Sir; Your coverage of the ASA's adjudication on complaints about MLC's pigmeat advertising (The Grocer, February 17, p16) was direct but misinformed. The ASA considered seven complaints into a series of our advertisments; it dismissed five of them. MLC is appealing against one of the two remaining complaints which was upheld. Contrary to the impression given in your News Analysis, there is no minimal cost to the appeal (little more than the cost of a first class stamp); there is no hearing involving lawyers. In appealing we are seeking to correct various subjective inferences made within the adjudication concerning livestock production. It is not untypical for radical animal welfare groups to complain about our advertisments, and the complaint in question was made by such a group. Perhaps a more detailed examination by your reporter of the actual adjudication would have assisted journalistic objectivity? Then again, I suspect her source of information was primarily the press release issued by one of our competitor organisations, who proclaim further public coverage of the welfare issue is damaging, while at the same time trying to engineer such coverage. Richard Lowe Marketing director Meat and Livestock Commission {{LETTERS }}