COSTA’s Monkey Gimmick Criticised by Animal Welfare Organisations
COSTA Coffee launches its first television advert this evening amid uproar from animal welfare organisations who are appalled by its use of wild animals.
The ad in question was previewed yesterday by The Guardian website and features a “twist” on the theory that an infinite amount of monkeys would, if given typewriters, produce the entire works of William Shakespeare. With a mandrill (a primate native to Africa) given the voice of actor, Bill Nighy, the coffee company asks if an infinite amount of monkeys with coffee machines would make the perfect cup. The advert uses 16 individuals from five species from around the world and shows them climbing over the machines and breaking crockery in a brightly-lit studio.
Five animal welfare organisations[1] have come together to formally oppose the ad, and suggest that the use of nonhuman primate “actors” could even be in contravention of the law, dependent on views on the correct interpretation of Section 9 (2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006[2].
Said Rachel Hevesi of Wild Futures:
“With the release of this new advert, we feel the need to reiterate our long-held concerns on the use of wild animals in entertainment. Whilst they are used in this way their welfare is severely compromised, and it has a knock-on effect to the trade in the primates as pets in this country.
We are appealing to COSTA to pull the advert and reconsider its stance on the use of wild animals in future campaigns. What sits particularly uncomfortably with us is that COSTA is one of the coffee companies whose products are endorsed by Rainforest Alliance. To carry this well-respected accreditation and then to exploit rainforest animals in the sale of its products is an issue that we have raised with Rainforest Alliance directly. We are awaiting a formal response”.
Adverts using primates have been successfully opposed by Wild Futures in coalition with others before. Last year saw the removal of an EU stop smoking advert following NGO action and, more recently, Dodge, the car manufacturer, heeded similar concerns from PETA when it used a chimp in an advert. The company was praised at taking the concerns seriously and digitally removing the chimp from the promotion.
Aviva, the car insurance company is also using a monkey in its current campaign.
<ENDS>
Notes to Editors:
Wild Futures (Charity reg. No. 1102532) is an educational and environmental charity promoting the welfare and conservation of primates, and working to end the abuses of primates in captivity. Its flagship project, The Monkey Sanctuary, in Cornwall, is home to victims of the primate pet trade. Drawing on over 40 years of primate expertise, Wild Futures acts as an advisory body to sanctuaries and conservation organisations in the UK and overseas and advises DEFRA on UK animal welfare legislation.
For more information please contact:
Rachel Hevesi or Liz Tyson
[email protected] [email protected]
www.wildfutures.org +44 (0) 1503 262 532
[1] Wild Futures, International Primate Protection League, Captive Animal Protection Society and BUAV, plus the Born Free Foundation
[2] Text of letter to Costa Coffee:
We are writing to express our concern about the use of nonhuman primates as actors in your new advertisement, due to air for the first time this evening.
There are several issues that we would like to bring to your attention which involve animal welfare and human safety. We hope that, having considered the following information, you will think it appropriate to cease using primates in future productions, and make the decision to withdraw the current advert.
The Animal Welfare Act 2006 requires that anyone responsible for an animal must meet the following:
- the need for a suitable environment;
- the need for a suitable diet;
- the need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns;
- the need to be housed with, or apart from, other animals;
- the need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
The particular needs of primates have been recognised in the Code of Practice on the Welfare of Privately Kept Non-Human Primates, launched in April 2010, and introduced under the Animal Welfare Act. The following statement is included in the Code:
Primates are long-lived, intelligent, socially complex animals. They engage in imaginative problem solving, form intricate social relationships and display complex patterns of behaviour. Being social is a striking feature of primates, and perhaps the most important in terms of meeting their needs. With few exceptions, they live in complex societies that can comprise tens of individual animals.
In relation to their total life history, primates have long infant and juvenile phases, with social independence occurring long after nutritional weaning. This period is crucial for learning about the physical and social environment, and about parenting, for survival and reproduction.
It is highly likely that primates have an awareness of pain, suffering and distress, and at least in some species an ability to think and reflect on these things. Such abilities could enhance their capacity for suffering.
Primates used for Entertainment and in the Media are often removed from their social group and hand-reared, causing distress to the infant, mother and other members of the group. Curtailing the period in which young primates are dependent on their mothers (‘early weaning’) is known to have profound and long-lasting negative psychological and physiological effects[i]. Hand rearing by humans does not make up for this loss, and is associated with a range of welfare issues (e.g. abnormal behaviours, poor breeding success)[ii]. The removal of individuals from their social group in this way would seem to be in contravention of three of the five needs as stated in the Animal Welfare Act: the need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns; the need to be housed with, or apart from, other animals; the need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
In your conversation on the 7th October 2010 Liz Tyson of Wild Futures, you kindly provided some information about the primates used in the advert and we would like to make some comments on these.
You confirmed that that the monkeys are from Amazing Animals, which is based
at Heythrop Zoological Gardens. The AA Route Planner estimates that the journey between Pinewood Studios and the facility in West Oxfordshire takes around 1 hour and 20 minutes by road. We must therefore assume that the monkeys are travelling for a minimum of three hours a day. During this period the monkeys must be contained for their own and public safety, as well as being removed from their normal habitat. There is a great deal of research showing that non-human primates find the conditions for transport distressing[iii] and we therefore suggest that this is in contravention of point five of the above welfare needs: the protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
You did not provide information as to the length of time that the monkeys were in the studio but if we assume that filming took a minimum of an hour, the monkeys had what is effectively a four hour working day (as a minimum), during which they do not have the opportunity to enjoy “a suitable environment” (for example: a spacious three dimensional habitat with access to natural furniture and materials, natural sunlight, and species appropriate companions as well as the ability to remove themselves from stressful situations) or “exhibit normal behaviour patterns” (for example: social, locomotive and foraging behaviours). All of these needs are also described in more detail in the Code of Practice.
Rhesus macaques (one of the monkeys used in the production) fall under The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. All primates may behave unpredictably and can inflict serious bite and scratch wounds. We would like to draw your attention to the potential risks of disease transfer from human to monkey and vice versa. For example, the Simian Herpes B virus – which is carried by a “high percentage of macaques” and is “almost always fatal to humans”- is not reliably detectable by testing[iv]. Additionally, diseases which seem inconsequential to humans can infect and kill monkeys.
The International Primatological Society, whose membership comprises the foremost primatologists in academia, welfare and conservation and as such has a world respected reputation, has published a policy statement: “Opposition to the Use of Nonhuman Primates in the Media”[v] This raises similar concerns to those we have listed here. They also include the effect on public perception of primates’ welfare and biological needs, which may lead to a detrimental effect on their conservation.
In summary, we do not believe it is possible for a primate to be used in the advert for COSTA Coffee without contravening the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
We ask that you consider this information in relation to the advert that you are planning to run and hope that it provides understanding as to why primates should not be used in the manner.
We would appreciate a response on this issue.
Yours sincerely,
| Rachel Hevesi | Helen Thirlway | Craig Redmond | ||
| Head of Welfare | Director | Campaigns Director | ||
| Wild Futures | IPPL (UK) | Captive Animals’ Protection Society | ||
| Sarah Kite | ||||
| Director of Communications and Special Projects | ||||
| BUAV | ||||
[i] E.g. Baker, A. J., A. M. Baker & K. V. Thompson (1996). Parental care in captive mammals. Wild Mammals in
Captivity. D. G. Kleiman, M. E. Allen, K. V. Thompson and S. Lumpkin (eds). Chicago, University of Chicago Press:
497-512; Lewis, M. H., J. P. Gluck, J. M. Petitto, L. L. Hensley, H. Ozer (2000). Early social deprivation in nonhuman
primates: long-term effects on survival and cell-mediated immunity. Biological Psychiatry 47: 119-126; Prescott, M. J.
(2002) Counting the cost: welfare implications of the acquisition and transport of non-human primates for use in research
and testing. RSPCA, Horsham, UK.
[ii] Soulsbury, C. D.; Iossa, G.; Kennell, S. & Harris, S. (2009). The welfare and suitability of primates kept as pets. Journal
of Animal Welfare Science 12:1-20; Hevesi R. (2005) Welfare and health implications for primates kept as pets. In,‘Born to be wild: Primates are not pets.’ Pp18-29. International Fund for Animal Welfare, UK
[iii]Eg: Prescott and Jennings (2004) Ethical and welfare implications of the acquisition and transport of non-human primates for use in research and testing. ATLA 32 supplement 1 323-327; Honess, Johnson and Wolfenson (2003) A study of behavioural responses of non-human primates to air transport and re-housing. Laboratory Animals 38, 119; Baskerville 1999 in Prescott, Mark J (2001) Counting the cost: Welfare implications of the acquisition and transport of non-human primates for use in research and testing. West Sussex. RSPCA.37
[iv] National Research Council (1998) The Psychological Well-Being of Nonhuman Primates. Washington DC. National Academy Press. p.101
[v] International Primatological Society Policy Statement
Opposition to the Use of Nonhuman Primates in the Media
WHEREAS live nonhuman primates are often portrayed in the media as frivolous caricatures of humans, dressed in clothing and trained to do tricks on command for the amusement of the general public but with disregard to the welfare and conservation consequences; and
WHEREAS many nonhuman primates used as actors in movies and television and as photo props for commercials and greeting cards are often removed from their mothers shortly after birth and are denied opportunities for normal social and psychological development; and
WHEREAS the use of nonhuman primates in this industry often involves aversive techniques to maintain control of these animals; and
WHEREAS the inappropriate portrayal of nonhuman primates inaccurately conveys their biology and conservation status and may affect public attitudes including those in range countries where interactions with these animals have potential damaging consequences; and
WHEREAS evidence suggests that many nonhuman primate species are susceptible to many of the pathogenic infections that afflict humans and the transmission of infection can occur in both directions, especially in performing circumstances in which primates are in direct proximity with public audiences including children and the elderly,
The International Primatological Society therefore opposes the use of nonhuman primates as performers, photo props or actors.