Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) ban SITA Cornwall burner booklet

An article on Devon24 details a recent embarrassment for SITA UK after an Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) investigation into Sita’s waste incinerator advertising leaflet ruled that:

the leaflet must not appear again in its current form.

On the 8th of July the ASA adjudicated that a booklet distributed by the waste company SITA should be withdrawn on five counts.

Fifteen Separate issues were raised against the booklet and each in turn was investigated by the ASA. SITA challenged issues raised against the booklet, as well as attempting to argue that the material was not a form of advertising.

The ASA considered that the leaflet was advertising material and was therefore subject to the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code.

After carefully analysing all of the issues raised, the ASA called for the leaflet to be withdrawn due to five issues, including:

• misleading photomontages
• unverifiable job creation claims
• understated lorry numbers
• the claim “The Health Protection Agency says that modern incinerators are safe” could not be substantiated
• unbelievable sustainability claims

These issues were considered by the ASA to be ‘untruthful’ on SITA’s part or ‘unsubstantiated’ by SITA.

Most significant of all was the ASA’s ruling against SITA’s claims that “modern incinerators are safe”. The ASA rulled that these claims could not be supported by evidence and as such were in breach of CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

From the ASA judgement:

1. the photomontages of the CERC within the leaflet gave a misleading impression of how the finished development would look against the surrounding landscape;
Upheld

The ASA noted the photomontages were intended to illustrate the architectural appearance of the building and, while they had been cropped and enlarged or reduced to suit the leaflet, they remained in proportion with their landscape setting and had not been distorted. We noted the comments from the planning consultants confirming that.

We noted text beneath two of the photomontages stated “(photomontage) view from Treviscoe” and “(photomontage) view from the Church of St. Denys, St. Dennis”. We understood that, in the latter image, the positioning of the CERC was incorrect. We considered that readers were likely to infer that, not only did the photomontages depict how the CERC would look architecturally, but also how it would appear within its surrounding environment. While we understood that the photomontages had not been distorted and remained in proportion with their landscape setting, we concluded that the leaflet could mislead by showing the CERC in an incorrect position.

On this point, the leaflet breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

9. the claim “We estimate that around 250 jobs will be created during the peak construction phase, and a further 48 full-time jobs, once the centre opens” was misleading, because he believed SITA could not verify that that number of jobs would be created;
Upheld

We noted the chart showing the number of people who were expected to be employed over the 31-month life of the construction project. We noted the peak construction phase was in month 20 and the chart showed almost 250 people were expected to be employed in that month. We noted for 18 months of the project, fewer than 100 people were expected to be employed.

We considered however that readers were likely to infer that the peak construction phase would last for more than one month. Therefore, while we noted SITA had made clear that the number of jobs that would be created during the construction phase were estimates, we considered that the claim “around 250 jobs will be created during the peak construction phase” could mislead by exaggeration because that number of jobs was estimated for only one month. We considered that the claim should have been qualified to make that clear.

In relation to the claim that 48 full-time jobs would be created, we noted SITA had based the claim on their experience of operating similar plants, which we considered was a reasonable basis for estimate. We noted the organisational chart submitted which confirmed that 48 were to be created and concluded that the leaflet was not misleading in this respect.

On this point, the leaflet breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

10. the claim “approximately 90 lorries (including some service deliveries) will visit the site every week day between 7am-6pm” was misleading, because he believed that the number of lorries visiting the site would be greater;
Upheld

We noted the leaflet was produced prior to the completion of the EIA but that independent consultants had carried out a Transport Assessment Summary in January 2008. We noted it included a table titled “Predicted Daily Trip Generation” and showed the trip type, the number of arrivals and departures of that type and the total. We noted HGV Waste (Import) arrivals and departures totalled 62 and HGV Waste (Export) arrivals and departures totalled 20. Five service deliveries were predicted per day. We were therefore satisfied that, at the time the leaflet was published, the claim “Approximately 90 lorries (including some service deliveries) will visit the site…” had been substantiated.

We nevertheless noted the revised figure suggested that 113 vehicles would visit the site each week, almost a third more than initially estimated. We noted the leaflet made clear that the figures were approximate but, as the EIA had not been completed when the leaflet was published, we considered that SITA should also have made clear that the figure was subject to change.

On this point, the leaflet breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not breach 3.1 (Substantiation).

13. the claim “The Health Protection Agency says that modern incinerators are safe” could not be substantiated; and
Upheld

We noted the claim appeared in a section of the leaflet headed “health impact assessment”. We considered that readers were therefore likely to infer from the claim “The Health Protection Agency says that modern incinerators are safe” that the HPA had studied the effects of emissions from incinerators on the health of people living nearby and concluded that they posed no threat to health.

We noted the HPA statement said “The Agency has considered studies examining adverse health effects around incinerators and is not aware of any consistent or convincing evidence of adverse health outcomes. However, it is accepted that the lack of evidence of adverse effects might be due to the limitations regarding the available data.” We noted the findings of the HIA reported that the HPA said incinerators were safe, however, we had not seen evidence that the HPA had made that claim. While we noted the HPA concluded that emissions from modern incinerators had little effect, we concluded that the claim “modern incinerators are safe” was too absolute, had not been substantiated and could mislead.

On this point, the leaflet breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

15. The ASA challenged whether the description of the project as “sustainable” in the claim “a sustainable solution for the management of Cornwall’s waste” was misleading.
Upheld

We noted the sustainability statement by the environmental consultants concluded that the CERC performed well in terms of four key elements of sustainability – the natural and cultural environment, climate change, energy and natural resources, economy and community.

We recognised that the term ’sustainable’ was used and understood in a variety of different ways and we noted SITA’s comment that the leaflet addressed not only recycling and energy recovery, but also other elements of sustainability such as traffic and transport and community and social effects. We considered, however that, in the context of a leaflet that talked primarily about recycling and energy recovery, consumers were likely to understand that the use of the term ’sustainable’ in the claim “a sustainable solution for the management of Cornwall’s waste” was defined primarily in environmental terms.

We understood the best practice guidance on environmental claims in Defra’s “Green Claims Code” stated that green claims should not “be vague or ambiguous … Claims should always avoid the vague use of terms such as ’sustainable’ …”. We understood that new guidance on the use of the terms sustainable and sustainability was under consideration by Defra but considered the “Green Claims Codes” remained the best guidance for advertisers. Whilst we acknowledged that the production of energy from waste could provide substantial environmental benefits we nonetheless considered that, in the light of Defras current recommendations, SITA had not clearly explained the basis of the claim, and it was therefore likely to be meaningless to consumers and could mislead.

On this point, the leaflet breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 49.1 (Environmental claims).

Action
The leaflet must not appear again in its current form.

Planning Committee Consideration Delayed Further

In following up a request to the full Council on 7 April, all the candidates in the local elections were requested to support the call for a fresh analysis of the alternatives to incineration.

SCAI also had a delegation outside County Hall for the first meeting of the new Council on 16 June to encourage them to take the opportunity of their being a new council, to look afresh at the alternatives, before making a decision. .

Ed Vaizey MP also reiterated his support for this during the campaign and is writing on those lines to County Council. David Cameron at the “Cameron Direct” event in Abingdon, stated that whilst it was a decision for the County Council, that the latter had to be confident that there weren’t alternatives, “before they take the final decision”.
The new Sutton Courtenay & Harwell County Councillor Stewart Lilly has also made the incinerator proposal his top priority and stated that:

Effective recycling of waste is right: These current proposals are just wrong! I will ensure that full & thorough examinations of all the alternatives are properly considered.

A NEW WRG APPLICATION!
Shortly before the election, WRG announced that they would be submitting an amended application in July. This is to be for a smaller incinerator to burn 220,000 tonnes a year which would also be restricted to Oxfordshire’s waste. The size and design of the building however, is to remain the same!

We await further details and whilst it shows that the proposal is not immutable, it fails to acknowledge that the real public concern is incineration itself. It would seem to us, that it would not be possible to guarantee that the project would not subsequently expand with “project creep” or that waste would not be brought in from outside the county, if it proved commercially necessary.

Additionally:

a. A subsequent SCAI request to have the application withdrawn has been refused by OCC.
b. The fact that the process is being run by the County Council on “saved policies” rather than an up to date Waste and Minerals Policy, is being raised with the Secretary of State.
c. Pressure is also being exerted to ensure that the OCC Planning Application process and the Environmental Permit Application with the Environment Agency, are run in tandem in line with Government Guidance. Up to now they have not.
d. Unlike in the current applications, we have asked that there is a consistent description of the scheme in both applications.

The amended application will however, necessitate a fresh public consultation and we have asked for longer than the minimum 21 days. It also means that anyway the earliest that the application could be considered by the Planning Committees is 14 Sep, but even that seems highly unlikely and 19 Oct or 23 Nov seem more realistic.

This does however, give us more time to build the petition and persuade the new Council to commission a detailed analysis of the alternatives, the cost implications, the respective health risks and environmental impacts, so that the full council could take an informed decision on which option to take in disposing of Oxfordshire’s waste.

1. Alternatives.
The pressure on the County Council to commission a fresh analysis of the alternatives to incineration was maintained with a dignified demonstration at County Hall for the first meeting of the new Council on June 16th. See http://viewer.zmags.com/showmag.php?mid=wfgrpr#/page4/ (See page 5). Continue Reading “Summer SCAI update” »

An article published on WalesOnline entitled Friends of Earth rubbishes waste incineration plan describes FoE Cymru’s consultation submission to the draft Welsh waste strategy.

The submission criticised the Welsh Assembly Government’s waste strategy for “not going far enough to meet the challenges of climate change and diminishing resources”.

FoE Cymru described the draft strategy as a “step in the right direction” while calling for more ambitious recycling targets, a far greater emphasis on reducing waste, and an abandonment of incineration as an option for dealing with waste.

Keeping incineration on the table seriously risks undermining targets for recycling and waste reduction.

Gordon James, director of Friends of the Earth Cymru, said:

While the Assembly Government’s target of achieving 70% recycling by 2025 is a step in the right direction, we have to be more ambitious. Parts of Europe, such as Flanders and Germany, are already achieving this rate, so we believe we should be aiming for 70% recycling by 2015 and 80% by 2020.

We also want to see a much greater emphasis on waste reduction. Wales could become a zero waste nation, in which residual waste has been eliminated by 2030 rather than the proposed target of 2050. This is far too long to wait given the current environmental problems we face. Bold and urgent action is necessary now.

The Assembly Government’s own consultants have stated that it is fundamental that recycling becomes an option for waste management only after reduction and reuse. Without significant waste reduction, even 70% recycling by 2025 would fail to meet the Assembly Government’s own target to reduce Wales’ ‘ecological footprint’ to a fair 1.88 global hectares per person.

Jake Griffiths, leader of the Wales Green Party, urged the Welsh Assembly Government to support not just recycling but reusable packaging. According to Griffiths, a return to the widespread use of bottles would mean more people would drink locally produced milk.

Milk contained in plastic cartons, he argued, was more likely to have been transported over a long distance, and the plastic might be sent as far away as China to be recycled. He did not believe that more use of incineration would help encourage recycling and called for bolder targets.

Friends of the Earth Cymru called attention to controversial proposals to build incinerators in Cardiff, Barry and Merthyr Tydfil to justify their concerns about the inclusion of incineration in the draft strategy. Their Director said:

Incineration should not be part of any waste strategy. It is not a green technology as it produces toxic ash, emits excessive amounts of carbon dioxide, and its use would weaken incentives to reduce waste and boost recycling.

The case for incineration is based on the unrealistic assumption that all residual waste could be incinerated and that all the ash is reusable.

In practice, less than 50% of the ash could be used and a significant amount of this would be hazardous waste. There are no suitable landfill sites for these residues in Wales, so they would need to be exported elsewhere.

While it is encouraging that the Assembly Government is addressing how we need to deal with our waste, there is still a lot of work to do if we are going to transform Wales into a truly zero waste society.

UKWIN also made submissions to the WAG Waste Strategy consultation. Download the main UKWIN submission and the young persons submission.

The Institute for Zero Waste in Africa has also contributed to the consultation! Download the Institute for Zero Waste in Africa submission.

The remarkable fall in landfilling has produced negative landfill tax receipts in June! Continue Reading “Landfill tax returned due to dramatic fall” »

The honeymoon period between the French-owned multinational waste company known now as Veolia Environnmental Services (Veolia ES) and Nottinghamshire County Council (Notts CC) appears to have come to an abrupt end. Just three years after Veolia ES signed a Waste PFI deal, valued at £850 million, with Notts CC, the local authority finds itself a defendant in a court action initiated by their waste partner. Continue Reading “Veolia take legal action against waste partner” »

Aspiring investigative journalist Jaikishan (Jai) Rajput has been looking into a subject near to our hearts – waste incineration. Continue Reading “Incineration Investigated” »

Researcher and health campaigner Mike Ryan has raised the alarm after receiving a letter from Justin McCracken. In the letter, the Chief Executive of the Health Protection Agency (HPA) admits that they have not studied the rate of illness or premature deaths at electoral ward level around any incinerator. Continue Reading “Local Health Studies Myth Debunked” »

UKWIN has received the following unsettling news from our friends in Ernesettle:

The South West Devon Waste Partnership (SWDWP) announced yesterday that it had chosen three waste companies – MVV Umwelt, SITA UK and Viridor – to put forward more detailed plans. Continue Reading “Unsettling news from Ernesettle” »

In a newly uploaded web page, Friends of the Earth (FoE) are inviting to support anaerobic digestion

FoE call upon the Government to:

Stop taxpayers’ money being used to fund incinerators and demand investment in new biogas plants instead.

Continue Reading “FoE asks for your help to support AD” »