A knee-jerk reaction?

It sounds to me like the animal rights groups are having a knee-jerk reaction. Their logic seems to be: in the past, some animals appearing in commercials have been abused; animals are appearing in this commercial; therefore animals are being abused. This logic is flawed. Any group adhering to this logic should be sent back to school.

Apart from that last sentence this is a sensible evaluation. The last comment has its comedical merits though. Personally, I just want the use of any actor to be transparent.

The groups protesting this advertisement have based their argument on sound fact.

To be used as perfomers, primates are often permanently removed from their mothers long before weaning age - which is not only acutely distressing to both mother and infant, but which is known to hinder normal brain development, and can result in psychological and physiological abnormalities and lasting behavioural difficulties. Performing primates can be subject to hours confined in traveling crates en route to and from the brightly lit and potentially frightening studio. A number of scientific papers indicate that transport is highly stressful to primates and should be avoided wherever possible. Nearly fifty percent of primate species are threatened with extinction in the wild. The use of primates as entertainers in film and television exacerbates public misconceptions about their being pliable, fun and pet-like, and often leads to an increased demand for pet monkeys, which negatively affects both the welfare of individual monkeys and conservation efforts in primate habitat areas. Respected professional societies such as the International Primatological Society oppose the use of primate "actors" in the media.

All of the above points, paired with the fact that it is totally unnecessary to indicate that it is inappropriate to use primates as actors as Costa Coffee has done. Where is the flaw in this reasoning?