February 2015

Summary & Testing Feedback for DfE Label Redesign

Project Background & Summary.................................................... page 1

Designs Tested .............................................................................. page 5

Supporting Data ............................................................................ page 6

Testing Methodology .................................................................... page 16

 

Project Background & Summary

EPA consulted a broad range of stakeholders in developing the new Safer Choice label. This document 

summarizes information received from partner companies, stakeholders, and consumers and explains how it 

helped EPA arrive at final label designs.

Project Goals • Better convey the Safer Product Label Program mission to promote safer products;

• Empower consumers to purchase safer products and increase recognition of the Safer Product Labeling 

Program; and 

• Communicate to consumers the human health benefits, as well as the environmental benefits, of choosing 

safer products.

Understanding Consumer & Stakeholder Preferences • Consumer focus groups – September, 2014

o Conducted by Alan Newman Research

o Three markets: Richmond, VA; Skokie, IL; Marina del Rey, CA

o Separate focus groups for general and “leaning green” consumers at each market

o 54 participants across six focus groups

• Consumer online survey – October, 2014

o Conducted by Ipsos, a firm that maintains a preexisting representative national panel

o 2,009 adult participants (905 male, 1104 female)

• Public comment – September and October, 2014: 

o 1,716 comments submitted via program website and social media 

• Company partners and stakeholders:

o Stakeholder listening sessions – August 4-5, 2014

- 94 stakeholders (partners, NGOs, trade associations, retailers) attended

- 38 provided comments

o Partner webinars – July 8, 2014

- 58 Industrial and Institutional (I&I) and 36 consumer product partners attended

- 16 I&I and 12 consumer product partners provided comments

o One-on-one phone conversations – June and July, 2014

- 14 company partners and 9 stakeholders

1
February 2015

o Federal Trade Commission (FTC) – The program consulted with FTC throughout the label redesign 

project, including during the final design phase. The new label reflects FTC’s review and input on 

design testing and selection.

Final Design – A Family of Labels 

Primary label design This label incorporates preferred design elements from commenters across 

interest and population groups. The design strongly conveyed to our 

consumer audiences that labeled products are safer for their homes and 

families. Safer Choice is a bold, distinctive, and memorable name. The house 

and figures connect the brand to people. The leaves show that a labeled 

product is safer for the environment. The blue and green colors reflect a 

health and environmental focus with tones that are bright and optimistic.

Industrial & Institutional (I&I)

This design is a simple variation that maintains brand identity and 

communicates better for Industrial & Institutional and consumer products

used outside the home. The circle icon is shaped like the earth, and an 

optional url including ‘dfe’ makes a link to the Design for the Environment 

Program. Including ‘dfe’ in the url will aid its acceptance in environmentally 

preferable procurement programs, since some programs include explicit 

reference to DfE in their requirements.

Fragrance Free

This variation would be offered to partners for use on products that are 

fragrance free. The core components of the design are kept intact with the 

addition of “Fragrance Free.” This design will be easily recognizable as part of 

the overall brand family.

2
February 2015

Major Design Elements 

Name: Safer Choice 

Goal: Choose a name that conveys to consumers and purchasers that a labeled product meets EPA’s voluntary 

Standard for Safer Products and contains only the safest possible chemical ingredients.

Testing & Feedback: “Safer Choice” was the preferred choice of consumers and stakeholders, versus a label with 

no name or different name (Smarter Choice). 

• Found to be visually compelling and attention grabbing 

• Viewed as a strong, memorable messaging element

• Captures the Safer Product Labeling Program mission

The consumer online consumer survey found that 65% of consumers thought “Safer Choice” is effective in 

showing that a product is “safer for people and families” and 60% found it effective in showing that a product 

helps protect the environment. In both cases, the majority of the remaining respondents were neutral.

“Safer Choice” was preferred by 89% of the public that submitted comments regarding the label name via the 

program website and social media. 

Icon at top of Label: House (with Circle Made Available as Design Variation) 

Challenge: Design a graphic that works for both the consumer and I&I sectors.

Outcome: The house as the primary icon, with a circle variation made available to partners, particularly in the I&I 

sector. The label variations will be distinguishable yet clearly identifiable as part of the same design family.

Testing & Feedback:

• Consumers who provided input through focus groups, online survey, and online comments all selected the 

house as the most effective design in communicating human health protection.

o The house was preferred by nearly 64% of the public that commented on the icon via the program 

website or social media.

• Partners who manufacture consumer products preferred the house, while those who manufacturer I&I 

products preferred the circle.

 

3
February 2015

Tagline: Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards 

Challenge: Develop a tagline that conveys clearly and concisely the meaning of the label, and program, to 

consumers.

Outcome: “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards”

Testing & Feedback: Preferred over “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Ingredients Criteria” and strongly preferred over 

“Meets U.S. EPA Criteria” across testing efforts.

• Found to be the most meaningful tagline by consumers in the consumer online survey. Nearly half of 

consumers who took the online survey rated “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards” as the better

tagline. (Figure 1)

• “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards” was the preferred tagline for 45% of the public that submitted 

comments via the program website and social media. The next most preferred tagline, “Meets U.S. EPA 

Safer Ingredients Criteria,” was preferred by 28% of the respondents.

Figure 1: Online Survey Tagline Preference

Overall Layout and Aesthetic 

Strong preference was given to a multi-color design (green and dark blue) to communicate both environmental 

and human health protection, as well as including a url (www.epa.gov/saferchoice) so people can easily learn 

more. 

A bold border around the design was favored to help the label stand out. Approximately 95% of respondents 

through the program website and social media preferred label layouts that used a border. Of these, 57% preferred 

the boldest (thickest) border design. Of comments that discussed the color design, 90% preferred the darker 

multi-color design.

15%

38%

47%

Preference

“Meets U.S. EPA 

Criteria”

“Meets U.S. EPA 

Safer Ingredients 

Criteria”

“Meets U.S. EPA 

Safer Product 

Standards”

Total respondents: 2,009 

4
February 2015

Designs Tested 

Below are the label designs that were tested among partner companies, stakeholders, and the public. 

Consumer Online Survey _________________________________________________________________________________

A B C 

Consumer Focus Groups _________________________________________________________________________________

A1 A2 B1 B2 C C1

Website and Social Media ________________________________________________________________________________

A B C D

Stakeholder Listening Sessions, Partner Webinars, & Conversations with Individual Partners and Stakeholders __________

A B C D

 

5
February 2015

Supporting Data 

The supporting data for each major design element – name, tagline, icon at top of label, and overall layout and 

aesthetic – are summarized for each testing effort, below. 

Name: Safer Choice 

A. Consumer online survey

Table 1: Findings on Name from Consumer Online Survey

Design A Design B

TOTAL ANSWERING: 2,009 adults

Q: The name "Safer Choice" is effective in showing that the product is safer for people and families

Strongly/ Somewhat Agree 65% 65%

Neutral - don't agree or disagree 23% 23%

Strongly/ Somewhat Disagree 12% 12%

Q: The name "Safer Choice" is effective in showing that the product helps protect the environment

Strongly/ Somewhat Agree 60% 61%

Neutral - don't agree or disagree 26% 25%

Strongly/ Somewhat Disagree 14% 14%

B. Consumer focus groups

The “Safer Choice” name was both visually compelling and a strong messaging element across all focus groups. 

Not only was it perceived as bold and eye-catching, but it communicated that a product would be safer than 

others in its category. Moreover, it summarized what participants wanted to feel when purchasing a product –

that they were, in fact, making a safer choice. However, there were some who felt the headline was 

unnecessary. Although they did not strongly reject “Safer Choice,” they preferred fewer words, felt the taglines

in each label sufficiently conveyed its purpose, and asked “safer than what?” 

C. Comments submitted via DfE website and social media

While not all commenters offered feedback on the name, the majority of those who did preferred the label 

name of “Safer Choice,” which works well to identify products that meet the program’s Safer Product Criteria.

Only a small proportion mentioned concerns with that name, such as finding the term “safer” to be misleading 

or undescriptive and subjective.

Table 2: Findings on Name from DfE Website and Social Media Comments

Label Name DfE Partners Stakeholders General Public & No 

Affiliation

Safer Choice 9 47 314

Other 2 6 36

6
February 2015

A few relevant comments:

• "Safer Choice" is a simple catch phrase that is an important eye-catcher and very memorable.

• Emphasizing the "Safer Choice" wording makes it clear what this program is about.

• I like having the word CHOICE in the label because the consumer will see it as their choice – they are 

choosing the better option for their families and the environment.

D. Early Stakeholder & Partner feedback

Stakeholder listening sessions

Of the 18 stakeholders who commented on the name, the majority (10) preferred the name “Safer Choice” 

because it is more in line with DfE’s mission and will resonate with consumers. The remaining commenters (8) 

preferred Option C (with no name). The name “Smarter Choice” was viewed as having too many possible 

meanings, with no focus on chemicals.

Partner webinars

The majority of I&I (11 of 16) and Consumer (9 of 12) partners preferred “Safer Choice” because it conveys a 

strong message. One I&I partner preferred “Smarter Choice.” Two I&I and three consumer partners preferred 

no name. One Consumer partner suggested incorporating “Safer Choice” into Option C with the tagline “U.S. 

EPA Certified.”

Conversations with Partners and Stakeholders

The majority of partners (8 of 14) and stakeholders (6 of 9) preferred “Safer Choice” or “Safer Product” since the 

word “Safer” directly communicates EPA’s and DfE’s mission and will make an emotional connection with 

consumers looking to protect their families. Two partners and one stakeholder preferred “Smarter Choice” for 

reasons including that “Smarter” compliments the consumer, and that most consumers assume that the 

products on shelf are already safe. Two partners preferred Option C (with no name) since simplicity is key for 

the label and associated messaging will be sufficient to “sell” the program. Two partners were split among the 

name options. One stakeholder suggested “Green Choice” or “Green Product” and another stakeholder had no 

preference between Smarter and Safer. One partner, who preferred “Safer,” expressed that the current DfE 

name/label is preferable over any of the new design options.

Some product and chemical manufacturers have voiced concern over use of the term “Safer Choice” in meetings 

outside of our structured solicitations for feedback. These stakeholders have explained that they are concerned 

that products that do not bear the label will be viewed as less safe by consumers. A label that does not include 

a name would be preferred by this audience.

 

7
February 2015

Icon at Top of Label: House (with Circle as Design Variation) 

A. Consumer online survey

Design B (“Safer Choice” with house icon) was chosen by nearly half of respondents as the most effective design 

option in conveying product safety for families and the environment. Design C (the house design with no 

associated name) was chosen by approximately one-third of respondents and one-fifth chose Design A (“Safer 

Choice” with circle icon). 

 Figure 1: Preference on Label Design from Consumer Online Survey

B. Consumer focus groups

The house icon was easily recognizable and communicated safety concepts effectively.

• The images of the house and people communicated that a product would be safer for people, families, 

and for household use. 

• The image of the two people was frequently perceived as a parent and child. For some, this suggested 

that a product would be safer for use in homes where children are present. 

• The house was seen as essential for conveying “safer for home, household use, and family” – not “just the 

environment.” Using the circle in place of a house (in two design alternatives) was seen as a general 

design element (communicating nothing in particular) by most participants and as the world/globe by a 

few. Once participants had seen a label with a house, most preferred that design. 

19%

49%

32%

Respondent label design preference

Design A (“Safer Choice” 

with circle icon)

Design B (“Safer Choice” 

with house icon)

Design C (House design

with no associated name)

Total respondents: 2009 

8
February 2015

C. Comments submitted via DfE website and social media

DfE partners and stakeholders appear evenly split between the use of a house and a circle. The general public 

favors the use of the house. A few commenters observed that the chimney could be a viewed as a source of 

pollution.

Table 3: Findings on House vs. Circle from DfE Website and Social Media Comments

House vs. Circle DfE Partners Stakeholders General Public & No Affiliation

House 5 26 184

Circle 8 21 92

A few relevant comments:

• The house outline is vital to convey the notion of home.

• I like [...] the circle. I feel it represents the world rather than just a section of the world.

• Having a house on the label makes I&I buyers think that the product is "retail grade" or "household 

strength" and they typically want stronger products that are "industrial strength" or "commercial grade."

• I think it is important to include both the house and the people to convey the message of "healthy family" 

and "healthy home."

• ...blue sphere behind people of multiple ages/generations implies safer for our world not just our homes.

• [favors circle]... not everyone lives in a house.

D. Early Stakeholder & Partner feedback

Stakeholder Listening Sessions

Few stakeholders commented specifically on the house versus circle icon. Of the 18 stakeholders who 

commented on the overall design, preferences were fairly evenly split between Design C (the house design with 

no associated name) (9 of 18) and Design B (the Safer Choice design with the circle icon) (8 of 18). One attendee 

indicated a preference for Design A (the Smarter Choice design which incorporates a house). Two attendees 

who preferred Design B suggested replacing the circle with the house label. One attendee questioned if using a 

house would distance the program from I&I manufacturers. 

Partner Webinars

Few partners commented specifically on the house versus circle icon. Several I&I partners noted concern about 

using the home because it excludes consumer products used outside the home or in I&I settings. Two I&I 

partners suggested replacing the circle in Design B with the house in Design C. One I&I partner noted the use of 

the chimney in Design C has bad connotations.

Conversations with Partners and Stakeholders

Few partners commented specifically on the house versus circle icon. The majority of partners (8 of 14) and 

stakeholders (6 of 9) preferred Design B (Safer Choice), either as is with the circle icon or modified to include the 

house icon. I&I partners noted that the circle icon will work better for their products than the house icon.

 

9
February 2015

Tagline: Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards 

A. Consumer online survey

Respondents felt the tagline from Design 3 – “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards” – was the most credible.

 Figure 2: Findings on Most Credible Tagline from Consumer Online Survey

B. Consumer focus groups

Consumer focus groups explicitly tested the term “standard,” but the focus group moderator also explored the 

difference in the way the terms “standard” and “standards” are perceived by consumers. Conversations with 

focus group participants indicated that the plural “standards” was preferable to the singular “standard.” For 

some, “standards” was more appealing than “standard” because participants expected there would be more 

than one standard. The singular “standard” implied a safety rating that was not the highest (as in standard

rating, better rating, best rating). 

For many, “safer ingredient criteria” was appealing because it suggested that each product ingredient is 

examined and meets standards. “Safer chemistry criteria” was polarizing across groups. Some felt it was 

distracting or negatively associated it with harmful chemicals, chemical reactions, and/or unpleasant memories 

of chemistry class. 

C. Comments submitted via DfE website and social media

DfE partners preferred taglines A and D (see table below). Stakeholders had a strong preference for tagline D, 

and the general public preferred taglines C and D. There is a general preference for the use of “standards” 

rather than “criteria.” The term “chemistry” is generally viewed negatively.

15%

38%

47%

Most credible tagline 

“Meets U.S. EPA 

Criteria”

“Meets U.S. EPA 

Safer Ingredients 

Criteria”

“Meets U.S. EPA 

Safer Product 

Standards”

Total respondents: 2,009 

10
February 2015

Table 4: Findings on Taglines from DfE Website and Social Media Comments

Tagline Option DfE Partners Stakeholders General Public & 

No Affiliation

 A: Meets U.S. EPA Criteria 4 10 25

B: Meets U.S. EPA Safer Chemistry Criteria 2 9 66

C: Meets U.S. EPA Safer Ingredient Criteria 1 15 106

D: Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards 4 32 162

A few relevant comments:

• ...‘criteria’ may a "big word" to some.

• I am not sure how the word "chemistry" will resonate with people. I think "safer product standards" makes 

a stronger, more lasting impression.

• By using the word "product" tagline D clearly indicates that what is safer is the product the consumer is 

looking to buy.

• Using the term "safer product standards" encompasses more than just chemicals, which is more 

informative [than “ingredients”].

• “Safer Product Standards” is language people will understand without sounding like jargon – criteria.

• The word criteria is vague standards is much better.

• My preference would be to modify A [Safer Choice circle design] by replacing “Meets US EPA Criteria” with 

“Meets US EPA Safer Product Standards.” The latter is more definitive and easier to understand by the 

public.

D. Early Stakeholder & Partner feedback 

Stakeholder Listening Sessions

The taglines “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards” (recommended), “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Criteria,”

and “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Ingredients Criteria” were developed after the stakeholder listening sessions. Below 

is the feedback we received on the three taglines presented.

Of the 14 individuals that commented on the taglines, their preferences were split among taglines A (3), B (5), 

and C (6). Several attendees indicated concerns about font sizing, many indicating that a short and succinct 

tagline would be more legible at smaller sizes. 

Table 5: Findings on Taglines from Stakeholder and Partner Feedback

General Comments 

Tagline A:

Meets U.S. EPA Criteria

Tagline B: 

Meets U.S. EPA Criteria for the 

Safer Product Labeling 

Program

Tagline C: 

Meets U.S. EPA Safer Chemistry 

Criteria

• May be confusing for 

consumers: what “EPA 

Criteria” are being 

referred to?

• Shorter is better

• Accurately communicates 

the program’s purpose

• May be too long

• May be too long

• “Chemistry” may have good or 

bad connotations

• Italicized font is hard to read

11
February 2015

Partner Webinars

The taglines “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards” and the tagline “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Ingredients 

Criteria” were developed after the partner webinars. Below is the feedback we received on four taglines (See 

Table 6). Note that Tagline D: Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Criteria was not part of a design, but was offered 

as an additional option during the webinar.

Of the 16 partners who commented on taglines, five I&I and four consumer partners preferred Tagline A. One 

I&I partner and two Consumer partners preferred Tagline B. One I&I partner and three Consumer partners 

preferred Tagline D. 

 Table 6: Findings on Taglines from Partner Webinars 

General Comments 

Tagline A (favored):

Meets U.S. EPA Criteria

Tagline B: 

Meets U.S. EPA Criteria for 

the Safer Product Labeling 

Program

Tagline C: 

Meets U.S. EPA Safer 

Chemistry Criteria

Tagline D:

Meets U.S. EPA Safer 

Product Criteria

• Preference for the 

upper/lower case 

version of Tagline A 

(instead of all caps)

• Use of “labeling” may 

dilute the impression of 

a science-based criteria

• Consumers may have a 

negative view of 

“chemistry” and 

“chemicals”

• Suggested change to 

“Safer Product Criteria”

• Preferred over 

Tagline C by 

several partners

• More consumer 

friendly

Conversations with Partners & Stakeholders

The taglines “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards” and “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Ingredients Criteria” were not 

discussed when talking to individual partners and stakeholders. 

Designs discussed:

• A: Meets U.S. EPA Criteria

• B: Meets U.S. EPA Criteria for the Safer Product Labeling Program

• C: Meets U.S. EPA Safer Chemistry Criteria

• D: Meets U.S. Safer Product Criteria (offered as additional option)

There was no consensus on preferred taglines. Several organizations recommended the use of “EPA Certified” 

because it’s short, simple, and direct. Others preferred more descriptive taglines to ensure the consumer knows 

which criteria are being met. It was noted that the use of “product” in the tagline is redundant since the label 

will be on products. A few recommended that the tagline needed to better convey the idea of leadership versus 

just meeting criteria. Several partners also noted the tagline should be more official – i.e., clearly convey that 

this is EPA’s labeling program, not a company’s attempt to self-certify their own products.

 

12
February 2015

Overall Layout and Aesthetic 

E. Consumer online survey

The results for the three questions most pertinent to overall layout and aesthetic are presented below.

Table 7: Findings on Overall Layout and Aesthetic from Consumer Online Survey

Design A

(circle)

Design B

(house)

Design C

(no name)

TOTAL ANSWERING: 2,009 adults

Q: The label is attractive and appealing

Strongly/ Somewhat Agree 61% 60% 59%

Neutral - don't agree or disagree 27% 28% 29%

Strongly/ Somewhat Disagree 12% 12% 12%

Q: The visual design is effective in showing that the product is safer for people and families

Strongly/ Somewhat Agree 62% 63% 64%

Neutral - don't agree or disagree 27% 26% 26%

Strongly/ Somewhat Disagree 12% 11% 10%

Q: The visual design is effective in showing that the product helps protect the environment

Strongly/ Somewhat Agree 59% 59% 59%

Neutral - don't agree or disagree 26% 27% 27%

Strongly/ Somewhat Disagree 15% 14% 14%

F. Consumer focus groups

Green leaves communicated a more “environmentally friendly” product that is safer for the environment 

than products without the label. The leaves were not misinterpreted as representative of “all natural” or 

“organic” ingredients. 

A multi-colored label was important and preferred; in particular participants voiced a preference for the color 

green, which both attracted attention and communicated that the label is related to the environment. The 

one monochromatic label was consistently rejected, primarily because of its all-blue color scheme. Moreover, 

bold, saturated colors were preferred by most to colors that appeared faded or muted. 

A border was consistently seen as an important feature that visually organizes the label. A bold border was 

especially appealing.

Less copy and/or emphasized headline copy as design elements were preferred by the majority of 

participants. This was particularly true of participants who imagined the label shrunk to fit a small product label.

Mixed view on “fragrance free.” A few noted that they seek fragrance free products due to allergens and liked 

the addition. Others thought it would be redundant and unnecessary since product manufacturers will make 

the claim elsewhere on packaging.

13
February 2015

G. Comments submitted via DfE website and social media

Border

In terms of overall border preference, there is a very strong preference for the use of a border in the label. 

Partners and the general public strongly favor the bold border in Label Design D. There is no clear preference 

for specific border design from the stakeholder commenters. 

Table 8: Findings on Border from DfE Website and Social Media Comments

Border Option DfE Partners Stakeholders General Public & No Affiliation

A 1 8 64

B 0 7 15

C 0 2 13

D 4 7 147

Border 6 25 244

No Border 0 2 13

A few relevant comments:

• I like the border around the label, which helps it stand out.

• Enclosing the label in a box is good because it clearly defines the boundaries of the label. 

• I also like the border on D, a nice thick, bold border that encloses the entire EPA label. This will help 

differentiate the EPA label from any verbiage/pictures on our labels.

• The unique shape and sectioned information draws the eye and makes the label easy to read and 

understand.

Color

There is a strong preference from all groups for the darker color palette used in labels A, C, and D rather than 

the lighter color palette in label B.

Table 9: Findings on Color from DfE Website and Social Media Comments

Color DfE Partners Stakeholders General Public & No Affiliation

Light Blue 0 1 22

Dark Blue 6 28 177

A few relevant comments:

• I like the darker blue, seems like a stronger and clearer message.

• Darker blue [...] will stand out better on label.

• I prefer the darker blue, as it would be easier to read especially when reduced in size.

14
February 2015

URL

There is a strong preference for the inclusion of the website URL as part of the label design. There was no clear 

preference among commenters between /saferchoice and /saferproduct. There are several comments that 

suggest the use of a QR code rather than (or in addition to) a URL.

Table 10: Findings on URL from DfE Website and Social Media Comments

Website Preference DfE Partners Stakeholders General Public & No Affiliation

Yes 5 45 286

No 0 3 18

epa.gov/saferchoice 1 3 11

epa.gov/saferproduct 2 2 9

A couple relevant comments:

• I also like that the "Safer Choice" label is large and repeated on the web address. I think that would 

help the customer remember the web address rather than have "safer product" in the web address.

• I like the "saferchoice" web name since it emphasizes that consumers can choose.

H. Early Stakeholder & Partner feedback

Stakeholder listening sessions

Few stakeholders commented specifically on the overall design and aesthetic. General comments included that 

a border is needed to contain the design on packaging, and that a curved border is more fluid-looking than the 

rectangular border. Several commenters said that they recommend the inclusion of a url or QR code to 

encourage people to seek additional information.

Partner Webinars

Few stakeholders commented specifically on the overall design and aesthetic. One partner indicated a 

preference for the darker blue of Option C. Several partners suggested offering more color options to increase 

contrast on product labels, especially the option of monochromatic labels. 

Conversations with partners and stakeholders

General comments included that the border works well to visually contain all elements, and that a url or QR 

code should be included to help people easily obtain additional information. While partners in general 

responded positively to the blue and green in the designs, one partner suggested offering more than one color 

palette so partners can choose what works best on their packaging. 

15
February 2015

Methodology 

The designs tested can be found in Appendix A and a summary of the data can be found in Appendix B.

A. Consumer online survey

The consumer online survey was conducted among 2,009 adults (905 male, 1104 female), ages 18 years or older 

and living in the continental United States. The sample of individuals invited to participate in the survey were 

balanced to the U.S. population, based on demographic information (age, gender, educational attainment, 

geographic region, etc.) through the Current Population Survey1

. All responses were collected October 6-8, 2014. 

The margin of error for this survey is +/- 2.19 percentage points. Ipsos, a firm that maintains a preexisting 

representative national panel, implemented the survey. 

The overall sampling frame for the online consumer surveys is the panel of individuals previously recruited by 

Ipsos (i.e., the Ipsos Online Panel) to participate in online surveys. The Ipsos Online Panel is an actively managed 

research access panel that uses multi-source recruitment to maintain a representative base of respondents. It 

includes individuals who have volunteered to take part in market research and is extensively profiled to 

efficiently target respondents. 

B. Consumer focus groups

A total of six focus groups were conducted. Groups were held in September of 2014 in three markets -

Richmond, VA; Skokie, IL; and Marina del Ray, CA. In each market, two groups were conducted – one with 

General Consumers and one with Leaning Green Consumers. 

A total of 54 participants were queried across groups. Ten participants per group were recruited (7 to 10 

participated). Focus groups lasted about an hour and thirty minutes to an hour and forty-five minutes.

Groups began with an introductory discussion of participants’ general awareness of certification seals (e.g., the 

USDA Organic label and U.S. EPA Energy Star label) and if/how they used these when shopping. Participants 

then evaluated five alternative DfE label designs, first in individual response questionnaires, and then in group 

discussions. Next, they were presented with a description of the DfE program and asked to select which two of 

the five labels most effectively communicated the program. Then, a label that included the term fragrance-free, 

and the current DfE label were briefly discussed. Finally, they identified communication channels via which they 

would like to learn more about the DfE program. 

C. Comments submitted via DfE website and social media

On September 8, 2014 the EPA started seeking feedback from the public on the proposed label designs. Label 

designs were posted on the DfE website at www.epa.gov/dfe/label, and social media platforms including 

Facebook, Twitter, and blog posts which were used to encourage people to visit the label redesign page and 

share their thoughts.

1 The Current Population Survey (CPS), sponsored jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS), is the primary source of labor force statistics for the population of the United States. The survey is ongoing. More 

information can be found here: http://www.census.gov/cps/

16

 
February 2015

A total of 1,716 unique comments were submitted through the online comment system. Over 90% of these 

comments are from the general public or commenters who did not indicate their affiliation, with the remaining 

from DfE partners and stakeholders, 28 comments were provided by DfE partners (i.e., formulators in the DfE 

program), 56 comments were from local, state or government employees and 36 comments were from nonprofits. More than 125 comments were submitted through social media platforms; their affiliations were not 

noted. All comments have been recorded and analyzed to determine the label design preferences of the 

commenters. 

D. Stakeholder listening sessions

DfE hosted two label redesign listening sessions on August 4 and 5, 2014. A total of 94 attendees participated, of 

which 31 were consultants (for government or industry) or industry associations, 38 were product or chemical 

manufacturers and 4 were product retailers. Additionally, there were 7 non-profits, 9 state or federal 

government participants, and 5 journalists. Of these attendees, 38 provided comments. The listening sessions 

were announced in the Federal Register on July 16, 2014 and on the DfE website. Attendees were able to 

register for and attend one or both sessions.

E. Partner webinars

DfE hosted two partner webinars on July 8, 2014 – one for consumer product manufacturers and one for I&I 

product manufacturers. A total of 58 I&I and 36 consumer partners attended, with 16 I&I and 12 Consumer 

partners providing comments. The partner webinars were announced via email to DfE partners on June 18, 

2014.

F. Conversations with partners and stakeholders

During June and July 2014, DfE had one-on-one phone conversations with 14 partners and 9 stakeholders who 

had expressed interest in the label redesign project, to gather feedback on initial designs before testing with the 

general public. Designs were shared via GoToMeetings so partners and stakeholders could view the designs but 

not distribute them.

17