[drcharris]

From the article: "“The creative submitted to us is linked to another organisation who have not yet been able to demonstrate compliance in this area.”

It's a Greenpeace video with the logo taken off. So it's political.

It's not about the topic of palm oil - it's about how much an advert can take content directly from an organisation that is a political organisation. Without this, you open a massive backdoor into all TV advertising in the UK.

[black-tea]

Bullshit. Greenpeace has a political agenda, but without the Greenpeace logo it was merely calling for consumers to take ethics into account when choosing where to shop. It's not political just because a political organisation happens to support the same cause. Just about every other advert on TV is some company talking about their green credentials. That's not banned just because the Green Party would also agree with it.

[drcharris]

Again, it's not about the topic. It's not about who else supports it. It's not about the benefits of a product. It's not about Iceland's policy on palm oil, or the virtues thereof.

The problem is taking, wholesale, content from a political organisation and using it in a realm that has laws about political content.

Removing the logo is, if anything, worse - it hides the origin of the video and ads dishonesty to the mix.

If Iceland made their own video about the consequences of the palm oil industry and advertised it, I'd be interested to see if ClearCast approved it.