The UK’s largest food assurance scheme, Red Tractor, has found itself in the crosshairs of a heated debate after its prominent TV advertisement was banned for allegedly misleading the public about its environmental credentials. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), Britain’s main advertising watchdog, ruled that Red Tractor had exaggerated the environmental benefits of its certification in a campaign that aired from 2021 to 2023. The fallout has sparked a broader conversation about greenwashing, food standards, and the sometimes blurry lines between marketing and reality on supermarket shelves.
Red Tractor’s now-controversial campaign featured a cheery animation of a woman pushing her trolley through a supermarket, the Red Tractor logo front and center, with the tagline: “From field to store all our standards are met. When the Red Tractor’s there, your food’s farmed with care.” At first glance, it seemed like a simple reassurance of quality. But for River Action, an environmental group, the message went much further—implying that Red Tractor farms ensured a high degree of environmental protection, a claim they believed was unsupported.
River Action formally complained to the ASA in 2023, citing a 2020 Environment Agency report that cast doubt on the environmental performance of Red Tractor–certified farms. According to the report, these farms were “not currently an indicator of good environmental performance.” Over the previous five years, the data showed numerous breaches of environmental law, with agricultural pollution—particularly from slurry and pesticide runoff—remaining a major threat to UK rivers. The Environment Audit Committee had already concluded in 2022 that agriculture was one of the main factors preventing 40% of UK rivers from achieving good health.
After more than two years of investigation, the ASA sided with River Action. The watchdog determined that Red Tractor had provided “insufficient evidence” to back up the environmental impression left by its advert. The ASA’s ruling stated that the advert was “misleading” and “exaggerated” the benefits of the Red Tractor scheme, specifically in terms of environmental outcomes. As a result, the advert was banned from further broadcast.
For Amy Fairman, head of campaigns at River Action, the decision was a long-overdue reckoning. “What this shows is that for their environmental credentials Red Tractor has been misleading the public and their suppliers,” she told the BBC. “So, we’re looking for suppliers like supermarkets to really examine and take stock of what is on their shelves.” Fairman emphasized the importance of challenging such adverts, given the environmental risks tied to agricultural pollution. “Challenging these adverts is important because of the risk to the environment from agricultural pollution,” she said.
The ASA’s ruling has had ripple effects through the UK’s food industry, especially among major supermarkets. Both Tesco and Morrisons have, in the past, lauded Red Tractor certification as a mark of environmental protection. Natalie Smith, Tesco’s head of agriculture, noted during the scheme’s 25th anniversary: “Certification schemes play a key role in providing reassurance for customers, and over the past 25 years, Red Tractor has established itself as a mark of quality, standing for… environmental protection.” Morrisons’ website similarly claims that its Red Tractor–certified products offer customers “assurance… environmental protection.”
However, with the ASA’s recent decision, the accuracy of such claims has come under scrutiny. When asked if they still stood by the Red Tractor logo, Morrisons declined to comment, while Tesco acknowledged there was “still more to do” and called for closer cooperation between government and industry to “drive change.” The British Retail Consortium, representing UK retailers, reiterated its members’ commitment to working with Red Tractor but made clear that the scheme itself is responsible for its standards.
Red Tractor, for its part, has mounted a robust defense. Chief executive Jim Moseley called the ASA’s ruling “fundamentally flawed” and insisted that the advert never made 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,” Moseley told the BBC. He argued that the ASA’s decision was based on a minority interpretation and that Red Tractor’s core mission has always been food safety, animal welfare, and traceability, not environmental regulation.
“Red Tractor’s core purpose is food safety, animal welfare, and traceability. Whilst we have some environmental standards, they are a small part. And as a consequence, we leave that entirely to the Environment Agency to enforce environmental legislation,” Moseley explained. Pressed on whether this meant Red Tractor does not know if its farms are complying with environmental law, he responded: “Correct.”
In a separate statement, Moseley criticized the ASA for setting what he called a “worrying precedent” for food and farming advertisers. “If the advert was clearly misleading, it wouldn’t have taken over two years to reach this conclusion,” he said. “We completely disagree that it could be misinterpreted by consumers, and we’re concerned the ASA has departed from normal practice by using its own judgement rather than the average consumer test.” Moseley added that the case “risks creating confusion for both consumers and advertisers about what constitutes an environmental claim.”
Despite the controversy, Red Tractor maintains that it upholds rigorous standards in its areas of focus. The organization pointed out that 98.8% of its farms passed inspections between 2021 and 2023, and that its scheme now covers more than 45,000 UK farms. The company also stressed that its most recent advertising campaigns had been thoroughly reviewed to avoid any ambiguity about its standards.
The ASA, for its part, clarified that Red Tractor could continue using its “Farmed with Care” slogan, but only if it provided clearer references to the specific standards behind such claims, for instance by linking to its website. The ruling underscores a growing demand for transparency and specificity in environmental marketing—especially as consumers become more vigilant about greenwashing and the real-world impact of their food choices.
The debate shows no sign of abating. Red Tractor has appointed a new marketing agency, WPR, to help shape a major consumer campaign marking the scheme’s 25th anniversary. Meanwhile, its CEO Jim Moseley is set to retire in April 2026, leaving the organization at a crossroads as it navigates the complex terrain of consumer trust, regulatory scrutiny, and environmental responsibility.
For now, the Red Tractor saga serves as a potent reminder that in the age of eco-conscious shoppers, even a single phrase or image can spark a national conversation about what’s really in our food—and who gets to decide what counts as “farmed with care.”
