental confirmation of this idea, called aposematism, did not come until the second half of the 20th century.

Cat1

Figure 1. Aposematic caterpillar of the monarch butterfly on its milkweed host plant. Photo by Michael S. Singer.

The great Victorian naturalists likewise surmised that camouflage was another important defense of insects against bird predation. Observations of caterpillars, katydids, and walking sticks in their natural environments revealed a wondrous precision in the match between the insect’s appearance and the vegetation upon which it lived. Darwin’s and Wallace’s theory of natural selection was the best scientific explanation: only the best camouflaged individuals of each species would escape detection by predators.

 

Figure 2. Camouflaged inchworm caterpillar on its host plant, manzanita, in southern Arizona. Photo by Michael S. Singer.

Figure 2. Camouflaged inchworm caterpillar on its host plant, manzanita, in southern Arizona. Photo by Michael S. Singer.

 

Over the last 50 years, many additional, important observations and experiments have reinforced these evolutionary theories of prey defense. But the vast majority of experimental studies used captive avian predators or artificial prey (such as dead or artificial insects) exposed to wild birds, leaving some question about the effectiveness of aposematism and camouflage in natural predator-prey interactions, which are notoriously difficult to observe directly in the wild. In the mean time, new techniques and technologies have emerged that allow researchers new modes of studying prey defenses in the wild.

Figure 3. Black-capped chickadee with a captured caterpillar in one of the forest sites used to study bird predation of caterpillars in Connecticut. Photo by Christian Skorik.

Figure 3. Black-capped chickadee with a captured caterpillar in one of the forest sites used to study bird predation of caterpillars in Connecticut. Photo by Christian Skorik.

 

Enter the new study by Lichter-Marck and colleagues, “The struggle for safety: effectiveness of caterpillar defenses against bird predation.” This study used a bird-exclusion field experiment set in the forests of Connecticut, USA to test evolutionary theories of prey defense in the context of a natural ecological community. Over four years, the research team surrounded hundreds of experimental tree branches with garden-variety bird-proof netting, matching each experimental branch with a control branch lacking netting. The netting was applied at the beginning of each growing season, and allowed caterpillars to come and go while preventing access to insectivorous birds. Three weeks later, the researchers returned to each branch and collected the caterpillars living on them. By experiment’s end, the caterpillar species with the largest proportional increase in numbers in experimental branches (protected from bird predation) relative to control branches (open to bird predation) were inferred to suffer the most bird predation. By measuring the defensive traits of each caterpillar species and correlating them with the inferred magnitude of bird predation, the researchers could determine which traits were most effective as defenses against bird predation.

 

 

Figure 4. Red maple branch covered with a bird-exclusion net, one of the experimental branches used in this study. Photo by Christian Skorik.

Figure 4. Red maple branch covered with a bird-exclusion net, one of the experimental branches used in this study. Photo by Christian Skorik.

 

This unique methodological approach supported the main prediction of aposematism theory: among the 38 species of caterpillars that were numerous enough to analyze, those that possessed warning signals, such as bright coloration, received the most protection from birds. But the study revealed another, critical aspect of the warning strategy of defense: stereotypical resting location. The caterpillar species most protected from birds combined warning signals with highly stereotypical resting locations on the plant. That is, their appearance and their location together provided the warning signal to birds. This finding highlights the relatively neglected behavioral aspect of warning strategy of defense.

 

Figure 5. A warningly-signaled caterpillar species (Nola triquetrana) on its host plant, witch hazel, at one of the forest sites used in this study. Photo by Michael S. Singer.

Figure 5. A warningly-signaled caterpillar species (Nola triquetrana) on its host plant, witch hazel, at one of the forest sites used in this study. Photo by Michael S. Singer.

 

Yet the majority of the 38 caterpillar species did not possess warning signals, instead employing camouflage as their primary defensive strategy. Because visual camouflage can result from several different tricks in appearance (disruptive patterns, countershading, etc.), the magnitude of camouflage can be difficult to measure. The researchers turned to an increasingly used method, the human proxy predator assay. In this assay, human participants were shown digital images of the caterpillar species resting on their host plants, and a computer program was designed to record how quickly each participant located each caterpillar with an accurate click of the mouse. The longer it took, on average, to find a caterpillar species, the greater the magnitude of camouflage was inferred.

 

Figure 6. A camouflaged caterpillar species (Catocala ultronia) on its host plant, black cherry, at one of the forest sites used in this study. Photo by Michael S. Singer.

Figure 6. A camouflaged caterpillar species (Catocala ultronia) on its host plant, black cherry, at one of the forest sites used in this study. Photo by Michael S. Singer.

 

In support of evolutionary theory of prey defense, the study found that the caterpillar species with the greatest inferred magnitudes of camouflage received the most protection from birds. Once again, this part of the study revealed a behavioral twist. A caterpillar species’ frequency of behavioral responsiveness to attack, measured independently, worked against the effectiveness of camouflage. This finding suggests that effective camouflage requires not only an appearance that matches the prey’s background, but also behavioral maintenance of the cryptic posture in the face of physical disturbance.

The authors, through Michael S. Singer

About these ads

‘Misleading’ fracking ad ‘must not appear again’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




A reader of the Daily Telegraph saw red on reading an ad by Breitling Energy Corporation – one the the US’s biggest frackers – making big promises about the benefits of fracking in the UK.

Now their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been upheld on all six counts, as the ad is ruled to be making claims that are at the same time misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

“Dear Citizens of the United Kingdom”, the ad began. “Do you know that your country is blessed with an incredible gift? It’s shale gas – natural gas trapped in layers of shale rock deep below the surface of the earth …

“The British Geological Survey has recently released new shale gas estimates considerably higher than former estimates. This is fantastic news for the UK – especially in the wake of a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter …

“This means: Decades worth of natural gas … Millions of pounds in tax revenues to support social and other government programs … Freedom from interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply … Lowering energy prices for millions … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy … “

But not a single claim held water!

But now its claims have been ruled out of order. The complainant set out the following issues, all of which were upheld following the ASA’s painstaking research:

Claim 1: “a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter” – false because it exaggerated the severity of the shortage.

ASA: “We considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the UK had been in real danger of running out of gas, and therefore that the reference to a ‘near-catastrophic’ shortage was misleading.”

Claim 2: “This means … decades worth of natural gas” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “Because the report related to shale gas resources only and not reserves, and because we understood that informed opinion was at best divided as to the likely recovery factor of those resources, we concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 3: “This means … Millions of pounds in tax revenues” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “We considered that it was not possible definitively to calculate the likely tax revenues resulting from the resources identified by the BGS report … We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 4: “interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply”, because Russia did not supply gas to the UK and had never interrupted the UK’s gas supply.

ASA: “the claim … exaggerated the outcome of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine dispute for the UK and misled as to both the direct intent of Russia’s actions and the probability of future similar events causing interruptions or shortages in the UK.”

Claim 5: “This means … Lowering energy prices for millions” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known, and that in any case domestic extraction would have minimal impact on energy prices because the UK was part of an integrated European gas market.

ASA: “Whilst we acknowledged the view expressed by David Cameron that fracking in the UK had ‘real potential’ to drive down energy bills, we noted that that view was contingent upon a number of assumptions as to the size of UK shale gas reserves and the scale upon which extraction would be adopted, and were concerned in any case that the press article did not constitute robust documentary evidence in support of the claim.”

Claim 6: “This means … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy” – false because there were no reliable estimates for the carbon footprint of shale gas extraction, that extraction carried the risk of methane emissions, which if unburnt was more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that there was no certainty that gas would be used instead of, rather than in addition to, coal.

ASA: “it was not certain that the development of UK shale gas resources would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions where that happened alongside a concurrent reduction in the use of coal for energy. We also considered that the wording ‘by replacing coal with natural gas for energy’ implied that shale gas would be used instead of coal, when that was only one of several scenarios including an additional energy source to meet increased future demand.”

A final telling off

In conclusion, the ASA admonished the Dallas, Texas based Breitling, “The claims must not appear again in their current form.

“We told Breitling Energy Corporation to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence in support of claims likely to be regarded as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation, that matters of opinion were not presented as objective claims, and that their future ads did not suggest that their claims were universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion existed.”

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth commented: “Supporters of fracking claim that their opponents peddle myth and misinformation, but this verdict and a previous ASA decision against Cuadrilla for their ‘misleading advertising’, is a damning indictment of fracking industry spin.”

But most remarkable is that Breitling’s claims coincide precisely with those made by David Cameron, the UK’s pro-fracking Prime minister, his equally pro-fracking Chancellor, David Osborne, and other Cabinet members.

Now that the claims they make at every opportunity have been subject to exhaustive scrutiny and found to be simultaneously misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated, will they change their tune?

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Read: ASA Adjudication on Breitling Energy Corporation.

 

 




383657

‘Misleading’ fracking ad ‘must not appear again’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




A reader of the Daily Telegraph saw red on reading an ad by Breitling Energy Corporation – one the the US’s biggest frackers – making big promises about the benefits of fracking in the UK.

Now their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been upheld on all six counts, as the ad is ruled to be making claims that are at the same time misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

“Dear Citizens of the United Kingdom”, the ad began. “Do you know that your country is blessed with an incredible gift? It’s shale gas – natural gas trapped in layers of shale rock deep below the surface of the earth …

“The British Geological Survey has recently released new shale gas estimates considerably higher than former estimates. This is fantastic news for the UK – especially in the wake of a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter …

“This means: Decades worth of natural gas … Millions of pounds in tax revenues to support social and other government programs … Freedom from interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply … Lowering energy prices for millions … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy … “

But not a single claim held water!

But now its claims have been ruled out of order. The complainant set out the following issues, all of which were upheld following the ASA’s painstaking research:

Claim 1: “a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter” – false because it exaggerated the severity of the shortage.

ASA: “We considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the UK had been in real danger of running out of gas, and therefore that the reference to a ‘near-catastrophic’ shortage was misleading.”

Claim 2: “This means … decades worth of natural gas” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “Because the report related to shale gas resources only and not reserves, and because we understood that informed opinion was at best divided as to the likely recovery factor of those resources, we concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 3: “This means … Millions of pounds in tax revenues” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “We considered that it was not possible definitively to calculate the likely tax revenues resulting from the resources identified by the BGS report … We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 4: “interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply”, because Russia did not supply gas to the UK and had never interrupted the UK’s gas supply.

ASA: “the claim … exaggerated the outcome of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine dispute for the UK and misled as to both the direct intent of Russia’s actions and the probability of future similar events causing interruptions or shortages in the UK.”

Claim 5: “This means … Lowering energy prices for millions” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known, and that in any case domestic extraction would have minimal impact on energy prices because the UK was part of an integrated European gas market.

ASA: “Whilst we acknowledged the view expressed by David Cameron that fracking in the UK had ‘real potential’ to drive down energy bills, we noted that that view was contingent upon a number of assumptions as to the size of UK shale gas reserves and the scale upon which extraction would be adopted, and were concerned in any case that the press article did not constitute robust documentary evidence in support of the claim.”

Claim 6: “This means … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy” – false because there were no reliable estimates for the carbon footprint of shale gas extraction, that extraction carried the risk of methane emissions, which if unburnt was more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that there was no certainty that gas would be used instead of, rather than in addition to, coal.

ASA: “it was not certain that the development of UK shale gas resources would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions where that happened alongside a concurrent reduction in the use of coal for energy. We also considered that the wording ‘by replacing coal with natural gas for energy’ implied that shale gas would be used instead of coal, when that was only one of several scenarios including an additional energy source to meet increased future demand.”

A final telling off

In conclusion, the ASA admonished the Dallas, Texas based Breitling, “The claims must not appear again in their current form.

“We told Breitling Energy Corporation to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence in support of claims likely to be regarded as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation, that matters of opinion were not presented as objective claims, and that their future ads did not suggest that their claims were universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion existed.”

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth commented: “Supporters of fracking claim that their opponents peddle myth and misinformation, but this verdict and a previous ASA decision against Cuadrilla for their ‘misleading advertising’, is a damning indictment of fracking industry spin.”

But most remarkable is that Breitling’s claims coincide precisely with those made by David Cameron, the UK’s pro-fracking Prime minister, his equally pro-fracking Chancellor, David Osborne, and other Cabinet members.

Now that the claims they make at every opportunity have been subject to exhaustive scrutiny and found to be simultaneously misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated, will they change their tune?

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Read: ASA Adjudication on Breitling Energy Corporation.

 

 




383657

‘Misleading’ fracking ad ‘must not appear again’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




A reader of the Daily Telegraph saw red on reading an ad by Breitling Energy Corporation – one the the US’s biggest frackers – making big promises about the benefits of fracking in the UK.

Now their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been upheld on all six counts, as the ad is ruled to be making claims that are at the same time misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

“Dear Citizens of the United Kingdom”, the ad began. “Do you know that your country is blessed with an incredible gift? It’s shale gas – natural gas trapped in layers of shale rock deep below the surface of the earth …

“The British Geological Survey has recently released new shale gas estimates considerably higher than former estimates. This is fantastic news for the UK – especially in the wake of a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter …

“This means: Decades worth of natural gas … Millions of pounds in tax revenues to support social and other government programs … Freedom from interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply … Lowering energy prices for millions … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy … “

But not a single claim held water!

But now its claims have been ruled out of order. The complainant set out the following issues, all of which were upheld following the ASA’s painstaking research:

Claim 1: “a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter” – false because it exaggerated the severity of the shortage.

ASA: “We considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the UK had been in real danger of running out of gas, and therefore that the reference to a ‘near-catastrophic’ shortage was misleading.”

Claim 2: “This means … decades worth of natural gas” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “Because the report related to shale gas resources only and not reserves, and because we understood that informed opinion was at best divided as to the likely recovery factor of those resources, we concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 3: “This means … Millions of pounds in tax revenues” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “We considered that it was not possible definitively to calculate the likely tax revenues resulting from the resources identified by the BGS report … We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 4: “interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply”, because Russia did not supply gas to the UK and had never interrupted the UK’s gas supply.

ASA: “the claim … exaggerated the outcome of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine dispute for the UK and misled as to both the direct intent of Russia’s actions and the probability of future similar events causing interruptions or shortages in the UK.”

Claim 5: “This means … Lowering energy prices for millions” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known, and that in any case domestic extraction would have minimal impact on energy prices because the UK was part of an integrated European gas market.

ASA: “Whilst we acknowledged the view expressed by David Cameron that fracking in the UK had ‘real potential’ to drive down energy bills, we noted that that view was contingent upon a number of assumptions as to the size of UK shale gas reserves and the scale upon which extraction would be adopted, and were concerned in any case that the press article did not constitute robust documentary evidence in support of the claim.”

Claim 6: “This means … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy” – false because there were no reliable estimates for the carbon footprint of shale gas extraction, that extraction carried the risk of methane emissions, which if unburnt was more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that there was no certainty that gas would be used instead of, rather than in addition to, coal.

ASA: “it was not certain that the development of UK shale gas resources would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions where that happened alongside a concurrent reduction in the use of coal for energy. We also considered that the wording ‘by replacing coal with natural gas for energy’ implied that shale gas would be used instead of coal, when that was only one of several scenarios including an additional energy source to meet increased future demand.”

A final telling off

In conclusion, the ASA admonished the Dallas, Texas based Breitling, “The claims must not appear again in their current form.

“We told Breitling Energy Corporation to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence in support of claims likely to be regarded as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation, that matters of opinion were not presented as objective claims, and that their future ads did not suggest that their claims were universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion existed.”

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth commented: “Supporters of fracking claim that their opponents peddle myth and misinformation, but this verdict and a previous ASA decision against Cuadrilla for their ‘misleading advertising’, is a damning indictment of fracking industry spin.”

But most remarkable is that Breitling’s claims coincide precisely with those made by David Cameron, the UK’s pro-fracking Prime minister, his equally pro-fracking Chancellor, David Osborne, and other Cabinet members.

Now that the claims they make at every opportunity have been subject to exhaustive scrutiny and found to be simultaneously misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated, will they change their tune?

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Read: ASA Adjudication on Breitling Energy Corporation.

 

 




383657

‘Misleading’ fracking ad ‘must not appear again’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




A reader of the Daily Telegraph saw red on reading an ad by Breitling Energy Corporation – one the the US’s biggest frackers – making big promises about the benefits of fracking in the UK.

Now their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been upheld on all six counts, as the ad is ruled to be making claims that are at the same time misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

“Dear Citizens of the United Kingdom”, the ad began. “Do you know that your country is blessed with an incredible gift? It’s shale gas – natural gas trapped in layers of shale rock deep below the surface of the earth …

“The British Geological Survey has recently released new shale gas estimates considerably higher than former estimates. This is fantastic news for the UK – especially in the wake of a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter …

“This means: Decades worth of natural gas … Millions of pounds in tax revenues to support social and other government programs … Freedom from interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply … Lowering energy prices for millions … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy … “

But not a single claim held water!

But now its claims have been ruled out of order. The complainant set out the following issues, all of which were upheld following the ASA’s painstaking research:

Claim 1: “a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter” – false because it exaggerated the severity of the shortage.

ASA: “We considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the UK had been in real danger of running out of gas, and therefore that the reference to a ‘near-catastrophic’ shortage was misleading.”

Claim 2: “This means … decades worth of natural gas” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “Because the report related to shale gas resources only and not reserves, and because we understood that informed opinion was at best divided as to the likely recovery factor of those resources, we concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 3: “This means … Millions of pounds in tax revenues” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “We considered that it was not possible definitively to calculate the likely tax revenues resulting from the resources identified by the BGS report … We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 4: “interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply”, because Russia did not supply gas to the UK and had never interrupted the UK’s gas supply.

ASA: “the claim … exaggerated the outcome of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine dispute for the UK and misled as to both the direct intent of Russia’s actions and the probability of future similar events causing interruptions or shortages in the UK.”

Claim 5: “This means … Lowering energy prices for millions” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known, and that in any case domestic extraction would have minimal impact on energy prices because the UK was part of an integrated European gas market.

ASA: “Whilst we acknowledged the view expressed by David Cameron that fracking in the UK had ‘real potential’ to drive down energy bills, we noted that that view was contingent upon a number of assumptions as to the size of UK shale gas reserves and the scale upon which extraction would be adopted, and were concerned in any case that the press article did not constitute robust documentary evidence in support of the claim.”

Claim 6: “This means … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy” – false because there were no reliable estimates for the carbon footprint of shale gas extraction, that extraction carried the risk of methane emissions, which if unburnt was more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that there was no certainty that gas would be used instead of, rather than in addition to, coal.

ASA: “it was not certain that the development of UK shale gas resources would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions where that happened alongside a concurrent reduction in the use of coal for energy. We also considered that the wording ‘by replacing coal with natural gas for energy’ implied that shale gas would be used instead of coal, when that was only one of several scenarios including an additional energy source to meet increased future demand.”

A final telling off

In conclusion, the ASA admonished the Dallas, Texas based Breitling, “The claims must not appear again in their current form.

“We told Breitling Energy Corporation to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence in support of claims likely to be regarded as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation, that matters of opinion were not presented as objective claims, and that their future ads did not suggest that their claims were universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion existed.”

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth commented: “Supporters of fracking claim that their opponents peddle myth and misinformation, but this verdict and a previous ASA decision against Cuadrilla for their ‘misleading advertising’, is a damning indictment of fracking industry spin.”

But most remarkable is that Breitling’s claims coincide precisely with those made by David Cameron, the UK’s pro-fracking Prime minister, his equally pro-fracking Chancellor, David Osborne, and other Cabinet members.

Now that the claims they make at every opportunity have been subject to exhaustive scrutiny and found to be simultaneously misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated, will they change their tune?

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Read: ASA Adjudication on Breitling Energy Corporation.

 

 




383657

‘Misleading’ fracking ad ‘must not appear again’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




A reader of the Daily Telegraph saw red on reading an ad by Breitling Energy Corporation – one the the US’s biggest frackers – making big promises about the benefits of fracking in the UK.

Now their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been upheld on all six counts, as the ad is ruled to be making claims that are at the same time misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

“Dear Citizens of the United Kingdom”, the ad began. “Do you know that your country is blessed with an incredible gift? It’s shale gas – natural gas trapped in layers of shale rock deep below the surface of the earth …

“The British Geological Survey has recently released new shale gas estimates considerably higher than former estimates. This is fantastic news for the UK – especially in the wake of a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter …

“This means: Decades worth of natural gas … Millions of pounds in tax revenues to support social and other government programs … Freedom from interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply … Lowering energy prices for millions … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy … “

But not a single claim held water!

But now its claims have been ruled out of order. The complainant set out the following issues, all of which were upheld following the ASA’s painstaking research:

Claim 1: “a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter” – false because it exaggerated the severity of the shortage.

ASA: “We considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the UK had been in real danger of running out of gas, and therefore that the reference to a ‘near-catastrophic’ shortage was misleading.”

Claim 2: “This means … decades worth of natural gas” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “Because the report related to shale gas resources only and not reserves, and because we understood that informed opinion was at best divided as to the likely recovery factor of those resources, we concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 3: “This means … Millions of pounds in tax revenues” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “We considered that it was not possible definitively to calculate the likely tax revenues resulting from the resources identified by the BGS report … We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 4: “interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply”, because Russia did not supply gas to the UK and had never interrupted the UK’s gas supply.

ASA: “the claim … exaggerated the outcome of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine dispute for the UK and misled as to both the direct intent of Russia’s actions and the probability of future similar events causing interruptions or shortages in the UK.”

Claim 5: “This means … Lowering energy prices for millions” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known, and that in any case domestic extraction would have minimal impact on energy prices because the UK was part of an integrated European gas market.

ASA: “Whilst we acknowledged the view expressed by David Cameron that fracking in the UK had ‘real potential’ to drive down energy bills, we noted that that view was contingent upon a number of assumptions as to the size of UK shale gas reserves and the scale upon which extraction would be adopted, and were concerned in any case that the press article did not constitute robust documentary evidence in support of the claim.”

Claim 6: “This means … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy” – false because there were no reliable estimates for the carbon footprint of shale gas extraction, that extraction carried the risk of methane emissions, which if unburnt was more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that there was no certainty that gas would be used instead of, rather than in addition to, coal.

ASA: “it was not certain that the development of UK shale gas resources would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions where that happened alongside a concurrent reduction in the use of coal for energy. We also considered that the wording ‘by replacing coal with natural gas for energy’ implied that shale gas would be used instead of coal, when that was only one of several scenarios including an additional energy source to meet increased future demand.”

A final telling off

In conclusion, the ASA admonished the Dallas, Texas based Breitling, “The claims must not appear again in their current form.

“We told Breitling Energy Corporation to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence in support of claims likely to be regarded as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation, that matters of opinion were not presented as objective claims, and that their future ads did not suggest that their claims were universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion existed.”

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth commented: “Supporters of fracking claim that their opponents peddle myth and misinformation, but this verdict and a previous ASA decision against Cuadrilla for their ‘misleading advertising’, is a damning indictment of fracking industry spin.”

But most remarkable is that Breitling’s claims coincide precisely with those made by David Cameron, the UK’s pro-fracking Prime minister, his equally pro-fracking Chancellor, David Osborne, and other Cabinet members.

Now that the claims they make at every opportunity have been subject to exhaustive scrutiny and found to be simultaneously misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated, will they change their tune?

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Read: ASA Adjudication on Breitling Energy Corporation.

 

 




383657