COMPLYING WITH THE

ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING

GUIDES

 Federal Trade Commission Toll-free 1-877-FTC-HELP

 www.ftc.gov For the Consumer
This booklet provides the FTC staffs view of the laws requirements.

It is not binding on the Commission.
INTRODUCTION

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) seeks to prevent deception and unfairness in

the marketplace. The FTC Act gives the Commission the power to bring law enforcement actions against false or misleading marketing claims, including environmental or green marketing claims. The FTC issued its Environmental Guides, often

referred to as the Green Guides, in 1992, and revised them most recently in 1998.

The Guides indicate how the Commission will apply Section 5 of the FTC Act, which

prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, to environmental marketing claims.

Like other industry guides issued by the FTC, the Environmental Guides are administrative interpretations of laws administered by the Commission for the guidance of the

public in conducting its affairs in conformity with legal requirements. Conduct that is

inconsistent with the positions in the Environmental Guides may result in corrective

action by the Commission, if after investigation, the Commission has reason to believe

that the conduct violates prohibitions against unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

The Environmental Guides apply to all forms of marketing for products and services:

advertisements, labels, package inserts, promotional materials, words, symbols, logos,

product brand names, and marketing through digital or electronic media, such as the

Internet or email. They apply to any claim, express or implied, about the environmental attributes of a product, package or service in connection with the sale, offering for

sale or marketing of the product, package or service for personal, family or household

use, or for commercial, institutional or industrial use. The complete text of the Environmental Guides begins on page 17.

1

ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING CLAIMS

The FTC looks at all advertising from the consumers perspective: what message

does the advertising actually convey to consumers? The Environmental Guides

explain how consumers are likely to interpret environmental marketing claims so that

marketers can avoid making false or misleading claims. The Guides give environmental

claims the meaning that consumers give them, not necessarily the technical or scientific

definition of terms. Also, they do not establish standards for environmental performance or prescribe testing protocols.

For environmental claims that the Guides do not address specifically, FTC law requires

substantiation for all reasonable interpretations of an ad. Sometimes, it may be necessary to do research to determine how consumers interpret an ad.

Substantiation

All marketers making express or implied claims about the attributes of their product,

package or service must have substantiation, that is, a reasonable basis for their claims.

When it comes to environmental claims, a reasonable basis often may require competent and reliable scientific evidence, which is defined as tests, analyses, research,

studies or other evidence based on the expertise of professionals in the relevant area

conducted and evaluated in an objective way by qualified people using procedures

generally accepted in the profession to yield accurate and reliable results.

Specificity

An environmental marketing claim should specify whether it refers to the product, the

packaging or both, or just to a component of the product or its packaging.

A box of cereal is labeled recycled package. The package

consists of a paperboard box with a wax paper bag inside

holding the cereal. By itself, the claim recycled package

could apply to both the box and the bag. If only the box is

recycled, the claim is deceptive. It should be qualified to

say, for example, recycled box.

A steel can that contains vegetables is labeled recycled. No qualification is

necessary for this claim because it is obvious to consumers that the can is recyclednot the vegetables.

Qualifications (that is, disclosures or explanations) pertaining to an environmental

claim should be clear, prominent and understandable. Clarity can be achieved through

the size of the type face, proximity of the qualification to the claim being qualified, and

absence of contrary language that could undercut effectiveness.

Cereal

3
A paperboard box of plastic cups says Recycled prominently on the front

panel. Language that explains the recycled claim appears in small type on the

back of the box: This carton contains 100% recycled fiber. Although the

language qualifies the recycled claim, the explanatory language is too small and

too far away from the claim for consumers to notice it. Therefore, the claim

would be deceptive because consumers would interpret it to mean that the cups

(not just the carton) were made from recycled content.

Environmental claims should not exaggerate or overstate attributes or benefits.

A greeting card seller declares on its website that its greeting cards now contain

50% more recycled content than before. The manufacturer increased the

recycled content of its cards from 2 percent recycled material to 3 percent

recycled material. Even though the claim is technically correct, it is likely to

convey the false impression that the use of recycled material was increased

significantly.

Comparative environmental claims should be clear to avoid consumer confusion about

what is being compared.

A detergent bottle is labeled 50% more recycled content.

This claim is ambiguous because it could be a comparison to

the marketers immediately preceding detergent bottle or to a

competitors detergent bottle. The marketer should make the

basis for the comparison clear, saying, for example, 50%

more recycled content than our previous package.

General Claims

Specific environmental claims are easier to substantiate than general claims and less

likely to be deceptive. An unqualified general claim of environmental benefit may

convey that the product has far-reaching environmental benefits, when it doesnt.

A cloth shopping bag is labeled eco-friendly. This claim would be deceptive

if it leads consumers to believe that the bag has environmental benefits that the

manufacturer cant substantiate. It would not be deceptive if eco-friendly

were followed by clear and prominent language limiting the friendly representation to the product attribute for which it could be substantiated, and if the

context didnt create any other deceptive implications. A qualification for the

eco-friendly claim (assuming substantiation) would be: This cloth bag is

reusable and is made from 100% recycled fibers.

The packaging on a pad of writing paper claims that the writing paper is environmentally safe with this explanation: the paper is environmentally safe

because it was not chlorine bleached, a process that has been shown to create

harmful substances. Although the paper was not bleached with chlorine, the

production process created and released significant quantities of other harmful

substances into the environment. Because consumers are likely to interpret the

4
environmentally safe claim and the explanation to mean that the paper causes

no significant harmful substances to be released to the environment, the environmentally safe claim would be deceptive.

Products advertised as environmentally preferable are likely to convey to consumers

an environmental superiority to other products. A broad claim like that would be

deceptive if the manufacturer cannot substantiate it. The claim would not be deceptive

if it is accompanied by clear and prominent qualifying language that limits the environmental superiority representation to the particular product attribute that can be substantiated, provided that the context doesnt create any other deceptive implications.

A degreasing product is labeled environmentally preferable. The label states

that the product is ideal for cleaning equipment, garage floors and

driveways. But it doesnt state how the product is environmentally

preferable. Using the phrase without specific qualifying language is

deceptive if it leads consumers to believe that the product has superior environmental features that cannot be substantiated. To avoid

deception, the claim environmentally preferable should be qualified with clear and prominent language that states (if substantiated)

how the product is environmentally preferable, for example: This

product has no air polluting potential and is 100% biodegradable.

The President of the United States issued an Executive Order encouraging

federal procurement officers to purchase environmentally preferable products.

The Executive Order defines environmentally preferable products as products

and services that have a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared to other products and services that serve the same

purpose. In response to that Executive Order, Clean and Green Company, Inc.,

advertises its cleaning products in a government catalog. The cleaning products

are advertised as environmentally preferable, but theres no explanation about

the attributes of the products that make them environmentally preferable.

Even though Clean and Green Company, Inc., is selling its cleaning products in

a government catalog, it is responsible for having substantiation for its environmental claims. If the vendor cannot substantiate broad environmental claims, the

claims should be qualified to indicate what aspects of the products are environmentally preferable.

Environmental symbols or pictures also can convey to consumers that the product is

environmentally superior to other products. If you use an environmental symbol or

picture, make sure that you can substantiate the broad environmental claim. Otherwise,

use clear and prominent qualifying language to limit the environmental superiority

claim to the particular attribute(s) for which you have substantiation.

Consumers understand claims that a product is non-toxic, essentially non-toxic, or

practically non-toxic to mean that the toxicity claims apply not only to human health

effects, but also to environmental effects. If a product poses a significant risk to

humans or to the environment, a non-toxic type of claim would be deceptive.

5

environmentally

preferable
ECO-SEALS, SEALS-OF-APPROVAL AND CERTIFICATIONS

Environmental seals-of-approval, eco-seals and certifications from third-partyorganizations imply that a product is environmentally superior to other

products. Because such broad claims are difficult to substantiate,

seals-of-approval should be accompanied by information that

explains the basis for the award. If the seal-of-approval implies

that a third party has certified the product, the certifying

party must be truly independent from the advertiser and

must have professional expertise in the area that is being

certified.

The FTC analyzes third-party certification claims to ensure that they are substantiated

and not deceptive. Third-party certification does not insulate an advertiser from Commission scrutiny or eliminate an advertisers obligation to ensure for itself that the

claims communicated by the certification are substantiated.

Great Paper Company sells photocopy paper whose packaging has a seal-ofapproval from the No Chlorine Products Association that states totally chlorine-free paper. An explanation under the seal-of-approval says the paper

production process did not use pulp produced with chlorine or compounds

containing chlorine as bleaching agents. Using the highest industry standards,

the No Chlorine Products Association certifies that products are chlorine-free

only after industry experts have conducted comprehensive mill audits. The

claim is unlikely to be deceptive.

DEGRADABLE, BIODEGRADABLE OR

PHOTODEGRADABLE CLAIMS

Claims that a product is degradable, biodegradable or photodegradablemean that the materials will break down and return to nature within a reasonably

short time after customary disposal. What a reasonably short time is depends on

where the product is disposed.

For example, in landfills, where most garbage is taken, materials degrade very slowly,

if at all. This is because modern landfills are designed, according to law, to keep out

sunlight, air and moisture. This helps prevent pollutants from the garbage from getting

into the air and drinking water, and slows the decomposition of the trash. With materials like paper and food taking decades to decompose in a landfill, it is difficult to

substantiate a claim that a product normally disposed of in a landfill is biodegradable, degradable or photodegradable.

Biodegradable claims for products that go down the drain, like detergents and shampoos, may be substantiated if the product will degrade in wastewater treatment systems.

6
A reasonably short period of time for biodegradability of products like detergents

and shampoos that go into the wastewater treatment systems would be about the same

time that it takes for sewage to be processed in the wastewater treatment systems.

Unqualified claims of biodegradability may only be made for products that are disposed

of in such a way that they completely break down and return to nature within a reasonably short period of time after disposal or use.

A pressed pulp planter that contains a dogwood tree is labeled biodegradable.

Once the planter and tree are planted in the ground, the planter quickly disintegrates and biodegrades, allowing the roots of the dogwood tree to reach out to

the surrounding earth. This unqualified claim is not deceptive.

Claims of photogradability of a product may be qualified to indicate a limited breakdown of the product. For instance, if a plastic mulch film labeled photodegradable

does not decompose into elements found in nature, but only breaks down into small

pieces if left uncovered in the sunlight, the photogradability claim should be qualified,

for example: Will break down into small pieces if left uncovered in sunlight.

COMPOSTABLE CLAIMS

Composting turns degradable materials into useable composthumus-like materialthat enriches the soil and returns nutrients to the earth. Compostable claims

would be appropriate on products or packages that will break down, or become part of

usable compost (for example, soil-conditioning material or mulch), in a safe and timely

manner in home compost piles. For composting, a timely manner is approximately

the same time that it takes organic compounds, like leaves, grass, and food stuff, to

compost.

Claims for a product that is compostable in a municipal or institutional composting

facilitybut that wont break down quickly enough to be compostable in home compost

pilesmay need to be qualified to avoid deception about the limited availability of

municipal or institutional composting facilities. Consumers are likely to understand

compostable claims to mean that the product can be composted at home or in their

community. If it isnt, the compostable claim should be accompanied by an explanation. For example, a lawn and leaf bag might say, Appropriate composting facilities

may not be available in your area.

RECYCLABLE CLAIMS

Recyclable claims on labels and advertisements mean that the products can be collected, separated or recovered from the solid waste stream and used again, or reused in

the manufacture or assembly of another package or product through an established

recycling program. A claim of recyclability should make clear to consumers whether it

refers to the product, the package, or both.

7
Unless the entire product or package is recyclable, the claim should specifically indicate which parts of the product or package are recyclable. If only minor or incidental

components are not recyclable, the claim does not need to be qualified.

Recyclable claims should not be made for a product or package that is made from

recyclable material but is not accepted in recycling programs because of its shape, size

or some other attribute. For example, many recycling programs accept #1 PETE (polyethylene terephthalete) and #2 HDPE (high density polyethylene) plastics as long as

they are bottles or jugs with a neck. A manufacturer of a margarine tub made of

PETE could not rely on the availability of PETE bottle collection programs to substantiate a claim that the tub is recyclable.

To help in battery collection and recycling, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable

Battery Management Act establishes uniform national labeling requirements for certain

types of nickel-cadmium rechargeable and small lead-acid rechargeable batteries. The

Battery Act requires that the batteries must be labeled with the three-chasing-arrows

symbol or a comparable recycling symbol, and the statement, Battery Must Be Recycled Or Disposed Of Properly. Batteries labeled in accordance with this federal

statute are in compliance with the FTCs Environmental Guides.

Many consumers mistakenly assume that if a product is labeled recyclable, it can be

dropped in their recycling bin or taken to a local drop-off facility. But for a product to

be labeled recyclable without qualification, it must be collected for recycling in a

substantial majority of communities or by a substantial majority of consumers where

the product is sold. If the particular material is not collected for recycling in a substantial majority of communities where it is sold, the recyclable claim should be qualified

to indicate the limited availability of recycling programs to avoid deception.

For example, if collection sites for products are established in a significant percentage

of communities or available to a significant percentage of the population, but yet not a

substantial majority, suggested language would be: This bottle [product] may not be

recyclable in your area, or Recycling programs for this bottle [product] may not exist

in your area. Other adequate qualifications of the claim would include the approximate percentage of communities or the population for whom programs are available.

Phrases like Recyclable where facilities exist or Check to see if recycling facilities

exist in your area are not adequate qualifiers. They are too general to alert consumers

to inquire about recycling facilities for the particular item they want to recycle.

A paperboard cereal box is marketed nationally and labeled Recyclable where

facilities exist. Although recycling programs for this cereal box

are available in a significant percentage of communities or to

a significant percentage of the population where the product

is sold, they are not available to a substantial majority of

consumers. The claim is deceptive because reasonable

consumers living in communities not served by programs

that recycle paperboard may understand the phrase to mean

that paperboard recycling programs are available in their

Cereal

8
area. To avoid deception, the claim should be qualified to indicate the limited

availability of paperboard recycling programs, for example: Recyclable in the

few communities that recycle paperboard.

PLEASE RECYCLE CLAIMS

Consumers interpret the phrase Please Recycle on products or packages to mean

that the product or package is recyclable. Thats why the same guidelines for

making recyclable claims apply to Please Recycle claims. Unless recycling collection sites for the product are available to a substantial majority of consumers or communities where the product is sold, the Please Recycle phrase should not be used

unless it is qualified.

A paperboard just add water and eat soup container is labeled Please Recycle. Collection sites for this paperboard soup container are not available to a

substantial majority of consumers or communities where the product is sold,

making the Please Recycle claim deceptive. Unless evidence shows otherwise, reasonable consumers in communities without programs that recycle foodcontaminated paperboard may conclude that recycling programs for these containers are in their communities.

PRIVATE RECYCLING PROGRAMS

Businesses with established private recycling programs can make recyclable claims

for the products they recycle, provided the program is available in a substantial

majority of communities where the products are sold. Otherwise, the recyclable

claim must be qualified to indicate the limited availability of the recycling program.

A manufacturer of one-time use cameras, with dealers in a substantial majority

of communities, collects the cameras through its dealers. After the exposed film

is removed for processing, the manufacturer reconditions the cameras for resale

and labels them: Recyclable through our dealership network. This claim is

not deceptive, even though the cameras are not recyclable through conventional

curbside or drop-off recycling programs.

A manufacturer of toner cartridges for laser printers has established a recycling

program to recover its cartridges exclusively through its nationwide dealership

network. The company advertises its cartridges nationally as Recyclable.

Contact your local dealer for details. The dealers participating in the recovery

program are located in a significant number of communities where the cartridges are soldbut not a substantial majority. The recyclable claim would

be deceptive unless a qualifier indicated the limited availability of recycling

locations, for example: Dealers in major metropolitan areas accept toner

cartridges for recycling. 9
RECYCLED CONTENT CLAIMS

Recycled content claims on labels and in advertising may be made for materials that

have been recovered or diverted from the solid waste stream, either during the manufacturing process (pre-consumer) or after consumer use (post-consumer). If the product

or package does not consist of 100 percent recycled content (excluding minor, incidental components), qualifying wordslike the percentage of recycled content in the

productmust be used to limit the claim.

Pre-consumer recycled material is a waste product of a manufacturing process, diverted

from the solid waste stream and not normally reused by industry during the original

manufacturing process. To make an appropriate pre-consumer recycled content

claim, you must be able to substantiate that the pre-consumer material would otherwise

have gone into the solid waste stream. In contrast, by-products of a manufacturing

process that normally are reused within the process and usually dont enter the waste

stream are considered industrial scrap and dont count toward recycled content. When

you make a recycled content claim, you may distinguish between pre-consumer and

post-consumer materials if you have substantiation.

A ream of notebook paper is composed 20 percent by fiber weight of paper

collected from consumers after use of a paper product, and 30 percent by fiber

weight of paper that was generated after completion of the paper-making process, diverted from the solid waste stream, and otherwise would not normally

have been reused in the original manufacturing process. The marketer of the

notebook paper may claim that the product contains 50% recycled fiber, or

identify the specific pre-consumer and/or post-consumer content by stating that

the product contains 50% total recycled fiber, including 20% post-consumer

material.

Recycled content includes recycled raw material, as well as used,1 reconditioned,

rebuilt and remanufactured2 components. For products that contain used, reconditioned, rebuilt or remanufactured components, a recycled claim should be qualified

adequately to avoid consumer confusion about the origin of the components.

A manufacturer of photocopier machines labels its machines as 50% recycled. In fact, each photocopier contains 50 percent reconditioned parts. This

claim is deceptive because consumers are unlikely to realize that the recycled

content of the photocopier machines consists of reconditioned parts.

An automobile parts dealer buys a transmission that has been recovered from a

junked vehicle. A total of 85 percent by weight of the

transmission was rebuilt and 15 percent constitutes

new materials. After rebuilding the transmission

in accordance with industry practices, the

dealer packages it for resale in a box labeled

Rebuilt Transmission, Rebuilt Transmission

10
(85% recycled content from rebuilt parts), or Recycled Transmission (85%

recycled content from rebuilt parts). These claims are not likely to be deceptive.

A qualification about a products used, reconditioned, rebuilt or remanufactured content is not needed where consumers would understand from the context that a products

recycled content consists of used, rebuilt, remanufactured or reconditioned components.

A dealer of used automotive parts recovers a serviceable engine from a vehicle

that has been totaled. Without repairing, rebuilding, remanufacturing or altering

the engine or its components in any way, the dealer attaches a Recycled label

to the engine, and offers it for resale in its used auto parts store. Here, the

unqualified recycled content claim is not deceptive because consumers are likely

to understand that the engine is used and has not been rebuilt.

An Internet site called Double Play Sports sells what it describes as previously owned sports gear. Although used, many of the items for sale on the site

are no different in appearance from brand new equipment. The sports equipment

bears a Recycled claim. This claim is not likely to be deceptive because,

unless evidence shows otherwise, consumers would understand from the context

of the site that the items are used, rather than made of recycled raw materials.

However, if the site sold both used and new itemsor did not otherwise describe the used items as previously ownedthe recycled claim might be

deceptive.

CALCULATING THE PERCENTAGE OF RECYCLED CONTENT

WHEN IT COMES FROM SEVERAL SOURCES

The percentage of recycled content may be based on the annual weighted average ofthe recycled material.

A paper greeting card is labeled as containing 50 percent recycled fiber. The

seller buys paper stock from several sources and the amount of recycled fiber in

the stock varies. The claim is permissible because the 50 percent figure is based

on the annual weighted average of recycled material purchased from the sources

after accounting for fiber loss during the production process.

In claims for a minimum level of recycled content, such as, contains at least 35%

post-consumer fiber, averaging may not be used if the claim leads reasonable consumers to believe that each item labeled contains at least the described amount of recycled

content.

11
Recycled Claims for Coated Paper

Claims should indicate that the paper fiber is recycled unless the coating is, too.

If 50 percent of a glossy magazines weight comes from the coating and 50

percent from the paper fiber, and only the fiber is recycled, the claim could

state recycled fiber or 50% recycled paper.

12

SYMBOLS

Many consumers are confused about what they can recycle in their communitiesbecause so many products display the universal recycling symbol. Often

called the three-chasing-arrows or Mobius loop, this image is likely to convey that

the packaging is both recyclable and recycled. Unless both messages can be

substantiated, the claim should make clear whether the reference is to the packages

recyclability or its recycled content. If a recyclable claim is intended, the label may

need to disclose the limited availability of recycling programs for the package or product. If a recycled content claim is intendedand the packaging or the product is not

made entirely from recycled materialthe label should disclose the percentage of

recycled content.

The universal recycling symbol may be qualified in a number of ways, for example:

The manufacturer must be able to substantiate that

45 percent of this product is made from materials

that would otherwise have entered the waste

stream, including 10 percent from material that

previously had been used by consumers.

45% recycled content

(10% post-consumer material)

This qualified claim means that the package is not

collected for recycling in a substantial majority of

communities or by a substantial majority of consumers where the product is sold.

RECYCLING PROGRAMS FOR THIS

PACKAGE MAY NOT EXIST IN

YOUR AREA.
Consumers may interpret this symbol to mean that the package it is on is recyclable. Developed by the Society of the Plastics Industry, this SPI code is used to

indicate the type of plastic from which the product is made. SPI code numbers range

from 1 to 7.3 The FTC does not consider the SPI code to be a claim of recyclability if

it is placed on the bottom of a package inconspicuously. In contrast, if used conspicuously, it is treated as a recyclable claim, and the manufacturer must comply with the

appropriate provisions of the Environmental Guides.

A nationally marketed yogurt container displays the SPI code on the front label

of the container, near the product name and logo. The manufacturers conspicuous use of the SPI code constitutes a recyclability claim. Unless recycling

facilities for the yogurt container are available to a substantial majority of

consumers or communities where the yogurt is sold, the claim should be qualified to disclose the limited availability of recycling programs for the container.

Had the SPI code been placed in an inconspicuous location on the container (for

example, on the bottom of the container) it would not be considered a claim of

recyclability.

If other symbols or logos are used, advertisers must be able to substantiate the meaning

reasonable consumers would attach to the symbols. To determine the meaning that

consumers take from symbols or logos, it may be necessary for the advertiser to conduct consumer research.

SOURCE REDUCTION CLAIMS

Source reduction refers to reducing or lowering the weight, volume or toxicity of a

product or package. To avoid being misleading, source reduction claims must qualify

the amount of the source reduction and give the basis for any comparison that is made.

These principles apply regardless of whether a term like source reduced is used.

A baby wipe dispenser is labeled 50% less plastic. The claim is ambiguous

because it could be a comparison to the immediately preceding product of the

advertiser or to a competitors product. The 50% less plastic reference is

deceptive unless the seller clarifies which comparison is intended and substantiates the comparison, or substantiates both possible interpretations of the claim.

A marketer claims on its Internet site that the new packaging for its deodorant

results in 20 percent less waste. The marketer has eliminated the outer cartons

of its deodorant bottles, which constituted 20 percent by weight of the package.

This source reduction claim is unlikely to be deceptive.

13
REFILLABLE CLAIMS

Refillable claims should be made only if a system is provided for collecting and

returning the package for refill or the later refill of the package by consumers with a

product subsequently sold in another package. A package should not be marketed with

an unqualified refillable claim if it is up to the consumer to find new ways to refill the

package. For example, a gallon spring water jug should not be labeled refillable just

because consumers could refill the jug with tap water.

A manufacturer could label a detergent bottle as refillable if the manufacturer

sells a concentrated refill for the detergent bottle.

Baby wipes sold in foil wrap can be labeled as a refill if the manufacturer

sells wipes in a lidded, hard plastic container where the wipes refill package

can be placed.

The Environmental Guides do not define the term reusable. As long as a product can

be used again in some way, a claim that a product is reusable is unlikely to be deceptive.

14

OZONE SAFE, OZONE FRIENDLY AND NO CFCs CLAIMS

Ozone safe and ozone friendly claims mean that neither the product nor its packaging harms the atmosphere by contributing to the depletion of the stratospheric (upper

atmosphere) ozone layer or to the formation of ground-level ozone.

Consumers may confuse the upper ozone layer with ground-level ozone. The ozone

layer in the upper atmosphere is needed to prevent the suns harmful radiation from

reaching the earth. But when ozone develops at the ground level, it forms smog, which

can cause serious breathing problems. Avoid ozone safe and ozone friendly claims

on products that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, even if the product

is safe for the upper ozone layer.

CFCschemical substances called chlorofluorocarbonscan deplete the earths protective ozone layer. In 1978, CFCs were banned for use as propellants in nearly all consumer aerosol products, and gradually, are being phased out of all products and manufacturing processes.

Even though certain products do not contain CFCs, they may contain other ozonedepleting ingredients. A no CFCs or CFC-Free claim is likely to imply that the

product contains no ozone-depleting ingredients and should not be made if, indeed,

ozone-depleting ingredients are present.
The seller of foam plastic tableware makes an unqualified claim that its product

contains no CFCs. Although the tableware does not contain CFCs, it was

manufactured with HCFC-22, another ozone-depleting ingredient. Because the

claim contains no CFCs may imply to reasonable consumers that the product

does not harm the ozone layer, the claim is deceptive.

Claims may be made about a products reduced ozone-depleting potential if they are

substantiated.

A nasal inhalant is labeled 95% less damaging to the ozone layer than past

formulations that contained CFCs. The manufacturer has substituted HCFCs

for CFC-12, and can substantiate that this substitution will result in 95 percent

less ozone depletion. It is unlikely that the qualified comparative claim is deceptive.

A product that contains no CFCs or any other ozone-depleting ingredient is not necessarily safe for the entire atmosphere. The release of volatile organic compounds

(VOCs) can contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone. Common VOC substances are alcohols, butane, propane and isobutane. Emissions from cars and factories

are the major source of VOC releases to the environment. But, some consumer products may contain VOCs and also may contribute to the problem. Those products include household cleaning products, floor polishes, charcoal lighter fluid, windshield

washer fluid, and hair styling spray, gel and moussewhether in aerosol cans or spray

pumps. Because of their ability to contribute to ground-level ozone formation, claims

like ozone safe or ozone friendly on these products are likely to be deceptive.

Hair setting gel is labeled ozone friendly. Some of the gels ingredients are

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that may cause smog by contributing to

ground-level ozone formation. The claim is likely to convey to consumers that

the gel is safe for the atmosphere as a whole, and, as a result, is deceptive.

15

If you have questions about the Environmental Guides, contact:

Division of Enforcement

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20580

Phone: (202) 326-2996

Fax: (202) 326-2558

www.ftc.gov
ENDNOTES

16

1 Used parts are parts that are not new and that have not undergone any type of

remanufacturing or reconditioning.

2 The terms rebuilding, remanufacturing and reconditioning mean that the

seller dismantled and reconstructed the parts as necessary, cleaned all of the

internal and external parts and made them free from rust and corrosion, restored

all impaired, defective or substantially worn parts to a sound condition (or replaced them if necessary), and performed any operations required to put the part

in sound working condition.

3 A total of 39 states mandate the use of the SPI code on the bottom of bottles of 16

ounces or more and rigid containers of 8 ounces or more. The SPIs explicit

guidelines about the proper sizing and positioning of the SPI code indicate that it

should be applied where it will be inconspicuous to the consumer at the point of

purchase so it wont influence the consumers buying decision.
17

Part 260 GUIDES FOR THE USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL

MARKETING CLAIMS

sec.

260.1 Statement of Purpose.

260.2 Scope of guides.

260.3 Structure of the guides.

260.4 Review procedure.

260.5 Interpretation and substantiation of environmental marketing claims.

260.6 General principles.

260.7 Environmental marketing claims.

260.8 Environmental assessment.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58

§ 260.1 Statement of purpose

These guides represent administrative interpretations of laws administered by the Federal

Trade Commission for the guidance of the public in conducting its affairs in conformity

with legal requirements. These guides specifically address the application of Section 5 of

the FTC Act to environmental advertising and marketing practices. They provide the

basis for voluntary compliance with such laws by members of industry. Conduct inconsistent with the positions articulated in these guides may result in corrective action by the

Commission under Section 5 if, after investigation, the Commission has reason to believe

that the behavior falls within the scope of conduct declared unlawful by the statute.

§ 260.2 Scope of guides

These guides apply to environmental claims included in labeling, advertising, promotional

materials and all other forms of marketing, whether asserted directly or by implication,

through words, symbols, emblems, logos, depictions, product brand names, or through

any other means, including marketing through digital or electronic means, such as the

Internet or electronic mail. The guides apply to any claim about the environmental attributes of a product, package or service in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or

marketing of such product, package or service for personal, family or household use, or

for commercial, institutional or industrial use.

Because the guides are not legislative rules under Section 18 of the FTC Act, they are not

themselves enforceable regulations, nor do they have the force and effect of law. The

guides themselves do not preempt regulation of other federal agencies or of state and local

bodies governing the use of environmental marketing claims. Compliance with federal,

state or local law and regulations concerning such claims, however, will not necessarily

preclude Commission law enforcement action under Section 5.
§ 260.3 Structure of the guides

The guides are composed of general principles and specific guidance on the use of environmental claims. These general principles and specific guidance are followed by examples that generally address a single deception concern. A given claim may raise issues

that are addressed under more than one example and in more than one section of the

guides.

In many of the examples, one or more options are presented for qualifying a claim. These

options are intended to provide a safe harbor for marketers who want certainty about

how to make environmental claims. They do not represent the only permissible approaches to qualifying a claim. The examples do not illustrate all possible acceptable

claims or disclosures that would be permissible under Section 5. In addition, some of the

illustrative disclosures may be appropriate for use on labels but not in print or broadcast

advertisements and vice versa. In some instances, the guides indicate within the example

in what context or contexts a particular type of disclosure should be considered.

18

§ 260.4 Review procedure

The Commission will review the guides as part of its general program of reviewing all

industry guides on an ongoing basis. Parties may petition the Commission to alter or

amend these guides in light of substantial new evidence regarding consumer interpretation

of a claim or regarding substantiation of a claim. Following review of such a petition, the

Commission will take such action as it deems appropriate.

§ 260.5 Interpretation and substantiation of environmental marketing claims

Section 5 of the FTC Act makes unlawful deceptive acts and practices in or affecting

commerce. The Commissions criteria for determining whether an express or implied

claim has been made are enunciated in the Commissions Policy Statement on Deception.1

In addition, any party making an express or implied claim that presents an objective

assertion about the environmental attribute of a product, package or service must, at the

time the claim is made, possess and rely upon a reasonable basis substantiating the claim.

A reasonable basis consists of competent and reliable evidence. In the context of environmental marketing claims, such substantiation will often require competent and reliable

scientific evidence, defined as tests, analyses, research, studies or other evidence based

on the expertise of professionals in the relevant area, conducted and evaluated in an

objective manner by persons qualified to do so, using procedures generally accepted in

the profession to yield accurate and reliable results. Further guidance on the reasonable

basis standard is set forth in the Commissions 1983 Policy Statement on the Advertising

Substantiation Doctrine. 49 Fed. Reg. 30999 (1984); appended to Thompson Medical

Co., 104 F.T.C. 648 (1984). The Commission has also taken action in a number of cases

involving alleged deceptive or unsubstantiated environmental advertising claims. A

current list of environmental marketing cases and/or copies of individual cases can be

obtained by calling the FTC Consumer Response Center at 1-877-FTC-HELP (382-4357).
19

§ 260.6 General principles

The following general principles apply to all environmental marketing claims, including,

but not limited to, those described in § 260.7. In addition, § 260.7 contains specific

guidance applicable to certain environmental marketing claims. Claims should comport

with all relevant provisions of these guides, not simply the provision that seems most

directly applicable.

(a) Qualifications and disclosures: The Commission traditionally has held that in order to

be effective, any qualifications or disclosures such as those described in these guides

should be sufficiently clear, prominent and understandable to prevent deception. Clarity

of language, relative type size and proximity to the claim being qualified, and an absence

of contrary claims that could undercut effectiveness, will maximize the likelihood that the

qualifications and disclosures are appropriately clear and prominent.

(b) Distinction between benefits of product, package and service: An environmental

marketing claim should be presented in a way that makes clear whether the environmental

attribute or benefit being asserted refers to the product, the products packaging, a service

or to a portion or component of the product, package or service. In general, if the environmental attribute or benefit applies to all but minor, incidental components of a product

or package, the claim need not be qualified to identify that fact. There may be exceptions

to this general principle. For example, if an unqualified recyclable claim is made and

the presence of the incidental component significantly limits the ability to recycle the

product, then the claim would be deceptive.

Example 1:

A box of aluminum foil is labeled with the claim recyclable, without further

elaboration. Unless the type of product, surrounding language, or other context of

the phrase establishes whether the claim refers to the foil or the box, the claim is

deceptive if any part of either the box or the foil, other than minor, incidental

components, cannot be recycled.

Example 2:

A soft drink bottle is labeled recycled. The bottle is made entirely from recycled materials, but the bottle cap is not. Because reasonable consumers are

likely to consider the bottle cap to be a minor, incidental component of the package, the claim is not deceptive. Similarly, it would not be deceptive to label a

shopping bag recycled where the bag is made entirely of recycled material but

the easily detachable handle, an incidental component, is not.

(c) Overstatement of environmental attribute: An environmental marketing claim should

not be presented in a manner that overstates the environmental attribute or benefit, expressly or by implication. Marketers should avoid implications of significant environmental benefits if the benefit is in fact negligible.

Example 1:

A package is labeled, 50% more recycled content than before. The manufacturer increased the recycled content of its package from 2 percent recycled material to 3 percent recycled material. Although the claim is technically true, it is
likely to convey the false impression that the advertiser has increased significantly

the use of recycled material.

Example 2:

A trash bag is labeled recyclable without qualification. Because trash bags will

ordinarily not be separated out from other trash at the landfill or incinerator for

recycling, they are highly unlikely to be used again for any purpose. Even if the

bag is technically capable of being recycled, the claim is deceptive since it asserts

an environmental benefit where no significant or meaningful benefit exists.

Example 3:

A paper grocery sack is labeled reusable. The sack can be brought back to the

store and reused for carrying groceries but will fall apart after two or three reuses,

on average. Because reasonable consumers are unlikely to assume that a paper

grocery sack is durable, the unqualified claim does not overstate the environmental benefit conveyed to consumers. The claim is not deceptive and does not need

to be qualified to indicate the limited reuse of the sack.

Example 4:

A package of paper coffee filters is labeled These filters were made with a

chlorine-free bleaching process. The filters are bleached with a process that

releases into the environment a reduced, but still significant, amount of the same

harmful byproducts associated with chlorine bleaching. The claim is likely to

overstate the products benefits because it is likely to be interpreted by consumers

to mean that the products manufacture does not cause any of the environmental

risks posed by chlorine bleaching. A claim, however, that the filters were

bleached with a process that substantially reduces, but does not eliminate, harmful substances associated with chlorine bleaching would not, if substantiated,

overstate the products benefits and is unlikely to be deceptive.

(d) Comparative claims: Environmental marketing claims that include a comparative

statement should be presented in a manner that makes the basis for the comparison sufficiently clear to avoid consumer deception. In addition, the advertiser should be able to

substantiate the comparison.

Example 1:

An advertiser notes that its shampoo bottle contains 20% more recycled content. The claim in its context is ambiguous. Depending on contextual factors, it

could be a comparison either to the advertisers immediately preceding product or

to a competitors product. The advertiser should clarify the claim to make the

basis for comparison clear, for example, by saying 20% more recycled content

than our previous package. Otherwise, the advertiser should be prepared to

substantiate whatever comparison is conveyed to reasonable consumers.

Example 2:

An advertiser claims that our plastic diaper liner has the most recycled content.

The advertised diaper does have more recycled content, calculated as a percentage

of weight, than any other on the market, although it is still well under 100%

recycled. Provided the recycled content and the comparative difference between

the product and those of competitors are significant and provided the specific

20 comparison can be substantiated, the claim is not deceptive.
Example 3:

An ad claims that the advertisers packaging creates less waste than the leading

national brand. The advertisers source reduction was implemented sometime

ago and is supported by a calculation comparing the relative solid waste contributions of the two packages. The advertiser should be able to substantiate that the

comparison remains accurate.

Guidance about the use of environmental marketing claims is set forth below. Each guide

is followed by several examples that illustrate, but do not provide an exhaustive list of,

claims that do and do not comport with the guides. In each case, the general principles set

forth in § 260.6 should also be followed.2

(a) General environmental benefit claims: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by

implication, that a product, package or service offers a general environmental benefit.

Unqualified general claims of environmental benefit are difficult to interpret, and depending on their context, may convey a wide range of meanings to consumers. In many cases,

such claims may convey that the product, package or service has specific and far-reaching

environmental benefits. As explained in the Commissions Advertising Substantiation

Statement, every express and material implied claim that the general assertion conveys to

reasonable consumers about an objective quality, feature or attribute of a product or

service must be substantiated. Unless this substantiation duty can be met, broad environmental claims should either be avoided or qualified, as necessary, to prevent deception

about the specific nature of the environmental benefit being asserted.

Example 1:

A brand name like Eco-Safe would be deceptive if, in the context of the product

so named, it leads consumers to believe that the product has environmental benefits which cannot be substantiated by the manufacturer. The claim would not be

deceptive if Eco-Safe were followed by clear and prominent qualifying language limiting the safety representation to a particular product attribute for which

it could be substantiated, and provided that no other deceptive implications were

created by the context.

Example 2:

A product wrapper is printed with the claim Environmentally Friendly. Textual

comments on the wrapper explain that the wrapper is Environmentally Friendly

because it was not chlorine bleached, a process that has been shown to create

harmful substances. The wrapper was, in fact, not bleached with chlorine.

However, the production of the wrapper now creates and releases to the environment significant quantities of other harmful substances. Since consumers are likely

to interpret the Environmentally Friendly claim, in combination with the textual

explanation, to mean that no significant harmful substances are currently released

to the environment, the Environmentally Friendly claim would be deceptive.

21

§ 260.7 Environmental marketing claims
Example 3:

A pump spray product is labeled environmentally safe. Most of the products

active ingredients consist of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that may cause

smog by contributing to ground-level ozone formation. The claim is deceptive

because, absent further qualification, it is likely to convey to consumers that use

of the product will not result in air pollution or other harm to the environment.

Example 4:

A lawn care pesticide is advertised as essentially non-toxic and practically

non-toxic. Consumers would likely interpret these claims in the context of such a

product as applying not only to human health effects but also to the products

environmental effects. Since the claims would likely convey to consumers that the

product does not pose any risk to humans or the environment, if the pesticide in

fact poses a significant risk to humans or environment, the claims would be

deceptive.

Example 5:

A product label contains an environmental seal, either in the form of a globe icon,

or a globe icon with only the text Earth Smart around it. Either label is likely to

convey to consumers that the product is environmentally superior to other products. If the manufacturer cannot substantiate this broad claim, the claim would be

deceptive. The claims would not be deceptive if they were accompanied by clear

and prominent qualifying language limiting the environmental superiority representation to the particular product attribute or attributes for which they could be

substantiated, provided that no other deceptive implications were created by the

context.

Example 6:

A product is advertised as environmentally preferable. This claim is likely to

convey to consumers that this product is environmentally superior to other products. If the manufacturer cannot substantiate this broad claim, the claim would be

deceptive. The claim would not be deceptive if it were accompanied by clear and

prominent qualifying language limiting the environmental superiority representation to the particular product attribute or attributes for which it could be substantiated, provided that no other deceptive implications were created by the context.

(b) Degradable/biodegradable/photodegradable: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly

or by implication, that a product or package is degradable, biodegradable or photodegradable. An unqualified claim that a product or package is degradable, biodegradable or

photodegradable should be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence that

the entire product or package will completely break down and return to nature, i.e.,

decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after

customary disposal.

Claims of degradability, biodegradability or photodegradability should be qualified to the

extent necessary to avoid consumer deception about: (1) the product or packages ability

to degrade in the environment where it is customarily disposed; and (2) the rate and

extent of degradation.

22
Example 1:

A trash bag is marketed as degradable, with no qualification or other disclosure. The marketer relies on soil burial tests to show that the product will decompose in the presence of water and oxygen. The trash bags are customarily disposed

of in incineration facilities or at sanitary landfills that are managed in a way that

inhibits degradation by minimizing moisture and oxygen. Degradation will be

irrelevant for those trash bags that are incinerated and, for those disposed of in

landfills, the marketer does not possess adequate substantiation that the bags will

degrade in a reasonably short period of time in a landfill. The claim is therefore

deceptive.

Example 2:

A commercial agricultural plastic mulch film is advertised as Photodegradable

and qualified with the phrase, Will break down into small pieces if left uncovered in sunlight. The claim is supported by competent and reliable scientific

evidence that the product will break down in a reasonably short period of time

after being exposed to sunlight and into sufficiently small pieces to become part of

the soil. The qualified claim is not deceptive. Because the claim is qualified to

indicate the limited extent of breakdown, the advertiser need not meet the elements for an unqualified photodegradable claim, i.e., that the product will not

only break down, but also will decompose into elements found in nature.

Example 3:

A soap or shampoo product is advertised as biodegradable, with no qualification

or other disclosure. The manufacturer has competent and reliable scientific evidence demonstrating that the product, which is customarily disposed of in sewage

systems, will break down and decompose into elements found in nature in a short

period of time. The claim is not deceptive.

Example 4:

A plastic six-pack ring carrier is marked with a small diamond. Many state laws

require that plastic six-pack ring carriers degrade if littered, and several state laws

also require that the carriers be marked with a small diamond symbol to indicate

that they meet performance standards for degradability. The use of the diamond,

by itself, does not constitute a claim of degradability.3

(c) Compostable: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product

or package is compostable. A claim that a product or package is compostable should be

substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence that all the materials in the

product or package will break down into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost

(e.g., soil-conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and timely manner in an appropriate

composting program or facility, or in a home compost pile or device. Claims of

compostability should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid consumer deception.

An unqualified claim may be deceptive if: (1) the package cannot be safely composted in

a home compost pile or device; or (2) the claim misleads consumers about the environmental benefit provided when the product is disposed of in a landfill. A claim that a

product is compostable in a municipal or institutional composting facility may need to be

qualified to the extent necessary to avoid deception about the limited availability of such

composting facilities.

23
Example 1:

A manufacturer indicates that its unbleached coffee filter is compostable. The

unqualified claim is not deceptive provided the manufacturer can substantiate that

the filter can be converted safely to usable compost in a timely manner in a home

compost pile or device. If this is the case, it is not relevant that no local municipal

or institutional composting facilities exist.

Example 2:

A lawn and leaf bag is labeled as Compostable in California Municipal Yard

Trimmings Composting Facilities. The bag contains toxic ingredients that are

released into the compost material as the bag breaks down. The claim is deceptive

if the presence of these toxic ingredients prevents the compost from being usable.

Example 3:

A manufacturer makes an unqualified claim that its package is compostable.

Although municipal or institutional composting facilities exist where the product is

sold, the package will not break down into usable compost in a home compost pile

or device. To avoid deception, the manufacturer should disclose that the package

is not suitable for home composting.

Example 4:

A nationally marketed lawn and leaf bag is labeled compostable. Also printed

on the bag is a disclosure that the bag is not designed for use in home compost

piles. The bags are in fact composted in yard trimmings composting programs in

many communities around the country, but such programs are not available to a

substantial majority of consumers or communities where the bag is sold. The

claim is deceptive because reasonable consumers living in areas not served by

yard trimmings programs may understand the reference to mean that composting

facilities accepting the bags are available in their area. To avoid deception, the

claim should be qualified to indicate the limited availability of such programs, for

example, by stating, Appropriate facilities may not exist in your area. Other

examples of adequate qualification of the claim include providing the approximate

percentage of communities or the population for which such programs are available.

Example 5:

A manufacturer sells a disposable diaper that bears the legend, This diaper can

be composted where solid waste composting facilities exist. There are currently

[X number of] solid waste composting facilities across the country. The claim is

not deceptive, assuming that composting facilities are available as claimed and the

manufacturer can substantiate that the diaper can be converted safely to usable

compost in solid waste composting facilities.

Example 6:

A manufacturer markets yard trimmings bags only to consumers residing in

particular geographic areas served by county yard trimmings composting programs. The bags meet specifications for these programs and are labeled,

Compostable Yard Trimmings Bag for County Composting Programs. The

claim is not deceptive. Because the bags are compostable where they are sold, no

24
qualification is required to indicate the limited availability of composting facilities.

(d) Recyclable: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product

or package is recyclable. A product or package should not be marketed as recyclable

unless it can be collected, separated or otherwise recovered from the solid waste stream

for reuse, or in the manufacture or assembly of another package or product, through an

established recycling program. Unqualified claims of recyclability for a product or package may be made if the entire product or package, excluding minor incidental components, is recyclable. For products or packages that are made of both recyclable and nonrecyclable components, the recyclable claim should be adequately qualified to avoid

consumer deception about which portions or components of the product or package are

recyclable. Claims of recyclability should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid

consumer deception about any limited availability of recycling programs and collection

sites. If an incidental component significantly limits the ability to recycle a product or

package, a claim of recyclability would be deceptive. A product or package that is made

from recyclable material, but, because of its shape, size or some other attribute, is not

accepted in recycling programs for such material, should not be marketed as recyclable.4

Example 1:

A packaged product is labeled with an unqualified claim, recyclable. It is

unclear from the type of product and other context whether the claim refers to the

product or its package. The unqualified claim is likely to convey to reasonable

consumers that all of both the product and its packaging that remain after normal

use of the product, except for minor, incidental components, can be recycled.

Unless each such message can be substantiated, the claim should be qualified to

indicate what portions are recyclable.

Example 2:

A nationally marketed 8 oz. plastic cottage-cheese container displays the Society

of the Plastics Industry (SPI) code (which consists of a design of arrows in a

triangular shape containing a number and abbreviation identifying the component

plastic resin) on the front label of the container, in close proximity to the product

name and logo. The manufacturers conspicuous use of the SPI code in this manner constitutes a recyclability claim. Unless recycling facilities for this container

are available to a substantial majority of consumers or communities, the claim

should be qualified to disclose the limited availability of recycling programs for

the container. If the SPI code, without more, had been placed in an inconspicuous

location on the container (e.g., embedded in the bottom of the container) it would

not constitute a claim of recyclability.

Example 3:

A container can be burned in incinerator facilities to produce heat and power. It

cannot, however, be recycled into another product or package. Any claim that the

container is recyclable would be deceptive.

Example 4:

A nationally marketed bottle bears the unqualified statement that it is recyclable. Collection sites for recycling the material in question are not available to

25
a substantial majority of consumers or communities, although collection sites are

established in a significant percentage of communities or available to a significant

percentage of the population. The unqualified claim is deceptive because, unless

evidence shows otherwise, reasonable consumers living in communities not served

by programs may conclude that recycling programs for the material are available

in their area. To avoid deception, the claim should be qualified to indicate the

limited availability of programs, for example, by stating This bottle may not be

recyclable in your area, or Recycling programs for this bottle may not exist in

your area. Other examples of adequate qualifications of the claim include providing the approximate percentage of communities or the population to whom programs are available.

Example 5:

A paperboard package is marketed nationally and labeled, Recyclable where

facilities exist. Recycling programs for this package are available in a significant

percentage of communities or to a significant percentage of the population, but are

not available to a substantial majority of consumers. The claim is deceptive

because, unless evidence shows otherwise, reasonable consumers living in communities not served by programs that recycle paperboard packaging may understand this phrase to mean that such programs are available in their area. To avoid

deception, the claim should be further qualified to indicate the limited availability

of programs, for example, by using any of the approaches set forth in Example 4

above.

Example 6:

A foam polystyrene cup is marketed as follows: Recyclable in the few communities with facilities for foam polystyrene cups. Collection sites for recycling the

cup have been established in a half-dozen major metropolitan areas. This disclosure illustrates one approach to qualifying a claim adequately to prevent deception

about the limited availability of recycling programs where collection facilities are

not established in a significant percentage of communities or available to a significant percentage of the population. Other examples of adequate qualification of the

claim include providing the number of communities with programs, or the percentage of communities or the population to which programs are available.

Example 7:

A label claims that the package includes some recyclable material. The package

is composed of four layers of different materials, bonded together. One of the

layers is made from the recyclable material, but the others are not. While programs for recycling this type of material are available to a substantial majority of

consumers, only a few of those programs have the capability to separate the

recyclable layer from the non-recyclable layers. Even though it is technologically

possible to separate the layers, the claim is not adequately qualified to avoid

consumer deception. An appropriately qualified claim would be, includes material recyclable in the few communities that collect multi-layer products. Other

examples of adequate qualification of the claim include providing the number of

communities with programs, or the percentage of communities or the population

to which programs are available.

26
Example 8:

A product is marketed as having a recyclable container. The product is distributed and advertised only in Missouri. Collection sites for recycling the container

are available to a substantial majority of Missouri residents, but are not yet available nationally. Because programs are generally available where the product is

marketed, the unqualified claim does not deceive consumers about the limited

availability of recycling programs.

Example 9:

A manufacturer of one-time use photographic cameras, with dealers in a substantial majority of communities, collects those cameras through all of its dealers.

After the exposed film is removed for processing, the manufacturer reconditions

the cameras for resale and labels them as follows: Recyclable through our dealership network. This claim is not deceptive, even though the cameras are not

recyclable through conventional curbside or drop off recycling programs.

Example 10:

A manufacturer of toner cartridges for laser printers has established a recycling

program to recover its cartridges exclusively through its nationwide dealership

network. The company advertises its cartridges nationally as Recyclable. Contact your local dealer for details. The companys dealers participating in the

recovery program are located in a significant numberbut not a substantial

majorityof communities. The recyclable claim is deceptive unless it contains

one of the qualifiers set forth in Example 4. If participating dealers are located in

only a few communities, the claim should be qualified as indicated in Example 6.

Example 11:

An aluminum beverage can bears the statement Please Recycle. This statement

is likely to convey to consumers that the package is recyclable. Because collection

sites for recycling aluminum beverage cans are available to a substantial majority

of consumers or communities, the claim does not need to be qualified to indicate

the limited availability of recycling programs.

(e) Recycled content: A recycled content claim may be made only for materials that have

been recovered or otherwise diverted from the solid waste stream, either during the

manufacturing process (pre-consumer), or after consumer use (post-consumer). To the

extent the source of recycled content includes pre-consumer material, the manufacturer or

advertiser must have substantiation for concluding that the pre-consumer material would

otherwise have entered the solid waste stream. In asserting a recycled content claim,

distinctions may be made between pre-consumer and post-consumer materials. Where

such distinctions are asserted, any express or implied claim about the specific pre-consumer or post-consumer content of a product or package must be substantiated.

It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is

made of recycled material, which includes recycled raw material, as well as used,5 reconditioned and remanufactured components. Unqualified claims of recycled content may be

made if the entire product or package, excluding minor, incidental components, is made

from recycled material. For products or packages that are only partially made of recycled

material, a recycled claim should be adequately qualified to avoid consumer deception

27
about the amount, by weight, of recycled content in the finished product or package.

Additionally, for products that contain used, reconditioned or remanufactured components, a recycled claim should be adequately qualified to avoid consumer deception about

the nature of such components. No such qualification would be necessary in cases where

it would be clear to consumers from the context that a products recycled content consists

of used, reconditioned or remanufactured components.

Example 1:

A manufacturer routinely collects spilled raw material and scraps left over from

the original manufacturing process. After a minimal amount of reprocessing, the

manufacturer combines the spills and scraps with virgin material for use in further

production of the same product. A claim that the product contains recycled material is deceptive since the spills and scraps to which the claim refers are normally

reused by industry within the original manufacturing process, and would not

normally have entered the waste stream.

Example 2:

A manufacturer purchases material from a firm that collects discarded material

from other manufacturers and resells it. All of the material was diverted from the

solid waste stream and is not normally reused by industry within the original

manufacturing process. The manufacturer includes the weight of this material in

its calculations of the recycled content of its products. A claim of recycled content

based on this calculation is not deceptive because, absent the purchase and reuse

of this material, it would have entered the waste stream.

Example 3:

A greeting card is composed 30% by fiber weight of paper collected from consumers after use of a paper product, and 20% by fiber weight of paper that was

generated after completion of the paper-making process, diverted from the solid

waste stream, and otherwise would not normally have been reused in the original

manufacturing process. The marketer of the card may claim either that the product

contains 50% recycled fiber, or may identify the specific pre-consumer and/or

post-consumer content by stating, for example, that the product contains 50%

total recycled fiber, including 30% post-consumer.

Example 4:

A paperboard package with 20% recycled fiber by weight is labeled as containing

20% recycled fiber. Some of the recycled content was composed of material

collected from consumers after use of the original product. The rest was composed of overrun newspaper stock never sold to customers. The claim is not

deceptive.

Example 5:

A product in a multi-component package, such as a paperboard box in a shrinkwrapped plastic cover, indicates that it has recycled packaging. The paperboard

box is made entirely of recycled material, but the plastic cover is not. The claim

is deceptive since, without qualification, it suggests that both components are

recycled. A claim limited to the paperboard box would not be deceptive.

28
Example 6:

A package is made from layers of foil, plastic, and paper laminated together,

although the layers are indistinguishable to consumers. The label claims that one

of the three layers of this package is made of recycled plastic. The plastic layer

is made entirely of recycled plastic. The claim is not deceptive provided the

recycled plastic layer constitutes a significant component of the entire package.

Example 7:

A paper product is labeled as containing 100% recycled fiber. The claim is not

deceptive if the advertiser can substantiate the conclusion that 100% by weight of

the fiber in the finished product is recycled.

Example 8:

A frozen dinner is marketed in a package composed of a cardboard box over a

plastic tray. The package bears the legend, package made from 30% recycled

material. Each packaging component amounts to one-half the weight of the total

package. The box is 20% recycled content by weight, while the plastic tray is

40% recycled content by weight. The claim is not deceptive, since the average

amount of recycled material is 30%.

Example 9:

A paper greeting card is labeled as containing 50% recycled fiber. The seller

purchases paper stock from several sources and the amount of recycled fiber in the

stock provided by each source varies. Because the 50% figure is based on the

annual weighted average of recycled material purchased from the sources after

accounting for fiber loss during the production process, the claim is permissible.

Example 10:

A packaged food product is labeled with a three-chasing-arrows symbol without

any further explanatory text as to its meaning. By itself, the symbol is likely to

convey that the packaging is both recyclable and is made entirely from recycled

material. Unless both messages can be substantiated, the claim should be qualified

as to whether it refers to the packages recyclability and/or its recycled content. If

a recyclable claim is being made, the label may need to disclose the limited

availability of recycling programs for the package. If a recycled content claim is

being made and the packaging is not made entirely from recycled material, the

label should disclose the percentage of recycled content.

Example 11:

A laser printer toner cartridge containing 25% recycled raw materials and 40%

reconditioned parts is labeled 65% recycled content; 40% from reconditioned

parts. This claim is not deceptive.

Example 12:

A store sells both new and used sporting goods. One of the items for sale in the

store is a baseball helmet that, although used, is no different in appearance than a

brand new item. The helmet bears an unqualified Recycled label. This claim is

deceptive because, unless evidence shows otherwise, consumers could reasonably

believe that the helmet is made of recycled raw materials, when it is in fact a used

29
item. An acceptable claim would bear a disclosure clearly stating that the helmet

is used.

Example 13:

A manufacturer of home electronics labels its video cassette recorders (VCRs)

as 40% recycled. In fact, each VCR contains 40% reconditioned parts. This

claim is deceptive because consumers are unlikely to know that the VCRs recycled content consists of reconditioned parts.

Example 14:

A dealer of used automotive parts recovers a serviceable engine from a vehicle

that has been totaled. Without repairing, rebuilding, remanufacturing, or in any

way altering the engine or its components, the dealer attaches a Recycled label

to the engine, and offers it for resale in its used auto parts store. In this situation,

an unqualified recycled content claim is not likely to be deceptive because consumers are likely to understand that the engine is used and has not undergone any

rebuilding.

Example 15:

An automobile parts dealer purchases a transmission that has been recovered from

a junked vehicle. Eighty-five percent by weight of the transmission was rebuilt

and 15% constitutes new materials. After rebuilding6

 the transmission in accordance with industry practices, the dealer packages it for resale in a box labeled

Rebuilt Transmission, or Rebuilt Transmission (85% recycled content from

rebuilt parts), or Recycled Transmission (85% recycled content from rebuilt

parts). These claims are not likely to be deceptive.

(f) Source reduction: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a

product or package has been reduced or is lower in weight, volume or toxicity. Source

reduction claims should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid consumer deception

about the amount of the source reduction and about the basis for any comparison asserted.

Example 1:

An ad claims that solid waste created by disposal of the advertisers packaging is

now 10% less than our previous package. The claim is not deceptive if the

advertiser has substantiation that shows that disposal of the current package

contributes 10% less waste by weight or volume to the solid waste stream when

compared with the immediately preceding version of the package.

Example 2:

An advertiser notes that disposal of its product generates 10% less waste. The

claim is ambiguous. Depending on contextual factors, it could be a comparison

either to the immediately preceding product or to a competitors product. The

10% less waste reference is deceptive unless the seller clarifies which comparison is intended and substantiates that comparison, or substantiates both possible

interpretations of the claim.

(g) Refillable: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a package is

30
refillable. An unqualified refillable claim should not be asserted unless a system is provided for: (1) the collection and return of the package for refill; or (2) the later refill of

the package by consumers with product subsequently sold in another package. A package

should not be marketed with an unqualified refillable claim, if it is up to the consumer to

find new ways to refill the package.

Example 1:

A container is labeled refillable x times. The manufacturer has the capability to

refill returned containers and can show that the container will withstand being

refilled at least x times. The manufacturer, however, has established no collection

program. The unqualified claim is deceptive because there is no means for collection and return of the container to the manufacturer for refill.

Example 2:

A bottle of fabric softener states that it is in a handy refillable container. The

manufacturer also sells a large-sized container that indicates that the consumer is

expected to use it to refill the smaller container. The manufacturer sells the largesized container in the same market areas where it sells the small container. The

claim is not deceptive because there is a means for consumers to refill the smaller

container from larger containers of the same product.

(h) Ozone safe and ozone friendly: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product is safe for or friendly to the ozone layer or the atmosphere. For

example, a claim that a product does not harm the ozone layer is deceptive if the product

contains an ozone-depleting substance.

Example 1:

A product is labeled ozone friendly. The claim is deceptive if the product

contains any ozone-depleting substance, including those substances listed as Class

I or Class II chemicals in Title VI of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,

Pub. L. No. 101-549, and others subsequently designated by EPA as ozonedepleting substances. Chemicals that have been listed or designated as Class I are

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,

methyl bromide and hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs). Chemicals that have

been listed as Class II are hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).

Example 2:

An aerosol air freshener is labeled ozone friendly. Some of the products

ingredients are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that may cause smog by

contributing to ground-level ozone formation. The claim is likely to convey to

consumers that the product is safe for the atmosphere as a whole, and is therefore,

deceptive.

Example 3:

The seller of an aerosol product makes an unqualified claim that its product

Contains no CFCs. Although the product does not contain CFCs, it does contain HCFC-22, another ozone depleting ingredient. Because the claim Contains

no CFCs may imply to reasonable consumers that the product does not harm the

ozone layer, the claim is deceptive.

31
Example 4:

A product is labeled This product is 95% less damaging to the ozone layer than

past formulations that contained CFCs. The manufacturer has substituted HCFCs

for CFC-12, and can substantiate that this substitution will result in 95% less

ozone depletion. The qualified comparative claim is not likely to be deceptive.

32

§ 260.8 Environmental assessment

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT: In accordance with section 1.83 of the

FTCs Procedures and Rules of Practice7

 and section 1501.3 of the Council on Environmental Qualitys regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of National

Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. (1969),8

 the Commission prepared an

environmental assessment when the guides were issued in July 1992 for purposes of

providing sufficient evidence and analysis to determine whether issuing the Guides for the

Use of Environmental Marketing Claims required preparation of an environmental impact

statement or a finding of no significant impact. After careful study, the Commission

concluded that issuance of the Guides would not have a significant impact on the environment and that any such impact would be so uncertain that environmental analysis would

be based on speculation.9

 The Commission concluded that an environmental impact

statement was therefore not required. The Commission based its conclusions on the

findings in the environmental assessment that issuance of the guides would have no

quantifiable environmental impact because the guides are voluntary in nature, do not

preempt inconsistent state laws, are based on the FTCs deception policy, and, when used

in conjunction with the Commissions policy of case-by-case enforcement, are intended to

aid compliance with section 5(a) of the FTC Act as that Act applies to environmental

marketing claims.

The Commission has concluded that the modifications to the guides in this Notice will not

have a significant effect on the environment, for the same reasons that the issuance of the

original guides in 1992 and the modifications to the guides in 1996 were deemed not to

have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the Commission concludes that

an environmental impact statement is not required in conjunction with the issuance of the

1998 modifications to the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary
ENDNOTES

1. Cliffdale Associates, Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110, at 176, 176 n.7, n.8, Appendix,

reprinting letter dated Oct. 14, 1983, from the Commission to The Honorable

John D. Dingell, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House

of Representatives (1984) (Deception Statement).

2. These guides do not currently address claims based on a lifecycle theory of

environmental benefit. The Commission lacks sufficient information on which to

base guidance on such claims.

3. The guides treatment of unqualified degradable claims is intended to help prevent

consumer deception and is not intended to establish performance standards for

laws intended to ensure the degradability of products when littered.

4. The Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act establishes

uniform national labeling requirements regarding certain types of nickel-cadmium

rechargeable and small lead-acid rechargeable batteries to aid in battery collection

and recycling. The Battery Act requires, in general, that the batteries must be

labeled with the three-chasing-arrows symbol or a comparable recycling symbol,

and the statement Battery Must Be Recycled Or Disposed Of Properly. 42

U.S.C. § 14322(b). Batteries labeled in accordance with this federal statute are

deemed to be in compliance with these guides.

5. The term used refers to parts that are not new and that have not undergone any

type of remanufacturing and/or reconditioning.

6. The term rebuilding means that the dealer dismantled and reconstructed the

transmission as necessary, cleaned all of its internal and external parts and eliminated rust and corrosion, restored all impaired, defective or substantially worn

parts to a sound condition (or replaced them if necessary), and performed any

operations required to put the transmission in sound working condition.

7. 16 C.F.R. § 1.83 (revised as of Jan. 1, 1991).

8. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.3 (1991).

9. 16 C.F.R. § 1.83(a).

33
 Federal Trade Commission Toll-free 1-877-FTC-HELP

 www.ftc.gov For the Consumer