Your Money Matters by Thomas Sottile, Esq.
Beware That ‘Going Green’ Schemes
Can Be All About The Money
For Americans old enough to remember the first Earth Day, April 22, 1970, the following 40 years has been a journey in environmental consciousness-raising.
Sometimes the changes were incremental, such as the establishment of recycling programs from county to county and state to state. Then there were shocking circumstances which demanded immediate action— the discovery of toxic waste dumps in residential communities like Love Canal near Niagara Falls, New York, which gave rise to the federal Superfund program mandated to clean up contaminated sites.
With knowledge that the environment may be damaged irrevocably by man-made substances, and the possible financial benefits of using renewable resources, not to mention federal subsidies, businesses large and small have jumped on the green economy band wagon. Re-chargeable rather than disposable batteries, solar heating systems, environmentally friendly textiles, such as linen and cotton, fuel-efficient vehicles, all advance the cause of safeguarding the natural world. Kitchen appliances, building materials and computers which carry the blue Energy Star logo (www.energystar.gov) tout superior efficiency since they meet strict Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy standards for energy use.
The fact consumers progressively have become more attuned to eco-friendly goals, and are voting with millions of dollars in that direction, has given rise to the green marketing of products. Their advertisements and labels make various claims of environmental advantages which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) scrutinizes. Various brands across a spectrum of commodities have used words such as “organic,” “bio-preferred,” “fair trade,” and “eco,” to market their products’ green benefits. Yet, as the quantity and variety of these types of promotions proliferate, so have consumer complaints challenging the true ecological value of the goods being sold.
The FTC’s Green Guidelines, which are scheduled to be revised in the near future, create voluntary criteria for the marketing of merchandise self-described as: “recyclable”; “eco-friendly”; “biodegradable”; and “compostable,” among other terms. Although the guidelines are not enforceable per se, they specifically address the use of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which makes deception in environmental marketing and advertising unlawful.
The FTC specifies that environmental claims, whether explicit or implied, must be proven by competent and reliable evidence. Qualifications and disclosures should be clear and prominent to prevent consumers from being misled. Also, sellers should make it obvious whether their statements apply to the product being sold, the package that it’s in, or a component of either. Problems arise when assertions are overly broad, generalized, and difficult for the consumer to interpret and quantify. One example is the word “compostable.” If this term is used on a label or in a promotion, there must be evidence that the product will break down completely and return to nature within a short period of time after a consumer disposes of it. Anything less than that leaves the manufacturer exposed to a charge of false advertising.
A product or package should not be marketed as “recyclable” unless it can be collected, separated, or otherwise recovered from the solid waste stream in its entirety for use as raw materials in the manufacture or assembly of a new product or package. Cardboard shipping boxes, certain copy paper brands and greeting cards hold forth that they are produced from recycled content. However, this claim should be made solely for items which meet the above definition. Merchandise created only partially from recycled stuff should specify the amount that it contains.
Unfortunately, the term “recycled” sometimes is used disingenuously. For example, a package may be labeled “50% more recycled than before.” Yet on closer inspection, it turns out that the manufacturer has increased the recycled material in the product from 1% to 2%. True, that’s a 50% increase, but the merchandise is still only 2% recycled overall. Also, the fact that an item can be burned in an incinerator facility to produce heat or generate power does not mean that it is recyclable. A statement by an advertiser that its product generates “10% less waste,” is ambiguous unless it is explained what the product is being compared with.
An unqualified claim that a product can be “re-filled” should not be asserted unless a system is provided for either the collection or return of the package for refill, or for the future refill of the package by consumers with product subsequently sold in another package. The claim should not be made if it is up to consumers to find ways to refill the package.
In January, the FTC brought legal action to ban a Washington, DC-based company called Tested Green, which billed itself as “the nation’s leading certification program for businesses that produce green products or use green processes in the manufacture of goods and services.”
The company was paid up to $549.95 each by businesses for providing them with its so-called environmental certifications. Although it advertised that the items which it certified underwent a rigorous vetting process, the FTC alleged that no significant testing was performed by Tested Green. When the businesses paid the fee, Tested Green sent them the company logo and an internet link to a purported certification verification page which the businesses could use to advertise their Tested Green status. Nor was the company endorsed by any independent third parties, as was claimed. The National Green Business Association and the National Association of Government Contractors are two fictitious names which ostensibly were used by the owners of Tested Green to mislead businesses about the environmental bona fides of its company.
The Federal Trade Commission approved an agreement resolving the accusations against the company. The final order bars Tested Green and its owners from making misrepresentations when selling any product or service in the future. It further prohibits Tested Green from claiming endorsements for any green certification or program unless it clearly and prominently discloses any connection they have with the endorser when one exists.
While environmental protection is a cause that few would oppose in principle, when it comes to buying products which are advertised as serving the greater good, we should not let our guard down or follow labels blindly. Not only could we be backing a product that is advertising erroneous benefits, but we could be overlooking one which would contribute to the environment in the way which we intended.
*
Thomas Sottile is an attorney in Media, PA. He retired from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service after 23 years as an investigator and attorney.
Beware That ‘Going Green’ Schemes
Can Be All About The Money
For Americans old enough to remember the first Earth Day, April 22, 1970, the following 40 years has been a journey in environmental consciousness-raising.
Sometimes the changes were incremental, such as the establishment of recycling programs from county to county and state to state. Then there were shocking circumstances which demanded immediate action— the discovery of toxic waste dumps in residential communities like Love Canal near Niagara Falls, New York, which gave rise to the federal Superfund program mandated to clean up contaminated sites.
With knowledge that the environment may be damaged irrevocably by man-made substances, and the possible financial benefits of using renewable resources, not to mention federal subsidies, businesses large and small have jumped on the green economy band wagon. Re-chargeable rather than disposable batteries, solar heating systems, environmentally friendly textiles, such as linen and cotton, fuel-efficient vehicles, all advance the cause of safeguarding the natural world. Kitchen appliances, building materials and computers which carry the blue Energy Star logo (www.energystar.gov) tout superior efficiency since they meet strict Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy standards for energy use.
The fact consumers progressively have become more attuned to eco-friendly goals, and are voting with millions of dollars in that direction, has given rise to the green marketing of products. Their advertisements and labels make various claims of environmental advantages which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) scrutinizes. Various brands across a spectrum of commodities have used words such as “organic,” “bio-preferred,” “fair trade,” and “eco,” to market their products’ green benefits. Yet, as the quantity and variety of these types of promotions proliferate, so have consumer complaints challenging the true ecological value of the goods being sold.
The FTC’s Green Guidelines, which are scheduled to be revised in the near future, create voluntary criteria for the marketing of merchandise self-described as: “recyclable”; “eco-friendly”; “biodegradable”; and “compostable,” among other terms. Although the guidelines are not enforceable per se, they specifically address the use of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which makes deception in environmental marketing and advertising unlawful.
The FTC specifies that environmental claims, whether explicit or implied, must be proven by competent and reliable evidence. Qualifications and disclosures should be clear and prominent to prevent consumers from being misled. Also, sellers should make it obvious whether their statements apply to the product being sold, the package that it’s in, or a component of either. Problems arise when assertions are overly broad, generalized, and difficult for the consumer to interpret and quantify. One example is the word “compostable.” If this term is used on a label or in a promotion, there must be evidence that the product will break down completely and return to nature within a short period of time after a consumer disposes of it. Anything less than that leaves the manufacturer exposed to a charge of false advertising.
A product or package should not be marketed as “recyclable” unless it can be collected, separated, or otherwise recovered from the solid waste stream in its entirety for use as raw materials in the manufacture or assembly of a new product or package. Cardboard shipping boxes, certain copy paper brands and greeting cards hold forth that they are produced from recycled content. However, this claim should be made solely for items which meet the above definition. Merchandise created only partially from recycled stuff should specify the amount that it contains.
Unfortunately, the term “recycled” sometimes is used disingenuously. For example, a package may be labeled “50% more recycled than before.” Yet on closer inspection, it turns out that the manufacturer has increased the recycled material in the product from 1% to 2%. True, that’s a 50% increase, but the merchandise is still only 2% recycled overall. Also, the fact that an item can be burned in an incinerator facility to produce heat or generate power does not mean that it is recyclable. A statement by an advertiser that its product generates “10% less waste,” is ambiguous unless it is explained what the product is being compared with.
An unqualified claim that a product can be “re-filled” should not be asserted unless a system is provided for either the collection or return of the package for refill, or for the future refill of the package by consumers with product subsequently sold in another package. The claim should not be made if it is up to consumers to find ways to refill the package.
In January, the FTC brought legal action to ban a Washington, DC-based company called Tested Green, which billed itself as “the nation’s leading certification program for businesses that produce green products or use green processes in the manufacture of goods and services.”
The company was paid up to $549.95 each by businesses for providing them with its so-called environmental certifications. Although it advertised that the items which it certified underwent a rigorous vetting process, the FTC alleged that no significant testing was performed by Tested Green. When the businesses paid the fee, Tested Green sent them the company logo and an internet link to a purported certification verification page which the businesses could use to advertise their Tested Green status. Nor was the company endorsed by any independent third parties, as was claimed. The National Green Business Association and the National Association of Government Contractors are two fictitious names which ostensibly were used by the owners of Tested Green to mislead businesses about the environmental bona fides of its company.
The Federal Trade Commission approved an agreement resolving the accusations against the company. The final order bars Tested Green and its owners from making misrepresentations when selling any product or service in the future. It further prohibits Tested Green from claiming endorsements for any green certification or program unless it clearly and prominently discloses any connection they have with the endorser when one exists.
While environmental protection is a cause that few would oppose in principle, when it comes to buying products which are advertised as serving the greater good, we should not let our guard down or follow labels blindly. Not only could we be backing a product that is advertising erroneous benefits, but we could be overlooking one which would contribute to the environment in the way which we intended.
*
Thomas Sottile is an attorney in Media, PA. He retired from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service after 23 years as an investigator and attorney.
