Agriculture

Print Advertisement:
A magazine advertisement advertising Irish Buckfast Queens featured two images, one image featured a child pointing to bees on a beehive, while the second image featured bees in the palm of a hand. Both people featured were not wearing protective clothing.

The advertisement included the following statements: –

“Our high quality Buckfast Queens are Bred and selected by our Buckfast Breeding Group.”

“Our queens offer more honey per colony.
Much better disease&parasite (sic) resistance.
Buckfast for simpler & better Irish beekeeping.”

Online Advertisement:
The “Aims & Standards” page of the advertisers’ website featured the image of a bare-chested man with a mass of bees in his right hand and bees on his stomach and shoulder.

The advertisement stated: –

“Buckfast bees will develop much larger colonies, over wintering on two Langstroth brood boxes is common, giving them a head start in spring.

MORE BEES = MORE HONEY
Very little or no smoke is needed for colony inspections meaning much less stress on the bees and beekeeper.

INSPECTIONS ARE MADE EASIER
Bees do not run around the frame or drip from the bottom of frames, they just go about their normal business. Even the queen can often be seen to continue laying.

FINDING THE QUEEN IS LESS OF A PROBLEM
Buckfast bees are bred to be more resistant to disease.

ONE OF THE FIRST AIMS BROTHER ADAM HAD IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUCKFAST BEE
These bees will not chase you out of your apiary, burst your car tyres, or force their way into your bee suit.

OUR CHILDREN FEED OUR BEES LIKE PETS OUT OF THEIR BARE HANDS
So long as Buckfast bees are provided with plenty of space, swarming is much less of a problem.

SWARM CONTROL IS MUCH EASIER TO MANAGE”

The complainant objected to the advertising on the following grounds:

Issue 1:
The complainant believed that the claims that ‘Buckfast queens offer more honey per colony’; that they had ‘better disease and parasite resistance than other breeds’, and the more general claim that Buckfast bees offered “simpler and better Irish beekeeping” in the advertising were misleading, particularly to new or inexperienced beekeepers, and that these claims were made without any scientific backing.

Issue 2:
The complainant believed that the illustrative pictures used in the advertisements were irresponsible as they suggested that bees could be handled without safety equipment. They said that a child was shown in a dangerous situation close to a beehive, and that no “bee association” would recommend that a child be brought near a hive or be used for advertising purposes. They also said that the picture of the shirtless man on the website was negligent for similar reasons.

The complainant claimed that hybrid bees, such as the Buckfast bee, are considered by most beekeepers to be aggressive in nature and should only be handled with the appropriate safety equipment.

The advertisers responded to the issues raised:

Issue 1:
The advertisers, while sorry to hear a complaint had been received concerning their advertising, stated that the information in their advertising was true and could be proven. As substantiation, they provided extracts from the book ‘Queen Bee: Biology, Rearing and Breeding by David R Woodward’ which included descriptions of four major races of honeybees that were of economic importance. The advertisers suggested that the Executive contact the Federation of Irish Beekeepers for their opinion and that their advertisement had run for over ten years without issue.

Issue 2:
On the issue of safety and depictions of dangerous activity, the advertisers said that they sold docile bees that could be handled without protection, but that this should not have been taken that they advised beekeepers not to use protection. They said that the black native Irish bees were not docile and could therefore not be handled in the same way as the Buckfast bee they breed in their own apiary.

FURTHER INFORMATION:
The ASA Executive noted that the extracts provided by the advertisers did not refer to Buckfast bees and therefore did not provide substantiation for the advertising claims that they ‘…offer more honey per colony’; that they had ‘better disease and parasite resistance than other breeds’; or that they offered ‘simpler and better Irish beekeeping’.

The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertiser’s response.

Issue 1: Upheld.

The Complaints Committee noted documentation had been provided as substantiation of the advertising claims however, no details had been provided as to how the document substantiated the claims made. In the absence of such information, the Committee did not consider the claims had been substantiated and therefore, the advertising was in breach of Sections 4.1; 4.4; 4.9; 4.10; and 4.33.

Issue 2: Upheld.

The Committee noted the images used in the advertising had portrayed a child and an adult being near or handling bees without wearing protective clothing. They considered that the images in the advertising had depicted an unsafe practice and therefore were in breach of Code sections 3.24 (a) and 7.4 (c).

ACTION REQUIRED:
The advertisements must not reappear in their current form.