**Red Tractor’s TV Advert Banned for Misleading Environmental Claims: What Happened, Why It Matters, and What’s Next**
A recent ruling by the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has brought Red Tractor, the nation’s largest farm product certification scheme, under intense scrutiny over claims made in one of its TV adverts. The ASA concluded that Red Tractor exaggerated its environmental credentials in a widely aired commercial, leading to accusations of “greenwashing” and sparking debate about the role of food certification schemes in environmental protection.
**Background: The Red Tractor Scheme and Its Influence**
Red Tractor is the UK’s best-known farm assurance program, certifying around 45,000 farms across the country. Its distinctive logo appears on a wide range of products in most major supermarkets, and has become a familiar symbol for millions of shoppers seeking reassurance about the quality and provenance of their food. The scheme was originally launched to restore consumer confidence in British agriculture after a series of food scares, and its standards focus primarily on food safety, animal welfare, and traceability. Over time, however, Red Tractor has also been associated—by both the scheme itself and by retailers—with environmental responsibility.
**The Advert and the Complaint**
The controversy centers on a TV commercial first broadcast in 2021, which ran for nearly two years. The advert claimed: “From field to store all our standards are met. When the Red Tractor’s there, your food’s farmed with care.” While the ad did not explicitly spell out environmental benefits, its broad language and imagery gave viewers the impression that Red Tractor certification ensured high environmental standards on farms.
River Action, an environmental charity, took issue with this implication. In 2023, it filed a formal complaint with the ASA, arguing that the advert misled consumers by suggesting Red Tractor farms provide a “high degree of environmental protection.” River Action pointed to evidence from a 2020 Environment Agency report, which had reviewed environmental breaches on Red Tractor farms over the previous five years. The report concluded that Red Tractor certification was “not currently an indicator of good environmental performance.”
**The ASA’s Investigation and Ruling**
The ASA conducted a lengthy investigation, lasting more than two years—one of its most protracted reviews to date. The central question was whether Red Tractor could substantiate the impression created by its advert: that its certified farms comply with basic environmental laws and deliver strong environmental outcomes.
Ultimately, the ASA ruled in favor of River Action’s complaint. The watchdog found that Red Tractor had failed to provide “sufficient evidence” that its farms consistently met even the basic legal requirements for environmental protection. The ASA concluded that the advert was “misleading” and “exaggerated” the environmental benefits of the Red Tractor scheme, and ordered that it must not be broadcast again in its current form.
**Environmental Concerns in UK Agriculture**
This ruling comes amid growing concern about the environmental impact of UK agriculture. In 2022, the Environment Audit Committee found that farming was a leading cause of river pollution, affecting around 40% of watercourses. Key issues include runoff from slurry and pesticides, which can harm wildlife and degrade water quality. For campaigners like River Action, misleading claims about farm assurance schemes risk obscuring the urgent need for better regulation and enforcement.
Amy Fairman, head of campaigns at River Action, welcomed the ASA’s decision and called on supermarkets to reconsider their reliance on Red Tractor. “What this shows is that for their environmental credentials Red Tractor has been misleading the public and their suppliers,” she said. Fairman urged retailers to “really examine and take stock of what is on their shelves,” warning that greenwashing undermines both public trust and the wider environmental effort.
**Red Tractor’s Response: “Fundamentally Flawed” Decision**
Red Tractor, for its part, has strongly rejected the ASA’s findings. CEO Jim Mosley described the ruling as “fundamentally flawed,” insisting that the advert made no explicit environmental claims. “They believe that we have implied an environmental claim. Nowhere in the voiceover or the imagery is any environmental claim actually made,” Mosley told the BBC.
He argued that the scheme’s primary purpose is to assure standards of food safety, animal welfare, and traceability, not environmental protection. While Red Tractor does include some environmental standards in its criteria, Mosley emphasized that these are limited, and that the scheme relies on the Environment Agency to enforce relevant laws.
Strikingly, when asked if