260.7—Environmental marketing claims.
Guidance about the use of environmental marketing claims is set forth in this section. 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
Code of Federal Regulations
Footnote(s):
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.
(a) General environmental benefit claims.
It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product, package or service offers a general environmental benefit. Unqualified general claims of environmental benefit are difficult to interpret, and depending on their context, may convey a wide range of meanings to consumers. In many cases, such claims may convey that the product, package or service has specific and far-reaching environmental benefits. As explained in the Commission's Advertising Substantiation Statement, every express and material implied claim that the general assertion conveys to reasonable consumers about an objective quality, feature or attribute of a product or service must be substantiated. Unless this substantiation duty can be met, broad environmental claims should either be avoided or qualified, as necessary, to prevent deception about the specific nature of the environmental benefit being asserted.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 1:
A brand name like “Eco-Safe” would be deceptive if, in the context of the product so named, it leads consumers to believe that the product has environmental benefits which cannot be substantiated by the manufacturer. The claim would not be deceptive if “Eco-Safe” were followed by clear and prominent qualifying language limiting the safety representation to a particular product attribute for which it could be substantiated, and provided that no other deceptive implications were created by the context.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 2:
A product wrapper is printed with the claim “Environmentally Friendly.” Textual comments on the wrapper explain that the wrapper is “Environmentally Friendly because it was not chlorine bleached, a process that has been shown to create harmful substances.” The wrapper was, in fact, not bleached with chlorine. However, the production of the wrapper now creates and releases to the environment significant quantities of other harmful substances. Since consumers are likely to interpret the “Environmentally Friendly” claim, in combination with the textual explanation, to mean that no significant harmful substances are currently released to the environment, the “Environmentally Friendly” claim would be deceptive.
Code of Federal Regulations
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 5:
A product label contains an environmental seal, either in the form of a globe icon, or a globe icon with only the text “Earth Smart” around it. Either label is likely to convey to consumers that the product is environmentally superior to other products. If the manufacturer cannot substantiate this broad claim, the claim would be deceptive. The claims would not be deceptive if they were accompanied by clear and prominent qualifying language limiting the environmental superiority representation to the particular product attribute or attributes for which they could be substantiated, provided that no other deceptive implications were created by the context.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 6:
A product is advertised as “environmentally preferable.” This claim is likely to convey to consumers that this product is environmentally superior to other products. If the manufacturer cannot substantiate this broad claim, the claim would be deceptive. The claim would not be deceptive if it were accompanied by clear and prominent qualifying language limiting the environmental superiority representation to the particular product attribute or attributes for which it could be substantiated, provided that no other deceptive implications were created by the context.
(b) Degradable/biodegradable/photodegradable:
It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is degradable, biodegradable or photodegradable. An unqualified claim that a product or package is degradable, biodegradable or photodegradable should be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence that the entire product or package will completely break down and return to nature, i.e., decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after customary disposal. Claims of degradability, biodegradability or photodegradability should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid consumer deception about:
(1)
The product or package's ability to degrade in the environment where it is customarily disposed; and
(2)
The rate and extent of degradation.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 1:
A trash bag is marketed as “degradable,” with no qualification or other disclosure. The marketer relies on soil burial tests to show that the product will decompose in the presence of water and oxygen. The trash bags are customarily disposed of in incineration facilities or at sanitary landfills that are managed in a way that inhibits degradation by minimizing moisture and oxygen. Degradation will be irrelevant for those trash bags that are incinerated and, for those disposed of in landfills, the marketer does not possess adequate substantiation that the bags will degrade in a reasonably short period of time in a landfill. The claim is therefore deceptive.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 2:
A commercial agricultural plastic mulch film is advertised as “Photodegradable” and qualified with the phrase, “Will break down into small pieces if left uncovered in sunlight.” The claim is supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product will break down in a reasonably short period of time after being exposed to sunlight and into sufficiently small pieces to become part of the soil. The qualified claim is not deceptive. Because the claim is qualified to indicate the limited extent of breakdown, the advertiser need not meet the elements for an unqualified photodegradable claim, i.e., that the product will not only break down, but also will decompose into elements found in nature.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 3:
A soap or shampoo product is advertised as “biodegradable,” with no qualification or other disclosure. The manufacturer has competent and reliable scientific evidence demonstrating that the product, which is customarily disposed of in sewage systems, will break down and decompose into elements found in nature in a short period of time. The claim is not deceptive.
Code of Federal Regulations
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
Code of Federal Regulations
Footnote(s):
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.
(c) Compostable.
(1)
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:
(i)
The package cannot be safely composted in a home compost pile or device; or
(ii)
The claim misleads consumers about the environmental benefit provided when the product is disposed of in a landfill.
(2)
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
Code of Federal Regulations
196
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 4:
A nationally marketed lawn and leaf bag is labeled “compostable.” Also printed on the bag is a disclosure that the bag is not designed for use in home compost piles. The bags are in fact composted in yard trimmings composting programs in many communities around the country, but such programs are not available to a substantial majority of consumers or communities where the bag is sold. The claim is deceptive because reasonable consumers living in areas not served by yard trimmings programs may understand the reference to mean that composting facilities accepting the bags are available in their area. To avoid deception, the claim should be qualified to indicate the limited availability of such programs, for example, by stating, “Appropriate facilities may not exist in your area.” Other examples of adequate qualification of the claim include providing the approximate percentage of communities or the population for which such programs are available.
Code of Federal Regulations
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 6:
A manufacturer markets yard trimmings bags only to consumers residing in particular geographic areas served by county yard trimmings composting programs. The bags meet specifications for these programs and are labeled, “Compostable Yard Trimmings Bag for County Composting Programs.” The claim is not deceptive. Because the bags are compostable where they are sold, no qualification is required to indicate the limited availability of composting facilities.
(d) Recyclable.
It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is recyclable. A product or package should not be marketed as recyclable unless it can be collected, separated or otherwise recovered from the solid waste stream for reuse, or in the manufacture or assembly of another package or product, through an established recycling program. Unqualified claims of recyclability for a product or package may be made if the entire product or package, excluding minor incidental components, is recyclable. For products or packages that are made of both recyclable and non-recyclable components, the recyclable claim should be adequately qualified to avoid consumer deception about which portions or components of the product or package are recyclable. Claims of recyclability should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid consumer deception about any limited availability of recycling programs and collection sites. If an incidental component significantly limits the ability to recycle a product or package, a claim of recyclability would be deceptive. A product or package that is made from recyclable material, but, because of its shape, size or some other attribute, is not accepted in recycling programs for such material, should not be marketed as recyclable. 4
Code of Federal Regulations
Footnote(s):
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 2:
A nationally marketed 8 oz. plastic cottage-cheese container displays the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) code (which consists of a design of arrows in a triangular shape containing a number and abbreviation identifying the component plastic resin) on the front label of the container, in close proximity to the product name and logo. The manufacturer's conspicuous use of the SPI code in this manner constitutes a recyclability claim. Unless recycling facilities for this container are available to a substantial majority of consumers or communities, the claim should be qualified to disclose the limited availability of recycling programs for the container. If the SPI code, without more, had been placed in an inconspicuous location on the container (e.g., embedded in the bottom of the container) it would not constitute a claim of recyclability.
Code of Federal Regulations
197
Code of Federal Regulations
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 4:
A nationally marketed bottle bears the unqualified statement that it is “recyclable.” Collection sites for recycling the material in question are not available to a substantial majority of consumers or communities, although collection sites are established in a significant percentage of communities or available to a significant percentage of the population. The unqualified claim is deceptive because, unless evidence shows otherwise, reasonable consumers living in communities not served by programs may conclude that recycling programs for the material are available in their area. To avoid deception, the claim should be qualified to indicate the limited availability of programs, for example, by stating “This bottle may not be recyclable in your area,” or “Recycling programs for this bottle may not exist in your area.” Other examples of adequate qualifications of the claim include providing the approximate percentage of communities or the population to whom programs are available.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 5:
A paperboard package is marketed nationally and labeled, “Recyclable where facilities exist.” Recycling programs for this package are available in a significant percentage of communities or to a significant percentage of the population, but are not available to a substantial majority of consumers. The claim is deceptive because, unless evidence shows otherwise, reasonable consumers living in communities not served by programs that recycle paperboard packaging may understand this phrase to mean that such programs are available in their area. To avoid deception, the claim should be further qualified to indicate the limited availability of programs, for example, by using any of the approaches set forth in Example 4 above.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 6:
A foam polystyrene cup is marketed as follows: “Recyclable in the few communities with facilities for foam polystyrene cups.” Collection sites for recycling the cup have been established in a half-dozen major metropolitan areas. This disclosure illustrates one approach to qualifying a claim adequately to prevent deception about the limited availability of recycling programs where collection facilities are not established in a significant percentage of communities or available to a significant percentage of the population. Other examples of adequate qualification of the claim include providing the number of communities with programs, or the percentage of communities or the population to which programs are available.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 7:
A label claims that the package “includes some recyclable material.” The package is composed of four layers of different materials, bonded together. One of the layers is made from the recyclable material, but the others are not. While programs for recycling this type of material are available to a substantial majority of consumers, only a few of those programs have the capability to separate the recyclable layer from the non-recyclable layers. Even though it is technologically possible to separate the layers, the claim is not adequately qualified to avoid consumer deception. An appropriately qualified claim would be, “includes material recyclable in the few communities that collect multi-layer products.” Other examples of adequate qualification of the claim include providing the number of communities with programs, or the percentage of communities or the population to which programs are available.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 8:
A product is marketed as having a “recyclable” container. The product is distributed and advertised only in Missouri. Collection sites for recycling the container are available to a substantial majority of Missouri residents, but are not yet available nationally. Because programs are generally available where the product is marketed, the unqualified claim does not deceive consumers about the limited availability of recycling programs.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 9:
A manufacturer of one-time use photographic cameras, with dealers in a substantial majority of communities, collects those cameras through all of its dealers. After the exposed film is removed for processing, the manufacturer reconditions the cameras for resale and labels them as follows: “Recyclable through our dealership network.” This claim is not deceptive, even though the cameras are not recyclable through conventional curbside or drop off recycling programs.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 10:
A manufacturer of toner cartridges for laser printers has established a recycling program to recover its cartridges exclusively through its nationwide dealership network. The company advertises its cartridges nationally as “Recyclable. Contact your local dealer for details.” The company's dealers participating in the recovery program are located in a significant number—but not a substantial majority—of communities. The “recyclable” claim is deceptive unless it contains one of the qualifiers set forth in Example 4. If participating dealers are located in only a few communities, the claim should be qualified as indicated in Example 6.
Code of Federal Regulations
198
Code of Federal Regulations
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.
(1)
A recycled content claim may be made only for materials that have been recovered or otherwise diverted from the solid waste stream, either during the manufacturing process (pre-consumer), or after consumer use (post-consumer). To the extent the source of recycled content includes pre-consumer material, the manufacturer or advertiser must have substantiation for concluding that the pre-consumer material would otherwise have entered the solid waste stream. In asserting a recycled content claim, distinctions may be made between pre-consumer and post-consumer materials. Where such distinctions are asserted, any express or implied claim about the specific pre-consumer or post-consumer content of a product or package must be substantiated.
(2)
It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is made of recycled material, which includes recycled raw material, as well as used, 5 reconditioned and remanufactured components. Unqualified claims of recycled content may be made if the entire product or package, excluding minor, incidental components, is made from recycled material. For products or packages that are only partially made of recycled material, a recycled claim should be adequately qualified to avoid consumer deception about the amount, by weight, of recycled content in the finished product or package. Additionally, for products that contain used, reconditioned or remanufactured components, a recycled claim should be adequately qualified to avoid consumer deception about the nature of such components. No such qualification would be necessary in cases where it would be clear to consumers from the context that a product's recycled content consists of used, reconditioned or remanufactured components.
Code of Federal Regulations
Footnote(s):
5 The term “used” refers to parts that are not new and that have not undergone any type of remanufacturing and/or reconditioning.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 1:
A manufacturer routinely collects spilled raw material and scraps left over from the original manufacturing process. After a minimal amount of reprocessing, the manufacturer combines the spills and scraps with virgin material for use in further production of the same product. A claim that the product contains recycled material is deceptive since the spills and scraps to which the claim refers are normally reused by industry within the original manufacturing process, and would not normally have entered the waste stream.
Code of Federal Regulations
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 3:
A greeting card is composed 30% by fiber weight of paper collected from consumers after use of a paper product, and 20% by fiber weight of paper that was generated after completion of the paper-making process, diverted from the solid waste stream, and otherwise would not normally have been reused in the original manufacturing process. The marketer of the card may claim either that the product “contains 50% recycled fiber,” or may identify the specific pre-consumer and/or post-consumer content by stating, for example, that the product “contains 50% total recycled fiber, including 30% post-consumer.”
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 4:
A paperboard package with 20% recycled fiber by weight is labeled as containing “20% recycled fiber.” Some of the recycled content was composed of material collected from consumers after use of the original product. The rest was composed of overrun newspaper stock never sold to customers. The claim is not deceptive.
Code of Federal Regulations
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
199
Code of Federal Regulations
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
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%.
Code of Federal Regulations
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 12:
A store sells both new and used sporting goods. One of the items for sale in the store is a baseball helmet that, although used, is no different in appearance than a brand new item. The helmet bears an unqualified “Recycled” label. This claim is deceptive because, unless evidence shows otherwise, consumers could reasonably believe that the helmet is made of recycled raw materials, when it is in fact a used item. An acceptable claim would bear a disclosure clearly stating that the helmet is used.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 13:
A manufacturer of home electronics labels its video cassette recorders (“VCRs”) as “40% recycled.” In fact, each VCR contains 40% reconditioned parts. This claim is deceptive because consumers are unlikely to know that the VCR's recycled content consists of reconditioned parts.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 14:
A dealer of used automotive parts recovers a serviceable engine from a vehicle that has been totaled. Without repairing, rebuilding, remanufacturing, or in any way altering the engine or its components, the dealer attaches a “Recycled” label to the engine, and offers it for resale in its used auto parts store. In this situation, an unqualified recycled content claim is not likely to be deceptive because consumers are likely to understand that the engine is used and has not undergone any rebuilding.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 15:
An automobile parts dealer purchases a transmission that has been recovered from a junked vehicle. Eighty-five percent by weight of the transmission was rebuilt and 15% constitutes new materials. After rebuilding 6 the transmission in accordance with industry practices, the dealer packages it for resale in a box labeled “Rebuilt Transmission,” or “Rebuilt Transmission (85% recycled content from rebuilt parts),” or “Recycled Transmission (85% recycled content from rebuilt parts).” These claims are not likely to be deceptive.
Code of Federal Regulations
Footnote(s):
6 The term “rebuilding” means that the dealer dismantled and reconstructed the transmission as necessary, cleaned all of its internal and external parts and eliminated rust and corrosion, restored all impaired, defective or substantially worn parts to a sound condition (or replaced them if necessary), and performed any operations required to put the transmission in sound working condition.
(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.
Code of Federal Regulations
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
200
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 2:
An advertiser notes that disposal of its product generates “10% less waste.” The claim is ambiguous. Depending on contextual factors, it could be a comparison either to the immediately preceding product or to a competitor's product. The “10% less waste” reference is deceptive unless the seller clarifies which comparison is intended and substantiates that comparison, or substantiates both possible interpretations of the claim.
(g) Refillable:
It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a package is refillable. An unqualified refillable claim should not be asserted unless a system is provided for the collection and return of the package for refill or 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.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 1:
A container is labeled “refillable x times.” The manufacturer has the capability to refill returned containers and can show that the container will withstand being refilled at least x times. The manufacturer, however, has established no collection program. The unqualified claim is deceptive because there is no means for collection and return of the container to the manufacturer for refill.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 2:
A bottle of fabric softener states that it is in a “handy refillable container.” The manufacturer also sells a large-sized container that indicates that the consumer is expected to use it to refill the smaller container. The manufacturer sells the large-sized container in the same market areas where it sells the small container. The claim is not deceptive because there is a means for consumers to refill the smaller container from larger containers of the same product.
(h) Ozone safe and ozone friendly:
It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product is safe for or “friendly” to the ozone layer or the atmosphere. For example, a claim that a product does not harm the ozone layer is deceptive if the product contains an ozone-depleting substance.
Code of Federal Regulations
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, Public Law 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).
Code of Federal Regulations
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
Example 3:
The seller of an aerosol product makes an unqualified claim that its product “Contains no CFCs.” Although the product does not contain CFCs, it does contain HCFC-22, another ozone depleting ingredient. Because the claim “Contains no CFCs” may imply to reasonable consumers that the product does not harm the ozone layer, the claim is deceptive.
Code of Federal Regulations
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.
Code of Federal Regulations
[57 FR 36363, Aug. 13, 1992, as amended at 61 FR 53318, Oct. 11, 1996; 61 FR 67109, Dec. 19, 1996; 63 FR 24248, May 1, 1998]