BASC reports Lush to advertising watchdog

[DebbieBASC]

BASC reports Lush to advertising watchdog


Oct 11, 2018


BASC is complaining to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about the content of an anti-shooting film released by cosmetics company Lush.


The short film – hosted by LushTimesEN – makes a number of allegations about pheasant shooting which BASC believes breach the ASA’s strict codes on misleading communications.


In particular, BASC is challenging the claim that pheasants released on shoots “spread disease, eat native wildlife and create lead shot pollution”.


In complaining to the ASA, BASC is also asking Lush to substantiate its assertion that “Most….pheasants die of starvation, road-accidents or are eaten by predators”.


Glynn Evans, BASC’s head of game and deer management, said: “The emotive rhetoric in this film is so misleading that it simply can’t be allowed to go unchallenged.


“It is, of course, not the first time that Lush has campaigned against shooting and we are usually happy to respond directly and constructively on behalf of shooting to set the record straight.


“In this case, the film is so wrong that we feel the only option is to ask another authority to rule on the content.


“Lush, as a high street retailer, has a responsibility to ensure information it releases, in whatever format, is accurate and bears scrutiny.


“Lush obviously has a strong following among consumers and we believe that such films, while designed to satisfy a campaign agenda, are also being used by Lush to prop up its commercial interests. In effect, it is a de facto advert for Lush.


“It is important, therefore, that inaccuracies are challenged appropriately so that they are not allowed to be presented as facts. In this case, we are asking the Advertising Standards Authority to take a position.”


BASC is presenting a complaint to the ASA and is also asking individual shooters to do likewise. The ASA has previously adjudicated against Lush.


BASC chairman Peter Glenser QC said: “Game shooting and shoot management are covered by a wide range of rules and regulations including statutory codes to cover game rearing. The reality of pheasant shooting is far removed from the picture presented by this film.


“The aim of any shoot manager or gamekeeper is to produce healthy birds fully adapted and living freely in the wild. The conservation benefits of shooting and its role in enhancing biodiversity are well documented. These are the points BASC will be presenting in its evidence to the ASA.”

 

[novice]

Great stuff. Look forward to the outcome.

Novice

 

[reloader54]

every irony meter in the known universe just exploded,,,, wtf a cosmetics company with the utter gall to even mention pheasant shooting let alone criticise it.

that said,,, most of the anti shooting/hunting brigade do look like they could use the odd bar of soap, bottle of shampoo and a good scrub.

might have known the antis poster boy cp would be involved

 

[mealiejimmy]

It looks like DebbieBASC has replaced DavidBASC
Debbie, you appear to have made a good start - keep it up

Cheers

Bruce

 

[Greymaster]

It looks like DebbieBASC has replaced DavidBASC
Debbie, you appear to have made a good start - keep it up

Cheers

Bruce

Have you allowed for the possibility that Debbie is David's alter ego?

 

[reloader54]

Have you allowed for the possibility that Debbie is David's alter ego?

oh dear,,, this is gonna end badly,,,

kes has been rather quiet of late hasn't he.

 

[mealiejimmy]

Have you allowed for the possibility that Debbie is David's alter ego?

Of course

Cheers

Bruce

 

[limulus]

Debbie does basc just doesn’t sound the same....

 

[Tamar]

I'm a BASC member and have watched the Lush film. Obviously, it's biased and inflamatory, but the statements that are being contested here are, perhaps unfortunately, incontrovertible. I'm not going to do Lush's work for them, but I could immediately point out peer reveiwed science including that conducted by GWCT that shows that:

a) pheasant's spread disease (all bird species do this and there has been a fair bit of work exploring diseases caried by pheasants and their carryover effects on other pheasants and other gamebird species - the real issue is whether this is a problem beyond just pheasants)

b) pheasant's eat native wildlife (they are omnivores and feed their chicks these insects - again, pretty much all farmland birds eat insects, so this is only relevant if they eat so many as to affect populations)

c) most pheasants die of starvation, roadkill or eaten by predators (if your average bag is 35% then the rest are going to die somehow else and these three means probably account for most deaths, with predation being the most prolific. I know that people have got excited about 'starvation' and true this is unlikely to be a major cause except in harsh weather condtiions and during the breeding season, but hungry birds may be more susceptible to predation as they forage or disease as they are weakened. How else are these 65% going to die? Old age, suicide, base jumping, disease (see above....)? Again, it's not clear why this is important to Lush. All birds (beyond pheasants) die eventually and probably for the same reasons, predation, disease and starvation)

d) released pheasants of course don't 'create lead shot pollution'; no-one is stupid enough to arm their birds to shoot back, but we do legally use lead shot on pheasant shoots, so by definition, we introduce lead into the environment. Whether it is classed as a pollution is a matter of semantics - in the strict definition, it is a man-made item dispersed into nature, hence yes - a pollutant, regardless of whether it has additional damaging effects.

I don't disagree that the emotional rhetoric is misleading and I strongly support anyone stating the strong positive and well documented effects that shooting CAN have on the local environment (habitat management, supplementary feeding, legal predator control), as well as the economic and social gains to be had from shoots. One can also argue that death and ecological interactions apply to ALL animals in the UK, so its not celar why Lush are getting so upset about pheasants in particular, such that their advert is in the most part irrelevant.

However, it seems that this approach to dealing with the film (presenting the positive benefits and belittling the irrelevant details that Lush present) is not the one that BASC are pursuing. Instead they are taking on the 'fake news' angle. However, if these are the specific and only aspects of the complaint to the ASA, then I'm afraid that BASC is going to be left looking rather silly. This would be a serious own goal.

Debbie, if you want, please do PM me and I'd be happy to point you to the research that Lush could use to support their assertions.

 

[Chief Gibbon]

Good balanced assessment Tamar.

 

[The Woodsmen]

Well said Tamar.

 

[reloader54]

bit more "in depth" writings here,, https://beta.lush.com/en/article/englands-green-and-pheasant-land

full of clever emotive anti shooting diatribe, along with the usual hints about "the rich" being responsible for it all.

maybe someone should "investigate" this particular branch of the cosmetics industry. I seem to remember the usual unwashed hoards campaigning about that in connection with animal welfare/testing in the past.

 

[Cottis]

I think the Anti's are in cahoots with this lot. Lush definitely have form when it comes to releasing close to the bone adverts that bring attention to their company while seemingly escaping censure or punishment. Few months back, weren't they whining about the police and calling them liars?

Just had a look at their growth and financial performance. They have half a billion turnover and net worth of over £130m. Growing year on year in a big way by the look of it. All for £5 a pop bathbombs. Oh the irony of shooting being for the rich.

 

[reloader54]

I think the Anti's are in cahoots with this lot. Lush definitely have form when it comes to releasing close to the bone adverts that bring attention to their company while seemingly escaping censure or punishment. Few months back, weren't they whining about the police and calling them liars?

Just had a look at their growth and financial performance. They have half a billion turnover and net worth of over £130m. Growing year on year in a big way by the look of it. All for £5 a pop bathbombs. Oh the irony of shooting being for the rich.

oh yes, definitely in cahoots with the antis,, including packam,, what better way to take the heat away from a multi £million£ cosmetics enterprise than attack shooting, double irony really as your average anti wouldn't know what a bath was, preferring to spend a fiver on cider and weed.

 

[Limpet]

oh yes, definitely in cahoots with the antis,, including packam,, what better way to take the heat away from a multi £million£ cosmetics enterprise than attack shooting, double irony really as your average anti wouldn't know what a bath was, preferring to spend a fiver on cider and weed.

They sure are in bed with the antis but worryingly with the activists. Many of the non-active antis are regular washed folk who can easily afford lush products. This is why the press can make such gains and then politicians listen to the mainstream of popular opinion however ignorant it is. Unfortunately the tide of public opinion is against our field-sports, thankfully most of them just chatter about it in their favourite highstreet coffee shop rather than take action. The cider and weed end of the anti spectrum bathe in ignorance and misplaced emotion. I find the smell of lush shops vile even though I do wash!

 

[Pedro]

I simply don't understand what Lush has to do with shooting. Actually, I do. Nothing. But the founders are dyed in the wood antis and are merely using their business to promote their politics. I shall take their political views in the same way that I take other famous people's political views spouted on media outlets. Nothing about running a bath bomb business, being a Hollywood actor, a presenter or a singing sensation qualifies anyone to preach to anyone else about politics. I'd rather listen to the man next door, whom I can have a decent exchange of views with rather than be preached at by the likes of Mickey Rourke, Packham, Brian May or some rapper who changes his name as often as his underpants.

 

[reloader54]

so until a few days ago I was,, i suspect among many who hadn't heard of these people or their company. so I had a look around, this is a very small portion of what I found.
Lush (company) - Wikipedia

Ingredients[edit]

Lush products are 100% vegetarian, and often contain fruits and vegetables such as grapefruit juice, vanilla beans, avocado butter, rosemary oil, fresh papaya, and coconut. However, some products contain lanolin, milk, eggs, honey, and beeswax. Parabens are used to preserve a number of the products

so then I wondered what "parabens" were, so again I had a quick search.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraben


Environmental concerns with paraben degradation products[edit]

Multiple studies have linked chlorinated parabens to endocrine disrupting functions, specifically mimicking the effects of estrogen, and chlorinated parabens are believed to be 3-4 times more toxic than their parent paraben.[SUP][41][/SUP][SUP][42][/SUP] In Daphnia magna, general toxicity conferred by chlorinated parabens occurs through non-specific disruption of cell membrane function.[SUP][42][/SUP] The potency of the chlorinated parabens correlates with the propensity of the compound to accumulate in cell membranes.[SUP][42][/SUP] Thus, chlorinated parabens generally increase in toxicity as their ester chains increase in length due to their increased hydrophobicity.[SUP][42][/SUP]

The implications of PHBA’s environmental accumulation also warrants attention. If the tertiary effluent is re-used for community use as Greywater, it poses as a hazard to humans. These hazards include, but are not limited to, abnormal fetal development, endocrine disrupting activity, and improper estrogen-promoting effects.[SUP][43][/SUP] If the tertiary effluent is released to the environment in rivers and streams or if the sludge is used as fertilizer, it poses as a hazard to environmental organisms. It is especially toxic to those organisms on lower trophic levels, particularly various algal species. In fact, it has been shown that the LC 50 for a specific algal species, Selenastrum capricornutum, is 0.032 micrograms/L.[SUP][44][/SUP] This is less than the natural abundance of PHBA in tertiary effluent at a level of 0.045 μg/L, thus indicating that current levels of PHBA in tertiary effluent can potentially eradicate more than 50% of Selenastrum capricornutum it comes in contact with.

Studies indicate that methylparaben applied on the skin may react with UVB leading to increased skin aging, skin cancer and DNA damage
and people bath in this chit??

and in case you were wondering, paraben has been tested on animals.

 

[Limpet]

Blimey, good find Reloader 54, bet they don't put that on their posters.

 

[Rusty Gate]

Parabens can trigger cancer. I've been using the Lush Ambrosia shaving creme as I suffer with sensitive skin, Honey I shrunk the kid's soap's etc. The whole range was pretty decent but I'll not be using them after knocking us. Normally get hampers for mum, sis etc at xmas, just made my choices a whole lot easier.

 

[Mick Miller]

The agenda of the folks at Lush has been known for at least a dozen years. Never would go near the stuff, told everyone I know who shoots not to either.