Twitter advert

[Sid]

this product kills 99.9% of all known bacteria

Imagine using a product like that on a crop or animal, it would be all over the paper's about this dangerous chemical farmers are using.

Also what it doesn't state is the product doesn't discrimination between good and bad bacteria, you may only be left with the bad ones in that 0.1%!

 

[Tarw Coch]

Theres a lot of suggestive ads at the mo from the little girl saying daddy I dont want to eat meat let's save the planet to the latest I just seen


Swap to us as your energy supplier and you will be helping to save the planet

So many of these types of campaign/advert seem to rely on the fact that it is an assumed fact that everyone knows that cattle are responsible in a large part at least for all the planets problems today.

Completely ignoring the fact that give or take the cattle have been on this planet for the same amount of time as humans yet only recently have become a problem, funnily enough coinciding with humans reliance on fossil fuels, plastics, chemicals and who knows what else.

Stand back a bit and think and it’s absolutely obvious that cattle are in no way any part of the problems of today , if they were they’d have been a problem decades, even centuries ago. They have been made a scapegoat and it seems to be a fact that is almost completely unchallenged.

 

[delilah]

Just to make the point (as i'm sure others have) that the problem is global corporations controlling the food chain and talking bollox in their adverts.
The problem isn't farmers growing oats and making a drink out of it.
https://www.glebefarmfoods.co.uk/about-us/about-glebe-farm/

 

[melted welly]

Just to make the point (as i'm sure others have) that the problem is global corporations controlling the food chain and talking bollox in their adverts.
The problem isn't farmers growing oats and making a drink out of it.
https://www.glebefarmfoods.co.uk/about-us/about-glebe-farm/

No, but with oatly, the 2 worlds have come together and whilst the origins of the company is laudable, the brand it has become is now driven by a need to satisfy corporate backers and its current campaign does so with a terrible ad campaign that uses dubious sources as fact and makes fun of addiction.

 

[DaveGrohl]

No, but with oatly, the 2 worlds have come together and whilst the origins of the company is laudable, the brand it has become is now driven by a need to satisfy corporate backers and its current campaign does so with a terrible ad campaign that uses dubious sources as fact and makes fun of addiction.

Nailed it. No further questions.

 

[Cheesehead]

So oats are presumably good for you, water will be neutral and sugar and rapeseed oil is bad for you.
Wouldn't it be better to just have porridge oats with proper milk?

That is what the doctors told my dad to have prepares it the night before and says he feels a lot better for it.

 

[Tarw Coch]

That is what the doctors told my dad to have prepares it the night before and says he feels a lot better for it.

I’ve been on porridge for breakfast since being diagnosed diabetic.
A good long soak in milk before cooking makes it beautifully creamy and smooth

 

[Poncherello1976]

After a busy couple of days with the cattle, I have finished my reply to Oatly. Lets see what they say to this!

Hi Karin,



Thank you for the reply. No worries on the delay. I expect you had a lot of complaints to sift through with your wildly inaccurate advert. Your reply has not helped one bit, and it shows Oatly up even more about how wrong you with your campaign.



If you are not about alienating farmers, why was your advertising campaign such a heavy handed attack on farmers? Surely this is the wrong approach, and it would be better to engage in constructive conversation rather than coming out and attacking a certain aspect of farming. Meat and milk are one of the most basic food groups on the planet, hence why they have been used as a food source for humans for 1000s of years. If it is so bad for the environment, surely this would have been picked up along time ago, not just when it has supposedly become fashionable. Your product is a highly processed food stuff, and being pushed in a time when we are being told that are diets would be better with less processed food. If I wanted to buy a car I would not expect a salesman to slate the rival cars, I want to know the good points of the car they are selling. Same goes for your milk, talk about why it is good, not why other milk is, in your eyes bad. It shows that you may not have much in the way of good things to say about your product.



You suggest that you want to have a conversation about humans environmental impact, but it is not as simple as saying that this food is bad and that food is good. The whole environment is intrinsically linked in to everything we do and it is far to simplistic to take one part of that and say it is bad. We are very lucky in the western world to be able to choose our diets and this opens the door for company’s like yourselves to get a foothold in a market. Unfortunately there are large parts of the world that are not rich enough to be able to this and have to eat the most nutrient dense food. There are lots of studies that say this is milk and meat, hence why they have been around for 1000s of years. I do not disagree that in the western world we may well need to eat less meat, but to put this under the guise of saving the environment is wildly misleading, and looks like the industry is being made a scapegoat for the planets problems as an easy target. People are now very disconnected from where their food comes from and i guess it is far easier to attack that, than say peoples holidays or general consumerism that they tend to be more connected to.



Maybe you need to have a word with your research team and not cherry pick the facts that suit your product and ignore everything else. The IPCC report has largely been discredited and so not really worth using. FAO on the common but flawed comparisons of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and transport - CGIAR

I think because it did not put in all the figures of carbon sequestering that goes on in farming. How can you compare sectors that are dependant on fossil fuels against a sector that is part of the carbon cycle. It was amazing how in the middle of 2020 during the Covid pandemic how clean the air was across the world. During this period, farming continued and with the use of oil based products falling sharply, less traffic, no planes, etc., it seems pretty obvious what the problem is. Obvious unless you have shareholders and investment firms who want their pound of flesh, excuse the pun, from your company. Maybe in future it might be worth using a more like for like comparison for your figures. Here is another link for you or your team to look at regarding emissions from different sectors: Emissions by sector



I have read elsewhere that this advert was an attempt to have a go at industrialised farming. With this advert being a UK based advert it seems that you have missed the point of UK farming and taken farming from around the world and plonked it in the UK. UK farming has some of the highest standards for food production round the world and your advert does not come across in reflecting that at all. As I said in my first message, I have no problem with Oat milk, and am happy to welcome it in to the food market. I grow Oats, and so this will help in my marketing of them. Surely now is a good time to talk to the British farming organisations about using British Oats for your Oat Milk sold in the British Isles. This would be a much better message to send out that you use locally grown products, and cut down on food miles that use fossil fuels



I have not even touched on your packaging and the inability to recycle it, but I guess that once it is out of the door it is not your problem! Thank you for your advertising campaign, as it has pushed us to find some British made Oat Milk, that is delivered by our milkman in reusable glass bottles. I also believe that your waste product from Oat milk production goes to feed pigs. This is very admirable, but no mention of this in your advert slating the livestock industry. Why not mention how your waste gets recycled?



Maybe you need to have a read of this to learn a bit more about your product.

https://every.to/almanack/oatly-the-new-coke-821556



If you are serious about opening up conversation with farmers about different food stuffs then there are many organisations in the UK that will help you with that. I will happily suggest some to talk to if you like. If not it just sounds like you are a brand trying to satisfy your investors corporate needs, and have moved away from the roots of when the company was founded.



Many Thanks,



Frank

 

[Jerry]

After a busy couple of days with the cattle, I have finished my reply to Oatly. Lets see what they say to this!

Hi Karin,



Thank you for the reply. No worries on the delay. I expect you had a lot of complaints to sift through with your wildly inaccurate advert. Your reply has not helped one bit, and it shows Oatly up even more about how wrong you with your campaign.



If you are not about alienating farmers, why was your advertising campaign such a heavy handed attack on farmers? Surely this is the wrong approach, and it would be better to engage in constructive conversation rather than coming out and attacking a certain aspect of farming. Meat and milk are one of the most basic food groups on the planet, hence why they have been used as a food source for humans for 1000s of years. If it is so bad for the environment, surely this would have been picked up along time ago, not just when it has supposedly become fashionable. Your product is a highly processed food stuff, and being pushed in a time when we are being told that are diets would be better with less processed food. If I wanted to buy a car I would not expect a salesman to slate the rival cars, I want to know the good points of the car they are selling. Same goes for your milk, talk about why it is good, not why other milk is, in your eyes bad. It shows that you may not have much in the way of good things to say about your product.



You suggest that you want to have a conversation about humans environmental impact, but it is not as simple as saying that this food is bad and that food is good. The whole environment is intrinsically linked in to everything we do and it is far to simplistic to take one part of that and say it is bad. We are very lucky in the western world to be able to choose our diets and this opens the door for company’s like yourselves to get a foothold in a market. Unfortunately there are large parts of the world that are not rich enough to be able to this and have to eat the most nutrient dense food. There are lots of studies that say this is milk and meat, hence why they have been around for 1000s of years. I do not disagree that in the western world we may well need to eat less meat, but to put this under the guise of saving the environment is wildly misleading, and looks like the industry is being made a scapegoat for the planets problems as an easy target. People are now very disconnected from where their food comes from and i guess it is far easier to attack that, than say peoples holidays or general consumerism that they tend to be more connected to.



Maybe you need to have a word with your research team and not cherry pick the facts that suit your product and ignore everything else. The IPCC report has largely been discredited and so not really worth using. FAO on the common but flawed comparisons of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and transport - CGIAR

I think because it did not put in all the figures of carbon sequestering that goes on in farming. How can you compare sectors that are dependant on fossil fuels against a sector that is part of the carbon cycle. It was amazing how in the middle of 2020 during the Covid pandemic how clean the air was across the world. During this period, farming continued and with the use of oil based products falling sharply, less traffic, no planes, etc., it seems pretty obvious what the problem is. Obvious unless you have shareholders and investment firms who want their pound of flesh, excuse the pun, from your company. Maybe in future it might be worth using a more like for like comparison for your figures. Here is another link for you or your team to look at regarding emissions from different sectors: Emissions by sector



I have read elsewhere that this advert was an attempt to have a go at industrialised farming. With this advert being a UK based advert it seems that you have missed the point of UK farming and taken farming from around the world and plonked it in the UK. UK farming has some of the highest standards for food production round the world and your advert does not come across in reflecting that at all. As I said in my first message, I have no problem with Oat milk, and am happy to welcome it in to the food market. I grow Oats, and so this will help in my marketing of them. Surely now is a good time to talk to the British farming organisations about using British Oats for your Oat Milk sold in the British Isles. This would be a much better message to send out that you use locally grown products, and cut down on food miles that use fossil fuels



I have not even touched on your packaging and the inability to recycle it, but I guess that once it is out of the door it is not your problem! Thank you for your advertising campaign, as it has pushed us to find some British made Oat Milk, that is delivered by our milkman in reusable glass bottles. I also believe that your waste product from Oat milk production goes to feed pigs. This is very admirable, but no mention of this in your advert slating the livestock industry. Why not mention how your waste gets recycled?



Maybe you need to have a read of this to learn a bit more about your product.

https://every.to/almanack/oatly-the-new-coke-821556



If you are serious about opening up conversation with farmers about different food stuffs then there are many organisations in the UK that will help you with that. I will happily suggest some to talk to if you like. If not it just sounds like you are a brand trying to satisfy your investors corporate needs, and have moved away from the roots of when the company was founded.



Many Thanks,



Frank

Cracking job....

 

[DaveGrohl]

That is a superb letter.

 

[melted welly]

After a busy couple of days with the cattle, I have finished my reply to Oatly. Lets see what they say to this!

Hi Karin,



Thank you for the reply. No worries on the delay. I expect you had a lot of complaints to sift through with your wildly inaccurate advert. Your reply has not helped one bit, and it shows Oatly up even more about how wrong you with your campaign.



If you are not about alienating farmers, why was your advertising campaign such a heavy handed attack on farmers? Surely this is the wrong approach, and it would be better to engage in constructive conversation rather than coming out and attacking a certain aspect of farming. Meat and milk are one of the most basic food groups on the planet, hence why they have been used as a food source for humans for 1000s of years. If it is so bad for the environment, surely this would have been picked up along time ago, not just when it has supposedly become fashionable. Your product is a highly processed food stuff, and being pushed in a time when we are being told that are diets would be better with less processed food. If I wanted to buy a car I would not expect a salesman to slate the rival cars, I want to know the good points of the car they are selling. Same goes for your milk, talk about why it is good, not why other milk is, in your eyes bad. It shows that you may not have much in the way of good things to say about your product.



You suggest that you want to have a conversation about humans environmental impact, but it is not as simple as saying that this food is bad and that food is good. The whole environment is intrinsically linked in to everything we do and it is far to simplistic to take one part of that and say it is bad. We are very lucky in the western world to be able to choose our diets and this opens the door for company’s like yourselves to get a foothold in a market. Unfortunately there are large parts of the world that are not rich enough to be able to this and have to eat the most nutrient dense food. There are lots of studies that say this is milk and meat, hence why they have been around for 1000s of years. I do not disagree that in the western world we may well need to eat less meat, but to put this under the guise of saving the environment is wildly misleading, and looks like the industry is being made a scapegoat for the planets problems as an easy target. People are now very disconnected from where their food comes from and i guess it is far easier to attack that, than say peoples holidays or general consumerism that they tend to be more connected to.



Maybe you need to have a word with your research team and not cherry pick the facts that suit your product and ignore everything else. The IPCC report has largely been discredited and so not really worth using. FAO on the common but flawed comparisons of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and transport - CGIAR

I think because it did not put in all the figures of carbon sequestering that goes on in farming. How can you compare sectors that are dependant on fossil fuels against a sector that is part of the carbon cycle. It was amazing how in the middle of 2020 during the Covid pandemic how clean the air was across the world. During this period, farming continued and with the use of oil based products falling sharply, less traffic, no planes, etc., it seems pretty obvious what the problem is. Obvious unless you have shareholders and investment firms who want their pound of flesh, excuse the pun, from your company. Maybe in future it might be worth using a more like for like comparison for your figures. Here is another link for you or your team to look at regarding emissions from different sectors: Emissions by sector



I have read elsewhere that this advert was an attempt to have a go at industrialised farming. With this advert being a UK based advert it seems that you have missed the point of UK farming and taken farming from around the world and plonked it in the UK. UK farming has some of the highest standards for food production round the world and your advert does not come across in reflecting that at all. As I said in my first message, I have no problem with Oat milk, and am happy to welcome it in to the food market. I grow Oats, and so this will help in my marketing of them. Surely now is a good time to talk to the British farming organisations about using British Oats for your Oat Milk sold in the British Isles. This would be a much better message to send out that you use locally grown products, and cut down on food miles that use fossil fuels



I have not even touched on your packaging and the inability to recycle it, but I guess that once it is out of the door it is not your problem! Thank you for your advertising campaign, as it has pushed us to find some British made Oat Milk, that is delivered by our milkman in reusable glass bottles. I also believe that your waste product from Oat milk production goes to feed pigs. This is very admirable, but no mention of this in your advert slating the livestock industry. Why not mention how your waste gets recycled?



Maybe you need to have a read of this to learn a bit more about your product.

https://every.to/almanack/oatly-the-new-coke-821556



If you are serious about opening up conversation with farmers about different food stuffs then there are many organisations in the UK that will help you with that. I will happily suggest some to talk to if you like. If not it just sounds like you are a brand trying to satisfy your investors corporate needs, and have moved away from the roots of when the company was founded.



Many Thanks,



Frank

Well done. Be interested t see if you get a grown up to reply or if the patronising infant who does the Twitter account handles all their correspondence.

 

[Cheesehead]

Well done. Be interested t see if you get a grown up to reply or if the patronising infant who does the Twitter account handles all their correspondence.

My bet is a reply of nothing of substance a long reply with nothing really answered other than the usual responses and repeated figures. But it is a good letter.

 

[white_stuffed]

FAO on the common but flawed comparisons of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and transport

Livestock experts Anne Mottet and Henning Steinfeld, of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), warn of the pitfalls of simplification when looking at greenhouse gas emissions from livestock. Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and transport are often compared, but...

www.cgiar.org

I've had an email back from oatly and the sources they quote have done exactly as described in the link above (comparing whole lifecycle livestock emissions - 'with only direct transport emissions).
This means packaging, refrigeration and transport of animal products to retailer is included in the livestock figs. But making cars/planes/ships and extracting fuel to power them and cost to scrap them isn't included in the transport figures. Not very fair or like for like. So I'll be sharing this link with them and ask for a response.

Here is their reply...

Thanks for taking the time to get back in touch and sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

As mentioned in the link that I sent you in my previous email, we made the comparison of lifecycle emissions from livestock to the direct emissions from transport to illustrate the unseen emissions of livestock - such as feed production, enteric fermentation, animal waste, land-use change, deforestation, livestock transport and processing - by comparing them to much more visible and tangible direct emissions of transport.

Our goal with this is to bring attention and context to the impact of our daily choices. While there are already large public discussions about the climate impact of the emissions of transport, there is less awareness of the significant impact that our food choices have on the climate. By illustrating the scale of the lifecycle emissions of livestock and comparing them to the transport emissions that we see as part of our daily life, we aim to illuminate more ways for people to lower their carbon footprint through their eating and drinking habits.

We certainly don’t intend to deceive anyone or create an ‘us against them’, far from it, our goal is here is to spark discussions and debate around our food choices and emissions, not to create division. While we agree that people should have options and be able to make informed decisions when it comes to their food choices, the fact is that we need to increase our plant-based consumption and production and decrease our intake of meat and dairy if we want to able to continue living as we do without taxing the planet’s resources.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with us, I appreciate that you are a fellow oat supporter and I hope that you can see where we are coming from here.

All the best,

Marsali
Consumer Relations

Hi Marsali, thank you for coming back to me and thank you for providing the link to the sources.
However, I am disappointed that the Help Dad campaign is rather mischievously using the CO2e emissions figures to suggest that livestock are producing more emissions than transport.
As I think you know very well, the figures you are using are not comparing like-with-like. You cannot compare ‘lifecycle emissions,’ which you are using for livestock, with ‘emissions only’ figures for transport. See this link for a full explanation.
https://www.cgiar.org/news-events/news/fao-common-flawed-comparisons-greenhouse-gas-emissions-livestock-transport/
I think this mischievous portrayal of the figures discredits your campaign. I have nothing against oat milk, far from it, but I am disappointed that you have sought to create a ‘them against us situation’ as I think there is enough room in the market place for all sorts of ‘milk’ if people so choose.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Christ on a bike.

 

[Old Boar]

Just catching up with this thread. My initial thoughts from the ad were that if a child of mine refused to get me a pint of milk, they would be out on their ear...

It says it is vegan, and supplimented with Vit D. I wrote to them and asked them the source of the Vit D but they did not reply. Most Vit D is obtained from sheeps wool...

 

[Raider112]

Here is their reply...

Thanks for taking the time to get back in touch and sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

As mentioned in the link that I sent you in my previous email, we made the comparison of lifecycle emissions from livestock to the direct emissions from transport to illustrate the unseen emissions of livestock - such as feed production, enteric fermentation, animal waste, land-use change, deforestation, livestock transport and processing - by comparing them to much more visible and tangible direct emissions of transport.

Our goal with this is to bring attention and context to the impact of our daily choices. While there are already large public discussions about the climate impact of the emissions of transport, there is less awareness of the significant impact that our food choices have on the climate. By illustrating the scale of the lifecycle emissions of livestock and comparing them to the transport emissions that we see as part of our daily life, we aim to illuminate more ways for people to lower their carbon footprint through their eating and drinking habits.

We certainly don’t intend to deceive anyone or create an ‘us against them’, far from it, our goal is here is to spark discussions and debate around our food choices and emissions, not to create division. While we agree that people should have options and be able to make informed decisions when it comes to their food choices, the fact is that we need to increase our plant-based consumption and production and decrease our intake of meat and dairy if we want to able to continue living as we do without taxing the planet’s resources.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with us, I appreciate that you are a fellow oat supporter and I hope that you can see where we are coming from here.

All the best,

Marsali
Consumer Relations

So it was the patronising infant then.

 

[melted welly]

So it was the patronising infant then.

Knew it!

 

[Poncherello1976]

Old Thread resurrection!
Been a long time coming, but it looks like the complaints against last years Oatly advert have been upheld. All bar 1!

ASA Ruling V Oatly


This is the bit at the end about the action against Oatly! Slap on the wrist!! Surely they should need to print an apology at the very least!

Action​

The ads must not appear again in the forms complained about. We told Oatly UK Ltd to ensure that the basis of any environmental claim was made clear, including what parts of the life cycle had been included and which excluded. We also told them to ensure they held adequate evidence to substantiate environmental claims made in their ads as they would be understood by consumers.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Old Thread resurrection!
Been a long time coming, but it looks like the complaints against last years Oatly advert have been upheld. All bar 1!

ASA Ruling V Oatly


This is the bit at the end about the action against Oatly! Slap on the wrist!! Surely they should need to print an apology at the very least!

Action​

The ads must not appear again in the forms complained about. We told Oatly UK Ltd to ensure that the basis of any environmental claim was made clear, including what parts of the life cycle had been included and which excluded. We also told them to ensure they held adequate evidence to substantiate environmental claims made in their ads as they would be understood by consumers.

That looks like good news, thanks for posting. When did this happen? Is it going to be in the news today?

 

[Poncherello1976]

I was told last week, but could not say anything until today. Not sure how much media coverage it will get though.