Part 260 -- GUIDES FOR THE USE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING CLAIMS
- sec.
- 260.1 Statement of Purpose.
- 260.2 Scope of guides.
- 260.3 Structure of the guides.
- 260.4 Review procedure.
- 260.5 Interpretation and substantiation of environmental marketing
claims.
- 260.6 General principles.
- 260.7 Environmental marketing claims.
- 260.8 Environmental assessment.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58
§ 260.1 Statement of purpose
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.
§ 260.2 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, including marketing through digital or electronic means, such as
the Internet or electronic mail. The guides apply to any claim about the environmental
attributes of a product, package or service in connection with the
sale, offering for sale, or marketing of such product, package or service 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.
§ 260.3 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.
§ 260.4 Review procedure
The Commission will review the guides as part of its general program of reviewing all
industry guides on an ongoing basis. 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.
§ 260.5 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, package or service 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, defined as
tests, analyses, research, studies or other evidence based on the expertise of
professionals in the relevant area, 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. 30999 (1984); appended to Thompson Medical Co., 104 F.T.C.
648 (1984). The Commission has also taken action in a number of cases involving alleged
deceptive or unsubstantiated environmental advertising claims. A current list of
environmental marketing cases and/or copies of individual cases can be obtained by calling
the FTC Consumer Response Center at (202) 326-2222.
§ 260.6 General principles
The following general principles apply to all environmental marketing claims,
including, but not limited to, those described in § 260.7. In
addition, § 260.7 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.
(a) 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, prominent and
understandable 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.
(b) Distinction between benefits of product, package and service: 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, a
service or to a portion or component of the product,
package or service. 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.
(c) 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.
- Example 4:
- A package of paper coffee filters is labeled "These filters were made with a
chlorine-free bleaching process." The filters are bleached with a process that
releases into the environment a reduced, but still significant, amount of the same harmful
byproducts associated with chlorine bleaching. The claim is likely to overstate the
product's benefits because it is likely to be interpreted by consumers to mean that the
product's manufacture does not cause any of the environmental risks posed by chlorine
bleaching. A claim, however, that the filters were "bleached with a process that
substantially reduces, but does not eliminate, harmful substances associated with chlorine
bleaching" would not, if substantiated, overstate the product's benefits and is
unlikely to be deceptive.
(d) 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.
§ 260.7 Environmental marketing claims
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 § 260.6 should also be followed.(2)
(a) General environmental benefit
claims: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a
product, package or service 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, package or
service has specific and far-reaching environmental benefits. As explained in the
Commission's Advertising 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 or service 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.
- Example 4:
- A lawn care pesticide is advertised as "essentially non-toxic" and
"practically non-toxic." Consumers would likely interpret these claims in the
context of such a product as applying not only to human health effects but also to the
product's environmental effects. Since the claims would likely convey to consumers that
the product does not pose any risk to humans or the environment, if the pesticide in fact
poses a significant risk to humans or environment, the claims would be deceptive.
- Example 5:
- A product label contains an environmental seal, either in the form of a globe
icon, or a globe icon with only the text "Earth Smart" around it. Either label
is likely to convey to consumers that the product is environmentally superior to other
products. If the manufacturer cannot substantiate this broad claim, the claim would be
deceptive. The claims would not be deceptive if they were accompanied by clear and
prominent qualifying language limiting the environmental superiority representation to the
particular product attribute or attributes for which they could be substantiated, provided
that no other deceptive implications were created by the context.
- Example 6:
- A product is advertised as "environmentally preferable." This claim is
likely to convey to consumers that this product is environmentally superior to other
products. If the manufacturer cannot substantiate this broad claim, the claim would be
deceptive. The claim would not be deceptive if it were accompanied by clear and prominent
qualifying language limiting the environmental superiority representation to the
particular product attribute or attributes for which it could be substantiated, provided
that no other deceptive implications were created by the context.
(b) 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: (1) the product or package's
ability to degrade in the environment where it is customarily disposed; and (2) 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.
- Example 4:
- A plastic six-pack ring carrier is marked with a small diamond. Many state laws
require that plastic six-pack ring carriers degrade if littered, and several state laws
also require that the carriers be marked with a small diamond symbol to indicate that they
meet performance standards for degradability. The use of the diamond, by itself, does not
constitute a claim of degradability.(3)
(c) Compostable: It is deceptive to
misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is compostable. A
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 if: (1) the
package cannot be safely composted in a home compost pile or device; or (2) the claim
misleads consumers about the environmental benefit provided when the product is disposed
of in a landfill. A claim that a product is compostable in a municipal or institutional
composting facility may need to be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid deception
about the limited availability of such composting facilities.
- 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. If this is the case, it is not relevant that no local municipal or
institutional composting facilities exist.
-
- Example 2:
- A lawn and leaf bag is labeled as "Compostable in California Municipal Yard
Trimmings 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 makes an unqualified claim that its package is compostable.
Although municipal or institutional 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 4:
- 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 yard trimmings composting programs in many
communities around the country, but such programs are not available to a substantial
majority of consumers or communities where the bag is sold. The claim is deceptive because
reasonable consumers living in areas not served by yard trimmings 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 5:
- A manufacturer sells a disposable diaper that bears the legend, "This diaper
can be composted where solid waste composting facilities exist. There are currently [X
number of] 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
solid waste composting facilities.
-
- Example 6:
- A manufacturer markets yard trimmings bags only to consumers residing in
particular geographic areas served by county yard trimmings composting programs. The bags
meet specifications for these programs and are labeled, "Compostable Yard Trimmings
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.
(d) 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 reuse, or in
the manufacture or assembly of another package or product, through an established recycling program. 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 a product or package, a claim of recyclability 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.(4)
- 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 nationally marketed 8 oz. plastic cottage-cheese container displays the Society
of the Plastics Industry (SPI) code (which consists of a design of arrows in a triangular
shape containing a number and abbreviation identifying the component plastic resin) on the
front label of the container, in close proximity to the product name and logo. The
manufacturer's conspicuous use of the SPI code in this manner constitutes a recyclability
claim. Unless recycling facilities for this container are available to a substantial
majority of consumers or communities, the claim should be qualified to disclose the
limited availability of recycling programs for the container. If the SPI code, without
more, had been placed in an inconspicuous location on the container (e.g., embedded in the
bottom of the container) it would 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 another product or package. 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 because, 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 "This bottle may not be recyclable in your area,'' or
"Recycling programs for this bottle may not 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 paperboard package is marketed nationally and labeled, "Recyclable where
facilities exist.'' Recycling programs for this package 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 because, unless
evidence shows otherwise, reasonable consumers living in communities not served by
programs that recycle paperboard packaging may understand this phrase to mean that such
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 foam polystyrene cup is marketed as follows: "Recyclable in the few
communities with facilities for foam polystyrene cups.'' Collection sites for recycling
the cup 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 the recyclable layer from the
non-recyclable layers. 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.
-
- Example 9:
- A manufacturer of one-time use photographic cameras, with dealers in a
substantial majority of communities, collects those cameras through all of its dealers.
After the exposed film is removed for processing, the manufacturer reconditions the
cameras for resale and labels them as follows: "Recyclable through our dealership
network." This claim is not deceptive, even though the cameras are not recyclable
through conventional curbside or drop off recycling programs.
-
- Example 10:
- A manufacturer of toner cartridges for laser printers has established a recycling
program to recover its cartridges exclusively through its nationwide dealership network.
The company advertises its cartridges nationally as "Recyclable. Contact your local
dealer for details." The company's dealers participating in the recovery program are
located in a significant number -- but not a substantial majority -- of communities. The
"recyclable" claim is deceptive unless it contains one of the qualifiers set
forth in Example 4. If participating dealers are located in only a few communities, the
claim should be qualified as indicated in Example 6.
-
- Example 11:
- An aluminum beverage can bears the statement "Please Recycle." This
statement is likely to convey to consumers that the package is recyclable. Because
collection sites for recycling aluminum beverage cans are available to a substantial
majority of consumers or communities, the claim does not need to be qualified to indicate
the limited availability of recycling programs.
(e) 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, which includes recycled raw material, as well as used,(5) reconditioned and remanufactured components. Unqualified
claims of recycled content may be made 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. Additionally, for products that contain used, reconditioned
or remanufactured components, a recycled claim should be adequately qualified to avoid
consumer deception about the nature of such components. No such qualification would be
necessary in cases where it would be clear to consumers from the context that a product's
recycled content consists of used, reconditioned or remanufactured components.
- Example 1:
- A manufacturer routinely collects spilled raw material and scraps left over from
the original manufacturing process. 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 fiber weight of paper collected from consumers
after use of a paper product, and 20% by fiber 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
fiber," or may identify the specific pre-consumer and/or post-consumer content by
stating, for example, that the product "contains 50% total recycled fiber, including
30% post-consumer."
- Example 4:
- A paperboard package with 20% recycled fiber by weight is labeled as containing
"20% recycled fiber." 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% recycled fiber. The seller
purchases paper stock from several sources and the amount of recycled fiber 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.
- Example 10:
- A packaged food product is labeled with a three-chasing-arrows symbol without any
further explanatory text as to its meaning. By itself, the symbol is likely to convey that
the packaging is both "recyclable" and is made entirely from recycled material.
Unless both messages can be substantiated, the claim should be qualified as to whether it
refers to the package's recyclability and/or its recycled content. If a "recyclable
claim" is being made, the label may need to disclose the limited availability of
recycling programs for the package. If a recycled content claim is being made and the
packaging is not made entirely from recycled material, the label should disclose the
percentage of recycled content.
-
- Example 11:
- A laser printer toner cartridge containing 25% recycled raw materials and 40%
reconditioned parts is labeled "65% recycled content; 40% from reconditioned
parts." This claim is not deceptive.
-
- Example 12:
- A store sells both new and used sporting goods. One of the items for sale in the
store is a baseball helmet that, although used, is no different in appearance than a brand
new item. The helmet bears an unqualified "Recycled" label. This claim is
deceptive because, unless evidence shows otherwise, consumers could reasonably believe
that the helmet is made of recycled raw materials, when it is in fact a used item. An
acceptable claim would bear a disclosure clearly stating that the helmet is used.
-
- Example 13:
- A manufacturer of home electronics labels its video cassette recorders
("VCRs") as "40% recycled." In fact, each VCR contains 40%
reconditioned parts. This claim is deceptive because consumers are unlikely to know that
the VCR's recycled content consists of reconditioned parts.
-
- Example 14:
- A dealer of used automotive parts recovers a serviceable engine from a vehicle
that has been totaled. Without repairing, rebuilding, remanufacturing, or in any way
altering the engine or its components, the dealer attaches a "Recycled" label to
the engine, and offers it for resale in its used auto parts store. In this situation, an
unqualified recycled content claim is not likely to be deceptive because consumers are
likely to understand that the engine is used and has not undergone any rebuilding.
-
- Example 15:
- An automobile parts dealer purchases a transmission that has been recovered from
a junked vehicle. Eighty-five percent by weight of the transmission was rebuilt and 15%
constitutes new materials. After rebuilding(6) the
transmission in accordance with industry practices, the dealer packages it for resale in a
box labeled "Rebuilt Transmission," or "Rebuilt Transmission (85% recycled
content from rebuilt parts)," or "Recycled Transmission (85% recycled content
from rebuilt parts)." These claims are not likely to be deceptive.
(f) 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.
(g) 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.
(h) 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 or the atmosphere.
For example, 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, and others subsequently designated by EPA as ozone-depleting substances.
Chemicals that have been listed or designated as Class I are chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),
halons, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, methyl bromide and
hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs). Chemicals that have been listed as Class II are
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).
- Example 2:
- An aerosol air freshener is labeled "ozone friendly." Some of the
product's ingredients are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that may cause smog by
contributing to ground-level ozone formation. The claim is likely to convey to consumers
that the product is safe for the atmosphere as a whole, and is therefore, deceptive.
- Example 3:
- 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 4:
- 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.
§ 260.8 Environmental assessment
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT: In accordance with section 1.83 of the FTC's
Procedures and Rules of Practice(7) and section 1501.3 of
the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the procedural
provisions of National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. (1969),(8) the Commission prepared an environmental assessment when
the guides were issued in July 1992 for purposes of providing sufficient evidence and
analysis to determine whether issuing the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing
Claims required preparation of an environmental impact statement or a finding of no
significant impact. After careful study, the Commission concluded that issuance of the
Guides would not have a significant impact on the environment and that any such impact
"would be so uncertain that environmental analysis would be based on
speculation."(9) The Commission concluded that an
environmental impact statement was therefore not required. The Commission based its
conclusions on the findings in the environmental assessment that issuance of the guides
would have no quantifiable environmental impact because the guides are voluntary in
nature, do not preempt inconsistent state laws, are based on the FTC's deception policy,
and, when used in conjunction with the Commission's policy of case-by-case enforcement,
are intended to aid compliance with section 5(a) of the FTC Act as that Act applies to
environmental marketing claims.
The Commission has concluded that the modifications to the guides in this Notice will
not have a significant effect on the environment, for the same reasons that the issuance
of the original guides in 1992 and the modifications to the guides in 1996 were deemed not
to have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the Commission concludes that
an environmental impact statement is not required in conjunction with the issuance of the
1998 modifications to the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark
Secretary
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 currently address claims based on a
"lifecycle" theory of environmental benefit. The Commission lacks sufficient
information on which to base guidance on such claims.
3. The guides' treatment of unqualified degradable claims is
intended to help prevent consumer deception and is not intended to establish performance
standards for laws intended to ensure the degradability of products when littered.
4. The Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management
Act establishes uniform national labeling requirements regarding certain types of
nickel-cadmium rechargeable and small lead-acid rechargeable batteries to aid in battery
collection and recycling. The Battery Act requires, in general, that the batteries must be
labeled with the three-chasing-arrows symbol or a comparable recycling symbol, and the
statement "Battery Must Be Recycled Or Disposed Of Properly." 42 U.S.C. §
14322(b). Batteries labeled in accordance with this federal statute are deemed to be in
compliance with these guides.
5. The term "used" refers to parts that are not new
and that have not undergone any type of remanufacturing and/or reconditioning.
6. The term "rebuilding" means that the dealer
dismantled and reconstructed the transmission as necessary, cleaned all of its internal
and external parts and eliminated rust and corrosion, restored all impaired, defective or
substantially worn parts to a sound condition (or replaced them if necessary), and
performed any operations required to put the transmission in sound working condition.
7. 16 CFR 1.83 (revised as of Jan. 1, 1991).
8. 40 CFR 1501.3 (1991).
9. 16 CFR 1.83(a). |