Original PDF Flash format complying-with-the-environmental-marketing-guides  


Complying With The Environmental Marketing Guides

COMPLYING WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING
GUIDES
Federal Trade Commission Toll-free 1-877-FTC-HELP
www.ftc.gov
For the Consumer
This booklet provides the FTC staff’s view of the law’s requirements.
It is not binding on the Commission.
INTRODUCTION
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) seeks to prevent deception and unfairness in
the marketplace. The FTC Act gives the Commission the power to bring law en-
forcement actions against false or misleading marketing claims, including environmen-
tal or “green” marketing claims. The FTC issued its Environmental Guides, often
referred to as the “Green Guides,” in 1992, and revised them most recently in 1998.
The Guides indicate how the Commission will apply Section 5 of the FTC Act, which
prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, to environmental marketing claims.
Like other industry guides issued by the FTC, the Environmental Guides “are adminis-
trative interpretations of laws administered by the Commission for the guidance of the
public in conducting its affairs in conformity with legal requirements.” Conduct that is
inconsistent with the positions in the Environmental Guides may result in corrective
action by the Commission, if after investigation, the Commission has reason to believe
that the conduct violates prohibitions against unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
The Environmental Guides apply to all forms of marketing for products and services:
advertisements, labels, package inserts, promotional materials, words, symbols, logos,
product brand names, and marketing through digital or electronic media, such as the
Internet or email. They apply to any claim, express or implied, about the environmen-
tal attributes of a product, package or service in connection with the sale, offering for
sale or marketing of the product, package or service for personal, family or household
use, or for commercial, institutional or industrial use. The complete text of the Envi-
ronmental Guides begins on page 17.
1
ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING CLAIMS
The FTC looks at all advertising from the consumer’s perspective: what message
does the advertising actually convey to consumers? The Environmental Guides
explain how consumers are likely to interpret environmental marketing claims so that
marketers can avoid making false or misleading claims. The Guides give environmental
claims the meaning that consumers give them, not necessarily the technical or scientific
definition of terms. Also, they do not establish standards for environmental perfor-
mance or prescribe testing protocols.
For environmental claims that the Guides do not address specifically, FTC law requires
substantiation for all reasonable interpretations of an ad. Sometimes, it may be neces-
sary to do research to determine how consumers interpret an ad.
Substantiation
All marketers making express or implied claims about the attributes of their product,
package or service must have substantiation, that is, a reasonable basis for their claims.
When it comes to environmental claims, a reasonable basis often may require compe-
tent and reliable scientific evidence, which is 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 way by qualified people using procedures
generally accepted in the profession to yield accurate and reliable results.
Specificity
An environmental marketing claim should specify whether it refers to the product, the
packaging or both, or just to a component of the product or its packaging.
A box of cereal is labeled “recycled package.” The package
consists of a paperboard box with a wax paper bag inside
holding the cereal. By itself, the claim “recycled package”
l
could apply to both the box and the bag. If only the box is
recycled, the claim is deceptive. It should be qualified to
Cerea
say, for example, “recycled box.”
A steel can that contains vegetables is labeled “recycled.” No qualification is
necessary for this claim because it is obvious to consumers that the can is re-
cycled—not the vegetables.
Qualifications (that is, disclosures or explanations) pertaining to an environmental
claim should be clear, prominent and understandable. Clarity can be achieved through
the size of the type face, proximity of the qualification to the claim being qualified, and
absence of contrary language that could undercut effectiveness.
3
A paperboard box of plastic cups says “Recycled” prominently on the front
panel. Language that explains the recycled claim appears in small type on the
back of the box: “This carton contains 100% recycled fiber.” Although the
language qualifies the recycled claim, the explanatory language is too small and
too far away from the claim for consumers to notice it. Therefore, the claim
would be deceptive because consumers would interpret it to mean that the cups
(not just the carton) were made from recycled content.
Environmental claims should not exaggerate or overstate attributes or benefits.
A greeting card seller declares on its website that its greeting cards now contain
“50% more recycled content than before.” The manufacturer increased the
recycled content of its cards from 2 percent recycled material to 3 percent
recycled material. Even though the claim is technically correct, it is likely to
convey the false impression that the use of recycled material was increased
significantly.
Comparative environmental claims should be clear to avoid consumer confusion about
what is being compared.
A detergent bottle is labeled “50% more recycled content.”
This claim is ambiguous because it could be a comparison to
the marketer’s immediately preceding detergent bottle or to a
competitor’s detergent bottle. The marketer should make the
basis for the comparison clear, saying, for example, “50%
more recycled content than our previous package.”
General Claims
Specific environmental claims are easier to substantiate than general claims and less
likely to be deceptive. An unqualified general claim of environmental benefit may
convey that the product has far-reaching environmental benefits, when it doesn’t.
A cloth shopping bag is labeled “eco-friendly.” This claim would be deceptive
if it leads consumers to believe that the bag has environmental benefits that the
manufacturer can’t substantiate. It would not be deceptive if “eco-friendly”
were followed by clear and prominent language limiting the “friendly” repre-
sentation to the product attribute for which it could be substantiated, and if the
context didn’t create any other deceptive implications. A qualification for the
“eco-friendly” claim (assuming substantiation) would be: “This cloth bag is
reusable and is made from 100% recycled fibers.”
The packaging on a pad of writing paper claims that the writing paper is “envi-
ronmentally safe” with this explanation: the paper is “environmentally safe
because it was not chlorine bleached, a process that has been shown to create
harmful substances.” Although the paper was not bleached with chlorine, the
production process created and released significant quantities of other harmful
substances into the environment. Because consumers are likely to interpret the
4
“environmentally safe” claim and the explanation to mean that the paper causes
no significant harmful substances to be released to the environment, the “envi-
ronmentally safe” claim would be deceptive.
Products advertised as “environmentally preferable” are likely to convey to consumers
an environmental superiority to other products. A broad claim like that would be
deceptive if the manufacturer cannot substantiate it. The claim would not be deceptive
if it is accompanied by clear and prominent qualifying language that limits the environ-
mental superiority representation to the particular product attribute that can be substan-
tiated, provided that the context doesn’t create any other deceptive implications.
A degreasing product is labeled “environmentally preferable.” The label states
that the product is ideal for cleaning equipment, garage floors and
driveways. But it doesn’t state how the product is “environmentally
preferable.” Using the phrase without specific qualifying language is
deceptive if it leads consumers to believe that the product has supe-
rior environmental features that cannot be substantiated. To avoid
deception, the claim “environmentally preferable” should be quali-
fied with clear and prominent language that states (if substantiated)
environmental y
preferable
how the product is “environmentally preferable,” for example: “This
product has no air polluting potential and is 100% biodegradable.”
The President of the United States issued an Executive Order encouraging
federal procurement officers to purchase environmentally preferable products.
The Executive Order defines “environmentally preferable products” as products
and services that have a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the envi-
ronment when compared to other products and services that serve the same
purpose. In response to that Executive Order, Clean and Green Company, Inc.,
advertises its cleaning products in a government catalog. The cleaning products
are advertised as “environmentally preferable,” but there’s no explanation about
the attributes of the products that make them “environmentally preferable.”
Even though Clean and Green Company, Inc., is selling its cleaning products in
a government catalog, it is responsible for having substantiation for its environ-
mental claims. If the vendor cannot substantiate broad environmental claims, the
claims should be qualified to indicate what aspects of the products are “environ-
mentally preferable.”
Environmental symbols or pictures also can convey to consumers that the product is
environmentally superior to other products. If you use an environmental symbol or
picture, make sure that you can substantiate the broad environmental claim. Otherwise,
use clear and prominent qualifying language to limit the environmental superiority
claim to the particular attribute(s) for which you have substantiation.
Consumers understand claims that a product is “non-toxic,” “essentially non-toxic,” or
“practically non-toxic” to mean that the toxicity claims apply not only to human health
effects, but also to environmental effects. If a product poses a significant risk to
humans or to the environment, a non-toxic type of claim would be deceptive.
5
ECO-SEALS, SEALS-OF-APPROVAL AND CERTIFICATIONS
Environmental seals-of-approval, eco-seals and certifications from third-party
organizations imply that a product is environmentally superior to other
products. Because such broad claims are difficult to substantiate,
seals-of-approval should be accompanied by information that
explains the basis for the award. If the seal-of-approval implies
that a third party has certified the product, the certifying
party must be truly independent from the advertiser and
must have professional expertise in the area that is being
certified.
The FTC analyzes third-party certification claims to ensure that they are substantiated
and not deceptive. Third-party certification does not insulate an advertiser from Com-
mission scrutiny or eliminate an advertiser’s obligation to ensure for itself that the
claims communicated by the certification are substantiated.
Great Paper Company sells photocopy paper whose packaging has a seal-of-
approval from the No Chlorine Products Association that states “totally chlo-
rine-free paper.” An explanation under the seal-of-approval says the paper
production process did not use pulp produced with chlorine or compounds
containing chlorine as bleaching agents. Using the highest industry standards,
the No Chlorine Products Association certifies that products are chlorine-free
only after industry experts have conducted comprehensive mill audits. The
claim is unlikely to be deceptive.
“DEGRADABLE,” “BIODEGRADABLE” OR
“PHOTODEGRADABLE” CLAIMS
Claims that a product is “degradable,” “biodegradable” or “photodegradable”
mean that the materials will break down and return to nature within a reasonably
short time after customary disposal. What a “reasonably short time” is depends on
where the product is disposed.
For example, in landfills, where most garbage is taken, materials degrade very slowly,
if at all. This is because modern landfills are designed, according to law, to keep out
sunlight, air and moisture. This helps prevent pollutants from the garbage from getting
into the air and drinking water, and slows the decomposition of the trash. With materi-
als like paper and food taking decades to decompose in a landfill, it is difficult to
substantiate a claim that a product normally disposed of in a landfill is “biodegrad-
able,” “degradable” or “photodegradable.”
Biodegradable claims for products that go down the drain, like detergents and sham-
poos, may be substantiated if the product will degrade in wastewater treatment systems.
6
A “reasonably short period of time” for biodegradability of products like detergents
and shampoos that go into the wastewater treatment systems would be about the same
time that it takes for sewage to be processed in the wastewater treatment systems.
Unqualified claims of biodegradability may only be made for products that are disposed
of in such a way that they completely break down and return to nature within a reason-
ably short period of time after disposal or use.
A pressed pulp planter that contains a dogwood tree is labeled “biodegradable.”
Once the planter and tree are planted in the ground, the planter quickly disinte-
grates and biodegrades, allowing the roots of the dogwood tree to reach out to
the surrounding earth. This unqualified claim is not deceptive.
Claims of photogradability of a product may be qualified to indicate a limited break-
down of the product. For instance, if a plastic mulch film labeled “photodegradable”
does not decompose into elements found in nature, but only breaks down into small
pieces if left uncovered in the sunlight, the photogradability claim should be qualified,
for example: “Will break down into small pieces if left uncovered in sunlight.”
“COMPOSTABLE” CLAIMS
Composting turns degradable materials into useable compost—humus-like material
that enriches the soil and returns nutrients to the earth. “Compostable” claims
would be appropriate on products or packages that will break down, or become part of
usable compost (for example, soil-conditioning material or mulch), in a safe and timely
manner in home compost piles. For composting, a “timely manner” is approximately
the same time that it takes organic compounds, like leaves, grass, and food stuff, to
compost.
Claims for a product that is “compostable” in a municipal or institutional composting
facility—but that won’t break down quickly enough to be compostable in home compost
piles—may need to be qualified to avoid deception about the limited availability of
municipal or institutional composting facilities. Consumers are likely to understand
“compostable” claims to mean that the product can be composted at home or in their
community. If it isn’t, the “compostable” claim should be accompanied by an explana-
tion. For example, a lawn and leaf bag might say, “Appropriate composting facilities
may not be available in your area.”
“RECYCLABLE” CLAIMS
“Recyclable” claims on labels and advertisements mean that the products can be col-
lected, separated or recovered from the solid waste stream and used again, or reused in
the manufacture or assembly of another package or product through an established
recycling program. A claim of recyclability should make clear to consumers whether it
refers to the product, the package, or both.
7
Unless the entire product or package is recyclable, the claim should specifically indi-
cate which parts of the product or package are recyclable. If only minor or incidental
components are not recyclable, the claim does not need to be qualified.
“Recyclable” claims should not be made for a product or package that is made from
recyclable material but is not accepted in recycling programs because of its shape, size
or some other attribute. For example, many recycling programs accept #1 PETE (poly-
ethylene terephthalete) and #2 HDPE (high density polyethylene) plastics as long as
they are bottles or jugs with a “neck.” A manufacturer of a margarine tub made of
PETE could not rely on the availability of PETE bottle collection programs to substan-
tiate a claim that the tub is recyclable.
To help in battery collection and recycling, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable
Battery Management Act establishes uniform national labeling requirements for certain
types of nickel-cadmium rechargeable and small lead-acid rechargeable batteries. The
Battery Act requires that the batteries must be labeled with the three-chasing-arrows
symbol or a comparable recycling symbol, and the statement, “Battery Must Be Re-
cycled Or Disposed Of Properly.” Batteries labeled in accordance with this federal
statute are in compliance with the FTC’s Environmental Guides.
Many consumers mistakenly assume that if a product is labeled “recyclable,” it can be
dropped in their recycling bin or taken to a local drop-off facility. But for a product to
be labeled “recyclable” without qualification, it must be collected for recycling in a
substantial majority of communities or by a substantial majority of consumers where
the product is sold. If the particular material is not collected for recycling in a substan-
tial majority of communities where it is sold, the recyclable claim should be qualified
to indicate the limited availability of recycling programs to avoid deception.
For example, if collection sites for products are established in a significant percentage
of communities or available to a significant percentage of the population, but yet not a
substantial majority, suggested language would be: “This bottle [product] may not be
recyclable in your area,” or “Recycling programs for this bottle [product] may not exist
in your area.” Other adequate qualifications of the claim would include the approxi-
mate percentage of communities or the population for whom programs are available.
Phrases like “Recyclable where facilities exist” or “Check to see if recycling facilities
exist in your area” are not adequate qualifiers. They are too general to alert consumers
to inquire about recycling facilities for the particular item they want to recycle.
A paperboard cereal box is marketed nationally and labeled “Recyclable where
facilities exist.” Although recycling programs for this cereal box
are available in a significant percentage of communities or to
a significant percentage of the population where the product
is sold, they are not available to a substantial majority of
l
consumers. The claim is deceptive because reasonable
consumers living in communities not served by programs
Cerea
that recycle paperboard may understand the phrase to mean
that paperboard recycling programs are available in their
8
area. To avoid deception, the claim should be qualified to indicate the limited
availability of paperboard recycling programs, for example: “Recyclable in the
few communities that recycle paperboard.”
“PLEASE RECYCLE” CLAIMS
Consumers interpret the phrase “Please Recycle” on products or packages to mean
that the product or package is “recyclable.” That’s why the same guidelines for
making “recyclable” claims apply to “Please Recycle” claims. Unless recycling collec-
tion sites for the product are available to a substantial majority of consumers or com-
munities where the product is sold, the “Please Recycle” phrase should not be used
unless it is qualified.
A paperboard “just add water and eat” soup container is labeled “Please Re-
cycle.” Collection sites for this paperboard soup container are not available to a
substantial majority of consumers or communities where the product is sold,
making the “Please Recycle” claim deceptive. Unless evidence shows other-
wise, reasonable consumers in communities without programs that recycle food-
contaminated paperboard may conclude that recycling programs for these con-
tainers are in their communities.
PRIVATE RECYCLING PROGRAMS
Businesses with established private recycling programs can make “recyclable” claims
for the products they recycle, provided the program is available in a substantial
majority of communities where the products are sold. Otherwise, the “recyclable”
claim must be qualified to indicate the limited availability of the recycling program.
A manufacturer of one-time use cameras, with dealers in a substantial majority
of communities, collects the cameras through its dealers. After the exposed film
is removed for processing, the manufacturer reconditions the cameras for resale
and labels them: “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.
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 dealers participating in the recovery
program are located in a significant number of communities where the car-
tridges are sold—but not a substantial majority. The “recyclable” claim would
be deceptive unless a qualifier indicated the limited availability of recycling
locations, for example: “Dealers in major metropolitan areas accept toner
cartridges for recycling.”
9
“RECYCLED CONTENT” CLAIMS
“Recycled content” claims on labels and in advertising may be made for materials that
have been recovered or diverted from the solid waste stream, either during the manu-
facturing process (pre-consumer) or after consumer use (post-consumer). If the product
or package does not consist of 100 percent recycled content (excluding minor, inciden-
tal components), qualifying words—like the percentage of recycled content in the
product—must be used to limit the claim.
Pre-consumer recycled material is a waste product of a manufacturing process, diverted
from the solid waste stream and not normally reused by industry during the original
manufacturing process. To make an appropriate “pre-consumer” recycled content
claim, you must be able to substantiate that the pre-consumer material would otherwise
have gone into the solid waste stream. In contrast, by-products of a manufacturing
process that normally are reused within the process and usually don’t enter the waste
stream are considered industrial scrap and don’t count toward recycled content. When
you make a “recycled content” claim, you may distinguish between pre-consumer and
post-consumer materials if you have substantiation.
A ream of notebook paper is composed 20 percent by fiber weight of paper
collected from consumers after use of a paper product, and 30 percent by fiber
weight of paper that was generated after completion of the paper-making pro-
cess, diverted from the solid waste stream, and otherwise would not normally
have been reused in the original manufacturing process. The marketer of the
notebook paper may claim that the product “contains 50% recycled fiber,” or
identify the specific pre-consumer and/or post-consumer content by stating that
the product “contains 50% total recycled fiber, including 20% post-consumer
material.”
“Recycled content” includes recycled raw material, as well as used,1 reconditioned,
rebuilt and remanufactured2 components. For products that contain used, recondi-
tioned, rebuilt or remanufactured components, a recycled claim should be qualified
adequately to avoid consumer confusion about the origin of the components.
A manufacturer of photocopier machines labels its machines as “50% re-
cycled.” In fact, each photocopier contains 50 percent reconditioned parts. This
claim is deceptive because consumers are unlikely to realize that the recycled
content of the photocopier machines consists of reconditioned parts.
An automobile parts dealer buys a transmission that has been recovered from a
junked vehicle. A total of 85 percent by weight of the
transmission was rebuilt and 15 percent constitutes
new materials. After rebuilding the transmission
in accordance with industry practices, the
dealer packages it for resale in a box labeled
“Rebuilt Transmission,” “Rebuilt Transmission
10
(85% recycled content from rebuilt parts),” or “Recycled Transmission (85%
recycled content from rebuilt parts).” These claims are not likely to be decep-
tive.
A qualification about a product’s used, reconditioned, rebuilt or remanufactured con-
tent is not needed where consumers would understand from the context that a product’s
recycled content consists of used, rebuilt, remanufactured or reconditioned compo-
nents.
A dealer of used automotive parts recovers a serviceable engine from a vehicle
that has been totaled. Without repairing, rebuilding, remanufacturing or altering
the engine or its components in any way, the dealer attaches a “Recycled” label
to the engine, and offers it for resale in its used auto parts store. Here, the
unqualified recycled content claim is not deceptive because consumers are likely
to understand that the engine is used and has not been rebuilt.
An Internet site called “Double Play Sports” sells what it describes as “previ-
ously owned sports gear.” Although used, many of the items for sale on the site
are no different in appearance from brand new equipment. The sports equipment
bears a “Recycled” claim. This claim is not likely to be deceptive because,
unless evidence shows otherwise, consumers would understand from the context
of the site that the items are used, rather than made of recycled raw materials.
However, if the site sold both used and new items—or did not otherwise de-
scribe the used items as “previously owned”—the recycled claim might be
deceptive.
CALCULATING THE PERCENTAGE OF RECYCLED CONTENT
WHEN IT COMES FROM SEVERAL SOURCES
The percentage of recycled content may be based on the annual weighted average of
the recycled material.
A paper greeting card is labeled as containing 50 percent recycled fiber. The
seller buys paper stock from several sources and the amount of recycled fiber in
the stock varies. The claim is permissible because the 50 percent figure is based
on the annual weighted average of recycled material purchased from the sources
after accounting for fiber loss during the production process.
In claims for a minimum level of recycled content, such as, “contains at least 35%
post-consumer fiber,” averaging may not be used if the claim leads reasonable consum-
ers to believe that each item labeled contains at least the described amount of recycled
content.
11
“Recycled” Claims for Coated Paper
Claims should indicate that the paper fiber is “recycled” unless the coating is, too.
If 50 percent of a glossy magazine’s weight comes from the coating and 50
percent from the paper fiber, and only the fiber is recycled, the claim could
state “recycled fiber” or “50% recycled paper.”
SYMBOLS
Many consumers are confused about what they can recycle in their communities
because so many products display
—the universal recycling symbol. Often
called the “three-chasing-arrows” or “Mobius loop,” this image is likely to convey that
the packaging is both “recyclable” and “recycled.” Unless both messages can be
substantiated, the claim should make clear whether the reference is to the package’s
recyclability or its recycled content. If a “recyclable” claim is intended, the label may
need to disclose the limited availability of recycling programs for the package or prod-
uct. If a “recycled content” claim is intended—and the packaging or the product is not
made entirely from recycled material—the label should disclose the percentage of
recycled content.
The universal recycling symbol may be qualified in a number of ways, for example:
The manufacturer must be able to substantiate that
45 percent of this product is made from materials
that would otherwise have entered the waste
stream, including 10 percent from material that
previously had been used by consumers.
45% recycled content
(10% post-consumer material)
This qualified claim means that the package is not
collected for recycling in a substantial majority of
communities or by a substantial majority of con-
sumers where the product is sold.
RECYCLING PROGRAMS FOR THIS
PACKAGE MAY NOT EXIST IN
YOUR AREA.
12
Consumers may interpret this symbol
to mean that the package it is on is recy-
clable. Developed by the Society of the Plastics Industry, this SPI code is used to
indicate the type of plastic from which the product is made. SPI code numbers range
from 1 to 7.3 The FTC does not consider the SPI code to be a claim of recyclability if
it is placed on the bottom of a package inconspicuously. In contrast, if used conspicu-
ously, it is treated as a “recyclable” claim, and the manufacturer must comply with the
appropriate provisions of the Environmental Guides.
A nationally marketed yogurt container displays the SPI code on the front label
of the container, near the product name and logo. The manufacturer’s conspicu-
ous use of the SPI code constitutes a recyclability claim. Unless recycling
facilities for the yogurt container are available to a substantial majority of
consumers or communities where the yogurt is sold, the claim should be quali-
fied to disclose the limited availability of recycling programs for the container.
Had the SPI code been placed in an inconspicuous location on the container (for
example, on the bottom of the container) it would not be considered a claim of
recyclability.
If other symbols or logos are used, advertisers must be able to substantiate the meaning
reasonable consumers would attach to the symbols. To determine the meaning that
consumers take from symbols or logos, it may be necessary for the advertiser to con-
duct consumer research.
“SOURCE REDUCTION” CLAIMS
“Source reduction” refers to reducing or lowering the weight, volume or toxicity of a
product or package. To avoid being misleading, source reduction claims must qualify
the amount of the source reduction and give the basis for any comparison that is made.
These principles apply regardless of whether a term like “source reduced” is used.
A baby wipe dispenser is labeled “50% less plastic.” The claim is ambiguous
because it could be a comparison to the immediately preceding product of the
advertiser or to a competitor’s product. The “50% less plastic” reference is
deceptive unless the seller clarifies which comparison is intended and substanti-
ates the comparison, or substantiates both possible interpretations of the claim.
A marketer claims on its Internet site that the new packaging for its deodorant
results in 20 percent less waste. The marketer has eliminated the outer cartons
of its deodorant bottles, which constituted 20 percent by weight of the package.
This source reduction claim is unlikely to be deceptive.
13
“REFILLABLE” CLAIMS
“Refillable” claims should be made only if a system is provided for collecting and
returning the package for refill or the later refill of the package by consumers with a
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. For example, a gallon spring water jug should not be labeled “refillable” just
because consumers could refill the jug with tap water.
A manufacturer could label a detergent bottle as “refillable” if the manufacturer
sells a concentrated refill for the detergent bottle.
Baby wipes sold in foil wrap can be labeled as a “refill” if the manufacturer
sells wipes in a lidded, hard plastic container where the wipes “refill” package
can be placed.
The Environmental Guides do not define the term “reusable.” As long as a product can
be used again in some way, a claim that a product is “reusable” is unlikely to be decep-
tive.
“OZONE SAFE,” “OZONE FRIENDLY” AND “NO CFCs” CLAIMS
“Ozone safe” and “ozone friendly” claims mean that neither the product nor its packag-
ing harms the atmosphere by contributing to the depletion of the stratospheric (upper
atmosphere) ozone layer or to the formation of ground-level ozone.
Consumers may confuse the upper ozone layer with ground-level ozone. The ozone
layer in the upper atmosphere is needed to prevent the sun’s harmful radiation from
reaching the earth. But when ozone develops at the ground level, it forms smog, which
can cause serious breathing problems. Avoid “ozone safe” and “ozone friendly” claims
on products that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, even if the product
is safe for the upper ozone layer.
CFCs—chemical substances called chlorofluorocarbons—can deplete the earth’s protec-
tive ozone layer. In 1978, CFCs were banned for use as propellants in nearly all con-
sumer aerosol products, and gradually, are being phased out of all products and manu-
facturing processes.
Even though certain products do not contain CFCs, they may contain other ozone-
depleting ingredients. A “no CFCs” or “CFC-Free” claim is likely to imply that the
product contains no ozone-depleting ingredients and should not be made if, indeed,
ozone-depleting ingredients are present.
14
The seller of foam plastic tableware makes an unqualified claim that its product
“contains no CFCs.” Although the tableware does not contain CFCs, it was
manufactured with 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.
Claims may be made about a product’s reduced ozone-depleting potential if they are
substantiated.
A nasal inhalant is labeled “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 percent
less ozone depletion. It is unlikely that the qualified comparative claim is decep-
tive.
A product that contains no CFCs or any other ozone-depleting ingredient is not neces-
sarily safe for the entire atmosphere. The release of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) can contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone. Common VOC sub-
stances are alcohols, butane, propane and isobutane. Emissions from cars and factories
are the major source of VOC releases to the environment. But, some consumer prod-
ucts may contain VOCs and also may contribute to the problem. Those products in-
clude household cleaning products, floor polishes, charcoal lighter fluid, windshield
washer fluid, and hair styling spray, gel and mousse—whether in aerosol cans or spray
pumps. Because of their ability to contribute to ground-level ozone formation, claims
like “ozone safe” or “ozone friendly” on these products are likely to be deceptive.
Hair setting gel is labeled “ozone friendly.” Some of the gel’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 gel is safe for the atmosphere as a whole, and, as a result, is deceptive.
If you have questions about the Environmental Guides, contact:
Division of Enforcement
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580
Phone: (202) 326-2996
Fax: (202) 326-2558
www.ftc.gov
15
ENDNOTES
1
Used parts are parts that are not new and that have not undergone any type of
remanufacturing or reconditioning.
2
The terms “rebuilding,” “remanufacturing” and “reconditioning” mean that the
seller dismantled and reconstructed the parts as necessary, cleaned all of the
internal and external parts and made them free from rust and corrosion, restored
all impaired, defective or substantially worn parts to a sound condition (or re-
placed them if necessary), and performed any operations required to put the part
in sound working condition.
3
A total of 39 states mandate the use of the SPI code on the bottom of bottles of 16
ounces or more and rigid containers of 8 ounces or more. The SPI’s explicit
guidelines about the proper sizing and positioning of the SPI code indicate that it
should be applied where it will be inconspicuous to the consumer at the point of
purchase so it won’t influence the consumer’s buying decision.
16
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 inconsis-
tent 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 at-
tributes 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.
17
§ 260.3 Structure of the guides
The guides are composed of general principles and specific guidance on the use of envi-
ronmental claims. These general principles and specific guidance are followed by ex-
amples 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 ap-
proaches 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 environ-
mental 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 1-877-FTC-HELP (382-4357).
18
§ 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 envi-
ronmental 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 re-
cycled 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 pack-
age, 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, ex-
pressly or by implication. Marketers should avoid implications of significant environmen-
tal benefits if the benefit is in fact negligible.
Example 1:
A package is labeled, “50% more recycled content than before.” The manufac-
turer increased the recycled content of its package from 2 percent recycled mate-
rial to 3 percent recycled material. Although the claim is technically true, it is
19
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 environmen-
tal 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, harm-
ful 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 suffi-
ciently 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 con-
tent.” 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
20
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 contribu-
tions 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 depend-
ing 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 environ-
mental 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 ben-
efits which cannot be substantiated by the manufacturer. The claim would not be
deceptive if “Eco-Safe” were followed by clear and prominent qualifying lan-
guage 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 environ-
ment 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.
21
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 prod-
ucts. 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 repre-
sentation 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 prod-
ucts. 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 representa-
tion to the particular product attribute or attributes for which it could be substanti-
ated, 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 photodegrad-
able. 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.
22
Example 1:
A trash bag is marketed as “degradable,” with no qualification or other disclo-
sure. The marketer relies on soil burial tests to show that the product will decom-
pose 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 uncov-
ered 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 ele-
ments 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 evi-
dence 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 environ-
mental 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.
23
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 avail-
able.
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 pro-
grams. 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
24
qualification is required to indicate the limited availability of composting facili-
ties.
(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 pack-
age may be made if the entire product or package, excluding minor incidental compo-
nents, 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 man-
ner 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 “recy-
clable.” Collection sites for recycling the material in question are not available to
25
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 provid-
ing the approximate percentage of communities or the population to whom pro-
grams 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 com-
munities not served by programs that recycle paperboard packaging may under-
stand 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 communi-
ties with facilities for foam polystyrene cups.” Collection sites for recycling the
cup have been established in a half-dozen major metropolitan areas. This disclo-
sure 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 signifi-
cant percentage of the population. Other examples of adequate qualification of the
claim include providing the number of communities with programs, or the per-
centage 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 pro-
grams 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 mate-
rial 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.
26
Example 8:
A product is marketed as having a “recyclable” container. The product is distrib-
uted and advertised only in Missouri. Collection sites for recycling the container
are available to a substantial majority of Missouri residents, but are not yet avail-
able 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 substan-
tial 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 deal-
ership 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. Con-
tact 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-con-
sumer 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 recon-
ditioned 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
27
about the amount, by weight, of recycled content in the finished product or package.
Additionally, for products that contain used, reconditioned or remanufactured compo-
nents, 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 mate-
rial 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 con-
sumers 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 com-
posed 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.
28
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
29
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 re-
cycled 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 con-
sumers 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 rebuilding6 the transmission in accor-
dance 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 compari-
son 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
30
refillable. An unqualified refillable claim should not be asserted unless a system is pro-
vided 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 collec-
tion 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 implica-
tion, 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 con-
tain 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.
31
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 Practice7 and section 1501.3 of the Council on Environ-
mental 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 environ-
ment 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
32
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 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 elimi-
nated 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 C.F.R. § 1.83 (revised as of Jan. 1, 1991).
8.
40 C.F.R. § 1501.3 (1991).
9.
16 C.F.R. § 1.83(a).
33
Federal Trade Commission Toll-free 1-877-FTC-HELP
www.ftc.gov
For the Consumer