UPDATE (March 08): Farmsubsidy.org's complaint was upheld and the advertisement has been withdrawn. Look here for more information including the text of the ruling.
We at farmsubsidy.org like our governments to be transparent. We also like it when people tell the truth. We usually focus our attention on the governments of the European Union, but when I saw a billboard advertisement for US Cotton around the corner from where I live, I couldn't pass by without doing something about it.
Take a closer look. You'll notice a typical American cotton picker who - in time-honoured tradition - has been filling up her quaint wooden bushel with hand-picked cotton bolls. You'll also notice a slogan for US cotton: "soft, sensual and sustainable".
Soft, quite possibly. Sensual, well as long as it all takes place between consenting adults. But sustainable? Sustainable??!
Try telling that to the millions of impoverished cotton farmers in West Africa whose livelihoods are decimated by the flood of heavily subsidised US cotton on the world market, driving down prices and stealing markets. Try telling that to US taxpayers who foot the bill for more than $2 billion a year in handouts to US cotton farmers: much of the US cotton industry is the creature of government subsidy, including some $264 million in illegal export subsidies in 2004. Try telling that to the people who live in cotton producing areas and see their water courses sucked dry by thirsty cotton plantations and face dangerous levels of pesticide runoff in their water supplies.
Here in the UK we have a Code of Advertising that prohibits advertising that is misleading, whether intentionally or not. That is why I have filed a complaint against the US Cotton Council International, the industry body behind the advertisement. If the complaint is upheld by the independent Advertising Standards Authority, the Cotton Council International will be forced to apologise, retract its claims and stop running these misleading advertisements. You can read the full text of the complaint below, with thanks to Rori Kramer for pulling together the main arguments and key facts. If you agree that this advertisement is deliberately misleading, why not drop a line saying so to Stephanie Thiers, European Representative of the Cotton Council International. sthiers@cotton.org
Update (29/11/07) According to this recent report in The Guardian, Chris Smith, the newly appointed chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, is promising to crack down on inaccurate environmental claims. He said:
"We are breaking new ground and this is a growing area, as we are increasingly finding that advertisers are using green claims to sell their products and services and to give them an edge over their rivals. They are jumping on the bandwagon about their green claims, but as we make more and more adjudications we are building up a body of solid evidence. Whether it's wind turbines or airlines or cars with claims about CO2 emissions, the claims have to be accurate and the companies have to be able to justify that. My message is that erroneous claims will not slip through the net."
Submission to the Advertising Standards Authority regarding the US Cotton Council International's billboard campaign
“Soft, Sensual and Sustainable.” With this product promotion, Cotton USA (the registered trademark for Cotton Council International, the marketing arm of the National Cotton Council of America) has breached ASA guidelines which seek to protect consumers from misleading advertising. Specifically, it is the use of the term “sustainable” which is misleading, wrongly giving the impression that the American cotton industry is sustainable – economically or environmentally. The reality is that US cotton is largely a product of enormous government subsidy programmes and has a negative impact on the environment and on cotton farmers in the developing world.
To fully understand the misleading nature of the advertisement, a clear definition of “sustainable” must be identified. The Oxford English Dictionary defines sustainable as “able to be sustained” or “avoiding depletion of natural resources” (in terms of industry, development, or agriculture). But the most widely accepted meaning of sustainable development in the business sector originates from the United Nations Brundtland Commission [1]. The commission’s final report, Our Common Future (1987), considers “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” to be sustainable.
Economically unsustainable
The US government spent $3.3 billion to support cotton in 2005 [2]. These subsidies ensure that US cotton farmers receive 72 cents a pound for their crop, while the world market price averages 57 cents a pound [3]. Brazil successfully challenged the US in 2005 on this issue in the World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement body. The WTO panel ruled that US support programmes (specifically the market loan, Step 2 and counter-cyclical payments) dramatically increased production, drove down world cotton prices and were in violation of the US’s commitments to observe global trade law [4]. Two years later, the US still has not fully complied with this ruling and Brazil is continuing effort to press for American reform and compliance with its trade obligations [5].
The countries hurt most by the effects of subsidised over-production are among the poorest developing countries in the world, namely four West African states – Benin, Mali, Chad and Burkina Faso. The economies of these countries are overwhelmingly dependent on cotton to for employment [6]. A recent Oxfam study estimates that if US government cotton subsidies were reformed, the market price would rise, resulting in up to 20 percent net income increase from cotton farming and a total net household income increase of up to 5.7 percent in these countries.
Without the extraordinary level of US government subsidies for its cotton farmers, the US cotton industry would not be exist at anywhere near its current size. If it were run in a sustainable manner (that is to, say, without taxpayer subsidy and with market demand determining production output) US cotton’s market share would shrink in comparison to other cotton-producing countries. A recent study suggests it would drop as much as 41.2 percent [7].
Environmentally unsustainable
The subsidies that drive US overproduction, harming African farmers, also accelerate soil degradation, erosion and depletion and degradation of water resources [8]. The amount of pesticides used in cotton is considerably higher than most crops, particularly in southern region of the US, where humid weather affects weed pressure and attracts a higher prevalence of major insect pests [9]. Up to 5 times greater pesticide application is needed for cotton over that of corn cultivation, compounding its danger. This affects water quality, the full extent of which is not yet known, over large swathes of the “cotton belt” in the southern US [10]. Five of the most commonly used US cotton pesticides (cyanide, dicofol, naled, propargite and trifluralin) are known to cause cancer and are classified as the most dangerous by the US Environmental Protection Agency [11].
The British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing 7.1 states that “No marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.” While American cotton may very well be soft and sensual, to claim that it is sustainable, is deliberately misleading and inaccurate.
References:
[1] UN World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, 1987.
[2] Michael Grunwald, Down on the Farm, Time Magazine, November 12, 2007.
[3] Michael Gerson, Cotton and Conscience, The Washington Post, 7 November 2007, A21.
[4] Environmental Working Group, “U.S. Farm Policy: Trade Violations from Fence Row to Fence Row”, 2007.
[5] Randy Schnepf, Brazil’s WTO Case Against the U.S. Cotton Program: A Brief Overview , Congressional Research Service,
[6] CIA Factbook.
[7] Environmental Working Group, “U.S. Farm Policy: Trade Violations from Fence Row to Fence Row”, 2007.
[8] World Wildlife Fund, Agriculture and the Environment: Cotton.
[9] The US Geological Survey, Cotton Agriculture - Southern United States.
[10] The US Geological Survey, Cotton Agriculture - Southern United States.
[11] Ecochoices, Statistics of Cotton.
