SOURCE REDUCED
VIRNMENTALLY OTLY
?Eepto6ICy\L^ SAFf'BrPDEGRApABLE EARTH FRIENDLY EN_,
S'sij^GREtefpa^^EWp^^KiSUMER WASTE ENVIR;
^FRiiENp|^CN&|iURAL ^PNTO)
^RECYCL^ii: IMp^PSPHPRUS |
';!EARTH FRIENDLY ENERGY El
GY ERFJCIENT NO tT^PicAL%00;pS PESTICiPEFREE ORSANICj
^MENTALLY WAFEV REFILLABLE^ sbt/ReiflgpiJCED ^\ffl^MEWwua£ -,
t PZONES'AFE 'pHOTOpEGRAbABLE^ <^C^|g;Meb^Ri&|^r|RIAL,
N SAre^REENSt^^PEftCMPltoT^
Y FSlENDi:? 'NATURAL
JAL RECVctE0 - NOVPHPSPJ
ADABLf EWTH FRIENDLY ENERGY^
T-CONfeUtlpB WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL
_XIC CpSftPPST/HiLE DEGRADABLE OZONE!
PRUS PURE LAilDFILLi SAFE RECYCLABLE LESS PACKAGING; Rl
W EFFICIENT llP TROPICAL WPODS PESTJCIplE FREE PR§AN1C;PPLPH^ SAFE- GREEN;
IRPNMENTALL\?SAFE REFILL>BLF;VSPURCE; REDUCED: ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY
LE DEGRADABLE OZONE sXFE PHOTODEGRADABLE CFC FR^RECPVEREDi MATERIAL RECYCLED;:
;:NATURAL:,NONTp;
'FRIENDLY ENERG^FFICIE'NT NP'TRPPICAL WPODS PESTICIDE FREE ORGANIC pot
W.ASTC ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE REFILLABLE SOURCE REDUCED 'ENVIRONMENTAL!?
-DEGRADABLE OZONE SAFE PHOTODEGRADABLE CFC FREE RECPVERED MATERIAiy
REcyep\BLE LESS PACKAGING REFILLABLE ECOLOGICALLY SAFE.^tODEGR^»~
-WPbDS PEstlcipE FREE PRGANIC DP*HIN SAFE GREEN 1..QO PERCENT POST X
kvtriiftcFRFDucED»ENviRbNMENTALi/VIENDLY NATURAL NQNTOXJC COMPOS
/IRONMENTALLY SA
100 PERCENT PPSrrCPNSUMER,
l'-- NTOXlti COMPOSTABLE '
J- ^*URE LANDFILUiSAFE
riPMT^NO TBOPICAL ;
FE REFILLABLE
': COMPOffl^BLE D
^LANDFILL SAFE'-'
; _No TRPPICAL'WOOD
"SAFE REFILLABLE si
PHOTODEGRADABLE CFi
IIVVCKAGING BEFILLABLE
.
SAFE BIODEGRADABARTH FRMDLY ENERGY EFFICIENT
EN TOO PERCENT POST CcflSUMER WABTE ENVIRONMENTALLY
|BDLYSMATURAL NONTOXIC COMPOSTABLE DEGRADABLE OZONE SAFE
ffVCLEL NO PHOSPHORUS PURE LANDFILL SAFE RECYCLABLE LESS
;L: . pwlE EAftTH FRIENDLY ENERGY EFFICIENT NO TROPICALWPPDS PESTICIDE
PACKAGING REF.LLABLE^OGV«l AA C?»UM^A^^^MENTALLY SAFE REFiLLABLE^PURCESEDUCED
F^EPRGANIC PPLPHIN;SAFE GREENlyfpVEN^ST^
100 PERCENT POST CPNSUMER WASTE ENVIRPNMENT>
NATURAL NONTOXIC COMPOSTABLE DEGRADABLE OZO
SAFE PHOTODEGRADABLE CFC FREE; RECOVERED MATERIAL RECYCLED
sArk-ARirviP; REFILLABLE ECOLPGICALLY SAFE; BIPDEGRADABLE;EARTH
Printed on paper that contains'
at least 50% recsfded fiber
-------
-------
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING TERMS
IN THE UNITED STATES
February 5, 1993
Prepared for:
Eun-Sook Goidel
Pollution Prevention Division
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Prepared by:
Abt Associates
55 Wheeler Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
.Contract No, 68-D9-0169
-------
-------
PREFACE
Thh report summarizes-existing'research related to the use of environmental marketing claims
Tn he U S Tincludes chapters on consumer understanding, trends m_the use of claims and
xi n^and pUo^ed defmkions. It was written to provide comprehensive background research,
o a wide audience which includes marketers, policy makers, consumer protection offtaa and
the aeneral public. The report is not intended to. advocate particular actions or policy positions
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or any other group.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .
This report was prepared under the direction of Eun-Sook Qoidel, in. the Pollution Preven ion
Svis on of tie Of Je of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, under U.S. Environmental Protection
-D9-0169, Abt Associates' research staff included Andrew Stoeckie,
ftutos, Steve Hochman, Matt Wormser and Herbert Han-pu Wang,
The following individuals provided useful comments on previous drafts:
Carol Weisner, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste
Bill McLeod, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste
Lynda Wynn, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste
Sarah Carney, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste
Sharon Stahl US EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and. Toxics
Richard M. Kashmaman, U.S. EPA Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Amv Breedlove U.S. EPA Field Operations Division, Communications Branch
Carolyn Cox, Federal Trade Commission
Mary Koelbel Engle, Federal Trade Commission
Michelle Muth, Office of Consumer Affairs
Pat Faley, Office of Consumer Affairs
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. ISSUES IN ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING ..-...,,.... ........ J
1.1 BACKGROUND ......:.... ...... ,.......... ^
1.2 INTRODUCTION ...... ...... ........... ......... ~
' References ..... .......... ........ ........ ..,.....-
2. CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS . . . . . ...... 7
2 1 INTRODUCTION ......... .......... : . . . - .
'22. CONSUMER AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF
' ' ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING TERMS .... ....... LL^"-" '
2.3 CONSUMER CONFIDENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING ^
. CLAIMS ............. ........ - '. '' ..... ; "
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PURCHASING HABITS ..... . ...... ..... «
' : 2.5 SUMMARY . . . . . . ..... '. ..... ...:...... ...: '- ^
References ....[. . ..... - ;
3. INVENTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL LABELING AND MARKETING ^
TERMS ........ ....... .......... ..... ...... ............
3. 1 INTRODUCTION . . ..... _..-.-.......- ..... ..... .........
3.2 METHODOLOGY . . . ..... .......... ....... ..... ^
3.3 RESULTS . ....,.....- ......... ' ..... ...... ^
3.4 SUMMARY . ..... ......'..- .'-.. ..... ;, ..... ...... ; ' '' ' ' 67
References ....... ............ ..... ....... .^ ..... .
4. DKCONTlNUATION.ORAVQroANCEOt"ENVTONMENtALCI^^ 69
42 VOLUNTARY REMOVAL' OF ENVIRONMENTAL ^ LABELS^ .^ ..., 71
4.3 COMPANIES CHOOSING NOT TO MAKE ENVIRONMENTAL
4.4 coMS 'WITHDRAWN' ' OR MODIFIED AFTER LEGAL ^
CHALLENGE .... ....... ......... ..... ....... 96
4.5 SUMMARY ...:..:.. _ "' : '/ ' : ' 9g
References ....... ........ ......- ..... ...,,..,.
-------
5. REGULATING ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING TERMS . ..... ..... 101
5.1 INTRODUCTION . . . .. ............. ...... ....... , l°i
5.2 DEFINITIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING TERMS .... i!3
Contacts ................... ...... ....... ..... HA
References ........... ........................ ... 146
Appendix 1. Category Classifications from Productscan Search . . ........... . 157-
Appendix 2. List of Proposed Definitions for Environmental Marketing Terms ..... 159
Appendix 3. List of Individuals or Organizations Proposing Definitions for
Environmental. Marketing Terms . . .; ...................... * ' ' '
Appendix 4: Federal Trade Commission Environmental Marketing Guidelines ..... 1 81
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since 1989 environmental marketing has emerged as an important issue for consumers .
marketeer regulators and policy makers. Many American consumers, not only the mos
SJo^nSu lonsdous; "have sought to lessen the environmen^l ^pacts^persona
ourchasing decisions by buying and using products perceived to be less, harmful to the
environmfnt Marketers have responded'to consumer demand by increasing both environmental .
marketing claims and new or redesigned "green" consumer products. Policy makers have seen.
environmental marketing as a means to promote environmental policy goals through, market-
based incentives.
The rise of environmental marketing has occurred in the absence of standardized guidance
or regulation of environmental marketing terms at the federal level. . Since the beginning 9*.
199* manufacturers, 'environmental groups, and consumer protection groups have called fo the
estabiishment of national consensus definitions for environmental marketing terms and guidelines
for their use Most actions regulating environmental marketing at the federal, .state and locai
[eveftave beJTconcerned with issues of truth-in-advertising and consumer fraud. However -
on July 28 1992 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued voluntary guidelines on .
environmental marketing. In addition to providing general pnnciplesl*0^'"*^
environmentally-related'claims, specific guidance^ provided for eight terms, general
environmental benefits, degradable/biodegradable/photodegradable, c°7P^le\^CF^?;
recycled content source reduction, refillable, and ozone safe/ozone friendly. ThesM.L,s
ihL±«s
products marketplace where, m addition to environmental marketing initiatives, activities ranging
from product advertising to currency fluctuations affect product performance. .
There are three possible effects of the guidelines:
Introduction of new -products into the marketplace, or an increase, in new claims for
existing products, which meet the FTC guidelines. ^
Withdrawal of erroneous claims that could not satisfy FTC guidance.
.'--. Increased use of (trivial) claims that may meet FTC's specific definitions but not the '
general principles contained in the guidance.
the FTC issued guidetoes «,o protect consumers ^»J^^££jfiS£
i ortiffor»tiif^t^J* llTlCfirtflifltV )
environmental claims, and to reduce manuiaciureia ^ 3 harmful to the
improved and sustained consumer confidence, consumers are less uxeiy v
-------
environmentally-oriented products. In addition, in the absence of federal definitions and
guidelines, several public, private, and independent groups had developed their own definitions.
some of which are legally binding within certain jurisdictions. Marketers, therefore, faced a
patchwork and sometimes costly marketplace where, they argued, relabeling, legal actions, and
negative publicity can create additional costs and cause market share shifts. Furthermore, they
staled that such uncertainty may have deterred some from making valid environmental claims
altogether. With the FTC guidelines. in place, as many marketers requested, the playing field
for nationwide marketers has been leveled; that is, it is less variable from state to state. If the
FTC actions provide adequate guidance and protection for both marketers and consumers, then
the opportunity for society to realize the benefits associated with environmentally preferable
products. ' '
This study is a comprehensive examination of the use of environmental marketing terms
in the United States as of mid-1992. Topics discussed in the report include: (a) issues involved
in the use of environmental marketing terms; (b) consumer understanding of these terms: (c):
trends in the use of environmental terms in consumer product labeling and advertising; (d) cases
where environmental marketing claims have been avoided or discontinued; and (e) proposed and
existing definitions of environmental marketing terms.
This report was prepared in response to a call for federal action by: many groups involved
in environmental marketing, and is designed to serve two main purposes. For state and federal
policy makers seeking to promulgate guidelines or regulations governing environmental
marketing terms, it provides an analytical foundation on which to base policy decisions. For
those generally interested in environmental marketing, it serves as a comprehensive source of
information about the major issues involved. It does not advocate a particular position or course
of action. Many of the trends discussed in this report can serve as a baseline against which
comparisons can 'be made in the future. Much of the research was completed prior to the
Federal Trade Commission's issuance of guidelines for environmental marketing. Consequently,
while the guidelines are included in this report, no data yet exist with which to measure their
effects on the marketplace.
Environmental Marketing Issues1
Environmental marketing differs from other forms of-advertising in two important ways.
First consumers who' buy goods perceived to be less environmentally harmful base their
purchasing decisions not only on inherent product characteristics (such as pnce and apparent
quality) but also because they feel that they are "doing good," either by minimizing their own
environmental impacts or by promoting environmentally beneficial activities (e.g., closing the
recycling loop by buying products with substantial recycled content). Second, environmental
marketing provides incentives for manufacturers to make significant environmental improvements
1 The term environmental marketing is used in this paper to mean the voluntary use of environmental claims by
marketers. In this context, it does not include third-party certification programs or mandatory negat.ve labebng, such
as health hazard warning labels. ,
11
-------
bv orovidin* a competitive advantage to reduce environmental impacts 01=product manufacture.
use reuse =and eventual disposal. However, the rapid rise, in the use of poorly-defined or
ambiguous terms used in environmental marketing Ms created several marketplace disruptions.
These disruptions include consumer -confusion, legal and other actions against marketers for
deceptive advertisine and attempts by several private organizations and government agencies
fo create standardized definitions and guidelines for the use of the terms that conflict with the
FTC guidelines. ... - : -. . ' ..
Several factors common to environmental attributes exacerbate the confusion over these
marketing terms Environmental claims, such as ozone-friendly or source-reduced, pertain to
characteristics'of. a product with which a consumer generally has little or no experience-or
comparative, information. Consumers, therefore, cannot evaluate the credibility-or value of such
claims ' In addition, environmental labels often pertain to circumstances over which a marketer
has little or no control. For example, the readability of a package is thought by many to be .
-dependent upon the availability of the appropriate recycling infrastructute By promoting a
product as recyclable, marketers are making a claim over which they have little or no control
because--.they do not provide consumer access to the appropriate recycling infrastructure..
Finally many terms used in environmental labeling are not part: of everyday language and are
often poorly understood. A lack of common understanding of terms has led to the misperception
that environmental claims imply that a product is "goodfor the environment," even though
virtually all consumer products are associated with some adverse environmental impacts. Often
poSng a'limited understanding of the scientific and policy issues and vocabulary involved
consumers are exceptionally powerless when evaluating environmental claims and are arguably
most in need of nationwide, uniform guidance..
Because environmental marketing relates to, and benefits from, consumers' desire to
minimize their impacts on the environment, environmental advertising claims must be more than
- SnTy truthful in the information they relate. To serve as a policy tool the claims themselves
2 idtect real environmental benefits or policy goals recognized by scientists, policy makers
manufacturers, and society. While regulation of environmental marketing terms alone may not
^aseThe purchase of green products, well-conceived definitions and guidance could .ensure
Se e^iroLental mating claims made that influence consumer purchasing decisions are
truthful, standardized across products, and non-trivial.
Consumer Understanding and Response
After more than two years of heavy exposure to environmental marketing, recent surveys
indicate^ Zerican consumers are somewhat skeptical and would support governmental
f environmental advertising, but are still generally believing of and responding to
marketing claims. However, studies also show that (a) many consumers do no
specific environmental labeling terms with which they are confronted, and (b)
r?Sen do not act on their own assertion that they would preferentially purchase
products that are less damaging to the environment.
ui
-------
Surveys examining .consumer awareness and understanding of environmental marketing
terms indicate that comprehension varies among terms and for the most part is quite low. The
terms most commonly used by marketers, such as recycled and biodegradable, were also the
most widely understood by survey respondents.' This suggests that consumers have the capacity
to leam about the importance of product attributes if exposed to such information (labeling
information in conjunction with other'educational efforts) over time. ,
Evidence exists that a significant number of consumers are skeptical or unsure about the
veracity of environmental marketing claims. Although they indicate a willingness to selectively
purchase or to pay more for products with real environmental benefits, many consumers do not
believe that marketers' environmental marketing claims can be trusted. ,What consumers appear
to be lacking-is both an adequate understanding of the meanings of environmental, claims, and
a means of assessing their veracity and significance. Consumer skepticism might be lessened
by a credible source of standardized definitions for environmental terms that consumers knew .
to be true and non-trivial. , '
Through their purchasing decisions, consumers give producers marketplace feedback
about their personal environmental concerns, thereby creating incentives to make real
environmental improvements. Consumer perception and their resulting demand helps to drive
the development and improvement of a product's environmental attributes. By providing a
common language of terms, highly specific federal guidelines would (a) allow consumers to
understand what products offer them, and to provide informed feedback (through their
purchasing decisions) to producers; and (b) allow marketers to advertise environmental qualities
in ways that are clear to consumers, consumer advocates, and regulators.
Certain, other nationwide actions, such as consistent review of claims, enforcement
actions-where warranted, development of a third-party eco-labeling program; negative labeling
of products with hazardous constituents, or other forms of extensive consumer education, have
been suggested by some as potential ways to increase consumer awareness of the environmental
consequences of their purchasing decisions.
Use of Environmental Marketing Terms
Judging by advertising and trade press coverage, environmental marketing appears to be
an* important trend to marketers. However, there have been few studies to quantify
environmental marketing activity. One measure of activity in this field is the number and type
of environmental claims being made for non-durable consumer packaged goods. Research using
a database of new grocery store product introductions indicates that the use of environmental
marketing claims has indeed increased rapidly in recent years. In 1989, 5.9 percent of new
products had environmental claims. This increased to 10.1 percent in 1990 and 12.3 percent in
1991. The Firs.t six months of 1992 has shown a slight decline in most types of claims, falling
to 11.4 percent of new product introductions. .
IV
-------
' ' Toxicity-reiated claims, (i.e.. no synthetic chemicals used in production, or as an
in-redient) -'typically for food'or laundry .produces.- account for the greatest number ot ,
claims 'and have steadily- increased in the last three and a half-years. Solid waste claims, such
as recycled and recyclable, degradable, and source reduced, peaked in 1991 and have fallen in
the first half of 1992. primarily due to declines in recycling claims. The study also quantities
claims, relating to pollution, wildlife conservation, stratospheric ozone depletion, and energy
efficiency. ' , ' ' , ..'
Anecdotal evidence indicates that a slight decline in new environmental, marketing claims
' in early 1992 may be due to the chaotic nature of regulations affecting environmental marketing.
Marketers have been quoted as saying that the growing "hodge-podge" of state regulations and
varying definitions are increasingly difficult and expensive to comply with, and are discouraging
them from making any environmental marketing claims. Also, although consumers have
consistently expressed their interest in environmental issues, some marketers are not convinced
of consumers' willingness to buy environmentally-oriented products. Market analysts cite the
recent decline in sales of specific environmentally-oriented products as evidence of wanmg
'consumer interest, 'although this trend may be a reflection of an.,economic recession and/or
consumer confusion over claims, rather than a lack of interest on the part of consumers. No
other evidence could be found to substantiate anecdotal reports of. declining performance ot
environmentally-oriented products. Some marketers have predicted that the issuance of FTC
guidelines will "jump-start" environmental marketing activity.
Avoidance or Discontinuation of Environmental Marketing Claims
Clearly there is a gap between the perception of marketers making environmental claims
for their products and the understanding of consumers. Although marketers may consider their
claims to be truthful and accurate, consumers frequently infer additional meaning from
environmental claims based on their individual understanding of environmental issues.
Environmental marketing claims often contain inherent ambiguities that make truth-in-advertising
issues less clear-cut than in other forms of marketing. Because the implication "better for the
environment" underlies virtually all environmental marketing claims, even factually correct
"claims may be seen as misleading consumers who do not understand their implications or
. context. ' / ,
Policing of environmental marketing claims has resulted in a total of almost.50 cases
against marketers since 1990 by the Federal Trade Commission, state Attorneys Genera , the
New York Department of Consumer Affairs, and the-Better Business Bureau s National
Advertising Division. Each of these regulatory bodies differ in their interpretations of wha
constitutes misleading environmental advertising, The Better Business Bureau s National
Advertising Division and the Federal Trade Commission have focused on conspicuously fcdse
or unsubstantiated claims. The Attorneys General Task Force, m addition to challenging false
or .trivial claims, have concentrated on context-specific terms, such as biodegradable,
compostable, and recyclable. The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs has taken
-------
the strictest interpretation of false advertising law, arguing that even factually correct
environmental claims are deceptive if they contain insufficient information.
There is evidence that increasing numbers of marketers are dropping or not making
environmental claims due to the lack of consensus as to which environmental terms can be
legitimately used for their products. As might be expected, some marketers are dropping claims
o\&er which other companies have been sued. Others are wary of making new environmental
marketing claims when they have been challenged on previous ones.
For the most part, the increased hesitancy of marketers in making environmental claims
has been a positive consequence of the policing actions taken by consumer protection agencies
and the FTC. Most of'the claims that have been discontinued have been those that consumer
advocates consider to be deceptive in some way. However, in those cases where legitimate.
truthful claims are avoided due to regulatory uncertainty, consumers lose information that could
influence their purchasing decisions, and marketers lose the marketplace benefits of making
environmental improvements. Faced'with multiple (and changing) definitions for each term and
the increasing scrutiny of claims, several major consumer product companies recently stated that
they will stop making environmental claims altogether. Some of the same marketers state that
they will continue to make environmental improvements to their products; however, these efforts
may wane without marketplace rewards for doing so.
Early reactions to the FTC guidelines by marketers have been optimistic, with a few
qualifications. Because FTC guidelines do not preempt state and local regulations, the
"patchwork" of state and local regulations is still in effect, unless thpse agencies repeal their
laws in deference to the FTC guides. Paul Petruccelli, senior counsel for Kraft General Foods,
expressed his concern to Advertising Age about states proceeding with their own regulations,
"While I don't think states are going to recede, I do hope they will look to the FTC guidelines
for their own actions and defer to them." California Assemblyman Byron Sher, author of the
California law on environmental marketing claims, was quoted as saying that when the FTC
comes up with national standardized definitions, "we1!! defer to them."
Regulating Environmental Marketing Terms
Prior to the FTC guidelines, many state governments and private organizations responded
to uncertainty in the marketplace and to the lack of clear, .uniform guidance by developing their
own definitions and guidelines for environmental advertising. To date, all the proposals seeking
' to define or regulate environmental marketing claims contain the assumption that the use or
environmental claims by marketers is voluntary. Marketers choosing not to make environmental
claims would not be affected by the standards or guidelines; only those marketers that use
environmental claims would be encouraged or required to follow national guidelines or
regulations. This differs from mandatory negative labeling (e.g., health «*vuonM_ on
cigarettes), where marketers do not have the choice of whether or not to use the label. While
California and Vermont Have mandatory negative environmental labeling programs, and EPA
has proposed a warning label for products made with or containing ozone-depleting substances.
VI
-------
all the proposals'discussed in this paper involve voluntary labeling of positive environmental
attributes by marketers. ''"' '"' ' .>%;- . ,. . . -; ..
' State actions pertaining to environmental marketing have focused mainly on three areas:
measures that prohibit unfair and deceptive advertising of environmental claims, legislation.that
restricts advertising of the recyclability of plastics, and measures that permit the establishment
of environmental logo programs. . Consumer and environmental groups have focused both on
truth-in-advertising issues and the establishment of specific standards for the use of certain
terms. For the most part, they have rallied behind the recommendations outlined in the Green
Report //.issued by a task force of state Attorneys General". Industry groups have focused
mainly on guidelines for truth-in-adyertising, and-have been strong in their support of the
National Food Processors Association petition to the FTC. Minnesota Attorney General Hubert
Humphrey m, leader of the state Attorneys General task force, called the FTC guidelines "kind
of a.victory.'. I see a lot of familiar.language in there."
While the various proposals differ in their specifics, there has been near-universal;
consensus that the status quo was unworkable and that there was a need for definitive federal
«' guidelines governing the use of environmental terms in advertising. The consensus, among state
agencies, consumer advocates, and industry representatives has been that vague, general terms
should be either avoided;, qualified,, or banned, because they cannot be substantiated
scientifically. Unless all terms used in environmental labeling have inherent, understandable
meanings, even those that are well-defined will be potentially misleading. Beyond these basic
agreements, however, there has been a major division of opinion as to what purpose national
guidelines should serve and how specific they should be.
A central argument in this debate is whether or not to go beyond truth-in-advertising
guidelines to use environmental labeling as an environmental policy tool. Proponents of
voluntary guidelines argue that national guidelines coupled-with industry self-regulation are
sufficient to allow manufacturers to benefit from their actions without confusing, or misleading
consumers. Advocates of stronger governmental involvement argue that environmental labels
inherently impact environmental policy by affecting consumer purchasing decisions, and should
therefore be allowed only pa products that damage the environment to a lesser degree.
To further public policy discussions regarding the role of environmental marketing in the
US the Environmental Protection Agency, along with others interested environmental
marketing, will continue to investigate developments that affect both the U.S. marketplace and
environmental quality. One example of such research might be a retrospective analysis of how
the FTC guidelines affect the use of environmental marketing terms. Other relevant
developments include changes in general economic conditions and the impact of third party
labeling programs, both domestic and foreign. This report provides a comprehensive summary
of the use of environmental marketing terms in the U.S. prior to July 1992 when the FTC
guidelines were issued. As such, it can be used as a baseline of information for public and
private policy makers to use in pursuing environmental quality improvements through
marketplace mechanisms.
vu
-------
-------
1. ISSUES IN ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING
1.1 BACKGROUND
The latter-half of the 1980s saw steadily increasing, news coverage of environmental
stories. Global issues such as acid rain, global climate change, and stratospheric ozone
depletion, national news stories, such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the odyssey of the Islip
(NY) garbage barge that could not offload, and local stories have increased public awareness and
concern about environmental issues facing the United States. One consequence of such increased
public concern has been a, consumer effort to lessen the environmental impacts of personal
purchasing decisions by buying and using products perceived, to be less environmentally harmful.
Manufacturers and marketers2 have responded to consumer demand by (a) labeling
particular products and packaging .with environmental attributes, (b) advertising such
environmental attributes, (c) introducing new products, and (d) redesigning existing products and
packaging.3 According to research undertaken for the present study, the percentage of new
products marketed in the United States whose packages, labels or. advertising contained
environmental claims increased from 5.9 percent in 1989 to 11.4 percent in the first half of
1992.4 A previous U.S. EPA study also indicates that, through late 1990, the sales performance
of such environmentally-oriented products was improving dramatically. (3)
Since the beginning of 1991 there have been a number of calls for federal-level action
to ensure that environmental marketing results in real environmental benefits. The Federal
Trade Commission responded in July of 1992 to petitions from manufacturers, environmental
groups, and consumer protection groups by establishing national guidelines for environmental
marketing terms. (1) The guidelines, while they are not legally binding regulations, "provide
guidance to .marketers in conforming with legal requirements." (2) They do not preempt any
other regulations on environmental marketing, but it is hoped that state and local jurisdictions
will follow the lead set by these first comprehensive federal guidelines.
Ideally, environmental marketing can be used to further environmental policy goals by
encouraging consumers to buy and use less harmful products. For environmental marketing to
be used as a policy tool, however, the claims (a) must be truthful, and (b) must reflect the
environmental policy goals currently being promoted by environmental scientists, policy makers,
and other knowledgeable members of society. Regulation of environmental marketing terms
: For the purposes of this report, the term "marketers" refers to those responsible for product distribution,
advertising, and sales. The term "manufacturers" refers to-those reponsibie'for the production and packaging of a
product. They may in fact.be the same company. ,
' 3 Use of the 'term "product" in this report will refer to both the product and the package unless otherwise specified.
4. Marketing Intelligence Service, Ltd., maintains a database of new product introductions for domestic packaged
goods markets. For a further description see Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1.
1
-------
, alone may or mav not increase the purchase of green products. However, well-conceived
regulations could'ensure that those environmental marketing claims that are made and do
influence consumer purchasing decisions are truthful, standardized across products, and non-
trivial.
This report examines the issues surrounding environmental marketing in the Unitecj
States- It reviews consumer understanding of environmental marketing terms, their use and
trends' instances where claims were discontinued, and catalogs various groups' definitions and
guidance for the use of the terms. The Agency expects that this report will be used by others
as a comprehensive summary of existing research. The Agency does does not advocate any
particular federal action to clarify environmental claims.
1.2 INTRODUCTION
Environmental marketing differs from other forms of advertising in two important ways.
Consumers are buying goods perceived to be less environmentally harmful basing their
purchasing decisions both on inherent product characteristics (such as price and quality), and
because they feel that they are "doing good," either by minimizing their own environmental
impacts or by promoting environmentally beneficial activities (e.g., closing the recycling loop
by purchasing products with substantial recycled content). In addition, environmental marketing
provides incentives for manufacturers to achieve significant environmental improvements, such
as toxics use reduction and recycling, by competing on the basis of environmental impacts of
product manufacture, use, reuse, and eventual disposal.
Several factors common to environmental attributes exacerbate the confusion over these
marketing terms. 'Advertising claims covering easily-discernible attributes of a product, such
as soft or tasty, are readily evaluated by a consumer, who can judge the validity of claims using
his or her own experience. Conversely, environmental claims, such as ozone-friendly v source-
reduced, pertain to characteristics of a product with which a consumer generally has httle or no
experiencror comparative information, and who therefore cannot evaluate the credibility or
value of the claim. Even if a consumer understands the meaning of a term, such as
biodegradable, he or she may not be able to evaluate whether the characteristic is necessarily
a beneficial attribute in the context of their own personal environmental priorities; or tee of
society. In addition-, some general environmental marketing claims, such as f^**f& °r
safe for the environment are virtually unsubstantiable, and wide consensus exists that they are
inherently deceptive and should not be used to promote products.
. Environmental labels pertain to more than just the inherent qualities of the product being
promoted; they also reflect the context in which a product is sold and used. One J^ely used
context-s^ific term is the word recyclable. For a material to be -recycled the ^micture
to collect ihe material and the technology to recycle it must exist, and such an infrastructure
musSsSl by consumers. By promoting a product as recyMIe, marketers make claims over
which they have little or no control, because they do not control a consumer'saccess to the
appropriate recycling infrastructure. Nor do they control a consumer s interest in using
-------
recvciin- opportunities. For this reason, ''several critics have suggested providing very specific
guidelines for. or banning the- use of. context-dependent terms such as recyclable, degradable.
and cpmpostable. ' .' ' . . .
' ' Finally many terms used in environmental labeling, such as photodegradable, are riot
normally used by consumers and are often poorly understood. .Some terms used in
environmental statutes, such as home scrap, are defined differently by regulators and in their
common usage, and are thought to be unsuitable for use in advertising. A lack of standardized
definitions and use has lead to the perception of environmental claims as being equivalent to
"good for the environment," even though virtually all consumer products are associated with
some adverse environmental impacts. Consumers who possess a limited understanding ot the
scientific and policy issues and vocabulary involved are exceptionally powerless when evaluating
environmental claims and are arguably most in need of nation-wide, uniform guidance. Since
environmental marketing relates to, and benefits from, consumers' desire to improve_society and
their impacts on the environment, then, as the Environmental Action Foundation argues,
environmental advertising claims must not only-be truthful in the information they relate to be
of value, but the claims themselves must reflect real environmental benefits or policy .goals.
recognized by scientists, policy makers, and society.
The environmental marketing claims currently used to describe products and packaging ;
range from vague, general terms such as earth-friendly, or natural, to more specific claims,such
as contains no chlorofluorocarbons, or made with x percent postconsumer recycled materials.
Despite the growing confusion over the use of such terms, the use of environmental marketing
ciSm grewgat an impressive rate between 1989 .and 1992 and has only recently begun to level
off The total number of products with environmental claims increased from 5.9 percent of new
product introductLs^ to 10.5 percent to 12.3. percent between 1989 and 1991 dechnmg sightly
to 11 4 percent in the first half of 1992. In general, environmental marketing claims for all
types of products increased throughout this period, with environmental claims made for health
S beauty aids and laundry and cleaning products increasing threefold in the three and a half
year span. ,
A conspicuous gap exists between the perception of marketers making environmental
claims for the* products and consumer understanding. In addition, a number of regulatory
agenTclfhave stewed in to provide a myriad of guidelines for use of such ,f^J*f
-------
Several have decided not to advertise real environmental improvements in their processes or
products preferring to wait for a safer regulatory arena. Chapter 4 discusses cases in which
marketers have removed or avoided environmental labels on their products.
In the first section of Chapter 5 the various U.S. programs that have .developed
definitions and/or guidance for use of environmental marketing terms are reviewed. The most
significant difference among these programs is, the distinction between guidelines promoting
tru'th-in-advertismg and those using environmental labeling as a means to achieve environmental
policy ooals Proponents feel that environmental marketing guidance incorporating sound
science analysis, and reflecting the- national environmental agenda, would reward
manufacturers for reducing the environmental burden of the manufacture use and reuse and
disposal of their products. These definitions axe summarized and discussed in Section 5.2 and
are presented in detail in Appendix 2.
-------
References . ' . :;. V .
1. Cosmetic Toiletry, and Frangrance Association and National Nonprescription Drug
Manufacturers Association (1991). Petition to the Federal Trade Commission. April 12;
' and National Food Processors Assocation (1991). Federal Trade Commission Hearings
: on Environmental.Marketing Issues. Presented July 17, Washington, DC. .
2. .' Federal Trade Commission (1992). FTC Environmental Marketing Guidelines, July 28.
3' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OPPE (1991). Assessing the Environmental
Consumer Market, prepared by Abt Associates Inc., #2IP-1003, April 1.
-------
-------
2. CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS
2.1 INTRODUCTION ,
American consumers are increasingly concerned about environmental issues. As
indicated in a recent survey performed by the Roper Organization, public concern about the
environment has grown faster over the last several years than concern about any other national
issue 6 (21) Marketers have responded to this increased awareness'and concern by dramatically
enlarging the number of environmental claims placed on consumer product labels between 1,989
and early 1992 (see discussion in Chapter 3). . /
A recent Advertising Age survey paints^ a picture of somewhat skeptical consumers who
want government to regulate environmental advertising, but who still generally believe in and.
respond to marketing claims. Of the 1,004 U.S. adults surveyed, 52 percent paid less attention
to environmental claims, citing the profusion of new claims being made as the reason. Eighty
percent felt that the state or federal government should regulate environmental marketing claims
as opposed to Industry self-regulation. -(4) However,, the majority of respondents (77.percent)
felt that environmental advertising claims are very or somewhat believable, 73 percent said that
environmental marketing claims sometimes or very often influenced their purchasing decisions,
and 60 percent said they were more likely to buy a product because of its environmental claims
today than they were three years ago. (4)
However studies also show that (a) many consumers do not understand the specific
environmental labeling terms they encounter, and (b) consumers often do not follow-through on
their own assertion thatthey would preferentially purchase products that are less damaging to
the environment. (1,5,14) When asked if they would be willing to pay a price premium to buy
products with environmental attributes, consumers typically answered yes. Far fewer respond
affirmatively when asked whether they consciously have purchased (at a price premium or
otherwise) environmentally preferable products. (1,20)
The discrepancy between consumer attitudes and behavior has several possible
explanations. Although the majority of consumers voice strong support for environmenta
preservation, studies have indicated that the immediate issues of short-term economics (price)
tend to override environmental concerns when consumers are faced with actual - purchasing
decisions (6) Second, the recent and rapid proliferation of environmental marketing terms
combined with the lack of standardized definitions, may be exacerbating consumer confusion and
skepticism. Finally, consumers may want to dp the right thing, but many do not feel that they
can trust the sincerity of the environmental claims that companies are making. (9) In the Lrreen
This trend did not hold true among Americans in 1991, when concerns about the ^slonT^
overshadowed those about the environment (Leo Burnett Worldwide, Inc. Press Reiease 1992). The^omore
recent surveys indicate, however, that public support for environmental concerns » contmumg to grow (Advemsmg Age,
June 29, 1992,, p. S-2).
-------
Rtwrt of \WQ the Task Force of State Attorneys General expressed fear that 'if consumers
be»an to feel that their genuine interest in the environment was being exploded, consumers
vvJuld no longer seek oufor demand products that are less damaging to the environment. If this
[occurs], the environmental improvements that could be achieved by consumers purchasing more
environmentally benign products would be lost." (3)
'This chapter focuses on consumer perception and understanding of environmental
marketine terms and the effect that environmental marketing claims have on consumer attitudes
and buying habits. Environmental marketing claims must be both technically accurate and
understandable and credible to be meaningful to consumers. Any action aimed at decreasing
current marketplace confusion must therefore take consumer understanding of environmental
marketing terms into account. Three related topics are addressed in the following sections:
Consumer awareness and understanding of environmental marketing terms;
Consumer confidence in environmental marketing claims; and
Environmental purchasing habits.
2.2 CONSUMER AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MARKETING TERMS
Consumer awareness of broad environmental issues does not always coincide with their
understanding of specific environmental marketing terms. Although generally concerned about
the state of the environment, consumers often are unable to define commonly used environmental
marketing terms or phrases correctly. In addition, their level of understanding of different
environmental terms varies widely. The- following section briefly addresses the results of
research on the general environmental attitudes of separate demographic segments. .
2.2.1 Consumer Segmentation
Consumer studies generally categorize survey respondents according to the way they
answer questions about environmental issues. Recent research supports the correlation between
wealth, education, and a stronger awareness and comprehension of environmental labeling
terminology. In particular, two surveys indicated that respondents with different educational and
nme proves tended to have very different levels of understanding of and reaction to,
, environmental marketing terms. Table 2.1 summarizes consumer segment definitions according
to different levels of environmental awareness and activity.
According to some surveys, however, the correlation that exists between demographics
and environmental awareness does not extend to consumers' buying habits. One editorial states
"Despite the many attempts to categorize green consumers, there continues to be much"odtaon
about precisely who they are, what they are doing (or not doing) and why " (12) Nonetotoss,
. 4 of the 5 suweys characterized approximately 20 percent of the POP^ion as being highly
concerned" about the environment, and all of the surveys characterized between 4 and 30 percent
-------
as "not concerned." Market surveys performed by retailers such/as Seventh Generation and
Earth Care paper products support these ratios. They'reveal that a small percentage, ot the US.
market consists of a sroup of committed consumers who actively seek out less environmenta ly-
harmful products, while most consumers buy green products only when the pnce and the quality
are roughly equivalent to those of the conventional products. (19) .
2.2.2 Consumer Understanding of Environmental Marketing Terms
. Publicly available information about consumer understanding of and response to specific
-areen labeling terms is scarce. The summary results of survey data on consumer attitudes
regarding environmental issues are often reported in marketing and advertising publications, but
the detailed survey results are almost exclusively proprietary.. In addition, the surveys that are
publicly, available tend to focus more on consumer perception of global environmental issues and
company environmental reputations,., and less on consumer understanding, of mdiyidua labeling
terms and consumer buying habits with respect to specific environmental .marketing claims.
'' Three known sources of survey research have recently addressed consumer compre-
hension of commonly used environmental marketing terms. Environmental Research^ Associate?,
Inc (ERA) follows the changing levels of consumer response to five common,environmental.
marketing terms in its Environmental Report. On a quarterly basis, ERA generates the Report
to the Council on Plastics and Packaging in the Environment (COPPER Second, ^nda ^
of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign surveyed Illinois residents in 1990-1991 to
determine the level of consumer comprehension of environmental marketing terminology. A
thtdTdy was performed by the Gallup organization on behalf of Dow Chemical Company.
Collectively, these studies focused on seven categories of environmental terms:
Degradable/Biodegradable -
Compostable .
Recyclable "
Recycled - ', .'.
Ozone Friendly/No CFCs .
Environmentally Friendly/Environmentally Safe
Source Reduction7
by Cud. o,
-------
Table 2.1. Environmental Consumer Segmentation
Survey
Organization
Environmental
Research Associates
Green Market Alert
JWT
Greenwatch (J.
Walter
Thompson)
Kaagan Research
The Roper Organiza-
tion
Degree of Awareness and Activity
Highest
Very Concerned
<59%)a
Visionary Greens:
committed greens
(5-15%)
Greene r-than-
Greens: make
many sacrifices for
the environment
'(24%)
Young White
Collar: most
environmentally
conscious, affinity
for environmental
groups, at odds
with corporate
America (22%)
.
True-Blue Greens
and Greenback
Greens: earn
more, have more
education, politi-
cally liberal, and
tend to be female
f99%1
Strong
Somewhat Con-
cerned (37%.")
Moderate
Not Very Con-;
cemed (3%)
Maybe-Greens: swing group (55-80%)
Greens: concerned
about the environ-
ment but make
only some
sacrifices (59%)
Substantial Means:
strong believers in
(and practitioners
of) individual
environmental
responsibility,
more vocal on ab-
stract and global
environmental
debates (15%)
Sprouts: well-
educated, wealthy,
"swing" group
(26%)
^ ' 1
Light Greens:
concerned but not
willing to make
any personal sac-
rifices (15%)
Older White Col-
lar: Self-satisfied
with personal
environmental
efforts and optit
mistic about the
future (14%) Blue
Collar: Lack the
belief that individ-
ual effort can make
a difference,
believe that indus-
try and
government will
pick up the slack
, (24%)
Grousers: high
school education- or
less, income below
$25,000,
rationalized indif-
ference (24%)
Not Active
Not at All
Concerned (1%)
-lard-Core
Browns: adamant
non-
environmentalists
(15-30%)
Ungreens: don't
care about the
environment (3^>
Limited Means:
Lacking the
educational
background to
grasp the
complexity of
some environmen-
tal issues, or the
incomes to make
discretionary pro-
environmental
purchases;
environmentalism
not a 'high priority
(18%)
Basic Browns:
most socially and
economically
. disadvantaged,
' virtual absence of
environmental
consciousness or
activity (28%)
" Percentage of survey'sample.
10
-------
"" The surveys indicate that comprehension, although generally quite low. varied among
terms -Recycled'zcul biodegradable, the'terms most commonly used by marketers, were also
the most widely understood by survey .'respondents.. The correlation between, frequency of use
and consumer understanding suggests that consumers may be more knowledgeable about product
attributes and their importance if exposed to this information over time. The results of each
survey are discussed in detail below. .,. " ' ,
Environmental Report
The Fall 1990 issue of th&,Environmental Report is based on telephone interviews with
1..000 adults age 18 and over who w.ere randomly selected from all 50 states. ERA conducted
the interviews, averaging 27 minutes in length, between October 14 and November 1. 1990, (9)
Interviewers asked respondents to define five environmental terms commonly .used in the
media on packaging, or in advertising: recyclable, biodegradable, environmentally friendly,.
source reduction, and green labeling. Those claiming to know one or more terms were then
required to accurately define the term before they were officially recorded as-understanding, the
phrase.8. (9) , ' ;' ... ; ''._ ' .
- - , - ,'..'* 4 . . ' -
- While most knew the'general meaning of the tern recyclable, .fewer adults could
correctly (i.e., within ERA'S parameters) define other phrases (See Figure 2.1):
32 percent did not know what biodegradable meant. ' .
Fewer than half could give a definition for the terms environmentally friendly, or source
reduction. .
ERA also performed a separate analysis of responses given by a subset they describe as
"environmentally concerned shoppers." The Environmental Report defines these shoppers' as
'those reporting having either purchased or avoided a product in the past three month? because
of environmental concern about the product, product packaging, or the environmental record of
the company manufacturing the product. Furthermore, to be considered an environmentally con-
cerned shopper, the consumer also had to identify the actual name of the product or company.
(9) _ . - ., ' ' . . ;:. ,
Despite their relatively strong concern about the effect of buying decisions on the
environment, envirotimentally concerned shoppers appeared to be only slightly more
knowledgeable about the definitions of green labeling terms than the survey sample as a whole.
V « The list of ERA'S acceptable definitions for each term was not made publicly available. For-*is reason ^oo
assessment is made of the specific criteria ERA used to determine the "accuracy" of consumer defines. In add-on,
no standardized definitions for any of the terms exist.
11
-------
Figure 2.1:
Percent of Adults Who Understand Terms
(ERA: Fall, 1990)
100"
g 80%
h-
co
S 60%
c
13
S
S 40%
1
O'
C
a>
a.
20%
o%
80%
68%
48%
16%
Recyclable
Biodegradable
Environmentally
Friendly
Source Reduction
Sourcs: Environmental Research Associates,.1990
' 27 percent of environmentally concerned shoppers could not define correctly the term
biodegradable;
+ -
83 percent did not understand source reduction;
53 percent did not understand the term environmentally jriendty.
ERA concluded that even the most concerned segments of the consumer population are
confused by environmental labeling terminology. ERA expressed surprise that so.few
respondents understood terms that "are used every day by manufacturers, packaging companies,
retailers, the media, and environmental groups." (9)
The ERA survey runs into several problems due to its. choice and definitions of terms
Some of the items in ERA'S list of terms (a) are inherently vague, (b) require a context for
12 -.
-------
better understanding. J,c) are typically used in the technical arena rather than in the.marketplace.
and;or (d) lack standardized definitions accepted by: environmental professionals.9
Consumers were asked questions about the general technical definitions of the terms but
were not: asked to elaborate on the context or infrastructure required to make some of these
terms valid. For example,- when asked to define the claim recyclable in terms of a product's __
capacity to be recycled', respondents were not probed to determine whether they understood that
products can be recycled only if the consumer has access to local recycling collection and
reprocessing facilities. Thus, respondents described as "understanding" the general meaning of
a labeling term may not have understood all of the conditions necessary to achieve the
environmental benefits connected with the claim. With its simplified criteria for determining
consumers' understanding of environmental labeling terminology, ERA's methodology may
. therefore produce results that overstate the true level of consumer comprehension of these terms.
In addition, consumer understanding-may be misrepresented because some of the.terms
chosen by ERA are vague For example, a problematic claim like environmentally friendly may
confuse a respondent who understands more widely-used and. better-defined terms.
Environmentally friendly has no precise or widely accepted definition. Regulatory agencies and
consumer advocates have recommended that such general, ambiguous terms be avoided or
banned. In fact, product manufacturers and marketers themselves increasingly avoid the use of
environmentally friendly in describing product attributes because the claim has no technical
merit;10 .As one illustration of the demise of such nondescript terminology, the 3M Corporation
now states in its Environmental Policy that marketing "slogans or symbols that make broad
environmental claims, such as safe for the environment or environmentally friendly should be
avoided. Such claims are ambiguous and impossible to document." It should therefore not be
surprising that consumers cannot provide a narrow definition for such terms that lack technical
.substance. '..',.
Source Reduced is a broadly defined term that refers to pollution prevention or solid
waste reduction in the design, purchasing, and disposal phases of the product life:cycle. The
term is not a good indicator of general consumer understanding because it is rarely used by
marketers. Less than 1 percent of all environmental marketing claims (from 1989 through 1991)
included the term source reduced'(see Chapter 3). It is not unexpected that.since only limited
numbers of consumers have had exposure to this term that only 16 percent of the general adult
population appears to understand the term's meaning. .
' Nearly ail environmental marketing claims have a degree of ambiguity or lack of clarity associated with them, due
to the listed reasons, However; some claims are more understandable than others, e.g., contains X percent.recycled
content versus environmentally friendly. .
10' Friendliness also implies that a .product is beneficial for the environment (i.e:, the use of the product actually
improves environmental quality), a standard that few if any products can meet.
13
-------
Readable and Biodegradable are the only commonly used environmental marketing
terms that appear to be representative measures of consumer understanding. Biodegradable (13
percent) and readable (20 percent) collectively accounted for one-third of all environmental
claims made in' 1991 The ERA results indicate that a large percentage of respondents
understood these two terms: among all shoppers, '68 percent correctly defined the term
biodegradable, as compared with 74 percent of the "environmentally-concerned shoppers. For
the term readable, 80 percent of all consumers and 81 percent of environmentally concerned .
shoppers defined the term accurately. Nonetheless, consumers who comprehend the general
meaning of these terms may not be aware of the other conditions (e.g., existence of collection
systems or actions on the-part of the consumer) required to recycle a product or have it biode-
Jrade Consumers may be misled into believing that the act of preferentially buying recyclable
or biodegradable products . (as opposed to substitute products without these attributes).
automatically reduces environmental degradation.
ffniversirv nf Illinois Surveys
Data were collected by faculty and staff of the University of Illinois Cooperative
Extension Service in 1990 and 1991 concerning the level of consumer understanding of the
following terms: ' '..
Degradable/Biodegradable
Compostable
Recyclable
Recycled
No CFCs
Safe for the Environment
Environmentally Friendly .
Data on the terms degradable and biodegradable were collected in surveys distributed
to 516 Illinois consumers in October 1990. Data on the remaining terms were collected in June
1991 through four surveys distributed to a total of 1,177 consumers in 32 Illinois counties The
respondents were primarily rural, middle-aged women. All questions were open-ended. (5)
Because the survey was performed on a demographically narrow segment of the United
States population, its results cannot be projected to the entire U.S. population (11) Nonetheless
the University of Illinois findings suggest that "conventional environmental labeling language is
doing a poor job of delivering its intended messages. "(11)
Degradable The question was posed: "What does it mean to say that a plastic is
adabler Twenty-nine percent of the respondents reported not knowing how to define the
. When asked more specifically, "How is a biodegradable ^*^*£££
deeradable plastics (if at all)?" over 40 percent of the respondents did not know the difference.
Sef percent Sieved** biddable plastics degrade faster than those that are.amply
degradable Only two percent of the respondents said that bacterial action was important in the
14
-------
degradation of biodegradable plastics. Many consumers (38 percent) also did not know now
degradable plastics are-different from other plastics in terms of their effects on the environment,
(5) (See Figure 2.2.) . ' . . . ' - ' . . '
Figure 2.2: Percent of Consumers Who Understand "Biodegradable"
(1990-1991)
100%
'50% -
CO
. T3
"O
Q.
03
-------
r~
Fiqure 2 3: Percent of Consumers Who Understand "Compostable:
(1990-1991)
100't
50%
50%
100%
Generally
100%
Mentioned Municipal Composting
Program* in Definition
Source: Cuete, Brenda. University of Illinois, 1991.
Yes
NO
Recyclable Cude designed questions about the term recyclable according to packaging
types. Respondents were first asked for the definition of recyclable as it pertains to pl^tic
bottles, andthen asked about the definition of recyclable when it is found on glass jar labels.
The majority understood the term recyclable to mean that a product can be^recycled. S*ty-
seven percent understood that a recyclable plastic bottle could be recycled and 54 percent
undJood that a recyclable glass jar could be recycled. The most commot.mistake among
respondents was to define recyclable on glass jars to mean that the jar could be reused Cude
notes that it is interesting that the knowledge of the term was ower for glass given tte_more
recycling programs in Illinois (and many other states) accept glass than plastic (5) (See Figure
2 4 ) Knowledge of plastic recycling may be attributable to recent promotional advertisements.
-------
Figure 2.4: Percent of Consumers Who Understand "Recyclable1
. (1990-1991)
1Q06i
c
03
O
O.
oo
a:
IT
a>
S£
CD
CL
40%
20%
0%
65%
32% '
23%
13%
.5%
7%
3%
Yes
No
(Thought that
Recyclable'Meant
"Reusable")
No
(Thought that
"Recyclable" Meant
"Recycled")
No
(Other)
Source: Cude, Brenda, University of Illinois, 1991.
Plastic Bottles EH Glass Jars
Recycled Respondents were asked to define the term recycled, the phrase recycled paper
on a package of paper towels, and the meaning of a recycled label on a plastic shampoo bottle.
Seventy-five percent of respondents were able to correctly define the general term recycled.
Respondents were similarly knowledgeable 'when the question specifically referred to paper.
Comprehension was significantly lower when the question referred to the plastic bottle. Only
38 percent were able to define recycled plastic correctly. Importantly, more than 60 percent pt
respondents were unclear as to whether the label recycled applied to the product or its
packaging. (5) (See Figure 2.5.) -, ,
17
-------
100%
Fiqure 2 5- Pfg»nt of Consumers Who Understand "Recycled"
(1990-1991)
Generally
Recycled Paper" on a
Package of Paper Towels
Recycled* on a Plastic
Shampoo Bottle
Source: Cude. Brenda. University of Illinois. 1991.
Yes
No
Respondents were then asked to say whether it is important o know tf a package ^
composed entirely or only partially of recycled material. Interestingly, only 39 percent
respSSd that it fs important to know the proportion of recycled material in a package. Fifty-
one irSnt stated expUcitly that such knowledge was not important. TTie mos common
Spouse amonTthose considering such information not important was that "any recycled content
is a positive step." (5) .
Finally , respondents were asked to define the terms preconsimer waste an
wste on pac^ginllabels. THe vast majority of respondents did not understand erther of these
terms. Two-thkds reported not knowing what precpnsumer waste meant and 83 percent did not
know the definition of postconswner waste. (5)
-. '. No CFCs Most respondents did not understand this phrase. Hghty percent could^ot
provide an accurate definition. Only 11 percent commented that a product without CFCs was
less damaging to the ozone layer or the atmosphere. (5) (See Figure 2.6.)
18
-------
Figure 2.6:
Percent of Consumers Who Understand "No CFCs'
(1990-1991)
100
Yes Yes
(No Chtorofluorocartoons) (No Chloroflubrocarbons and Less
Damaging to Ozone Layer/Atmosphere)
No
Source: Cude, Brenda. University of Illinois, 1991,
Safe for the Environment Forty-six percent of respondents described products with this
label as7 "not harming the environment." Another 11 percent were more specific in defining
which aspects of the environment such a product would help protect (e.g., safe for the
atmosphereVdoes. not pollute). Eighteen percent indicated that safe meant biodegradable. (5)
Environmentally Friendly Over one-third of respondents could not provide a definition
of the term; including 10 respondents who described it as "just an advertising term. .The
remainder provided definitions that referred to less harm to the environment. (5)
Respondents possessed a basic understanding of the terms compostable, recyclable and
recycled However, they were frequently confused when any level of specificity or conditions
were brought to the questioning. In particular, respondents readily confused the terms recycled
and recyclable, Cude noted that in hurried point-of-purchase situations the level of confusion
would probably increase. (5) -
19
-------
Among respondents, qualification of the term recyclable, based on the availability ot
recvclino collection proarams, was not an issue. Most did not understand the subtlety ot this
condition In fact few were aware that taking advantage of the environmental benefits ot
recvclable products would require further action on their part. In addition, few respondents
mentioned the ability to recycle a recyclable product/package as a reason for purchase. (5)
t
In ^eneral respondents had little or no knowledge of the other terms discussed above.
exhibiting a lack of technical understanding for most of them. The ambiguity of terms like safe
for the environment and environmentally friendly is borne out in consumer responses.
Although this survey lacked the nation-wide demographic breadth of the ERA
Environmental Report, it was far more thorough in providing insight into the levels of consumer
comprehension of labeling terms. The methodology also prompted respondents with the context
in which terms were likely to be used. The survey results showed that respondents understood
the broad meanings of commonly used terms, but also revealed that they were misled by the
implications of particular marketing claims.
As in the Environmental Report, the University of Illinois surveys found that the terms
most commonly used by marketers, such as recycled and biodegradable, were also the most
widely understood by respondents. What the correlation also suggests is that consumers have
the capacity to learn about the importance of specific product attributes if exposed to such
information over time.11 Educating consumers may therefore be as important as developing
voluntary labeling guidelines to enable consumers to make environmentally informed purchasing
decisions.
Other Studies of Consumer Comprehension of Labeling Terms
Several earlier studies evaluated consumer comprehension of environmental labeling
terms The results of these studies confirm the findings of the more recent research mentioned
above. Below is a brief summary of other information about consumer comprehension of
environmental terminology.
In 1989 the Gallup Organization conducted a poll for Dow Chemical Company to
address the issue of consumer perception of the environmental effects of- degradable plastic
products T£ question was as£i: "When you hear the term degradable used in discussions
Tout the disposal of solid waste, as far as you know, does it mean that the matenal b «aks
down into elements that are completely safe for the environment or that it breaks down but.still
presents a threat to the environment?" (8)
The responses were: 45 percent, completely safe; 45 percent, still threatens the
environment; 10 percent, don't know.
» Understandmg'inherently ambiguous claims such as environmentally friendly would not likely change with
education, except that consumers might come to see the claims as having no specific meaning.
20
-------
These results indicate that consumers have widely differing understanding of the term
deoradabie The'data-also suggest that many consumers may interpret the term to represent an
automatic environmental benefit. (8) The findings of the Gallup poll parallel the results or.-the
more recent University of Illinois study, which shows that consumers often .confuse context-
dependent and absolute environmental terminology.
When consumers-were presented with three different definitions of the term recycling in
a 1990 Gallup poll. 67 percent identified recycling to mean a closed-loop process in which, a
product is remanufactured into .the same product over and over again. The remainder of those
responding believed that recycling was a finite process through which products could pass only
once The most popular, "closed-loop" definition is consistent with that set down by the
Department of Commerce, which suggests that consumers do in fact understand some widely-
used environmental marketing terms. (13) This conclusion corresponds with the findings of both
the .ERA and the Cude reports.
In a 1991. survey of Utah residents performed by Scammon and Mayer, the following
question was asked: "If you were shopping at your local store and saw a product or .package
labeled with the words recyclable where facilities exist < would you assume that recycling
facilities exist in your community?" : (
Fifty-one percent of the respondents answered yes, and 48.5 percent answered no. This
suggests that the phrase '...where facilities exist' is insufficient clarification for more than half
of the consumer population, and is particularly misleading for claims where recycling facilities
for advertised materials are rare.
Consumers' Perception of Environmental Priorities
On a more fundamental level, many studies suggest that consumers are confused about
which product materials contribute niost to environmental-.problems. In reference to consumer
understanding of solid waste issues, William Rathje, a University of Arizona archaeologist says:
"We find that people's garbage is schizophrenic. In a single bag, you might see a special-order
vegetable-based furniture polish and a nasty, microwaveable dish." Adds John Lister, a
packaging consultant, "Consumers have set perceptions. Paper's good; plastic s bad. Chances
are, neither will get recycled." (10)
Even more significant than their confusion about solid waste management issues is
consumers' lack of awareness of the importance of upstream causes of environmental damage.
Marketers have tended to emphasize certain environmental issues, such as solid waste
management, over other, potentially more important issues, such as resource conservation^ A
1990 Abt Associates study found that only 1.1 percent of consumers had based environmental
purchasing decisions on .energy efficiency Considerations, despite the fact that excess energy
. consumption is linked to carbon dioxide releases,that contribute to global warming. (1)
21
-------
2.3 CONSUMER CONFIDENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING CLAIMS
Evidence exists that a significant number of consumers are skeptical or unsure about the
authenticity of environmental marketing claims. Although they indicate a willingness to pay
more for products with real environmental attributes, many consumers do not believe that
environmental marketing claims are to be trusted: .
' The 1990 ERA Environmental Report revealed that fewer than one-third of the survey
respondents actually looked for references to environmental attributes when purchasing
products. Only 9 percent of respondents suggested that they searched regularly for green
product labels. The low rate of consumer activism appears to be due in part to consumer
confusion, about which labeling terms are accurate indicators of environmental soundness.
When asked whether they believed the environmental claims companies were making,
nearly 47 percent of consumers said they generally dismiss environmental claims as
"mere gimmickry." (9)
A survey conducted by the Angus Reid Group, .Golin/Harris Communications, and
Environomics in the Spring of 1991 indicated that some environmental labels instill more
confidence in consumers .than others. Respondents displayed "considerable confidence
that products with certain labels "would be safer for the environment than competing
products without that label." For such claims as recyclable, 'recycled, and
biodegradable, a maximum of 79 percent felt either "very confident" or "somewhat
confident" of the veracity of the claim. On the other hand, nearly half the respondents
were skeptical of such marketing claims as environmentally friendly, ozone friendly, and
' cruelty free (A significant number of respondents were "unsure" if products with these
last tw.o claims were better than products without them). In no case did a claim create
more skepticism than confidence among the respondents (see Figure 2.7). (10)
22
-------
Figure 2.7: Consumer Confidence/Skepticism
1.00'
Recyclable Biodegradable Safe for Envir. Envir. Friendly
Recycled Organic Envir. Safe Ozone Friendly
Claim types
Source: Environment Today, Angus Reid Group etal.
Note: Respondents total less than 100% due to omission of -unsure" responses.
Confident
Skeptical
Similarly, Cambridge Reports/Research International ^'
and skeptical about green marketing claims. In July 199, .
«£**& that less thanhalf (47 percent) of consumers reported having "really ^read the -
Lbel on a product to find out whether or not it is better for the environment [sic] withm
tS last week. This figure was a slight increase from the 45 percent figure recorded in
July 1990. (12) ;.-'
A 1991 report by Gerstman & Myers showed that only 55 percent of the
tefeved to? "whin a product is labeled as environmentally friendly, [it]
or the environment." Even more telling is that 42 percent of the people >
read environmental labels did not find them generally credib ^e- Qnly ] 3 percent of
respondents indicated that environmental claims were ."extremely behevable and only
anther 12 percent said they were "very believable." \^^^ ^^^
consumers still believed that it was appropriate for companies to make ^^
claims: (7) These results support the argument that consumers want to know about the
23
-------
environmental attributes of products but that the credibility of claims needs to.be
improved,
. Finally, in a 1991 survey of 403 Utah residents, 55.3 percent agreed or strongly agreed
with the statement that "a lot of brands that claim to be better for the environment are
no better for the environment than brands that do not make such claims." According to
the authors of the report, while "this result, is hardly a ringing endorsement of
environmental claims...it.may at least suggest that consumers are alert to the possibility
of vague or misleading claims and therefore are attending to such claims with care.." (18)
The dynamic nature and growing complexity of environmental marketing terminology has
been serving to build indifference and distrust among consumers toward product environmental
claims. As consumers express increasing enthusiasm for environmental protection in general,
marketers continue to introduce new variations of green labeling terms on their products. In
addition, these marketers are adding complicated messages to their labels to avoid the liabilities
associated with the rising tide of state and local actions to control environmental marketing
claims.
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PURCHASING HABITS
Shoppers frequently express an interest in buying products that help reduce the rate of
environmental degradation. In fact, people state in many surveys that they are willing to pay
a price premium for products with environmental attributes. However, there is also evidence
of a large gap between such avowals and consumer purchasing behavior. This disparity is due
to a number of factors, such as: (a) the real or perceived higher prices of environmentally-
oriented products, (b) the additional actions needed to realize the advertised environmental
benefits (e.g.,- someone must separate and return recyclables), (c) the limited availability of such
products, (d) the availability or lack of supporting infrastructure needed for activities such as
recycling, (e) skepticism regarding marketers' environmental claims, (f) real or perceived
uncertainty about performance/quality of products, and (g) brand loyalty.
Pollsters Peter Hart and1 Robert Teeter conducted a survey of consumers for the Wail
Street Journal and NBC News in the summer of 1991, A subsequent article in the Journal
underscored the willingness of consumers to sacrifice for the environmental cause, In response
to the poll, eight out of ten voters professed that protecting the environment was more important
than keeping prices down. In particular, 67 percent of those polled suggested that they would
be willing to pay 15 to 20 cents more per gallon for a gasoline that causes much less pollution
than current blends. In addition, 85 percent said they would be willing to pay more for cars that
are more fuel-efficient and less polluting in the interest of protecting the environment, even if
the cars were made "smaller and less safe." (14)
Nonetheless, actual consumer purchasing behavior tells a notably different story about
the level of consumer commitment to environmentalism. While three-fourths of those surveyed
said that the environmental reputation of manufacturers or products was an important
24 ' '
-------
consideration in their buying decisions,'only 46 percent of the respondents could actually .say-
that, when purchasing a product in the last six Months, they had chosen a more expensive
alternative because of environmental concern's: (14)
Similarly the 1990 Abt Associates study found that slightly more than half of consumers
considered the environmental attributes of a product and/or cdmpany (and could name the
product and its environmental attributes) when selecting a product in the past six months. The
studv also found that consumers do not necessarily pay more for environmentally-onented
products than they do for conventional products; approximately 63 percent, of those who bought
an environmentally-oriented product said that it cost the same as or less than the conventional
alternative. (1)
Other recent studies have shown comparable results. Simmons Market Research Bureau
found that 58 percent/of adult men said aerosols should not be used, yet 87 -percent had
- purchased aerosol shaving creams in the previous six months. Likewise, 60 percent of. adult
women said that aerosols should not be used for toiletries and household cleaners, but 49 percent
' had purchased more aerosol hair sprays than non-aerosol hair sprays over the same time period.
(12). ' , . ' ' ;". . -;'.-.'''
. 2.5 SUMMARY ' / ' . ; ' - . ..
Consumers are increasingly interested in environmental issues. Although their actions
reveal a sometimes passive concern about the environment, studies show that a large percentage
(almost half) of consumers actually have made conscious purchasing decisions in the interest ot
protecting the environment. Anthony Casale of Environmental Research Associates notes that
'for the first time, consumers in surveys are listing specific products as environmentally
friendly." (15) This demonstrates that environmental consumerism is no longer a fringe activity,
a wider cross-section of Americans has begun to participate.
On the other hand, even the most environmentally-conscious consumers continue to be
confused about the meaning of environmental terms, and the ambiguity of many of these term?
contributes to consumer mistrust of the purveyors of environmental claims. Consumers typically
: distrust private business on a variety of measures, and corporate t^^0^£
no exception. However, consumers' have shown the capacity to take advantage of a baac
environmental education (i.e., exposure to environmental issues through the mediawhich he^
them evaluate some of the more commonly used environmental marketing claims. What
consumers appear to be lacking is (a) adequate understanding of the meanings of environmental
, claims, and,, (b) a means of assessing the veracity and significance of claims.
Consumer perception will continue to be a strong determinant of product environmental
attributes because marketers respond directly to consumer preference (as opposed to the
' S^nSeb.hind.thepSerence). ^'^^*^C*
give producers constructive marketplace feedback and incentives to ^^*"
Siprovements. To ensure that the products themselves are designed with the goal of
25
-------
the environment, a continual effort to modify and update, environmental definitions and
guidelines will be needed. In mm, consumers must also learn and understand the rudimentary
technical information needed to make environmentally-informed buying decisions.
26
-------
References .... .'''. - ' , :
\. Abt Associates Inc. (1990)! Consumer Purchasing 'Behavior"and the Environment:
Results of an Event-Based Study4 November.
2. : Angus Reid Group, Golin/Harris'Communications,' Environomics (1991). Environment
USA ' ' ''"' -
3. ' Attorneys General from CA, FL, MA, MN, MI, NY,.TX, UT, WA, and WI( 1990).:
Green Repon: Findings and Preliminary Recommendations for Responsible Environmental
Advertising. November. '',''""
4. Chase, Dennis, and Therese Kauchak Smith (1992). "Consumers Keen on Green but
Marketers Don't Deliver," Advertising Age, June 29, p. S-2,4.
5. Cude, Brenda, University of Illinois (1991).; Comments Prepared for the.July 1991 FTC
Public Hearings on Environmental Marketing and Advertising Claims, July 11.
6. Dagnoli, Judann (1991). "Whose Job is it to Define 'Green1?11 Advertising Age, .
February 4, p. 13.
7. Dagnoli, Judann (1991). "Consciously Green," Advertising Age, September 16. p. 14.
8. Denison, Richard, Environmental Defense Fund (1991). Personal communication, July.
9. EnvironmentaTResearch Associates (1990). Environmental Repon, Fall.
10. Fierman, Jaclyn<1991). "The Big Muddle in Green Marketing," Fortune, June 3, p. 91-
96. / . ;
11. Fraiikel, Carl (1991). "Do Consumers Understand Environment Labelling
Terminology?" Green Market Alert, January.
12. Frankel, Carl (1991). "1991 in Review: Breakfast at the Reality Ranch," Green Market
Alert, December.
13. Glass Packaging Institute (1990). "Americans More Knowledgeable About
Environmental Claims," Press Release, December 18. .
14. Gutfeld, Rose (1991). "Shades of Green: Eight of 10 Americans are Environmentalists,
at Least They Say So," Wall Street Journal, August 2, p. 1.
15. Karolefski, John (1991). "Consumers Want Stores to Market 'Green' Properly,"
Supermarket News, May 6, p. 50.
16. Leo Burnett Worldwide, Inc. (1992). "Interest in Environment Drops Dramatically,"
Press Release, May 26. .
17.. Riddle, Judith (1991). "Shoppers Make Purchases Based on 'Green' Concerns,
Supermarket News, May 20, p. 52. .
18 Scammon, Debra, and Robert Mayer (1992). Environmental Labeling and Advertising
Claims: International Action and Policy Issues. Presented to the Summer ACR
Conference, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. June 11-14.
19. Seventh Generation and Earth Care spokespeople (1992). Personal communication with
Abt Associates. March.
20. Simmons Market Bureau Research (1991). Cited in "Cambridge Reports Green
Consumerism Update," Green Market Alert, December, p. 5-7.
21. The Roper Organization (1991). Environmental Protection in the 1990s: What the
Public Wants, June.
27
-------
28
-------
INVENTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL LABELING AND MARKETING TERMS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter of the report has'-two primary objectives. The first-is'to determine the
. current level of environmental labeling activity in the United States, including the types of claims .
made on product labels and in advertising, the types of products for which those claims appear.
and their frequency of appearance. The second is to. outline and evaluate trends in
environmental marketing claims over the past three and a half years. This chapter does not
attempt to explain the causes of such trends in depth, but does attempt to document their use.
Wherever possible, background information important to interpreting the trends is provided.
'' The'results of the research indicate that environmental claims have become increasingly
important in consumer marketing. The level of environmental claim activity has risen
substantially in recent years, more than doubling between 1989 and-1992. The most frequently
made claims relate to chemical use, or the lack thereof,: in the production .of food and other
consumer goods (e.g., organic, no pesticides, and no phosphates). Claims relating to solid
waste'management, such as recycled and recyclable, account for the fastest growing type of
environmental claims. - ,
The product categories with the largest number of environmental marketing claims (as
well as the largest number of new product introductions) were foods and health. & beauty aids.
Together these accounted for three quarters of all new products and over one half of all claims.
The highest percentage of products with claims appeared for laundry & cleaning products, paper
products and bags. Laundry & cleaning products represented only 4 percent of new product
launches from 1989 to 1992, but accounted for 20 percent of all claims...
Section 3.2 discusses the methodology used t9 extract and analyze'the data from
Productscan, the database source of information consulted for the study. Section 3.3 presents
and discusses the-study results. This discussion includes an evaluation of each type of marketing
claim with respect to its trends and frequency of use. Figures illustrate the use of environmental
claims-over"time, showing the amount of activity by type of claim and by type;of product-
Finally, these results are compared to those of other, similar studies. ,
3.2 METHODOLOGY
Due to the large size of the consumer market considered in this study and its continually
changing character, limits had to be established on the amount of information gathered^ The
. methodology .used to extract and analyze selected product information is described m five
sections:. - ',.' , ' "- _ ,.
29
-------
A description of Productscan. the source of the information gathered on new product
introductions: , -
The development of search criteria specific to Productscan;
' The definition of search terms as they relate to specific product claims;
The method used for information compilation and analysis; and;
The limitations of the analysis.
In addition, two other analyses of MIS data (3,8) are compared with the results of this study.
. 3.2.1, The Productscan database
To develop a claims inventory, this study relied upon a database maintained by Marketing
Intelligence Service, Ltd. (MIS), of Naples, New York. Productscan features reports of over
6,000 new products introduced annually in all packaged goods markets. In addition to including
new product releases in its inventory, Productscan also includes pre-existing products that have
been substantially changed, repackaged or relabelled. For the purposes of this study,
Productscan is considered to be the best single source for such information. Because it is a
single source with unified standards of information, it enables a quantitative analysis of claims
used in the marketplace to be performed.
MIS's definition of the packaged goods market includes all goods that have brand names
on the package, are packaged in smaller quantities for consumer use rather than commercial or
industrial applications, and in general are products "you might find in grocery stores and
drugstores" (7). MIS characterized this market into 164 product categories. Most of these
product types are either foods and beverages, health and beauty aids, or non-durable household
products. Particularly innovative products that fit outside the usual definitions are also included.
For example, a new appliance-such as a hair crimper, although it is a durable product, may be
included if it is innovative and if it is sold hi a store that also sells typical consumer packaged
goods. However, if other manufacturers were to release a similar product, that product would
not be reported in the database.
Each product release is given its own record in the database. Two fields of each record
provide information on environmental marketing claims. The package tag field has claims
codified by MIS staff announcing some feature or benefit. The description field is a general text
description of the product, written by MIS staff, using such sources as advertisements, press
releases, and actual products. Descriptions may or may not be taken verbatim from the sources.
Although Productscan is a currently the best source of information for new consumer
product releases, it does have some limitations for examining environmental product trends. The
database tracks new packaged-goods product introductions for market research purposes. It was
30
-------
not developed primarily-to analyze marketing claims, and. has documented environmental
attributes of products only since 19.87.. In addition, certain environmental terms did not appear
in the package tae "field prior to Spring 1990, creating, an information gap within the period of
time covered by this study. Finally, certain types of products with environmental cUums.were
excluded from the database and, therefore, from this report. These products include appliances.
automobiles, books, and records, whose claims range from books printed on recycled paper, to
energy-efficient refrigerators and reformulated gasoline (12). Given these .constraints, there are
limitations to drawing specific conclusions about environmental labeling trends using this data,
as discussed in section 3.2.5. ' ',
3.2.2. Search Criteria
'. Of the 71 package'tag categories found in Productscan,~9 are relevant to environmental
claims. These are: No Pesticides, No Chemicals, No Phosphates, Organic, N,o Toxic, No
Fluorocarbons, Recyclable, Recycled Materials, and Biodegradable. Note that tags such as
natural and no additives require certain contexts to be considered environmental claims, and.are
therefore not included. A total of 56 search terms, covering both the package tag and
description fields, were used in'this study, as shown in Table 3.1. Several keywords were
truncated to include, variations in word form; these are marked with an asterisk in Table 3.1.
The 56 search terms were categorized into ten claim type categories. Summary results-for the
claim type categories are discussed in Section 3.3.1.
31
-------
Table-3.1: Breakdown of Productscan Search Criteria
Claim Tvpe Cateaor>
Toxicitv Related
General Environmental
Pollution
Wildlife Conservation
Ozone Related
Energy
Source Reduced
Recycled Content
Recyclable
Degradable
,
Search Terms
Pestici* Toxic
Chemical" Insectic*
: Phosph* Bleach
i Organic Chlorine
i (in conjunction with no, free, 'or
i contains)
I Earth*2 - Environ*
1 Eco Ecolog*
! Pollut* Diox*
i Nonpollut* Landfill
\ Toxin Groundwater
i Bioremediation
i Dolphin* Rainforest*
| Habitat* Conserv*
i Donat* Endangered
1 Proceeds Species
! Fluorocarb* Ozone*'
j CFC*
1 Energy Product category
I Fluorescent "Household
| Fuel maintenance and
| Renew* Energy
i Efficien* Conservation"
1 Packag* Refill*
! Source Reuse*
1 (-in conjunction with small, reduc*, or
! less)
I Recycled . Post-Consumer*
i Recycl*
1 Biodegrad* Compost*
i Degrad* Photodegrad*
Inferred Meaning
! Avoids toxics use and
i residues through production
I techniques
| Contains products that are less
1 harmful to the environment
! Pollution prevention in use
I and manufacturing, protection-
j against pollution. .
"! Promotes the conservation of ,
! habitat and wildlife, often
! through cause-related
i marketing.
j Avoids chemicals that cause
I depletion of stratospheric'
! ozone
i Less energy used in
1 manufacturing and use of
1 product, use of alternative
i energy sources
!
j Mitigates solid waste
i management problems;
1 reduction of demand for
1 landfills and incinerators
1 Nine environmentally-related terms were used for searches within the package tag field. Of these,
recced, re^^Legradable, and no pesticides were added by MIS to its package tag field between
. March and July 1990. '
2. Asterisks mark truncated terms.
32-
-------
3.2.3 Definition of Environmental Claims
All categories with the exception of wxicity related are clearly related to environmental
terms only. Several claims relate to mitigating solid waste management problems through
recycling, composting, and biodegradation (i.e., recycled, recyclable, degradable, and source
reduced). -Another category, general environmental, covers general claims such as
'environmentally safe or environmentally friendly. The wildlife conservation category covers
claims concerned with wildlife and habitat, especially tropical rainforests. The ozone related
category refers to the avoidance of chemicals causing stratospheric ozone depletion, an
increasingly important concern of American consumers. Energy .claims 'refer' to energy-
efficiency in product manufacture and use, while pollution claims cover reduced air,.water and
solid waste pollution from production and use, as well as personal protection from air and water
pollution. .' J ' -
. The remaining category, wxicity related, contains terms that could be construed as either
environment or health related, or'.both. Marketers use the claims to, mean "no synthetic
'chemicals", or even "no bad chemicals," addressing consumer health and environmental
concerns, and a general desire for simple and "natural" products. Organic, as defined in the
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 and in the California Health and Safety Codes, means.
that the product is made without the use of any synthetic chemicals. Terms such as no pesticides
and no insecticides indicate that the product is produced or grown without the application of
toxic chemicals. -The benefit implied by these terms would be to the consumer's health as well
as to the environment. Other claims, like no chemicals and no toxic are dependent on context
for clarification. Terms like no phosphates, no bleach, or no chlorine are intended only as a
benefit to the environment, not to the immediate health of the consumer.
All of these terms are defined in greater detail hi section 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. of this report.
3.2.4 Tabulation of Statistics , , .
The ten categories of Claim types were examined across eight categories of product types:
foods, health and beauty aids, beverages, pet & miscellaneous products, laundry & cleaning
products, paper products, bags, and pesticides & insecticides:12 Results were broken down into
four sections: 1989, 1990, 1991, and the first half of 1992. The raw data is presented at the end
of the chapter in Table 3.6. Section 3.3.1 presents these results as trends over time for each
claim type,-while section 3.3.2 shows trends for product type. '.'.
Both the number of claims and the number of products with claims were determined from
the Productscan search.. It was not uncommon for products to have more than one claim. For
example, a laundry-detergent packaged in a plastic bottle may have the claim that the package
12 The products that compose each product category are presented in greater detail in Appendix A.
33
-------
contains recvcled material and is recyclable, and that the detergent itself contains no phosphates
and is biodegradable. This single product will appear in the recycled, recyclable, toxicity related
and desradabte categories. In addition, this laundry detergent would appear in the Total
Releases column of Table 3.6 as one product, but in the Total Claims column as four claims.
Althou-h the ratio of claims to new products is not computed here, it can illustrate the density
of environmental marketing claims within product categories. The Products with Claims column
counts the number of products that have claims, and gives the percentage ot such products to
total releases. ,
3.2.5 Limitations on Information
The two principle limitations of the analysis conducted on Productscan data concern
trends in claims from 1989 to 1990 for certain claim categories and the type of products included
in the database. In addition, the approach taken in the study of searching for a specific list of
terms does not necessarily capture the broad range of possible claims. A product-by-product
analysis of marketing claims would be necessary to identify the context in which claims are
made.
MIS added the terms recycled, recyclable, biodegradable, and no pesticides to its package
tag field between March and July 1990, which fails within the time frame of the analysis. Prior
to that time MIS was not systematically tracking these claims, and as a result some claims may
have been overlooked. This change coincides with Earth Day 1990, an event that prompted
many marketers to introduce environmentally-oriented products. Although there was likely an
increase in new product introductions with environmental claims at that time, due to the changes
in MIS's data collection procedures the increase is possibly not as prominent as is indicated by
. the results.
As discussed in Section 3.2.1, this data source does not include environmental marketing
activity outside of the packaged consumer goods market. The database does not cover durable
goods, services, mail order and other forms of marketing.
Despite these limitations, Productscan is the best single source for systematically
measuring environmental marketing claims in the packaged goods market. It allows for
qu^titative analysis of a very large, .constantly fluctuating and highly visible segment of the
consumer market.
34
-------
. 3.3 RESULTS
-
^ The -analysis of the Productscan database indicates a rising trend in the use- of
environmental claims on packaged consumer goods for the firsrthree years °f.the.study^n« ;
off in the first half of 1992 The number of products with environmental claims increased rrom
f9 perfen^of alfnew product introductions (l?89)-to 10.5 percent(1990)t. 12.2S percent (1991)
(Table 3 3) In the first half of 1992 the number of claims decreased slightly from 199I, to a
rate of 11 4 percent. The claim types recycle*material and recyclable saw the greatest increase
between 1989 and 1991 (Table 3.4, Figures 3.2 and 3.4), but both decreased in the first half of
1992. ' ' ' ' ' '
In 1991 solid waste-related claims (recycled, recyclable, degradable, znd source reduced
categories combined) accounted for 45- percent of the environmental claims made for new
products with toxicitv related claims making up 37 percent and other claims 18 percent.. In
1990 the combined solid waste categories hadone more claim than the toxicity related category,
both'comprising about 40 percent of environmental claims for new product introduction^
TaSngSSt ^ ^te addition of tags for recycling and degradability, the number of sohd
waste claims could be higher than this .figure indicates. A <*veaf for the comparison of sohd
waste data's and toxidty related claims is that claims of recycled and recyclable often go
togetherr the same product, so there may be more individual products ^tovaty related
claims than with solid waste claims. . _
In general, the total number of claims increased until 1992, when they declined slightly.
Claims for health & beauty aids and laundry & cleaning products increased fourfold in the first
Sears (Tabi 3.5, Figures 3.12 and 3.15). The product category foods contained the most
claims, although laundry & cleaning products and health & beauty aids are increasing In every
year, the three product categories with the greatest number of new releases have the lowest
percentage of products with claims.
To put the trend in environmental claims for consumer goods in perspective,
environment claims were compared to health claims, the most prevalent type of claim made
?or burner products contained in Productscan (six times as many health claims a
environmental daims were made for food and beverage products).13 The_results indicate -that
env romrSal claims have risen over the past three and one-half years (rising,from,5.8 percent
o od and beverage releases in-1989 to a high of 8.4 ******>£^«i
percent in 1992). The increased use of environmental terms differs from the use ot
claims which fluctuated around 42 percent over the same time period.
-3 !. The comparisons were limited to food and beverage products under the assumption that these two product
categories contain most of the health claims made.
: . "- . ' ''"' '- ' 35'' .":'"'
-------
Table 3.2: Comparison of Environmental and Health Claims for
Food and Beverage Products, 1989-1992
Total New Food and Beverage Product Introductions
Number
1989
3,397
1990
4,094
1991
3,721
Health Claims
Number
Percentage
1,480
43.6%
1,771
42.0%
1,601
, 46.8%
Environmental Claims
Number
Percentage
183
5.4%
293
7.2%
313
8.4% '
1992'
3,684
1,5.12
41.0%
.280
7.6%
* To calculate an annual estimate, the figures for the first six
months of 1992 were doubled.
Source: Productscan, Abt Associates analysis.
Other studies (3,8) indicate that the use of environmental marketing claims is growing
substantially. MIS's New Green Products Report issued in 1989 and updated periodically, based
on their Productscan database, also reported an increase in products with environmental claims.
(8,4) These figures are shown in Table 3.3 in comparison with the results of the present study.
.Table 3.3: Percentage of Products with
Environmental Claims
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Jan - June 1992
MIS Study
Percentage (%)
1.1
2.0
2.8
4.5
10.1
12.6
11.5
Abt Study
Percentage (%)
5.9
10.5
12.3
11.4 ,
Sources: Marketing Intelligence Service, Abt Associates.
36
-------
NQS used a different'definition of environmental claims, including claims aoout animal testing
and use of animal products. It was not indicated how the limitations of the database, spelled out
in Section 3:2. were treated in the report.
A study done by Green Market Alen (3), also using the Productscan database/studied
the household products industry, one of six categories in the MIS database, for five types of
attributes or claims associated with environmental benefits. The study looked at the introduction
of refills, bag-in-box packaging, and concentrated laundry detergents known as ultra,14 and the
use of no bleach and no phosphates claims. Combined, products with these claims or attributes
rose from 8.6 percent (1989) to 17,5 percent (1990) to 22.1 percent (1991) of household product
introductions.
3.3.1 Trends for Claim Types
This section contains discussions of trends for each of the ten environmental marketing
claim types. Table 3.4 illustrates the frequency and distribution of claim activity. All years.of
the study are presented, with the combined years presented in the last column.
Table 3.4
Environmental Marketing Claims, by Claim Type, January 1989 - June 1992
Toxicity Related
Recyclable
Degradable
Recycled
General Environmental
Pollution
Wildlife Conservation
Ozone Related
Source Reduced .
Energy
' Total
1989
# 1 %'
274 4.9
3 0.1 .
37 0.7
0 0.0
21 0.4
11 0.2
3 0.1
12 0.2
6 0.1
3 0.1
370
1990
# j -.%
403 6.3
131 2.0
153 2.4
114 L8
123 1.9
49 0.8
16 0.3
12 0.2
6 0.1
9 0.1
1,016
1991
# | %
395 , 6.5
201 3,3 .
133 2.2
141 2.3
111 . i.8
47 6-.8
20 0.3
11 0.2,
9 ' /O.l
13 0.2
1,081
19922
# %.,
424 6.7
162 2.6
136 2.2
114 1.8
108 1.7
30 0.5
24 0.4
14 0.2
36 0.6
4 ' 0.1
1,052
1989- 19923 '
# i %
1,284 42.9%
416 ,13.9%
391 13.1%
312 10.4%
309 10.3%
122 4.1%
:: si, .1.7%
42 1.4%
' 39 1.3%
27 . 0.9%
2,993 100%
1 . Percentage of claims to new product introductions within categories only. (Total percentages would reflect
double counts of products with more than one claim.)
2 The number of claims in the first half of 1992 was doubled here for comparative purposes.
3' For the total across the entire study period (Jan. 1989-June 1992), claims in 1992 were not doubled.
14 Refills are smaller packages of concentrated formulas that are combined with water to refill the original packaging.
Bag-in-box packages allow for separation of plastic and cardboard for easier recycling. Ultras, by virtue of beuig
condensed formulas, require less packaging.
37
-------
Toviciry related claims are by far the most frequently used! comprising nearly half of all
claims used Ozone related, source reduced', znd'energy terms are rarely used. The claims are
discussed below in order of frequency of use. Each discussion is accompanied by a line graph
of annual claim totals. Although discrete, these totals are represented by line graphs to better
illustrate trends of claim activity. Figures for the first half of 1992 have been doubled on the
graphs to represent all of 1992, for purposes of comparison.
Toxicitv related (see Figure 3.1)
Toxicity related is the most frequently used type of claim. Appearing 1,284 times from
1989 to 1992 it makes'up half of all environmental claims used. Nearly half of the taxiciiy
related claims were made for foods. Health & beauty aids'and laundry & cleaning products had
15 4 and 15 8 percent of toxiciiy related claims respectively. laundry & cleaning products such
as 'no phosphates, no bleach or no chlorine had the highest frequency of toxicity related claims.
appearing on 26 percent of products in 1992.
Some of the toxicity related claims for food products can also be interpreted as "health
food" claims, such as organic, no pesticides, no insecticides. .The claim no pesticides was added
to the Productscan database in July, 1990>
Recyclable (Figure 3.2)
Recycling is one of the most widely practiced "pro-environment" activities by Americans.
From 1990 to 1991, recyclable claims were the fastest growing type of environmental claim,
though their frequency of use declined in 1992. Significant-increases were, seen from 1990 to
1991 in claims for laundry & cleaning products, pet & miscellaneous products, and beverages.
Because MIS began to keep track of recyclable claims systematically only in the third week ot
March 1990, statistics for 1989 are not reliable.
Recyclable claims make up 13.9 percent of all claims, a total of 416 over the years of
the study. Most of the recyclable .claims referred to packaging rather than the products
themselves. Although the greatest number of claims were for foods and. health & beauty aids,
laundry & cleaning products had the highest density of products with recyclable claims,
appearing on 13 and 12 percent of new products released in 1991 and 1992 respectively. Paper
products account for only four recyclable claims in the whole study; the category is composed
mostly of paper towels, napkins and toilet paper. According to a survey performed, by the
SLersity of Illinois, paper recycling was understood better than any other kind of recydmg
program/In spite of this wide recognition of paper recycling, paper bags have largely avoided
'recyclable claims.
One possible explanation for this clainVs rapid increase in use is in the way that
marketers have defined the term "recyclable." Many recyclable clauns refer only to the
38 ' _ '.'''
-------
>>
o
u
o
3
Cfl
P
D
(4-1
o
§
en
3.
00
o
c.
o
o
Q. u-
°
11
§ =
l
v "S
^i gj
-
s
s
O
£
2s «s
ll
o a
<* S
o
§
m
.1
|
'
jo
-------
&
^N
5b
U
3
o
O
O
C
cr
£
cs
en
3
(30
s
I ^ - B
1
t
O
3
Q.'
£' a
so
u
SO
^
u
s.
§
1
c ^ -
4> ^- ..
SUITBD
jo'
-------
technoloeical feasibility of recycling the labeled material. Even if disclairne.es such as
Recyclable where facilities exist" are added; recyclable claims rarely address actual recycling
rates or the existence of infrastructure needed to reclaim the material. By defining the term in
this way. many manufacturers have been able to make the claim .without changing their
operations. ' .
' However state regulations in California, requiring that there be recycling facilities in
areas where the claim recyclable is being made, have prompted some marketers to remove these
claims in 1992 15 For example, Procter & Gamble, the single largest manufacturer of packaged
*oods'in.the" United States, is in the process of removing from all labels the phrase recyclable
where facilities exist (6). Recyclable claims declined across the board in the first half of 1992.
- Degradable (Figure 3.3) ,
Degradable claims were made slightly less often than recyclable, appearing 391 times
in three and a half years. Laundry & cleaning products and health & beauty aids account for
77 percent of the degradable claims, MIS added the package tag for biodegradable-claims m
March 1990 the same year that degradable claims increased from 37 to 153. Since then,
however, claims have appeared consistently at just over two. percent of all new products.
* - ' .
Degradable claims for laundry & cleaning products and health & beauty aids refer most
frequently to the products themselves (such as laundry detergents), but may also refer to the
packaging. Disposable diapers are also .listed under health & beauty aids in Productscan, and
some brands were briefly promoted as compostable.
The decline in food packaging, bags, and paper claims was balanced by increases in the
laundry products category. Declines in degradable claims are likely the effect of ktigation on
environmental marketing. Claims for food packaging, bags, and paper products, fell from 10
17 and 5 claims respectively in 1990, to 3, 1, and 1 in 1991. In 1990, legal complaints against
the marketing of bio- and photodegradable plastic products (e.g., trash and grocery bags) and
compostable diapers (described in Chapter 4) were brought by the New York City Consumer
Affairs Department, the State Attorneys General Task Force, and the FTC Although most of
these suits were resolved in 1991, no resurgence of this claim occurred in the* categories in
1992. '
In February 1992, a coalition of business and advertising groups brought suit agamst the state °? California
±^^^
January4, 1993) . , . ,
41
-------
3
a
o
£.
o
-------
. Recycled (Figure 3.4)
From 1989 to 1992, 312 claims of recycled content were recorded, just over 10 percent
of all environmental claims.16 The claims were distributed among all product types, appearing
most frequently on foods (92 times) and paper products (64 times). The use of recycled claims
increased from 1990 to 1991 for all product types except paper products, which fell slightly.
In the first six-months of 1992, recycled claims for paper products continued to decline, falling
from 41 percent of new products in 1991 to 24 percent in 1992. Claims for foods, health &
beauty aids and beverages also declined in this period. .
Like recyclable claims, marketers have been withdrawing, recycled content claims in
1992. Rhode Island law- requires disclosure.of post-consumer recycled content on packaging,
prompting Kraft General Foods to withdraw the claim from all products. "We have changed.a
number of labels to comply by taking the information off," said, a representative of Kraft. (6)
Other cases of marketers discontinuing claims are discussed in Chapter 4.
General Environmental (Figure 3.5)
General environmental claims for products occurred almost as often as claims for
recycled products in the time span of the study, 309 times or 10.3 percent of all claims. This
type of claim appeared most often on laundry & cleaning products (108 times) and health &
beauty aids (92 times). From 1989 to 1990, use of this claim increased more than five-fold,
from 21 uses to 123. The number of uses declined slightly in 1991, due primarily to declines
in the number of general environmental claims for.paper products. The use of the claim for
paper products rose from once in 1989 to 28 times (34 percent of new products) in 1990, only
to fall back to one use in 1991 and none in the first half of 1992. The trend of the claim for
bags was similar, though not as pronounced.
'" It is unclear why only bags and paper products abandoned the claim in 1991. Certain
marketers may have reacted to public criticism of such broad and intangible claims and chose
to avoid possible legal challenges. Apparently not all marketers shared this view.
In the first half of 1992 the overall number of general environmental claims stayed
roughly the same, with increases in laundry & cleaning products making up for declines hi
health & beauty aids and foods. In this time period, fully half of products with general
environmental claims were laundry & cleaning products.
46 MIS began to keep track of recycled claims using package tags in April, 1990. In addition to searches in, the
package tag field, the database was searched for recycled keywords in the description field. No recycled claims were
found in the description fields in 1989.
43
-------
o
CO
U
*_ i
o
3
"O
O
.i
Is
JS
««»
u_
o
oo
O
>
Ui
S
2
to
\
C
£
/
v;
C
o
:3
miscci
v>
CO
iS
JO
\
^
0
3
g
C.
Lm
O
a.
g.
/
>~:
3
S
3
"3
3
"3
o
t
> C« «5 2 U5
*S ~ ^' ^ is
&' S c S «
>.
"S
11111
«3 u «'"" o
> M w. . g -O
^ § jj eo |
O £ P i? J.
I
es
I
in ^^s i/. ^» i^> <^
CO CO «-! OJ
10
^JUSUIUOJIAUH jo
-------
>v
o
3
o
T3
I
2
s:
«o
S
D
<4-i
O
.1)
cr
in
on
6JQ
O
c.
2
'3
*
S.i
"8 |
3 e
ll
o\
JS . 60
2 'C
a £-
CO 'O
I 1
"o S
I'-
ll
:s
1
o
en-
. O
«
<
S
<
8
CO
-------
Pollution (.Figure 3.6) .
Claims in this category refer to both pollution prevention in manufacturing and use of
products and to personal protection from air and water pollution. Pollution claims, accounting
for 122 claims in the period of the study, increased from 1989 to 1991 and decreased slightly
in the first half of 1992. Most claims were made for health & beauty aids (45 times), with a
significant number made for paper products (23 times). In 1992, when claims in almost all
product categories declined, pollution claims for paper products declined the most, falling from
17 percent of new product introductions in 1991 to 5 percent.
For paper products and some health & beauty aids made with paper, the pollution claim
referred most often to the paper bleaching process. For a surprising number of health & beauty
aids claims were made that the products protect the user from air and water pollution One
marketer pointed out that "the environment, pollution and stress can make even the healthiest
skin look tired and dull", while another offered a cosmetics product "that helps create a thin veil
of protection between your skin and environmental pollutants." (Productscan)
Wildlife Conservation (Figure 3.7)
Wildlife conservation claims appeared on only 51 products in the course of the study,
with more than half of these being claims on food products. The rate of introductions with this
claim has increased steadily since 1989, rising to 0.4 percent of all new product introductions
in 1992, or slightly less than pollution claims.
Most wildlife conservation claims are .of two types: foods and health & beauty aids made
with rainforest products; and any kind of product with a promotional tie-in to non-profit groups
working to protect wildlife and habitat. Although dolphin friendly claims seem to be
widespread, very few such claims were noted by Productscan.
Ozone Related (Figure"3.8)
Ozone related claims appeared only 42 times in the study, comprising slightly more than
one percent of products with environmental claims made and only 0.2 percent of all new
products. They appear most often on health & beauty aids (19 times in three and a half years),
less often oh .laundry-& cleaning products (11 times).
From July 1991 to June 1992, ten successful lawsuits were brought against ozone related
claims (see Chapter 4). Surprisingly, the rate of new product introductions with ozone related
claims increased in 1992.
46
-------
o
&JO
-------
CJ
6
3
o
.2
CU
oo"
Is
u
o
i)
Vi
D
<*-
o
o
-------
>,
,o
U
*-*
o
T3
I
- on
s
I-*
C3
U
T3
£
«
N
O
D
<*-
o
00
en
1
(50
i
4>
'
ca
S-S
g.§
CO CS
"S s
3 g-
li.
OJ 91
J5 4>
a. o
C 8
I*
.s so
_ s
S "i
11
4
S o
s.-o
'8
J
cS
1
s
s
a
I
^ . JS
g
I
on
SUIIBQ
-------
Source Reduced (Figure 3.9)17
Because source reduced is a phrase that marketers rarely use, the Productscan search -
for this claim category included related terms like reusable, refill or refillable, and reduced
packaging. This claim category comprises only 1.4 percent of all environmental marketing
claims, though it has increased in the time period of the study. The claim type has appeared
most often on laundry & cleaning products, accounting for 25 of 39 appearances overall. In
1989, all source reduced claims appeared on laundry & cleaning products, as compared to 15
of 18 claims in 1992. In the last year and a half, the claim has increased for health & beauty
aids because'some companies have started removing outer packaging (called "overboxes") from
their products, and some specialty stores have promoted refillable bottles.
These results differ from a study of "household products" done by Green Market Alert,.
which reported a higher frequency of source reduced claims from 1989 to 1991 (3). Using the
Productscan database, that study looked for packaging that featured three specific source
reduction attributes. Refills, such as Procter and Gamble's Downy Fabric Softener, accounted
'for 35 introductions in the three years, with 16 new products in 1991,alone. Ultras, a type of
concentrated laundry soap formulated to need less packaging, had 24 product launches in 1991.
"Bag-in-box" packaging, where the plastic bag can be separated from the cardboard box for
easier recycling, made up only five new products.
Conversely, this analysis only found only 21 source reduced claims for the same time
period. In the first half of 1992, the number of new products rose to 18, which is a rate of
introduction almost equal to the 42 claims from the Green Market Alert study in 1991. The
present study did not search for ultra concentrated formula detergent, or bag-in-box packaging.
Also, MIS tends to keep track of only the most prominent claims on a package. Because
laundry & cleaning products marketers often make source reduction claims in fine print on the
side of a detergent box, these claims were apparently not reported by Productscan.
Energy Conservation (Figure 3.10)
Energy conservation was the type of claim least used by marketers, appearing on less
than 1 percent of all products with environmental marketing claims and 0.13 percent of all new
product introductions. The category with the highest number of energy claims was pet &
miscellaneous products, which includes household items such as light bulbs. The number of
energy claims increased until the first half of 1992, when only 2 claims were made, down from
.13 in 1991. '
'" EPA defines source reduction as "any practice which reduces the amount of any hazardous substance,
pollutant or contaminant entering the waste stream or otherwise released into the environment prior to recycling,
treatment, or disposal." (5) Here, however, it is used only as a solid waste term, while claims relating to reduced
hazardous waste are covered under the term toxicity related.
50
-------
o
60
U
4-«*
O
3
O
O
-U
"S
o
V3
D
<4-<
O
a\
en
I
oo'
. ^H
Pi
1-
o 3 '
o
« *
^^ «
22- "o
ex i_ '
m o
O «3
5 s
I§
fl'
s
i>
«s
O
S
j= so
a «>
5 "S
!§ tt
*O S
*o S.
%
a
£>
a
a
09
I
I
o
-------
o
toO
0)
4t
C3
u
o
o.
o
c/3
0)
CO
D'
o
O"'
2
o
f«
en
3
to.
f
T3
CO
1
*
'
.
1 2-
2 jj
T3 e
£ 1
§ c
ll
a
-n 3
O
||
f £
1
I
'= a
o £ o
*" a co
vs aj '35
c ?s ^\
'.2 35 1
«i I
|i . |
1-8 §
?, s <
o
O
o
suireQ IFIUSUIUOJIAUH jo
-------
3.3.2 Trends for Product Types
A description of trends for claims associated with each-of the eight product types follows.
Table 3.5 illustrates the frequency of claims and the distribution of claim activity among product
categories. It also shows the share of total new product introductions for each category.
Table'3.5
Fnvimnmental marketing claims, by Product Type, January 1989 - June 1992
Product
Categories
Foods
HBA
Beverages
Pet & Misc. .
Laundry &
Cleaning
Products
Paper
Pesticides' &
Insecticides
Bags
Total
1989
'# %'
152 5.3
60 4:0
31 5.9
35 7.7 -.
39 '. 18.5
4 9.1
2 10.5
7 53.8
330 5.9
1990
# 1 %
236 6.8
146 9.5
57 9.0
/
61 17.5
96 36.1
47 57.3
9 27.3
21 67.7
673 10.5
1991
#. %
239 7.6
171 10.6
74 12.6
92 28.8
120 41.7
-/ (
29 49.2
10 34.5
8 33.3
743 12.3
19922
# %
232 7.5
158 9.4
48 8.3
82 . 1.8.2
158 46.5
10 23.8
10 20.0
i --
20 50.0
718 11.4
1989-19923
-# I %
:743 6.7
456 8.3
186- 9.1
229 17.0
334 35.7
85 41.3
26 24.5
46 - 52.3
2,105 9.9
Share of
All New
Product
Launches
%
51.9
25.9
9.6
6.3
4.4
-.. i.o
0.5
0.4
100%
1 Percentage of products of this product category only bearing environmental claims.
2 The number of product with claims in the first half of 1992 was doubled here for comparative purposes.
3 For the total across the entire study period (Jan. 1989-June 1992), claims in 1992, were not doubted.
. Foods account for more than half of all new product introductions, with health & beauty
aids making up another quarter. While health & beauty aids also account for the highest number
of products with environmental marketing claims, they have the lowest percentage of claims of
any product category. Bags and paper products have the highest percentages of environmental
' claims. The product types are discussed in order of total releases. While the annual totals are
discrete, they are represented with a line graph to better illustrate changes in the amount of claim
activity. . . \ .
53
-------
Foods (see Figure 3.11)
Foods, the largest category of new products, comprise just over half of all new product
introductions each year. The percentage of food products with environmental claims rose from
1989 to 1990, and stayed about the same from 1990 to 1992. Across three and a half years,
toxicity related claims accounted for 77 percent of all claims made for foods. Toxicity related
claims' accounted for 94 percent of environmental claims for food in 1989, but declined to about
three-quarters in the subsequent years. The total amount of environmental claims for foods
stayed about the same, due to the increase in claims of recycled and recyclable packaging in
1991. Use of these two solid waste-related claims combined increased from 26 percent of claims
for foods in 1990 to 36 percent in 199 L These two, plus toxicity related, account for more than
90 percent of claims made for food for the three years of the study.
It is interesting to note that to earlier claims for foods referred overwhelmingly to the
food product and its health impact on the individual consumer (i.e., toxicity related claims).
Food product claims now relate increasingly to packaging and solid waste issues, which could
be considered to benefit society rather than the-individual..
* »
Health & Beauty Aids (Figure 3.12)
Health & beauty aids, the second largest product category, comprise one quarter of all
new product releases. The percentage of products with environmental claims followed a trend
similar to food products, rising significantly from 1989 to 1990, and essentially leveling off for
the rest of the period. Health & beauty products appeared in all claim categories. Toxicity
related claims account for 30 percent of all environmental claims made for health & beauty aids
over the three and a half years of the study, while degradable, recyclable, 'and general
environmental each represent around 17 percent. ,
All claim types for health & beauty aids increased from 1989 to. 1990. From 1990 to
1991, toxicity related, degradable and ozone related claims declined, though this was more than
compensated for by increases in all other categories. Recycled claims saw a severe decline in
1992, along with drops in pollution and general environmental claims. It is interesting to note
that of the claims that declined in 1992, two require actions on the part of the manufacturer.
1 ' *
Beverages fFigure 3.13)
Beverages, the third largest category of new product launches, had far fewer claims than
foods or health & beauty aids. Environmental claims for beverages had patterns similar to those
for foods, although their number declined more in 1992. The percentage of products with
'claims rose from 5.9 percent in 1989 to 12.4 percent in 1991, only to fall to 8.3 m 1992.
Toxicity related claims, such as organic, accounted for 61 percent of claims for beverages.
54
-------
U-
«
n
i . s
? '.8..'
I
0
-XL
0
sU
ij
t « *3 £ «
'1 H'S .§.i
O (2 3 £ J
1
O
tfl
I
-------
o
c
o
1)
-a
t/j
u
"rt
w
D
%
an databa
§
O1
ociates
.2P.S
o
I
-------
.£}
c/f
0>
Q
sa
!_
'O
'c3
0
1
o
c/3
o
-------
Recyclable claims, totalling 30 percent, grew quickly until 1991 but accounted'for most of the
decline in environmental claims for beverages in 1992.
Although the number of toxicity related claims did not change much from 1989 to 1992,
their share of all claims made for beverages declined from 97 percent to 64 percent. The
incidence of recyclable claims increased from 0 in 1989 to 43 percent of claims for beverages
in 1991. These'two types account for almost all environmental claims made for beverages. -
Pet & Miscellaneous Products (Figure 3.14)
The percentage of pet & miscellaneous products with environmental claims increased
from 7.1 to 27.'9 percent from 1989 to 1991, declining to 18.2 percent in 1992. Exaggerating
this trend is the fact that new' product releases declined while environmental claims increased,
Just under half of all environmental claims were toxicity related, with recycling claims,,
degradable and general environmental each constituting about 12 percent.
In addition to pet products, this category includes a variety of household products and
miscellanea such as light bulbs, stationery, automotive products, and "household maintenance
and energy conservation" products. . (See Appendix 1 for a complete list of products included
in the category.-) This category also includes packaged fireplace logs, charcoal, and lighter fluid,
all of which have been subject to regulation in certain parts of the country, and have thus
changed their makeup to .cause less ground level air pollution (10,13). While pet &
miscellaneous products dominated the energy claims category, they did not contain many
pollution claims.
. Laundry & Cleaning Products (Figure 3.15)
Laundry & cleaning products have had a great deal of environmental marketing claim
activity. Although only the fifth largest source of new product introductions, this category had
the third highest number of products with environmental claims. Over one third of new laundry
& cleaning products had environmental claims. Unlike the four larger categories, laundry &
cleaning products.has continued to increase during the entire period covered by the study, from
18.5 percent of product launches in 1989 to 46.5 percent in 1992.
Toxicity related claims comprise 30 percent of claims used for laundry & cleaning
products over the past three and a half years, degradable 26 percent, and general environmental
16 percent All types of environmental claims were made for laundry & cleaning products.
Increases were seen in most categories from 1989 to 1992, with no major declines. As
"mentioned above in the discussion of source reduced claims, smaller packages for concentrated
powde'red laundry soap, called "ultras," were introduced in 1991. The number of source
reduced claims increased substantially in 1992.
58
-------
CJ
3
O
o
3
O
a
s
WJ
d
c
1
s
C/3
n-H
c«
0
1
Cfl
D
o
0>
3
cr-
CO
I
a
fj
>
cs
s-
§
3
3
S
oa
a)
oa
cs
J3
«
uctscan da
o
ON
VI
u->
r^>
^^ w^ Cd
e--)
-------
-3
tj
I ^
>T 1
C
ij
C
|
>
S
"a
l_t
0
C
CJ
SO
_o
£
rs
u
>*
.8
-3
i)
£
^
T3
a
j
3
T3
£J
o
y
o
vi
o
5 "°
si
c
o
on
r-<
!S
O
00
c
(U
C
C
> CJD
c c
O
o
oo
C3
«*-! C
O C3
>* >>
O U
C 13
§ S
CO
|
bO
c
03
3
a
&
u«
O
g
'53
"o
o
W5
|
. J5
M
2
d 1
S
1
i)
£
o
o
Q.
O
O
O
e
H
- a\ s e
S O\ C . B
2 """ 'o S !s
*"" *^ Mu. 8 T3
g eo O C- ' c«
lilf!
^uauraoiiAUH jo
-------
In the first half of 1992, 168 environmental marketing claims were'made for 170
products, the greatest amount of activity of .any product type for that period. Laundry &
cleaning products often make multiple claims. Thus a single product may claim no phosphates.
biodegradable, recycled and recyclable. In this period, new product launches containing
environmental marketing claims averaged more than two environmental claims per, product.
.' Paper Products (Figure 3.16) . ; - ''
Paper products, such as napkins, .paper towels, and toilet paper, comprise only one
percent of new consumer product launches. Thirty-nine percent of all paper products released
in the first half of 1992 contained recycled claims. General environmental and toxicity related
claims each account for about 17 percent. .
The number of paper products with environmental claims peaked in 1990 at 57.3 percent.
That year had the highest number of new product introductions as well, suggesting that many
paper products were introduced specifically to take advantage of the trend in environmental
marketing. The low number of claims in 1989, on only 4 of 44 products, may be due in part
to the absence of recycled and recyclable claims as package tags in Productscan at that time.
The number of paper products with claims declined by more than half from 1990 to
1992, partly due to a decline in the number of new product launches. Most of this decline was
in general environmental claims, falling from one-third of new products to only one in 1991 and
none in the first half of 1992. Recycled, toxicity related and pollution claims also declined in
1992. Paper products had a higher percentage of recycled claims than any other product type
in 1991, with almost half of new paper releases claiming to contain recycled material.
'."" Pesticides & Insecticides (Figure 3.17V ' ,
The product category 'pesticides & insecticides had the lowest number of products with
environmental claims, with a .total of only 26 claims over the 30 months of the study; less than
one percent of all products with environmental claims. Under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), FJ»A has restricted the use of non-toxic and other
claims for registered pesticides. Nonetheless, toxicity related claims (such as "no synthetic
chemicals") appeared on 22 pesticides & insecticides, "and on every such product with a claim
in 1991. In addition, there were ten general environmental claims, and nine other assorted
claims.
Overall, the trend for envkbnmental claims on pesticides & insecticides was similar to
other products, peaking in 1991 at 34.5 percent of new products. Toxicity related claims
accounted for most of the trend, rising from 5 to 34.5 percent of products with claims per year
from 1989 to 1991 and falling to 16 percent in 1992.
61
-------
c/
**
u
3
o
D.
a
8
ca
S
crt
S
v-*
J2
U
"rt
+»
c
o
'>
w
1>
Cfl
3
>^
o
cr
fi.
tu
OJO
E
as
u
tn
U
O
O
£
'«
^
,o
2 oo
§
o
S3
O.
1
o
Si,
o CN -;5
c »-< ^ <
^
o HI-
P S~S o
!!!|i
-
u
V5
^< -~ *^ >.j* "^
O «5 M ON ^
*> s^ 2i r -a
£ « S . o S
° W £5 S- »3
S 05 S ^
2l|||
O (
05
. tu
i
S3
3
C3
o
o
§
-------
s
fj
C
o
C/3
U
&o
c w
l-s
r>
»«^.
c eo^_ g «
h « O !S jo
;ofProdu(
'So
_>»
"«
i
CA
52
S
' cS
-------
Bags (Figure 3.18)
This .category includes paper and plastic bags for trash, groceries, and food storage.
Eighty-eight new bag products were introduced from January 1989 to June 1992, the smallest
category- of products and only four-tenths of one percent of all new product launches. However,
the rate of introductions of products with environmental claims was the highest of any category,
with over half of those 88 products bearing claims.
The number of claims for bags peaked in 1990, with 41 environmental claims spread
among two thirds (21) of product introductions. In 1991 the number of bags with environmental
claims fell from two thirds to one third (8 of 24 new products). This decline was due almost
entirely to a drop in degradable claims. Degradable claims appeared on 17 of 21 bags in 1990.
In 1991, only one bag appeared with a claim of degradability. This trend is attributable to the.
host of legal challenges to claims for biodegradable and photodegradable plastic bags: At least
11 lawsuits were made in 1991 challenging claims of plastic bag degradability (see Chapter 4).
The number of bags with environmental claims rose again in the first half of 1992,
appearing on 10 of 20 new products. All ten of these bags claimed recycled content.
3.4 SUMMARY
Overall, this quantitative survey supports the general impression provided by current
marketing literature that the use of environmental marketing claims is an increasingly important
part of packaged goods marketing. Due to limitations in the main- data source, the most
apparently dramatic increases, from 1989 to 1990, are not completely reliable. Although the
causes of trends in environmental marketing claims are not addressed by the Productscan
information, some are easily discerned. The effects of lawsuits and various state regulations
seeking restrictions on claims of degradable plastic products can be seen in the reduced number
of such claims in 1991.18 The increase in source reduced claims indicates that marketers and
consumers may be gaining a more refined knowledge of solid waste management solutions,
and/or that marketers are realizing the cost savings of more efficient resource use.
Although the number of new products with environmental claims is down slightly in the
first half of 1992, it is too soon to say that the trend is "all but dead." (11) More likely, the
decline may be an indication of the confusion generated by lawsuits, state regulations, and a lack
of federal guidelines. A spokesperson for Church & Dwight, maker of Arm & Hammer
products, explained that "The risks of getting involved in green advertising until [the labeling
controversy is] sorted out are too high."
18 Surprisingly, however, there was no apparent decrease in the number of ozone related marketing claims, despite
the fact that at least 11 actions were taken against marketers as of mid-1992.
64
-------
DJD
C2
u,
£
ffl
,1/3
u
w
00
p
cr
.-a
PU
od
en
'I
OJQ
C3
V
c
3
o
c
'
Q.
o
a
en-
00
a
O.
'o
I
o
3
£0!
s
I
ca
1>
S
C' ^« "* f* t.
Ill-
eSSs-
SS"S 1'
» C 3 en
1 S e a jg"^
ob « .2 o w
I II ^ *'
^llgS
_J3 P« Q O 35
o ° *s 5
a ~* O C -e
S -o "i- «
S.5
= J
^ fi
&i W
"2 > -S «£ %
'll'Sc-s
i 3-8 o §
° u =3 i= is
-S c I? ii'
O (3
=n en 5
III sa
8
JS "§ 8 §> .§
O ft. 3 u. -J
I
v
h1 \ H 1 1 I , I ' I
ON
oo
ON
in
^USUIUOJIAUH jo
-------
While some marketers reacted to the FTC environmental marketing guidelines with
predictions of increased activity, others expressed caution regarding continued state and local
regulations "You still have to be concerned about what happens in states with their own
environmental rules - California, New York and Rhode Island, specifically - and I would
think marketers would still want to see some assurances from those states," said Paul Petruccelli,
senior counsel for Kraft General Foods. (1)
66
-------
Table 3.6
Environmental Marketing Claims, January 1989 June 1992
On the following pages, Table 3.6 presents a compilation of the results discussed above.
The numbers and percentages of claim types, measured against total new product releases, are
shown for each product type, for each year covered by this study. Total claims and releases,
and the total number and percentages of products with environmental claims are also given,
broken down by product type and claim type. ,
67
-------
Table 3.6: Environmental Marketing Claims: January 1989 - June 1992
1/92 - 6/92
Product Tvpe
Poods
Health & Beautv
Bcveraces
Pel & Misc.
Laundrv & Clean.
Paper
Pesticides & Insect,
Bags :
Total
1991
Product Type
Foods i
Health & Beauty
Beverages
Pel & Misc.
Laundry & Clean.
Paper
Pesticides & Insect-
Bags
Total
Claim TV
Toxieitv
39
38
16
20
45
0
4
0
212
.
Claim T\
Toxicity
163
55
37
45
" 72
11
' 10
2
395
p_e
Pet.
5.7%
4.5% ,
5.5%
8.9%
26.5%
0.0% :
16.0% ;
0.0%
6.7%
pe
Prt '
5.2%
3.4%
6.3%
14.1%
25.0%
18.6%
34.5%
8.3%
6.5%
Recyclable
22
22
6
8
20-
0
1
i
81
Recyclable
59"
55
32
15
38
0
1
1
,201
Pet.
1.4% :
2.6%
2.1% '
3.6%
11.8%!
0.0%.
4.0%
10.0%!
2.6%
Pet. ,
1.9%
3.4%
5.4%
4.7%
13.2%
0.0%
3.4%
4.2%
3.3%
Degrad.
. 1
20
0
' 2
43
.0
1
1
68
Degrad.
3
43
0
20
65
1
0
1
133
Pet. '
0.1%
2.4%
0.0% ;
0.9%
25.3%
0.0%
4.0%
5.0%
2.2%
Pet.
0.1%
2.7%
0.0%
6.3%
22.6%
1.7%
0.0%
4.2%
2.2%
Recycled
" 14
1
0
.... 10....
17
5
o
10
57
Recycled
44
26
.'. 4
12
23
24
1
7
141
Pet.
0.9% ;
0.1%
0.0% :
4.4% :
10.0%
23.8%
0.0% .
50.0%
1.8%
Pet.
1.4%
. 1.6%
0.7%
3.8%
'8.0%
40,7%
3.4%
29.2%
2.3%
General Pet.
4 0.3%
,11 1.3%
2 0.7% ;
9 4.0% ;
27 15.9% :
0 0.0%
1 4.0%
0 0.0%":
54 1.7%
General Pet.
2 0.1%
46 2.9%
0 , 0.0%
18 5.6%
: 39 13.5%
1 1.7%.
4 1'3.8%
1 4.2%
. Ill 1.8%
Pollution
0
7
1
4'.
0
1
1
1
15
Pollution
2
22
6
. ._ 4
5
. .10
0
4
47
Pet.
0.0%
0.8%
0.3%
1.8%
0.0%
4.8%
4.0%
5.0% .
0.5%
,
Pet.
0.1%
1.4%
b"M
1.3%
1.7%
16.9%
0.0%
16.7%
0.8%
1990 i Claim Type
, 1 tji 1
Product Type Toxicity Pet, i Recyclable Pet.
; Foods ! 180 5.2%
Health & Beauty ' 59 3.8%
! Beverages ; 35 5.5%
Pet & Misc. 1 42 12.1%
Laundry & Clean. , 60 22.6%
Paper ' 17 20.7%
Pesticides & Insect. 7 21.2%
Baas 3 9.7%
Total . 403 6.3%
41 1.2%
37 2.4%
20 3.2%
5 1.4%
19 7.1%
4 4.9%
1 3.0%
4 12 9%
131 2.0%
Degrad: Pet,
10 , 0.3%
49 3.2%
1 0.2%
15 4.3%
56 ' 21.1%
5. 6.1%
o .'0.0%
17 54.8%
153 2.4%
Recycled Pet.
34 1.0%
, , 17 1.1%
2 0.3%
8 2.3%.
14 5.3%
35 42.7%
1 3.0%
' 3 9.7%
114 1.8%
General Pet.
: 4 0.1%
30 .1.9%
. 2-' 0.3%
12 3.4%
' 34 . 12.8%
28 34.1%
4 12.1%
Pollution Pet.
" . 3 0.1%
.13 .0.8%
, . 0 0.0%
9 2.6%
9 3.4%
11 13.4%
0 0.0%
9.29.0%; ;4 12.9%
123' 1.9%
49 0.8%
1989
Product Type
Foods
' Health & Beautv
Beverages
" Pel & Misc.
Laundry & Clean.
Paper
Pesticides & Insect
Bags
Total
!, Claim Typ
Toxiciiy
i 143
46
29
27
26
1
1
1
274_
e
Pet.
5.0%
3.1%
5.5%
6.0%
12.3%
2.3%
Recyclable
2
0
0
1
0
0
5.3% | 0
7.7% 1 0
49% 3
Pet.
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
Degrad.
3
12
1
3
12
1
0.0% 0.
" 0.0% 1 5
0.1%; 37
Pet.
0.1%
Recycled
0
0,8% j 0
0.2%
0.7%
5.7%
2.3%
0
6
0
0
0.0% : 0
38.5% 0
0.7% i 0
Pet. ' General Pet.
0.0% 1 0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5 0.3%
0 0.0%
' ' . 3 0.7%
8-. '3.8%
0.0% 1 2.3%
''0.0%! 1 5.3%
0.0% : 2 15.4%
0.0% ' 21 0.4%
Pollution
1
3
1
1
1
1
0
; . 3
n
Pet.
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.5%,
2.3%
0.0%
23.1%
0.2%
68
-------
. - . : total
Wildlife Pet CM Related Pet. Source Red. Pet. Energy .,vPct. ' Claims
'8 '0.5%. ' 0 0.0% . 0 0.0% ' 0 Q.0% . 138
4 0.5% - 4 0.5%: 3 , 0.4% -- 1 0.1% j
o 0.0% o. 0.0% ... P ,0.0%; o 0.0% j
0 0.0% . 2 0.9% 0 0.0%
. 1 0.4%
" 0 0.0% . ' 1 0.6%: 15 , 8.8% ' . 0 0.0% !
o 0.0% , - .' -o 0.0% . o o:q%
:0 0.0%!
o: 0.0% i . o 0.0% . . ' :o 0,0% .0 0.0%
- o 00% o . 0.0% . B 0.0%
0 0.0%!
'p 64%: 7 02% 18- 0.6% 2 0.1%}
HI
25
56
. 168
i , 6
8
' , '14
'. -526
Total Products
Releases >ith Claims
."'". 1.553, ' ,116'
839 ; 79
28,9
225 j
. 170;
2.1 !
25
20!
24
41
79
' " ' 5 .
' , 5
10
3,142 ' 359
% .Products -
with Claims .
^'.^f
.0.4%
8.3% .
18.2%-''
46.5% ii
:. 23.8% i
20.0%
. 50.0%
. 11.4%
Wildlife Pet. '. O3 Related Pet. j Source Red. Pet.
8 0.3% 2'' 0.1%
Energy Pet. ,
; 0" 0.0% i. ,0 0.0%
8 0.5% I 4 0.2%-' . l5 0.3% 0 0.0%
' 0 0.0% 0 .0.0%
'. 3 " 0.9%
' o 0.0%
0 0.0%''
1 3.4%
0- .0.6%
20 0.3%
' . i: 0.3%
: ,3 1.6%
0 0.0%
1 -3.4%
0 0.0%
11 0.2%
'0 0.0%
i 1 0.3%
"!2 0.7%
' ,. !0' 0.0%
: o 0.0%
' 1 4.2%
9 0.1%
"- . ' o . 6.0%
6 1.9%-
2 0.7%
3 5.1%
0 0.0%
2" 8.3%
13 0.2%
Total' ;
: Claims
283
264
73
125
' -249
,v -so
18.
1'9
1,081
i Wildlife Pet.
10 0.3%
' 1 0.1%
! 3 0,5%
! 0 0.0%
O3 Related Pet.
0 - 0.0%
9 0.6%
'' 0 0.0%
2 0.6%
2 0.8%!'. 1 -0.4%
. '.' 0 ' 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
. 16 0.3%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 '0.0%
' 12 0.2%
Source Red. Pet.
: 2 0.1%
2 0.1%'
"" ] 0 '0.0%
' ! o 0.0%
', 2 0.8%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
'. " 0 0.0%
: 6 0.1%
Energy Pet.
0 0,0%
-.0 - 0.0%
o 0.0%
. 2 0.6%
1 0.4%
5 6.1%
0 0.0%
' 1 3.2%
9 0.1%
Total .
Claims
284
217
-.' 63
95
'. 198
105
13
41
1 1,016
Total i
Releases:
3,1321
1,614
... .589
' ,:' 319
288
59
v 29
24
- 6,054
Products
with Claims;
239
171
74
: -.92
120
29
10
8
743
, Total
Releases
3,463
1,542
631
348
,266
82
33
31
6,396
Products
with Claims
236
146
.57
' . 61
96
47
9
21
% Products
with Claims j
. 7.6.% H
£0.6% ;
12.6%'!,
28.8'% S
41.7% i
49.2%:
' 34.5%'
33.3%
12.3%
% Products !
with Claims j
6.8%
. 9.5%
9.0%
17.5%
36.1%
57.3%
27.3%
67.7%
673. ' 10.5%1
Wildlife Pet.
1 0.0%-
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
2 0.9%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
o' 0.6%
| *3 0.1%
O3 Related Pet.
4 0.1%
2 . 0.1%
0 0.0%
0 . 0.0%
, 6 , 2.8%
O*- 0.0%
' 0 0.0%
0 ^ 0.0%
12 0.2%
Source Red. Pet.
0 0.0%
' 0 0.0%
! o 0.0%
'!. 0 .0.0%
-', 6 2.8%
' o 0.0%
0 0.0%
'.' 0 0.0%
, 6 0.1%
Energy Pet.
1 0 0.0%
0 0.0%
o- 0,0%
3 6.7%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%-
0 0.0%
.0' ,0.0%
3 0.1%
Total
Claims
155
' ,68
: 31
38
'61
4
2
, 11
37C
Total
Releases
2.869
.- 1,501
528
452
211.
.. 44
19
'13
5.637
Products % Products i
with Claims with Claims i
152 5.3% (
60 ' "-4.0%
31 5.9%|
35 ' 7.7%'!
r
' ' 39 18.5%
.4 : 9.1%
- 2 10.5%!
.7 53.8%
330 5.9%
69
-------
References
1. Colford, Steven (1992). "FTC Green Guidelines May Spark Ad Efforts," Advertising
Age, p. 1, 29, Augusts. , '
2. Frankel, Carl (1991). "The FTC Holds its Hearings: A Page Turns for Environmental
Marketing," Green Market Alert, 2:8, August.
3. Frankel,'Carl (1992). "The Majors March into Green(ed-Up) Products," Green Market
Alert, 311, January.
4. Frankel, Carl (1992).' "Green New Product Update," Green Market Alert, 3:8, August.
5*. Habicht', F. Henry (1992). "EPA Definition of Pollution Prevention," memorandum to
All EPA Personnel, May 28.
6. Lawrence, Jennifer (1992). "Marketers Drop 'Recycled'," Advertising Age, March 9,
p. 1, 48. ' "..'.
7. Mansfield, Janet, Information Center Manager, MIS (1992), personal communication,
March.
8. Marketing Intelligence Service (1990). New Green Products Report, Naples, NY. July.
9. Marketing Intelligence Service, Productscan. Naples, NY.
10. Pasternak,' Judy (1991). "Barbecue Lighter Fluid Comes Clean," Los Angeles Times,
August 28.
11. Reitman, Valerie (1992). "'Green' Product Sales Seem to be Wilting," Wall Street
Journal, May. 18,' 1992, piEl. ;
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
(1991). Assessing the Environmental Consumer Market, prepared by Abt Associates
Inc., #21P-1003, April 1. '
13. Weisman, Alan (1989). "Fighting for Breath," New York Times Magazine, July 30.
70
-------
4. DISCONTINUATION OR AVOIDANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL .CLAIMS'
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The sustained confusion over the meanings of environmental marketing terms make
marketers hesitant to introduce environmental claims, and consumers skeptical of the validity of
environmental labels, (36) Adding to the confusion is. the sometimes conflicting array.of
regulations that states and regional organizations have enacted in an attempt to define and restrict
different environmental marketing claims prior to the issuance of FTC guidelines.
Many national marketers are concerned with the "patchwork." of green labeling standards.
State regional and private agencies have led the way in policing environmental advertising, often
with different arid conflicting rules. Marketers have argued that complying with the increasing
number of state regulations is becoming enormously expensive and difficult. (26,41,46) For
: many corporations, the-confusion prior to the issuance of FTC guidelines has translated into
removing or avoiding green marketing claims in lieu of facing possible legal action by the broad
array of state and local agencies now involved in enforcement. As the National Food Processors
Association argued in its petition to the FTC, marketers-need "safe harbors" where they can,
make real environmental claims without fear of being sued. (38).
Until-recently, no federal agency had issued comprehensive guidelines or standards for
environmental marketing claims. Rather, the Federal Trade Commission chose to prosecute
deceptive environmental advertising on a case-by-case basis, with the results of the cases serving
as examples to marketers. This approach was criticized for being too slow and haphazard, and
for essentially requiring that some consumers be misled or deceived before the FTC takes any
action. (17) , ,
- On July 28 1992, however, the FTC released environmental marketing guidelines (see
Appendix 4) Although the guidelines are voluntary, they illustrate FTC interpretations of the
Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 which outlaws "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in
. affairs of commerce." (43) As a result, they give a good indication of how the law would
function if it were put to test by a marketer's claim. The guidelines consist of a series of real
world examples of marketing claims with opinions as to why they may or may not be considered
deceptive. In general, the guidelines discourage the use of general, environmental claims that
may be vague or ambiguous to consumers, and encourage marketers to (a) make only those
claims that can be supported with documentation, (b) clearly qualify claims, and (c) avoid
overstating the benefit of an attribute. The guidelines are intended to protect consumers from
misleading marketing practices, and to delineate safe environmental terms for marketers.
Among other sources, the FTC guidelines were informed by its own decisions regarding
misleading environmental claims, guidelines drafted by the National Food Processors
'. Association, and the Task Force of State Attorneys General Report, Green Report II (See Section
.4.4). '.
71
-------
There is evidence that increasing numbers of marketers have dropped-or are not making
environmental claims due to the lack of consensus as to which environmental terms can be
legitimately used for their products. (24) As might be expected, some marketers are dropping
claims over which other corporations have been sued. Others are wary of making new
environmental marketing claims when they have been challenged on previous ones. Several
marketers have decided not to advertise real environmental improvements in their processes or
products, deciding that the risk of litigation is not worth the benefit of the environmental claim.
Although it is too early to see the effects of the FTC guidelines, indications are that many
marketers will welcome the input of the federal government. (43,5,42,34) Agreements on the
specifics may not be readily forthcoming, but states, consumer groups, 'and environmental
groups have been generally supportive of the FTC's guidelines. For example, the FTC
guidelines do not encourage manufacturers to differentiate between p re- and post-consumer
recycled material in the contents of a-product or package. The Green Report II does encourage
it, and more importantly, the state of New York requires that products or packages contain a
certain percentage of post-consumer recycled content material to make the claim recycled. The
NY State Attorney General's office has indicated that it "will consider prosecuting" claims that
violate its own regulations. (22) .
For the most part, the increased hesitancy of marketers in making environmental claims
has been a positive consequence of the policing actions taken by regulatory agencies. Most of
the claims that have been discontinued have been those that consumer advocates and enforcement
agencies considered to be deceptive (see Sections 4.2-4.3). However, in those cases where
legitimate, truthful claims are avoided due to regulatory uncertainty, consumers lose information
that could influence their purchasing decisions, and marketers lose marketplace incentives for
making environmental improvements.
' The 3M Corporation is one example of how regulatory uncertainty affects marketers.
3M is considered by many to be a leader in incorporating environmental concerns into its
corporate strategies. The company has developed, as part of its. corporate policy, the
requirement that all environmental claims be submitted to an Environmental Marketing Claims
Review Committee'for approval before they can be released. Claims are reviewed for technical
accuracy, substantiation, and clarity of communication. Broad, ambiguous, insupportable, or
' poorly defined claims such as safe for the environment, or environmentally friendly, are avoided.
According to 3M sources, the Environmental Marketing Claims Review Committee has
moved to abandon certain claims even when they meet existing corporate environmental labeling
guidelines. The Committee's reaction is based on the fact that the beneficial impacts of
.environmental labeling are perceived to be small and uncertain at best, while the negative
impacts upon the overall corporate image resulting from litigation against the company are
. .potentially .significant. Furthermore, although the benefits of environmental labeling are limited
to a particular product line, such negative impacts can adversely affect all corporate activities.
Instead of direct environmental marketing, 3M will sometimes inform reliable third-party
72
-------
environmental groups of its environmental improvements in the hope that knowledge of its
actions will spread indirectly through these groups. (1)
A concrete example of the effects of challenges to environmental marketing claims can -
be observed in the sales trends for BPI Environmental, a manufacturer of plastic grocery bags.
As a'.result of challenges to other marketers' claims of-degradability for plastic bags by the FTC
and the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, BPI's sales of plastic bags labeled as
photo- and biodegradable fell from $5 million in 1990 to $1.5 million in 199L On the-other
hand, the company's sales,of plastic bags labeled as recycled increased sales tenfold last year,
from'$600,000 to $6.4 million.,(23) '.'.."-
This chapter deals with cases in which marketers have removed or are avoiding using
environmental labels on their products. Section 4.2 discusses companies that have voluntarily
removed environmental labels. Section 4.3 covers companies that potentially could have made
environmental claims about their products but,have chosen not to. Section 4 ."4 describes
environmental labeling claims that have been withdrawn or modified after being legally
challenged. Section 4.5 discusses the impact of new FTC guidelines on marketers.
4.2 VOLUNTARY REMOVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LABELS
Companies that h&ve or are considering voluntarily removing environmental labels from
their products include Church and Dwight, Dial Corporation, Dow Chemical, First Brands, and
Procter and Gamble. The claims voluntarily removed include the context-dependent terms
recyclable and degradable, and general or loosely defined phrases such as made from recycled
paper and earth friendly. Such withdrawal of claims is due in large part to the fact that as of
mid-1992, at least 14 suits had been raised against companies for using degradable, with at least
4 suits raised against those using the term recyclable and at least 7 raised against those making
general claims..19 (20) The major reason given ,.by company spokespeople for proactively
changing product labeling was to avoid potential litigation resulting from changes in state laws.
Recently, several major marketers, including Procter and Gamble Co., Kraft General Foods,
First Brands Corp., Mary Kay Cosmetics, and Andrew Jergens Co., announced their decision
.to avoid recycled ^recyclable claims because of states' widely differing definitions of the
terms. (32) ' , -.'
Church and Dwight . . ...-.'..
Church and Dwight is considering dropping box made from recycled paper from its
.products. In addition, the,company is spending reportedly hundreds of thousands of dollars to
change the recyclable label on boxes of Arm & Hammer baking soda to comply with new state
statutes. Church and Dwight is also considering dropping all environmental marketing claims
19 Context-dependent terms such as degradable and recyclable, and vague general terms, have been criticized for
being inherently misleading and/or unsubstantiable (see Chapter 5). Several critics have argued that the use of these
terms should be restricted or banned. >
73
-------
due to the cost and other concerns related to repeatedly changing labels to comply with new state
laws. (15.21) .
Dial Corporation
Dial Corporation exchanged the general label earth friendly for all natural packaging and
recycled paperboard on the package of their 20-Mule Team Borax. The company is currently
debating whether or not to include more specific recycled content information, or even eliminate
all claims of recycled content packaging. (21)
Dow Chemical .
According to New York Attorney General Robert Abrams, several companies have
modified or withdrawn environmental claims in light of actions taken by the multi-state Task
Force of Attorneys General. Dow Chemical has agreed to remove the terms degradable and
recyclable from its Handi-Wrap plastic food wrap. A number of other firms have notified the
task force of their intention to withdraw or modify environmental advertising claims. (33)
First Brands .
First Brands has announced plans to discontinue promoting Glad .trash bags as
degradable. In addition, the company is removing the claim recycled from the Glad trash bag
packaging, even though .the packages have had the claim for ten years. The Director of
Environmental Affairs for the company explained, "With no national guidelines, we can't deal
with a patchwork of legislation." The package will still feature a claim about the reduced
amount of material used to make the bags. (32)
Kraft General Foods
Kraft is removing the claim recycled from all packages, even though all of its dry
products use packaging that is 100 percent pre- or postconsumer recycled content. The company
cites Rhode Island's requirement that the amount of postconsumer content be stated on the label
as the motivation to remove the term. (32) . .
. Procter & Gamble
Procter and Gamble removed this product coded for recycling from its detergent bottles,
and is removing the label recyclable where facilities exist from packaging for all brands. (32,44)
The company also announced it would specify total and postconsumer content when it makes
recycled content claims. (32) The company cited state regulations in Rhode Island and
California as the cause for the change. The company also canceled a television commercial
showing teenagers throwing empty Sunny Delight containers into a bin marked recycle.
Although the containers were technically-recyclable, few programs existed to recycle them;
Procter and Gamble reportedly decided to avoid any potential problems with the claim. (33) To
74
-------
facilitate keeping up with changing regulations, P&G has established in-house green labeling
guidelines that reflect its. understanding of the regulatory and legislative status quo. (32)
Procter and Gamble is also changing the label of its Cheerfree laundry detergent to make
the claim more, precise, the label will read: Box made from 100 percent recycled paper
(Minimum 35 percent postconsumer) and Scoop made from 100 percent postconsumer recycled
plastic. The existing label reads: This package is designed to help reduce, solid waste in the
environment. The box is made from recycled paper. The box is smaller than conventional
detergent packages. This results in less solid waste. The scoop is coded to identify the type of
plastic so that it can be more easily recycled, where recycling collection facilities exist. Please
support recycling in your community. '(32) The new claim, mirrors the widely accepted recycled
content claim first used by Lever Brothers.
Marketers aware of the debate surrounding environmental marketing terms have begun
to modify their labeling to avoid controversial terms and vague, general statements. However,
rather than giving guidance to marketers, the numerous policing actions and state regulations
brought against them have, merely served to' increase their apprehension. Asserts Rajeev Bal,
president of Webster Industries, which makes the Good Sense line of degradable plastic bags,
"It's a logistical nightmare. Our. labels read like essays to comply with all the state
requirements."20 (47) Prior to the issuance of FTC guidelines, marketers were faced with.
trying to second-guess how strictly state and local regulators will interpret the range of
definitions for environmental marketing terms. An additional concern is that even added -
precision in marketers' claims may not guarantee that consumers 'will understand the new
statements over the more general claims (see Chapter 2). ;
413 COMPANIES CHOOSING NOT TO MAKE ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS
Several companies have decided not to use the claims recyclable where facilities exist and
source-reduced, which have been criticized by state and consumer organizations for being poorly
defined and potentially misleading. Other marketers have qualified or limited the scope of their
claims, and expressed wariness of making new claims in light of the lack of standardized federal
guidelines clarifying the use of environmental terms.
'.».. DowBrands
DowBrands already labels both its Dow Bathroom Cleaner Trigger Sponge and its
Nucleic A Compleat 2 conditioner/shampoo with bottle made from 25 percent post consumer
recycled plastic, and labels its food protection bags and wraps with packaged in recycled
paperboard. However, the company has decided not to label its packages recyclable where
facilities exist for fear of litigation. (21)
' '"'in fact state regulations, although sometimes conflicting, require very simple language. Groups such as the
Attorneys General Task Force and the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs promote using the additional
language.
75
-------
Drackett Company
Drackett is keeping the label better for the environment... 65 percent less plastic than a
bottle... contains 20 percent recycled plastic on its Windex refill pouch. However, the company
is "exercising extreme caution" in making environmental claims given the current regulatory
uncertainty. (21) .
Sara Lee Corp. (Winston-Salem,.NC)
Sara Lee, the owner of L'eggs brand pantyhose, is minimizing the environmental claims
it is making related to its change in packaging, from the plastic egg it has used for 21 years to
a smaller milk-carton style package made from 95 percent recycled paperboard with 67 percent
postconsumer and 28 percent postindustrial content. This packaging meets New York City's
definition of-recycled, the nation's most stringent standard. As a result, the company is using
the label made from recycled paperboard with the chasing arrows symbol. (24)
Mobil Corporation
After being sued by the State Task Force of Attorneys General for degradability claims
on its trash bags, Mobil has decided not to make source reduction claims about its Hefty Steel-,
Sak trash and tall kitchen bags, even though the new bags use 30 percent less material.
However, Mobil's two main competitors, First Brands Corporation and Carlisle Plastic, decided
to make qualified source reduction claims on its'new lines of trash bags. First Brands labeled
its improved Glad bags with the statement: Although small, this reduction is pan of a continuing
effort on the pan of Glad to help reduce solid waste. Carlisle labeled its Ruffies bags with: 'A
better choice for our environment made with 40 percent less plastic. (33)
. 3M Corporation
3M recently decided to produce a less toxic water-based adhesive called Fastbond 30 as
an alternative to its traditional "melt-based" adhesives. This represented decreased hazardous
waste management costs for the company and considerable environmental improvements for both
the producer and the,users. Purchasers of the melt-based adhesives were simply offered the
water-based product as an alternative, but no claim was made with regard to the less toxic or
source reduced properties of the replacement product because 3M decided that the potential
benefit of making the claim did not outweigh the risk of possible litigation. However, even
though 3M did not directly advertise the environmental benefits of the manufacturing, change,
customers were attracted to the new product expressly because of its environmental attributes.
(1) '
76
-------
Mary- Kay Cosmetics :
Despite doing "a ton of environmental stuff," Mary Kay has no environmental claims on
its products. The company, cites not only legal restraints to making claims, but the skepticism
of consumers as determinants in its decision. (32) . .
Andrew Jergens Co.
The company considered printing the claim made-from recycled material on the package
of its Actibath carbonated bath tablet, but decided against it, citing the difficulties of meeting
varying state regulations. (32)
4.4 CLAIMS WITHDRAWN OR MODIFIED AFTER LEGAL CHALLENGE
Although the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) historically has played the largest role
in truth-in-advertising.issues, other organizations'have also begun to take action against deceptive
or misleading environmental marketing claims. The New York City Department of .Consumer
Affairs (NYC DCA) has brought the most actions against companies, followed by the Task
Force of State Attorneys General (State AsG), the FTC, and the National Advertising Division
of the Better Business Bureau (NAD).21 (20) Individual state attorneys general have also filed
suits, specifically those in Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and New York. In addition, thelSew Jersey
Department of Consumer Affairs has threatened marketers with lawsuits for deceptive marketing
unless they change their advertising within a certain time frame.
One problem with the process of determining environmental marketing regulations by
- adjudication is that the regulatory agencies involved in prosecuting false claims do not
necessarily have the scientific or technical background to determine whether or not subtler claims
are valid. In several instances, the definition taken by an enforcement agency was markedly
different than that commonly accepted by scientists and environmentalists.. For example, the
National Advertising Review Board of the Better Business Bureau defined the term recyclable
to mean "the product is transformed to another useful purpose, through a process that includes
human intervention, and that it is not added to the waste stream once its initial use is
completed." Under this definition, the Board ruled that recycling included composting (as well
as incineration to produce electricity). (21) This definition is far less stringent than those
proposed by the majority of the organizations, involved in defining environmental marketing
terms, including the EPA (See Chapter 5, Appendices 2 and 3).
Of forty-eight actions against environmental claims, seventeen were for claims of the
degradability of plastic products, primarily plastic bags and disposable diapers. Claims about
propellants, most often ozone friendly or no CFCs, were the cause of ten complaints. Almost
every action was against a packaged consumer goods marketer. The only exceptions were
ChemLawn lawn care service, and Craftmatic/Cpntour Industries (a manufacturer of home water
treatment systems). Table 4.1 shows all of the actions taken against marketers as of June 1992.
21 If NAD cannot resolve a conflict with ah advertiser, NAD or the marketer can appeal to a panel of the National
Advertising Review Board (NARB) (c.f. Stone Container Corporation).
- '. 77 '-.'
-------
fM
a\
o\
^
S
1
SX
,£
s.
i
2
6
u
1
i
J:
U
_3
Tf
1
H
J^t
b
o
oO
Ci
Language
S
'3
O
o
8.
8.
3
"8
w
-^
CO
o.
0
U
.1
52 1
. o
U. g
c
.-,
<
a
**
I
o
^S
jb
"Biodegradable"
"\\ hiodegrade befoi
child grows up"
Degradable
52
.S
la
ca
1
2 :|
cu ca
.1
1
o
Advanced Auti
Technology
1-
u*
o
o
e
13
O D
< "°
^ (D
1
ag /i
photodegradable "
/I1!
Degradable
00
!
.C
c/5
(J
. g
oL
8
3 '
u
s
i
on
1
T 1
(N
S
03
oo
r-
-------
..
|
i
>
'3
CD
'1
1
«
3
S
s
"1
w
o
a
Challeng
|
^J
-
1 '
1)
uc«
.
Language
S'
'3
U
o
'.
(D-
Q*
E-
tS
-a
-.2
a.
1
o
U
"1
c
ri . c
c
CJ
Q .
U'
Z
*-*.
^
;i 1
Degradable
en
oo
O
00
c .
f
en
O
en
JS
ex
O
s
00
en
P'
OS ,
1 1
(N
JS
|.
. 3.:
.
u
Q
U
z
^3
1
« ,
0 ^j
p^ C3
11
§; .g^
rt"i
Compostabh
en
t-l
§
'3
_ §
o §
3 -
1-
o
o.
00
t
N
o\
cs~
(S
'C
£ .. -
_ .
U -':"
D
U
^M
"Z'
' g;
' §
_*-»
* "Degradable bag "
"Will begin degrading \
three days of exposure
ultraviolet light..."
1
00
&'/:
;en
g
bo
a
1
en
_O
en
-.3
cx .
s
Is
1
oo
"c
§
00 .
i
*~ "
o\ ,
>*
'3 .'..,
Q --"
U
^(
Z
"Degradable"
"Non-toxic when
.-" incinerated"
Degradable
00
«
^ ^
00
'S.
1
en
_o
S
en
s
a .
C3 .
1
1
c£
1
oC
>»
^2
O '
Q
U ,
^"
Z -
- .s: .
^
;i a
"Degradable bag "
"Wi7/ *t?g//i degrading '
/A/et? d^s of exposure
ultraviolet light ..."
-
(U
3 -. - -
1 ;:
60 _
O "
.
60
s
00-
1
, en
.0
cd
S
-
I"
-G
1
a- ..
o
J-
a\
oC
^
2 '.- -
u
o
^*
Z'
. ^J
.1'
"This bag is biodegrad(
and recyclable "
Degradable
Recyclable
1
,
S
'S-
1
en
1
EX
C/3
S
2
.a-
tt
2
1 "'-
1
^
o\..
&
^
U
H
(JU
"
= ^
11
s-s
"O '
&
4*
(U
1
O
4) +->
«c y
-a 2
W W'
U* SJ
11
me Russell
metics
13
1
^ .
VTi
1
n
~n
2
c«
00
1'
,_
"Degradable"
-
Degradable
en
oo
= a'
1
o
rt
(X
bil Chemical
npany
S u
1
r-"
^ ...
g
s
Si
r-
-------
1
3
S
I
nenlal Marketing Te
o
.is
o
«*
Jj
4J
gt
"S
0
*^a
wi
S
<«
4i
j§
S3
|H*
2:-
c?
o
3
3
1)
Language
J
O
o
8.
CX
c«<
u
1
a.
>»
CO
a.
o
U
1
O
.11
tt. C
^
en
S .S
{- J
ON
ON
oo
CN
1
1
CJ
U-
11
111
C ?v oo
.' '
Degradable
£3
o.
.3
3
3
Rt
.S
ex
V)
S
o
American Env
Products
1
sf :.
-*-»
C/l
.1-
<
CJ
H.
U.
Safe for the environment"
Degradable "
General
environmental,
Degradable
c/a
cd
«O
U
1
t/3
CO
S
c/3
o
1
CO
2 '
E
ON
V
O
2
-P
0
CO
o
S
00 "
Environmentally safe "
&
General
environmental
Q.
«
w
*nl
ac
y.
l
'3
U
1
o"
!
o
Q
a
4)
2
c/5
t/^ w/7/2 confidence ...
ontains no fluorocarbons
lleged to damage ozone "
~ <^ ^
Ozone- related
s
w
_
"o
o
"o
1
3
5 .
K
U
The Drackett (
ON
o"
1
0
0
VI
a
5
00
1
5
"S .
a.
o
N
O
1
o
CO
5
5/5
o
l-^l
V3
Westwood
Pharmaceutica
1
o"
i
. o
o
1
O-
£
"S
o "8
-------
g
o
3
5
Cfl
-1
1
a
S
0
u
*>
e
Legal Challenges to Ei
1
A
H
g ,
?*^
2
Si ,.
C£
Language
.6
G
o
CL
O.
u '
o
s
0.
ca
D.
S
0
.-. U
:
-a
H§
E §
c
o'
-a
CJ
"^
a
o ,
"*^
^J
03
i _^
S2 ea "* "O
to "? - **
B, ' - 3'Jl S >*
W) ^ en i-^ .S o
> s: ? «
2
"Environmentally safe"
a
General
environmen
CA
Q.
CO
'S
.PC
o
c
JJ1
JD .
>
« ..
1
c--"
"3 -
c
'^ *
u
ca
O .
i
CJ
Q
U
^-
Z
-s;
Ik
b
"1 .
ca
0 ,
°5$
. u-
jjs
^j
2
D-
ON
r.
C-.
"5
U
,Q
U
> -
2
.s
. "Contains no' propellant
alleged to damage ozone
1
s
"S
1
o .
"33
Furniture polish, air
fresheners, shaving \
5/2
^
O
CO
S
o
, *(
U
CO
1
i r^ "
t
1
U
O
U
^
z
t
1'.
_ea
1
o.
*2
c
fa §'
J 1*
s'i
J-t CQ
° >%
1 1
00 w
O
4
^
O
1
f^
3
O
<3
^«
O.
^
^
'o
Lawn pesticides
c
£
ca
s
u
d
ON
ON
^ t
Q '
£.,
[r
s
"Ozone friendly"
"Ozone friendly formula '
"CFCFree" >
1'
1
O
4 >
Electronic equipmen
cleaning products
-.
M'
-
ea
2 .
«J
-------
1
i
3
*
t .
n
3,
(-.
t?
1
C3
~
g
i
o
1
*
i
1
C
"ci
§
pM
*
£
S.
f
C"
f
£>
o
^
on
:£
./anguage
°
.E
'3
U
. *o
1
_,
M.
£*
5 t>
1
»
< .
i
i
i
9
>
03
C
C
U
T:
n
c
to -
E |
<
1 = u i
iipi
C 'Z3 > ^ ~
Ti "^ ^» ^
C 5! "_ Z o
=j T3 ,00
^ e *!> « 00
Z 'J E >- O 03
>>
"5 S 5
1 ^ "s
1^ 11 i
^ ^ 50 *>
is j* xi to ; ^
~ -t: tS t 4i "3
to *§§ S
? ^ . -5 s "S 'fe S 'K
s: cCsuO^^ ^s
^ §"oi)§§' 'C:^3
S *O
& CU
en
B '
1
1
03
o
c .
S ,
I
a
I-* '
.2 'c/3 ^" C ' *
^ ^ "O "^
G e & % $ %
< 1 1 -a 1 § ' '
z - S > e ^5
S v. ^- «fe _
^ ^j »*^ «5J >* 7^; =.
^55^ ^) £3o~"§§ ^ ^
llliiiHl"
lirilljjjsliiji
^ £ '
H is
o o
0- &*
"a3
I
I ' '
cu
-------
3
5
in
\
C/l
OJQ
M
1
1
1
2
e
U
2
an
1
"3
JZ
O
.."a
rf
|
a
_2T'
A
"~*
P*-v
C
-i
r^v
CJ
Q-
% "** O
Q 2 S *ts S *c/5
<-^ 8"g^"«
z S ,2 s < -S
f.'S .
. 1 -s *.
8^ 5.*-
-§^ ,-s-§
§:f t^x.
11 ^ .«, 1
§ 1% eo «"!
* § 1 -1 S 5
s> 's § .-§'.S -h
O s; S -to >
~H 5u C : O s:
a , a a a J^ ^j
. . .
S
\_\
8 1 ||
1
g
cx
\"'-'.
' '
GO .
'.S ...
2 '
H y
1 "?;
S 1
o
< u
cs
5
~ - '
.T*
* .; '
- 1
_
Cl
!s "§
0 !
c
Q -2
ll ' .
:s, ' ' '
o *5^
*. 2J- =1^3
-a ^ § iS:
*^ ^ ^ ^v ^j >L ^j
*pt 2^ a:* ^ a a Q*; G^
^
3 ^_<
"8" 1 8 o "
1111
Cti pa < ex
to -
"O
&
W} :
i " .
ta
^
CO
'5
-
^!
cn
^
S
' *
oo
< '.
.
oc
-------
i
4*
O
'/t
1
M
P
cental Marketing Tei
g
e
Cd
o
S
"s
t?
_
£5
J
o
s
^
**«.
^
^
?^
^5
13
a
D
language
G
'o
1
a
r-
o
' 1
cu
>^
c
0.
I
a
5
CJ
c
12 g
tZ c
c
E
Ji "3
u .3
e
Q S
» *^z »-^, "^2 ^^j^^j^^js;^*
£X o 2i ^; ^ *** y ^ ^ ^j ^-. 12 ^
.
a
"o
I
'VI
%
1'.
a
"
§ ^ -| 5.. .§
* g « -S . "5 ^ -s
^Si -* ^-i Q \ Q *^
S "§ "^ . "Sto/)^^"1^
tS^ lll^?!^
1 1 s. v, S ^ I i ^ 2 1
^ "Q ^ ^i *^< ^ ^ ^"^ ^* *"^
s s C C. s ^i.^.5 -S;JaO0
. .
i g £ '
S's -9
11 If
S £ 2 8
O § ca oL
OJ
«S '
s
c
es
C
es '
«*
«3 en
O. 60
ft.' JD
.
4)
'1
O
u
o
.0
o\
o^
fl
^
cs
-------
00
at
3
nguage
9-
S1
a
3
5
u
o
^a
u
-.6
0)
o.
o
3
a
o
c
S
c
Ill
U !
i in
f~\ , C UN «
*~"! M "li "O
**" JS £ °
Z o -o £
S
a'Is
g .- >>
4) S 8
O 5-OS
1
u
J3
1 52
«» aj
ss
II
S sc
S 8
01
ON
O\ '
o
3
o
a
5
2
I
6fl
«
5- S
en
S -.§ - §
"S Cfl * Q
> fli c!
-w .Q-
11 1
^ I . S
r. .!>
C ON
sj «
*> H S^
* E ^*
* ** ^ r73
§ § T3
4> "-S S
is ?9 .o
a
8
S « £ 2 3
8 £.1 2 | c
- S "§ | § ;|
a.
.
a « ^ "« H at)
- Z D u, W <
5
OO
-------
4.4.1 Federal Trade Commission Actions
The FTC brought suit against several companies in the 1970s, but otherwise took no public
action on environmental marketing advertising after that until 1991. (20,45) FTC actions have
involved the use of the terms biodegradable, ecologically safe, pollution-free, ozone friendly,
and pesticide-free. In each case, the claim being made was seen as deceptive or misleading.
In addition, FTC officials reported that as of early 1991 there were over two dozen pending
investigations into various uses of environmental claims, including more controversial and
context-dependent terms such as recyclable or source reduced}12
FTC decisions are rendered in the form of "consent agreements." Consent agreements do not
constitute an admission of a law violation, but do carry the force of law for,future actions. A
violation of a consent agreement may result in a fine of $10,000.
Although traditionally the FTC has chosen to regulate truth-in-advertising issues through case:
by-case adjudication, it responded in July of 1992 to requests from industry representatives,
consumer and environmental groups and state law enforcement officials by issuing guidelines
for environmental marketing. FTC will continue with its case-by-case approach to enforcing
these guidelines. The guidelines are discussed in Chapter 5 and the full text of the guidelines
is presented in Appendix 4.
Early FTC Actions
Ex-Cell-0-Corp. 82 FTC 36 (January 9, 1973)
In 1973, the FTC issued a consent order requiring Ex-Cell-O, a manufacturer of
containers for dairy and other products, to either cease advertising its containers as
biodegradable or indicate the limits on their * biodegradability, the plastic components of the
containers/and environmental factors affecting the rate of biodegradability. (45)
Standard Oil Co of California. 84 FTC 1401 (November 26, 1974)
In 1974, the FTC is'sued a consent order requiring. Standard Oil and its advertising
company to cease advertising that an additive in Standard's Chevron gasoline would produce
pollution-free automobile exhaust. (45)23
22
- For the most pact, dates in the table and in .the text represent the day on which the case was first publicly
announced. However; the dates associated with the NAD decisions and the 1992 FTC decisions represent the day on
which the case was settled.
23 'British officials reprimanded British Petroleum in 1990 for making the same claim in marketing Supergreen gas.
(21)
86
-------
Albano Enterprises. Inc.'. 89 FTC 523 (1977) , ' . .
The FTC issued a consent order requiring a manufacturer, of automobile gas saver
products to cease representing that its products will increase fuel economy or reduce air
emissions, unless the claims are scientifically supported. ..'"
Crown Central Petroleum Corp., 84 FTC 1493 (1974) ,
The FTC filed suit against a company, advertising a "Clean-Air gasoline" additive as
dramatically reducing engine exhaust emissions. The Commission ordered the company to
cease claiming that any gasoline or gas additive will eliminate or reduce air pollution caused
by motor vehicles, or will result in pollution-free exhaust, unless the claims are substantiated
J f ' - i i ' . - -
by scientific tests. ; , \ . . - '. .
7991 -to early 1992 Actions
Zipatone Inc. FTC Docket No. C-3336 (July 29. 1991) ' :
On Earth Day 1991, the FTC announced a consent order involving advertisement claims
by Zipatone that its adhesive spray for commercial art applications contained .an ecologically-
safe propellant. The FTC argued that although Zipatone's. new aerosol propellent was non-
ozone-depleting, the primary ingredient in the product itself was ozone-depleting. The use of
the term ecologically safe .in advertisements, allegedly implying that the product was
ecologically safe, was false and misleading. (4)
.-' Jerome Russell Cosmetics USA Inc.. FTC Docket No! C-3341 (August 30, 1991)
In June 1991, the FTC issued a consent order involving claims made by Jerome Russell
Cosmetics that its Hair Color, Fluorescent Ultra Hair Glo, Hair and Body Glitter Spray, and
Fluorescent Color and Glitter Products were ozone safe and o^one friendly and contained no
fluorocarbons. Again, FTC asserted that these, claims were misleading and unsubstantiated
because the products themselves contained an ozone-depleting substance. (45)
Craftmatif/Contour Industries. (1991) .
The FTC issued a consent decree requiring that Craftmatic/Contour cease the claim that
without their home water treatment system, home tap water was polluted and harmful to
human health. The claim was deemed to be unsubstantiated, and Craftmatic/Contour was
required to pay $700,000 in consumer redress. (20) This is just one of many consent orders
that the FTC has issued regarding water filters (FTC spokesperson).
Vnns Companies Inc.. FTC Docket No. C-3302 (August 27, 1990).
87
-------
The FTC issued a consent order requiring that Vons cease from claiming that its products
were pesticide-free, citing that Vons had reduced, but not eliminated, pesticides in its
produce.
First Brands Corp.. FTC Docket No. C-3358, (January 3, 1992)
The FTC issued a consent order against First Brands Corporation (Danbury, CT),
requiring it to stop claiming that its Glad trash bags w.ere degradable or photodegradable
unless the claims were substantiated. This claim allegedly implied that the bags provide an
environmental benefit after their disposal in a sanitary landfill. First Brands was also
required to cease using general terms such as safe for the environment or environmentally
friendly unless the claims were (a) specifically and clearly defined in close proximity to. the
claim, and (b) supported by scientific evidence.
.American Enviro Products. FTC Docket No. C-3376 (March 26, 1992)
The FTC issued a consent order against American Enviro Products, requiring them to
'stop claiming that their disposable diapers will biodegrade in a landfill within 3-5 years or
before your child grows up. (20) This claim was seen as unsubstantiated. The Task Force
of State Attorneys General had issued a consent order against the company on the same
product and claim in October 1990. » .
Tech Sprav. FTC Docket No. C-3377 (April 2, 1992)
The FTC issued a consent order against Tech Spray for allegedly false and
unsubstantiated advertising and labeling its electronic equipment-cleaning products as ozone
friendly when the products contained ozone-depleting substances. (20)
'RMED International. Inc.. FTC Docket No. C-3382 (May 14, 1992)
The FTC issued a consent order against RMED International for (a) claiming that its.
TenderCare disposable diapers would biodegrade in landfills and (b) making an
unsubstantiated claim of environmental benefit. The consent order requires that the company
substantiate any future claims of biodegradability or environmental benefit. (18)
Mobil Oil Corporation. FTC Docket No. 902-3111 (July 27, 1992)
The FTC issued a consent order against Mobil Oil Corp. requiring it to stop claiming that
its Hefty, Kordite, and Baggies trash bags are degradable unless the claims are substantiated.
This claim allegedly implied that the bags provide an environmental benefit after their
disposal in a sanitary landfill, Mobil was also required to cease using general terms such as
safe for the environment or environmentally friendly unless the claims were- (a) specifically
and clearly defined in close proximity to the claim, and (b) supported by scientific evidence.
88
-------
4.4.2 State Actions .
A. group of eleven state attorneys general from California, Florida, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin have
formed a Task Force to challenge companies making false or misleading green marketing claims
on their products. The Task Force focused their initial efforts on claims of degradable,
environmentally safe, recyclable, and ozone friendly. In addition to bringing suit against
marketers, the Task Force issued the Green Rep.orfmd the Green Report II, guidelines that seek
to promote truthful.environmental advertising and labeling (see Chapter 5).
« American Enviro Products (October 8, 1990) ,
The Task Force brought suit against American Enviro over claims that the revolutionary
outer backing of its Bunnies Disposable Diapers would degrade in three to five years. The
Task Fqrce asserted that the diapers would not biodegrade in normal landfill conditions, and
thus would not help to mitigate landfill problems.
American Enviro agreed to redesign its package labeling and to pay $5,000 in costs to
each of the ten states involved. Under the settlement, the company is prohibited from
claiming that its diapers axe degradable or biodegradable, and can.only discuss the .potential
value of degradable products in appropriate composting programs if the advertising clearly
discloses that few such programs exist at this time. (45)
Mobil Chemical Company (June 27, 1991)
Beginning with the Texas Attorney General's office, several state attorneys
general have brought independent or group actions, against Mobil over claims that its
Hefty trash bags were biodegradable. Recently, Mobil settled with the state of
Washington to (a) discontinue making claims about the degradability of Us garbage bags
at least until the term is defined or regulated by federal laws, trade rules, or guidelines
that have the force of law, or by the terms of an FTC consent order; and (b) to pay the
state $25,000. (2) ; . :
Chemiawn (June 1990)
New York State Attorney General Abrams legally challenged Chemlawn Services
Corp. that Chemlawn advertisements falsely represented that its pesticides were safe,
non-toxic and fully tested for health and environmental effects, Although Chemlawn
admitted no wrongdoing, the case was settled in June 1990 with Chemlawn paying
$100,000 in costs, agreeing to provide a copy of the settlement to any New York
customer who requests one, and agreeing to refrain from making broad safety claims in
advertisements for its pesticides. (40,45)
89
-------
Webster Industries (July 2, 1991)
In a consent agreement with the Task Force, Webster agreed to remove the labels
environmentally safe and photodegradable from its plastic trash bags. (20)
Alberto-Culver Company (August 5, 1991)
In July and August of 1991, Alberto-Culver Company entered into agreements
with several states under which it promised not to represent any of its aerosol hair spray
products containing ozone-depleting substances or volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
as being either environmentally beneficial or offering environmental benefits, unless it
had competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate the claims. Alberto-Culver
also agreed to pay $50,000 for investigation costs. (3)
TgraJPalc: Combibloc: and Lintas. Inc. (August 28, 1991)
In a .consent agreement with the Task Force, the companies agreed to remove the
claim as. easy to recycle as your daily newspaper from advertising pertaining to their
drink boxes. Tetra Pak and Combibloc were sued by the New York Department of
Consumer Affairs in December 1990 for the same claim. (37)
Rristol-Mvers Sauibb. (October 10, 1991)
The Task Force reached a settlement requiring three Bristol-Myers Squibb
subsidiaries to stop using environmentally-safe and ozone-safe claims for hair sprays
household cleaners, and other consumer products containing VOCs ** oo^^to-r
oollution The agreement requires the three companies, Clairol, Inc. , the Drackett Co. ,
and Wesiwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to pay a total of $50,000 for the costs of the
investigation. (37)
The settlement involves Clairol' sClairmist and Sheer Mist hair sprays; Drackett's
Renuzit Endust, and Behold household cleansers; and Westwood's Presun 2 sunscreen
S agreement also prevents these companies from making any other environmental
claims unless the claims are supported by reliable scientific evidence. (37)
fp.r and Gamble (November 14, 1991)
The Task Force reached a consent agreement with Procter and Gamble (P&G)
concerning advertisements claiming that its Luvs and Pampers diapers are ^postab^
The agreement set permanent standards for future claims about compostmg and equired
the company to pay each of the ten states $5,000 to cover the costs of investigation.
The agreement requires compostable claims to be made only if (a) facilities for
composting L readily^aUable to a substantial number of consumers where the claim
90
-------
is made, or (b).the claim states the percentage of the population that has access to
composting (i.e., currently less than one percent of the American population); and the
claim states the percentage of the product that is compostable and a toll-free number for
further information on composting facilities in their area. (37)
Oklahoma v. Advanced Automotive Technology. CJ-90-06035 (D. Ok. 91)
.-.->- ' ' . -
The Oklahoma Attorney General court issued an injunction forbidding AATrfrom
making the unsubstantiated claim that its product PetroMizer reduces automotive
emissions. (37) ' , . '
Carlisle Plastics. Inc. (February 25, 1992) -
In .a consent agreement, Carlisle Plastics agreed to stop advertising its plastic bags(
' as degradable or source-reduced, and to not make any environmental claims that w.ere
not substantiated by reliable evidence. In, addition, they agreed to pay nine state
Attorneys General $45,000. (16)
4.4 3. ISfew York City Department of Consumer Affairs Actions
The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (NYC DCA), led by Commissioner
Mark Green, has been very active in challenging green marketing claims under the city's false
advertising law. Under Commissioner Green, the NYC DCA has followed a relatively strict
interpretation of New York City law, challenging even "factual" claims if they are perceived to
contain insufficient information. The following is a listing of cases brought against marketers
by the NYC DCA for so-called "green collar fraud" as of late 1991.
Combibloc. Inc. and Tetra Pak. Inc. (December 9, 1990)
Combibloc and Tetra Pak, the country's two largest drink box manufacturers,
signed consent agreements with the NYC DCA agreeing to stop using the phrase Drink
boxes are as easy to recycle as your daily newspaper in their advertising unless and until
the products are being recycled in significant amounts wherever they are being sold. The
NYC DCA charged that the advertising was deceitful because (a) the plastic-coated drink
boxes are not "as easy" to recycle as newspapers, and (b) the advertisements fail to
mention that the necessary infrastructure to collect and recycle drink boxes is not
available, to New York consumers. Combibloc and Tetra Pak each paid the city $1,000
for the cost of investigation. (39)
.. . Procter and Gamble (first announced March 21, 1991, settled September 19, 1991)
Procter and Gamble was charged with deception by the NYC DCA for an
advertisement picturing a handful of "soil enhancer" with the headline Ninety days ago
this was a disposable diaper. The NYC DCA ruled the statement to be deceptive
.'_ 91 .'."'
-------
because (a) the plastic lining, of the diaper cannot physically be composted, and (b)
facilities to compost the diapers were not available to New York City consumers. The
DC A did not accept the advertisement's statements of while composting isn't available
everywhere, ten communities already have programs in place, and nearly 80 percent of
the diaper is compostable, as adequate qualifiers of the compostability claim.
Procter and Gamble agreed not to make unqualified compostability claims about
its diapers in any advertisement or national publication that appears in New York City
until composting is widely available to New York consumers. Advertisements promoting
the diapers' potential or technological feasibility to be composted would have to highlight
the limited availability of diaper composting. P&G also agreed to pay the City $5,000
for the costs of the investigation. (39)
Icelandic Marketing USA (March 21, 1991') _
Icelandic was charged by the DC A with deceptive advertising for selling a 6.8 oz.
drink box of imported water labeled with claims of biodegradable packaging and
hannless when incinerated. The NYC DC A argued that since the drink'box is made
from a composite of plastic, paper, and aluminum, it is neither harmless when
incinerated nor degradable, since it contains no degradable additive. Icelandic agreed to
stop claiming harmless when incinerated and would qualify claims of degradability with
the disclosure that such packaging is not currently degradable in New York City. (39)
Daffy's Stores (March 21, 1991)
Daffy's stores signed a consent agreement with the DCA'agreeing to stop labeling
its plastic shopping bags with the phrase this bag is recycled plastic and is degradable.
(20,45) - .
RICO Warner Video (March 21, 1991)
RKO signed a consent agreement with the DCA agreeing to stop labeling its
plastic shopping bags with the phrase this- bag is photodegradable. (20,39)
Kev Food-(March 21, 1991)
Key Food signed a consent agreement with the DCA agreeing to stop labeling its
plastic shopping bags with the phrase degrades in sunlight. (20,39)
Webster Industries (March 21. 1991) , .
Webster signed a consent agreement with the DCA agreeing to stop labeling its
plastic garbage bags with the phrases degrades into harmless organic powder and
contains photodegradable additive. (20,39)
92
-------
Down'to Earth Stores (May 9, 1991) :
Down to Earth Stores was-charged; with deceptive marketing by the DCA for
labeling its plastic shopping bags with the phrase this bag is biodegradable and
recyclable. Down to Earth agreed to refrain from making biodegradable and recyclable
claims on its shopping bags. (20,39) . ''. . , ', .
Love Pharmacy (May 9. 1991) . . ,'
Love Pharmacy signed a consent agreement with the DCA agreeing to stop
labeling its plastic shopping bags with the phrases degradable bag and will begin
degrading-within three days of exposure to ultraviolet light. (20,39)
Pathmark Supermarkets (May 9. 1991) , . .
Pathmark signed a consent agreement with the DCA agreeing to stop labeling' its
plastic shopping'bags with the phrases .degradable and non-toxic when incinerated.
(20,39). , ' \ : .
Sloan's Supermarkets (May 9', .1991) .
Sloan's Supermarket signed a consent agreement with the DCA agreeing to stop
labeling its plastic shopping bags with the phrases degradable bag and will begin
degrading within three days of exposure to ultraviolet light. (20,39) -
Reyion (July 17, 1991)
, . Revlon signed a consent agreement with the DCA agreeing to stop labeling its
Flex and Almay hairsprays as environmentally safe. (20,39)
S.C. Johnson and Son (July 17. 1991)
S.C, Johnson and Son signed a consent agreement to stop labeling its Pledge
furniture polish, Glade and Potpourri air fresheners, and Edge shaving gel with a symbol
of a sun across the horizon with thejstatement contains no propellant alleged to damage
ozone. (19) .
Gillette Co. (July 17. 1991)
Gillette was charged by the NYC DCA with deceptive advertising for labels on
its Foamy Shave Cream, Adorn, Dry Look, Mink hair spray, and Right Guard,. Soft &
Dri, and Dry Idea anti-perspirants claiming ozone friendly no CFCs. (39)
93
-------
Procter and Gamble (July 17, 1991)
The DCA charged P&G with deceptive advertising for using the label contains
no CFCs which harm the ozone layer on its aerosol anti-perspirants. Commissioner
Green said that the company fell short of its obligations by failing to educate consumers
about the differences between stratospheric and ground-level ozone. The DCA has taken
no action on the case as of June 1992. (39) .
4.4.4 Better Business Bureau's National Advertising Division Actions
The National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Better Business Bureau announced in
July 1991 that it would expand its review of environmental labeling claims. NAD is promoting
industry self-regulation by reviewing potentially misleading advertising and working with
marketers to promote truth-in-advertising. The Division has so far come to agreements with
seven advertisers to change or drop their labeling. In five other cases, the claims were found
to be substantiated or the advertiser refused to change the label. A NAD spokeswoman ssud that
several other cases were pending, but declined to provide details until the cases were settled. (6)
%
Johnson Controls
Following a review by NAD, Johnson Controls agreed to revise the advertising
of its recycled plastic containers. The original advertisement showed plastic (PET resin)
bottles for food and beverages with the statement environmental packaging...the 100
percent recycled container. NAD reasoned that the advertisement could mislead
consumers into believing that PET was used expressly for food and beverage containers
because the statement was used in conjunction with these types of containers. (32)
Rockline. tnc (October 15, .1991) .
Rockline agreed to remove or change the label environmentally friendly product
and packaging on the package of its coffee filters,
r.nlgate-Palmolive (October 16, 1991)
Colgate-Palmolive agreed to change or remove the phrases new bottle with 20
percent recycled plastic and the only dishwashing liquid made with 20 percent previously
used plastic from its dishwashing liquid. NAD objected to the label because of the vague
use of the word new and because of its unsubstantiated exclusivity claims.
Sunshine Makers (March 1992)
' Sunshine Makers labeled its household cleaner, Simple Green, with the claims
Simple Green is completely non-toxic, so it* safe,, even for kids, without the chemical
pollutants others contain, biodegradable and environmentally safe. NAD felt that the
94
-------
biodegradable, and environmentally safe claims were unsubstantiated, and that the data
supplied by the manufacturer were insufficient to support its claim that the product
contains no toxic chemicals. NAD also felt that when juxtaposed with the warning of a
"mild eye irritant," the non-toxic claim may confuse consumers, and recommended that
the advertising be modified or discontinued. Sunshine refused to do so, or to disclose
the, product formulation so that NAD could verify the claims. NAD was unsatisfied with
the company's response, and referred' the case to an undisclosed federal agency for
further study. (27) ' '. ' '
Statler Industries (March 12. 1992) . .-
Claims made by Statler Industries for its Tree Free Bathroom Tissue were
substantiated in response to an inquiry from NAD. Package claims included 'Made from
100-percent recycled material, The Tree Free company has been recognized...as -having
the lowest toxic emissions 'of any integrated tissue paper mill in the country;, and No
elemental chlorine is added in the manufacturing process to whiten our product-.
Although the recycled claim was substantiated in this case, NAD "encourages paper
product advertisers to state the percentage of postconsumer content in their recycled
' claims." (9). < ' ,. ,
Fort Howard Corporation (March 13, 1992) . .
NAD investigated three claims made by Fort Howard for its Green Forest Paper
Towels. Two claims were substantiated: (a) Green Forest Paper Towels are made to our
highest standards from 100 percent recycled paper fibers, including a minimum of .10
percent postconsumer content. Even the core is made from 100 percent recycled fibers,
including a minimum of 10 percent post consumer paper content, and (b) Green Forest
products help the environment in two ways; precious natural resources are saved and
paper is recycled instead of entering landfills. However, one claim for the plastic outer
packaging was not .substantiated: This wrapper may be recycled where plastic film
recycling facilities exist. Although Fort Howard "submitted.information as to the
considerable current and growing recycling of this type of material [LDPE plastic]," they
agreed to discontinue the use of the challenged statement. (12)
Celestial Seasonings. Inc. (March 31, 1992) .
NAD questioned Celestial Seasonings on several of its claims made on its herbal
tea labels: Now the first tea company in America to use only oxygen bleached tea bags...,
we print our boxes on 100% recycled paperboard, and Our tradition of using, English
.Pillow Style tea bags... saves 2 million pounds of packaging annually. NAD found the
first claim substantiated, but found only 80 percent recycled content substantiate, and
recommended that the manufacturer clarify the source reduction claim. Celestial
Seasonings stated that it "respectfully disagrees" with NAD'S interpretations, but will
take NAD's comments into consideration when making future similar claims. (13)
95
-------
A.V. Olsson Trading Company (April 1, 1992)
NAD conducted an inquiry into the claims made by A.V. Olsson on its If You
Care Coffee Filters, the package included the logo environmentally friendly products,
and the claims: 100% unbleached, What's an environmentally friendly cup of coffee? It's
one made with If You Care premium quality, unbleached, 'beige-coffee filters. As no
chlorine is used to bleach them, no .chlorine is dumped into .our lakes and streams. If
You Care coffee filters won't affect the taste of your coffee, but using them will have a
positive effect on the environment. NAD found that the 100 percent unbleached claim
was substantiated, but recommended that the environmentally friendly claims be
discontinued. The advertiser strongly disagreed with NAD's decision, arguing that (a)
the label provides enough contextual information that the consumer will not be misled,
and (b) the Canadian Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs supports the use of
environmentally friendly claims "as long as the phrase is backed up by a statement that
tells consumers why this is so." The company is appealing the decision to the National
Advertising Review Board (NARB). (7)
3M (April 8, 1992)
NAD investigated three claims made by 3M on its Scotch-Brite wool soap pads:
plastic fibers made from recycled PET, All deter gents... are biodegradable, 0.0%
phosphorus, and Packaging made with Recycled Paper and Paperboard. After reviewing
data sheets supplied by the manufacturer, NAD agreed that the claims were substantiated.
(11)
ICD Products/Confab Corporation (April 17, 1992)
NAD decided that revised claims made by ICD Products/Confab Corporation on
Today's Choice paper towels were substantiated. The original claims included
environment friendly, even this wrapping is recyclable, and we add no...agents that can
pollute the atmosphere. These claims were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturer.
Revised claims that NAD found substantiated included this product is made from recycled
fiber, And with every purchase, 1 % will be donated to the National Audubon Society, to
help protect our natural resources, and no new trees were destroyed to create this
product. We add no inks, dyes, perfumes, or chlorine bleaching agents that can pollute
the atmosphere. (29,10)
Stone Container Corporation (June 12, 1992)
Both NAD and the appeal board, NARB, determined that Stone Container should
modify its biodegradable and recyclable claims for its paper Yard Master Lawn and
'Refuse Bags The original claims included: environmentally safe, biodegradable and
recyclable paper, lawn, and refuse bags, paper, the natural package, recyclable
biodegradable, reusable, renewable, and, Compost-the 'Yard Master Refuse Bag will
96
-------
biodegrade along with its green contents. 'NAD found that the natural-claim was
unsubstantiated because the manufacturing process used intensive physical and chemical
treatments, and recommended that the other claims be qualified. Stone disagreed.with
the decisions regarding biodegradability and appealed to NARB, but agreed to modify
the other claims. ' , ,..,,.
A NARB panel found that the compostable claim was overbroad because it might
suggest to consumers that the bags will degrade when containing non-lawn refuse, which
is' likely to be deposited in a landfill. The Panel also recommended that the
biodegradable and recyclable claims be qualified with when composted.24 Stone argued
that the bags were purchased primarily for composting, and that consumers understood
the claim as such. In addition, Stone provided data indicating that the paper bags did
degrade in landfills.' The Panel was not persuaded by these arguments. (8,28)
Melitta USA. Inc. (June 25. 1992)
NAD investigated three sets of claims made by Melitta USA, Inc. for its Classic
White and Natural Brown Cone Coffee Filters. (14) .The first, pertaining to its Natural
Brown Filters-, stated that the filters were made from unbleached pulp, carefully selected
to meet Melitta's strict purity standards. And unbleached pulp is produced with no
chemical beaches, thereby minimizing the release of unwanted by-products into the
environment. Unbleached. No chlorine bleaching... The advertiser supplied test results
supporting the claims, and NAD agreed that the claims were substantiated.
NAD challenged two claims concerning Melitta's Classic. White Filters. The first
claim stated that Oxygen cleansed filters are environmentally safer, using 40-50 percent
less chlorine than traditional filters, minimizing the release of unwanted by-products into
the environment. While NAD agreed that the information Melitta submitted indicated
that the alternative bleaching process used resulted in substantial reductions in the
formation of toxic by-products, the Division was concerned that the' data did not establish
a direct relationship between reduced use of elemental chlorine and reduced risk. Melitta
agreed to discontinue the use of generalized environmental-benefit claims in future
labeling. The company also used the claim Melitta's Purity Guarantee assures you that
there is no better white filter paper being made today - safer for the environment, safer
for you, plus, delivering a better tasting cup of coffee. NAD determined that the quality
control data and taste test results submitted by Melitta were not appropriate to support
the claim, and recommended that the advertiser discontinue comparative claims pending
the completion of updated studies.
24 Although recyclability generally refers to a product being used as a raw material for a second use, the Panel felt
that the phrase recyclable wHen composted would be truthful and reasonably consistent with the common usage of
recyclable. . ,
97
-------
NAD also challenged two general claims made by Melitta: Recycled Paperboard.
Environmentally Sound, and Produced to exacting standards so they are environmentally
friendly, plus maximize coffee flavor. NAD agreed that the recycled paperboard claim
was substantiated, but noted that it encourages paper product advertisers to state the
percentage of postconsumer content in their recycled claims.25 NAD questioned the
, accuracy of the more general claim of positive environmental attributes, however, and
the advertiser agreed that the claim would not be used in the future.
Melitta's statement in response to, NAD's actions reads: "Melitta continues to
believe that the environmental responsiveness and performance of its coffee filters remain
unsurpassed. Melitta thinks, however, that recent NAD opinions clearly dictate a move
away, from common terminology such as environmentally friendly which Melitta agrees
. to refrain from using in the future. Melitta's updated packaging will specify
environmental advantages as relevant but focus more on the performance benefits upon
which consumers have always relied in their choice of Melitta products." (14)
4.5 Summary
/*
Environmental marketing claims contain inherent ambiguities that make truth-in-
advertising issues less clear-cut than in other forms of marketing. Because the implication
"better for the environment" underlies all environmental marketing claims, even factually correct
claims may be seen as misleading to consumers. In addition, the terms used in environmental
marketing are often science-based, loosely defined, and poorly understood by consumers (see
Chapter 2). Even when the terms themselves are used correctly, they may convey a misleading
message to consumers who do not understand their implications.
j>
Although some claims challenged by oversight groups were in .fact objectively false,
others were questioned for being used out of context or not following or furthering
environmental policy goals. Regulatory bodies differ widely on their interpretations of
misleading environmental advertising. The Better Business Bureau's National Advertising
Division and the Federal Trade Commission tended to focus on conspicuously false or
unsubstantiated claims. The State Attorneys General Task Force, in addition to challenging false
or trivial claims, concentrated on context-specific terms, ,such as biodegradable, compostable,
and recyclable. The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs has taken the strictest
interpretation of false advertising law, arguing that even factually correct environmental claims
are deceptive if they contain insufficient information.
Clearly, a gap exists between the perception of marketers making environmental claims
for their products and consumer understanding. Although marketers may make what they
consider to be a truthful and accurate claim, consumers frequently infer additional meaning from
environmental claims based on their own understanding of environmental issues. For example,
25 This recommendation was not directly related to the truth and accuracy of this claim, since Melitta showed that
their paperboard included 100 percent recycled content.
98
-------
a product may be accurately labeled as containing, no CFCs and still contain other ozone-
depleting chemicals. However, this claim may legitimately be interpreted by consumers'as
mitigating stratospheric ozone depletion and thus be misleading according to the broader
interpretation' of ozone-safe. As well, an aerosol containing smog-producing hydrocarbon
propellants can be truthfully labeled does not harm stratospheric ozone, but would be misleading
in the wider context of does not contribute to atmospheric degradation. More generally, unless
specified in the advertising, consumers may mistakenly assume that a product labeled as
containing no CFCs is either (a) environmentally preferable to competing unlabeled products,
or (b) has recently been altered to remove CFCs. Where there is no such distinction among
products, such .as in the case of aerosols (which have not contained CFCs since 1978),
consumers may be.misled into basing their purchasing decisions on trivial or meaningless
product claims. ' , . '.'.' .
A seconds-perception gap has existed between marketers and regulatory agencies. Before
the Federal Trade Commission released their guidelines for environmental marketing terms,
states, consumer protection agencies and marketers all formulated their own definitions and
guidelines for use of these terms. For marketers, the result has been a confusing and sometimes
costly marketplace where, relabeling, legal actions, and negative publicity can create additional
costs1 and cause market share losses. Faced with multiple (and changing) .definitions for each
term and increasing scrutiny of claims, several major consumer products companies recently
stated that they will stop making environmental claims altogether. (32) Although some
marketers state that they w'ill continue to make environmental improvements to their products,
these efforts may wane without the benefits of marketplace incentives and rewards to do so. By
issuing national guidelines, Barry Cutler, Director of Consumer Affairs for the FTC, hopes "that
it will free up advertisers to make some claims that they have been afraid to in the past because
they weren't sure what the standards were. And they'll now have the confidence that they're
playing on a level playing field." (31)
99
-------
References
I. 3M Corporation spokesperson (1992). Personal communication. January.
2. Antitrust & Trade Regulations Report (1991). "Hefty Trash Bag Maker Settles Charges
of Making Deceptive Degradability Claims," v. 61, p. 51.
3. Antitrust & Trade Regulations Report (1991). "Alberto-Culver Resolves State Concerns
over Environmental Claims.for Hair Spray," v. 61, p. 212.
4. Antitrust & Trade Regulations Report (1991). "Art-Materials Maker Resolves FTC
Charge of Making Deceptive Ozone-Safety Claims," v. 60, p. 576.
5. Colford, Steven (1992). "FTC Green Guidelines May Spark Ad Efforts", Advertising
Age, p. I, 29, August 3.
6. Council of Better Business Bureaus, National Advertising Division (1991). Personal
communication with Dianne Ward. December.
7. Council of Better Business Bureaus, National Advertising Division (1992). Press
Release: "NAD Announces 'Advertising Referred to NARB' for A.V. Olsson Trading
Company's If You Care Coffee Filters," April 1.
8, Council of Better Business Bureaus, National Advertising Review Board (1992). Press
Release: "NARB recommends modification of 'green' label claims for Yard Master Lawn
and Refuse Bags," June 12. ,
9. Council of Better Business Bureaus, National Advertising Division (1992). Press release:
"NAD Announces 'Advertising Substantiated' for Statler Industries, Inc., the Tree Free
. Company's Bathroom Tissue," March 12.
10. Council of Better Business Bureaus, National Advertising Division (1992). Pressrelease:
"NAD Announces 'Advertising Substantiated' for ICD Products/Confab Corporation's
Today's Choice paper towels," April 17.
11. Council of Better Business Bureaus, National Advertising Division (1992). Press
Release: "NAD Announces 'Advertising Modified or Discontinued' for 3M's Scotch
Brite No Rust Wool Soap Pads," April 8.
12. Council of Better Business Bureaus, National Advertising Division (1992). Press release:
"NAD Announces7 'Advertising Modified or Discontinued' for Fort Howard
Corporation's Green Forest Paper Towels," March 13.
13. Council of Better Business Bureaus, National Advertising Division (1992). Press
Release: "NAD Announces 'Advertising Modified or Discontinued' for Celestial
Seasonings' advertising for herb teas," March 31.
14. Council of Better Business "Bureaus, National Advertising Division (1992). Press
Release: "NAD Announces 'Advertising Modified or Discontinued' for Melitta USA,
Inc.'s Cone Coffee Filters," June 25.
15. Cuneo, Alice (1991). "States Turn Marketers Sour on Green Pitches," Advertising Age,
November'4, p. 2.
16. Environment Reporter (1992). " Company Agrees to Halt Claims On Trash Bags," April
,3. ' ''..''
17. Federal Trade Commission (1991). Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues,
Washington, DC, July 17-18.
18. Federal Trade Commission, spokesperson (1991). Personal communication, December.
100
-------
19. Franket, Carl' (1991)! "Mobil Settles, Green Rides his White Horse," Green
MarketAlen, August, p. 3.
20. -Frankel, Carl (1992). "Green Marketing Oversight Index," Green MarketAlen,.January,
p..8-9. ,* ....... '" ..;".-
21. Frankel, Carl (1991). "Review of Corporate .Labelling Strategies," Green MarketAlen.
November, p. 3-4. .
22! Frankel, Carl (1992). "The FTC Issues its Voluntary Labeling Guidelines: a New Era
Begins", Green MarketAlen, 3:8, p. 1, August.
23. Glass, John (1991). "BPI Fightsits Way Into the Plastic Bag Market," Boston Business
Journal, August 12. . .
24: Grant, Kathleen, National Food Processors Association (1991). Personal communication,
December. - , . .
25. Hume, Scott (1991). "Fast-food Makes Haste on Waste," Advertising Age, July 8, p.
15.' ....'. . ..'- . , . -. :.
26. INDA, Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry (1991). Testimony of Peter
Mayberry at the Federal Trade Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing
Issues. Presented July 18, Washington, DC. r
27. Kelly, Janice (1992).- "P&G Claims Frost NAD, Pilsbury," Advertising Age, March 23,
P-21. .:..- ' '
28.. Kelly, Janice (1992). "NARB to Decide Yard Master Case,'" Advertising Age, March
2,p.28. . : ' -'. .
29. Kelly, Janice (1992). "Cat Litter Marketers Snarl over Ad Claim," Advertising Age,
June 1, p,45.
30. Kelly, Janice (1991). "NAD Raps Johnson Controls Ad Claims," Advertising Age.
January 14, p. 58.
31. Knoy, Laura (1992). "Green Marketing Rules", Living on Earth (National. Public
Radio), August 7.
32. . Lawrence, Jennifer (1992). "Marketers Drop Recycled," Advertising Age, March 9, p. 1.
33. Lawrence, Jennifer and Steven Cblford (1991). "Green Guidelines are the Next Step,"
Advertising Age,. January 29, p.26-30. ' ,
34. Los Angeles Times (1992). "FTC Issues Guidelines on Ecological Labeling", Boston
Globe, July 29.
35. Makower, Joel (1990). "Over There: Where Green is Going," Green Consumer Letter,
July, p. 8. .
36. Massachusetts Packaging Reduction and Recycling Act (proposed). 1991, ,
37. Minnesota Attorney General's Office, materials,. 1991.
38'. National Food Processors Association (1991). Petition for Industry Guides for
Environmental Claims Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Submitted February 14.
39. New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, materials, 1991.
' 40. Plain Dealer (1990). "Chemlawn's Claims are Cut Down," July 8. Cited in EcoSource,
Nov/Dec 1990, p. 58. .' :
101
-------
41. " Proctor and Gamble (1991). Testimony of L. Ross Love at the Federal Trade
Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 18.
42. Saddle"? Jeanne (1992). "FTC Issues a 'Green-marketing' Guide to Help Prevent
Deceptive-ad Charges", Wall Street Journal, p. B5, July 29.
43. Schneider, Keith (1992). "Guides on Environmental Ad Claims", New York Times, p.
44. Swasy, Alecia (1990). "P&G Gets Mixed Marks as it Promotes Green Image but Tries
to Shield Brands," Wall Street Journal, p. Bl, B6.
45. Trade Association Committee (1991). The Greening of Trade Regulation symposium,
Washington DC, October 8-9. ...
46' Webster Industries (1991). Testimony of Rajeev Bal at the Federal Trade Commission
' Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 18, Washington, DC
47.. Weisman, Alan (1989). "Fighting for Breath," New York Times Magazine, July 30,
1989.
102
-------
5. REGULATING ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING TERMS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Environmental marketing in the United States has arisen out of, and benefitted from a
marked increase over the last several years in consumer awareness and concern about
environmental issues. Marketers have responded to consumer demand with,a wide variety of
claims and/or new 'green' products purporting to be environmentally superior to their
competitors. ; The environmental marketing claims currently used to describe products and'
packaging range from vague, general terms such" as earth-friendly or natural to more specific
claims such as made with x percent postconswner recycled material. The proliferation of poorly-
defined or ambiguous environmental terms over the past several years has led to confusion tn
the marketplace, and has resulted in several marketers being sued for deception in advertising.
Environmentalmarketing terms contain several characteristics not necessarily associated
with conventional marketing terms, which make them particularly prone to being ambiguous or
misleading: . ' .
Environmental claims often pertain to characteristics of a product with which a consumer
has little or no experience. As a result, the consumer often cannot evaluate the
truthfulness or desirability of the claim;
' Environmental claims pertain to, more than just the inherent qualities of the product being
. -promoted; they also reflect the context in which a product is sold, e.g., the availability
of a recycling infrastructure (35); and;
Many terms used in environmental labeling are not words normally used by consumers,
' and are often poorly understood. (35,117)
Due to a lack of standardized use and consumer understanding of environmental terms,
(1 25) environmental claim.s are often perceived by consumers as generically "good for the
environment" even though virtually all products are associated with some adverse environmental,
impacts (25) With a limited understanding of the issues and vocabulary involved, consumers
are usually unable to evaluate the validity of complex environmental claims and are arguably in
need of government or other independent third-party assistance, (35,62,117) Several citizens
groups advocated that the federal government provide standardized definitions for environmental
labeling terms, just as the Food and Drug Administration has recently proposed standardized
definitions for nutritional labeling. In .this way, even if consumers do not entirety understand
the terms, they can be assured that terms used by competing products are comparable and such
terms meet independently-set standards.
Prior to the FTC guidelines, many state governments and private, organizations had
started to- develop their own definitions and guidelines for environmental advertising (see Table
51) (146) These private and government actions pertaining to environmental marketing
regulations are described in this chapter. Section 5.1 discusses private and governmental actions
103
-------
proposed or taken that attempt to clarify environmental marketing terms. Section 5.2 examines
proposed general guidelines and proposed definitions for the following categories of terms:26
General Terms '
Manufacturing/Production Process Terms
' Ozone Related Terms .
Source Reduction Terms
Solid Waste Management Terms: .
Reuse/Refill
Recycling terms
Disposable
Compostable
Degradable
The individual definitions summarized in Table 5.1 are listed in Appendix 2; authors or
proponents are listed in Appendix 3. . .
Table 5.1. Private and Government Actions Pertaining to Environmental Marketing
Regulations
Action
Content
Non-industry Groups
Coalition of Northeastern
Governors (CONEG)
Northeast Recycling Council
(NERC)
Recycling Advisory Council (RAC)
Definitions for Solid Waste Terms
NERC Regional Labeling Standards
Evaluation of proposed new
recycled paper standards and
definitions October 8, 1991.
defines solid waste terms such as
source reduction
defines reusable, recyclable,
postconsumer, preconsumer,
recycled content; basis of
ME,NH,CT,NY, and RI recycling
laws
defines recycled paper terms
24 Inclusion of a marketing term in this chapter indicates that the term has been defined by organizations seeking
to clarify environmental marketing terms; it does not imply endorsement of the use or validity of the term.
104
-------
Table 5..1. continued.-
Table 5.1. Private and Government Actions Pertaining to Environmental Marketing
Resu-lations . . . t.
T
Action
Content
Environmental Defense Fund
(EOF) " . . . '
Testimony to the FTG July 17,
1991, and to the U.S.'EPA,-
November 13, 1991
defines implied attribute,
degradable, generalized claims of
environmental benefit, absolute
claims of environmental benefits,
environmentally safe, better for the
environment, recycled,
recyclable/compostable;
recommended they be based on
minimum standards
American Society for the Testing of
Materials (ASTM)
Committee D10 recommendations
7-10-91
defines source reduction, refillable,
postconsumer material,recycled
mate'rial,recycled content,recyclable
American Society for the Testing of
Materials (ASTM)
Committee D10.19 Task group on
packaging recycling and
disposability: Proposed standards
terminology relating, to packaging.
recycling and disposability
(proposed) undated
defines decomposition,
biodegradable, biodegradability, ,
photodegradable,
photodegradability, postconsumer
recycled materials, postconsumer
waste% recyclable materials,
recycled plastic~-recycling, return,
refillable, reuse, source reduction
American Society for the Testing of
Materials (ASTM)
D06.40 Terminology Task Group
Recycled Paper Terms (proposed)
2-14-91
A me
American Society for the Testing of
Materials (ASTM)
D20 Committee Standard Guide for
the Development of Standards
Relating to the Proper Use of
Recycled Plastics 1990.
defines postconsumer recovered
materials, recovered paper
materials, recycled content paper,
recycled fiber, recycled paper,
biodegradable, biodegradation,
preconsumer recovered material,
recyclable, recycle, waste paper
defines industrial plastic scrap,
plastic recycling, postconsumer
materials, recovered material,
recycled plastic, reuse, source
reduction
Industi
National Food Processors
Association (NFPA)
Mobil Chemical Company
First Brands Corporation
Petition to the FTC
Petition to the FTC
Petition to the FTC
proposes guidelines on recyclable,
recycled, comppstable, source
reduction, refillable, reusable, and
general claims
petitions the FTC to define photo-,
bio-, degradable, safe for the
environment, recyclable, recycled,
ozone friendly, landfill safe,
environmentally friendly
petitions the FTC to define what
can be claimed, and how it needs
to be substantiated
105
-------
lable :". 1. connnued...
Table 5.1. Private and Government Actions Pertaining to Environmental Marketing
Regulations
Flexible Packaging Association
Institute of Packaging Professionals
iloPP)
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance
Association and Nonprescription
Drug Manufacturers Association
Advertising Age Environmental
Marketing and Advertising Council
Action
Position Statement on
Environmental Labeling Programs
loPP Packaging Reduction
Recycling and Disposal Guidelines.
Petition to the FTC
Guidelines
Content
defines source reduced, recycled
content, recycled material,
postconsumer, recyclable, reusable
defines"source reduction,
recyclable, degradable
adds ozone friendly, recyc lability,
and recycled content to the NFPA
petition
general guidelines for marketers
States
State Attorneys General Task Force
(AsG)
Rhode Island, New York,
Connecticut, Wisconsin, New
Hampshire
Massachusetts Packaging Reduction
and Recycling Act of 1991
California
Connecticut
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Indiana
Iowa
Green Report, Green Report II
state laws
proposed state law
Assembly Bill 3994 of 1991
"Public Act 89-385
1990 state law
SB 948 - not yet enacted
Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales
Act 1991 Ind. Code §§ 24-5-17-1
to 24-5-17-14
HB .1307
SF-223 - introduced
gives specific guidelines for
truthful environmental marketing,
calls on the federal government to
make uniform definitions of
environmental terms including
testing protocol and standards
regulate the use of the terms
recycled and recyclable oh
packaging and in advertising
bans wasteful packaging in
Massachusetts as of 1996, sets
standards for allowable packaging
defines ozone friendly,
biodegradable, photodegradable,
recyclable, and recycled,' requires
people making general claims to
maintain supporting documentation
regulates the ter^ns recyclable and
recycled content
regulates the term organic
defines recyclable
generally follows CA AB 3994-
setf-destructs if federal guidelines
are promulgated. Recycled means
10 percent postconsumer or
postmanufacture
requires people making
environmental claims to-1 maintain
supporting documentation
creates a packaging review board
to monitor the development of
national standards; authorized1 to
develop an eco-labeling program
106
-------
Table 5.1. continued.:.,
Table 5.1. Private and Government Actions Pertaining to Environmental Marketing
Regulations - ' , 1-, '
Maine
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
New York .
.New York '
New York
Oregon
V '
Pennsylvania.
Rhode Island
Action
1991,38 MRSA Section 2141
RSA 149rN; .
'1990 state law
6 NYCRR Part 368
SB 5119/ AB 3632 -proposed
>
SB 2499-A/AB 8204.- proposed
AB 5547-A - proposed
proposed legislation
SB! 920 - has been introduced into
general assembly
Recycling Emblem Regulations ..
Content
sets up a waste 'reduction and. '
recycling labeling program with a
logo; -follows NERC regulations;
regulates recyclable, reusable,
recycled, and recycled content
defines postconsu'mer material,
recyclable, recycled material used
with logo
regulates the term organic
defines recyclable, recycled,
reusable
regulates biodegradable/ ,
degradable/ photodegradable
substantially similar to CA AB
3994 statute except:
1 . exempts beverage container
holding devices
2. biodegradable/photodegradable
allowable ,in the context of a factual
statement
bans 'use of the terms
biodegradable, degradable, or
photodegradable on plastic products
(beverage holders exempted). Self-
repealing if federal or state law
adopts appropriate standards and
products meet those standards
defines recyclable packages and
packages made of recyclable,
materials
gives PA DEP jurisdiction to
regulate and AG jurisdiction to
investigate environmental claims,
bans misleading claims .of
environmental benefits,
person responsible for labeling
must maintain substantiation for the
claims, requires all plastic bottles
above 16 oz to identify plastic resin .
used -.."
sets standards for recyclable,
recycled, recycled content, and
reusable
107
-------
Table 5.1. continued...
Table 5.1. Private and'Government Actions Pertaining to Environmental Marketing
Regulations _
Action
Content
Rhode Island
H-6350-has been introduced
bans the terms biodegradable,
degradable.photodegradable, and
environmentally safe with plastic
products.
degradable plastics cannot be
labeled recyclable
Virginia
1990 state law
regulates the term organic
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Statues, Chapters
100,295
sets and enforces definitions for
degradable, recyclable, and
recycled .
Federal Government
Title XXI Organic Certification:
The Organic Foods Production Act
of 1990
federal law
establishes national standards
governing marketing of certain
agricultural products as organically
produced
Environmental Claims Act of 1991'
(S.615, HR 1408); included in
House and Senate RCRA
reauthorization bills
proposed; no action taken in 102nd
Congress. May or may not be
reintroduced in 103rd Congress.
defines and sets standards for the .
terms source reduced, reusable,
refillable, recyclable, has recycled
content, compostable, ozone safe,
friendly, or neutral, non-toxic, or
otherwise beneficial to the
environment; authorizes U.S. EPA
in consultation with the ETC to
regulate environmental terms
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Guidance for the Use of the Terms
"Recycled" and "Recyclable" and
the Recycling Emblem in
Environmental Marketing Claims
EPA/OSW-FR-91-032 Notice of
Public Meeting and Request for
Comments; proposed definitions
defines home scrap, postconsumer,
preconsumer, recycled materials,
recyclables, recycled content,
recycle, recycling rate
Federal Trade Commission
Hearings on Environmental
Marketing and Advertising Guides
Washington, DC, July 17-18, 1991
heard testimony to determine if and
in what form the FTC should
establish federal guidelines
governing environmental marketing
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Public Meeting on Guidance for" the
Use of the Terms "Recycled" and
"Recyclable" and the Recycling
Emblem in Environmental
Marketing - Washington, DC,
November 13-14, 1991
heard testimony on the meaning
and use of these terms
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency '
"Protection of stratospheric ozone,"
May 4, 1992. Notice of Proposed
Rule
rule would require warning labels
on consumer products containing or
manufactured with class I and El
ozone depleting substances.
108
-------
Table 5.1, continued...
Table 5.1. 'Private and Government Actions Pertaining to Environmental Marketing
Regulations ,
U.S. Federal Trade Commission
Action
Environmental Marketing
Guidelines, July -28, 1992
Content
voluntary guidelines suggesting
usage for general environmental
benefit claims, photo- and
biodegradable, compostable,
recyclable, recycled content, source
reduction, refillable, ozone safe
and ozone friendly
. To date, all the proposals seeking to define or regulate environmental marketing claims
contain the 'assumption that the use of environmental claims by marketers is voluntary.
Marketers choosing not to make environmental claims would not be affected by the standards
or guidelines; only those marketers that use environmental claims would be encouraged or
required to follow national guidelines or regulations. This differs from mandatory negative
labeling (e.g., health advisories on cigarettes), where marketers do not have the choice of
whether or hot to use the label. While California'and Vermont have mandatory negative
environmental labeling programs, and EPA has proposed a warning label for products made with
or containing ozone-depleting substances, all the proposals discussed in this report involve
voluntary labeling of positive environmental attributes by marketers.
Most of the environmental terms defined in regulations and proposals involve either
general, vague terms such as environmentally friendly, or terms associated with solid waste
management -such as source reduced or recycled. (36) Terms dealing with other important
environmental issues, such as biodiversity, resource conservation, and climate change, are
notably underrepresented in the current debate.
Using the marketplace effectively to promote positive environmental change requires that
environmental claims accurately reflect both the impact of the products being sold, and the
particular policy goals being supported by scientific research and by society. (36) Market-driven
environmental policies depend on the knowledge and awareness of environmental issues by
consumers. When consumers are misled by false advertising, environmental policy goals driven
by those concerns are undermined. In order to effectively use the marketplace as an
environmental policy tool, marketing terms must reflect, if not promote, established
environmental policy goals. (36)
5.1.1 State and Private Actions
State actions pertaining, to environmental marketing have focused mainly on three areas:
measures that prohibit unfair and deceptive advertising of environmental claims, legislation that
restricts advertising of the recyclability of plastics, and bills and regulations that permit the
109
-------
establishment of environmental logo programs. (144) Consumer and environmental groups have
focused both on truth-in-advertising issues and the establishment of minimum standards for the
use of certain terms. For the most part, they have rallied behind the recommendations outlined
in the Green Report II, issued by a task force of state Attorneys General. Industry groups have
focused mainly on guidelines for truth-in-advertising, and have been strong in their support of
the National Food Processors Association (94) petition to the FTC. Industry groups are among
the strongest supporters of the new FTC guidelines. A representative for the Grocery
Manufacturers of America said, "We hope' everyone - the states, the Congress and ,
environmental organizations will follow FTC's approach." (7.9)
While the various proposed state and private actions differ in their specifics, there has
been near-universal consensus that the status quo has created unacceptable problems in the
marketplace and that there was a need for definitive federal guidelines governing the use or
. environmental terms in advertising.-(25,49,62,61,(57,69,70,80,94,114,128,147) Prior to the
FTC guidelines, individual states enacted a sometimes conflicting array of regulations defining .
and restricting different terms (see Table 5.1). Early reaction to FTC guidelines range from
calling them "a good first step" (125) to saying that they will "have a profound impact on
industry practices" and will "form a basis for a uniform, national regulatory scheme for
environmental marketing" (79).
A common assumption contained in the regulations and proposals mentioned above is that
consumers benefit from clear, complete, and truthful claims, and are harmed when producers
make vague or deceptive claims about the environmental attributes of their products. (117)
Consumer and environmental groups have expressed concern that without federal standards/-
consumers are not adequately protected from false or misleading advertising. Conversely,
national marketers have complained that the "patchwork" of state regulations has become
enormously expensive, making compliance difficult. (69,114,147) They argue that this situation
both hurts interstate commerce and interferes with truthful, consistent communication of rea
environmental benefits to consumers. (69,94,111) The FTC hopes that standardized national
guidelines will both assure consumers of consistent, truthful information, and will allow
marketers to take credit for real environmental improvements without the fear of being sued.
5.1.2 Truth-in-Advertising Versus Environmental Policy
There are several possible approaches for national guidelines on environmental marketing.
One approach promoted by many industry groups is that any national guidehnes shpuId_be
voluntary and should promote truth in advertising. (17,20,48,69,70,80,91,94,112,115,129) The
oLrApproach, commonly advocated by consumer and envkonmental groups and some state
agencies is tha environmental labeling should not only be truthful, but can and should be used
asTeffective environmental policy tool to promote products that have tewer adverse impacts
on the environment. (1,5,7,24,36,56,92,93,114,133,147)
110
-------
The- industry view was expressed by Juanita Duggan of the National Food Processors
Association. "The purpose of regulating environmental marketing claims is not to establish
detailed environmental policy through minimum standards for product performance, but to
encourage truthful consumer communications." (97)
Proponents of voluntary guidelines argue that national guidelines coupled with industry
self-regulation are sufficient to allow manufacturers to receive credit for their actions without
confusing or misleading consumers.. (61,91,94) Common definitions of terms would increase
consumers' understanding of the attributes being promoted, and would reduce the complexity
of the marketplace facing manufacturers and- marketers. (17,44,69,93) Several groups have
expressed concern that legislated definitions or minimum standards for environmental marketing
terms would stifle their use by industry. Such groups argue that by decreasing the amount of
useful information reaching consumers, overly-strict definitions can be in themselves
undesirable. (5,44,48,69,111) Also, guidelines should not mandate certain materials',or
processes over others, but should allow industry the flexibility for innovation. (5,70,112,97)
The FTC .'guidelines in Appendix 4 are the first comprehensive action at the federal. level to
address these issues. , . ;
Advocates of strong governmental regulation of environmental advertising agree with the
FTC petitioners that a primary reason for standardizing the use of environmental, terms is to
prevent consumer deception, but they also want to see regulations go beyond truth-in-advertising
laws. (36,39,35,114,147). In response to the FTC guidelines, Richard Denison of the
Environmental Defense Fund said, "The FTC has gone as far as it can go to make sure claims
are truthful, but they have not ensured that the claims will deliver real benefits." (125) As an
example, he noted that the guidelines would allow a paper company to claim that its products
are degradable in a municipal composting program if it discloses the limited availability of such
programs in the U.S., "but city composting programs serve only 1 percent of the nation's
population, so the benefit is trivial for the majority of people."
Advocates for greater government involvement argue that environmental claims inherently
affect environmental policy by affecting consumer purchasing decisions, and should therefore
be allowed only on products that have meaningful environmental benefits. (1,36,56,92,133,147)
They also point out that misleading or deceptive claims not only harm consumers, they can
undermine broader environmental policy goals, such as encouraging recycling and responsible
solid waste management. (5,7,24,36,56,93,147) .
Those . seeking to advance environmental policy through federal regulation of
environmental marketing claims advocate that guidelines for the use of environmental claims
should be defined in a way that expresses specific policy goals set by the federal government.
Such definitions would not only require claims to be factual but would also require them to be
"desirable according to federal environmental policy. By doing so, they argue, environmental
.claims would more actively steer consumers toward products with a lower adverse environmental
impact and would provide stronger incentives to manufacturers to improve industrial practices
and advance environmental goals. (36,35,56,93,100)
111 .
-------
' The FTC guideline for photodegradable claims for "commercial agricultural plastic mulch
film" (see Appendix 4) can be used to illustrate the difference between guidelines designed to
promote truth in advertising and those designed to promote environmental policy. The- claim
for the product is that it "will break down into small pieces if left uncovered in sunlight."
"Because the claim is qualified to indicate the limited extent of breakdown" it would not be
considered a deceptive claim by the FTC. However, the plastic does not break down into soil
or humus, but rather into very small pieces of plastic (after technical bonds of certain resins are
altered by exposure to ultraviolet radiation). One problem with the FTC guideline for
photodegradability, as noted in the Green Report II, is that " [photo]degradability claims may
send the message'that it is all right to litter such products." (62) FTC's guideline does not pass
judgment on the merit of plastic photodegradability, allowing a claim that, while true, is
arguably not always beneficial.
Enforcement actions of the FTC are not limited to what is presented in the guides. FTC
will continue to determine if claims are false or misleading on a case by case basis, under the
authority of the FTC Act. The guides do state that "Marketers should avoid implications of
significant environmental benefit if the benefit is in fact negligible." (See Section F3 in
Appendix 4.) What is considered a "significant" or "negligible" benefit will be determined as
cases arise.
Some states, such as New York, have existing, and proposed laws mandating that products
or packages claiming recycled content must contain a minimum percentage of recycled material,
or must disclose the source of recycled material (pre- or post-consumer). Andrea Levine, an
assistant attorney general for New York, has indicated that the state may still enforce its law on
environmental marketing claims, even though the FTC does not mention the use of minimum
standards in their guidelines. (53)
5.1.3 The Role of the FederalGovernment ,
Most groups involved in environmental marketing issues agreed that initial federal actions
should include guidelines for environmental marketing, largely because they are more easily and
quickly developed and guidance was needed as soon as possible. (48,62) Many industry groups
preferred industry selfrregulation, and argued that federal' regulations would stifle change.
(48,114) One group suggested that the FTC issue short-term guidelines, to be evaluated in two
years to decide if further action is needed. (128) More sophisticated guidelines or regulations
could be promulgated later to more closely reflect environmental policy goals and technological
advances as the government gains experience in the area of environmental advertising, (69) As
issued, the FTC guidelines will be reevaluated in three years. -
Which federal agency should govern the use of environmental marketing terms has also
.been debated. Industry groups tended to favor guidance coming from the FTC, arguing that the
FTC has the most experience with trade and advertising issues. (6,91,129) The National
Association of Attrorneys General and the National Association of Consumer Agency
112
-------
'Administrators, issued resolutions calling for FTC guidelines. (149) 'Consumer, environmental.
and state groups tended to favor regulation by.the U.S.-EPA, arguing that they have the most
experience dealing with environmental policy. (1,36) Consumer, state and environmental groups
have strongly favored retention of states', authority to regulate environmental claims expecting
states to adopt stricter definitions. This view reflects the fact that state and local governments
have primary responsibility for dealing with solid waste, the focus of many of those claims. (36)
In addition, several groups suggested that the U.S. EPA and FTC work together to
regulate environmental labeling,, much in the same way as the FTC and the Food and Drug
Administration work together to regulate nutritional labeling. (36,35,100) This approach would
have the FTC enforce truth-in-advertising issues and publish guidelines for compliance; and the
U.S. EPA develop definitions and promulgate regulations (if necessary). (36) The
Environmental Marketing Claims Act, included in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) reauthorization bill, would direct the U.S. EPA to promulgate regulations. (134) No
action was taken on this bill in 1992; it may or may not be reintroduced in 1993. The FTC
guidelines were developed in cooperation with the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Office of Consumer
Affairs. . '-.''" ' '
5.1.4 Other Forms of Environmental Marketing
In addition to environmental marketing terms, environmental .labeling activities in the
U.S. include certain logos and emblems that denote environmental attributes. One logo used
nationwide is the Society of. Plastics Industries (SPI) chasing arrows logo with numbers
identifying the resin(s) used in plastic products. Over thirty states now require certain forms of
plastic to carry the logo to facilitate recycling. In addition, glass bottlers have recently begun
to use a modified recycling symbol with the words Glass Recycles.
. Some states, such as Rhode Island and New York, have begun to -require the use of a
chasing arrows recycling logo, based on the American Paper Institute (API) symbol, to indicate
that a product or package passes minimum state requirements for recyclability, recycled content,
or reusability. A proposed Massachusetts law would use a similar logo to indicate that a product
has passed standards for rionwastefuLpackaging. (87) The Environmental Protection Agency is
currently considering issuing guidelines for the use of this emblem to indicate either recyclability
or recycled content. In addition, the Institute for Local Self Reliance has developed a 4-star.
rating system for products and packaging, based on the use of recycled, material. (146)
California, Vermont, and Seattle, Washington, have mandatory negative labeling
programs. California requires warning labels to be placed on all consumer, products containing
known carcinogens-or teratogens, as identified by the Governor's Scientific Advisory Committee.
The program has directly caused several manufacturers to'reformulate their products to avoid
.the label. Vermont's program identifies household product groups containing hazardous
Chemicals, and requires retailers to identify the products as hazardous with shelf labels.
. Products that fall under these categories but are not hazardous are labeled with exemption
113
-------
stickers. Seattle's wastewater agency, Metro, has started a labeling program to help identify and
reduce household sources of hazardous materials in non-industrial wastewater. Along with the
Washington Toxics Coalition, Metro is evaluating the near-and long-term toxicity, flammabihty,.
and environmental hazards of specific consumer products. Metro then asslgns a color-coded
label- «reen for the least risk to the environment, yellow and red for progressively greater
impact "and black for products with the greatest risk. The results are printed on fact sheets for
local merchants to distribute to consumers. To date, 250 products have been rated, mcludmg
household cleaners, laundry detergents, art and hobby markers, pesticides, and lighter fluids.
The effect of this information on product formulations and consumer buying habits has not yet
been ascertained. (58) ' " . /
5.1.5 Eco-labeling Programs and Life Cycle Assessment
For the most part, the environmental labeling discussion in the United States has focused
on'defining environmental terms. Regulation of environmental labeling in other countries has
taken a different approach, that of the eco-label. Eco-label programs seek, to certify and label
products that have met a set of minimum environmental standards based on an assessment ot a
product's environmental impacts. (85) The goals of such programs include: (a) providing
science-based information for consumers and policymakers on the environmental impact ot
competing products; (b) stimulating investment in improved environmental policies and practices;
and (c) shifting the marketplace to favor the least damaging products and practices. (60,140)
Germany, Canada, Japan, the European Community, the Nordic Council, and Australia
have developed environmental seal-of-approval programs that identify products judged to be
more environmentally benign than other products in their categories. (122) Other countries are
in the process of developing similar programs. Typically, these programs (with the exception
of Japan) have attempted to rate products on the basis of modified life cycle assessments
(LCAs) which attempt to characterize the "cradle to grave" environmental impacts of a product.
These impacts, from raw materials and energy consumption to pollutant releases and waste
veneration, are assessed as a product's development is tracked from a raw material through its
production use, and eventual-reuse or disposal. Products within a certain product category are
then ranked according to specific criteria that relate to the life cycle assessment These catena
may include impacts such as resource use, toxic production, recyclabilitv, durability, and energy
efficiency To minimize the research required for the abbreviated LCAs, however, products are
aenerally ranked on the basis of only one or a few defining criteria, rather than on the basis of
impacts from their entire life cycle. (122) Products meeting criteria thresholds are allowed to
license the eco-label for a certain period of time, usuaUy two or three years.
BY the end of 1992, twenty-two countries are expected to-be using some sort of
government environmental seal-of-approval. However, eco-labels have yet to gain wide
acceptance in the U.S. marketplace, at least in part due to the controversy surrounding life cycle
assessment (122) Groups have criticized the lack of recognized currency for comparing
d S envLnmental impacts (e.g., energy use versus toxics Productionythat can make life
cycle assessment highly susceptible to subjective judgments. (34,140) In addition, corporations
114
-------
hav.e misused life cycle assessments to make comparative marketing claims by highlighting only
those parameters that make their product look superior, (124) However, overseas labeling
programs have begun to converge around a set of standardized methodologies that decreases the
subjectivity of the life cycle assessment while retaining its multi-criteria approach.
The continued criticism in the United States in contrast to the acceptance of eco-label
programs in other countries may be related to the fact that other countries each have a single
governmental program, while two privately-run eco-labeling programs compete in the U.S.
Green Seal and Scientific Certification Systems (SCS), formerly Green Cross, have both
embraced a long term goal of developing eco-label programs based on life cycle assessments.
In the short term, the two private organizations have adopted and are applying though, in a
slightly differing fashion a streamlined life cycle inventory27 approach for their programs.
Green Seal is applying the life cycle inventory, as a basis for a standards setting program which
is followed by the majority of overseas governmental eco-labeling programs. ^ Scientific
Certification Systems, on the other hand, is using the life cycle inventory information to launch
its "Environmental Report Card" program, which has; been likened by. SCS to the food
nutritional labels. In addition to SCS and Green Seal, the California-EPA is considering an eco-
label program.
\
5.2 DEFINITIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING TERMS
To date, the major form of environmental advertising regulation in the United States has
been that of defining the terms that can be used on product labels and in advertising campaigns.
The broad range of strictness and the specificity of definitions proposed by different groups
reflect their differing views on the role of environmental advertising. Proposed approaches to
defining environmental terms Vary in their specificity as well as in their ability to promote
environmental policy goals. The analytic framework of this report considers three different
definition types as they are used by regulators, marketers, and consumers. These types are
demonstrated below, using differing definitions of the term-recyclable: <
Theoretical: not technically false, but does not define context in which attribute is true
EXAMPLE: RECYCLABLE: capable of being recycled .commercially practiced technology
.exists to recycle the material. "'
Contextual: defines both the attribute and the context in which the attribute is true
.EXAMPLE: RECYCLABLE: an infrastructure exists and is available to the consumer to
accomplish the above objective. .
' 27Life cycle inventory involves a systematic quantification^of material inputs and outputs
suiting from raw materials acquisition, manufacture, use, and ultimate disposal.
resulting from raw
115
-------
Policy Forming:
sets minimum goals or standards that the product or package must meet
in order for the term to be used
EXAMPLE: RECYCLABLE: an infrastructure is available to 75 percent of the population or a
recycling rate of 50 percent has been achieved on a national basis within a
material category. _ , '
The range of opinion on how context-dependent terms such as recyclable and compostable
should be defined is notably broader, due to the inherent ambiguity of the terms. Several groups
have argued that context-dependent terms should not be used on a national scale because they
are dependent on local conditions. (36,38) Rather, these terms might be restricted to store shelf
labeling, to correspond with the local solid waste management infrastructure. (107) Another
possibility for using context-specific terms on a national scale would be to adopt a labeling
scheme, as is currently being used in states with returnable bottles and cans. Products claiming
recyclability, for example, would be required to label the states (or areas) in which adequate
recycling infrastructures and collection systems exist to recycle that material.
" The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) held a two-day-public hearing in July 1991 to hear
comments on the use and possible regulation of environmental labeling terms. They identified
the following terms as being currently used in environmental marketing: degradable
(biodegradable, photodegradable), compostable, recyclable, recycled (recycled content, contains
recycled materials), source reduction, ozone safe/ozone friendly, refillable/reusable, landfill
safe/safe for incineration, and environmentally safe/environmentally friendly. (36) All of these
terms, except for landfill safe/safe for incineration, have been given specific meanings by state
and regional organizations, and/or by consumer, environmental,.and industry groups. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has proposed draft voluntary guidelines for two terms,
recyclable ^"recycled, as well as for the use of the American Paper Institute (API) chasing
arrows recycling emblem (140).
A year later, on July 28, 1992, the FTC released environmental marketing guidelines for
all of the above terms except landfill safe/safe for incineration: These guidelines, it was pointed
out "are the most specific directions the Government has ever issued on what is and what is not
a misleading environmental advertising claim." (125) Though FTC guidelines "do not rigidly
define environmental terms" (41), the examples presented to illustrate appropriate uses for the
terms constitute a type of definition. In drafting these guidelines, FTC relied on testimony from
the public hearing, as well as such sources as Green Report II, petitions for environmental
marketing guidelines from various groups, state laws and industry definitions, and direct input
from EPA and the U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs.
In addition to the terms identified by the FTC, other environmental terms have been
defined by various government and private proposals. Regulations, guidelines and certification
programs involving environmental marketing claims include terms specific to recycling
(especially paper recycling), toxicity, energy efficiency, organic, and synthetic, as well as
variations on several of these terms. The following sections catalog the environmental terms
116
-------
defined in existing or proposed guidelines and regulations. These terms are discussed in.the
text- proposed definitions of each term or group of terms are listed in Appendix 2. A complete
list of groups included in this analysis is included in Appendix 3. Terms are. discussed in the
"following order: ' , . .
5.2.1 General Guidelines .
..-.- 5.2.2 General Terms ..'
5.2.3 Manufacturing/Production Process Terms
5.2.4 Ozone Related-Terms
5.2.5 Source Reduction _
5.2.6 Solid Waste Management Terms
5.2.6.1 Reuse/Refill
5.2.6.2 Recycling terms .
5.2.6.3 Disposable .
5:2.6.4 Compostable
5.2.6.5 Degradable "'
Tables are included for those terms that have been subject to wide debate to indicate the range
of definitions that have been proposed for each term.
5.2.1 General Guidelines
As a journalist for Advertising Age contends, "Environmental advertising is a powerful
tool and done correctly, it can both educate consumers and bolster sales. Done improperly, it
can lead to lawsuits, government investigations and boycotts." (3) Both consumer advocates and
marketers have proposed general guidelines that attempt to delineate the legitimate uses of
environmental marketing terms. Over 40 separate-citizen, industry, state, regional, and federal
groups had made formal proposals or actions between 1990 and the middle of 1992 (see Table
' 5-1>- ' - . ..-'.'> ' '
Two documents that were influential in the composition of FTC guidelines were the
. Green Report II and the National Food Processors Association petition to the FTC. Both written
. in 1991, they represent the spectrum of views on regulating environmental terms in advertising.
The NFPA petition advocates voluntary guidelines and industry.self-regulation to promote truth-
in-advertising It attempts to provide "safe harbors" for manufacturers to be able to make
environmental claims without fear of being sued. The Green Report II takes a more rigorous
and proactive approach, seeking to prevent marketers from profiting from environmental claims
that do not represent real environmental improvements.
" ... " J '" - .
The NFPA petition refers to both specific and general claims. For specific claims, it
states simply that it is deceptive to misrepresent these environmental attributes, and gives
specific cases of truthful and deceptive claims. Specific claims discussed by NFPA are outlined
below, in their respective sections. For general claims, it advocates a case-by-case approach, as
is how being followed by the FTC. -
,117
-------
FTC guidelines recommend some general principles to follow, in addition to
recommendations for specific terms:
Qualifications to claims and disclosures should be clearly stated and prominently
displayed.
Claims.should be presented in a way that makes clear whether the benefit is for the
product or the package.
Marketers should not overstate the benefit of a claim, nor imply a benefit if the benefit
is negligible.
Comparisons between products should be clear and substantiated.
The Green Report^ II has five broad recommendations concerning environmental
advertising: (140)
Claims should be as specific as possible and not general, vague, incomplete or overly
broad.
Claims should be substantive.
Claims should reflect current management options in the area where the product is sold.
Claims should be supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence.
Claims should be clear whether they refer to the package or to the product.
In addition, the Green Report II makes several specific recommendations about
advertising positive attributes and about seals of approval.
Only complete and full comparisons should be made among products.
* In advertising already existing but previously unadvertised positive environmental
attributes, marketers should not create the perception that the product has been recently
improved or modified.
Life cycle analyses should not be used to advertise or promote specific products until
uniform methods for conducting such assessments are developed and a general consensus
is reached among government, environmental, business, and consumer groups on how
this type of environmental comparison can be advertised non-deceptively. -
' In promoting the removal of a single or a few harmful ingredients from a product or a
package, care should be taken to avoid the impression that the product is good for the
' environment in all respects. .
Third party certifications arid seals of approval must be designed and promoted with great
care, to avoid misleading the public. Certifications could give a false impression that the
product is wholly beneficial for the environment. In addition, certification programs
could be driven by financial incentives on the part of private, for-profit certification
firms.
118
-------
Scott Paper Company' echoes the Green Report II in'its own recommendations, (L'26) It
proposes that environmental claims be made only when the statement:
is factual; ' " .
is consistent with reasonable external standards or accepted definitions;
is consistent with helping to solve a recognized environmental problem; and
reflects a complete view of environmental considerations.
. In June 1992, The Advertising Age Environmental Marketing and Advertising Council,
created by Advertising Age magazine, came/out with ,a list of guidelines designed to aid
marketers in making truthful, informative environmental advertising claims. The council
recommended that marketers ensure that claims are "specific, factual, and reflect a thorough
understanding of the environmental problems and solutions associated with the product." The
council also -urged marketers to produce their advertising in an environmentally responsible
manner, taking the environmental impact of the materials used in the advertisement into account
;0ther recommendations included not overpromising the environmental benefits of a product, and
encouraging consumer involvement in finding solutions to environmental problems. (3)
' : The Environmental Marketing Claims Act of 1991 ($.615, HR. 1408), included as Section
307 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) reauthorization bill (S.976)
proposed in the 102nd Congress, also proposed general'guidance for environmental advertising.
The bill set standards for certain common terms and mandated the U.S. EPA. to regulate
environmental marketing. Under this bill, the EPA would set standards and criteria for
environmental marketing terms based on best available scientific knowledge and technology, and
the. FTC would enforce standards under the Federal Trade Commission Act., (121) The bill
would require claims to:
be substantiated on the basis of the best available scientific information;
" make a clear distinction between the product and any accompanying packaging, 'unless
the claim applies to both; .
- ' - not compare any environmental aspects of the life cycle of products (or different versions
of the same product) unless the basis for the comparison is stated in the claim; and
not state the absence of a particular attribute unless the statement would:
i)' ' , assist consumers to make value comparisons with respect to environmental claims
among products and packaging; . ,
ii) disclose, that the environmental claim is not an unusual characteristic of the
product or package; and . ,
iii) not mislead consumers in light of another environmental characteristic of the
product or package. (121)
The bill also included provisions for public petitioning for new environmental marketing terms,
- and for conducting public information and education campaigns. (121) No action was taken on
the bm to the 102nd Congress. In order to be considered by the 103rd Congress, it will have
' to be reintroduced. - / .
-'..'' 119
-------
Others have echoed the general guidelines proposed in the Green Report II and the NFPA
petition (see Table 5.1). In general, however, these proposals were not expected to preempt
federal guidelines or regulations, but rather were-seen by the authors as stopgap measures in
order to provide some guidance to marketers prior to federal action. (62)
5.2.2 General Terms
" . - ' i
Of all of the environmental terms being used in advertising, general terms have come
under the most widespread criticism for being vague and virtually insupportable. (35,142,115)
These terms include environmentally better, environmentally friendly, environmentally safe,
environmentally sound, green, green product, and natural. Virtually every group attempting
to define terms has condemned these terms as having no inherent meaning. General claims tend
to give the impression that -a product has no detrimental impact on the environment, even though
this is almost always false. (36,35,62,85,118)- For this reason, several groups have
recommended that general claims be avoided or banned entirely. (25,62,120) Those who would
allow the use of general claims strongly recommend that claims are substantiated (15,72,94) and
qualified. (35) '
1 ' ' . . \ '
Only one of these terms, green product, was specifically defined. The Green Consumer.
Supermarket Guide defined the term as a product having the following attributes:
1) is not dangerous to the health of people or animals;
2) causes minimal damage to the environment during its manufacture, use, and
disposal;
3) does not consume a disproportionate amount of energy or other resources during
its manufacture, use, and disposal;
4) does not cause unnecessary waste, due to either excessive packaging or to a short
useful life;
5) does not cause unnecessary cruelty to animals;
6) does not use materials derived from threatened species; and
7) ideally does not cost more than its 'ungreen' counterpart. (85)
It should be noted that with highly subjective defining attributes such as "disproportionate
amount of energy," and "unnecessary waste," arguably no manufactured product could meet this
definition. . ,
Several states have existing or proposed legislation regulating or banning the use of
general environmental terms. California and Indiana require marketers to make supporting
documentation available to support the truthfulness of their claim. New York and Pennsylvania
have introduced similar legislation. Rhode Island has banned the use of the term
environmentally safe qn plastics.
120
-------
5.2.3 Manufacturing/Production Process Terms
Environmental claims involving manufacturing or production include-energy efficient,
non-toxic, organic, and synthetic. Since they relate to the manner in which products are grown
or manufactured, they are difficult or impossible for consumers to verify independently. For
this reason, these terms are particularly susceptible to deceptive marketing. For example, a
consumer cannot tell merely by looking at a head of lettuce whether or not the farmer who grew
it practiced crop rotation or other sustainable agriculture techniques. With the exception of the
term energy efficient, the manufacturing or production terms defined or regulated by state and
private groups all have to do with product qualities undetectable by consumers.
However, surprisingly few state and private groups address terms specifically related to
manufacturing processes. Organic is a notable exception. The Organic Foods Production Act,
passed in 1990, established national standards governing the, marketing of certain agricultural
products as having been organically produced. (135) The act requires fanners wishing to be
certified as organic to follow specific farming techniques, including complying with an organic
farming plan worked out with a certifying agent. The act also defines the term synthetic in the
context of what can or cannot be used on agricultural crops. These standards were designed to
not only protect consumers, but to ensure that farmers adhering to stringent organic farming
practices benefit from their efforts. Before the Organic Foods ..Production Act was passed,
organic certification of agricultural products in the United States was accomplished by more than
30 independent associations. (85) ,
Other production-related terms have not been the subject of much debate, niuch less
regulation. Non-toxic has not been formally defined, but relates to the absence of toxic
substances associated with the product. With virtually all manufactured products associated with
some production of toxic materials, the term non-toxic is almost inherently deceptive. The
definitions of energy efficient range from broadly defining products as .having reduced energy
consumption over conventional alternatives, to products that give maximum energy savings
during use. Both of these definitions are problematic, in that they do not specify an alternative
with which the product is being compared. Neither do they specify the amount of energy saved
or the time period over which the savings occurred. The term source-reduced; has come under
similar criticism for involving unspecified comparisons.
5.2.4 Ozone-Related Terms .
The terms CFC-free and ozone-friendly, particularly when used on aerosol sprays, have
also come under attack for being deceptive. Consumer aerosols sold in the United States do not
contain chlorofluorocarbons, which were banned in 1978. Although the term CFC-free is
factually accurate when used on these aerosols, the label may give the false impression that the
product formulation is new or unique.
CFC-free objectively means that a product contains no chlorofluorocarbohs. Ozone-
friendly in a strict sense could imply that the product is actually good for ozone, i.e., using more
121
-------
of the product would benefit the ozone layer. It has been used synonymously with CFC-free,
on more than one occasion, on products containing other ozone-depleting chemicals. (118)
Definitions for the term range from does not contain CFCs to does not contain any chemical: that
could deplete ozone. Two groups underscored the point that the term does not imply "good for
the environment:" one group felt that the term should not be used without further explanation
(See Table 5.2).
Table 5.2. Ozone Related Terms
Source
California AB 3994
Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance
Association
Green Consumer Supermarket Guide
Bob Rehak, Ogilvy and Mather
Does not contain CFCs
X
X
X
Does not contain any ozone
depleter '
X
X
Does not contain 'ozoae
depleters but contents are
not necessarily benign
>x
X
Xote: X bdicates criteria is included in the definition proposed by indicated author.
Marks in parentheses indicate inferred meaning of actual definition.
In response to amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1990, EPA has proposed a rule
requiring warning labels on consumer products containing or manufactured with Class I and H
ozone depleting substances. Section 611 of the Act does not authorize EPA to regulate
marketing claims, but EPA "believes...the warning label requirement will help to alleviate some
of the confusion currently surrounding claims like ozone friendly and contains no CFCs by
clearly informing consumers as to which products use ozone-depleting chemicals." EPA is also
considering the use of a symbol to accompany the specific warning. Suggested is a stop sign
with a view of Earth inside, accompanied by "Contains [Chlorofluorocarbon-11], a substance
which harms public health and environment by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere." (145)
5.2.5. Source Reduction ,
Source reduction in a general sense refers to the reduction in volume, mass, or toxicity
in the manufacture or use of a product or package compared to its predecessors or competition.
The phrases source reduction or source-reduced have two problems that make them potentially
misleading: (a) they are not terms that consumers normally use, and may therefore be
misunderstood; and (b) they involve time periods, and volume or mass reductions, that are
unspecified. (36,25) The Green Report II suggests that source reduction claims be specific, give
exact percentages for the reduction, be made for only a short time after the reduction occurs,
and include complete information with respect to comparisons. The NFPA petition recommends
that manufacturers include both the amount reduced and the tune period over which the reduction
occurred. For the term to'have consistent meaning to the consumer across diverse products and
122
-------
manufacturers, a standardized measure of reduction (e.g., weight, volume, toxic content), as
well as a limit on time allowed to make the claim, are necessary. .
The broad range of definitions for source-reduced reflects the inherent ambiguity of the
term (see Table 5.3). the least specific definition simply states that source reduction involves
less packaging. The strictest definition requires that "a significant reduction has recently taken
place; the product must be labeled with the percentage reduced." Most definitions pertained to
reductions in packaging and product volume, mass, and/or toxicity. Suggested reductions
included changing product design, size, concentration, life span, and/or component,materials in '
order to reduce the amount of resources used and discarded. None of the definitions require a
minimum reduction to have taken place. ,
Related terms include no packaging, and reduced packaging. No packaging 'refers to
products acquired, contained, and transported in bulk. Reduced packaging has been defined
quite specifically in a proposed Massachusetts -law-as "packaging verified to have been reduced
by 25 percent or more compared to same product five years earlier. Packager must reduce an
additional 25 percent or more within five years to remain in compliance."
Table 5.3. Source Reduction .
.
i
Source
American
Society for the
Testing of
Materials
Council of
New England .
Council on
. Plastics and
Packaging in
. the
Environment
Flexible
Packaging
Association
Grand Rapids
Label'
Company
Uses less
packaging
(volume or
weight)
X
X
X
"
X
'
X
Packaging
is less toxic
X
X
X
X
Uses less
material that
will become
solid waste
x
Less waste/
solid waste
is produced
X
X
X
Refers to
reuse and
repair ,pf
products
X
'
Reduced
use of
materials
X
%.
X
Reduced
use of
energy
Less
toxic
materials
used in
product
X
X
123
-------
Table 5.3. Source Reduction, continued
Source
Institute of
Packaging
Professionals
MA Packaging
Reduction and
Recvcling Act
National Food
Processors
Association
Uses less
packaging
(volume or
weight)
X
X
Packaging
is less toxic
Uses less
material that
will become
solid waste
Less waste/
solid waste
is produced
X
Refers to
reuse and
repair of
products
Reduced
use of
.. materials
X
Reduced
use of
. energy
X
Less
toxic
materials
used in
product
Note: X indicates criteria is included in the definition proposed by indicated author.
Marks in parentheses indicate inferred meaning of actual definition.
5.2.6 Solid Waste Management Terms
Solid waste management terms make up the largest group of environmental terms used
and defined in green advertising. (36) Like other environmental terms, they reflect, to varying
degrees, current societal perceptions of solid waste management options. Because these claims
can drive consumers to promote certain solid waste management alternatives, it is important that
they reflect real solid waste management options and stated societal priorities. (36) For solid
waste terms to be used non-deceptively, it must hold true-that the solid waste management
options advertised are both (a) available to the consumer, and (b) recognized by scientists and
policy makers as beneficial. (36)
Two groups of terms,, context-dependent terms, and terms relating to plastic disposal, .
have come under particular criticism, either for having limited real value to consumers or for
claiming questionable benefits. Context-dependent terms, such as recyclable or compostable,
imply that the product is technically amenable to that solid waste management option and,
furthermore, that the option is available to the consumer. For example, while most packaging
materials are technically recyclable, the availability of a recycling infrastructure varies widely
on a local level. Because national marketers cannot respond to local variations in availability,
different groups have suggested either labeling the products at the point of purchase (e.g., on
the supermarket shelf, not on the package itself),- requiring minimum recycling rates to be
established before the term can be used, or banning the use of these terms altogether. (36,107)
Definitions covering these terms differ mainly in the extent to which the option must be
available to the consumer for the claim to be true. The NFPA petition would allow claims to
be made if the claim included the words where facilities exist. .The Green Report II recommends
124
-------
that environmental recyclability or disposability claims clearly disclose the general availability
of the advertised option where the product is sold.-(62) ,
Claims relating to plastics, particularly to their degradability, have been attacked because
of their questionable performance and/or benefits. When landfilled or incinerated, they have no
clear benefit over other plastics because they may not degrade in either instance. When .-
combined with other plastics in recycling programs they lower the quality of the end products.
When they do degrade, they turn into plastic dust, which has the potential to interfere with,living
organisms on the molecular level. (118) The growing consensus is that in most cases, plastic
degradability is not a beneficial product quality, and therefore should not be advertised as though
it were a positive environmental attribute. (36) Rhode Island and New York have introduced-
legislation banning the use of the term environmentally safe or biodegradable on .plastics..
The ambiguity' of context-dependent and technical terms relating to solid waste
ma-nagement has caused several groups to urge the establishment of science-based standards for
these terms (36) One group felt that claims should at least reflect, if not promote, national -
environmental policy goals, arguing that claims of environmental benefit that do not reflect real
goals or options for solid waste management are inherently deceptive. (36,35)
Terms relating to solid- waste management include reusable, refttlable, disposable,
compostable, and degradable; and recycling terms, which include a subcategory relating
specifically to paper recycling. These terms are listed in detail below.
5.2.6.1 Reusable/RefiUable
Reusable and reflllable are context-specific terms relating to the ability of a consumer to
refill or reuse a product or package for its original use. Similar to other context-specific terms,
the ability of a product or package to be reused or refilled is dependent not only on the inherent
durability of the materials used, .but also on the availability of a program allowing the package
or product to be reused or refilled. While manufacturers can control the ability of a material
to withstand reuse, they have less control over the availability to consumers of the infrastructure
required to make this happen. Some definitions, such as those contained in the NFPA petition
require only honesty in representing the number of times a package may be refilled or reused
without an adverse impact on the materials used: Other definitions specify.a certain minimum
number of times, usually five, that a product or package is able to be refilled or reused.
(134,104,107,120) , , '
Definitions of reuse or reusable involve using a product more than once in its original
form (see Table 5.4): The loosest definition of reusable is a "package or material that can be
reused for its original purpose or for a different purpose." This does not require that the
material will in fact ever be reused. The strictest definition requires that a package is designed
to be refilled or reused for its original purpose a minimum of five times, and for which (a) a
minimum of 50 percent of such packages used in Massachusetts are returned for reuse or
refilling or. (b) product refills designed to be put in such a packaging are sold in at least equal
125
-------
numbers to sales of the original refillable package." One definition for cloth diapers requires
that they be reusable at least 75 times and not include non-reusable components. Definitions
range among the following requirements:
a package or material is technically able to be reused,
a product or package is reused at least five times,
an available program set up by the manufacturer, distributor or retailer exists to reuse
the product, and/or
the national rate of reuse is also written on the label.
Most definitions require that the product or package is able to be reused a minimum number of
times, and that a program for such reuse exists.
Refillable tends to be defined more specifically than reusable. Most definitions specify
that refillable means a product or package can be refilled for the same or a substantially similar
use. One definition specifies that the product must be able to be refilled for the original purpose
an average of 5 times or more. Others specify that there must be a program established by a
manufacturer, distributor, or retailer to refill the package or product.
Table 5.4. Reusable/Refillable
Source
Am. Society for Testing of
Materials '
Envr. Marketing Claims Act
Flexible Packaging Assoc.
Grand Rapids Label
Company
MA Packaging Reduction
and Recycling Act
Nat. Food Processors Assoc.
New' York Dept. of
Environmental Conservation
Northeast Recycling Council
Can be reused
in original form
for any purpose'
X
.
Can be
reused for
original.
purpose
(X)'
X
X
X
X
X
Can be
reused for a
new purpose
(X)
X
Can be
refilled for
similar use
(containers)
X
X
Can be reused
by
manufacturer
X
X
X
X
X
"Can be
reused by
consumer
X
X
126
-------
Tab le 5.4.. continued...
Oregon Dept. of
Environment Quality,,
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural
Resources .
RI Recycling Emblem
Regulations
'x
(>0
; X
(
X ' '
Note: X -indicates criteria is included in the definition proposed by indicated author.
Marks in parentheses indicate inferred meaning' of actual definition. '- '
5.2.6.2 Recycling Terms
Of all of the environmental terms used in advertising, recyclable and recycled content
have received the most attention from marketers, government, and private groups. A separate
set of terms has evolved pertaining to paper recycling. Recyclability claims, as mentioned
before, have been criticized as being dependent oil local conditions and, therefore, not useful,
and. may even be deceptive when used on a national scale. The.debate over recycled content
involves defining what types of materials qualify as recycled content, whether minimum
standards should be set for recycled content, and whether the percentage recycled content must
be clearly stated, on the label. These issues are discussed in greater detail in the following
sections on paper recycling and general recycling terms.
Paper Recycling Terms
Recycled Content
Feedstocks for recycled paper fall into two major groups: preconsumer and postconsumer
material. Preconsumer material includes all paper materials, .generated by paper manufacturers
and intermediate users (such as printers and converters), that never reach consumers. In
general, this excludes materials normally reused to make paper within the same paper mill, such
as mill broke, or non-paper manufacturing wastes such as sawdust. Although preconsumer
materials can contain contaminants such as inks, coatings or adhesives, they generally come to
recycling mills in large homogeneous batches and* are therefore easier and more economical to
use as a feedstock than postconsumer materials. In contrast, postconsumer materials have
reached consumers as an end-product and, following their intended use, are recovered for
recycling. They 'can contain a heterogenous assortment of contaminants, such as staples,
rubberbands, adhesives, and inks, and are in most cases more difficult and expensive to recycle
than preconsumer materials. While both types of secondary materials are technically recyclable,
postconsumer materials often require more advanced processing equipment than preconsumer
materials, which have been readily recycled for decades (108). -
Defining paper recycling terminology involves not only communicating clearly to
consumers; it directly affects the materials that will be used in the manufacture of recycled
paper. A standard definition of recycled content may have greater direct impacts on the paper
127
-------
industry infrastructure than definitions of other environmental terms will have in other arenas.
For the paper industry to increase its use of postconsumer paper, mills us.ing, postconsumer
feedstocks must realize a competitive advantage in order to justify increased processing costs.
It has been argued by some that a definition that treats pre- and postconsumer recycled content
equally gives no incentive to manufacturers to invest in new processing equipment to use
postconsumer materials. (89,108) Treating preconsumer and postconsumer content equally
would also have the effect of encouraging industry .to use predominantly preconsumer materials,
depressing the demand for postconsumer collected materials.
State and local governments have consistently written procurement requirements using
postconsumer content standards in an attempt to stabilize markets for collected recyclables. (108)
Proposed incentives to increase the use of postconsumer recycled materials include setting
minimum content standards before a company can be eligible for procurement programs and,
as many state and local -governments have done, paying a premium for higher percentages of
postconsumer .recycled content paper. (108)
A second challenge with.labeling recycled paper products is to communicate differences
in recycled content without misleading consumers. Many of the terms used in paper recycling,
.such as converting scrap, posiconvening material, or preconsumer recovered material, are
potentially quite confusing to consumers. However, much of the paper used in the United States
is bought not by individual consumers, but rather by .purchasing agents, who could understand
such terms and might benefit from added information. (108) Labeling requirements might
therefore be different for products directed'at consumers versus professional buyers. (108)
Related concerns in the recycled paper labeling debate involve how to measure the
percentage of recycled content and what to include on the label. While there is general
agreement that the percentage of recycled content should be based «on weight, not volume,
groups do not yet agree on the stage at which the percentage content should be measured. The
percentage of recycled content can be measured in terms of the percentage of total feedstock
weight', the percentage of total fiber weight (after reprocessing), or the percentage of total
product weight. (50,127) The percentage of total feedstock weight yields the highest apparent
percentage of recycled content, while the percentage of total product weight (including additives,
such as clay, which are typically virgin materials) shows the lowest. The FTC guidelines
suggest that the percentage of recycled content should be measured by "the amount, by weight,
of recycled [material]...in the finished product of package." Measuring the percentage of
recycled content from total product weight does not allow products with additives to achieve a
recycled content of 100 percent, unless the additives are also derived from recycled materials.
Requiring measurements to be'taken from total product ^weight, therefore, has the potential to
encourage recycling the non-fiber components of paper as well.28 (108) .
Recycled Content Sources .
Table 5.5 shows the relationship between the various terms used in the manufacture of
paper. ' -
2i Current economics, however, strongly favor the use of virgin materials over recycled additives.
, . 128
-------
Table 5.5. Relationship between preconsumer and postconsumer materials
Mill Broke, Home Scrap, New
Supply
' . RECYCLED MATERIALS
Processed Recycled Fiber
Converting
Scrap
Postconverting
Materials
(over-issue
returns,- unused
stock, etc.)
PRECONSUMER MATERIALS*1
Materials that have served their
intended purpose (old newspapers,
office waste, used cardboard, used
books, etc)
POSTCONSUMER MATERIALS
Source: Table 1, Paper Definitions Working Group of the National Recycling Coalition, 1991.
Materials Not to be Included in Recycled Content
.. Some.terms have been specifically defined as paper sources not to be included in recycled
paper content, these terms include mill broke, home scrap, new supply, and waste paper.
Home scrap or mill broke includes "products or by-products generated within an original
manufacturing facility that the generating mill or parent company is capable of using
economically in any manufacturing or converting process."29 New supply is domestic paper
production plus imports, minus exports. Waste paper was defined by EPA as pre- or
postconsumer paper that has not been removed from the waste stream and some waste materials
generated by mills. (144)
Total Recycled Fiber (Pre- and Postconsumer)
These terms apply to all paper sources included in recycled paper content, except virgin
mill broke. The terms, including processed recycled fiber, recovered paper materials, recycled
fiber, and recycled material, do not differ greatly, and in general combine 'both pre- and
.postcqnsumer recycled materials. Processed recycled fiber includes recovered fiber that at-some
point has been contaminated with inks, adhesives, or other noncellulosic materials. Recovered
paper materials have been defined as those paper products that have been diverted for reuse or
recycling and would otherwise enter the solid waste stream. Definitions for the term exclude
mill broke; one definition also excludes paper waste generated and reused within the same paper
. company (NY DEC). Both definitions of recycled fiber specify that it means fiber derived from
recovered paper. One states further that the fiber is processed into a feedstock or product.
Finally, recycled material is defined as material "generated from a production process after
leaving the original manufacturing facility and used in the production of a new product." The
FTC guidelines define "recycled materials" as materials that have been recovered or otherwise
diverted from the solid waste stream, either during the manufacturing process (pre-consumer),
or.after consumer use (post-consumer). (42) .
29 this definition is designed to promote materials that are not normally used to produce .paper by not allowing mills
to count materials that historically have.been reused.
""-' " ' ' 129 -':'''
-------
Preconsumer
There is more debate over what constitutes preconsumer materials. While groups tend
to agree on what constituted different types of materials, they do not always agree on .whether
or not these materials should be included as recycled content. The broadest definition of
preconsumer materials states that they are "all recovered materials excluding postconsumer
recovered materials." The strictest definition designates preconsumer materials as those
manufactured paper materials that have not reached their intended use and do not include "mill
broke, rejected unused stock, obsolete inventories, butt rolls, or other paper waste generated by
paper or paper product mills. Waste generated by converting operations that is used by .the same
parent company, whether for the same or different products, are also not included within this
same definition." The broader definitions include all non-postconsumer recovered waste
materials that can be made into paper, including forest residues. The stricter definitions would
include only converting scrap and postconverting materials; the strictest would not allow waste
reused within the same company to be called recycled material. The FTC guidelines define pre-
consumer material as material generated during the manufacturing process that "would otherwise
have entered the "solid waste stream.'" (42)
Related terms include industry terms such as converting scrap, overissues/returns, and
postconverting material. Converting scrap is material generated in the process of converting
paper to products. One definition would allow these materials to be counted towards recycled
content only if they were used by a different parent company than that which produced them
(NERC). Overissues or returns are finished products that do not reach, the intended consumer
and are returned to the producer or discarded by the distributor. Postconverting materials,
similar to overissues, are products that have been converted and may have been contaminated
with hard-to-reprocess materials such as inks or adhesives, but have not yet reached the
consumer. The definition excludes any fiber that "can be, or is regularly, returned to the [same]
pulping process (PDWG)."
. Postconsumer
All groups defined postconsumer materials as including all paper products that have
reached their intended consumers. Some definitions further dictate that the materials have been
collected or diverted from the waste stream. The definitions do not vary much, indicating the
consensus reached on this term. Most of the debate surrounding paper recycling terms pertains
to materials recovered before they reach their end use, and not to.post-consumer material. A
related term is file stock, which means files removed from storage in offices. This paper can
be contaminated with a variety of materials, including rubber bands, staples, and paper clips.
Recycled Paper Products
The debate surrounding recycled paper products includes the issue of .whether or not the
word recycled must be qualified with the percentage of pre- or postconsumer recycled content,
" or pertairi to some minimum percentage of recycled content. The terms involved include
recycled paper, 100 percent recycled paper, and recycled content paper. Recycled paper m a
strict sense could be considered to be synonymous with 100 percent recycled paper. The FTC
130
-------
guidelines also suggest that "[u]nqualified claims of recycled content may be made only if the
entire product or package, excluding minor, incidental components, is made from recycled
material." '(42) However, recycled paper has also been used to mean recycled content paper,
of which only a portion is made from recycled materials. Several definitions covering recycled
paper and recycled content paper, such as those proposed by the American Society for the
Testing of Materials (ASTM) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), dictate that papers
using those terms must also meet minimum percentages of total or postconsumer recycled fibers
and label the product appropriately. ,/'..
General Recycling Terms . .
i - ' - " ' ' .
Recycle
The term recycle refers to the general.act of recycling. Definitions range from describing
recycling as merely the activity of collecting materials to be made into new products, to defining
recycling as "any process by which solid waste or secondary materials are collected, diverted
from a waste stream, separated, or processed to reclaim useful materials which are used or
reused as either a raw material or a product, including the adaptation of the material to a new
use or function without processing, but such term does not include combustion of waste for
purposes.of energy recovery or volume reduction or use constituting disposal of any solid wastes
or secondary material or hazardous secondary materials." (121) However, there is not nearly
as much debate surrounding the term recycle as there is for the terms recyclable or recycled
content. , . '
Recyclable
The debate over recyclability of materials has focused on the availability of recycling
collection and reprocessing facilities to the consumer buying the product. As mentioned before,
the term recyclable has a significant potential to be ambiguous because it contains both an
inherent and a contextual meaning. For a material to be realistically recyclable, it must (a) be
technologically possible to be recycled into new products, and (b) be able to, be returned by or
collected from the consumer purchasing the product. Some definitions of recyclability also
require that a minimum recycling rate for the material be achieved in order to use the term on
a label: (83) Only one organization, the National Advertising Review Board (NARB), allowed
compostable to be used synonymously with recyclable. (96)
Definitions of recyclable- differ mainly in the extent to which recycling infrastructures
must be available to consumers (see Table 5.6). .The range of availability of an appropriate
recycling infrastructure runs from zero (a material is recyclable if it is technologically possible
to recycle) to 100 percent (a program that recycles the material must be available to all
consumers purchasing the labeled product). The broad range of minimum availability
.requirements has caused confusion and difficulties for marketers. California's Assembly Bill
3994 requires that products bearing a claim of recyclable must be able to be "conveniently
recycled" in every county with a population over 300,000. (146)
131
-------
In February 1992, the Association of National Advertisers and eight other trade groups
brought suit against the State of California, challenging AB 3994. On December 24, the U.S.
District Court in San Francisco ruled that the definition of recyclable was "unconstitutionally
vague." At the same time, the court upheld definitions of ozone friendly, biodegradable,
photodegradable, and recycled. (148) ,
Those supporting the use of the word recyclable, even in areas where no infrastructure
is available to consumers, argue that informing consumers that a material is recyclable provides
an incentive for them to pressure local officials to start recycling collection programs.
(48,69,142) Others argue that calling a product recyclable where no infrastructure exists is
deceptive, and gives the product an undeserved environmentally beneficial image. (118) Some
suggest that qualifying the term with the phrase "where facilities exist" serves to educate
consumers, while avoiding the misleading image that the material is recycled everywhere.
(94,112,142)
The FTC guidelines straddle the fence, stating that a recyclable claim should be qualified
to explain which portions of a product are recyclable, and to make clear any "limited availability
of recycling programs." FTC suggests language such as "Check to see if recycling facilities are
available in your area" or "Recyclable in the few communities with facilities" for recycling a
particular material. The FTC does not, however, require any statement of a minimum recycling
rate. (See Appendix 4.) .
Table 5.6. Recyclable
Source
Am. Assoc. bf
Advertising
Agencies
American Society
for Testing of
Materials
Brenda Cude,
Univ. of Illinois
California AB
3994 (overturned)
Canadian Guiding
Principles
Cosmetic,
Toiletry apd
Fragrance
Association
Transformed
to another
useful purpose
through human
intervention
Technologically
possible to
recycle
Facilities are .
available for
collection of
material
X
X
X
X
X
4
Has achieved a
specified rate
of recycling
- X .'
Disclosure of the
number of
facilities or rate of
recycling within a
specified area
X
X
Claim
should be
banned
132
-------
Table 5.0 continued...
Table 5.6. Recyclable
Source
Cosmetic,
Toiletry and
Fragrance
Association
Council on
Plastics and
Packaging in the
Environment
Dunkin Donuts
Environmental
Marketing -Claims
Act (proposed)
Environmental
Defense Fund
Flexible
.Packaging
Association
Fort Howard
Corporation
Grand Rapids
Label Company
Green Report II
Green Cross
Green Consumer
Supermarket
Guide
' Illinois SB 948 '
INDA:
Association of
Nonwoven ,,
Fabrics Industry
Indiana State
Code
Institute of '
Packaging .
Professionals
Transformed
to another
useful purpose
through human
intervention
'
X
-
-,
Technologically
possible to
recycle
X , .
X
X
X,
X
Facilities are .
available for
collection of
material
X
.- x
X
X
X
.X
X
X
-
X
x
Has achieved a
specified rate
of recycling
X
X ;
x
'
Disclosure of the
number of
facilities or rate of
recycling within a
specified area
X
Claim
should be
banned
X
-
133
-------
Table 5,o continued...
Table 5.6. Recyclable
Sourre
Lever Brothers
Co.
Mass. Packaging
Reduction and
jveeycling Act
National
Advertising
Review Board
National Food
Processors Assoc.
National Retail
'Federation
New York
Department of
Environmental
Conservation
New Jersey
Department of
Consumer Affairs
Northeast
Recycling Council
Paper Recycling
Coalition
Pepsi Co.
Polystyrene
Packaging
Council
Rhode Island H-
6350
Scott Paper
Company
Society of Plastics
Industry. Inc.
Transformed
to another
useful purpose
through human
intervention
X
Technologically
possible to
recycle
X
-
x .
X
X
. x
Facilities are
available for
collection of
. material
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
. X '
Has achieved a
specified rate ,
of recycling
X .
X
X
,x
Disclosure of the
number of
facilities or rate of
recycling within a
specified area
X
X
Claim
should be
banned
X,
134
-------
Table 5.6 continued...
Table 5.6. Recyclable . . ,...'.
Source
'U.S. '
Environmental
Protection Agency
(Proposed)
U.S. Federal
Trade
Commission
U.S.. Office of
Consumer'Affairs
Transformed
to another
useful purpose
through human
intervention
' . ',
Technologically
possible to
recycle .'
X
. Facilities are
available for
collection of
material
X
X
X
Has achieved a
specified rate
of recycling
Disclosure of the
, number of
facilities or rate of
recycling within a
specified area
X
.' X .- ' .
Claim
. . should be
banned
Note: X indicates criteria is included in the definition proposed by indicated author. - - -
Marks in parentheses indicate inferred meaning of actual definition.
Several critics have proposed banning the use of the term in environmental advertising
altogether, arguing that while virtually all products are potentially recyclable, realistically the
recyclability of a material is dependent on local recycling programs, which themselves inform
residents what can and cannot be recycled. (38,104) Others feel that the term should be used
only if recycling, of the material is widespread; and then it still should be qualified by stating
local availability, the national recycling rate, and/or conditions under which the material can be
recycled. (6,20,24,25,38,49,62,93,102,104,127,121) The U.S. EPA held a public hearing in
November 1991 to hear comments on proposed guidance for the use of the terms recycle,
recyclable, and the recycling emblem. Their preference for labeling a product recyclable would
be for marketers to use a combination of qualified claims and the disclosure of the national
recycling rate of the product. Qualified claims would be those "that do not lead consumers to
assume that the product is recyclable everywhere, and that provide consumers with information
that helps them recycle the material.", (141) They preferred this labeling format because it
would be easy to implement and would improve understanding of the term. (141)
The FTC guidelines would allow recyciability claims that are qualified "to the extent
.necessary to avoid consumer deception about any limited availability of recycling programs" or
about the technological feasibility of recycling all or part of a product or package. (42)
Guidelines from the Green Report II and the Environmental Defense Fund would require labels
to bear additional information about how consumers can learn about the local availability of
recycling facilities (Le., more than "recyclable where facilities exist"). The Canadian. Guiding
Principles established by the Canadian government go one step further, requiring that at least
one-third of the population across Canada or in a given regional market has access to recycling
facilities before the label can be used. (37,83) .
135
-------
The Northeast Recycling Council has proposed two possible approaches for labeling
products with the term recyclable: (107)
Point of purchase: a shelf emblem states that an approved recycling program exists for
that material category in the community where the product is labeled;
Statewide emblems: manufacturer must meet at least one of the following criteria in at
least five NERC states that, taken together, represent at least 75 percent of the region's
population:
1) 75 percent of the communities or 75 percent of the population in the state
have approved recycling programs for this material category;
2) the material category has achieved a greater than 50 percent recycling rate
statewide; or
3) the brand-specific package or product has achieved a statewide recycling
rate of more than 50 percent (by weight) for that product or package.
NERC's options represent a policy-setting approach, requiring the solid establishment .of
recycling in a region before ,a product may be called recyclable.
Related terms include effectively recycled and recycling rate. Effectively recycled is a
term used in a proposed Massachusetts law that sets high, specific minimum recycling rates for
materials. Recycling rate is defined by several groups as the percentage by weight of a product
or material category that is recycled. One definition specifies that this does not. include using
the material as a fuel to produce heat or power.
Recycled
The term recycled in a broad sense means that a product or package is made of recycled
materials. However, since products or packages often contain less than 100 percent recycled
materials, using the term without qualifying it in some way is potentially misleading.
Definitions of the term recycled vary from defining how to measure recycled content, to setting
minirfmm standards for the use of the term (see Table 5.7). The strictest definitions require that
a product or package contain 100 percent postconsumer recycled materials in order to use the
term without qualification. The general consensus is that the unqualified term recycled should
be replaced with the term recycled content accompanied by contextual information in order to
avoid consumer deception. (38,85) . .
Table 5.7. Recycled/Recycled Content
Source
Am. Society for .
the Testing of
Materials
No virgin
material used in
manufacturing
X
Must specify
amount of
. recycled
material
X
Contains only
postconsumer
material
Must specify
amounts of pre-
and
postconsumer
material
Contains
material that
would have
otherwise been
disposed of as
. solid waste
X'
Does not
contain
manufacturer
waste used
within the .
same facility
136 .
-------
Table 5.7 continued..,.
Table 5.7. ' Recycled/Recycled Content, - -
Source
Bio Clinic
Brenda Cude,
- Univ. of Illinois
California AB
3994
" Canada's
Environmental
Choice
Cosmetic,
Toiletry and
Fragrance Assoc.
Council of New
England
Governors
Council on
Plastics and
Packaging in the
Envir.
Environmental
Marketing Claims
Environmental
Defense Fund
Flexible
' Packaging Assoc.
Fort Howard
Corp.
Green Consumer
Supermarket
Guide
' Green Report n
In Business
magazine
Indiana State
Code
.National Food
Processors Assoc.
No virgin
material used in
manufacturing
.
1
(X)
x '
Must specify
amount of
recycled -
material
X
.X
'
X
.
x
X
x
X
-
x .
Contains only
postconsumer .
material
;
'
x -.:
X
Must specify
amounts of pre-
and
postconsumer
material .
X
X
\
X
X
X
x
X
X
Contains
, material that
would have
otherwise been
disposed of as
. solid waste
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
X
Does not
contain
manufacturer
waste used.
within the
same facility
X
137
-------
Table 5,7 continued...
Table 5.7, Recycled/Recycled Content
Source
New Jersey Dept.
of Consumer
Affairs
New York Dept.
of Environmental
Conservation
New Hampshire
Northeast
Recycling Council
Paper Recycling
Coalition
Paper Definitions
Workmg Group
(NRC)
Rhode Island
Recycling
Emblem
Regulations
Scott Paper Co.
U.S.
Environmental
Protection Agency
(proposed)
U.S. Federal
Trade
Commission
U.S. Office of
Consumer Affairs
No virgin
material used in
manufacturing
X
00
.
Must specify
amount of
recycled
material
X
X
X
X
X
X
Contains only
postconsumer
material
X
Must specify
amounts of pre-
and
postconsumer
material
X
X
X
x .
X
X
Contains
material that
would have
otherwise been
disposed of as
solid waste
X
X
X
(X)
X
Does not
contain
manufacturer
waste used
within the
'same facility
X
x
X
X
Note: X indicates criteria is included in the definition proposed by indicated author.
Marks in parentheses indicate inferred meaning of actual definition.
Recycled Content
Defining recycled content for materials other than paper tends to be simpler because there
is not as great an array of different sources of feedstock materials. Discussion focuses around
what should be counted toward recycled content, how the label should be qualified, and how the
percentage content should be measured. The FTC has set up guidelines, for recycled content
138.
-------
claims. Several states, including California, Indiana,. Maine, New Jersey, and Rhode Island,
have established labeling requirements that marketers must follow in order to use the. term. The
New York DEC suggests also that .the U.S.: EPA require companies claiming recycled content
to document their claim's. (104) .
Most groups recommend at a minimum that labels using the term recycled content should
identify the percentage and component of the product and/or package that is made of recycled
materials. (20,24,37,49,94,141,142) The FTC guidelines advise that "[unqualified claims of
'recycled content nTay be made only if the entire product or package, excluding minor, incidental
components, is made from recycled material." For products not entirely made of recycled
material, the FTC guidelines suggest that the claims "should be adequately qualified to avoid
consumer deception about the amount, by weight, of recycled content in the finished product or
- package." Others would further require listing separate percentages for total and postconsumer
recycled materials (see paper recycling discussion). (25,38,107,109,120,121) Still.others, such
as the state Attorneys General in the Green Report II, would allow only postconsumer materials
to be referred to as recycled materials, with preconsumer materials referred to by some other
term, such as reprocessed or recovered materials. (134,62,.127) Again, however, without
consumer education, a-multiplicity of terms specific to recycled content has the potential to
confuse the. public further. (25) '.
As in the case of recycled paper content, groups differ on how to measure percentage
recycled content. New York, Rhode Island, and the Northeast Recycling, Council have
established specific guidelines, for determining percentage preconsumer and postconsumer
recycled materials, based on annual mass balances of all feedstocks and outputs of a particular
manufacturing process. (104,120) The FTC, on the other hand, prefers recycled content to be
measured by weight in the finished product. ' ,
Some groups have suggested setting minimum percentages for postconsumer and/.or total
recycled content, below which the term may not be used. (25,102) These percentages range
from lO.to 15 percent, (38) to 25 percent now, and 35 to 50 percent by the year 2000. (134,87)
These standards are designed to increase the market for recycled materials, as well as ensure that
the products marketed with the term represent real environmental improvements. However,
minimum standards can also have the opposite effect, that is, potentially to set a de facto ceiling
for recycled content .above which marketers will- have no incentive to go. (141)
At a public meeting in November 1991, EPA suggested three 'alternatives for labeling
products or packages with the term recycled content:
Marketers clearly and prominently state the percentage of recycled content (by
weight) of recycled materials in the product;
Marketers promote recycled content only when a product meets a specified
. minimum percentage of recycled material; or
Marketers use a combination of the two.x
139
-------
EPA preferred the first option because it is less burdensome to administer than the other two,
provides consumers with useful information, and does not set minimum standards (which could
be considered a ceiling by marketers) for the use of the term. (141)
Materials Not to be Included in Recycled Content
Home scrap, manufacturing scrap, and industrial scrap all refer to the same types of
materials; that is, scraps left over from a manufacturing process that can be (and commonly are)
reused in the same or a similar process to make more product. Definitions of materials that
should not be considered to be recycled materials range from those able to be used in the
original manufacturing product to materials able to be used in a different process by the same
parent company. These terms have been addressed by groups specifically to prevent
manufacturers.from counting these types of materials toward percentage recycled content.
Preconsumer
The main points of debate over the definition of preconsumer material is whether or not
it excludes home scrap, and whether or not materials used for separate processes within the same
parent company qualify.
Postconsumer
The characteristic that distinguishes postconsumer from preconsumer materials is the fact
that postconsumer materials have reached consumers and fulfilled their intended uses.30 For
this reason, groups working to further recycling efforts have sought to favor postconsumer over
preconsumer recycled materials, in an attempt to encourage industry investment in the necessary
reprocessing facilities that would create demand for materials collected in local recycling
programs. While precohsumer and postconsumer materials may not differ significantly in form
(an unread versus a .read magazine, for example), postconsumer materials generally reach
reprocessing facilities in a more heterogenous and contaminated condition, and are therefore
more difficult and expensive to recycle. Others, particularly some in the paper industry, have
argued that the distinction between pre- and postconsumer materials on the sole basis of
collection point is not useful, and distinguishing between the two only adds to the cost of
recycling. (49,109)
5.2.6.3 Disposable
The term disposable as it is used as an environmental marketing claim refers to a
material's impact on the environment when discarded. The phrases safe-for-disposal or
landfill/incineration safe are potentially misleading because they infer that a product's disposal
"Postconsumer waste is a product or package that has served its intended use and has been discarded. Postconsumer
material is defined as material that has served its intended use and has been diverted from the waste stream for the
purposes of recycling.
140
-------
is environmentally benign, when virtually no products are without adverse impacts. The Green
Report II recommends that these terms be avoided* and that labels instead disclose specific
reductions in toxics use or other environmental improvements. (62) They recommend that if
disposability claims are used, they should state the availability of the solid waste management
option being promoted. .(62)
5.2.6.4 Compostable
Compostable is another environmental term with both inherent and context-dependent
meanings. As with the term recyclable, definitions of compostable reflect this ambiguity, with
the range of definitions dependent on both feasibility and availability, In addition, some
definitions of comppstability refer to the time required and the extent to which the material will
decompose. Definitions of compostable range from "commercially practiced technology exists
to do so," to "a material that will decompose into soil-like material in less than one year under
controlled biological conditions" (see Table 5.8). The RCRA Reauthorization Bill (S .976) would
require compostable claims to clearly identify the national rate at which the product or packaging
is recycled.or composted. (121)
Use of the term is complicated further by the fact that it is understood differently by
. consumers and marketers. A University of Illinois study indicated that consumers understand
the term only as it relates to backyard composting, while marketers use the term in association
with municipal composting facilities. (25)
Table 5.8. Compostable
Source :
Environmental Defense Fund
Envr. Marketing Claims Act (proposed)
.Green Consumer Supermarket Guide
INDA: Association of Nonwoven Fabrics
Industry .
Indiana State Code
MA Packaging Reduction and Recycling Act
Polystyrene Packaging Council
. Society of the Plastics Industry, lac.
May be
- composted using
commercial
technology
X
X
,
X
X
May be composted
within some
communities
X
X
* x
Will degrade into
humus in a limited
amount of time
x
X
X
X
Note: X indicates criteria is included in the definition proposed by indicated author.
Marks in parentheses indicate inferred meaning of actual definition.
141
-------
The NFPA. petition and FTC guidelines require disclosure in claims of the potential
ability and actual" feasibility of composting a material, although the NFPA would allow the less
stringent phrase, "where facilities exist." (83) In addition, the FTC guidelines advise that
compostable claims should be qualified to avoid consumer deception regarding: (a) the
availability of municipal composting facilities to a substantial majority of customers where the
product is sold, (b) the environmental benefit provided when the product is disposed of in a
landfill, and (c) the possibility of composting the product in a home compost pile when in fact
it cannot. (42) The Green Report II recommends that claims be accompanied with, clear
disclosures of the limited availability of the management option. (62) EDF would require
disclosure of the local availability of the option, and would limit the term to instances where it
is shown to be advantageous. (35) The Canadian Guiding Principles would allow the terms to
be used only in the context of backyard composting. (83)
5.2.6;5 Degradable
The growing consensus among groups seeking to clarify environmental marketing terms
is that degradable (and associated terms such as biodegradable and photodegradable).should
either be limited or banned from' use in environmental advertising. (83) The term has been
banned or restricted by a number of states,, including New York and Rhode Island, especially
in the context of the degradability of plastics. The Green Report II would not allow the term
to be used on products normally landfilled or incinerated. (25,62) Others would allow use of
the term if information is included stating the circumstances under which the product degrades
(27) and the extent to which the degradation products are hazardous. (35,105) The Canadian
government does not allow the term to be used on packaging materials. (83) In contrast, the
FTC guidelines only advise that a product with a degradable claim must "break down and return
to nature i e decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonably, short period of time
after customary disposal." (42) Degradable claims need only be qualified regarding "(a) the
productPs] ability to degrade in the environment where it is customarily disposed; and (b) tne
rate and extent of degradation." The toxicity of degradation products is not brought up as an
issue in the FTC guidelines.
The debate surrounding the use of this term relates to the fact that while a material may
be degradable under certain conditions, those conditions are rarely present under the most
common solid waste management methods, namely, landfilling and incineration (see Table 5.9)
Because the degradability of materials is irrelevant or even undesirable under, current
management options, use of this term to imply environmental benefits is seen by many as having
a great potential for deception. (25,85)
The definition proposed in the Environmental Marketing Claims Act, considered by the
102nd Congress," would be the most specific and restrictive of the proposals to date Products
" bearing the label biodegradable, compostable; decomposable, degradable, or photodegradable
would have to meet all four of the following criteria: (134)
142
-------
Will decompose completely and safely in a waste management system or systems through
, ' natural chemical and biological processes into basic natural constituents, containing no
, synthetic or toxic-residues, within an amount of time compatible with such system or
systems; - .' . . , -.
Will not release or produce at any time toxic or synthetic substances that may be harmful
to humans, other organisms, or natural ecological processes, including during the
management process and any subsequent application or use of products or by-products
of the process, such as use of the product or by-product of composting as a soil
amendment or mulch;
Shall be managed, at a minimum rate of 25 percent per year until 2000, 50 percent after,
in a waste management system or systems that are protective of human health and the
environment, and for which the Administrator determines the claim is a relevant and
environmentally desirable and significant characteristic; and
Claim must clearly- specify the applicable system or systems and specify that such claim
applies only to such systems., and cannot be used where the community, is not served by
such a program. - .' _
Closely related to degradable are the terms biodegradable, photodegradable, and
decomposition. All groups agree that biodegradability pertains to.the ability of a material to be
broken down into simple substances by microorganisms. Some further require that the
breakdown products are non-toxic, and that the time period within which complete
biodegradatiqn takes place is short; either in one year, or quickly enough so that harmful
.substances do not build up in the environment. Other definitions also specify that the materials
must be able to biodegrade in the most common environment where the material is disposed.
This would prevent products or packages that are ordinarily disposed of in landfills or
incinerators from being able to be labeled with the term. Photodegradable means that a material
is degradable when exposed to light. Similar to .biodegradable, several groups have specified
that a photodegradable material must break down within a year in the most common environment
where it is disposed. Decomposition is the reduction in net energy and chemical complexity of
organic matter, as by microorganisms. -
Table 5.9. Degradable
Source
Am. Society for the Testing of Materials
California AB 3994
Envr. Marketing Claims Act (proposed)
Green Consumer Supermarket Guide
Able to be broken
down by basic
elements or
microorganisms
X ;
!> X
X: '.
X
Able to be broken
down within a
limited time frame
X
: ' -X .
X .
X
Able to be broken
down in the most
common place of
disposal
X
: x
.
Able to degrade
into, non-toxic
natural
constituents
X-
143
-------
Table 5.9. continued...
Green Cross
Indiana State Code
Institute of Packaging Professionals
Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality,
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources
Bob Rehak. Ogilvy and Mather
X
X
X
X
.X
X
X
x
Note: X indicates criteria is included in the definition proposed by indicated author.
Marks in parentheses indicate inferred meaning of actual definition.
144
-------
Contacts .'' :
Consultants
. ~ " ' .
Lynne Kirkpatrick ;
Environmental Research Associates .
» Bob Rehak ' . . , , - .
Ogilvy and Mather, Houston TX
Government Organizations '
Doug Blanke .
Minnesota Attorney General Hubert Humphrey Hi's office
Carolyn Cox ,
Federal Trade Commission
Ric Erdheim
Senator'Frank Lautenberg's office
Sarah Johnston
New York Attorney General Robert Abrams's office -
Richard Keller ^ .
Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority
Michael Kopp -..'.'
Division of Solid Waste, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Staffperson
California Representative Byron Sher
Staffperson .
Canada's Environmental Choice
Staffperson .
Rhode Island Recycling _
Industry or Trade Associations
Rodney Clark
National Food Processors Association : - ; .
145
-------
Bruce Evans
BioClinic
David Ossmann
Conservatree
Spokeswoman
National Association of Manufacturers
Dianne Ward
Council of Better Business Bureaus' National Advertising Division
Magazines .
. Assistant to Edward Erhardt
Advertising Age
Bill D'Alessandro
European Environmental Bulletin
Carl Frankel
Green MarketAlert
Staffperson
Green Business Letter/Green Consumer Letter
Tom Watson
Resource Recycling
Nonprofit Organizations
1 Assistant to Edgar Miller
Recycling Advisory Council of the National Recycling Coalition
Susan Alexander,
Green Seal
Resa Dimino
Environmental Action Foundation
PaulDemko
Hearst Corporation's Good Housekeeping Institute
146
-------
Ghip Foley
Coalition of Northeast Governors ,
Mitchell Friedman
Green Cross Certification Company
Geoffrey Lomax .;-."""
National Environmental Law Center
John McCaull
Californians Against Waste
Craig Merrilees ;
National Toxics Campaign Fund
Connie Saulter -
Northeast Recycling Council
Nita Settina
Center for Policy Alternatives
Staffperson
Council on Economic Priorities
Staffperson
Environmental Defense Fund
Nancy Vandenberg
Council oh the Environment
Ann Wilcox
MassPIRG -.'-.
147
-------
References
1 Abt Associates (1991). Testimony of Andrew Stoeckle at the Federal Trade Commission
Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 17, Washington, DC.
2. Adweek Western Edition (1991). "More Progress-on Green Labeling Programs," August
3 Aho Debra (1992). "Council Sets Ad Guidelines," Advertising Age, June 29, p. S-5.
4" American Paper Institute (1991). Testimony of Red Caveney at the Federal Trade
Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 18?/
Washington, DC. . .
5 American Marketing Association (1991). Testimony at the EPA Public Hearing on
Guidance For the Use of the Terms "Recycled" and "Recyclable" in Environmental.
Marketing Claims. Presented November 13, Washington, DC.
6 'American Association of Advertising Agencies (1991). Testimony of Harold Shoup at the
EPA Public Hearing on Guidance For the Use of the Terms "Recycled" and "Recyclable
in Environmental Marketing Claims. Presented November 13; Washington, DC.
7.' American 'Society for the Testing of Materials (1991). Committee D10
Recommendations, Philadelphia, PA, July 10. ...
8 American Society for the Testing of Materials (1991). Committee D06.40 Terminology
Task Group Recycled Paper Terms (proposed), Philadelphia, PA, February 14. -
9 American Society for the Testing of Materials (1990). D20 Committee Standard Guide
far the Development of Standards Relating to the Proper Use of Recycled Plastics,
10 America^ Society for the Testing of Materials (1991). Committee D10.19 Task Group
on Packaging Recycling and Disposability: Proposed Standards Terminology Relating
to Packaging Recycling and Disposability, Philadelphia, PA. *
11 Association of-National Advertisers, Inc. (1991). Statement by Daniel Jaffe at the EPA
Public Hearing on Guidance For The Use Of The Terms "Recycled" And Recyclable
In Environmental Marketing Claims. Presented November 13, Washington, DC.
12. Bernard, Sharyn K. (1991). "Bio Clinic Adds 'Green' Label," HFD, August 26, p. 46.
13 Bleicher, Samuel A. (1991). "What Expertise is Necessary to Establish Green
Standards?," Presentation at the Greening of Trade Regulation Symposium, Washington,
DC. October 8-9. . . .
14. Brockmeyer, Michael (1991). Summary of State Legislation and Regulations Pertaining
' to the Advertising of Environmental Claims. Piper and Marbury.
15. California Assembly BUI 3994. Approved September 27, 1991. Sponsored by Rep.
Byron Sher.
16. California Assembly BUI 130. Proposed 1991.
17 . Chemical Specialty Manufacturers Association (1991). Testimony of Richard Benardz
at the Federal Trade Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues.
' Presented July 17, Washington, DC.
18 ' Commission of the European Communities (1991). Proposal for a Council Regulation
(EEC) on a Community Award Scheme for an Ecolabe.l. Brussels, Belgium, February
11.
148
-------
19. Cooney, Catherine (1991). "Experts Say Life Cycle Analyses Key to'Green Labeling,"
Environment Week', v. 4, p. 15.. '
20. " Cosmetic, Toiletry,.and Fragrance Association (1991). Testimony of James H. .Skiles
at the Federal Trade Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues.
Presented July 17, Washington, DC.
21. Cosmetic Toiletry, and Fragrance Association and National Nonprescription Drug
Manufacturers Association (1991). Petition to the Federal Trade Commission, April 12.
.22. .Council On Plastics and Packaging in the Environment (1989). Source Reduction: A
Working Definition. Prepared by Franklin Associates, December.
23. .Council On Plastics and Packaging in the Environment. Undated. Perspectives on
environmental labeling. ' ...
24. Council On Plastics and Packaging in the Environment (1991). Testimony of Karl
Kamena at the EPA .Public Hearing on Guidance For the Use of the Terms "Recycled!1
and "Recyclable" in Environmental Marketing Claims. Presented November 13,
' Washington, DC.: ' ':'...
25. Cude, Brenda (1991). Comments Prepared for the November 1991 EPA Public Hearings
on .the use of the terms "Recycled" and "Recyclable" and the recycling emblem in
environmental marketing claims. University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service.
26. D'Alessandro, Bill (1991). Editor, European Environmental Bulletin. Personal
communication, Abt Associates, November 8. . ,
27. Degradable Plastics Council (199-1). Testimony of Timothy Draeger at the Federal Trade
Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 18,
Washington, DC.
28. Densford, Lynn (1991): "Green Labeling Mired in Gray Area of Confusion: Pressure
Builds for Environmental-claims Regs," Food and Drug Packaging, August, p. 12.
29. Downy Triple concentrated fabric softener (1991). New York Times advertisement.
30. Dunkin Donuts (1991). Advertisement materials on packaging recyclability.
31. Engineer (1991). "'Green' Labels Plan-Slammed," June 6, p. 15. .-.''_
32. , Environment Committee, House of Commons Session 1990-91. Paper 474-1 8th
. Report - Eco-labeling. London, England.
33. Environment Reporter (1991). "Definitions Proposed by EPA Include Options to Restrict
Use of Some Labels,"' v. 22, no. 23, p. 1419-1420.
34. Environmental Action Foundation (1991). Comments of Jeanne Wirka, Solid Waste:
Policy Analyst, on issues concerning environmental marketing and advertising claims.
Submitted to the FTC at Public Hearing Washington D.C. July 17. ;
35. Environmental Defense Fund (1991). Testimony of Richard Denison at the Federal
Trade Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 17,
Washington, DC. .
36. Environmental Action Foundation and Californians Against Waste (1991). Comments
on Guidance for the Use of the Terms "Recycled" and "Recyclable" and the Recycling
Emblem in Environmental Marketing Claims, Submitted to the U.S. EPA, RCRA
V Docket Information Center:
37. Environmental Choice (1991). Materials describing Canada's environmental labeling
program, Ottawa, Canada.
'' 149 " .'.
-------
38. Environmental Defense Fund (1991). Testimony by Richard Denison at the EPA Public
Hearing on Guidance For the Use of the Terms "Recycled" and "Recyclable" in
Environmental Marketing Claims. Presented November 13, Washington, DC.
39. Environmental Defense Fund (1991). Environmental Action News Release:
"Environmentalists say trade commission green guidelines necessary but not sufficient,"
July 17, 1991.
40. Environmental Defense Fund (1991). At Cross purposes? A Critical Examination of
Green Cross's Environmental Record. Prepared by R. Justin Smith, and Richard
Denison.
41. Federal Trade Commission (1992). "FTC Chairman Steiger Announces National
Guidelines to Prevent Misleading Environmental Marketing Claims", FTC News,. July 28.
42. Federal Trade Commission (1992). Guides for the Use of Environmental 'Marketing.
Claims: The Application of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to
Environmental Advertising and Marketing Practices, July.
43. Federal Trade Commission (1991). "Public Hearings, Proposed Rule: FTC Petitions
for Environmental Marketing and Advertising Guides," Federal Register, May 31, v. 56,
no. 105, p. 24968-82. ' . r
44. Federal Trade Commission. 1991. Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. July
17-18, 1991, Washington, DC.
45. Financial Times (London) (1990). "Action Urged on 'Green' Labelling, September 6,
p. 7.
46. Financial Times (London) (1990): "Call for Full 'Green' Label," August 23, p.. 8.
47. Flexible Packaging Association. Undated. Position statement on environmental labeling
programs.
48. Food Marketing Institute.(1991). Testimony of Robert Gal at the Federal Trade
Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July. 17,
. Washington, DC.
49. Fort Howard Corporation (1991). Advertising materials on Envision Paper/Tissue
Products. ' _
50. Fort Howard Corporation (1991). Testimony of Jeffrey Eves to the EPA on the use of
the terms "Recycled" and "Recyclable" in product labeling and advertising. Presented
Nov. 14, 1991, Washington, DC.
51. Fort Howard Corporation (1991). Testimony of Jeffery-Eves at the Federal Trade
Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 18,
' Washington, DC.
52. Frankel, Carl (1991). "Green Product Intros Still on the Rise," Green MarketAlert,
, August, v. 2, no. 8, p. 4. '
53. Frankel, Carl (1992). "the FTC Issues its Voluntary Labeling Guidelines: a New Era
Begins", Green MarketAlert, 3:8, p. 1, August. ru
54. Frankel, Carl (1991). "Environmental Labeling Who's Doing What and to Whom,
Green MarketAlert, March, p. 1-4.
55. Frankel, Carl (1991). "Comparison of Proposed Voluntary Guidelines, Green
MarketAlert, November, v. 2, no. 11, p. 7.
150
-------
56. Fred Meyer, Inc. (1991). Testimony of Cheryl Perrin at the Federal Trade Commission
Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 18, Washington, DC.
57. Freeman, Laurie (1991). "Ecology Seals Vie for Approval," Advertising Age, January
29, p. 30.
58, . General,Accounting Office (1992). Water Pollution: Nonindustrial Waste Water
Pollution can be Better Managed, January 8.
59. Grand .Rapids .Label Company (1991), Seizing the Environmental Initiative: The
Packager's Opportunity for the 1990s. . ;
60. Green Cross Certification (1991). Promotional Materials. ..,_., '
61. Green Seal (1991). Testimony of Norman Dean at the Federal Trade Commission
Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 17, Washington, DC,
62 Green Report II:. Recommendations for Responsible Environmental Advertising, Task
" .Force of State Attorneys General from CA, FL, MA, MN, MI, NY, TN, TX, ,UT, WA,
WI, May 1991.
63 Green Seal (1991). .Promotional materials. .
64. Green Cross Certification (1991). Testimony of Stanley Rhodes at the Federal Trade
Commission Hearings on. Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 17,
Washington, DC.
65 Holmes, Hannah (1991). "The Green Police," Garbage,'Sept/Oct, p. 44-51.
66 Hoppe Jan, and Jane Duden (1989). . "The New 3 Rs: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle,
educational supplement, Star Tribune, St. Paul, ,MN. Taken from RE: Thinking
Recycling, an Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality curriculum, and Recycling Study
Guide Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources.
67. Humphrey, Hubert m, Minnesota Attorney General (1991). Testimony at the Federal
Trade Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 17,
Washington, DC..
68 Illinois Senate BUI 948 (passed but not yet enacted). 1991.
69 INDA Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry (1991). Testimony of Peter
Mayberry at the Federal Trade Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing
Issues. Presented July 18, Washington, DC.
70 Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributors (1991). Testimony of Penm Jones
at the Federal Trade Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues.
Presented July 17, Washington, DC.
71.' Indiana House Bill 1307 (1991). ,, ^IN
- 72 Indiana State Law: 1991 Ind. Code §§ 24-5-17-1 to 24-5-17-14 (1991). .
73; Institute of Packaging Professionals (1990). loPP Packaging Reduction Recycling and
Disposal Guidelines. . . .
74. International Chamber of Commerce (1991). ICC Position Paper on Environmental
Labeling Schemes.
.75. Iowa SF-223 (1991). ; " ...
76. Keller, .Richard (1991). Memo on state and local procurement efforts, Northeast
Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, September 20.
77; Klepacki, Laura. (1991). "Confusion Spurs Green Market Label Regs, Supermarket
News, January 28, p. 25.
:..'..-. .151 . ' . . . " '
-------
78. ' Lawrence, Jennifer, and Steven W. Coiford (1991). "Green Guidelines are the Next
Step," Advertising Age, January 29, p.28, 30.
79. Lelyveld. Nita (1992). "FTC Publishes Guidelines for Environmental Marketing".
Associated Press, July 29.
80. Lever Brothers Company (1991). Testimony of Melinda Sweet at the Federal Trade
Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 18,
Washington, DC.'
81. Lyman, Francesca (1990). "Personal Hygiene Products," Garbage, v.2, no. 4, p. 57-64.
82. Makower, Joel (1991). "Not So Friendly," Green Consumer Letter, July, p. 2.
83. Makower, Joel (1991). "Greener than Thou A New Round Begins in the Battle of the
Eco-labels," Green Consumer Letter, September, p. 5.
84." Makower, Joel (19.91). "Cross Talk," Green Consumer Letter, November, p. 4.
85. Makower, Joel,' John Ellington, and Julia Hailes (1991). The Green Consumer
Supermarket Guide. New York: Penguin Books.
86. Makower, Joel (1991). "The Big Event," Green Consumer Letter, July, p. 2.
87. Massachusetts Packaging Reduction and Recycling Act (proposed) (1991).
88. Morse, Robert (1991). "Designing Standards for Environmentally Friendly, Safe, and
Energy-efficient Products," presented at The Greening of Trade Regulation Symposium,
Washington, DC. October 8-9.
89. Mushinsky, Mary, House Chair, Connecticut House of Representatives Environment
Committee (1990). Testimony at the Northeast Recycling Council Labeling Summit,
June 25-26.
90. National Association of Convenience Stores (1991). Testimony of Charles Brown at the
Federal Trade Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July
* 18, Washington, DC.
91. National Association of Manufacturers (1991). Personal communication. November.
92. National Toxics Campaign (1991). Testimony of Craig Merrilees at the Federal Trade
Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 17,
Washington, DC. ' . '
93. National Retail Federation (1991). Testimony of Keith Tice at the Federal Trade
Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 18,
Washington, DC.
94. National Food Processors Association (1991). Petition for Industry Guides for
Environmental Claims Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Submitted February 14 to the FTC.
95. National Food Processors Association (1991). Testimony of Calvin Collier at the Federal
Trade Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented-July 17,
Washington, DC..
96. National Advertising Review Board (1992). Press Release: "NARB Recommends
Modification of 'Green' Label Claims for Yard Master Lawn and Refuse Bags," June 12.
97. National Food Processors Association (1992). "NFPA Testifies at Senate Hearing,
. . Stresses Need for 'Green Marketing' Guidelines," from PR Newswire, July 28.
98. New York SB 2499-A/AB 8204 (proposed). (1991).
152
-------
99. ' New York State Recycling Emblems: 6 NYCRR Part 368 Regulation Supplement (1990).
Division of Solid Waste, New^York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
October.'
100. New-York State Department of Environmental Conservation (1991). Testimony of
Thomas Jorling at the Federal Trade Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing
Issues: Presented July 17, Washington, DC.
101. New Hampshire environmental labeling legislation (1991). Cited in: Salzman, James
(1991). Environmental Labeling in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD Technology and
Environment Programme.
102. New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs (1991). Testimony of Emma Byrne at the
. EPA Public Hearing on Guidance For the Use of the Terms "Recycled" and "Recyclable"
in Environmental Marketing Claims. Presented November 13, 1991, Washington, DC:
103. New York SB 5119/AB 3632 (proposed) (1991). .'
104. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (1991). Testimony of
Norman Nbsenchuck on Guidance for the Use of the Terms 'Recycled' and 'Recyclable'
and the Recycling Emblem in Environmental Marketing Claims. Presented November 13,
. : Washington, DC. . ... ' '
105. New York AB 5547-A (proposed) (1991).
106. New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (1991). Testimony of Michael Alcamo
at the Federal Trade Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues.
Presented July 17, Washington, DC.
107. Northeast Recycling Council (1990). Regional Labeling Standards.
108. Paper Definitions Working Group of the National Recycling Coalition (1991). Proposal
For recycled paper definitions and standards, December 2.
109.. Paper Recycling Coalition1 (1991). Testimony of Basil Snider at the Federal Trade
Commission Hearings on .Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 18,
Washington, DC. . '
110. Pennsylvania Resources Council (1991). Environmental Shopping Update, September.
111. Pennsylvania Senate Bill 920 (proposed) (1991).
112. Polystyrene Packaging Council (1991). Testimony of John Larkin at the Federal Trade
Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 18,
Washington, DC. .
113. PRNe\vs\vire (1991)'. "Major New Push Announced for Self-regulatory Review of Green
Package, J-abel, and Ad Claims," July 11.
114. Proctor and Gamble (1991). Testimony of L Ross Love at the Federal Trade
Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 18,
Washington, DC.
115. Reason Foundation (1991)." Testimony of Lynn Scarlett at the Federal Trade
Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 18,
Washington, DC. .
116, Recycling Today. November, 1989, p. 29. ,
117. Recycling Advisory Council, Special Task Force on Recycled Paper Standards and
Definitions (1991). Evaluation - of Proposed New Recycled Paper Standards and
Definitions, prepared by Franklin Associates, October 8. " .
' " ', 153 . '-' . ' '
-------
US, 'Rehak, Bob, Ogilvy and Mather, Houston, TX (1991). Personal communication,
December. ,
119. Rhode Island H-6350 (proposed) (1991).
120. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (1991). Recycling Emblem
Regulations. .
121., S. 976. The RCRA Reauthorization Bill of 1992. Section 307.
122. Salzman, James (1991). Environmental Labeling in OECD Countries, Paris: OECD
Technology and Environment Programme.
123. Salzman, James (1991). "Green Labels for Consumers," OECD Observer, v. 169, p.
28-30.
124. Schlossberg, Howard (1990). "Greening of America Awaits Green Light from Leaders,
Consumers," Marketing News, April 19, p. 1, 16.
125. Schneider, Keith (1992). "Guides on Environmental Ad Claims", New York Times, p.
D3, July 29. ; .
126. Scott Paper Company (1991). Testimony of Stephen Conway at the Federal Trade
Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 18,
Washington, DC. ''''.
127. Scott Paper Company (1991). Testimony of Stephen Conway to the EPA on Proposed
Guidance for Use of. the Terms Recycled and Recyclable in Environmental Marketing.
Presented November 14, 1991, Washington, .DC.
128. Soap and Detergent Association (1991). Testimony of Theodore Brenner at the Federal
Trade Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 18,
Washington, DC.
129. Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (1991). Testimony of Lewis Freeman at the Federal
Trade Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 18,
Washington, DC.
130. Solid Waste Report (1991). "Feds Should Influence Green Labeling Claims, but not
without Preemption of States, Witnesses Say," v. 22, no. 31.
131. Sunrise Medical Bio Clinic (1991). Promotional materials.
132. Super Marketing (1991). "EC Agrees to Green Labels," June 28, p. 12.
133. Swankin, David (1991). Presentation at The Greening of Trade Regulation symposium,
Washington, DC, October 8-9.
134. The Environmental Marketing Claims Act of 1991 (S 615/HR 1408), Sponsored by U.S.
Senators Lautenberg and Lieberman, U.S. Representative Sikorski.
135. The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 Title XXI Organic Certification (1990).
136. Trade Association Committee (1991). The Greening of Trade Regulation symposium,
Washington DC, October 8-9..
137. Trank, Andrea (1990). "Green Paper," In Business, Nov/Dec, pp. 36-8
138. Trollope, Kate (1991). "More 'Green' Label Plans Emerge in Europe," Supermarket
News, May 6, p. 66.
139. Trollope, Kate (1991)'. "European Community Exerting Pressure for'Green Labeling,
. . Supermarket News, April 1, p. 2.
140. 'U.S. EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (1990). Background Document on
Clean Products Research and Implementation, prepared by Franklin Associates.
"i ' , .
154
-------
141/ U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste (1991). "Notice of Public Meeting and Request for
Comments: Guidance for the Use of the Terms 'Recycled' and 'Recyclable' and the
Recycling Emblem in Environmental Marketing Claims," Federal Register, EPA/OSW-
FR-91-032, October!, v. 56, no. 191, p. 49992-50000.
142. U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs (1991). Testimony of Clayton Fong at the Federal
Trade Commission Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues: Presented July 17,
Washington, DC. - .-'''
143: U.S. EPA (1991). Proposed definitions for environmental marketing terms, October.
144~ U.S/EPA, Office of Solid Waste (1988). "Guideline for Federal Procurement of Paper
and Paper Products Containing Recovered Materials," Federal Register, SWH-FRL 3385-
7, June 22, v. 53, no. 120, p. 23546-23566. ,
145. U.S. EPA, Office of Atmospheric and Indoor Air Programs (1992). "Proposed Rule:
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone," Federal Register, May 4, v. 57, no. 86, pp. 19166-
19201. ' . . . ,
146, Watson, Tom (1991). "Marketing Claims: the War over Words," Resource Recycling,
v. 10, no. 2, p. 36-40. / , \
147. Webster Industries (1991). Testimony of Rajeev Bal at the Federal Trade Commission
Hearings on Environmental Marketing Issues. Presented July 18, Washington,,DC.
ADDENDA ~ .'.' . '' ' - .--'-. .,
148. Colford, Steven W. (1993)'. "Environmental.Law Passes Calif. Test," Advertising Age,
January 4.
149. Engle, Mary (1992). Personal communication with Abt Associates, November 12.
155
-------
156
-------
Appendices
157
-------
158
-------
Appendix
Category
Foods
Beverages
Health & Beauty
Paper Products
Bags
. Laundry & Cleaners
Pet & Other
Miscellaneous Items
Insecticides &
Pesticides
1. Category Classifications from Productscan Search
MIS Product Classification
- s
: All types of food
All types of beverages, including alcoholic beverages
Personal hygiene, vitamins, non-prescription drugs,
Facial tissues and paper handkerchiefs
. Toilet tissue .
Paper towels; paper napkins
Other paper and plastic , .'''
Bags ,
Floor care "
Rug shampoos and fresheners . ' .
Toilet cleaners
Scouring pads ,
Other special purpose,cleaners and disinfectants
Leather, suede, cleaners, etc.
General purpose cleaners and disinfectants
Cleaning accessories
Deodorizers and air fresheners
Bleach and fabric brighteners
Fabric softeners and conditioners
Spot removers and preventatives
General purpose and special purpose laundry soaps and detergents
Miscellaneous laundry products
Dish soaps and detergents
Heavy duty hand cleaners
Wood and metal care
Foil products
Barbecue, fireplace, and woodstove items ;
Glues, adhesives, tapes
Household maintenance and energy conservation
Miscellaneous: tobacco products, stationery, gardening,
automotive
Pet food and other pet products
Insecticides and pesticides
159
-------
160
-------
Appendix 2. List of Proposed Definitions for Environmental Marketing Terms
Specific definitions of environmental marketing terms are listed below in order of least
to most strict and specific. Each term is discussed in Section 5.2. Abbreviations of the authors
or proponents of the definitions are. listed in parentheses next to each definition. A complete list
of groups included in this analysis is included in Appendix 3. Definitions 'Of terms are listed in
the following order: ' . * '
.1. General Terms ' .
ri. Manufacturing/Production Process Terms
ffl. Ozone Related Terms "
IV. Solid Waste Management Terms
A. Source Reduction .
B. Reusable/Refillable
C. Recycling terms - ,
D. Disposable . .-'".',
. E. Compostable
F. Degradable ' (
I. General Terms
V .' v ' ' , _ .
ENVIRONMENTALLY BETTER - .
1. implies better in every way than competing products. Deceptive unless true. Must specify
ways in which, and how much product is better than specific substitutes. Must specify context
in which product is better (EDF) , ,
ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY ' .
1. environmental buzzword; environmental equivalent of oat bran. (Marketing News)
.2.-(also, safe for the environment) general term, implies product has no negative or adverse
impact on the environment (GR n) .
ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE' ,: ' ' .
1. an absolute claim that, unless backed by specifics, is so vague it is meaningless (Rehak)
2. vague, too simplistic to accurately, and perhaps truthfully, explain a product's effect on the
environment (OCA) .
3. untrue: nothing is safe for the environment; everything has some impact (GCSG)
4: deceptive in virtually all circumstances (EDF)
161
-------
ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND
1. illusory and problematic it is impossible to substantiate that something is environmentally
beneficial in a global sense (RF)
GREEN . :
1. relative term with many meanings marketing term (GCSG)
GREEN PRODUCT . ~
1. a product with the following attributes:
1) is not dangerous to the health of people or animals ,
2) causes minimal damage to the environment during its- manufacture, use, and disposal
3) does not consume a disproportionate amount of energy or other resources during its
manufacture, use, and disposal
4) does not cause unnecessary waste, due to either excessive packaging or to a. short
useful life
5) does not cause unnecessary cruelty to animals
6) does not use materials derived from threatened species
7) ideally does not cost more than its 'ungreen' counterpart (GCSG)
NATURAL
1. widely overused and abused with little meaning. There are many natural ingredients that are
extremely poisonous (e.g., lead) (GCSG) - _u
2. no definitions/standards have been established in natural foods industry or FDA (Garbage)
n. Manufacturing and Production Related Terms
V ' -
ENERGY EFFICIENT , -
1. products that reduce energy consumption over standard alternatives (GCSG)
2. products manufactured for maximum energy savings during use (GC)
NON-TOXIC
1. no legal definition exists: things that are not poisonous to people can be extremely poisonous
to other species (GCSG) : . .
ORGANIC
1. derived from living organisms (OR DEQ/WI DNC)
162
-------
X2. certified by one of about 30 private and public certification'organizations with specific
standards; grown without chemical pesticides and has lower impact on the environment (GCSG)
3. an agricultural product that: , .-.',-.
1) has been produced and handled without the use of synthetic chemicals
' - 2) excluding livestock, has not been produced on land to which any. prohibited
' substances, including synthetic chemicals, have been, applied during the three years
- immediately preceding the harvest of the agricultural products .
3) is produced and handled on a certified organic farm in compliance with an organic
plan agreed to by the producer and handler of such product and the certifying agent
(Organic Certification) , .'.-.'
4. a processed agricultural product that contains at least 50 percent organically produced
- ingredients (can be prominently labeled organic to describe the organically produced ingredients)
(Organic Certification). , ' .
SYNTHETIC
1. a substance that is formulated or manufactured by a chemical process or by a process that
chemically changes a substance extracted from naturally occurring plant, animal,, or mineral
sources, except that such term shall not apply to substances created by naturally occurring
biological processes (Organic Certification) . ,
HI. Ozone Related Terms
CFC-FREE
1. contains no chlorofluorocarbons. Misleading to use as an environmental label, since CFCs
have been banned in aerosols since 1.978 (Rehak) .
OZONE FRIENDLY
1 (or .any term that connotes that stratospheric ozone is not being depleted), means that any
chemical or material released into the environment, as a result of the use or production of a
product, will not migrate to the stratosphere and cause unnatural and accelerated deterioration
of ozone. (CA AB 3994) / . ' , u Vv
2: usually indicates product does not contain CFCs, but that does not make the .product
environmentally benign (e.g., foam cups, aerosols) (GCSG) , < A f
3. does not contain CFCs, or Class I or Class H ozone depleters does not imply .good tor
the environment' (CTEA)
4. should include explanation (CSMA)
5' also "ozone safe": a claim applied to a product that does not contain any ozone-depleting
substance, i.e. substances listed as Class I or Class H chemicals in Title -VI.of the Clean Air Act
Amendment of 1990, or others subsequently, designated by EPA as ozone-depleting substances
(FTC) . ' ..'."
163
-------
IV. Solid Waste Management Terms
A. Source Reduction
SOURCE REDUCTION
1. less packaging (NFPA)
2.. downsizing of packaging materials not integral to a product's adequate containment,
protection, preservation, marketing, and information presentation (GR)
3. the elimination of packaging or reduction of the weight, volume, and/or toxicity of packaging
(CONEG,ASTM)
4. a reduction in the weight or volume of material or toxic constituents that will ultimately
become solid .waste., This includes the reformulation or redesign of packaging products (FPA)
5. a:system that includes design, manufacturing, acquisition, and reuse of materials (including
product and packaging) so as to reduce the quantity or toxicity of waste produced (ASTM)
6. (a) a collection of activities and actions that lead to a reduction in the quantity and/or
toxicity of municipal solid waste; a resource conservation measure
(b) reductions in-weight, volume, changes in the .use of materials, use of composite
materials, changes in package or product design, bulk packaging, and materials
substitution, especially replacement of toxic materials with non-toxic components
(c) prolonging the useful life of products by reuse, repair, and rehabilitation (COPPE)
7. an on-going materials and energy conservation process to reduce postconsumer solid waste
by developing and adopting a wide variety of functional systems and techniques that minimize
the use of materials and energy resources (loPP)
8. a significant reduction has recently taken place; label with percentage (NRF)
9. a reduction in weight, volume, or toxicity of a product or package, qualified to the extent
necessary to avoid consumer deception about the amount of the source reduction and about the
basis for any comparison asserted (FTC) .
Related Terms
NO PACKAGING ' ' . -
1. acquisition, containment, and transportation of content in bulk, either in no.container, or in
a container provided by the consumer (GR)
REDUCED PACKAGING
\ '
1. packaging verified to have been reduced by 25 percent or more compared to same product
five years earlier. Packager must additionally reduce by 25 percent or more within five years
. to remain in compliance (MA PRRA)
164
-------
B. Reusable/Refillable
'REUSE
1. extend the life ,of an item by repairing'or modifying it or by creating new uses, for it.
generally in its original form (OR DEQ/WI DNR) ;
2. the use of a product more than once in its original form (ASTM) . .
REUSABLE , ' - ' , , ' . /
1. any package or material that can be reused for its original purpose or for a different purpose
(EPA) . : ' ./ ... " ;'.';
2. reusing package for same product (GR)
3. product or package is reused for the original purpose of the product or package, an average
of 5 times or more (EMCA) ..
4. there is in existence a program for: (a) the collection and return of such packages to the
manufacturer for reuse in a manufacturing process or for reuse and refill without remanufacture;
or (b) the later use of the package by consumers to mix, cook, use, or store product
subsequently sold in another package. (NFPA) , ,
5.. original package or material is used or refilled a minimum of five times in a program.
established by a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer (NERC, RI RER, NY DEC) ,
6. for cloth diapers: must be able to endure 75+ uses and must not include non-reusable
components (CEC) .
7. technically possible and a significant national program exists should also include national
recycling, etc. rate for the package or product. (NRF)
8. designed to be refilled or reused for its original purpose a minimum of five times, and for
which (a) a minimum of 50 percent of such packages used in MA are returned for reuse or
refilling or (b) product refills designed to be put in such a packaging are sold in at least equal
numbers to sales of the original refillabie package. (MA PRRA) .
' REFILLABLE ' . > .. ' " . '.-.,.
1. able to refill package for,same product (GR)
2. containers that can be returned to the economic stream unchanged (except for minor processes
such as cleaning and sanitizing) after having served their packaging purpose to the consumer.
Examples include drums, barrels, and several types of glass beverage bottles. (ASTM) "
3. product or package is reused for the original purpose of the product or package, an average
of 5 times or more (EMCA) . :
4. an original package which can be refilled for a substantially similar use by manufacturers or
consumers for a product in a program established by the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer
(NFPA,ASTM) ' . ,
165
-------
5 a package that is refillable, and a system that provides for (1) the collection and return of the
package for refill: or (2) the later refill of the package by consumers with product subsequently
sold in another package (FTC)
C. Recycling Terms
* '
/. Paper Recycling Terms
a. Materials Not to be Included in Recycled Content
HOME SCRAP
I products or by-products generated within an original manufacturing facility - whether or not
such material is sold or traded to another facility - that the generating mill or parent company-
is capable of using economically in any manufacturing or converting process (PDWG)
NEW SUPPLY .'...':.'
1 domestic [paper] production plus imports minus exports. For many paper grades, new supply
is not greatly different from production, but for newsprint, imports make up close to 60 percent
of new supply (RAC)
i! .
WASTE PAPER
1. paper or paper products that have not been removed from the waste stream. Note: "waste
paper" and "recovered paper" are erroneously used interchangeably (ASTM)
b. Total Recycled Fiber
PROCESSES RECYCLED FIBER . :
1 fiber derived from recovered paper which during or subsequent to its manufacture has been
treated with or become contaminated by noncellulosic materials such as inks, dyes, coatings,
fillers, adhesive*; additives, or other extraneous substances which have b^°^e co"n^ted ton°r
are a part of the paper, including postconsumer materials as defined within RCRA Sec. 6UUZ.
(RAC)
(
RECOVERED PAPER MATERIALS
1. paper materials and paper by-products with known recycling potential, and which have been
removed or diverted from the solid waste stream, or which have never been discarded as solid
waste, and are intended for sale, use, re-use, or recycling, whether .or not such materials or by-
products require subsequent separation and processing, excluding the virgin content of mill
166
-------
broke. [The purpose of this definition is describing those, materials which, if not recovered.
would otherwise enter the solid waste stream.] (ASTM).
2 paper waste generated after the completion of a papermaking process, such as postconsumer
materials, envelope cuttings, bindery trimmings, printing waste butt rolls, and mill wrappers
obsolete inventories and rejected unused stock. Does not include fibrous waste generated during
the manufacturing process such as fibers recovered from wastewater or trimmings-from .paper
machine rolls (mill broke)" regardless of whether such materials are used by the same or another
company, and shall also not include fibrous by-products of harvesting, extractive orwoodcuttmg
processes or forest residues such as bark. Paper waste generated and reused within operation
of the same parent company are excluded from this definition. (NY DEC)
RECYCLED FIBER , ' ' v , ..
1. fiber derived from recovered paper from all sources except the virgin component of mill
.2r°fiber derived from recovered paper material which is processed into product or a form usable
in the manufacture of a product. (ASTM) ^. - ., ~
RECYCLED MATERIAL . ' ' . .'
* 1 any material generated from a production process after leaving the original manufacturing
facility and used in the production of a new product.. Recycled material excludes home scrap
(Note- companies that neither purchase nor produce virgin fiber to manufacture paper products
are exempt from the home scrap exclusion.) -Recycled material includes postconsumer and
preconsumer material. [The purpose of this definition is to include only materialsproduced after
paper has left a manufacturing mill in the definition of recycled material.] (PDWG)
2 material that has been recovered or otherwise diverted from the solid waste stream either
during manufacturing process (pre-consumer) .of after consumer use (post-consumer) (FTC)
c. Preconsumer
PRECONSUMER MATERIAL
1. all recovered materials excluding postconsumer recovered materials. (ASTM)
2 manufacturing wastes like paper and paperboard waste, bag, box, and carton waste printed
papW that never reached the consumer, overruns on printing and obsolete, inventories of paper
Kus by-products and other forest residues from manufacturing or wood cutting processes and
wastepaper generated by the conversion of goods made from fibrous materials ^(FHC . .
3 includes recycled materials such as postconverting materials, clean and contaminated
converting scrap, but does not include postconsumer materials (PDWG)
. ... « _,_ j ...««.J n4-^fJir /-*Ker*1**tJa tnVftTTtOn
by ttekme parent company whether for the same or drfferen, product
are also not included within this same definition (NERC)
167
-------
5. material recovered or diverted from the waste stream during manufacturing (FTC)
Related Terms
CONVERTING SCRAP
I. scrap paper generated in the process of converting paper and paperboard to products.
Example include cuttings from plants making boxes and trimmings from printers of magazines.
newspapers, etc. (RAC)
2. fragments'or trimmings, printed or unprinted, from fabricators or printers who do not have
the capability to use these materials themselves or elsewhere in the same company or parent
company (PDWG) -
OVER ISSUE/RETURNS
1. paper products that are not purchased/used by the intended customer, and are returned to the
producer or discarded by the retailer or distributor. Includes newspapers and magazines from
newsstands, unsold books, undistributed telephone books, and obsolete business forms (RAC)
POSTCONVERTING MATERIAL -.-'.
1. 'products that have completed the converting or assembly process and that contain printing,
coating, adhesives, or other difficult to reprocess materials but that have not yet reached the
consumer. [Note: this includes unsold magazines, spoiled or outdated packaging, out-of-date
business forms, and other preconsumer materials that are printed on or require special
technology to recycle. It does not include any fiber that can be, or is regularly, returned to the
pulping process (PDWG)
d. Postconsumer
POSTCONSUMER MATERIALS '
1. paper, paperboard, computer printouts, corrugated containers, newspapers, magazines, and
fibrous waste from retail stores, office buildings and homes after they have.passed through their
end usage as a consumer item (FHC)
2. paper, after it has passed through its end use in the consumer chain, and has been removed,
separated, or diverted from the solid waste stream, .including recovered printed paper and
deinked fiber from all. sources (ASTM)
3. paper and paperboard products discarded by the ultimate consumer (RAC)
4, products generated by a consumer which have served their intended end use, and which have
been separated or diverted .from solid waste. Wastes generated during production of an end
product are excluded. [Note: this includes wastepaper collected from offices and homes, as well
as paper products that have met their end uses as business and institutional items, such as
packaging materials.] (PDWG)
168
-------
5. material recovered from the solid waste stream after consumer use (FTC)
Related Terms , . '
FILE STOCK ..'.-.' ." ' . ' '
1. files, removed from storage in offices. Includes business forms, reprographic paper, naanila .
folders, other mixed papers,, and some non-paper items such as rubber bands and paper clips
(RAC) ' , . , " .... : ,' ~
e. Recycled Paper
RECYCLED PAPER : ' '
.1. the strict definition is that product containing fiber content consisting totally of recycled fiber.
However, the common usage of this term refers to a product defined as "recycled content paper"
(ASTM).. " -'.'-. >.-' ;
la product containing those percentages of pre- or postconsumer recycled materials required
by applicable standards (outlined by PDWG). Such product or package shall be labeled as
appropriate (PDWG) . -
100 PERCENT-RECYCLED PAPER '
1. no virgin pulp used in processing of that paper (In Business)
2. 100% by weight of. the fiber in the finished product is recycled (FTC)
RECYCLED CQNTENT PAPER .
1. paper containing those percentages of recycled fiber required by applicable specifications and
so-labeled (ASTM) - ,
2a. paper containing those percentages of pre-consumer or post-consumer recycled fiber (FTC)
2b. paper that comes from a source whose annual weighted average of recycled material
purchased is equal to the percentage of recycled material claimed for the product (FTC)
ii. General Recycling Terms
a. Recycle
RECYCLE
1. to collect materials for reuse or use in the form of raw materials for the manufacture of new
products (ASTM) . " '
169
-------
2. to'collect, separate, or process and reuse or return to use in the form of raw materials or
products, solid waste, or materials that would otherwise become solid waste (D10 definition as
compromised) (ASTM, MA PRRA, OR DEQ/WI DNR)
3. the series of activities, including collection, separation, and processing, by which products
or other material are recovered from or otherwise diverted from the solid waste stream for use
in the form of raw materials in the manufacture of new products other than fuel for producing
heat or power by combustion (U.S. EPA)
b. Recyclable
Definitions of recyclable are split into three levels of stringency: 1) technologically
feasible; 2) feasible and available; and 3) feasible, available, and currently being recycled at a
minimum rate. '
RECYCLABLE .
1) technologically possible to recycle material:
1. capable of being recycled commercially' practiced technology exists to recycle the material
(SPI,INDA,GC,FPA,PPC,DD,Pepsi,LBC)
2. does not contain additives which degrade material and interfere with the recyclability ot the
package or product (RI H-6350) , _
3 materials identified as recyclable by the Department of Environmental Services (NH)
4. product is transformed to another useful purpose through a process that includes human
intervention, and that is not added to the waste stream once its initial use is completed (NARB)
2) feasible and available:
1 accessible to a significant portion of the consumers who use the product (NJ DC A)
2: infrastructure exists and is available to the consumer to accomplish the above objective
(ASTM,IoPP,GR,NY DEC,GCSG,PRC) '
3 can be redeemed or returned at an identifiable recycling location for the purpose ot
transforming the material into raw substance for new, reused, or reconstituted materials (Indiana)
4. can be conveniently. recycled in every county in California with a population over 300,UOU
people (CA AB 3994) '«.,'*«.
5 can wear the recycling emblem in at least 5 of the Northeast Recycling Council region states
(ME NH VT MA, CT, RI, NY, PA, NJ, DE), which represent at least 75 percent of the
population of the Northeast Recycling Council region, the material can wear the recyclable
emblem in Rhode Island even if it is not recyclable in Rhode Island as defined in this regulation
/TVT
6. an infrastructure is available to 75 percent of the population or a recycling rate of 50 percent
has been achieved on a national basis within a material category (NY DEC)
7 a'uroduct or package (in whole excluding minor incidental components) that can be collected,
separated or otherwise recovered from the solid waste stream for use in the form ot raw
170
-------
' materials, in .the manufacture or assembly of a new package or product; claims shoul'd be
qualified to the extent necessary to avoid consumer deception about any limited availability of
recycling programs and collection sites (FTC) : , > .
3) feasible, available, and is already being recycled at a certain rate:
1. is currently recycled in significant amounts across the country (GR n,NRF)
2. recycled nationally; qualify with "where facilities exist" (CTFA) . . -
3, material for which any of the following standards are met:
1. access to community recyclable recovery-programs for that material is available to no
less than 75 percent of the population of the state
2. a statewide recycling rate of 50 percent has been achieved within the material category
3. a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer achieves a statewide recycling rate of 50
percent for the product or package sold within the state
4. a product or package may be .recyclable within the jurisdiction of a municipality where
an ongoing source separation and recycling program provides the opportunity for
recycling of the product or package (IL SP 948,NY DEC) '.
4. the material is recyclable as defined in this regulation, or the material can be returned to a
person for the purposes of recycling provided that the person achieves at minimum a 50 percent
recycling rate for the material. The same material not sold or distributed for sale by the person
but recycled by the person may be counted towards the 50 percent recycling rate (Rhode Island)
5. product or package will be, recycled at a rate of at least 25 percent by 2000, 50 percent after
2000 (EMCA) ' : '-..'
6. material that will have achieved a recycling rate in the state of at least 35 percent before the
year 2000 and 50 percent after that (MA PRRA):
7. package itself included in an effective recycling program or is made of materials that are
effectively recycled in Oregon 15 percent by 1993, 30 percent by 1996, 45 percent by 1999,
60 percent by 2002 (OR) ,
Related {Terms . . ' .
EFFECTIVELY RECYCLED . " ' , .' -
1. meets either of the following conditions:
1) made of materials which are being recycled at 25 percent by 12/31/95, 35 percent by
12/31/98, and 50 percent by 12/31/01 or;
. ''' ' 2) 50 percent by weight of all such packages discarded during previous year was recycled
(MA PRRA)
171
-------
RECYCLING RATE
1. percentage by weight of a given product category sold or distributed for sale in the state that
would other wise be destined for the waste stream, including postconsumer and preconsumer
materials, that is collected or otherwise returned for processing or refabrication into marketable
end products other than fuel for producing heat or power by combustion. (NY DEC, RI RER)
2. the percentage by weight of the total production of a given product or material category that
is recycled (NY DEC, U.S. EPA)
c. Recycled ' '.
RECYCLED
I. a material or product containing a specified minimum percentage by weight of secondary
materials content and minimum percentage 'by weight of postconsumer material as described in
subdivision 368.4 (a). The percentage of secondary material content shall be that portion of a
package or product that is composed of secondary material as demonstrated by an annual mass
balance of all feedstocks and outputs of the manufacturing process. The weight of secondary
material use in any month shall be no less than 80 percent of the average monthly secondary
material usage during the corresponding calendar year (NY DEC)
2. an article's contents contain at least 10 percent by weight, postconsumer material (California,
IN)
3. product produced from at least 50 percent postconsumer material (NH)
4. made of 100 percent recycled materials (PRC)
5. made from substantially all recycled material, and raw material is recycled material versus
virgin materials (FHC) , '
6. substantially all of the product is made from recycled materials. Must specify percentage by
weight/volume of product that is made from recycled materials. Must label source of recycled
material unless all is postconsumer (EDF)
?'.'product or package made from materials that have been recovered or otherwise directed from
the solid waste stream, either during the manufacturing process or after consumer use (FTC)
d. Recycled Content
e. Materials Not to be Included in Recycled Content
HOME SCRAP/MANUFACTURING SCRAP/INDUSTRIAL SCRAP
1. home scrap scrap materials, virgin content of a material, or by-products generated from,
and commonly reused within, an original manufacturing process (U.S. EPA)
2 manufacturing scrap material that has been generated as a by-product of a given process
which has properties allowing it to be recycled back through the same general process (GC,
NRF, NY DEC)
172
-------
3. industrial scrap industrial by-product of any -kind used as a feedstock in the same or
another process within the same parent company (FJDF) - ,' .
f. Total Recycled Content '
RECYCLED CONTENT
1. percentage of material or packaging that is composed of materials that otherwise would have
been thrown away (SPI) ,
2. percentage of material or packaging that is composed of recycled materials (NFPA, ASTM,
' ' ' "
. _
3. percentage of material or packaging that is composed' of recycled materials by weight (GCSG)
4. percentage of material; or packaging that is composed of preconsumer and postconsumer
recycled materials (NY DEC, COPPE) , .
5. percentage of material or packaging that is composed of preconsumer and postconsumer
recycled materials by weight (FPA, W RER, U.S. EPA, FHC, SPC) ,
RECYCLED MATERIALS ' '.''-' ' '_ ' '. .
1. materials that otherwise would have entered the solid waste stream (NFPA)
2: postconsumer and preconsumer industrial materials that otherwise would have entered the
solid waste stream (BioClinic) .
3., preconsumer and postconsumer .materials, not home scrap/ manufacturing scrap (U.S. EPA,
NY DEC) ,
4. material that would otherwise be destined for disposal as solid waste but instead is remade
into marketable end products. This includes but is not limited to material disposed of by
consumers, industrial waste, overstock, or obsolete inventories from distributors, wholesalers,
and other- companies. This does not include materials and by-products generated from and
commonly reused within the original manufacturing process (FPA, CQNEG, ASTM)
SECONDARY MATERIAL/RECOVERED MATERIAL . ' '
1 . any preconsumer material, postconsumer material, or any combination thereof (EMC A)
2. material recovered from or otherwise destined for the waste stream, including preconsumer
material and postconsumer material but such term does not include those materials and by-
products generated from and commonly reused within an original manufacturing process or
separate operations within the same parent company (NY DEC)
3. materials and by-products that have been recovered of diverted from solid waste, but not
including those materials and by-products generated from, and commonly reused within, an
original manufacturing process (ASTM)
' ' - .-
g. Preconsumer - .
173
-------
PRECONSUMER
Includes home scrap:
1. any scrap diverted from the landfill before it enters the consumer waste stream (In Business) .
2. reusable cleaning waste from floor created during the processing process an Business)
I waste material that is generated in the manufacturing process and must be reconstituted'to be
u$ed again (NRF)
4. (also postindustrial) manufactured but never sold i.e. factory floor scraps (GCSG)
Does not include home scrap, but can be used in same parent company:
5. a material generated as a by-product of a given process, which has properties significantly
different from those of the original material and therefore, in its current form, -cannot be
recycled back through the same general process (GC, BioClinic)
6 those materials generated during any step in the production of a product and that have been
recovered from or otherwise diverted from the solid waste stream for the purpose of recycling,
but does not include those scrap materials, virgin content of a material, or by-products generated
from, and commonly reused within, an original manufacturing process (U.S1. EPA)
May not be used in the same parent company:
7 any material generated during any step in the production of an end product, but does not
include any waste material or by-product that can be reused or has been normally reused within
the same plant or another plant of the same parent company (107, RI) .
8 waste generated through production, which cannot be returned to the same production
process used-by another company to make a product similar to the original product, or used by
the same parent company to manufacture a different product, and includes all wastes generated
during the intermediate steps'in producing an end product by succeeding companies (EMC A)
9 those materials, generated during any step in the production of a product, that have not served
their end use and that have been recovered from or otherwise diverted from the solid waste
stream for the purpose of recycling, and excluding those scrap materials, virgin content of a
material or by-products generated from, and commonly reused within, an original
manufacturing process. Waste generated and reused within operations of the same parent
company 'are also excluded from this .definition. For example, a package that has not been
purchased by a consumer as a covering for a product [even though it may have been sold to a
retailer for distribution] is considered preconsumer material (NY DEC)
h. Postconsumer
174
-------
POSTCONSUMER- WASTE31' ' -,. ' .' . -
1. material or product that has served its intended use and has been discarded for disposal after
passing through the hands of a final user (ASTM, BioClinic, GCSG)
2. product or packaging material discarded by an individual, commercial enterprise, or other
public or private entity after having fulfilled its intended application or use (GG)
POSTCONSUMER MATERIAL" .-. ' ' ' " -'....,.
1. materials collected after satisfying their intended end use (NY DEC, In Business)
2. those products or other materials generated by a business or consumer/that have served their
intended end uses and that have been recovered,from or otherwise diverted from the solid waste
stream for the purpose-of recycling (U.S. EPA)-
3, products, packages, or materials generated by a business or consumer, which have served
their intended end uses, and which have been separated, or diverted from the waste stream for
the purposes of collection, recycling, and disposition (NY DEC, ASTM, FPA)
4.- those products or packages, generated by a business or consumer, which have served their
intended end uses, and which have been separated or diverted from solid waste except that such
term shall not include wastes generated during the production of an end product. Examples of
exclusions include: printers' waste, undistributed finished products, or lathe wastes (NERC,.
EMCA, RIRER)
D. Disposable
No specific definitions were found for the term.
E. Compostable
COMPOSTABLE ' ' . '...-'
1. commercially practiced technology exists to do so (INDA, SPI) .'_
2. commercially practiced technology exists; to compost the material should include "where
facilities exist" (PPC) , .
3. implies a program or facility exists, is accessible, and is economically and technically feasible
within the consumer's community that will accept the product to be recycled or composted
(EDF) ...
4. able to be turned into humus (GCSG) .
5. a process of accelerated biodegradation and stabilization of organic material under controlled
conditions (MA PRRA) . . -
6. material»that will decompose into soil-like material in less than one year under controlled
biological conditions (TN) '
31 Postconsumer waste is. not an environmental marketing term. However, it has .been included in this analysis of
terms in order to clarify the term .postconsumer material.
175
-------
7. a product or package that will break down into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost
in a safe and timely manner; claims should be-qualified to avoid deception if municipal
composting facilities are not available to a substantial majority of consumers, if the claim
misleads consumers about the environmental benefit provided when the product is composted,
or if consumers misunderstand the claim to mean that-the product can be safely composted in
their home compost pile or device, when in fact it cannot (FTC)
F. Degradable
BIODEGRADABLE
I. capable of being broken down into simple substances or basic elements by microorganisms
(OR DEQ/WI DNR)
2. ability of something to break down into particles small enough for bacteria to eat. This is not
necessarily a good thing, as when plastic bags turn into plastic dust (Rehak)
3. capable of undergoing a natural process in which materials are broken down by the metabolic
processes of living organisms, principally bacteria and fungi; primary biodegradation refers to
the initial changes or simplification of organic material, whereas ultimate or secondary
biodegradation refers to complete mineralization of organic material, typically to carbon dioxide
and water in the presence of oxygen, or to methane arid water in the absence of oxygen (ASTM)
4. breaks down completely through natural processes into harmless matter, and the rate of
degradability shouldn't allow harmful substances to build up in the environment before
breakdown can catch up (GG)
5. the physical and or chemical structure of a compound is able to be substantially broken down
by microorganisms within a specified period of time under defined environmental exposure
conditions (ASTM)
6. material has.proven capability to decompose in the most common environment where the
material is disposed within one year (IN)
7. material has proven capability to decompose in the most co'mmon environment where the
material is disposed within one year through natural biological processes into non-toxic
carbonaceous soil, water, or carbon dioxide (CA AB 3994)
8'. the entire product or package will break down and decompose into elements found in nature
within a reasonably short period of time after customary disposal; claims should be qualified to
explain the product's ability to degrade in the environment where it is customarily disposed, and
the rate and extent of degradation.
BIODEGRADABILITY
1. the capability of a physical and or chemical structure of a material to be incorporated into the
environmental processes through the action of microorganisms (ASTM) «
2. the rate and thoroughness with which a substance breaks down into carbon dioxide, water,
and salts. Process must take place quickly enough to avoid causing harm before the
biodegradation is complete (GCSG)
176
-------
DEGR-ADABLE. . ' . ' . , ' ' ' , ' ;
1. material is technically degradable, and is disposed of under the right environmental conditions
to degrade.. May not be desirable or successful (loPP)
2. currently being questioned and denounced by environmentalists, especially in regard to
plastics. No consistent definition of conditions under which to measure degradability, time
intervals, identity of decomposition products, determination of environmental effects exists.(U.S.
EPA) " . '; " ' /:. . -.'...,'.,' " .-.
PHOTODEGRADABLE , .
1.'the primary attribute of a photbdegradable material. Can be,inherent in the material or
imparted to the material by formulation, construction.; or additive combinations (ASTM)
2. a physical or. chemical structure of a material capable of being broken down in reactions
precipitated, initiated, or driven by light, solely or in combination with other causative
environmental factors within a specified time, under specific exposure conditions (ASTM) ,
3. material has proven capability to decompose in the most common environment where the
material is disposed within one year (IN)
4. material has the proven capability to decompose in the most common environment where the
material is disposed within one year through physical processes, such as exposure to heat and
light, into non-toxic carbonaceous soil, water, or carbon dioxide (CA AB 3994)
5. product or package that will break down in a reasonably short period of time after being
exposed to sunlight and into sufficiently small pieces to become part of the soil;(FTC)
DECOMPOSITION ' . . .
1. the reduction of the net energy level and change in chemical composition of organic matter,
as by microorganisms (ASTM)
177
-------
178
-------
Appendix 3. List of Individuals or Organizations Proposing Definitions for
Environmental Marketing Terms
The following is a list of all the individuals or organizations cites in Chapter 5 as
formally proposing a definition of,one or more environmental marketing terms. Abbreviations
used in the text and in Appendix 3 are shown in parentheses following the author.
Consultants
Brenda Cude, University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service (U IL)
Robert Morse, Galland, Kharasch/ Morse, and Garfmkle, P.C. Washington, DC
(Morse) .
Reason Foundation' (RF)
Bob Rehak, Ogilvy and Mather, Houston, TX (Rehak)
Andrew Stoeckle, Abt Associates (Abt)
David Swankin, Swankin and Turner, Washington DC (S.wankin)
State-Government
California AB 3994 passed (CA AB 3994)
Green Report H (GRII)
Illinois SB 948 not yet enacted (TL SP 948)
Indiana State Code §§ 24-5-17-1-> 14 enacted (IN)
Massachusetts Packaging Reduction and Recycling Act proposed (MA PRRA)
Minnesota Attorney General Hubert Humphrey HI (MN AG)
New Hampshire (NH)
New Jersey Department of Consumer Affairs (NJ DC A)
New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (NYC DCA)
' New York Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Solid Waste (NY
DEC)
Oregon (OR)
Oregon DEQ, Wisconsin DNR educational materials (OR DEQ/WI DNR)
Pennsylvania SB 920 proposed (PA)
Rhode Island H-6350 proposed (RIH-6350) .
Rhode Island Recycling Emblem Regulations enacted (RI RER)
Federal Government
/The Environmental Marketing Claims Act (S.615/HR 1408) proposed under RCRA
Reauthorization Bill (S. 976) (EMCA)
Title XXI Organic Certification: The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 enacted
.. . (Organic Certification).
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
. 179 ~ ' .
-------
U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs (OCA)
Canada
Canada's Environmental Choice (CEC)
Canadian Guiding Principles (CGP)
Independent Organizations
American Society for the Testing of Materials
National Advertising Review Board (NARB) . nmwm
.Paper Definitions Working Group of the National Recycling Coalition (PDWG)
Paper Recycling 'Coalition (PRC)
Recycling Advisory Council (RAC)
Magazine Articles
t < ft-
Garbage magazine. 2(4): 57-64 (Garbage)
In Business magazine. Nov/Dec 1990. pp. 36-8 (In Business)
Marketing New magazine,April 19, 1990. pp. 1,16 (Marketing News)
Resource Recycling magazine. 10(2): 36-40 (RR)
Not for Profit Consumer and Environmental Organizations
Environmental Action Foundation (EAF)
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
The Green Consumer Supermarket Guide (GCSG)
Green Cfoss (GC) , .
Green Seal (GS)
National Toxics Campaign (NTC)
Northeast Recycling Council (NERC)
Industry Members and Trade Associations
American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA)
American Marketing Association (AMA)
American Paper Institute (API)
Association of National Advertisers, Inc (ANA)
Chemical Specialty Manufacturers Association (CSMA)_
Council on Plastics and Packaging in the Environment (CQPPE)
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA)
Degradable Plastics Council (DPC) .
Dunkin Donuts (DD)
Flexible Packaging Association (FPA)
180
-------
.Food Marketing Institute (FMI) " . -
Fort Howard Corporation (FHC) . , . .
Fred Meyer, Inc (FM) .
Grand Rapids Label Company (GR) v^^^
INDA Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry (INDA)
Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributors (ICMD)
Institute of Packaging Professionals (loPP)
Lever Brothers Company (LEG)
National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) .
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
National Food Processors Association (NFPA)
National Retail Federation (NRF)
Pepsi Cola Co (Pepsi)
Polystyrene Packaging Council (PPC)
Procter and Gamble (P+G)
Scott Paper Company (SPC)
Soap and Detergent Association (SDA)
Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (SPI)
Sunrise Medical Bio Clinic (BioClinic)
Webster Industries (Webster) --_...
181
-------
182
-------
Appendix 4: Federal Trade Commission Environmental Marketing Guidelines
hT mms FOR THE USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING CLAIMS
THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 5
OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT
TO ENVIRONMENTAL ADVERTISING AND MARKETING PRACTICES
Federal Trade Commission
July 1992
183
-------
A. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
167
B. SCOPE OF GUIDES: ..... ............ ..... .....167
C. STRUCTURE OF THE GUIDES: ......... ......:.. ... 167
D.' REVIEW PROCEDURE: ... . . ........ 16V
E. INTERPRETATION AND SUBSTANTIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MARKETING CLAIMS: . . . . .............. 168
F. . GENERAL PRINCIPLES; '' .......... >8
1. Qualifications and Disclosures . . . ....... .-.' .:.... .........
' 2. Distinction Between Benefits of Product and Package ..... ..........
3. Overstatement of Environmental Attribute ............. .........
4. Comparative Claims ................. . ' ....... ' ......
G. ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING CLAIMS; 17°
1. General Environmental Benefit Claims . . ..... . ...... ..........
2. Degradable/Biodegradable/Photodegradable ...... ..... , .........
3. Compostable .................. ............... < ........
4. Recyclable . . . . .......... ............... ...... ' "
5. Recycled Content ................. ..... ..............
6. Source Reduction .... ................ ..... ' ' .......... ll_l
7. Refillable ......... ...... ............ ...... ...... . ' l11
8. Ozone Safe and Ozone Friendly .................... , .......... * /6
184
-------
A. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE;
These *uides represent administrative/interpretations of laws administered by the Federal
Trade Commission for the guidance of the public in conducting its affairs in conformity with
legal requirements. These guides specifically address the application of Section-5 of the FTC
Act to environmental advertising and marketing practices. They provide the basis, for voluntary
compliance with such laws by members of industry. Conduct inconsistent with the positions
articulated in these guides may result in corrective action by the Commission under Section 5
if, after investigation, the Commission has reason to .believe that the behavior falls within the
scope of conduct declared unlawful by the statute.
B. SCOPE OF GUIDES:
These guides apply to environmental claims included in labeling, advertising, promotional
materials and all other forms of marketing, whether asserted directly or by implication, through -
words symbols/emblems, logos, depictions, product brand names, or through any other means.
The guides, apply to any claim about the environmental attributes of a product or package in
"connection with the sale, offering for sale, or marketing of such product, or package for
personal, family or household use, or for commercial,, institutional or industrial use.
Because the guides are not "legislative rules under Section 18 of the FTC Act, they, are
not themselves enforceable regulations, nor do they have the force and effect of law The guides ,
themselves do not preempt regulation of other federal agencies or of state and local bodies
governing the use of environmental marketing claims. Compliance with federal, state or local
law and regulations concerning such claims, however/will not necessarily preclude Commission
regulatory action under Section 5. v
C. STRUCTURE OF THE GUIDES:
- " The guides are composed of general principles and specific guidance on the. use of
environmental claims. These general principles and specific guidance are followed by examples
that generally address a single deception concern. A given claim may raise issues that are
addressed under more than one example and in more than one section of the guides.
In many of the examples, one or more options are presented for qualifying a claim.
These options are intended to provide, a "safe harbor" for marketers who want certainty about
how to make environmental claims: They do not represent the only permissible approaches to
qualifying a claim. The examples do not illustrate all possible acceptable claims or disclosures
that would be permissible under Section 5. In addition, some of the illustrative disclosures may
be appropriate for use on labels but not in print or broadcast advertisements and vice versa. In
some instances, the guides indicate within the example in what context or contexts a particular
type of disclosure should be considered. ;
185
-------
D. REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Three years after the date of adoption of these guides, the Commission will seek public
comment on whether and how the guides need to be modified in light of ensuing developments.
Parties may petition the Commission to alter or amend these guides in light of substantial
new evidence regarding consumer' interpretation of a claim or regarding substantiation of a
claim. Following review of such a petition, the Commission will take such action as it deems
appropriate.
E. INTERPRETATION AND SUBSTANTIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MARKETING CLAIMS;
Section 5 of the FTC Act makes unlawful deceptive acts and practices in or affecting
commerce. The Commission's criteria for determining whether an express or .implied claim has
been made are enunciated in the Commission's Policy Statement on Deception.1 In addition,
'any party making an express .or implied claim that presents an objective assertion about the
environmental attribute of a product or package must, at the time the claim is made, possess and
rely upon a reasonable basis substantiating the claim. A reasonable basis consists of competent
and reliable evidence. In the context of environmental marketing claims, such substantiation will
often require'competent and reliable scientific evidence. For any test, analysis, research, study
or other evidence to be "competent and reliable" for purposes of these guides, it must be
conducted and evaluated in an objective manner by persons qualified to do so, using procedures
generally accepted in the profession to yield accurate and reliable results. Further guidance on
the reasonable basis standard is set forth in the Commission's 1983 Policy Statement on the
Advertising Substantiation Doctrine. 49 Fed. Reg. 30,999 (1984); appended to Thompson
Medical Co.. .104 F.T.C. 648 (1984). These guides, therefore, attempt to preview Commission
policy in a relatively new context that of environmental claims.
F. GENERAL PRINCIPLES:
The following general principles apply to all environmental marketing claims, including,
but not limited to, those described in Part G below. In addition, Part G contains specific
guidance applicable to certain environmental marketing claims. Claims should comport with all
relevant provisions of these guides, not simply the provision that seems most directly applicable.
1. Qualifications and Disclosures: The Commission traditionally has held that in order
to be effective, any qualifications or disclosures such as those described in these guides should
be sufficiently clear and prominent to prevent deception. Clarity of language, relative type size
and proximity to the claim being qualified, and an absence of contrary claims that could undercut
'. Cliffdflle Associates. Inc.. 103 F.T.C. 110, at 176, 176 n.7, n.8, Appendix, rejjrinting letter dated Oct. 14, 1983,
from the Commission to The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman, Committee pa Energy and Commerce, U.S. House
of Representatives (1984) ("Deception Statement").
186
-------
effectiveness, will maximize the likelihood that the qualifications and disclosures .are
appropriately clear and prominent. , / ' . .
' 2 Distinction Between Benefits of Product and Package-. An environmental marketing
claim should be presented in a way that makes clear whether the environmental attribute-or -.
Benefit being asserted refers to the product, the product's packaging or to a portion or
component of the product or packaging. In general, if the environmental attribute or benefit
applies to .all but minor, incidental components of a product or package, the claim need not be
qualified to identify that fact. There may be exceptions to this general principle. For example,
if an unqualified "recyclable" claim is made and: the presence of the incidental component
significantly limits the ability to recycle, the product, then the claim would be deceptive.
Example 1: A box of aluminum foil is labeled with the claim "recyclable," without
further elaboration. Unless the type of product, surrounding language, or- other context of the
phrase establishes whether the claim .refers to the foil or the box, the claim is deceptive if any
part-of either the box or the foil, other than minor, incidental components, cannot be recycled.
Example 2: A soft drink bottle is labeled "recycled." The bottle is made entirely
from recycled materials1, but the bottle cap is not. Because reasonable consumers are likely to
consider the bottle cap to be a minor, incidental component of the .package, thexjlaim is not
deceptive Similarly, it would not be deceptive to-label a shopping bag- "recycled where the ,
bag is made entirely of recycled material but the easily detachable handle, an incidental
component, is not.
3 Overstatement of Environmental Attribute: An environmental marketing claim should
not be presented in a manner that overstates the environmental attribute or benefit, expressly or
by implication. Marketers should avoid implications of significant environmental benefits it the
benefit is in fact negligible. . . . ,
Example 1' A package is labeled, "50% more recycled content than before." The
manufacturer increased the recycled content of its package from 2 percent recycled material^
3 percent recycled material. Although the claim is technically true, it is likely to convey the
false impression .that the advertiser has increased significantly the use of recycled material.
Example 2 A trash bag is labeled "recyclable" without qualification. Because trash
bags will ordinarily not be separated out.from other trash at the landfill or incinerator for
recycling/they are highly unlikely to be used again for any purpose. Even if the bag is
technically capable of being recycled, the claim is deceptive since it asserts an environmental
benefit where no significant or meaningful benefit exists.
Example 3:' A-paper grocery sack is labeled "reusable." the sack canbe brought
, back to the store and'reusexl for carrying groceries but will fall apart after two or three reuse
on average. Because reasonable consumers are unlikely to assume that a paper^grocery^sack is
durable the unqualified claim does not overstate the, environmental benefit conveyed to
187
-------
consumers. The claim is not deceptive and does not need to be qualified to indicate the limited
reuse of the sack.
4. Comparative Claims: Environmental marketing claims that include a comparative
statement should be presented in a manner that makes the basis for the comparison sufficiently
clear to avoid consumer deception. In addition, the advertiser should be able to substantiate the
comparison.
Example 1: An advertiser notes that its shampoo bottle contains "20% more recycled
content." The claim in its context is ambiguous. Depending on contextual factors, it could be
a comparison either to the advertiser's immediately preceding product or to a competitor's
product. The advertiser should clarify the claim to make the basis for comparison clear, for
example, by saying "20% more recycled content than our previous package." Otherwise, the
advertiser should be prepared to substantiate whatever comparison is conveyed to reasonable
consumers. ,
Example 2: An advertiser claims that "our plastic diaper liner has the most recycled
content." The advertised diaper does have more recycled content, calculated as a percentage of
weight, than any other on the market, although it is still well under 100% recycled. Provided
the recycled content and the comparative difference between the product and those of
competitors are significant and provided the specific comparison can be substantiated, the claim
is not deceptive.
Example 3: An ad claims that the advertiser's packaging creates "less waste than the
leading national brand." The advertiser's source reduction was implemented sometime ago and
is supported by a calculation comparing the relative solid waste contributions of the two
packages. The advertiser should be able to substantiate that the comparison remains accurate.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING CLAIMS;
K
Guidance about the use of environmental marketing claims,is set forth below. Each guide
is followed by several examples that illustrate, but do not provide an exhaustive list of, claims
that do and do not comport with the guides. In each case, the general principles set forth in Part
F above should also be followed.2
' 1. General Environmental Benefit Claims: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or
by implication, that a product or package offers a general environmental benefit. Unqualified
general claims of environmental benefit are difficult to interpret, and depending on their context,-
may convey a wide range of meanings to consumers. In many cases, such claims may convey
that the product or package has specific and far-reaching environmental benefits. As explained
in the Commission's Ad Substantiation Statement, every express and material, implied claim that
2 These guides do not address claims based on a "lifecycle" theory of environmental benefit. Such analyses are still
in their infancy and thus the Commission lacks sufficient information on which to base guidance at this time.
188
-------
the -eneral assertion conveys to reasonable consumers about an objective quality, feature or
attribute of a product must be substantiated. Unless this substantiation duty can be met, broad
environmental claims should either be. avoided or qualified, as necessary, to prevent deception
about the specific nature of the environmental benefit being asserted.
' "' Example 1 A brand name like "Eco-Safe" would be deceptive if, in the context of
the product so named, it leads consumers to believe that the product has environmental benefits
which' cannot be substantiated by the manufacturer. The claim would not be deceptive if Eco-
' Safe" 'were followed by clear and prominent qualifying language limiting the safety
representation to a particular product attribute for which it could be substantiated, and provided
that no other deceptive implications were created by the context.
Example 2- A product wrapper is printed with the claim "Environmentally Friendly. "
Textual comments on the wrapper explain that the wrapper is "Environmentally Friendly because
it was not chlorine bleached, a process that has been shown to create harmful substances. The
wrapper was in fact,, not bleached with chlorine. However, the production of the wrapper now
creates and releases to the environment significant quantities of other harmful substances. Since
consumers are likely to interpret the "Environmentally Friendly" claim, in combination with the
textual explanation, to mean that no significant harmful substances are currently released to the
environment, the "Environmentally Friendly" claim would be deceptive: '
Example 3" A pump spray product is labeled "environmentally safe." Most of the
product's active ingredients consist of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) thafmay cause smog
by contributing to ground-level ozone formation. The claim is deceptive because, absent further
qualification, it is likely to convey to consumers that use of the product will not result in air
pollution or other harm to the environment. .
2 tegmdabk/BiodegnriabWPhotodegmdabtelti&tec^
or by implication, that a product or package is degradable, biodegradable or photodegradable.
An unqualified claim that a product or package is degradable, biodegradable or photodegradable
should be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence that the entire product or
package will completely break down and return to nature, Le,, decompose into elements found
in nature within a reasonably short period of time after customary -disposal. >
Claims of degradability , biodegradability or photodegradability should be qualified to the
extent necessary to avoid consumer deception about:. (a) the product or package's ability to
degrade in the environment where it is customarily disposed; and (b) the rate and extent of
degradation.
Example 1: A trash bag is marketed as "degradable," with no qualification. or other
disclosure. The marketer relies on soil burial tests to show that the product wdl decompose in
the presence of water and oxygen. The trash bags are customarily disposed ofin incineration
.faciLes or at sanitary landfills that are managed in a way that mnibxts degnubu .ion by
minimizing moisture and oxygen. Degradation will be irrelevant for those trash bags that are
189
-------
incinerated and. for those disposed of in landfills, the marketer does not possess adequate
substantiation that the bags will degrade in a reasonably short period of time in a landfill. The
claim is therefore deceptive. .
Example 2: A commercial agricultural plastic mulch film is advertised as
"Photodegradable" and qualified with the phrase, "Will break down into small pieces if left
uncovered in sunlight." The claim is supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence
that the product will break down in a reasonably short period of time after being exposed to
sunlight and into sufficiently small pieces to become part of the soil. The qualified claim is not
deceptive. Because the claim is qualified to indicate the limited extent of, breakdown, the
advertiser need not meet the elements for an unqualified photodegradable claim, L&,, that the
product will not only break down, -but also will decompose into elements found in nature.
Example 3: A soap or shampoo product is advertised as "biodegradable," with no
qualification or other disclosure. The manufacturer has competent and reliable scientific
evidence demonstrating that the product, which is customarily disposed of in sewage systems,
will break down and decompose into elements found in nature in a short period of time. The
claim is not deceptive- .
3. Compostable: It is deceptive to. misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a
product or package is compostable. An unqualified claim that a product or package is
compostable should be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence that all the
materials in the product or package will break- down into, or otherwise become part of, usable
compost (e.g., soil-conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and timely manner in an appropriate
composting program or facility, or in a home compost pile or device.
Claims of compostability should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid consumer
deception. An unqualified claim may be deceptive: (1) if municipal composting facilities are
not available to a substantial majority of consumers or communities where the package is -sold;
(2) if the claim misleads consumers about the environmental benefit provided when the product
is disposed of in a landfill; or (3) if consumers misunderstand the claim to mean that the package
can be safely composted in their home compost pile or device, when in fact it cannot.
Example 1: A manufacturer indicates that its unbleached coffee filter is compostable.
The unqualified claim is not deceptive provided the manufacturer can substantiate that the filter
can be converted safely to usable compost in a timely manner in a home compost pile or device,
as well as in an appropriate composting program or facility.
Example 2: A lawn and leaf bag is labeled as "Compostable in California Municipal
Yard Waste Composting Facilities." The bag contains toxic ingredients that are released into
the compost material as the bag breaks down. The claim is deceptive if the presence of these
toxic ingredients prevents the compost from being usable.
190
-------
Example 3: A manufacturer indicates that" its-paper plate is suitable for home
composting. If the manufacturer possesses, substantiation for claiming that the paper plate can
be converted safely to usable compost in a home compost pile or device, this claim is not
deceptive even if no municipal composting facilities exist.
' Example 4: A manufacturer makes an unqualified claim that its package is compostable.
Although municipal composting facilities exist where the product is'sold, the package will not
break down into usable compost in a home compost pile or device.' To avoid deception, the
manufacturer should disclose that the package is not suitable for home composting.
- ' Example 5: A nationally marketed lawn and leaf bag is labeled "compostable." Also
printed on the bag is a .disclosure that the bag is not designed for use in home compost pjles.
The bags are in fact composted in municipal yard waste composting programs in many
communities around the country,^but such programs are not.available to a substantial majority
of consumers where the bag is sold. The claim is deceptive since reasonable consumers living
in areas not served by municipal yard waste programs may understand the reference to mean that
composting facilities accepting the bags are available in their area. To avoid deception, the
claim should be qualified to indicate the limited availability of such programs, for example, by
stating, "Appropriate facilities may not exist in your area." Other examples of adequate
qualification of the claim include providing the approximate percentage of communities or the
population for which such programs are available.
Example 6: A manufacturer sells a disposable diaper that bears the legend, "This diaper
can be composted where municipal solid waste composting facilities exist. There are currently
[X number of] municipal solid waste composting facilities across the country." The claim is not
deceptive, assuming that composting facilities are available as claimed and the manufacturer can
substantiate that the diaper can be converted safely to usable compost in municipal solid waste
composting facilities. .
Example 7: A manufacturer markets yard waste'bags only to consumers residing in
particular geographic areas served by county yard waste composting programs. The bags meet
. specifications for these programs and are labeled,"Compostable Yard Waste Bag for County
Composting Programs." The claim is not deceptive. Because the bags are compostable where
they are -.sold, no qualification is required to indicate the limited availability of composting
facilities.
4. Recyclable: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product
. or package is recyclable. A product or package should not be marketed as recyclable unless it
can be collected, separated or otherwise recovered from the solid waste stream for use in the
form of raw materials in the manufacture or assembly of a new package or product. Unqualified
claims of recyclability for a product or package may be made if the entire product or package,
excluding minor incidental components, is recyclable. For products, or packages that are made
of both recyclable and non-recyclable components, the recyclable claim should be adequately
191
-------
qualified to avoid consumer deception about which portions or components of the product or
package are recyclable. .
Claims of recyclability should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid consumer
deception about any limited availability of recycling programs and collection sites. If an
incidental component significantly limits the ability to recycle the product, the claim would be
deceptive. A product or package that is made from recyclable material, but, because of its
shape, size or some other attribute, is not accepted in recycling programs for such material,
should not be marketed as recyclable.
Example 1: A packaged product is labeled with an unqualified claim, "recyclable."
It is unclear from the type of product and other context whether the claim refers to the product
or its package. The unqualified claim is likely to convey to reasonable consumers that all of
both the product and its packaging that remain after normal use of the product, except for minor.
incidental components, can be recycled. Unless each such message can be substantiated, the
claim should be qualified to indicate what portions are recyclable.
Example 2: A plastic package is labeled on the bottom with the Society of the Plastics
Industry (SPI) code, consisting of a design of arrows in a triangular shape containing a number
and abbreviation identifying the cpmponent plastic resin. Without more, the use of the SPI
symbol (or similar industry codes) on the bottom of the package, or in a similarly inconspicuous
location, does not constitute a claim of recyclability.
Example 3: A container can be burned in incinerator facilities to produce heat and
power. It cannot, however, be recycled into new products or packaging. Any claim that the
container is recyclable would be deceptive.
Example 4: A nationally marketed bottle bears the unqualified statement that it is
"recyclable." Collection sites for recycling the material in question are not available to a
substantial majority of consumers or communities, although collection sites are established in
a significant percentage of communities or available to a significant percentage of the population.
The unqualified claim is deceptive since, unless evidence shows otherwise, reasonable consumers
living in communities not served by programs may conclude.that recycling programs for the
material are available in their area. To avoid deception, the claim should be qualified to indicate
the limited availability of programs, for example, by stating, "Check to see if recycling facilities
exist in your area." Other examples of adequate qualifications of the claim include providing
the approximate percentage of communities or the population to whom programs are available.
Example 5: A soda bottle is marketed nationally and labeled, "Recyclable where
facilities exist." Recycling programs for material of this type and size are available in a
significant percentage'of communities or to a significant percentage of the population, but are
not available to a substantial majority of consumers. The claim is deceptive since, unless
evidence shows otherwise, reasonable consumers living in communities not served by programs
may understand this phrase to mean that programs are available in their area. To avoid
192
-------
deception, the claim should be further qualified to-indicate the limited availability of programs,
for example, by using any of the approaches, set forth in Example 4 above.
Example 6- A plastic detergent bottle is-marketed as follows: "Recyclable in the few
communities with facilities for .colored HDPEbottles." Collection sites for recycling the
container have-been established in a half-dozen major metropolitan areas. This disclosure
illustrates one approach to qualifying a claim adequately to prevent deception about the limited
availability of recycling programs where collection facilities are'not established in a significant
percentage of communities or available to a significant percentage of the population. Other '
examples of adequate qualification of the claim include providing the number of communities
with programs, or the percentage of communities or the population to which programs-are
available.
i - .
Example 7: A label claims that the package "includes some recyclable material." The
package is composed of four layers of different materials, bonded together. One of the layers .
is made from the recyclable material, but the others are not. While programs for recycling this
type of material are available to a substantial majority of consumers, only a few of those
programs have the capability to separate out the recyclable layer. Even though it is
technologically possible to separate the layers, the claim is not adequately qualified to avoid
consumer deception. An appropriately qualified claim would be, "includes material recyclable
in the few communities that collect multi-layer products." Other examples of adequate
qualification of the claim include providing the number of communities with programs, or the
percentage of communities or the population to which programs are available.
1 . ' ' .
Example 8: A product is marketed as having a "recyclable" container. The product
is distributed and advertised only in Missouri. Collection sites for recycling the container are
available to a substantial majority of Missouri residents, but are not yet available nationally.
Because programs are generally available where the product is marketed, the unqualified claim,
does' not deceive consumers about the limited availability of recycling programs.
5. Recycled Content'. A recycled content claim may be made only for materials that
have been recovered or otherwise diverted from the. solid waste stream, either during the
manufacturing process (pre-consumer), or after consumer use (post-consumer). To the extent
the source of recycled content includes pre-consumer material, the manufacturer or advertiser
must have substantiation for concluding that the pre-consumer material would otherwise have
entered the solid waste stream. In asserting a recycled content claim, distinctions may be made
between pre-consumer and post-consumer materials. Where such distinctions are asserted, any
express or implied claim about the specific pre-consumer or post-consumer content of a product
or package must be substantiated.
It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is
made of recycled material. Unqualified claims of recycled content may be made only if the
entire product or package, excluding minor, incidental components, is made from recycled
material. For products or packages that are only partially made of recycled material, a recycled
/ 193 .
-------
claim should be adequately qualified to avoid consumer deception about the amount, by weight,
of recycled content in the finished product or package.
Example 1: A manufacturer routinely collects spilled raw material and scraps from
trimming finished products. After a 'minimal amount of reprocessing, the manufacturer
combines the spills and scraps with virgin material for use in further production of the same
product. A claim that the product contains recycled material is deceptive since the spills and
scraps to which the claim refers. are normally reused by industry within'the original
manufacturing process, and would not normally have entered the waste stream.
Example 2:' A manufacturer purchases material from a firm that collects discarded
material from other manufacturers and resells it. All of the material was diverted from the solid
waste stream and is not normally reused by industry within the original manufacturing process.
The manufacturer includes the weight of this material in its calculations of the recycled.content
of its'products. A claim of recycled content based on this calculation is not deceptive because,,
absent the purchase and reuse of this material, it would have entered the waste stream.
Example 3: A greeting card is composed 30% by weight of paper collected from
consumers after use of a paper product, and 20% by weight of paper-that was generated after
completion of the paper-making process, diverted from the solid waste stream, and otherwise
would not normally have been reused in the original manufacturing process. The marketer of
the card may claim either that the product "contains 50% recycled material," or may identify
the specific pre-consumer and/or post-consumer content by stating, for example, that the product
"contains 50% total recycled material, 30% of which is post-consumer material."
Example 4: A package with 20% recycled content by weight is labeled as containing
"20% recycled paper." Some of the recycled content was composed of material collected from
consumers after use of the original product. The rest was composed of overrun newspaper stock
never sold to customers. The claim is not deceptive.
Example 5: A product in a multi-component package, such as a paperboard box in
a shrink-wrapped plastic cover, indicates that it has recycled packaging. The paperboard box
is made entirely of recycled material, but the plastic cover is not. The claim is deceptive since,
without qualification, it suggests that both components are recycled. A claim limited to the
paperboard box would not be deceptive.
Example 6: A package is made from layers of foil, plastic, and paper laminated
together although the layers are indistinguishable to consumers. The label claims that "one of
the three layers of this package is made .of recycled plastic." The plastic, layer is made entirely
of recycled plastic. The claim is .not deceptive provided the recycled plastic layer constitutes
' a significant component of the entire package.
194 .
-------
Example 7: A. paper product is labeled as containing "100% recycled fiber." The
claim is not deceptive if the advertiser can substantiate the conclusion that 100.% by weight of
the fiber in the finished product is recycled. ,
Example 8: A frozen dinner is marketed in a package composed of a cardboard box
over a plastic tray. The package bears the legend, "package made from 30 % .recycled material."
Each packaging component amounts to one-half the weight of the total package; The box is 20%
recycled content by weight, while the plastic tray is 40% recycled content by weight. The-claim
is not deceptive, since the average amount of recycled material is 30%.
Example 9: A paper greeting card is labeled as containing 50% by weight recycled-
content. The seller purchases paper stock from several sources and the amount of recycled
material in the stock provided by each source varies. Because the 50% figure is based on the
annual'weighted average of recycled material purchased from the sources after accounting'for
fiber loss during the production process, the claim is permissible. .
- ' '. ' _ : ' ' . *
6. Source Reduction: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that
a product or package has been reduced or is lower in weight, volume or toxicity. Source
reduction claims should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid consumer deception about
the amount of the source reduction and about the basis for any comparison, asserted.
Example 1: An ad claims that solid waste created by disposal of the advertiser's
packaging is "now -10% less than our'previous package." The claim is riot deceptive if the
advertiser has substantiation that shows that disposal of the current package contributes 10% less
waste by weight or volume_tb the solid waste stream .when compared with the immediately
preceding version of the package.
Example 2: An advertiser notes that disposal of its product generates "10% less
waste." The claim is ambiguous. Depending on contextual factors, it could be a comparison
either to the immediately preceding product or to a competitor's product. The "10% less waste"
reference is deceptive unless the seller clarifies which comparison is intended and substantiates
that comparison, or substantiates both possible interpretations of the claim.
7. Refillable: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a package
is refillable. An unqualified refillable claim should not be asserted unless .a system is provided
for:. (1) the collection and return of the package for refill; or (2) the later refill of the package
by consumers with product subsequently sold in another package. A package should not be
marketed with an unqualified refillable claim, if it is up to the consumer to find new ways to
refill the package. , .
Example 1: A container is labeled "refillable x times." The manufacturer has the
capability to refill returned containers and can show that the container will withstand being
'refilled at least x times. The manufacturer, however, has established no collection program.
195
-------
The unqualified claim is deceptive because there is no means for collection and return of the
container to the manufacturer for refill.
Example 2: A bottle of fabric softener states that it is .in a "handy refillable
container." The manufacturer also sells a large-sized container that indicates that the consumer
is expected to use it to refill the smaller container. The manufacturer sells the large-sized
container in the same market areas where it sells the small container. The claim is not deceptive
because there is a means for consumers to refill the smaller container from larger containers of
the same product.
8. Ozone Safe and Ozone Friendly: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by
implication, that a product is safe for or "friendly" to the ozone layer. A claim that a product
does not harm the ozone layer is deceptive if the product contains an ozone-depleting substance.
Example 1: A product is labeled "ozone friendly." The.claim is deceptive if the
product contains any ozone-depleting .substance, including those substances listed as Class I or
Class n chemicals in Title VI of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-549,
or others subsequently designated by EPA as ozone-depleting substances. ' Class I chemicals
currently listed in Title VI are chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride and
1,1,1-trichloroethane, Class H chemicals currently listed in Title VI are
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).
Example 2: The seller of an aerosol product makes an unqualified claim that its
product "Contains no CFCs." Although the product does not contain CFCs, it does contain
HCFC-22, another ozone depleting ingredient. Because the claim "Contains no CFCs" may
imply to reasonable consumers that the product does not harm the ozone layer, the claim is
deceptive.
Example 3: A product is labeled "This product is 95% less damaging to the ozone
layer than past formulations that contained CFCs." The manufacturer has substituted HCFCs
for CFC-12, and can substantiate that this substitution will result in 95% less ozone depletion.
The qualified comparative claim is -not likely to be deceptive.
196
-------
-------
------- |