U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–748 2012

IT’S TOO EASY BEING GREEN: DEFINING FAIR 

GREEN MARKETING PRACTICES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 9, 2009 

Serial No. 111–45 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

(II) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Chairman 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Vice Chair 

JOHN SARBANES, Maryland 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

FRANK PALLONE, New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Hon. George Radanovich, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 3 

Hon. John P. Sarbanes, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Maryland, opening statement ............................................................................. 4 

Hon. Phil Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

WITNESSES

James Kohm, Director, Enforcement Division, Federal Trade Commission ....... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

M. Scot Case, Vice President, Terrachoice, and Executive Director, Ecologo 

Program ................................................................................................................ 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 106 

Dara O’Rourke, Associate Professor, University of California, Berkeley, and 

Cofounder, Goodguide .......................................................................................... 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 109 

Scott P. Cooper, Vice President, Government Relations, American National 

Standards Institute .............................................................................................. 64 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D., Director, Technical Policy, Consumers Union .............. 84 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 87 

Answers to submitted questions 1 ................................................................... 111 

1 Ms. Rangan did not respond to submitted questions for the record. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

(1) 

IT’S TOO EASY BEING GREEN: DEFINING FAIR 

GREEN MARKETING PRACTICES 

TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:01 a.m., in Room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Rush, Sarbanes, Stupak, Barrow, Castor, Radanovich, and Gingrey. 

Staff present: Michelle Ash, Chief Counsel; Anna Laitin, Counsel; 

Angelle Kwemo, Counsel; Tim Robinson, Counsel; Valerie Baron, 

Special Assistant; William Cusey, Special Assistant; Jennifer 

Berenholz, Deputy Clerk; Chad Grant, Minority Policy Analyst; 

Brian McCollough, Minority Senior Professional Staff; and Gerald 

Couri, Minority Professional Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. Good morning. The subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection will come to order. The chair will 

thank all those who are here and particularly all witnesses. The 

chair now recognizes himself for the purposes of an opening statement. 

Today the subcommittee is holding a hearing titled ‘‘It’s Too Easy 

Being Green: Defining Fair Green Marketing Practice.’’ 

Let me start—the mikes are on. They are all working now, right? 

OK, let me—the chair recognizes himself for five minutes for the 

purposes of opening statement. 

The subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection is holding a hearing titled ‘‘It’s Too Easy Being Green: Defining Fair Green Marketing Practices.’’ During this hearing, we will 

be taking up the truthfulness of green advertising claims, consumer protection of green claims, and the role of the Federal Trade 

Commission in regulating these proliferating claims. 

More than ever before, the shelves of our supermarkets, hardware, minimarts, home improvement, and pet stores are being 

lined with good bearing labels calling themselves as natural, biodegradable, ecofriendly, sustainable, recyclable, and nontoxic just 

to name a few. With the increased demand by these stores for more 

green products, we are seeing an increase in certifying companies 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

2 

certifying these green claims. While some responsible companies 

have created certifications and labels backed by testing, other companies have spied an opportunity in demand for information. 

For a fee, these companies will certify anything as green, affording false comfort to purchasers that their products meet environmental and safety standards. 

Just to cite a few relevant statistics, in 2008, consumers purchased $290 million in natural household cleaners and supplies. In 

addition, ‘‘The Wall Street Journal’’ reported in April 2009 that 

there are more than 300 such environmental labels putting a green 

stamp on everything from cosmetics and seafood to coffee. Because 

there are no common agreement on jury accepted definitions relating to the meaning of many of these words. And since consumers 

are being bombarded by so many of these claims and certifications, 

and there is legitimate concern that some consumers are basing 

their purchasing decisions on misleading and in some cases even 

deceptive labels. 

And I am especially concerned that Americans who have less disposable income to spend on ‘‘green’’ goods are not getting the benefits that they expect when they spend their hard-earned dollars on 

these goods, which promise more and also cost more at our checkout lines. 

At the conclusion of today’s hearing, I would like for this body 

to have more insight into FTC’s update of its green guides and how 

extensively consumers, manufacturers, and advertisers are consulting and relying on these guides. 

Second, I want for us to discuss whether the FTC should be more 

aggressive in monitoring and/or regulating the placement of claims 

on products and how, in the flow of commerce, can the Commission 

ensure that green labels are more useful and informative than is 

currently the case. 

Thirdly, I would like for us to explore the role of the private sector. We will ask how truly environmentally responsible and safe 

products can differentiate themselves from the products that may 

unsubstantiated claims. And we will examine the role of the private run certification at labeling products. 

I would also just add another note that there might be another 

role for the Congress to play in these matters, and we will be keeping a keen eye and a hearing ear to the role that the Congress 

should be playing in this particular matter. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony and to participating in 

the exchange that follows. I want to thank you all very much for 

agreeing to help us examine this problem and come up with constructive proposals to address issues that we have identified. I 

yield back the balance of my—I don’t have any more time. So now 

it is my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee for five minutes for the purposes of an opening statement, my friend, the gentleman from California, Mr. Radanovich, 

is recognized. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank you also for calling this hearing to examine green marketing 

practices. We all agree that consumers should not be deceived 

through false marketing when making a decision to buy a product. 

Such dubious practices would fall squarely within the Federal 

Trade Commission’s jurisdiction when a company violates existing 

labeling rules or when a company clearly makes a false statement 

about its product with the intent to deceive. 

I understand the Commission has taken several enforcement actions against companies for such practices, and they should be commended. And I look forward to hearing more about these when Mr. 

Kohm testifies shortly. 

I agree with the premise that a business that markets its products as green should be held accountable for accuracy and truthfulness. The problem arises from a larger debate about what is green 

and who will define it and how will it be defined. Consumer confusion does not help anybody, but a simple solution does not readily 

exist that all stakeholders can agree upon, which is why we are 

having this debate. 

I imagine we could ask 10 different people to define green, and 

we would not be surprised if we received 10 different answers. 

Many consumers seek out recyclable or biodegradable products, 

and these products may be labeled accurately and be attractive to 

consumers for their environmental sensitivity. However, depending 

on how we define green, a recyclable product could be considered 

greener than a biodegradable one or vice versa, and that is a relatively simple example of similar products. 

When multiple variables are considered in the determination, the 

comparison of the products becomes more complicated. Regardless, 

some of the discussions and suggestions that we will hear today 

will focus on the Environmental Protection Agency. 

For purposes of this hearing, we would be better served confining 

our discussion to the area of our jurisdiction over the marketing 

practices and what would be defined as an unfair or deceptive practice under the FTC Act. I would also suggest the subcommittee 

should hear the views of businesses that are manufacturing products that may fall subject to FTC enforcement. 

Ideally, mutually agreeable definitions for the purposes of marketing will emerge through a process of all stakeholders working 

together. This may not result in a one-size-fits-all approach, but it 

will have the benefit of an open and transparent process where everybody has a voice and all viewpoints are considered. 

The marketplace implicated by this discussion is extremely broad 

with many diverse products. If the goal is to enforce manufacturing 

practices and leave a smaller footprint on the earth through consumer marketing appeal, the definition of green must be inclusive. 

Labeling and marketing are intended to be tools that educate the 

public, not points of litigation. And more importantly, they should 

not be the goal of the given product. 

Further, we have seen many unforeseen consequences of technological advances that were supposed to help reduce environmental 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

4 

footprint but had the opposite effect due to unwitting consumers. 

Energy efficiency and the Energy Star label may be useful, but not 

only to the extent that they alter the overall consumption of home 

energy use. 

Saving more energy on one product may be beneficial, but if the 

savings is used to keep the television and stereo on longer, the environmental picture hasn’t really changed. Ultimately, the consumer’s use of the information is what really matters. 

I only point this out because consumers are hard to predict. We 

continue to battle obesity in this country despite extensive labeling 

requirements for decades. Labels can be a useful tool for information if the consumer uses it wisely and is not inundated with information overload. Foods may be accurately labeled as low sugar, low 

carbohydrate, or low fat, but that does not change the overall trend 

of increase in the average calories Americans consume. 

One final point I will make which is I am certain experts have 

discussed is that any green standard should take into account the 

diverse geography of resources of this country. For example, if new 

green standards delve into the life cycle carbon footprint of a product, manufacturers should not be disadvantaged based on the limitations of available energy resources to which they may be captive. 

To do so based on today’s desires will cause more harm than good. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and also our witnesses today 

for appearing. I look forward to your testimony, and I yield back. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentleman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland for five minutes for the purposes of an opening statement. Mr. Sarbanes of Maryland is recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. SARBANES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t take five minutes. I appreciate your convening this hearing. This is definitely 

something we need to look at. This is kind of the next big thing 

when it comes to labeling, I think. And the role of this committee 

and the FTC and others to put in place a regime that makes sense 

with respect to green labeling is a very, very important one. 

There is no question when you go to the store—I fall prey to this 

myself—and you see this green labeling or these green claims that 

are made that you are either thinking green is healthy or you are 

thinking green is environmentally friendly. You are basically in the 

mindset that green is good, and so it does have a very powerful effect on people’s purchasing patterns and their expectation of what 

they are getting for themselves and their family. 

So the notion that that claim is being made in many instances 

when it can’t really be justified if when I think it is offensive to 

many and certainly to the consumer that is looking for that seal 

of good housekeeping when it comes to what is environmentally 

friendly and what is healthy. 

I don’t worry too much about the question of what is greener 

than the next thing as long as the things that are claiming to be 

green have met a certain baseline standard and definition. And I 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

5 

certainly recognize it is going to come up with those definitions 

that can have some sort of uniform application. But I think we can 

find our way to it, and our panelists today will help us think that 

through. 

The other point you made is just as important, and that is it is 

not fair to those businesses and manufacturers and others who 

really are trying to do the right thing and make products that are 

green in all their different aspects to have a system that is allowing others to make false claims with respect to whether they are 

delivering green products. 

And the more sinister view to take on that is it actually discourages companies from doing the right thing because they say well, 

what difference does it make? If I can just slap a green label on 

something and get the benefit of that in terms of marketing, why 

not cut corners? 

So there are many reasons to pursue this on behalf of the consumer and on behalf of businesses that are trying to lead the way 

with good practices, and thank you for convening the hearing today 

to look at those practices. And I yield back my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentleman. The chair now recognizes for the purposes of opening statements Dr. Gingrey from 

Georgia. Dr. Gingrey, you are recognized for five minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am sitting here drinking this soft drink out of a green can. This is by the great CocaCola Company, and they don’t imply anything in here about being 

environmentally friendly. They just tell you how much caffeine and 

what great soft drink this is, and it is a good soft drink. But certainly you get the impression you could package something in a 

green—even politicians—I notice in the last campaign cycle in our 

state more and more politicians actually wearing a green shirt and 

having a green logo and, you know, just that subliminal message. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, of course, for calling the 

hearing today on green marketing techniques that are clearly being 

used now more than ever by all types of companies and individuals. 

Unfortunately despite the increased efforts by corporate citizens attempting to be more environmentally friendly, there is still a great 

deal of confusion that exists particularly for the consumer with the 

way that these marketing practices currently function. 

The FTC issued its own set of environmental guides back in 1992 

called ‘‘The Green Guides’’ and this working document allows the 

FTC to better understand what constitutes false or deceptive green 

claims within marketing. However although these guides provide a 

base of understanding for the FTC, ‘‘The Green Guides’’ have not 

been fully updated since when, 1998, and so that leaves a wide gap 

between the increase in green marketing and the way by which we 

understand these techniques today. 

Mr. Chairman, there are some fundamental questions that we 

must answer at the outset of any discussion of green marketing. 

First and foremost, how is this marketing defined? As this panel 

of witnesses will describe, there are varied interpretations of how 

a company uses these marketing tools. Is green marketing an envimstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

6 

ronmental matter or is it a health matter? It could be argued that 

individual consumers may have different ideas of what green 

means for them, so this needs to be factored into any discussion 

that is had by the FTC as it updates these green guides. 

The last question, and arguably the most important for this subcommittee, is what role the FTC should play in the structure or enforcement of green marketing. The FTC already has the authority 

to conduct investigations on false and deceptive marketing practices, and this should be taken into consideration as regulations 

continue to be updated. 

Mr. Chairman, with the increase in green marketing that has occurred, there are still a number of question marks that exist both 

for companies and for consumers. And I think in this realm, Jim 

Henson’s lovable character Kermit the Frog may have said it best 

when he said ‘‘it’s not easy being green.’’ 

I look forward to hearing from our panel on these increasingly 

omnipresent issues, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentleman. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, for five minutes for 

the purposes of opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much 

for calling this hearing. Good morning. In recent years, we have 

had a substantial increase in products that promote environmental 

consciousness and tout how their products minimize environmental 

impacts. There is an increasing public awareness of the dangers of 

climate change and environmental degradation, and Americans 

want to help naturally. 

And one of the places folks look to reduce their environmental 

impact is at the store. The last few years have seen a proliferation 

of new products marketed as being green or environmentally 

friendly. And frankly this can be confusing for consumers. Consumers have a hard time telling the difference between companies 

that do the hard work to develop products and manufacturing processes that are more sustainable and environmentally friendly and 

those companies that simply start printing their labels in green 

with sustainable written on the label and then charge a green premium for the same old dirty products. 

It seems sometimes that some retailers and product suppliers are 

engaged in a race to poorly define and use meaningless terms like 

sustainable and ecofriendly. And with that, there is a real risk that 

consumers will lose confidence in the entire concept of being—having a sustainable product or a green friendly product and that consumers will simply tune out the environmental message. A study 

by the Shelton Group found that consumers surveyed in 2007 were 

between 22 and 55 percent less likely to buy a wide range of green 

products than in 2006, and a major factor in that decline was message overload. 

Consumer groups have done an admirable job of stepping up to 

try to provide clarity by operating independent claims verification 

and marketing standards groups, and I look forward to hearing 

from some of those groups who are with us today. However, they 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

7 

still must compete with unreliable and unscrupulous certifications 

programs that are all too often concerned more with collecting the 

fee than in reliably labeling the product. 

I am very interested in what more we can do to help consumers 

cut through the noise and find the truly sustainable products that 

they would like to purchase. I yield back my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentlelady, and now it is my 

honor and privilege to welcome the witnesses who are gathered 

here, and I do want to recognize each one of them. I want to announce that Dr. Rangan is on her way. She had a late flight from 

New York, and now she is between the airport and the Capitol in 

a cab trying to make it here. So we will swear her in once she arrives. 

And we will proceed now, recognizing our first witness. He is Mr. 

James Kohm. He is the director of the enforcement division of the 

Federal Trade Commission. Next to Mr. Kohm is Mr. M. Scot Case. 

He is the vice president of a company called TerraChoice, and he 

is also the executive director of the EcoLogo Program which is the 

Canadian government’s green seal. And next to Mr. Case would be 

Mr. Dara O’Rourke. Dr. O’Rourke rather is an associate professor 

who comes from California, the University of California in Berkeley. And he is a cofounder of GoodGuide. And next to Mr. 

O’Rourke, we have Mr. Scott P. Cooper who is the vice president 

of government relations of the American National Standards Institute. 

I again want to welcome each and every one of you witnesses. 

You don’t know how it makes our heart glad that you are taking 

the time out from your busy schedules to come and participate with 

us today, and it is the practice of this subcommittee—we are operating under some new practices—that we swear you in. So I would 

ask if each one of you would stand and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn] 

Mr. RUSH. Let the record reflect that all witnesses have responded in the affirmative. 

Now, our first witness we will recognize for five minutes for the 

purpose of opening statement is Dr. James Kohm. Dr. Kohm, would 

you please again restrict your comments your four minutes—five 

minutes rather or thereabouts. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES KOHM, DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION; M. SCOT CASE, VICE 

PRESIDENT, TERRACHOICE, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ECOLOGO PROGRAM; DARA O’ROURKE, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, AND COFOUNDER, GOODGUIDE; SCOTT P. COOPER, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AMERICAN NATIONAL 

STANDARDS INSTITUTE; AND URVASHI RANGAN, PH.D., DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL POLICY, CONSUMERS UNION 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES KOHM 

Mr. KOHM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 

Ranking Member Radanovich, and members of the committee, my 

name is James Kohm. I am the associate director of the division 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

8 

of enforcement in the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. 

Let me begin by noting that the views expressed in the written 

testimony represent those of the commission, while those in my 

oral testimony and answers to your questions reflect only my own 

views and not necessarily those of the commission or any particular 

commissioner. 

I appreciate the opportunity today to discuss the FTC’s role in 

the environmental marketing arena. The commission, as you know, 

does not set environmental policy or standards. That, however, is 

not to say that the commission does not have a significant role to 

play in the marketing of environmentally friendly and energy efficient products. 

Specifically the FTC polices the marketplace to help ensure that 

consumers are not harmed by deceptive claims and that honest 

marketers’ advertising is not drowned out by the false claims of 

their competitors. To achieve this goal, the commission employs a 

three-pronged strategy. First, we help businesses comply with the 

law. To accomplish this goal, the commission has developed its 

green guides that explain how consumers understand commonly 

used environmental claims such as recyclable and biodegradable 

and describe the basic elements needed to substantiate those 

claims. 

The commission is currently reviewing its green guides to ensure 

that they remain responsive in today’s marketplace. This is especially important given the explosion of green marketing in recent 

years and the prevalence of claims that were not common when the 

commission last reviewed the guides more than a decade ago. 

To help develop a robust record upon which to base its guidance, 

the commission solicited public comment and held a series of public 

workshops on emerging green marketing issues. While we received 

a lot of useful information in response, unfortunately we obtained 

little evidence of how consumers understand certain claims. 

The commission therefore is in the process of developing its own 

research to help it provide accurate, informed advice. Second, it is 

critical to complement rules and business guidance with a solid law 

enforcement presence. The commission’s recent cases in this area 

have challenged, for example, home insulation sellers who vastly 

overstated the insulating properties of their products, businesses 

that falsely claim that their devices would dramatically improve 

your car’s gas mileage, and companies making false claims about 

the green attributes of their products. 

Of particular note, the commission today announced the reinforcement actions against companies that advertise their products 

as biodegradable. The green guides advised marketers that consumers understand unqualified biodegradable claims to mean that 

a product will break down into the elements found in nature within 

a reasonably short time after customary disposal. All three defendants could not substantiate this fact. 

Consumers typically throw products like those challenged in 

these cases into the trash, which is in turn disposed of in places 

like landfills that do not present conditions under which products 

can biodegrade quickly even if they could do so under ideal conditions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

9 

Finally the FTC employs a wide array of innovative consumer 

education materials to help consumers make informed green purchasing decisions and avoid energy saving scams. For example, our 

interactive Web site, Saving Starts at Home, offers tips to help consumers conserve energy and save money in almost every room of 

their homes. 

In the virtual kitchen, for example, consumers can learn about 

how to use our energy guide label to select energy efficient appliances. In the attic, they can find tips on choosing insulation, and 

in the trash room, they can encounter explanations of terms like 

recyclable and biodegradable and the meaning of common environmental symbols. 

Continued consumer interest in conserving energy and protecting 

the environment will no doubt result in continued environmental 

marketing. The FTC therefore will continue its efforts to ensure 

the truthfulness and accuracy of these green claims. 

Thank you for providing the commission an opportunity today to 

appear before the committee and describe our work. I will be happy 

to answer any of our questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kohm follows:] 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

10 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 14 73748A.001
11 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 15 73748A.002
12 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 16 73748A.003
13 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 17 73748A.004
14 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 18 73748A.005
15 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 19 73748A.006
16 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 20 73748A.007
17 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 21 73748A.008
18 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 22 73748A.009
19 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 23 73748A.010
20 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 24 73748A.011
21 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Kohm. And now the chair recognizes Mr. M. Scot 

Case for the purposes of opening statement. Mr. Case, would you 

please restrict your comments to five minutes or thereabouts? 

TESTIMONY OF M. SCOT CASE 

Mr. CASE. Chairman Rush and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to share my perspective. My name is 

Scot Case. I am a vice president of TerraChoice and executive director of the EcoLogo Program, a 21-year-old environmental standards setting and certification program. 

For 16 years, I have been working in various capacities to make 

it easier for consumers, retailers, and professional purchasers to 

buy more environmentally preferable or green products. Despite 

lengthy experience in the field, I am also a recent victim of green 

consumer fraud. 

In 2007, I bought a $2,500 LG Electronics manufactured refrigerator because it claimed to be Energy Star compliant. After consumer reports published a September 2008 story, I learned my refrigerator actually uses twice as much electricity as advertised. It 

does not even come close to meeting the Energy Star criteria. 

LG Electronics’ misuse of the Energy Star label highlights wellknown weaknesses in DOE’s management of the Energy Star program. More importantly, the fraudulent use of the Energy Star 

label provides an example of a broader issue with the ways in 

which green products sold in this country are routinely marketed 

with partial truths, misleading and irrelevant information and the 

occasional blatant lie. FTC has been unable to adequate protect 

U.S. consumers from this misinformation. 

U.S. consumers are one of the most powerful forces on the planet. Their spending power can drive environmental innovation, create green jobs, and expand the green economy. This market-based 

environmentalism, however, is dependent on consumers having accurate, reliable, and relevant information about the products they 

buy. U.S. consumers want to buy greener products, but they are 

confused by competing environmental claims, unsure when a claim 

is accurate, and increasingly skeptical of all environmental claims. 

The current system is not working. Green washing is rampant. 

FTC is not equipped to find green, and United States lacks a single 

unifying label to make buying green easy. 

LG Electronics’ misuse of the Energy Star label is an extreme example of green washing. Green washing ranges from blatant misrepresentation to telling only partial truths about a product’s environmental impacts. According to the sins of green washing, more 

than 98 percent of products making environmental claims make at 

least one questionable claim. 

Manufacturers are making misleading claims because they lack 

clear guidance about what claims are legitimate and what kind of 

evidence they need to support their claims. As a result, U.S. consumers are spending their money to buy environmental benefits 

that might not exist. 

FTC recognizes the problem. It has been working diligently to 

improve its environmental marketing guide, which was last revised 

in late 1998 or ’99. I was able to provide my insights into their 

process. I remain very hopeful that FTC’s revised guide combined 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

22 

with the necessary funding to support enforcements will help reduce green washing. 

While incredibly beneficial, I think FTC’s actions are only part 

of the solution. FTC lacks the relevant environmental expertise to 

address the most fundamental question: how does one identify an 

environmentally preferable product. This question is being addressed by a variety of EPA departments with narrowly focused attention on single environmental issues. 

One part of EPA focuses on energy efficient products. Another focuses on less hazardous products. Another looks at water efficient 

products. EPA’s silo-based approach is understandable, given the 

agency’s organization. With the exception of the environmentally 

preferable purchasing program that focuses narrowly on federal 

government purchasing, no one at EPA is looking holistically at the 

issue. As a result, it appears almost every manufacturer is finding 

an excuse to claim their product is green. 

Environmental labels like Energy Star, EcoLogo and Green Seal 

are supposed to make it easier to identify more environmentally 

preferable products, but there are now hundreds of labels and 

claims being made. 

According to the seven sins of green washing, 22 percent of products making environmental claims include a certification-like label 

that has no apparent meaning. As the title of this hearing suggests, it is too easy being green. Some enterprising companies sell 

a green certification for a fee. They proudly advertise that they can 

certify a green product or business without reviewing the product, 

without visiting the business, and without requiring any testing. 

All one has to do is pay as little as $150, credit cards accepted. 

How is my mom in Charlotte, North Carolina supposed to keep 

track of hundreds of environmental labels to know which ones are 

meaningful? I have 16 years of experience with this issue, and I 

regularly run into claims that I have never seen before. 

To address these challenges, I recommend the following three 

items: direct FTC to require every environmental claim to be supported by publicly available proof, provide research money for EPA 

and the national academies to conduct the basic research, and establish an EPA office to launch a voluntary, non-regulatory environmental leadership label. 

Launching a single label would provide benefits similar to the 

way the USDA organic label united multiple organic standards. 

Having a single label will make it significantly easier for my mom 

to identify greener products, the same way Energy Star made it 

easier to identify more energy efficient products. 

In conclusion, market-based environmentalism only works if 

manufacturers and consumers have the tools to make intelligent 

decisions. I encourage the subcommittee to direct or endorse the 

developments of the necessary tools. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Case follows:] 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

23 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 28 73748A.012
24 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 29 73748A.013
25 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 30 73748A.014
26 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 31 73748A.015
27 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 32 73748A.016
28 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 33 73748A.017
29 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 34 73748A.018
30 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 35 73748A.019
31 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 36 73748A.020
32 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 37 73748A.021
33 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 38 73748A.022
34 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 39 73748A.023
35 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 40 73748A.024
36 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 41 73748A.025
37 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 42 73748A.026
38 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 43 73748A.027
39 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 44 73748A.028
40 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 45 73748A.029
41 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 46 73748A.030
42 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 47 73748A.031
43 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 48 73748A.032
44 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 49 73748A.033
45 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 50 73748A.034
46 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 51 73748A.035
47 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 52 73748A.036
48 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 53 73748A.037
49 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentleman. Now it is my pleasure to recognize Dr. Dara O’Rourke for five minutes for the purposes of opening statement. 

TESTIMONY OF DARA O’ROURKE 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Chairman Rush, members of the committee, 

thank you very much for the opportunity to testify this morning on 

green marketing claims and the very important underlying issues 

of public access to accurate information on the health and environmental impacts of consumers products. 

My name is Dara O’Rourke. I am a professor at the University 

of California, Berkeley, and also the cofounder of a for-benefit company call Good Guide, which I am here today representing. 

My research focuses on global supply chains and better ways to 

monitor and measure the impacts of those supply chains to deliver 

information to consumers here in the U.S. on the full environmental, social, and health impacts on the products we consume. We 

have founded our research, and the reason I am here today is that 

our current system of information available to the public is incomplete at best and actually confusing or deceptive at worst. 

The public either has little information on critical aspects of 

product choices such as ingredients within household chemicals, 

fragrances, electronics, or they have questionable information such 

as green claims about a product being natural or ecofriendly as the 

chairman mentioned. 

For markets to function efficiently, we need good information and 

low transaction costs of accessing that information. Today we have 

the exact opposite. We have very poor information and very high 

costs for the public to access that information. I want to make 

three very simple points today. First is the public wants to know 

this information. They are seeking this out. They want to know it. 

The second is there is a huge gap between what the public wants 

to know and what they can currently access. That leads to, I think, 

a number of problems which other people have spoken about, which 

I will talk about one case. And the third is I think there is a current opportunity right now for this committee and the FTC to make 

a significant step forward in improving transparency and consumer 

markets and improving market functioning through a couple simple steps. 

From our research, we have found out first that consumers do 

want to know this information. Very rapid growth in concern 

among the public about what they are putting in, on, and around 

their families and themselves. This is driven partly by a stream on 

continuous scandals, quite frankly. Lead in toys, melamine in baby 

formula, salmonella in peanuts, almost one a week that we are seeing now and the press showing up, leading consumers to ask where 

are our products made, how are they made, under what conditions, 

and what are the impacts for our health and the environment. 

A number of national surveys, which are in my written testimony, discussed even in this economic climate, we are seeing increased demand among the public to buy greener, healthier products even among a very broad spectrum of consumer population. 

Wal-Mart released a study of their consumers showing 57 percent 

of Wal-Mart customers concerned about the environment, wanting 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

50 

to make environmentally friendly purchases. This is not a left/ 

right, Democrat/Republican, high-income/low-income issue. This is 

across the board. Parents in the U.S. want to find safe, healthy 

products. 

At the same time as Mr. Case has mentions, there is a very fast 

growth in production claims, which I think are quite questionable 

and consumer marketing, which is quite questionably going up 

against these demands for the public to know. 

The public wants to know if products are safe and healthy. They 

want simple advice on choosing products to bring into their homes. 

They also want to know detailed information as their education 

level grows about ingredients of concern, carbon, other issues that 

they are increasingly concerned about. 

In our research, we found health impacts to Congresswoman 

Castor’s point. Health is the number one issue of concern among 

our users and our research. That relates to potential cancer risks, 

other long-term health hazards, and nutritional impacts of food 

products. They also are concerned about environmental impacts 

again related primarily to their health and their family’s health. 

Toxics, releases, hazardous waste, and even climate change often 

comes back for consumers to a personal or the health of their 

grandchildren and their family. 

Despite these demands for this kind of information, more and 

more consumers wanting this information, almost impossible for 

consumers to get this information, even with dozens of hours of research online and completely impossible in stores as they look at 

products and look at the product claims. 

Let me just talk about one example which Chairman Rush mentioned: the growth in green cleaners and the demand for green 

cleaning products in the U.S. These are quite harsh chemicals that 

we bring into our house every day that are on our floor, that are 

on our plates, that are in the air around our families. Consumers 

want to know whether these products are safe and healthy. With 

the rapid growth in these products, there has also been a rapid 

growth in claims around these products, that they are safe for kids, 

pets, the environment, they are nontoxic, they are natural, they are 

biodegradable. 

And at the same time, almost none of these companies disclose 

the ingredients in these products. They make claims without disclosing what is actually in them. So a claim like plant-based or natural is meaningless unless we know the actual ingredients, the actual chemicals derived from plants or other natural sources or petroleum to know what is in them 

Over and over, we see in our research personal care products, 

again words like fragrance from essential oils sound environmental, sounds natural, but we don’t know the actual chemicals 

which may include chemicals like phthalates. They are endocrine 

receptors, chemicals of concern, but that are masked underneath 

these product labels. 

Toys also. We are seeing more and more claims about green toys, 

healthy, safe toys, and again we don’t know what is in them. We 

don’t know what the plastic is made out of. We don’t know if there 

is phthalates again or other problematic chemicals. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

51 

There is an opportunity, I think, now from these gaps for this 

commission and for the FTC, I think, to move forward on disclosure. The first is that information should be disclosed on key life 

cycle impacts. We need to know the key material pieces of information about the product, not vague, irrelevant claims but what actually matters. 

The second is that companies should publicly disclose the ingredients in their products before they make any environmental or 

health claim about those ingredients. The information should be 

scientifically precise and verifiable and available on the manufacturer’s Web site at a minimum, on the packaging ideally. And this 

information over time should be verified by third parties. 

To sum up, I think, Chairman Rush and the committee, there is 

a huge opportunity right now to remedy a failure in the marketplace of information, to move and motivate increased transparency 

among industry and ultimately support innovation in our markets 

that will lead to development of cleaner, safer, healthier products 

that are better for our health and better for the environment of the 

United States. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Rourke follows:] 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

52 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 57 73748A.038
53 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 58 73748A.039
54 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 59 73748A.040
55 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 60 73748A.041
56 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 61 73748A.042
57 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 62 73748A.043
58 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 63 73748A.044
59 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 64 73748A.045
60 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 65 73748A.046
61 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 66 73748A.047
62 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 67 73748A.048
63 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 68 73748A.049
64 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentleman. The chair now recognizes for five minutes Mr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper, please limit your remarks to five minutes or thereabouts. 

TESTIMONY OF SCOTT P. COOPER 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Scott Cooper, and I am vice president of 

Government Relations and Policy for the American National Standards Institute. More than 90 years, ANSI has served as the coordinator of this nation’s private-sector lead and public-sector supported voluntary consensus standards on conforming assessment 

system, comprised of government agencies, many of them including 

EPA, Commerce, DOE, DOD, USDA, CSPC, DHS, as well as companies, trade associations, professional societies, and consumer 

groups including Consumers Union I am happy to say. 

ANSI represents the interests of more than 125,000 organizations and 3.5 million professionals worldwide. Today’s consumers 

are shopping with sustainability in mind, placing ever-increasing 

value on the environmental and societal aspects of part design, 

manufacture, distribution, use of disposal. Where consumers see 

value in going green, there is a competitive advantage to those 

companies who can supply environmentally sustainable products. 

Where an advantage can be perceived, there will be those who 

will want to gain the system. We need to ensure the credibility and 

consistency of environmental claims and so I commend you, Mr. 

Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for holding this hearing. 

By collaborating across industry sectors and bringing in environmental groups and others, we can build upon some of the excellent 

standards and compliance programs that are already in the marketplace, identify gaps where new solutions will help, and start 

building consensus through a partnership between the public and 

private sectors. 

In April, ANSI took a first step in organizing the workshop toward product standards for sustainability. Convened at the request 

of one of our members, the U.S. EPA, the workshop was attended 

by over 240 in-person participants and over 100 via a live webinar. 

Representatives of multiple U.S. government agencies, companies, 

retailers, trade associations, and environmental groups were on 

hand to join the discussion, and one of the, I think, the great takeaways from that discussion was I think people are ready—all 

groups of people involved in this are ready to take a step inward 

and try to find ways of working together. 

In the coming weeks, we expect to release the final workshop report, which will detail the discussions, recommendations that came 

out of the meeting. In the meantime, I would like to share a few 

of those messages that we heard from attendees. 

First, consistent and globally accepted terminology tops the list 

of needs, and I think that has also been described by other witnesses. There is a consensus that terms like attribute and certification are now interpreted differently by consumers and standards 

of developers in government industry. We need to bring consensus 

to that process. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

65 

Second, standards need to be clearly written so they can be effectively used for reliable certification. The marketplace needs claims 

can be substantiated so consumers can reward good performance 

with their purchasing power. And finally, participants saw a clear 

need for an overarching body that will coordinate and guide the 

process going forward with input from both the public and the private sectors. 

As part of our mission, ANSI is proud to facilitate problem solving through a number of public/private partnerships. The workshop 

is just the latest example of ANSI’s many issue-driven coordination 

activities which include partnerships with other agencies such as 

HHS on health care information technology. We work with the 

CPSC and this committee on toy safety, with EPA on water conservation, with DOE and NYST on developing maybe the next generation of nuclear civilian power plants. A number of other issues 

that we think are sort of front and center to the public policy formulators in this committee and other places. 

As the voice of the U.S. standards in conforming a consistent system, ANSI is actively engaged in accrediting programs that assess 

conformance to standards for a number of different industries. 

There are many conforming assessment activities applied in today’s 

marketplace including accreditation, certification, inspection, registration, suppliers declaration and testing, all of which are important in this holistic approach toward issues like green claims. 

As an independent third-part process, ANSI accreditation helps 

to promote practices while reducing the need for government agencies to individually monitor conforming assessment organizations. 

ANSI is currently offering accreditation services in a variety of 

conforming assessment areas that are directly related to sustainable products and practices including greenhouse gas emissions, 

sustainable forestry, environmental management system, as well 

as in food and agriculture. 

Third party accreditation demonstrates conformance, verifies 

confidence and strengthen consumer confidence in product, people 

and services. We feel strongly that it has an important role to play 

in the success and credibility of environmental labeling efforts. 

Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, I think we all 

can agree that labels and communications to consumers about the 

degree to which products, people, and services address this inability need to be uniform, transparent, and comprehensible. In order 

to make this vision a reality, we need to have more efficient use 

of standards and conformance resources, some of which are already 

in place, and we need to identify gap that does exist. 

We also need to bring to bear new human and financial resources 

that can strengthen existing systems while satisfying future needs, 

and I think that we see by the work of the FTC that the idea that 

first do no harm. And I think we also need to look at sort of what 

can we do to advance the cause for good environmental claims. I 

think both need to be done at the same time. 

Government and industry need to work at a single purpose if we 

are to define fair green claims marketing practices. ANSI stands 

ready to coordinate the public/private partnership and help in 

make the next step for a meaningful solution with challenges associated with standards and compliance programs that address envimstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

66 

ronmental and societal impacts. Thank you, and I welcome questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooper follows:] 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

67 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 72 73748A.050
68 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 73 73748A.051
69 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 74 73748A.052
70 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 75 73748A.053
71 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 76 73748A.054
72 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 77 73748A.055
73 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 78 73748A.056
74 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 79 73748A.057
75 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 80 73748A.058
76 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 81 73748A.059
77 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 82 73748A.060
78 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 83 73748A.061
79 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 84 73748A.062
80 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 85 73748A.063
81 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 86 73748A.064
82 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 87 73748A.065
83 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 88 73748A.066
84 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentleman. Now it is my pleasure to welcome a witness who we announced was en route. We 

have with us now and witness statement of Dr. Dara O’Rourke who 

is an associate professor of the University of California at Berkeley—no I am sorry. Let me start all over again. 

Dr. Urvashi Rangan is a director of the technical policy at the 

Consumer Union. Dr. Rangan, it is certainly a pleasure to have you 

here before us, and as I have done with the other witnesses, I 

would ask that you stand and be sworn in before you begin your 

testimony. 

[Witness sworn] 

Mr. RUSH. Let the record reflect that Dr. Rangan is responding 

affirmatively. We will recognize you now, all in one fell swoop here. 

We will recognize you for five minutes for the purposes of opening 

statement. 

TESTIMONY OF URVASHI RANGAN 

Ms. RANGAN. Thank you so much, Chairman Rush and members 

of the subcommittee. It was wheels off, and we did take off from 

New York, so I am really pleased to be here. My name is Urvashi 

Rangan. I am director of technical policy at Consumers Union, the 

nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine. I have been 

with the company for just about 10 years now. 

I am an environmental health scientist, and I provide technical 

support to our research and testing and helping develop our advice 

and policy recommendations as well as advocacy initiatives on a 

wide array of environmental and public health issues. 

I also have been directing our free green public service Web site, 

greenerchoices.org, which disseminates a wide range of reports on 

the green marketplace including an ecolabel’s database that gives 

consumers our evaluation and ratings of more than 150 environmental claims including those found on food, personal care products, and cleaners. We also advocate for strong labeling standards 

across a wide array of products. 

There are broad and specific challenges in defining a fair green 

marketing place, and we believe that the government does have a 

very important role in guiding and protecting this marketplace. 

Consumers are faced with a dizzying array of labels—I think you 

have probably heard that from every panelist—some of which are 

very specific like no phthalates to those that are vague and not 

well defined like natural and green. 

This marketplace is incredibly confusing for consumers, and it is 

often filled with a lot of noise that can be misleading and at times 

deceptive. Often consumers are presented with claims that sound 

better than they are, carbon negative, which has minimal standards or none, natural, nontoxic, while there are also meaningful, 

certified, credible labels to choose from. 

Of the certified label programs, there are several viable business 

models including public, private, nonprofit and for-profit that may 

or may not be of interest to a particular consumer. 

Some claims have comprehensive standards behind them—robust 

verification like certified labels, while many do not like general 

claims that can voluntarily be made by a manufacturer. But it is 

virtually difficult to impossible for a consumer to make an accurate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

85 

assessment of what type of green claim they are being faced with 

in the marketplace. 

The Federal Trade Commission’s role in reducing deceptive marketing practices is necessary and should be broadened. At the same 

time, the baseline for good marketing practices and minimum 

standards for common claims should be established. 

Consumers are currently faced with this huge learning task that 

better guidance and regulation could reduce. Requirements for 

transparency in standards product information, as Professor 

O’Rourke mentioned about ingredient lists and full disclosure, 

should be standard for all products sold with green claims. 

Government regulation and guidance again would be helpful in 

maintaining these universal requirements for credible green marketing practices. 

We have been rating the meaning of green claims for consumers 

for the last 10 years. We measure the value of green claims over 

the conventional baseline. I have this in more detail in my written 

testimony, but quickly we assess how meaningful the labels are. 

We look at standards. Are they credible? Have they moved over 

time? Do they evolve with time? Verification, consistency, and 

meaning from product to product, transparency not only of the 

standards but of information about the certifying organization. 

Stakeholder input, that is the opportunity for all stakeholders to 

have input into the standard setting process but also independence, 

which is that once all the input has been sought, we believe the 

best labels are those that are defined by an independent body and 

judged upon by an independent body. 

In evaluating these claims, we provide consumers with comparative rating snapshots, and I also presented at the American National Standards Institute a presentation and can also submit that 

in for the record as well. 

Based on our experience of rating and monitoring claims, we 

have identified a few trends. Comprehension and accessibility are 

challenges for all green claims. Whether they are specific or broad, 

the maintenance and evolution of standards must be addressed 

over time, and consistency across different product categories can 

also be a challenge. The ability to respond and incorporate emerging marketplace issues, whether it is phthalates, Bisphenol A, 

whatever the flavor of the day is, it is another hurdle for labor 

standards and programs. All of these standards can be addressed 

with the increasing complexity of the label. 

A few recommendations from us. One we feel that the government can play a role in eliminating or better defining meaningless 

claims in the marketplace. So voluntary claims like natural or carbon negative or nontoxic or even free range, if you can believe it, 

don’t have standardized meaning. They don’t mean much for consumers. We just prefer to see those labels gone from the marketplace altogether in order to increase the opportunity for credible labels to actually succeed. 

We think that there should be baseline practices set for all green 

marketing claims, that there should be a floor for transparency, 

there should be full disclosure, and we think that government labeling programs—so this is where the government decides to take 

on a labeling program—really ought to meet the highest standards 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

86 

out there for credibility in order to give the highest level of assurance to consumers. 

There are several government-based labeling programs that 

could use a boost at this point, whether they are the myriad of programs at EPA, which have varying transparency and verification 

requirements. And also whether it is the FTC overseeing some of 

those labeling programs that are going on in the other agencies, 

things like no antibiotics, natural, fragrance-free, these don’t have 

properly defined meaning, and yet they are overseen by our government agencies. We think that the FTC has a broader role to play 

in the oversight of those labeling programs as well. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rangan follows:] 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

87 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 92 73748A.067
88 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 93 73748A.068
89 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 94 73748A.069
90 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 95 73748A.070
91 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks Dr. Rangan. The chair thanks all 

the witnesses now. The chair recognizes himself for five minutes 

for the purposes of asking questions of today’s witnesses. 

In today’s testimony, we heard about the growing number of 

‘‘green’’ claims made about household products. Dr. Kohm told us 

about a ‘‘virtual tsunami’’ of these claims, and Dr. Rangan used the 

term ‘‘green noise’’ to talk about the conflicting, confusing and overabundant information in the marketplace. 

And I want to start with a question for the entire panel regarding the types of information that green labels should provide to 

consumers. There appear to be so many expectations for what these 

labels cover. Environmental impacts of the packaging or the products itself, the possible health impacts of the products on individuals, among others. 

The question for each one of the panelists is this. What is reasonable for consumers to expect from these labels? And what is beyond 

the scope of green labeling? More simply, what should it mean for 

a product to be green? I would like to begin with Dr. Kohm. What 

is reasonable for consumers to expect for these labels to cover? 

Mr. KOHM. Chairman, we look at this in a way that would turn 

your question around. We look first at what a reasonable consumer 

expects, and then we require marketers to meet that expectation. 

So the question for us is what does the label convey to a reasonable 

consumer? And then the marketer has to meet whatever that reasonable interpretation is. 

Obviously that is a problem, as you indicated, given the breadth 

of these kinds of claims and the fact that they cut across virtually 

every market sector. It is very challenging to have one label that 

meets all those expectations. 

Mr. CASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the challenge here 

is that it is almost impossible to determine what a reasonable expectation is. I think what we can do, however, is require that any 

manufacturer making an environmental claim, publicly provides 

proof of the accuracy of that claim and that any label on a product 

that suggests green in some sort of broader sense clearly define 

what tests were required to meet the eligibility requirements for 

that label. 

So basically it boils down to greater transparency so that consumers have the information they need to evaluate products. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. I agree completely with Mr. Case. I think the 

first question is what is the key material impact of the product, 

what matters most. And we use a tool called life cycle assessment 

to determine what really matters in evaluating a product’s environmental or social health impact. And the second is is there full 

transparency on those impact categories. 

So the ideal product label would tell you information on what actually matters in that product. So we see products including in the 

foyer to this committee hearing that are claiming they are environmentally sensitive products, but they are not disclosing what really 

matters in this product to the environment, to whether those 

chemicals that are biocumulative or toxic to human health or the 

environment. That is the information for each product. 

If we are looking at electronics, we want to know does the company have a good take-back program to reduce the end-of-life immstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

92 

pact of the product. If it is apparel, it is a different set of issues. 

Right now, our big problem is that companies can claim anything, 

whether it is irrelevant to the main impact category or not, and not 

disclose the underlying information, the ingredients or the performance, which makes up the real impact to the environment and 

human health. 

Mr. COOPER. I think it is a very good question. I think the FTC 

already has some tools available to it. One is called the Pfizer doctrine, which says that if you make a claim, you had better be able 

to substantiate it. There is also what is called material information, that consumers have the right to certain material information 

for them to be able to make an informed choice. And that actually 

was developed with a series of letters between then Chairman Dingell and the FTC back in the early ’80s. 

I think what you have, a lot of members here talked about, is 

sort of the baseline that you need, that you should not be able to 

go below that if you are going to be able to make a claim. Now, 

how you define that is something that I think we could all work 

on, but I think that is not a bad starting point. 

I think you also have to recognize that the FTC really is sort of 

in the position of saying first do no harm, making sure that whatever claim you do make, that is it credible, that it is accurate. 

I think also though there is a need to look at proactive efforts. 

In other words, we want to get the marketplace to expand beyond 

just the baseline. We want to make this a competitive advantage, 

a true competitive advantage where people are constantly looking 

for new ways of improving their score on environmental issues. 

That should be a positive incentive that we want to create. 

So I think there is a lot of balances that have to be in the mix 

here, but I think they all can be of it if we have sort of a consensus 

process that we try to develop. 

Ms. RANGAN. Thank you. I agree with most of what this panel 

has said and would just add that consumers are often faced with 

a premium when they are choosing among these labels. And so it 

takes more than just being truthful. It actually has to have some 

meaning. 

And so when you see the no CFC label, for example, on an aerosol typical personal care product or cleaning aerosol product, that 

is the law. You can’t have CFCs, and yet manufacturers use that 

claim without any other disclosure that, in fact, that is what all 

products in that category have to meet. 

So to disclaim a lack of value over the baseline or products, like 

products, would be very important in terms of being truthful and 

not deceptive to consumers. And then in terms of just to capture 

something that was just said about marketplace capture, these premium labels shouldn’t be able to be met by most of the marketplace. They should be reserved for a top tier, and that in and of 

itself should drive innovation within a product sector to meet those 

standards. 

In Japan, there is a program called the Roadrunner Standard, 

which in the energy efficiency standards, I can’t remember the 

number, but it is a certain small percentage of the market that can 

meet it. That is expected to be the bottom a few years later, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

93 

again you slice it off at 10 percent who can meet the high premium 

label standards. 

So creating incentives and innovation like that in the green marketplace will also drive the industry to create the innovation to 

meet higher standards. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair’s time is concluded. The chair now recognizes the ranking member Mr. Radanovich for five minutes. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome. I 

have enjoyed the testimony of all the members. Glad you made it, 

Dr. Rangan, and I would like to start off with a couple questions, 

one for Mr. Case. Appreciated your testimony. In trying to define 

what is green and what is not, do you believe a regulated product 

with a chemical in it could be defined green? 

Mr. CASE. Most products have chemicals in them, so absolutely 

yes. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. 

Mr. CASE. So there are, in fact, greener chemical-based products. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK, question for the whole panel then as we 

are trying to define what green is. If you were to define it, would 

you limit its definition to biodegradability and life cycle carbon 

footprint alone, or would you add other things to that definition? 

And let us just go down the line and say you got those two things, 

biodegradability and life cycle footprint. Would you add—what 

would you add to that if that wasn’t sufficient to you? 

Mr. KOHM. Well, what the commission has said, Congressman, is 

that general environmental claims like green or ecofriendly aren’t 

very useful and can be deceptive. Because they mean—— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Well, what would you add to those—if you had 

two things, what would you add? 

Mr. KOHM. What we would do is look at how consumers interpret 

a claim in context and not add—— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Could you just—because I got to go down the 

line, and I don’t mean to be rude. Don’t take it the wrong way, but 

if you just had those two things, biodegradability and life cycle carbon footprint is the definition of what you would label green, if you 

think that is not sufficient, what short responses would you add to 

it? 

Mr. KOHM. I think you would have to add many, many claims depending on how a consumer would interpret something in context. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK, thank you. Mr. Case. 

Mr. CASE. So obviously you would need to take a look at all of 

the environmental impacts throughout the products entire life 

cycle, from the raw materials that are used all the way through. 

So you didn’t mention, for example, energy efficiency. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. 

Mr. CASE. You didn’t mention water efficiency. You didn’t mention low toxicity. You didn’t mention how one defines 

biodegradability. I see the smile. I will stop there, but we could go 

on all afternoon listing the various environmental attributes depending on the product category, as Dr. O’Rourke mentioned. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. 

Mr. CASE. The standards would be different for computer products than cleaning. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

94 

Mr. RADANOVICH. I am working down the list here. Dr. 

O’Rourke? 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Right, I also agree that we should be using life 

cycle approaches to understand the real impact across from raw 

material extraction to manufacturing to use to disposal. For consumer products, the things I would add to your short list are persistence, is it biocumulative, and is it toxic to human health or the 

environment? I would add those on top of yours. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK, Dr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper, excuse me. 

Mr. COOPER. Don’t have that other degree. When I worked for 

this subcommittee back in the early ’90s, the jurisdiction was not 

only consumer affairs, it was also rec run and superfund. And so 

the issues—— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. I am sorry. I need to get you on the question 

though. Because if you had biodegradability and life cycle carbon 

footprint defining what was green, what else—— 

Mr. COOPER. The issues that would be front and center of this 

subcommittee then were recyclability, post-consumer waste, a lot of 

issues around the whole recycling mandate. Those are the ones I 

would add to it at this point. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Cooper. And Dr. Rangan. 

Ms. RANGAN. I agree with again most of what was said. I would 

stress the health aspect of it, whether it is persistence or toxicity, 

and I would also add social responsibility. Fair trade is the common term that people talk about, and there are plenty of Venn diagrams about sustainability. But you would be amazed and almost 

shocked and awed as to the multiple attributes that you could consider in any kind of green marketing claim. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right, question for everybody too. Should 

government dictate the process of a manufacturing of a product or 

the makeup of a product in order to be able to get some kind of 

a green designation? 

Mr. KOHM. That would certainly not be within the FTC’s purview. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. 

Mr. CASE. And absolutely not. These are not prescriptive. What 

we are doing instead is identifying what environmental leadership 

looks like and some people will make an awful lot of money meeting those high standards. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. I think the key here is transparency, that Congress requires public disclosure of what is actually in these products. And just through making that public alone, not mandating 

what is in it, how it is made, just mandating the disclosure and the 

transparency, will create incentives for leading firms to innovate 

and other firms to change their products. 

Mr. COOPER. We like the public/private model. The Underwriters 

Laboratory is a member of ANSI. The UL label is seen everywhere. 

In fact, it is in the energy bill. So I think that model could work 

in this area as well. 

Ms. RANGAN. My answer is little different. I think where there 

are common terms that baseline definitions should be provided. If 

we are going to continue to allow natural to be used and widely, 

we ought to have some baselines as to what that ought to mean. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

95 

And in food, there is a plethora of examples where we have really 

common even discrete terms like no antibiotics, and yet that 

doesn’t have to mean the same thing from product to product. So, 

yes, we think there is a role for the government to play in providing some baseline definitions to some of the claims out there. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was curious. As you 

look at the challenge of this kind of labeling, the sort of transparency in labeling regime that we are trying to bring to bear with 

respect to green products, is there any analogous labeling challenge 

you would point to over and above some of the others to kind of 

be a frame of reference for this? Or is this kind of—does this have 

some unique dimensions to it that we ought to be aware of? So I 

would just ask anybody to jump into that. 

Ms. RANGAN. Even within the government, there is a number of 

labeling programs at sort of varying levels of maturity, and even— 

you have Energy Star, which is one of the oldest ones. You have 

organic, which is now pretty mature, and there is a lot of learning 

lessons to be had from both the way the model is set up in terms 

of how the labeling programs are run, how they are overseen, and 

how the standards evolve or don’t evolve over time. And so there 

are a lot of lessons to be learned. 

And there is a lot of variation in quality among even the government-based labeling programs. 

Mr. SARBANES. Anybody else want to—— 

Mr. CASE. Sure, I will say that there are a number of excellent 

standard-setting protocols that are out there. ANSI runs a wonderful program. There are ISO programs that define how environmental leadership should be established. So those are very, very 

useful. And what I really like is the USDA organic model because 

what they did is they took a confusing space with dozens of different standards for organic and grouped them under one label. 

And that is what allowed the organic farmers in this country to 

really make a lot of money because that provided clarity in a single 

brand for consumers to look for. 

Mr. SARBANES. Well, it occurred to me the organic example 

would be a good one to consult, or the organic experience with that 

kind of labeling would be a good one to consult. But I wanted to 

get your thoughts on that. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. I might add a quite different experience, which 

is in financial disclosure and the role of the Securities and Exchange Commission in requiring disclosure of key material information from companies. I think that we are moving towards, I 

think, a system that would require disclosure of non-financial 

metrics from companies in standard formats through XPRL or 

other formats that would allow people, either analysts or consumers, to evaluate products and the companies more accurately. 

So just as we had this problem with toxic assets over the last few 

years, we are realizing we are having problems with toxic products 

where people would not buy them if they knew what was really in 

them. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

96 

Mr. SARBANES. Well, let me ask this question. I think, Dr. 

O’Rourke, you are the one that founded Good Guide. Is that right? 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Correct. 

Mr. SARBANES. Yes, which is an online resource for people to 

kind of check on the claims. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. That is right. 

Mr. SARBANES. And what I was curious about is how you see the 

service you provide relating to the level of kind of government regulation that needs to be in this area. In other words, do you view 

what you are doing largely now as just being a compensator for the 

absence of some good other oversight and transparency mechanisms? Or do you see the potential whatever we achieve in that regard to be a kind of partner in the effort and achieve a higher level 

of accountability across the board? 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Yes, thank you for that question. We basically 

begun Good Guide out of this huge gap in the information available 

to consumers, and it really was an attempt just to fill this hole and 

get people information that they were desiring about health, environmental, and social impacts of products. 

We are now working closely with the state of California, and 

hopefully we would be very excited about working with the federal 

government about getting better information out, required disclosure of this information that would allow the public to get this information in a standard format. 

I think over the long term, there is a huge and vital role for government in facilitating better communication of information out to 

the public. And this small project, Good Guide, is really an attempt 

to learn what information does the public want, and in what form 

is it most effective in helping them make better decisions in the 

marketplace. 

Mr. SARBANES. This is an off-the-wall question, but is there 

any—have there been any ideas about technology that would allow 

consumers as they move through a store, for example, on their 

phone or some other device to scan right there and go straight to 

a consumer guide? Did you already talk about that? 

Mr. O’ROURKE. No, but we have actually built that software at 

Good Guide, and we have the ability to scan barcodes. We are looking at RFID tagging of products. And over time, what we want to 

do is allow people in stores to get the best available information in 

the world on products and companies so that they can make better 

decisions for themselves and not have to depend on marketing or 

package claims. But they can get scientific information on these 

products. 

Mr. SARBANES. OK, thank you. 

Mr. CASE. And Good Guide is actually not the only company that 

is doing it. There are dozens of companies that have approached 

this saying hey, we got the technology. We just need the information. And what is lacking is, you know, how do you define this is 

a green product? Because we have the technology. It is the definition we need. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. I yield my time back. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, for five minutes for the purposes of questioning 

the witnesses. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

97 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I couldn’t be here 

for all the hearing. I have been in and out with other hearings and 

other matters. Mr. Cooper, let me ask this question because I want 

to know more about these standards because I support the scientific rigor and the transparent process that the American National Standards Institute requires of any organization seeking accreditation as an ANSI standards development organization. 

My understanding is that there are three primary green building 

certification systems in the marketplace. Green Globes, Leed, and 

the National Association of Homebuilders National Green Building 

Standard. Can you discuss for us whether the organizations that 

developed these standards are ANSI standards development organizations, and whether they use your approved procedures to develop these standards? Because what I hear everybody saying, they 

are all talking about different standards, but who is regulating the 

standards in a way? 

Mr. COOPER. There are multiple paths, which makes it a bit 

more complicated, but every one of those codes you mentioned does 

fall under the ANSI rubric. Some of those will have their own approaches, say like the ICC in the National Food Council. 

Mr. STUPAK. Right. 

Mr. COOPER. Works very closely with local units of government. 

So it is not quite the consensus process that we have for most of 

our standards because it is only with the local units of government 

that they interact with. Usually we insist that it is a much more 

ecumenical group, including consumer groups or government agencies as well at the federal or local level. 

So each one of those can approach differently, but every one of 

them has to meet basic ANSI standards of transparency, of involving the interested parties. They have to be able to respond to questions of inclusion. And if they want to become an ANS standard, 

then there is a whole other level of involvement with ANSI. If they 

then want to become an international standard, there is a whole 

other level with ISO. 

Mr. STUPAK. Right. 

Mr. COOPER. So they serve bolts and suspenders in each one of 

these, and against the standard, you also have all the obligations 

with the conformants, you know, the testing, inspection, the measuring, measurement, which is not only the certification, which we 

don’t do, but say like a UL would do. But then we would accredit 

the UL so that we are looking at the testers. You know so there 

are levels of these things. And partly because we are not a government agency, we have to overcompensate for these things. 

Our job in most any other country would be done by government 

agency. 

Mr. STUPAK. Does anyone care to comment on that any further? 

Let me ask this one then, Mr. Kohm. The FTC announcing today 

three complaints alleging false and misleading claims regarding environmental claims. Despite today’s discussion on a vast array of 

misleading green claims on products, three is a very small number 

of enforcement actions. So describe the FTC’s approach to enforcement in this area and under what circumstances do you turn to enforcement of some standards? 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

98 

Mr. KOHM. Well, we turn to enforcement when it is necessary, 

and we use enforcement not only to get people under order and to 

have an effect on the people who are violating the law, but also to 

lay out a marker for those people who might otherwise violate the 

law. And the hope is that in bringing cases in certain areas, that 

we will have an effect well beyond the cases that we bring. 

Mr. STUPAK. Do you work with state governments to do enforcement at the more local level? 

Mr. KOHM. Well, we bring national enforcement action. 

Mr. STUPAK. Right. 

Mr. KOHM. We regularly work with state partners and with other 

federal agencies. For example, in at least one of the cases, the EPA 

is helping with expert testimony. 

Mr. STUPAK. What is your tipping point? When do you actually 

bring enforcement standards? I mean do you work with these industries and companies? What is the point where you turn to enforcement? 

Mr. KOHM. Well, it is different in each circumstance. We regularly work with companies. We work with various associations to 

try and get the word out. When that isn’t working or when people 

step way over the line, then enforcement is necessary. 

There is kind of two folks we deal with: the folks that step over 

the line and the people who live over the line. And for the people 

who are committing fraud and living over the line, like the cases 

I mentioned for car devices, one of them is called a nano detonator 

that runs on nuclear fusion that would be about 100 million degrees. That, if it actually worked, those people need to be sued, and 

the commission has been quite active bringing eight cases over the 

last year, and I would expect more in the future. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK, does anyone else care to comment on that, 

what you see FTC’s roles and enforcement while at the same time 

trying to set standards? Mr. Case? 

Mr. CASE. My challenge is that when the enforcement action occurs after consumers have been defrauded, that, you know, I am 

stuck at this point with a $2,500 refrigerator that doesn’t even 

come close to meeting the Energy Star standard. So, you know, allowing companies to make claims without requiring them to provide proof so that, as a consumer, I know the claim is accurate before the purchase is sinful. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK, but how do you do it until they advertise we 

have some victims, right? 

Mr. CASE. Well, one of the things that you can do is actually require that if you are going to be making an environmental claim 

that you have to post information providing evidence that the claim 

is accurate, so that as a consumer, I could stand there in the store 

with my phone and go online and see yes, this claim is accurate. 

Mr. STUPAK. So until we get Mr. Sarbanes’ idea on their cell 

phone, we have to have something else, a posting prior to the time 

of sale. That is what you are saying? 

Ms. RANGAN. And the example that Mr. Case used about the refrigerator is actually Consumer Reports’ test of Energy Star and 

the energy standards that showed that the standards don’t capture 

what the problems are out there. If you can turn off the icemaker 

and you can turn off all the bells and whistles of the refrigerator 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

99 

and test it for energy consumption. But when you turn them all on, 

it is doubled, that is not good enough. And it just highlights again 

how standards and in this case, a government labeling program 

standard needs to evolve over time. 

And where we would like to see more FTC involvement in making sure that those claims are truthful and meaningful over time 

for consumers. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentleman. The chair would like 

to inform the witnesses and the members of the subcommittee that 

he intends to allow for a second round of questioning. And so if the 

witnesses could please let us use a little bit more of your time for 

a second round of questions. And we will have a second round of 

questioning. The chair recognizes himself for two minutes for the 

purposes of asking additional questions. 

Mr. Kohm and all the witnesses, this has been some very interesting testimony, some quite provocative I might add. One of the 

questions that I wanted to ask Mr. Kohm, you talked about your 

enforcement actions, but—and you did not reference at all the 

Green Guide when you said that the—or allege that the companies 

stepped over the line. 

Can you—let us get back to the place of the Green Guides. I 

think this is very important. What place should the Green Guides 

place—or have rather in the future enforcement cases? And should 

that be a beginning, or how should that Green Guide inform future 

enforcement actions? 

Mr. KOHM. Well, Chairman, I think the Green Guides are incredibly important. That one of the things the Green Guides are intended to do is demarcate that line so that the people who are trying to stay on the right side more easily can do so. That there are 

some people that step over it because they don’t know where the 

line is, and we can make that line clearer. There are some people 

who step over because the whole marketplace starts to go over the 

line, and that is where we need to take enforcement action to make 

clear where that line is. And that is one of the things we did today. 

Mr. RUSH. Do any of the other witnesses want to respond about 

the importance or a lack thereof of the Green Guides? 

Mr. CASE. Yes, I will support Mr. Kohm. I think that absolutely 

when the original Green Guides came out in ’92, we saw lots of additional clarity in the marketplace about what was acceptable and 

what wasn’t, again with the revisions in ’98 and ’99. And what we 

are hopeful is that the next version of the guides actually provides 

a much more comprehensive assessments and really kind of requires people to provide proof, requires people to provide some clarity on these issues, and makes sure that as consumers, we know 

whether the information is accurate, relevant, and verifiable. 

Ms. RANGAN. We also support the green marketing guides by the 

FTC, and we also look forward to the update because they could 

be expanded to be much more broad in terms of the scope of claims 

that they are covering and much more detailed in terms of what 

is acceptable and what isn’t. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the ranking 

member, and the chair wants to clarify, before the ranking member 

begins his questioning, it has been requested by the ranking memmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

100 

ber and by the Republican side that we have five minutes of additional questions. The chair said it will be two minutes. So the chair 

will recognize the ranking member for five minutes, recognize Mr. 

Stupak for an additional five minutes. And then the chair will 

come back for his other three minutes. So with that, the chair recognizes the ranking member for five minutes for additional questions. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the 

openness to try to answer as many questions as we can and get a 

benefit from this panel of speakers. 

Mr. O’Rourke, you had mentioned something in your testimony 

that consumers have little information on critical aspects of a product. And it reminds me of getting up in the middle of the night and 

needing an aspirin or something and trying to go through what is 

on the back of an aspirin label and you search for the dosage because you want to take the correct amount and my gosh, it is not 

on the first page. You have to peel back to get to the second page, 

and there is so much garbage on that label that really all that you 

are looking for is the dosage. 

And I guess my question is how much information can you expect 

to give a consumer on a label, and how much of this is subject to 

buyer beware? 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Yes, so we are seeing, I think, more and more 

consumers are looking for some key pieces of information when 

they look at products. So in your case, it was the dosage or the directions on how many you should take. When I look at a green 

cleaner, I want to know are there specific chemicals of concern that 

I don’t want in my house, in the air, on the dishes, wherever. Personal care products that I don’t want certain chemicals. And what 

I think the first step is deciding what are the key pieces of information that need to go on that label that are most pertinent to protecting people’s health and the environment. 

If there is too much information, what we are proposing that it 

needs to be disclosed on the manufacturer’s Web site. So we are 

seeing right now in the house cleaners area that there is not a federal mandate to disclose all the ingredients in your floor cleaner, 

your toilet bowl cleaner. Some of the harshest chemicals in your 

house, they are not disclosed on the package. 

What we would like is that they would be disclosed somewhere, 

either on the manufacturer’s Web site or ultimately on the package. So I think that for things like that, you are putting a harsh 

chemical in your house. I don’t think you can put it on the consumer to just be buyer beware. I think that they need certain 

pieces of information to know how to protect themselves from 

chemicals. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Could you clarify to me? It is my understanding that the Federal Hazardous Substance Act requires all 

that to be on there? 

Mr. O’ROURKE. No, so on household chemicals products in the 

U.S., there is a requirement of disclosure of certain active ingredients over certain percentages. So if you go back home tonight and 

look in your bathroom or underneath your sink, most of the 

harshest chemicals that you will find in your house will have either 

one ingredient listed or zero ingredients listed. Whereas if you look 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

101 

at your personal care products, your liquid hand soap, the requirement is all ingredients in order of concentration. So your liquid 

hand soap will have 30 ingredients listed, and your tub and tile 

cleaner will have zero, one, or maybe two at the most. 

And what they will do is say either call it inactive ingredients 

or they will dilute them enough that they don’t have to disclose. 

So you will literally have no ingredients listed, and sometimes it 

will have phrases like fragrance, as I mentioned, which just masks 

ingredients. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right, OK. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. So unfortunately we don’t have accurate disclosure on chemicals in our houses. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right, thank you very much. Mr. Case, I 

want to ask a second question. You mentioned that the labeling 

program at the USDA dealing with organic foods, and as you know, 

the USDA Web site states that it is not a health or environmental 

program, but it is really a marketing program. And yet many people think that buying products with organic labels on them are 

somehow getting a health or environmental benefit. 

If transparency about the products and their manufacturer are 

what you seek, why do you hold up a program that relies on implied but not guaranteed benefits as your model? 

Mr. CASE. What the USDA organic program does is actually 

bring clarity to the market. So for those consumers that are concerned with the pesticides that are used on fields with the farming 

technologies and techniques, worries about pesticides on food, what 

the USDA organic label does is provide a consistent platform for 

consumers to make educated comparisons between an organic product and a nonorganic product. 

So what it does is provide a common definition, a litmus test, if 

you will. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right, thank you very much. Dr. Rangan, 

you suggested other factors such as fair trade should be included 

in green labeling. But many of the environmental practices in fair 

trade countries is not up to U.S. standards. Is that useful to the 

consumer? 

Ms. RANGAN. The International Labor Organization, ILO, is a 

good start. That is where Trans Fair bases their fair trade labeling 

program and their standards from, and it is a good international 

labeling start for fair practices. 

Do you mind if I just expand on your organic question for one 

minute? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. If you like. 

Ms. RANGAN. Which is that there are cases where consumers 

rightfully infer that organic may offer them a healthier alternative, 

and I will just give you an example. When mad cow came out, organic was one of the few programs that actually required no animal byproducts in the feed. So is it a healthier alternative? Well, 

when it comes to mad cow, yes, it was an alternative if you still 

wanted to eat beef that minimized your potential exposure. 

And then that is the inadvertent side of health and benefit from 

organic, but on the advertent side, all the materials used in organic 

production have to be reviewed by the National Organic Standards 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

102 

Boards. And health and safety are components that have to be addressed in that review process. 

It happens to be based in agricultural marketing service, and 

after 10 years of watchdogging that program, we hear that mantra, 

we are not anything else but marketing. But I think that has more 

to do with where it lives than what it actually is. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right. Thank you very much, and I yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The chair thanks the gentleman. The chair now recognizes Mr. Stupak for five minutes. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think what I have seen 

from this hearing so far is that what constitutes green can be sort 

of a tricky business. But as we see a global supply chain get farther 

and farther removed from the everyday consumer, we are using 

more and more fossil fuels. So let me give you an example because 

I think we mentioned cleaners and that today. We have green 

cleaners or cleaners made basically from the same chemicals as always, but they are purchased from a closer distance. So the companies are saying well, we are a greener chemical because we are not 

using as much fossil fuel to transport. 

Now, does this fact alone, I use less fuel to transport the product, 

qualify a product to be a green product? Anyone want to answer 

that, Dr. O’Rourke? 

Mr. O’ROURKE. I would say the short answer is no. What we 

need to do is evaluate the full life cycle of that product and determine whether transport or manufacturing process is highly energy 

inefficient and that it is a major impact category. 

For a few products, energy use and transport matter a lot, and 

for other products, they don’t matter that much. So you really need 

to know does it matter to the product category. What we are seeing 

now in many cleaners is the claim that they are plant based rather 

than petroleum based. Again that may actually be a confusing concept because what they are doing is deriving a chemical from a 

plant, like sodium laurel sulfate, that can also be derived from petroleum. So the same chemical ends up in your product. It is just 

derived from a different source. So the key is finding out what really matters to environmental or health effects on these things, and 

is that claim—can you verify or can you back up that claim with 

transparent information? 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, give me an example where transportation of 

cost alone would qualify it to be green, to use less transportation 

costs. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. There are a few product categories in which 

transport of the product—really long distances, heavy products. So 

for instance, air shipping products a long way has a very high energy impact. So if you see something that was either grown in a 

greenhouse or flown to you, that is probably going to have a very 

high energy impact, and it is going to matter. 

So we see now more and more people in the U.S. looking for locally produced food for that reason, that they want local which reduces the big transportation change and the big energy. But there 

are many products in which the transport is a minor impact category. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

103 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, couldn’t you make that claim then on any 

water-borne product basically, you know, from buying ore pellets in 

northern Michigan down to the steel mills? That is the only way 

you can transport it. It is the most efficient way and less fuel. Or 

even cars coming across the ocean because of the size and the 

weight and the bulk. I think there would have to be more to it than 

just transportation. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. That is right. Air travel is the highest carbon intensity. Shipping is actually quite efficient carbon wise. Train 

transport quite efficient carbon wise. Local production, the most efficient. So there is a range of impacts, and you need to understand 

those things to be able to either evaluate it or make the claim. 

Another thing we are seeing a lot of bottled water. For instance, 

one bottled water company shipped from the South Pacific and 

claiming it is a green bottled water company. Huge transport and 

energy impacts of the manufacture and transport of that product. 

And then it has a beautiful green label and an ecobottle in which 

it is sold. We view that as confusing at best, deceptive at worst. 

Mr. STUPAK. Dr. Rangan, you wanted to say something on that? 

Ms. RANGAN. You know, I think that in talking about this sphere 

of green, there is a top and a bottom and sides. And if we are establishing a floor or talking about that floor, at the very least disclosure and truthfulness to the meaning should be there. So that 

if a company is making a carbon claim that either they use recyclable energy, wind energy to generate a product, those aren’t void of 

value. They have some value, but the claim should reflect what 

they are doing. 

Should a carbon claim be interpreted as a health claim? It 

shouldn’t be. And our advice to consumers is always read these 

claims quite literally, and it is also why we continue to say that 

discrete labels right now in the marketplace offer consumers the 

quickest way to understand what a product is. So if you need to 

group discrete claims together in order to explain the many attributes of green a product may have, then so be it. 

We prefer that method at least right now versus an overarching 

label where it is very difficult to tell the variations in the components. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Cooper. You got to turn your mike on. 

Mr. COOPER. You have aggressions law in effect here that bad labels are going to drive the good labels out of the marketplace. I 

think you first do no harm. I think one of the points that Dr. 

Rangan made about in Japan where you have an effort to sort of 

up the ante where you are looking for constantly improving the 

product is something that I think we also should consider as part 

of this mix. That you want to have companies who actually have 

a role to play in sort of being the pathfinders where you are constantly improving, you know, the products. 

Getting that sort of seal or label recognized is not going to be 

easy. What it is, like a Good Housekeeping or Better Business Bureau or Underwriters Laboratory, then it is a very powerful tool. 

So I think that that should be part of the mix as well. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It looks like my time has 

expired. Thank you for the second round. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

104 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. The chair recognizes himself for his three 

minutes. You mentioned water. I mean somebody tell me about the 

false labeling that is involved in the water. I have a bottle of water 

here. It says ‘‘smaller labels equal more trees,’’ and it also under 

that says ‘‘we could write more on a bigger label, but saving trees 

is important’’ which we understand and agree with. ‘‘By keeping it 

short, we saved almost 10 million pounds of paper per year in the 

U.S. That is about 30,000 trees.’’ And then it says ‘‘be green.’’ 

And I just want to know, first of all, this is a label. But also some 

of this stuff is nothing but tap water in a bottle, all right. And but 

yet consumers are buying their water because it is a part of being 

green and being healthy. 

Can you all respond to that and help us to help deliver the American consumer from the trap that they find themselves in? 

Ms. RANGAN. Chairman Rush, you have just highlighted in that 

bottle what the problems are. Because there aren’t baselines for 

what should be disclosed or not disclosed, it is up to a company to 

decide what they feel like disclosing and what they don’t feel like 

disclosing. They can weave that into a green claim and say we are 

using less paper and less disclosure is less paper. 

And in terms of the water inside the bottle, absolutely. Our tests 

have shown year after year, if you filter your water, you are going 

to get as good of quality with regard to health as anything that is 

in one of those bottles. 

I think this is a great example of where the baseline has a lot 

of holes, and in filling those holes and getting rid of these generic 

claims that are vague and meaningless, we can do a lot toward reducing the confusion that comes from that bottle and a consumer 

trying to buy it. 

Mr. CASE. Well, I think you are absolutely right. It is, in some 

circumstances, a legitimate claim. Under the seven sins taxonomy 

though, we would refer to it as the sin of the hidden tradeoff. What 

manufacturers are able to do with almost any product that you 

make is find some little nugget that allows them to say this makes 

it green. And so the question is well, how many nuggets are acceptable? At what point does it become green? 

And so what one needs is some sort of voluntary environmental 

label so that there are actual standards that say this is what green 

is, and if you have products that meet a standard developed in an 

open, public, transparent process, you will be able to resolve those 

kinds of issues. And so to be open to these kind of standard setting 

committees whether those kinds of claims are worthy of some sort 

of national label. 

Mr. KOHM. Chairman, those are fairly specific claims, and those 

are claims that, if true, a consumer can understand and make 

choices based on. A lot of the discussion today has been about these 

general green claims that, you know, I am green, I am ecofriendly, 

that are very difficult to substantiate. But if assuming all those 

claims are true and a consumer wanted to contribute to using less 

paper and assuming they didn’t take any implied claim from that 

about the water, that those are useful. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. The problem with those claims is that they are 

completely irrelevant to the actual environmental impact or health 

impact of that product. So it may be an accurate claim, but it is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

105 

in a sense a kind of magician’s bait and switch where you are looking at one hand and the real action is in the other hand. For that 

product, it is around the manufacturing of the water, the manufacturing of the plastic bottle and the disposal of the plastic bottle are 

the real environmental impacts, not the little tiny piece of paper 

around the sleeve of the plastic. 

So their claim may be accurate, but it is largely irrelevant to the 

actual environmental and health impact of the product. 

Mr. RUSH. That concludes our hearing today, and I want to really 

relay to our witnesses I have not had a greater panel of witnesses 

to help us on any issue that I can think of since I have been chair, 

since I have been chairman of this subcommittee. You have been 

outstanding, and your testimony has been very, very informative 

and provocative and very interesting. And I really want to thank 

each and every one of you for participating, and I think that you 

made this subcommittee much more prepared to deal with this particular issue. And I hope that this will translate—and I know that 

it will—translate into us being much more sensitive and much 

more vigilant and helpful and in partnership with the FTC as we 

move forward. 

We have to help solve this problem for the American consumer, 

and you have really been pivotal in bringing us to a solution. 

Thank you so very much, and Godspeed to each and every one of 

you. Thank you. The subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

106 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 111 73748A.071
107 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 112 73748A.072
108 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 113 73748A.073
109 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 114 73748A.074
110 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 115 73748A.075
111 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 116 73748A.076
112 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 117 73748A.077