GUIDES FOR THE USE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING CLIAMS
The Application of Section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission Act
to Environmental Advertising and Marketing Practices
Federal Trade Commission
July 1992
Table of Contents
A. Statement of Purpose
B. Scope of Guides
C. Structure of the Guides
D. Review Procedure
E. Interpretation and Substantiation of
Environmental Marketing Claims
F. General Principles
- Qualifications and Disclosures
- Distinction Between Benefits of
Product and Package
- Overstatement of Environmental
Attribute
- Comparative Claims
G. Environmental Marketing Claims
- General Environmental Benefit
Claims
- Degradable/Biodegradable/Photodegradable
- Compostable
- Recyclable
- Recycled Content
- Source Reduction
- Refillable
- Ozone Safe and Ozone Friendly
These guides 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.
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 law enforcement action
under Section 5.
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.
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.
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
policy in a relatively new context -- that of
environmental claims.
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 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 materials, 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, the claim 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 if 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 to 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 can be
brought back to the store and reused for
carrying groceries but will fall apart
after two or three reuses, 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 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.
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 the
general 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) that
may 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. Degradable/Biodegradable/Photodegradable:
It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly 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, i.e., 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 will decompose in
the presence of water and oxygen. The
trash bags are customarily disposed of in
incineration facilities or at sanitary
landfills that are managed in a way that
inhibits degradation by minimizing
moisture and oxygen. Degradation will be
irrelevant for those trash bags that are
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, i.e., 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.
- 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 piles. 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 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
component 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 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
HDPE bottles." 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.
- 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.
- 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 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.
- 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 not deceptive
if the advertiser has substantiation that
shows that disposal of the current
package contributes 10% less waste by
weight or volume to 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. 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 II 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 II 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.
Endnotes:
1. Cliffdale Associates, Inc., 103 F.T.C.
110, at 176, 176 n.7, n.8, Appendix, reprinting letter
dated Oct. 14, 1983, from the Commission to The Honorable
John D. Dingell, Chairman, Committee on Energy and
Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives (1984)
("Deception Statement").
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.
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090118235217im_/http://www.ftc.gov/pics/esearch.gif)
HOME SEARCH
Questions
or Comments...
Rev. Monday, November 08, 1999 16:27 -0500
geh
|