UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSI 

COMMISSIONERS: Edith Ramirez, Chairwoman 

Julie Brill 

577911 

Maureen K. Ohlhausen 

Joshua D. Wright 

Terrell McSweeny ORIGINAL 

In the Matter of 

ECM BioFilms, Inc., 

a corporation, also d/b/a 

Enviroplastics International 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 9358 

PUBLIC 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 

RESPONDING TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE COMMISSION 

I. Questions Presented by the Commission 

Below, and in Dr. Frederick's attached declaration, we address the Commission's 

questions about the smvey evidence in this case. The answers unequivocally demonstrate that 

affixing biodegradable labels to items that are not traditionally regarded as biodegradable (like 

plastic) causes a substantial fraction of consumers to think they will break down within one or 

five years. 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

2

A. Can the survey evidence in the record be interpreted as causal or 

experimental surveys with appropriate test and control groups? Would it be 

appropriate to do so? If so, please explain what inferences can be draw from 

such an interpretation in light of relevant legal authority and statistical 

methods. If not, please explain why not.

Experimental survey evidence in the record has appropriate test and control groups and 

demonstrates that at least a significant minority of consumers understand the biodegradable 

claim to mean complete decomposition within one year, and more within five years. 

1. The Legal Standard For Extrinsic Evidence

The Commission prefers experimental surveys as direct evidence of what consumers 

think of the specific advertisement in question. In re Thompson Medical Co. Inc., 104 F.T.C. 

648, 788-89 (1984); Kraft, Inc. v. FTC, 970 F.2d 311, 318 (7th Cir. 1992). But it also relies on 

other forms of extrinsic evidence, including consumer testimony, general marketing research,

and expert opinion, all of which can help to explain how consumers “ordinarily” perceive or 

understand advertisements. See Thompson, 104 F.T.C. at 788-89; see also Kraft, 970 F.2d at 318

(citing FTC Policy Statement on Deception, 103 F.T.C. 174, 175 (1984)) (“Deception 

Statement”)); In re Telebrands Corp., 140 F.T.C. 278, 291 (2005). Indeed, the Commission will 

consider any form of reliable evidence of consumer interpretation. Deception Statement, 103 

F.T.C. at 176, n.8. 1

1 In fact, extrinsic evidence is not required: the Commission may rely on its own 

reasoned analysis. In re Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 84 F.T.C. 1493 (1974); FTC v. ColgatePalmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374 (1965); Kraft, 970 F.2d at 319. Considering extrinsic evidence is 

only necessary if “initial review of evidence from the advertisement itself does not allow [the 

Commission] to conclude with confidence that it is reasonable to read an advertisement as 

containing a particular implied message.” Thompson Med., 104 F.T.C. at 788-89 (1984). When 

evidence is offered to assist the Commission in interpreting advertising representations, it 

supplements rather than supplants the Commission’s expertise. Crown Cent., 84 F.T.C. at 1540.

The Commission has long held the view that an unqualified biodegradable claim implies 

complete breakdown in a reasonably short period. 16 C.F.R. § 260.8. The record’s extrinsic 

evidence both confirms this view, see infra, and demonstrates that consumers understand a
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

3

The Commission weighs the probative value of extrinsic evidence the same as other 

evidence. Crown Cent., 84 F.T.C. at 1540. It considers (inevitably imperfect) survey evidence

reliable as long as the survey is “methodologically sound,” i.e., it draws valid samples from the 

appropriate population, asks appropriate questions in ways that minimize bias, and analyzes

results correctly. See CC App. Br. at 13 (citing In re POM Wonderful, No. 9344, 2013 FTC 

LEXIS 6, at *45, quoting Kraft, 114 F.T.C. at 121); Thompson Med., 104 F.T.C. at 788-89;

Stouffer Foods, 118 F.T.C. 746, 808 n.27 (1994)). In addition, the Commission considers expert 

opinions reliable if adequately supported, i.e., they “describe empirical research or analyses 

based on generally recognized marketing principles or other objective manifestations of 

professional expertise.” Thompson, 104 F.T.C. at 788 n.11.

The record in this case contains reliable experimental and observational consumer survey 

evidence. That evidence both independently and collectively demonstrates (along with the intent 

evidence2

) that a significant minority of consumers understand a biodegradable claim to mean 

complete decomposition within one year or five years.

biodegradable claim causes that period to be within at least five years (for a third of consumers) 

and within one year (for a significant minority). 2 The Commission should also consider the overwhelming evidence that ECM intended to 

imply that its additive would make plastic completely break down into elements found in nature 

in a landfill in a reasonably short period of nine months to five years. CC App. Br. at 29-30; 

POM, No. 9344, 2013 FTC LEXIS 6, at *51. Accord Novartis Corp., 127 F.T.C. 580, 683 

(1999) (“[E]vidence of intent to make a claim may support a finding that the claims were indeed

made.”); Telebrands, 140 F.T.C. at 304 (finding support that claims were made in “ample

evidence that respondents intended to convey the challenged claims”); Thompson, 104 F.T.C. at

791 (“Thompson intended to make these claims . . . [and] [t]herefore, it is reasonable to interpret

the ads as making them[.]”). Even when ECM began using the “some period greater than a year”

disclaimer, it continued to tell customers to expect complete landfill biodegradation in nine 

months to five years. CC App. Br. at 30. In fact, as Dr. Frederick explained, the disclaimer 

actually reinforced consumers’ expectations for short biodegradation times, by anchoring “a 

year” in consumers’ minds . Id. at 28.
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

4

2. Experimental Evidence Demonstrates that the Biodegradable Claim Causes 

Consumers to Infer a Short Timeframe.

Although the Commission does not require experimental surveys, it has recognized the 

need for a controlled experiment in certain circumstances, such as closed-end surveys or when 

evidence suggests that a preexisting belief could bias the results. See, e.g., Stouffer, 118 F.T.C. 

at 746. Experimental studies manipulate an independent variable to determine its effect on a 

dependent variable (e.g., did x language imply the claim?), in contrast to observational studies, 

which gauge consumer beliefs at a moment in time (e.g., what does this language mean to you?). 

See Frederick Dec. ¶¶ 6(a)-(b), 9. Comparing test and control questions allows a researcher to 

rule out alternative explanations for the observed effect. See id. at ¶¶ 3-4, 6(b).

The observed effect in every study in the record is that many consumers understand an 

unqualified biodegradable claim to convey breakdown within a short period (about 20% within 

one year; about 35% within five). Id. at ¶ 3-4. By comparing test and control questions within 

the GCS study, the Synovate study, and in a cross-study meta-analysis, Dr. Frederick rules out

alternative explanations to the claim causing this effect, such as a preexisting belief that plastic is 

biodegradable.

a. The GCS study is an experimental survey with appropriate test and 

control groups.

The GCS study is a classic experimental study. Id. at ¶ 8. Dr. Frederick asked various

questions about biodegradation times for plastic bags, plastic containers, and plastic water bottles

bearing unqualified “biodegradable” claims. Id. ¶¶ 8-10; CCX-860 at 30-45. He also asked 

identical (or nearly identical) questions about the same plastic items without the claim. Id. This 

design—test and control questions—is the essence of every experimental survey. See Frederick 

Decl. ¶¶ 6(b), 8.
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

5

Comparing the results of the GCS test and control questions demonstrates that a

biodegradable label causes the number of consumers who perceive a false claim of breakdown in 

one year or less to at least double (and often more than quadruple). Id. ¶¶ 8-13. The label causes 

even more consumers to perceive a claim of break down within five years. See id. Specifically, 

after filtering out potential alternative explanations due to preexisting biases, guessing, or other 

factors, the data shows that the claim causes 22 to 41% of consumers to perceive a one-year 

breakdown claim and 32 to 58% to perceive a five-year claim:3

x Plastic Bag

o 25% of consumers (net of control) understand that a plastic bag labeled

biodegradable will breakdown within one year. (Frederick Decl. Appendix A at 

2, comparing control question (3P) to survey question (3K));.

o 32% of consumers (net of control) understand that a plastic bag labeled

biodegradable will completely breakdown within five years. (Id.);

x Plastic Container

o 22% of consumers (net of control) understand that a plastic container labeled

biodegradable will breakdown within one year. (Id. at 1, comparing control

question (3O) to survey question (3J));

o 35% of consumers (net of control) understand that a plastic container labeled

biodegradable will breakdown within five years. (Id.);

x Plastic Water Bottle

o 34 - 41% of consumers (net of control) understand that a plastic water bottle

labeled biodegradable will breakdown within one year. (Id. at 10-14, comparing 

control question (3N) to survey questions (3D) through (3G’).)

o 49 – 58% of consumers (net of control) understand that a plastic water bottle

labeled biodegradable will breakdown within five years. (Id.)

3 During oral argument, Commissioner Ohlhausen asked about the apparently small delta 

between the answers to Dr. Frederick’s control questions and his test questions. This small delta 

results from an understandable but incorrect comparison. The control questions should not be 

compared to questions (3H) and (3I) because these questions displayed products whose logo was 

illegible to survey respondents. See Tr. 1151, 1153-54; Frederick Decl. ¶ 10 n.4.
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

6

b. The Synovate study, though designed as an observational study, 

included a control-and-test-question pair.

Although the Synovate study was largely observational, it asked a pair of questions that 

yield valid experimental evidence. Frederick Decl. ¶¶ 14-15. Specifically, Synovate #8 asked: 

“How many years do you think it takes for traditional plastic products to biodegrade?” CCX860, Appendix A at 48. Synovate #19 asked: “What do you believe is a reasonable amount of 

time for a ‘biodegradable’ plastic package to decompose in a landfill?” Id. at 50. Synovate #8 

functions as a control for #19 because it asked about “traditional plastic” rather than a 

“‘biodegradable’ plastic.” Frederick Decl. ¶¶ 15-16. The number of respondents who thought 

“biodegradable” plastic would decompose in less than ten years (87%) was more than five 

times greater than the number who thought “traditional” plastic would biodegrade in the same 

time period (16%), with a difference between test and control of 71%. Id.

Synovate #8 did not offer respondents the choice of “less than five years” like #19.

CCX-860, Appendix C at 48-49. But, even assuming that every respondent who chose “less than 

ten years” in response to #8 would have opted for five years (if given the choice), the difference 

between five-year responses to #19 (70%) and assumed five-year response to #8 (i.e., the 16%

who selected ten years) is a still-remarkable 54%. CCX-860, Appendix C at 48-50; Frederick 

Decl. ¶¶ 15-16.

Given the magnitude of the difference between biodegradation times for “traditional” and 

“biodegradable” plastics, Dr. Frederick explains that these results demonstrate that the presence 

of a biodegradable claim on a plastic item causes a significant number of consumers believe it 

will break down in five years or less.4 Frederick Decl. ¶¶16, 21.

4 Dr. Frederick explains that Synovate #8 is not a perfect control. Ideally, the control and 

test would use the same word (product or package), and would query respondents using the same 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

7

c. APCO as a natural experimental survey. 

Researchers regularly use meta-analytic techniques to draw valid inferences from 

unintentionally manipulated variables across surveys using similar methodologies (sometimes 

referred to as a “natural experiment”). Frederick Decl. ¶ 6(c) (citing Rosenthal, 1991; Cooper, 

Hedges, & Valentine 2009; Hedges & Olkin, 2014; Lau, Ioannidis, & Schmid, 1998)). Thus, to 

the extent that there is incidental, unplanned variation in some variable(s), the studies can

function like an experiment. Id. In other words, a question in one study can be treated as a

control for a similar question in another study, where the two only vary slightly. Frederick Decl. 

¶ 18.

For instance, compare GCS (3L) to APCO Q4:

x If a plastic package is NOT labeled “biodegradable,” how long will it take to 

decompose? (GCS 3L)

x If a package is labeled “biodegradable” what should be the maximum amount of 

time that it should take for that package to decompose? APCO Q4

Though not identical, the questions are similar. Therefore, GCS (3L) can act as a control for the 

APCO test question. Frederick Decl. ¶ 18. Comparing the GCS question to the APCO question 

shows the number of consumers who think that a product labeled biodegradable will biodegrade 

in one year and five years significantly increases when a “biodegradable” claim is made. Id.

question stem (i.e., “how many years do you think it takes” versus “what do you believe is a 

reasonable about of time”). Frederick Decl. ¶ 15, n 7. Moreover, a better control would offer the 

respondents the same answer choices (i.e., less than one, five, or ten years, etc. as #19 did rather 

than starting at “Less than 10 years” as #8 did). Id. Despite these imperfections, Dr. Frederick 

explains that the comparison of these questions yields valuable information, particularly given 

the magnitude of the differences between responses. Id.
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

GCS 3L vs. APCO #4 

%of %of 

Question Type Wording estimates estimates 

:::; 1 year :::; 5 years 

Control GCS (3L) If a plastic package is NOT 13% 17% 

labeled "biodegradable," how long will it 

(no claim) take to decompose? 

(APCO Q4) If a package is labeled 60% 65% 

Biodegradable 'biodegradable,' what should be the 

claim maximum amount of time that it should 

take for that package to decompose? 

Difference 47% 48% 

Thus, this meta-analysis provides additional evidence that a "biodegradable" label is causing 

respondents to expect faster biodegradation. 

5 

5 Moreover, several additional, different comparisons across studies may be made. For 

instance, one could evaluate how adding the word "plastic" before "package" affects consumers' 

estimation of of biodegradation times by comparing Synovate to APCO. Or one could look at 

the effect of refen ing to "something biodegradable" compared to "a plastic package," a 

"package," or a specific plastic product, e.g. , a bag, container, or water bottle. Some 

comparisons show some small effect, e.g. , consumers expect somewhat longer biodegradation 

times for plastic products, than for products whose composition is unspecified. While others 

show a much greater effect, e.g., asking how many years versus "how many months" it takes to 

biodegrade. See Frederick Decl. ~ 8. Dr. Frederick explains that having both "within-subject" 

and "between subject" comparisons is ve1y inst ct v~ ere such comparisons also yield large 

differences in biodegradation times between plastics that do [or do not] bear biodegradable 

claims. !d.~ 6, n. 1 (citing Grice (1969) and Kahneman & Frederick (2002, 2005)). 

8 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

9

B. In light of the relevant legal authority and statistical methods, what weight 

should the Commission give to the results of descriptive surveys, which measure 

an attitude, characteristic, or belief that survey respondents hold, relative to the 

results of causal surveys or experimental surveys, which use test and control 

groups to measure the effect of a specific variable.

The record’s observational surveys (APCO, Synovate, Dr. Stewart) corroborate the 

experimental evidence showing that biodegradable claims cause consumers to infer short 

biodegradation times of one to five years. As reasonably reliable and valid corroborating studies, 

the observational studies are entitled to substantial weight. See CC App. Br. at 10-11 (discussing 

reliability and validity of each).

Dr. Frederick explains that “observational studies can inform speculation, and revise 

assumptions.” Frederick Decl. ¶ 6(a). Although observational studies are not specifically 

designed to evaluate cause and effect, survey research experts routinely make causal inferences 

from observational data. Frederick Decl. ¶ 6(a); see also id. at ¶ 7 (discussing the value of all 

methods, including observational studies, but noting that the strongest inferences come from 

experiments (citing Salmon, 1998; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2008)). Dr. Frederick explains 

that all of the observational evidence—APCO, Synovate, Dr. Stewart’s study—shows that 

consumers:

x believe that there are differences in how long it takes things to biodegrade.

Frederick Decl. ¶¶ 14, 17, 19.

x infer short biodegradation times for items they consider biodegradable, such as 

paper, and long biodegradation times (including never) for traditional plastic 

items. Id.
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

10

x believe biodegradable products and packages are better for the environment—

they are less burdensome on the environment generally and landfills specifically.

Id. at ¶¶ 14-19.

x are willing to pay more for biodegradable products because of these positive 

attributes. Id. at 14.

Dr. Frederick concludes that from the data collected on various measures of consumer 

understanding of biodegradability, one can infer that the presence of a biodegradable label 

(cause) lowers consumers’ estimates of biodegradation times (effect). Frederick Decl. ¶¶ 14, 17-

22.

Collectively, these observational studies corroborate what the experimental studies 

demonstrate—consumers understand a “biodegradable” item will break down in a short time. 

This inference follows the Commission’s own view that the biodegradable claim causes 

consumers to infer short timeframes. 16 C.F.R. § 260.8; cf. Kraft, 970 F.2d at 319 

(“[A]lternative or confirming extrinsic evidence which supplements rather than supplants the 

Commission’s expertise, includes adequately supported conclusions as to consumer responses to 

advertising by marketing experts”) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Thus, the 

observational evidence bolsters the conclusions of the experimental studies, and therefore the 

Commission should give them considerable weight. Cf. POM Wonderful, LLC v. F.T.C., 777 

F.3d 478, 502 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (observing that a researcher may draw conclusions from a single 

“blue ribbon test” (RCT) whose results are reinforced by observational studies). Dr. Frederick 

explains that the observational studies in the record (APCO, Synovate, and Dr. Stewart’s study) 

overwhelmingly demonstrate that consumers estimate short biodegradation times of one to five 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

11

years for items labeled biodegradable. See Frederick Decl. ¶¶ 21-23; see also CC App. Br. at 6-

29.

C. Is it possible to quantify the degree of convergence among the consumer surveys 

in the record in this case (APCO, Synovate, Frederick, and Stewart) or within 

any single survey? If so, please calculate the degree of convergence, if any, of 

these surveys. If not, please explain the significance of the inability to quantify 

convergence to an issue or issues on appeal.

It is not possible to quantify the degree of convergence. Convergent validity refers to 

both the diversity and quantity of evidence for a claim or construct, and no single statistical 

metric of convergence or divergence encapsulates it. What is significant here is that four 

independent bodies of research all yield qualitatively similar results; in particular, they all show 

that consumers understand that items described as biodegradable will break down in a short time.

Convergent validity pertains to the presence (or absence) of consistent support for a 

construct or claim from a set of studies or measures that bear on it. Frederick Decl. ¶ 24 (citing 

Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Jacoby, 1978). This concept extends beyond technical procedures that 

exist to compare distributions or pool results from multiple studies6 because it pertains both to 

the quantity and diversity of evidence that exists in support of a claim. Id. (citing Massey, 1951, 

Higgins & Thompson, 2002).

Convergent validity involves drawing inferences from a set of studies that have a 

theoretical relation to the construct of interest, e.g., beliefs about biodegradation of materials 

which are [or are not] referred to as biodegradable. Convergent validity can provide powerful 

evidence—not only to researchers but also to courts—to validate the results of different studies,

using different methodologies, conducted at different times by different researchers. See, e.g.,

K.S. v. Fremont Unified School District, 679 F.Supp.2d 1046, 1060 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (ALJ did 

6 Dr. Frederick explains that there is considerable convergence in this narrower sense as 

well. Frederick Decl. ¶ 23, n.13.
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

12

not err by relying on expert’s convergent validity theory); United States v. Montgomery, No. 

2:11-cr-20044-JPM-1, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57689, at *161 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 28, 2014) 

(“[T]he Court is guided by the principle of ‘convergent validity,’ ‘consistent themes. . . . You 

want to look at all the pieces of evidence and try to come up with the most coherent explanation 

for the patterns that you see in the history.’”). The critical question is whether studies conducted 

differently (e.g., for somewhat different purposes, using different numbers and types of 

questions, with somewhat different wording, given to somewhat different populations, at 

different times, by different researchers, using different media) all yield qualitatively similar 

result. Here, the answer is a resounding yes. Frederick Decl. ¶ 24 (explaining that the degree of 

convergent validity is high).

II. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Respondent’s practices, as alleged in the Complaint, 

constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices, in or affecting commerce, in violation of Sections 

5(a) and 12 of the FTC Act. Complaint Counsel respectfully requests that the Commission enter 

the relief proposed in the Notice Order.

Dated: June 22, 2015

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Katherine Johnson

Katherine Johnson

Elisa Jillson

Federal Trade Commission

Bureau of Consumer Protection

Division of Enforcement

600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., CC-9528

Washington, D.C. 20580

Telephone: (202) 326-2185; -3001

Facsimile: (202) 326-3259

Counsel Supporting the Complaint
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 22, 2015, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing to 

be served as follows:

One electronic copy and one copy through the FTC’s e-filing system to the Office of the 

Secretary:

Donald S. Clark, Secretary

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room H-159

Washington, DC 20580

Email: secretary@ftc.gov

One electronic copy to the Office of the Administrative Law Judge:

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell

Administrative Law Judge

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room H-110

Washington, DC 20580

One electronic copy to Counsel for the Respondent:

Jonathan W. Emord

Emord & Associates, P.C.

11808 Wolf Run Lane

Clifton, VA 20124

Email: jemord@emord.com 

Peter Arhangelsky

Emord & Associates, P.C.

3210 S. Gilbert Road, Suite 4

Chandler, AZ 85286

Email: parhangelsky@emord.com 

Eric J. Awerbuch

Emord & Associates, P.C. 

3210 S. Gilbert Road, Suite 4 

Chandler, AZ 85286 

Email: eawerbuch@emord.com

Bethany Kennedy

Emord & Associates, P.C. 

3210 S. Gilbert Road, Suite 4 

Chandler, AZ 85286 

Email: bkennedy@emord.com

Date: June 22, 2015 /s/ Katherine Johnson

Katherine Johnson (kjohnson3@ftc.gov) 

Elisa Jillson (ejillson@ftc.gov)

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. CC-9528

Washington, DC 20580

Phone: 202-326-2185;-3001

Fax: 202-326-3197
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Edith Ramirez, Chairwoman 

Julie Brill 

Maureen K. Ohlhausen 

Joshua D. Wright 

Terrell McSweeny

 

 ) 

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

ECM BioFilms, Inc., ) Docket No. 9358 

a corporation, also d/b/a ) 

Enviroplastics International ) PUBLIC 

 ) 

 ) 

DECLARATION OF DR. SHANE FREDERICK IN SUPPORT OF 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION’S QUESTIONS 

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the 

following is true and correct: 

1. I am over 18 years of age, and I am a citizen of the United States. I am a full 

Professor of Marketing at Yale University’s School of Management. See CCX-860 at 3-4 

(summarizing education and experience); id. at Exh. A (curriculum vitae). 

2. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, which are 

relevant to three questions posed by the Federal Trade Commission. 

I. SUMMARY OF ANSWERS

3. Commission Questions 1 & 2. The experimental evidence on record (my GCS 

studies, and a within-subject manipulation from the Synovate study) shows that large fractions of 

Americans (28% - 76%) believe that plastics which are called biodegradable will biodegrade 

quickly (within one or five years), and that far fewer (11% - 25%) hold such beliefs for plastic 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
2

products that lack such claims. The differences between the “test” and “control” questions can 

be interpreted as the fraction of consumers whose beliefs in rapid biodegradation are caused by 

the claim. The magnitude of this figure ranges from 18% -58%, depending on the exact 

comparison and whether one uses a one-year or five-year standard. The results from the other 

studies (APCO, Synovate, and Dr. Stewart’s), which were largely observational, further supports

this conclusion. 

4. To recapitulate, all evidence on record (both from controlled experimentation and 

from comparisons between studies) supports the following conclusion: most Americans believe 

that things that are advertised as or labeled biodegradable will biodegrade within five years, and 

a large minority (roughly a third) believe that will occur within one year. Far fewer do when 

such claims are not made. Thus, all of the evidence on record strongly supports the conclusion 

that affixing biodegradable labels to items that are not traditionally regarded as biodegradable 

(like plastic) causes a substantial fraction of consumers to think they will break down quickly. 

5. Commission Question 3. Convergent validity refers to both the diversity and 

quantity of evidence for a claim or construct. No single statistical metric of convergence or 

divergence encapsulates it. What is significant here is that four independent bodies of research 

all yield qualitatively similar results; in particular, they all show that consumers understand that 

items described as biodegradable will break down in a short time.

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
3

II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES FOR ASSESSING CONSUMER ATTITUDES

6. Consumer attitudes and beliefs can be investigated with several different methods, 

including observation, experiments, and meta-analyses. 

a. Observational research measures but does not manipulate variables. Like other 

forms of research, observational studies can inform speculation, and revise 

assumptions (Rosenbaum, 2002). For example, observational studies of consumer 

behavior have overturned prior assumptions that the conversion rate of a store 

approaches 100% (Underhill, 2009). The studies conducted by APCO and by Dr. 

Stewart were observational studies. They were intended to measure various 

aspects of respondents’ beliefs about biodegradability, but all respondents 

received the same version of the survey and nothing was intentionally 

manipulated. The Synovate study also involved just one condition, and, thus, 

functioned primarily as an observational study. However, answers to pairs of the 

items within the survey could be compared, and thus, in some ways, this pair of 

items functioned like an experiment.1 Observational research is not ideally suited 

for assessing causation, but one can make causal inferences by examining 

differences between different observational studies that measured similar things. 

These inferences can be rigorously tested with experimental research. 

 

1

 As discussed by Grice (1966), manipulating variables “within-subject” (comparing two answers 

of one respondent) may yield different results from manipulating variables “between-subject” 

(comparing two answers from respondents who received different versions). Indeed, it is often 

instructive to have both types of manipulations (Kahneman & Frederick, 2002, 2005). Synovate 

manipulates within subjects the variables that the Frederick studies manipulate between subjects. 

Both types of manipulations yield large differences between plastics that do [or do not] bear 

biodegradable claims. 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
4

b. Experimental research manipulates as well as measures variables; it uses two or 

more conditions (e.g., a “test” question vs. a “control” question) to determine 

which factors affect the construct of interest (e.g., Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 

2002). In other words, experimental research is designed to explore cause and 

effect. My research using GCS was experimental research with “test” and 

“control” questions.2 I deliberately manipulated various aspects of the questions 

posed to the same population of respondents. 

c. Meta-analysis draws inferences from analyses of multiple studies, which could 

include both observational and experimental studies (Rosenthal, 1991; Cooper, 

Hedges, & Valentine 2009; Hedges & Olkin, 2014; Lau, Ioannidis, & Schmid, 

1998). In some cases, unintentional manipulation of a variable between two 

independent studies permits similar sorts of inferences as experimental research,

which deliberately manipulates factors between conditions or between items in 

the same study. Attributions of cause are not as straightforward as with 

experimental research, since two independent studies typically differ in multiple 

ways, but meta-analyses reasonably permit inferences from all available relevant 

data. 

 

2

 As I noted in my initial report in this case, I routinely use GCS to conduct experiments for my 

academic research, including two of the studies reported in Frederick, Lee, & Baskin (2014). 

This paper was published in the Journal of Marketing Research, which is one of the most highly 

regarded in my field, and was selected as one of four finalists for the Paul Green award, which 

“recognizes the best article in the Journal of Marketing Research that demonstrates the greatest 

potential to contribute to the practice of marketing research.” See 

http://www.themarketingfoundation.org/green.html

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
5

7. All three types of research can be valuable. However, true experimental research 

enables the strongest tests of causation (Salmon, 1998; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002).

Therefore, I will first address the experiments I conducted using GCS, before turning to the 

additional inferences that can be drawn from the Synovate, APCO, and Stewart studies. 

III. THE EFFECT OF A BIODEGRADABLE LABEL3

A. Experimental Evidence in Frederick’s GCS Studies

8. My GCS-based studies were primarily experimental research; I manipulated 

variables to explore their effect on a construct of interest. The construct of interest in my studies 

was typically respondents’ beliefs about the rate of biodegradation. I investigated the effect of 

various factors on these perceptions. Below I list the factors that (a) had little effect on these 

beliefs; (b) those that had some effect; and (c) those that had a substantial effect. 

a. Little Effect on Beliefs about Biodegradation Rates 

i. The word used to reference the process in question. It does not matter 

significantly whether the process is called biodegradation, decomposition, 

or degradation (compare 1A, 1B, & 1C). 

ii. Whether the product is described being deposited in a landfill or not 

(compare 1E & 1F).4

 

3

 I attach to this declaration as Appendix A the appendix to my initial expert report (CCX-860), 

which contains the results from the GCS study, the APCO study, and the Synovate study. I 

attach as Appendix B Dr. Stewart’s survey data (which is Appendix D in his initial report, CCX856). I attach as Appendix C a chart developed for this declaration, which highlights the 

difference between the test and control conditions. 

4

 Question #8 in Synovate also finds little difference. 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
6

iii. Whether the temporal interval is referenced as “how long” or “how much 

time” (compare 1B & 1D).

iv. Whether the question is phrased as asking for an opinion or an objective 

fact (compare 1D & 1E and 3G & 3G’).

v. Whether the object in question is a plastic “package” or a plastic “product” 

(compare 3A & 3B). 

vi. If a biodegradable label is present, the precise form it takes (compare 3D, 

3E, 3F, & 3G). 

b. Some Effect on Beliefs about Biodegradation Rates 

i. If asked the amount of time a package labeled biodegradable should take 

to biodegrade, consumers expect somewhat faster biodegradation rates 

than if asked how long it would take. Presumably the word should evokes 

more of a sense of what might be achievable under ideal conditions, 

whereas the word would evokes more of a sense of what it is reasonable to 

expect (given that the material might not be properly disposed, that the 

claims in question may be fallacious, and so on) (compare 1G & 1H). 

ii. Among products or packages bearing a biodegradable label, consumers 

expect somewhat longer biodegradation times for plastic products, than 

for products whose composition is unspecified (compare 1A & 3C; 1D & 

3B).

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
7

c. Substantial Effect on Beliefs of Biodegradation Rate 

i. Although I mostly avoided such questions to avoid biasing the respondent, 

if a temporal unit is provided, shorter units (e.g., months) induce lower 

estimates than longer units (e.g., years). (Compare 1I with 1J) 

ii. Whether the package or product in question bears a biodegradable label or 

is otherwise claimed to be biodegradable. (Comparisons discussed next.) 

9. By using various test and control questions, my experimental studies on GCS 

primarily explored the effect of this last factor—a biodegradable label. My studies revealed that 

biodegradable claims on a plastic product significantly increase the fraction of consumers who 

infer rapid breakdown of the material so labeled. These are not just statistically significant 

differences; they are substantively significant differences. The presence of a biodegradable label

or claim often doubles or triples the fraction of respondents who believe the material in question 

will rapidly biodegrade.

10. I tested the effects of such claims on three items: (1) a thin white plastic bag 

(depicted), which was described as being made of plastic; (2) a plastic “Tupperware” container

(depicted); and (3) a plastic water bottle (referenced). Some of the experimental materials used 

ECM’s logo, specifically, whereas others used other labels containing analogous 

“biodegradable” claims.5

 

5

 Questions 3H and 3I were identical to 3J and 3K, but did not clarify in the question stem that 

the depicted logo says “ECM biodegradable.” The small font contained in the image of the label 

is not legible on many computer screens. Thus, I included these conditions to help ensure that 

the variable I intended to manipulate (the presence or absence of the label’s claim) was, in fact, 

being manipulated. 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

11. As shown in the tables below, biodegradable claims of any sott had marked 

effects on beliefs. (I show comparisons for both one and five years.) 

(1) "TUPPERWARE" CONTAINER (DEPICTED) 

Question % of estimates % of estimates 

Wording less than 1 less than 5 Type year years 

GCS (30) What is your best estimate of the amollllt 16% 21% 

Control of time it would take for the container below to 

(no claim) biodegrade? 

GCS (3J) What is your best estimate of the amollllt 34% 56% 

Biodegradable of time it would take for this container (which bears claim the symbol "ECM biodegradable") to biodegrade? 

Difference between conditions 22% 35% 

(2) PLASTIC BAG (DEPICTED) 

Question % of estimates % of estimates 

Wording less than 1 less than 5 Type year years 

GCS (3P) What is your best estimate of the amotmt 13% 25% 

Control of time it would take for this plastic bag to 

(no claim) biodegrade? 

Biodegradable GCS (3K) What is your best estimate of the amollllt 38% 57% 

claim of time it would take for this plastic bag (which 

bears the symbol "ECM biodegradable") to 

biodegrade? 

Difference between conditions 25% 32% 

8 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

(3) PLASTIC WATER BOTTLE (REFERENCED) 

Question Wording % of estimates % of estimates 

less than 1 less than 5 Type year years 

Control GCS (3N) How long would it take a plastic water 11% 18% 

(no claim) bottle to compose 

Biodegradable GCS (3D) If you saw this label on a plastic water 52% 70% 

claim bottle, how long would it take to decompose? [label 

a pictured] 

Biodegradable GCS (3E) If you saw this label on a plastic water 50% 67% 

claim bottle, how long would it take to decompose? [label 

b pictured] 

Biodegradable GCS (3F) If you saw this label on a plastic water 45% 68% 

claim bottle, how long would it take to decompose? [label 

c pictured] 

Biodegradable GCS (3G) If you saw this label on a plastic water 47% 71% 

claim bottle, how long would it take to decompose? [label 

d pictured] 

Biodegradable GCS (3G') If you saw this label on a plastic water 52% 76% 

claim bottle, how long do you think it would take to 

decompose? [label d pictured] 

Difference between conditions 34-41% 49-58% 

12. Thus, these studies concem ed the effects of biodegradable claims on respondents' 

estimates of time for a depicted or referenced plastic product. However, in the interest of 

construct validity (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955), I included other studies that asked different but 

conceptually related questions. When I manipulated whether a biodegradable claim was or was 

not made, I again fmmd that the presence of a biodegradable label had marked effects. Consider, 

for example, the data below: 

9 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

TUPPERW ARE CONTAINER (DEPICTED) 

Question Type Wording Yes 

Control GCS (SA) Will this container break down completely into 18% 

(no claim) elements fmmd in nature? 

Biodegradable GCS (8C) Will this container (which bears the symbol "ECM 39% 

claim biodegradable") break down completely into elements found in 

nature? 

Difference between conditions 21% 

PLASTIC BAG (DEPICTED) 

Question Type Wording Yes 

Control GCS (9A) Will this plastic bag break down completely into 11% 

(no claim) elements found in nature? 

Biodegradable GCS (9C) Will this plastic bag (which bears the symbol "ECM 45% 

claim biodegradable") break down completely into elements found in 

nature? 

Difference between conditions 34% 

13. Because the distribution of beliefs regarding products with biodegradable claims 

differs markedly from those lacking such claims, I can conclude that the biodegradable claim is 

causing that difference. 

6 

6 If such claims are false or lmsubstantiated, it seems likely that consumers would feel deceived. 

To investigate this, I included sets of questions directed at the standards consumers believe 

should be met for products which bear a biodegradable label. The results are clear: though 

respondents adopted somewhat more pennissive standards for plastic products than products of 

unspecified composition (compare 4A-4E with 2A-2E), the vast majority of responses indicate 

that respondents believe that deception has occmTed if products adveliised as biodegradable do 

not biodegrade within five years. Notably, it made little difference whether the question was 

framed from the perspective of a regulator (what a manufactmer should be prohibited from 

doing) or from the perspective of the manufactmer (what it should be permitted to do). To see 

this, compare 2D & 2E, as well as 4D & 4E. 

10 
11

B. Observational and Experimental Evidence in the Synovate Study. 

14. The study conducted by Synovate was predominantly an observational study 

investigating consumer’s beliefs and attitudes regarding biodegradability, biodegradable plastics, 

and composting. Among other things, the Synovate study observed: 

x 74% reported that biodegradable plastics will help reduce burden on landfills. (Synovate 

#16) 

x 70% reported that a biodegradable plastic package could reasonably be expected to 

decompose in a landfill within five years. 25% thought that a reasonable amount of time 

was one year. (Synovate #19) 

x 96% reported that they would prefer plastics that biodegrade in a landfill. (Synovate #20) 

x The supporting information that consumers most wanted to see on packages labeled 

biodegradable was how long it would take to biodegrade. (Synovate #24) 

x 72% reported that, at least occasionally, they look for eco-friendly packaging. (Synovate 

#25) 

x Biodegradability was most frequently ranked as the most important attribute for lowering 

a product’s burden on the environment—more important even than non-toxicity.

(Synovate #25a) 

x 42% reported they would be willing to pay at least 10% more for products that are less 

burdensome on the environment. (Synovate #27) 

15. The Synovate study is not an experiment in the traditional sense of having two or 

more conditions (i.e., only one version of the survey was administered). However, two of the 

survey questions (#8 and #19) function as controls for each other, and thus, do permit a 

comparison.7 Namely, when asked, “How many years do you think it takes for traditional plastic 

 

7 The items are not perfect controls for each other. First, the context provided by other questions 

is not held constant (questions #9-18 could possibly affect responses to #19, but obviously not to 

#8). Second, the question stem differs (#8 asks: “How many years do you think it takes” 

whereas #9 asks: “What do you believe is a reasonable about of time”). Third, the two questions 

reference slightly different things (products vs. package). Fourth, the response options are not 

constant. The shortest response option in #8 is “less than 10 years,” whereas in #19 the response 

options include “less than five years” and “less than one year.” However, with respect to this 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

products to biodegrade?" only 16% of respondents selected a response option shorter than ten 

years. However, when asked, "What do you believe is a reasonable amount of time for a 

'biodegradable ' plastic package to decompose in a landfill?" that number increased to 87%. 

SYNOVATE #8 vs. #19 

%of % of %of 

Question Wording estimates estimates estimates 

Type less than 1 less than 5 less than 10 

year years years 

(Synovate #8) How many years do you think NA NA 16% 

Control it takes for traditional plastic products to (though 

(no claim) biodegrade? certainly 

~ 16% ) 

Biodegradable (Synovate #19) What do you believe is a 25% 70% 87% 

reasonable amOlmt oftime for a claim "biodegradable" plastic package to 

decompose in a landfill? 

54% 71% 

Difference between conditions 

16. These two smvey items effectively ftmction as a within-subjects experiment, as 

the questions vmy whether the plastic in question is traditional (Synovate #8) or biodegradable 

(Synovate #19). Over fom times as many respondents thought plastic would decompose within 

five years if it was described as biodegradable (70% vs. 16%, see footnote 8). 

last point, pa1t of what I regard as a flaw of the Synovate study actually strengthens the 

inferences that can be drawn. Synovate # 19 appem·s intended to elicit long biodegradation times 

(especially as compm·ed with the APCO study). Yet even here, respondents ove1whelmingly 

expect biodegradable plastics to biodegrade quickly: 87% of respondents chose the one of the 

three sh01test categories (<1, <5, <10 years), whereas only 13% chose one of the three longest 

(<20, <40, 40+ years). 

8 To pe1mit this compm·ison, I am making the conservative assumption that eve1y respondent 

who gave the response of less than ten years in Synovate #8 can be re-coded as less than five 

yem·s. 

12 
13

C. Observational Evidence from APCO Study (and more Meta-Analytic support)

17. The study commissioned by APCO was an observational study, which 

investigated respondents’ beliefs and attitudes regarding biodegradability, composting, recycling, 

and so on. APCO made the following observations about consumer attitudes and beliefs 

regarding biodegradability: 

x 83% thought that something labeled biodegradable will decompose in a landfill. 80% 

thought that something labeled biodegradable will decompose in one’s backyard. (APCO 

#2) 

x 65% reported that a package labeled biodegradable should decompose within four years. 

60% thought it should decompose within one year. (APCO #4)9

x 83% reported that biodegradable packages will reduce landfill burdens. 79% reported 

that biodegradable packages will reduce pollution in oceans, rivers, and beaches. (APCO 

#7) 

18. The APCO study is not experimental, but its results are amenable to meta-analytic 

techniques. One of my surveys—GCS (3L)—provides a useful comparison, as it is worded 

similarly to the APCO question minus the biodegradable claim. The comparison and results are 

below. Though this is not a true experiment, it provides additional evidence that a 

“biodegradable” label is causing respondents to expect faster biodegradation. 

 

 

9

 This question appears designed to elicit shorter response times than an analogous question in 

the Synovate study, because more of the response options are allocated to shorter time periods. 

However, one could simply compare the two most extreme response options to each other and 

note that more respondents selected “1 month or less” (19%) than five years or more (16%). One 

of my GCS studies used a nearly identical response format (see 1K), and I found similar results: 

again, more respondents selected 1 month or less (19%) than selected five years of more (6%). 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

GCS 3L vs. APCO #4 

%of %of 

Question Type Wording estimates estimates 

< 1 year < 5 years 

GCS (3L) If a plastic package is NOT 13% 17% 

Control 

(no claim) labeled "biodegradable," how long will it 

take to decompose? 

60% 65% 

(APCO Q4) If a package is labeled 

Biodegradable 'biodegradable,' what should be the 

claim maximum amount of time that it should take 

for that package to decompose? 

Difference 47% 48% 

D. Observational Evidence in Dr. Stewart's Study 

19. Using a telephone landline survey, Dr. Stewatt conducted observational research 

about how consumers intetpret biodegradability and how they respond to various claims made by 

ECM. Dr. Stewmt observed that: 

• 98% (392/400) believe that there are differences in how long it takes things to 

biodegrade. (Stewatt 4a). 10 

• 95% (378/400) believe that the biodegradability of a package is helpful to the 

environment. 

• 75% (301/400) rep01t that the biodegradability of a product or package is imp01tant to 

them. 

• 64% (138/217) of those who produced codable responses 

11 think that something 

"biodegradable" will biodegrade in five years or less, and 36% (79/217) think it will 

biodegrade in one year or less. 

12 

10 As demonstrated in several ways, the presence or absence of a label claiming "biodegradable" 

is one of the things that would affect such judgments. 

14 
15

E. Conclusions. 

20. All of the observational evidence on record—APCO, Synovate, Dr. Stewart’s 

study—shows that consumers desire more biodegradable plastics because they believe they are 

better for the environment. All of the observational evidence on record shows that consumers 

believe they understand what biodegradable means (98% in Dr. Stewart’s study; 99% in the 

Synovate study). All of the observational evidence on record shows that consumers reject the 

application of that term to products that do not biodegrade or which take a very long time to do 

so. 

21. All of the observational evidence on record compels the inference that affixing 

biodegradable labels to things—like plastic—that are not traditionally regarded to be 

biodegradable, changes consumers beliefs about them. 

 

11 I coded the verbatim responses from Dr. Stewart’s survey to obtain these numbers. For a 

detailed explanation of my coding methodology (i.e., coding any answer with a number and unit 

of time), see my initial report. CCX-860 at 12,14. I understand that Complaint Counsel also 

coded these data and found similar though not identical results (206 responses were coded, with 

33%  one year and 58%  five years) and that Dr. Stewart accepted the 206 number at trial. Tr. 

2779, 2790-91. Regardless of the exact numbers, the point remains the same—Dr. Stewart’s 

results concur with the other studies in the sense that a large fraction of people expect things that 

are referenced as biodegradable to do so within five or even one year. 

12 Dr. Stewart’s Q4 is vague—it does not specify the nature or composition of the “something” 

in question, nor whether that something bears a biodegradable label [or not]—so it is 

unsurprising that many respondents gave non-numeric responses, like “it depends.” However, 

several did explain their unwillingness to render a numeric estimate for this question by noting 

that different things take different lengths of time and in doing so many respondents specifically 

mentioned that traditional plastic does not biodegrade, or biodegrades more slowly than other 

things. For example:

3⁄4 Respondent # 100515: “Depends on the size and thickness of it, and depends on what 

it was made of. A piece of paper wouldn’t take as long as a piece of plastic.” 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
16

22. All of the experimental evidence on record (my GCS studies, and a within-subject 

manipulation within the Synovate study) confirms the inference that the observational research 

compels—when affixed to plastic products, biodegradable labels cause consumers to assume 

more rapid biodegradation. Specifically, the evidence demonstrates that the biodegradable 

claims cause a substantial fraction of consumers to assume rapid biodegradation of that product 

(less than five years, or even one year). 

IV. CONVERGENT VALIDITY

23. Convergent validity pertains to the presence (or absence) of consistent support for 

a construct or claim from a set of studies or measures that bear on it (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; 

Jacoby, 1978). This concept extends beyond technical procedures that exist to compare 

distributions or pool results from multiple studies (see, e.g., Massey, 1951; Higgins & 

Thompson, 2002)13 as it pertains both to the quantity and diversity of evidence that exists in 

support of a claim. 

 

13 There is considerable convergence here in this narrower sense as well. All of the research 

discussed here either directly elicited (APCO, Synovate, Frederick) or permitted (Stewart) 

quantitative responses regarding times required for biodegradation. Thus, these quantitative data 

can be plotted as distributions that can be compared and contrasted. These distributions overlap 

considerably; in particular, in all cases, most of their mass exists below five years. The 

distributions are not identical, of course, due to both sampling variability and other aspects of 

survey design that induce systematic differences, such as whether the response was open-ended 

(and thus continuous, at least in principle) or multichotomous (and, thereby, necessarily, 

discrete). 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
24. Convergent validity is high here because four studies conducted for somewhat 

different purposes, using different numbers and types of questions, with somewhat different 

wording, given to somewhat different populations, at different times, by different researchers, 

using different media (paper and pencil, phone, and internet) all yield qualitatively similar 

results: they all show that large proportions of respondents expect things called biodegradable to 

biodegrade, and to do so quickly. 

Dated: June 22, 2015 

Dr. Shane Frederick 

17 
18

REFERENCES

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the 

multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin, 56(2), 81. 

Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis 

and meta-analysis. Russell Sage Foundation. 

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological 

bulletin, 52(4), 281. 

Frederick, S., Lee, L., & Baskin, E. (2014). The limits of attraction. Journal of Marketing 

Research, 51(4), 487-507. 

Grice, G. R. (1966). Dependence of empirical laws upon the source of experimental variation. 

Psychological Bulletin, 66(6), 488. 

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (2014). Statistical method for meta-analysis. Academic press.

Higgins, J. P., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. 

Statistics in medicine, 21(11), 1539-1558. 

Jacoby, J. (1978). Consumer research: A state of the art review. The Journal of Marketing, 87-

96.

Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in 

intuitive judgment. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, 49.

Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. The Cambridge 

handbook of thinking and reasoning, 267-293. 

Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P., & Schmid, C. H. (1998). Summing up evidence: one answer is not 

always enough. The lancet, 351(9096), 123-127. 

Massey, F. J. (1951). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. Journal of the American 

statistical Association, 46(253), 68-78. 

Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). Observational studies. Springer New York. 

Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Vol. 6). Sage. 

Salmon, W. C. (1998). Causality and explanation (pp. 320-9). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Shadish, William R.. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental 

designs for generalized causal inference. Wadsworth Cengage learning.

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
19

Underhill, P. (2009). Why we buy: The science of shopping--updated and revised for the Internet, 

the global consumer, and beyond. Simon and Schuster. 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
2

products that lack such claims. The differences between the “test” and “control” questions can 

be interpreted as the fraction of consumers whose beliefs in rapid biodegradation are caused by 

the claim. The magnitude of this figure ranges from 18% -58%, depending on the exact 

comparison and whether one uses a one-year or five-year standard. The results from the other 

studies (APCO, Synovate, and Dr. Stewart’s), which were largely observational, further supports

this conclusion. 

4. To recapitulate, all evidence on record (both from controlled experimentation and 

from comparisons between studies) supports the following conclusion: most Americans believe 

that things that are advertised as or labeled biodegradable will biodegrade within five years, and 

a large minority (roughly a third) believe that will occur within one year. Far fewer do when 

such claims are not made. Thus, all of the evidence on record strongly supports the conclusion 

that affixing biodegradable labels to items that are not traditionally regarded as biodegradable 

(like plastic) causes a substantial fraction of consumers to think they will break down quickly. 

5. Commission Question 3. Convergent validity refers to both the diversity and 

quantity of evidence for a claim or construct. No single statistical metric of convergence or 

divergence encapsulates it. What is significant here is that four independent bodies of research 

all yield qualitatively similar results; in particular, they all show that consumers understand that 

items described as biodegradable will break down in a short time.

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
3

II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES FOR ASSESSING CONSUMER ATTITUDES

6. Consumer attitudes and beliefs can be investigated with several different methods, 

including observation, experiments, and meta-analyses. 

a. Observational research measures but does not manipulate variables. Like other 

forms of research, observational studies can inform speculation, and revise 

assumptions (Rosenbaum, 2002). For example, observational studies of consumer 

behavior have overturned prior assumptions that the conversion rate of a store 

approaches 100% (Underhill, 2009). The studies conducted by APCO and by Dr. 

Stewart were observational studies. They were intended to measure various 

aspects of respondents’ beliefs about biodegradability, but all respondents 

received the same version of the survey and nothing was intentionally 

manipulated. The Synovate study also involved just one condition, and, thus, 

functioned primarily as an observational study. However, answers to pairs of the 

items within the survey could be compared, and thus, in some ways, this pair of 

items functioned like an experiment.1 Observational research is not ideally suited 

for assessing causation, but one can make causal inferences by examining 

differences between different observational studies that measured similar things. 

These inferences can be rigorously tested with experimental research. 

 

1

 As discussed by Grice (1966), manipulating variables “within-subject” (comparing two answers 

of one respondent) may yield different results from manipulating variables “between-subject” 

(comparing two answers from respondents who received different versions). Indeed, it is often 

instructive to have both types of manipulations (Kahneman & Frederick, 2002, 2005). Synovate 

manipulates within subjects the variables that the Frederick studies manipulate between subjects. 

Both types of manipulations yield large differences between plastics that do [or do not] bear 

biodegradable claims. 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
4

b. Experimental research manipulates as well as measures variables; it uses two or 

more conditions (e.g., a “test” question vs. a “control” question) to determine 

which factors affect the construct of interest (e.g., Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 

2002). In other words, experimental research is designed to explore cause and 

effect. My research using GCS was experimental research with “test” and 

“control” questions.2 I deliberately manipulated various aspects of the questions 

posed to the same population of respondents. 

c. Meta-analysis draws inferences from analyses of multiple studies, which could 

include both observational and experimental studies (Rosenthal, 1991; Cooper, 

Hedges, & Valentine 2009; Hedges & Olkin, 2014; Lau, Ioannidis, & Schmid, 

1998). In some cases, unintentional manipulation of a variable between two 

independent studies permits similar sorts of inferences as experimental research,

which deliberately manipulates factors between conditions or between items in 

the same study. Attributions of cause are not as straightforward as with 

experimental research, since two independent studies typically differ in multiple 

ways, but meta-analyses reasonably permit inferences from all available relevant 

data. 

 

2

 As I noted in my initial report in this case, I routinely use GCS to conduct experiments for my 

academic research, including two of the studies reported in Frederick, Lee, & Baskin (2014). 

This paper was published in the Journal of Marketing Research, which is one of the most highly 

regarded in my field, and was selected as one of four finalists for the Paul Green award, which 

“recognizes the best article in the Journal of Marketing Research that demonstrates the greatest 

potential to contribute to the practice of marketing research.” See 

http://www.themarketingfoundation.org/green.html

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
5

7. All three types of research can be valuable. However, true experimental research 

enables the strongest tests of causation (Salmon, 1998; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002).

Therefore, I will first address the experiments I conducted using GCS, before turning to the 

additional inferences that can be drawn from the Synovate, APCO, and Stewart studies. 

III. THE EFFECT OF A BIODEGRADABLE LABEL3

A. Experimental Evidence in Frederick’s GCS Studies

8. My GCS-based studies were primarily experimental research; I manipulated 

variables to explore their effect on a construct of interest. The construct of interest in my studies 

was typically respondents’ beliefs about the rate of biodegradation. I investigated the effect of 

various factors on these perceptions. Below I list the factors that (a) had little effect on these 

beliefs; (b) those that had some effect; and (c) those that had a substantial effect. 

a. Little Effect on Beliefs about Biodegradation Rates 

i. The word used to reference the process in question. It does not matter 

significantly whether the process is called biodegradation, decomposition, 

or degradation (compare 1A, 1B, & 1C). 

ii. Whether the product is described being deposited in a landfill or not 

(compare 1E & 1F).4

 

3

 I attach to this declaration as Appendix A the appendix to my initial expert report (CCX-860), 

which contains the results from the GCS study, the APCO study, and the Synovate study. I 

attach as Appendix B Dr. Stewart’s survey data (which is Appendix D in his initial report, CCX856). I attach as Appendix C a chart developed for this declaration, which highlights the 

difference between the test and control conditions. 

4

 Question #8 in Synovate also finds little difference. 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
6

iii. Whether the temporal interval is referenced as “how long” or “how much 

time” (compare 1B & 1D).

iv. Whether the question is phrased as asking for an opinion or an objective 

fact (compare 1D & 1E and 3G & 3G’).

v. Whether the object in question is a plastic “package” or a plastic “product” 

(compare 3A & 3B). 

vi. If a biodegradable label is present, the precise form it takes (compare 3D, 

3E, 3F, & 3G). 

b. Some Effect on Beliefs about Biodegradation Rates 

i. If asked the amount of time a package labeled biodegradable should take 

to biodegrade, consumers expect somewhat faster biodegradation rates 

than if asked how long it would take. Presumably the word should evokes 

more of a sense of what might be achievable under ideal conditions, 

whereas the word would evokes more of a sense of what it is reasonable to 

expect (given that the material might not be properly disposed, that the 

claims in question may be fallacious, and so on) (compare 1G & 1H). 

ii. Among products or packages bearing a biodegradable label, consumers 

expect somewhat longer biodegradation times for plastic products, than 

for products whose composition is unspecified (compare 1A & 3C; 1D & 

3B).

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
7

c. Substantial Effect on Beliefs of Biodegradation Rate 

i. Although I mostly avoided such questions to avoid biasing the respondent, 

if a temporal unit is provided, shorter units (e.g., months) induce lower 

estimates than longer units (e.g., years). (Compare 1I with 1J) 

ii. Whether the package or product in question bears a biodegradable label or 

is otherwise claimed to be biodegradable. (Comparisons discussed next.) 

9. By using various test and control questions, my experimental studies on GCS 

primarily explored the effect of this last factor—a biodegradable label. My studies revealed that 

biodegradable claims on a plastic product significantly increase the fraction of consumers who 

infer rapid breakdown of the material so labeled. These are not just statistically significant 

differences; they are substantively significant differences. The presence of a biodegradable label

or claim often doubles or triples the fraction of respondents who believe the material in question 

will rapidly biodegrade.

10. I tested the effects of such claims on three items: (1) a thin white plastic bag 

(depicted), which was described as being made of plastic; (2) a plastic “Tupperware” container

(depicted); and (3) a plastic water bottle (referenced). Some of the experimental materials used 

ECM’s logo, specifically, whereas others used other labels containing analogous 

“biodegradable” claims.5

 

5

 Questions 3H and 3I were identical to 3J and 3K, but did not clarify in the question stem that 

the depicted logo says “ECM biodegradable.” The small font contained in the image of the label 

is not legible on many computer screens. Thus, I included these conditions to help ensure that 

the variable I intended to manipulate (the presence or absence of the label’s claim) was, in fact, 

being manipulated. 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

11. As shown in the tables below, biodegradable claims of any sott had marked 

effects on beliefs. (I show comparisons for both one and five years.) 

(1) "TUPPERWARE" CONTAINER (DEPICTED) 

Question % of estimates % of estimates 

Wording less than 1 less than 5 Type year years 

GCS (30) What is your best estimate of the amollllt 16% 21% 

Control of time it would take for the container below to 

(no claim) biodegrade? 

GCS (3J) What is your best estimate of the amollllt 34% 56% 

Biodegradable of time it would take for this container (which bears claim the symbol "ECM biodegradable") to biodegrade? 

Difference between conditions 22% 35% 

(2) PLASTIC BAG (DEPICTED) 

Question % of estimates % of estimates 

Wording less than 1 less than 5 Type year years 

GCS (3P) What is your best estimate of the amotmt 13% 25% 

Control of time it would take for this plastic bag to 

(no claim) biodegrade? 

Biodegradable GCS (3K) What is your best estimate of the amollllt 38% 57% 

claim of time it would take for this plastic bag (which 

bears the symbol "ECM biodegradable") to 

biodegrade? 

Difference between conditions 25% 32% 

8 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

(3) PLASTIC WATER BOTTLE (REFERENCED) 

Question Wording % of estimates % of estimates 

less than 1 less than 5 Type year years 

Control GCS (3N) How long would it take a plastic water 11% 18% 

(no claim) bottle to compose 

Biodegradable GCS (3D) If you saw this label on a plastic water 52% 70% 

claim bottle, how long would it take to decompose? [label 

a pictured] 

Biodegradable GCS (3E) If you saw this label on a plastic water 50% 67% 

claim bottle, how long would it take to decompose? [label 

b pictured] 

Biodegradable GCS (3F) If you saw this label on a plastic water 45% 68% 

claim bottle, how long would it take to decompose? [label 

c pictured] 

Biodegradable GCS (3G) If you saw this label on a plastic water 47% 71% 

claim bottle, how long would it take to decompose? [label 

d pictured] 

Biodegradable GCS (3G') If you saw this label on a plastic water 52% 76% 

claim bottle, how long do you think it would take to 

decompose? [label d pictured] 

Difference between conditions 34-41% 49-58% 

12. Thus, these studies concem ed the effects of biodegradable claims on respondents' 

estimates of time for a depicted or referenced plastic product. However, in the interest of 

construct validity (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955), I included other studies that asked different but 

conceptually related questions. When I manipulated whether a biodegradable claim was or was 

not made, I again fmmd that the presence of a biodegradable label had marked effects. Consider, 

for example, the data below: 

9 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

TUPPERW ARE CONTAINER (DEPICTED) 

Question Type Wording Yes 

Control GCS (SA) Will this container break down completely into 18% 

(no claim) elements fmmd in nature? 

Biodegradable GCS (8C) Will this container (which bears the symbol "ECM 39% 

claim biodegradable") break down completely into elements found in 

nature? 

Difference between conditions 21% 

PLASTIC BAG (DEPICTED) 

Question Type Wording Yes 

Control GCS (9A) Will this plastic bag break down completely into 11% 

(no claim) elements found in nature? 

Biodegradable GCS (9C) Will this plastic bag (which bears the symbol "ECM 45% 

claim biodegradable") break down completely into elements found in 

nature? 

Difference between conditions 34% 

13. Because the distribution of beliefs regarding products with biodegradable claims 

differs markedly from those lacking such claims, I can conclude that the biodegradable claim is 

causing that difference. 

6 

6 If such claims are false or lmsubstantiated, it seems likely that consumers would feel deceived. 

To investigate this, I included sets of questions directed at the standards consumers believe 

should be met for products which bear a biodegradable label. The results are clear: though 

respondents adopted somewhat more pennissive standards for plastic products than products of 

unspecified composition (compare 4A-4E with 2A-2E), the vast majority of responses indicate 

that respondents believe that deception has occmTed if products adveliised as biodegradable do 

not biodegrade within five years. Notably, it made little difference whether the question was 

framed from the perspective of a regulator (what a manufactmer should be prohibited from 

doing) or from the perspective of the manufactmer (what it should be permitted to do). To see 

this, compare 2D & 2E, as well as 4D & 4E. 

10 
11

B. Observational and Experimental Evidence in the Synovate Study. 

14. The study conducted by Synovate was predominantly an observational study 

investigating consumer’s beliefs and attitudes regarding biodegradability, biodegradable plastics, 

and composting. Among other things, the Synovate study observed: 

x 74% reported that biodegradable plastics will help reduce burden on landfills. (Synovate 

#16) 

x 70% reported that a biodegradable plastic package could reasonably be expected to 

decompose in a landfill within five years. 25% thought that a reasonable amount of time 

was one year. (Synovate #19) 

x 96% reported that they would prefer plastics that biodegrade in a landfill. (Synovate #20) 

x The supporting information that consumers most wanted to see on packages labeled 

biodegradable was how long it would take to biodegrade. (Synovate #24) 

x 72% reported that, at least occasionally, they look for eco-friendly packaging. (Synovate 

#25) 

x Biodegradability was most frequently ranked as the most important attribute for lowering 

a product’s burden on the environment—more important even than non-toxicity.

(Synovate #25a) 

x 42% reported they would be willing to pay at least 10% more for products that are less 

burdensome on the environment. (Synovate #27) 

15. The Synovate study is not an experiment in the traditional sense of having two or 

more conditions (i.e., only one version of the survey was administered). However, two of the 

survey questions (#8 and #19) function as controls for each other, and thus, do permit a 

comparison.7 Namely, when asked, “How many years do you think it takes for traditional plastic 

 

7 The items are not perfect controls for each other. First, the context provided by other questions 

is not held constant (questions #9-18 could possibly affect responses to #19, but obviously not to 

#8). Second, the question stem differs (#8 asks: “How many years do you think it takes” 

whereas #9 asks: “What do you believe is a reasonable about of time”). Third, the two questions 

reference slightly different things (products vs. package). Fourth, the response options are not 

constant. The shortest response option in #8 is “less than 10 years,” whereas in #19 the response 

options include “less than five years” and “less than one year.” However, with respect to this 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

products to biodegrade?" only 16% of respondents selected a response option shorter than ten 

years. However, when asked, "What do you believe is a reasonable amount of time for a 

'biodegradable ' plastic package to decompose in a landfill?" that number increased to 87%. 

SYNOVATE #8 vs. #19 

%of % of %of 

Question Wording estimates estimates estimates 

Type less than 1 less than 5 less than 10 

year years years 

(Synovate #8) How many years do you think NA NA 16% 

Control it takes for traditional plastic products to (though 

(no claim) biodegrade? certainly 

~ 16% ) 

Biodegradable (Synovate #19) What do you believe is a 25% 70% 87% 

reasonable amOlmt oftime for a claim "biodegradable" plastic package to 

decompose in a landfill? 

54% 71% 

Difference between conditions 

16. These two smvey items effectively ftmction as a within-subjects experiment, as 

the questions vmy whether the plastic in question is traditional (Synovate #8) or biodegradable 

(Synovate #19). Over fom times as many respondents thought plastic would decompose within 

five years if it was described as biodegradable (70% vs. 16%, see footnote 8). 

last point, pa1t of what I regard as a flaw of the Synovate study actually strengthens the 

inferences that can be drawn. Synovate # 19 appem·s intended to elicit long biodegradation times 

(especially as compm·ed with the APCO study). Yet even here, respondents ove1whelmingly 

expect biodegradable plastics to biodegrade quickly: 87% of respondents chose the one of the 

three sh01test categories (<1, <5, <10 years), whereas only 13% chose one of the three longest 

(<20, <40, 40+ years). 

8 To pe1mit this compm·ison, I am making the conservative assumption that eve1y respondent 

who gave the response of less than ten years in Synovate #8 can be re-coded as less than five 

yem·s. 

12 
13

C. Observational Evidence from APCO Study (and more Meta-Analytic support)

17. The study commissioned by APCO was an observational study, which 

investigated respondents’ beliefs and attitudes regarding biodegradability, composting, recycling, 

and so on. APCO made the following observations about consumer attitudes and beliefs 

regarding biodegradability: 

x 83% thought that something labeled biodegradable will decompose in a landfill. 80% 

thought that something labeled biodegradable will decompose in one’s backyard. (APCO 

#2) 

x 65% reported that a package labeled biodegradable should decompose within four years. 

60% thought it should decompose within one year. (APCO #4)9

x 83% reported that biodegradable packages will reduce landfill burdens. 79% reported 

that biodegradable packages will reduce pollution in oceans, rivers, and beaches. (APCO 

#7) 

18. The APCO study is not experimental, but its results are amenable to meta-analytic 

techniques. One of my surveys—GCS (3L)—provides a useful comparison, as it is worded 

similarly to the APCO question minus the biodegradable claim. The comparison and results are 

below. Though this is not a true experiment, it provides additional evidence that a 

“biodegradable” label is causing respondents to expect faster biodegradation. 

 

 

9

 This question appears designed to elicit shorter response times than an analogous question in 

the Synovate study, because more of the response options are allocated to shorter time periods. 

However, one could simply compare the two most extreme response options to each other and 

note that more respondents selected “1 month or less” (19%) than five years or more (16%). One 

of my GCS studies used a nearly identical response format (see 1K), and I found similar results: 

again, more respondents selected 1 month or less (19%) than selected five years of more (6%). 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

GCS 3L vs. APCO #4 

%of %of 

Question Type Wording estimates estimates 

< 1 year < 5 years 

GCS (3L) If a plastic package is NOT 13% 17% 

Control 

(no claim) labeled "biodegradable," how long will it 

take to decompose? 

60% 65% 

(APCO Q4) If a package is labeled 

Biodegradable 'biodegradable,' what should be the 

claim maximum amount of time that it should take 

for that package to decompose? 

Difference 47% 48% 

D. Observational Evidence in Dr. Stewart's Study 

19. Using a telephone landline survey, Dr. Stewatt conducted observational research 

about how consumers intetpret biodegradability and how they respond to various claims made by 

ECM. Dr. Stewmt observed that: 

• 98% (392/400) believe that there are differences in how long it takes things to 

biodegrade. (Stewatt 4a). 10 

• 95% (378/400) believe that the biodegradability of a package is helpful to the 

environment. 

• 75% (301/400) rep01t that the biodegradability of a product or package is imp01tant to 

them. 

• 64% (138/217) of those who produced codable responses 

11 think that something 

"biodegradable" will biodegrade in five years or less, and 36% (79/217) think it will 

biodegrade in one year or less. 

12 

10 As demonstrated in several ways, the presence or absence of a label claiming "biodegradable" 

is one of the things that would affect such judgments. 

14 
15

E. Conclusions. 

20. All of the observational evidence on record—APCO, Synovate, Dr. Stewart’s 

study—shows that consumers desire more biodegradable plastics because they believe they are 

better for the environment. All of the observational evidence on record shows that consumers 

believe they understand what biodegradable means (98% in Dr. Stewart’s study; 99% in the 

Synovate study). All of the observational evidence on record shows that consumers reject the 

application of that term to products that do not biodegrade or which take a very long time to do 

so. 

21. All of the observational evidence on record compels the inference that affixing 

biodegradable labels to things—like plastic—that are not traditionally regarded to be 

biodegradable, changes consumers beliefs about them. 

 

11 I coded the verbatim responses from Dr. Stewart’s survey to obtain these numbers. For a 

detailed explanation of my coding methodology (i.e., coding any answer with a number and unit 

of time), see my initial report. CCX-860 at 12,14. I understand that Complaint Counsel also 

coded these data and found similar though not identical results (206 responses were coded, with 

33%  one year and 58%  five years) and that Dr. Stewart accepted the 206 number at trial. Tr. 

2779, 2790-91. Regardless of the exact numbers, the point remains the same—Dr. Stewart’s 

results concur with the other studies in the sense that a large fraction of people expect things that 

are referenced as biodegradable to do so within five or even one year. 

12 Dr. Stewart’s Q4 is vague—it does not specify the nature or composition of the “something” 

in question, nor whether that something bears a biodegradable label [or not]—so it is 

unsurprising that many respondents gave non-numeric responses, like “it depends.” However, 

several did explain their unwillingness to render a numeric estimate for this question by noting 

that different things take different lengths of time and in doing so many respondents specifically 

mentioned that traditional plastic does not biodegrade, or biodegrades more slowly than other 

things. For example:

3⁄4 Respondent # 100515: “Depends on the size and thickness of it, and depends on what 

it was made of. A piece of paper wouldn’t take as long as a piece of plastic.” 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
16

22. All of the experimental evidence on record (my GCS studies, and a within-subject 

manipulation within the Synovate study) confirms the inference that the observational research 

compels—when affixed to plastic products, biodegradable labels cause consumers to assume 

more rapid biodegradation. Specifically, the evidence demonstrates that the biodegradable 

claims cause a substantial fraction of consumers to assume rapid biodegradation of that product 

(less than five years, or even one year). 

IV. CONVERGENT VALIDITY

23. Convergent validity pertains to the presence (or absence) of consistent support for 

a construct or claim from a set of studies or measures that bear on it (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; 

Jacoby, 1978). This concept extends beyond technical procedures that exist to compare 

distributions or pool results from multiple studies (see, e.g., Massey, 1951; Higgins & 

Thompson, 2002)13 as it pertains both to the quantity and diversity of evidence that exists in 

support of a claim. 

 

13 There is considerable convergence here in this narrower sense as well. All of the research 

discussed here either directly elicited (APCO, Synovate, Frederick) or permitted (Stewart) 

quantitative responses regarding times required for biodegradation. Thus, these quantitative data 

can be plotted as distributions that can be compared and contrasted. These distributions overlap 

considerably; in particular, in all cases, most of their mass exists below five years. The 

distributions are not identical, of course, due to both sampling variability and other aspects of 

survey design that induce systematic differences, such as whether the response was open-ended 

(and thus continuous, at least in principle) or multichotomous (and, thereby, necessarily, 

discrete). 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

24. Convergent validity is high here because four studies conducted for somewhat 

different purposes, using different numbers and types of questions, with somewhat different 

wording, given to somewhat different populations, at different times, by different researchers, 

using different media (paper and pencil, phone, and internet) all yield qualitatively similar 

results: they all show that large proportions of respondents expect things called biodegradable to 

biodegrade, and to do so quickly. 

Dated: June 22, 2015 

Dr. Shane Frederick 

17 
18

REFERENCES

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the 

multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin, 56(2), 81. 

Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis 

and meta-analysis. Russell Sage Foundation. 

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological 

bulletin, 52(4), 281. 

Frederick, S., Lee, L., & Baskin, E. (2014). The limits of attraction. Journal of Marketing 

Research, 51(4), 487-507. 

Grice, G. R. (1966). Dependence of empirical laws upon the source of experimental variation. 

Psychological Bulletin, 66(6), 488. 

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (2014). Statistical method for meta-analysis. Academic press.

Higgins, J. P., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. 

Statistics in medicine, 21(11), 1539-1558. 

Jacoby, J. (1978). Consumer research: A state of the art review. The Journal of Marketing, 87-

96.

Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in 

intuitive judgment. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, 49.

Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. The Cambridge 

handbook of thinking and reasoning, 267-293. 

Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P., & Schmid, C. H. (1998). Summing up evidence: one answer is not 

always enough. The lancet, 351(9096), 123-127. 

Massey, F. J. (1951). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. Journal of the American 

statistical Association, 46(253), 68-78. 

Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). Observational studies. Springer New York. 

Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Vol. 6). Sage. 

Salmon, W. C. (1998). Causality and explanation (pp. 320-9). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Shadish, William R.. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental 

designs for generalized causal inference. Wadsworth Cengage learning.

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
19

Underhill, P. (2009). Why we buy: The science of shopping--updated and revised for the Internet, 

the global consumer, and beyond. Simon and Schuster. 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration) 

APPENDIX A (Amended) 

Key: N=Coded Responses [uncoded responses) median response time in seconds, response rate 

Google Surveys Studies 

Generic Products & Packages 

(1A) If a package is labeled "biodegradable," how long will it take to decompose? N=996 17051 18.6s, 23.7% 

(1B) If a package is labeled "biodegradable," how long will it take to biodegrade? N=944 17591 18.4s, 22.1% 

(1C) If a package is labeled "biodegradable," how long will it take to degrade? N=1007 16941 17.7s, 23.1% 

(1D) How much time do you think it would take a biodegradable product to biodegrade? 

N=138 [7o115.4s, 22.0% 

s 5 years s 10years s 25years s 100years 

84%m 89%122 98%134 

(1E) How much time would it take a biodegradable product to biodegrade? N=119 [9sJ 18.2s, 23.2% 

(1F) How much time would it take a biodegradable product to biodegrade in a landfill? 

N=llG 1851 18.3s, 21.7% 

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 27 

CCX - 860 Page 27 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration) 

(1G) If a package is labeled "biodegradable," what should be the maximum amount of time that it should 

take for that package to decompose?1 N=l374 15321 20.0s, 22.3% 

s 5 years s 10 years s 25 years s 100 years 

89o/ot225 95%t302 96o/ot319 98%t342 

(1H) If a package is labeled "biodegradable," what would be the maximum amount of time that it would 

take for that package to decompose? N=1272 [629] 19.9s, 22.1% 

(11) If a package is labeled "biodegradable," how many months will it take to biodegrade? 

N=1704 [oJ 15.7s, 25.9% 

(1J) If a package is labeled "biodegradable," how many years will it take to biodegrade? 

N=1700 [oJ 15.8s, 25.8% 

(1K) If a package is labeled "biodegradable," what should be the maximum amount of time that it should 

take for that package to decompose? N=1902 [oJ 12.0s, 35.3% 

1 month 1 month- 1-5 years 5 years or unsure 

or less 1year more 

14%275 23%439 17%s25 6%m 39%746 

1 In surveys lG, lH, and lK, we inadvertently repeated tile article "tile" (e. g .. , ... what would be the tile maximum amount of 

time ... ). After making tile correction, we conducted tllese surveys again to determine whetller this mattered. It didn't. We 

report the pooled data. 

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 28 

CCX - 860 Page 28 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration) 

(2A) Federal regulators should not permit a product to be labeled 'biodegradable' unless it biodegrades 

within this period of time. N=134 1841 22.0s, 17.2% 

(28) I'd feel misled if I learned that a product labeled "biodegradable," took longer than this to 

biodegrade. N=740 19631 22.4s, 20.6% 

(2C) I'd consider it misleading to label a product "biodegradable," if it failed to fully degrade within this 

amount of time. N=845 1859121.2s, 22.6% 

(20) A company should not be allowed to label its packaging material as "biodegradable" unless it 

biodegrades within what period of time? N=142 [ss] 22.7s, 21.7% 

(2E) A company should be allowed to label its packaging material as "biodegradable" if it biodegrades 

within what period of time? N=154 147121.1s, 24.9% 

s Syears s lOyears s 25years 

92%141 95%146 97%149 

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. 

s 100years 

99%153 

Appendix at 29 

CCX - 860 Page 29 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration) 

Plastic Products & Packages 

(3A) Suppose a plastic package is labeled biodegradable. How long do you think it will take to 

biodegrade? N=154 [ss] 18.1s, 23.7% 

(38) Suppose a plastic product is labeled biodegradable. How much time do you think it would take to 

biodegrade? N=158 [66J 17.6s, 24.6% 

(3C) If a plastic package is labeled "biodegradable," how long will it take to decompose? 

N=144 [82] 20.2s, 19.2% 

(30) If you saw this label on a plastic water bottle, how long would it take to decompose? 

N=141 1591 22.2s, 19.7% 

·~ t.i ~tOOEGRADABLE 

(3E) If you saw this label on a plastic water bottle, how long would it take to decompose? 

N=147 1781 20.9s, 22.3% 

(3F) If you saw this label on a plastic water bottle, how long would it take to decompose? 

N=140 1761 22.1s, 20.3% 

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 30 

CCX - 860 Page 30 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration) 

(3G) If you saw this label on a plastic water bottle, how long would it take to decompose? 

N=163 [63] 22.8s, 17.3% 

(3G') If you saw this label on a plastic water bottle, how long do you think it would take to decompose? 

N=164 1591 24.9s, 20.8% 

s 5 years s 10 years s 25 years s 100 years 

76%124 83%136 88%144 93%153 

(3H) What is your best estimate of the amount of time it would take for this container to biodegrade? 

N=171 1441 21.6s, 22.1% 

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 31 

CCX - 860 Page 31 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration) 

(31) What is your best estimate of the amount of time it would take for this plastic bag to biodegrade? 

N=202 1661 20.1s, 24.8% 

(3J) What is your best estimate of the amount of time it would take for this container (which bears the symbol 

"ECM biodegradable") to biodegrade? N=171 1451 21.6s, 24.5% 

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 32 

CCX - 860 Page 32 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration) 

3K} What is your best estimate of the amount of time it would take for this plastic bag (which bears the 

symbol "ECM biodegradable") to biodegrade? N=176 1661 22.0s, 21.3% 

Plastic Products Control Conditions (no biodegradable claim) 

(3L} If a plastic package is NOT labeled "biodegradable," how long will it take to decompose? 

N=127 1731 22.2s, 21.2% 

(3M} How long does it take a plastic package to decompose? 

N=l39 [ssJ 17.2s, 22.3% 

(3N} How long would it take a plastic water bottle to decompose? 

N=158 1641 16.3s, 22.0% 

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 33 

CCX - 860 Page 33 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration) 

(30) What is your best estimate of the amount of time it would take for the container below to biodegrade? 

N=163 152118.6s, 25.2% 

(3P) What is your best estimate of the amount of time it would take for this plastic bag to biodegrade? 

N=202 [4tl 20.1s, 21.5% 

s Syears s lOyears s 25years 

25o/oso 40o/osl 50%101 

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. 

s 100 years 

76%153 

Appendix at 34 

CCX - 860 Page 34 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration) 

Qualified claims (3Q & 3R) & reactions to unqualified claims (4A ... 4E) 

(3Q) Suppose a plastic package is labeled biodegradable, and is claimed to biodegrade in "nine months to 

five years." What is your best estimate of the amount of time it will take to biodegrade ?2 

N=345 lt3sJ 22.9s, 21.1% 

25<x s::100 

3%9 

(3R) Suppose a plastic package is labeled biodegradable, and is claimed to biodegrade in "some period 

9reater than a year." What is your best estimate of the amount of time it will take to biodegrade? 

N=296 lt83J 22.2s, 21.9% 

25<x s::100 

11%33 

********************************************************************************* 

(4A) Federal regulators should not permit a plastic product to be labeled "biodegradable" unless it 

biodegrades within what amount of time? N=229 (4s122.7s, 33.1% 

s 5 years s 10 years s 25 years s 100 years 

84o/ot93 93%214 97%222 100%229 

(48) I'd feel misled if I learned that a plastic product labeled "biodegradable," took longer than what 

amount of time to biodegrade? N=150 [971 25.6s, 32.3% 

s 5 years s 10 years s 25 years s 100 years 

77o/ous 86%129 88%132 95%142 

(4C) I'd consider it misleading to label a plastic product "biodegradable," if it failed to fully degrade within 

what amount of time? N=198 1601 22.3s, 33.3% 

(40) A company should not be allowed to label its plastic packaging material as "biodegradable" unless it 

biodegrades within what amount of time? N=232 1641 21. 7s, 30.6% 

(4E) A company should be allowed to label its plastic packaging material as "biodegradable" if it 

biodegrades within what amount of time? N=201 1551 21.6s, 33.0% 

2 We tested whether setting the claim in italics and quotes (as here) affected estimates. It had no discemable effect, so we 

pooled across those conditions. (The data is disaggregated in the raw data files.) 

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 35 

CCX - 860 Page 35 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration) 

SA) How much longer would it take for the bag on the right to biodegrade? Enter your estimate below. 

N=157 [to21 22.2s, 23.7% 

---~ ---~-" 

s Syears s lOyears s 25years s lOOyears 

71 o/om 83%130 

(58) How much more quickly would the bag on the right biodegrade? Enter your estimate below. 

N=72 lt4Sl* 23.3s, 17.2% 

*Fifteen people in this condition expressed their comparison as a ratio rather than a difference in time required for biodegradation. 

They thought the bag on the right would biodegrade [50%faster; twice as fast (3); three times as fast(2L 5/8/10/10/15/23/30/75/99 

times as fast]. 

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 36 

CCX - 860 Page 36 
BINARY QUESTIONS

(6)            ǫ

Yes No

41%138

12.0s, 30.7%

(7)             ǫ

Yes No

41%116

10.4s, 27.2%

(8A)           ǫ

Yes No

18%141

11.3s, 33.1%

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 37

CCX - 860 Page 37

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
(8B)           ǫ

Yes No

37%148

11.0s, 33.3%

(8C)    ȋ    ̶ ̶Ȍ    

   ǫ

Yes No

39%158

13.4s, 29.7%

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 38

CCX - 860 Page 38

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
(9A)            ǫ3

Yes No

11%128

7.8s, 32.7%

͵          completely  Ǥ      ȋ 

ͳͷΨͳͲͲǡ ͵ͻΨͳͲ͵ǡ  ͷͲΨͳͲͲ   ͻǡ ͻǡ  ͻǡ ȌǤ     ǡ

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 39

CCX - 860 Page 39

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
(9B)            ǫ

Yes No

42%146

11.9s, 35.5%

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 40

CCX - 860 Page 40

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT

-------------------~ 
(9C)     ȋ    Dz dzȌ    

   ǫ

Yes No

45%135

12.2s, 25.9%

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 41

CCX - 860 Page 41

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT

----------------------------
(10A)        ǫ

Yes No

21%139

8.8s, 33.3%

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 42

CCX - 860 Page 42

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT

--------------------~---
(10B)        ǫ Yes No

42%137

9.9s, 30.6%

(11)     ǫ

79%112

10.2s, 22.8%

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 43

CCX - 860 Page 43

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
(12A)       ǡ       Dznine months to 

five yearsǤdz       ǫ

Yes No

28%129

15.7s, 22.8%

(12B)       ǡ       Dzsome period 

greater than a yearǤdz       ǫ

Yes No

19%149

15.1s, 32.6%

(13A)         ǫ

Yes No

55%100

9.9s, 42%

(13B)            ǫ 10.4s, 48.4%

Yes No

63%104

10.4s, 48.4%

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 44

CCX - 860 Page 44

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration) 

A Package A biodegrades in '9 months to 5 years' (50%) 

(N=257) Package B biodegrades in 'some pe1iod greater than a year' (40%) 

14.8s, Which package do you think will take longer to biodegrade? 35.1% 

B Package A biodegrades in 'some period greater than a year' (60%) 

(N=248} Package B biodegrades in '9 months to 5 years' (40%) 

13.8s, Which package do you think will take longer to biodegrade? 37.1% 

c Package A biodegrades in '9 months to 5 years' (60%) 

(N=255) Package B biodegrades in 'some pe1iod greater than a year' (40%) 

16.2s, Which package do you think will biodegrade more quickly? 34.2% 

D Package A biodegrades in 'some period greater than a year' (50%) 

(N=259} Package B biodegrades in '9 months to 5 years' (50%) 

17.8s, Which package do you think will biodegrade more quickly? 37.4% 

(15A) If a product had biodegraded 20%within the first year, what is your best estimate of the amount of time it 

would take for it to be 60%biodegraded? N=147 [O[ 23.6s, 20.7% 

<3 3 3<X<4 4 4<x<5 5 5< xs10 10 10+ 

years years years years years years years years years 

13%19 60%ss O%o 6%9 O%o 2%3 5%s 1%1 13%19 

(158) If a product had biodegraded 20o/owithin the first year, what is your best estimate of the amount of time it 

would take for it to be 90o/obiodegraded? N=118 [O[ 26.5s, 16.0% 

<3 3 3<X<4 4 4<x<5 5 5< xs10 10 10+ 

years years years years years years years years years 

12%14 3%3 3%3 11%13 19%23 15%18 7%s 9%11 21%25 

4 These data are aggregated. We conducted two or more conditions on three occasions. 

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 45 

CCX - 860 Page 45 
APPENDIX B

95% Confidence interval around estimated percentage in category ч 1 year

(For questions with binary responses, interval around presented statistic.)

1A 50% Ͳ 56%

1B 48% Ͳ 54%

1C 50% Ͳ 56%

1D 38% Ͳ 55%

1E 40% Ͳ 59%

1F 33% Ͳ 51%

1G 71% Ͳ 76%

1H 57% Ͳ 62%

1I 74% Ͳ 78%

1J 23% Ͳ 27%

1K 35% Ͳ 40%

2A 53% Ͳ 70%

2B 59% Ͳ 66%

2C 60% Ͳ 67%

2D 63% Ͳ 78%

2E 63% Ͳ 78%

3A 24% Ͳ 39%

3B 21% Ͳ 35%

3C 36% Ͳ 53%

3D 44% Ͳ 61%

3E 42% Ͳ 58%

3F 37% Ͳ 54%

3G 39% Ͳ 55%

3H 16% Ͳ 29%

3I 15% Ͳ 27%

3J 27% Ͳ 42%

3K 31% Ͳ 46%

no disclaimer

3L 8% Ͳ 21%

3M 9% Ͳ 21%

3N 7% Ͳ 18%

3O 11% Ͳ 23%

3P 9% Ͳ 19%

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 46

CCX - 860 Page 46

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
4A 57% Ͳ 70%

4B 45% Ͳ 61%

4C 52% Ͳ 66%

4D 55% Ͳ 68%

4E 61% Ͳ 74%

5A 25% Ͳ 40%

5B 47% Ͳ 70%

6 33% Ͳ 50%

7 32% Ͳ 51%

8A 13% Ͳ 26%

8B 29% Ͳ 46%

8C 32% Ͳ 47%

9A 6% Ͳ 18%

9B 34% Ͳ 50%

9C 37% Ͳ 54%

10A 15% Ͳ 29%

10B 33% Ͳ 50%

11 71% Ͳ 86%

12A 21% Ͳ 37%

12B 13% Ͳ 26%

13A 45% Ͳ 65%

13B 53% Ͳ 73%

% believing that unspecific claim implies faster biodegradation

14A 44% Ͳ 56%

14B 34% Ͳ 46%

14C 34% Ͳ 46%

14B 44% Ͳ 56%

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 47

CCX - 860 Page 47

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
Q# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration) 

APPENDIX C 

SYNOVATE Study 

Question 

What is your age? 

What is your gender? 

How would you rate your understanding of the 

word "biodegradable"? [Please select one] 

In your opinion, what happens to something that 

biodegrades? [Please select all that apply] 

If something is labeled "biodegradable", where 

will it decompose? If you are not sure, please take 

your best guess. [Select all that apply.] 

In your opinion, what are the differences between 

"biodegradation in a landfill" and "biodegradation 

in a composting environment?" [Please be 

specific] 

In your opinion, which of the following is best for 

the environment? [Please select one] 

How many years do you think it takes for 

traditional plastic products to biodegrade? 

• In the open environment (land or water) as 

litter 

• In a landfill 

• When buried in your backyard 

• In a home composting device 

• In a commercial com posting facility 

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. 

Response Options 

Please enter a number 

Please select one: 

Male 50% 

Female 50% 

Please select one 

5 - I know it very well and can explain it to some one 33% 

4 30% 

3 - I know it somewhat and can understand it when people 32% 

talk about it 

2 3% 

1 - I don't know what it means 1% 

Gets transformed into soil 53% 

Gets transformed into gases 16% 

Gets transformed into non-toxic substances 58% 

Gets transformed into toxic substances 5% 

None of these 7% 

In the open environment (land or water) as litter 51% 

In a landfill 72% 

When buried in your backyard 43% 

In a home composting device 46% 

In a commercial com posting facility 51% 

None of these 2% 

Environmental factors (net) 5% 

Human control factors (net) 14% 

Level of toxicity/safety (net) 8% 

Reusability (net) 11% 

Degradation process (net) 26% 

Duration of degradation (net) 23% 

Composition (net) 27% 

Miscellaneous mentions (net) 10% 

No difference 1% 

Don't know/no answer 15% 

A recyclable product 11% 

A biodegradable product 12% 

A product that is both recyclable and biodegradable 77% 

A product that is neither recyclable or biodegradable 1% 

In the open environment (land or water} as litter 

Less than 10 years 16% 

10 to 50 years 28% 

50 to 100 years 18% 

100 to 500 years 4% 

Greater than 500 years 14% 

Don't know 20% 

In a landfill 

Less than 10 years 16% 

10 to 50 years 31% 

50 to 100 years 15% 

100 to 500 years 10% 

Greater than 500 years 9% 

Don't know 19% 

Appendix at 48 

CCX - 860 Page 48 
When buried in your backyard

Less than 10 years 32%

10 to 50 years 28%

50 to 100 years 12%

100 to 500 years ͲͲ%

Greater than 500 years 20%

Don’t know 8%

In a home composting device

Less than 10 years 31%

10 to 50 years 26%

50 to 100 years 8%

100 to 500 years 2%

Greater than 500 years 10%

Don’t know 23%

In a commercial composting facility

Less than 10 years 44%

10 to 50 years 21%

50 to 100 years 5%

100 to 500 years 2%

Greater than 500 years 4%

Don’t know 24%

9

You may have come across many products or

packages (water bottles, coffee cups, food

takeout containers, shopping bags, disposable

cutlery etc.) labeled as being biodegradable.

Assuming they are not recycled, where do you

believe the majority of these products end up

after they are used? [Please select one]

In the open environment (land or water) as litter 10%

In a landfill 80%

When buried in your backyard 1%

In a home composting device 1%

In a commercial composting facility 8%

10 Which of the following do you believe if more

beneficial to a landfill? [Please select one]

Biodegradable plastic products 34%

NonͲbiodegradable plastic products 3%

Not sure 13%

11*

Did you know that traditional (nonͲbiodegradable)

plastic products take hundreds of years to

decompose. If they do so at all? [Please select

one]

Yes 82%

No 18%

12 What percentage of plastic products disposed in

the U.S. would you say end up in landfills?

Less than 10% 2%

10Ͳ19% 3%

20Ͳ49% 7%

50Ͳ69% 22%

70Ͳ89% 39%

90% or greater 27%

13

Did you know a biodegradable plastic will

generate gases during the biodegradation process

in a landfill and the gas can be used as a clean

source of alternate energy?

Yes 37%

No 63%

14

Organic waste (like food scraps, yard waste etc.)

biodegrades in a landfill. Were you aware landfills

currently capture the gases generated during this

process and convert the gas to usable energy?

Yes 45%

No 55%

15

The useful life of a landfill is the number of years

it stays open to accept waste before it fills up. In

your opinion will biodegradable plastics free up

space and increase the useful life of a landfill?

[Please select one]

Yes 64%

No 13%

Not sure 24%

16 Do you believe biodegradable plastics will help Yes 74%

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 49

CCX - 860 Page 49

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
reduce the burden on landfills? No 10%

Not sure 16%

17

Which of the following best describes the average

time it takes for a landfill to reach its full capacity?

Please take your best guess if you are not sure.

[Please select one]

20 to 40 years 63%

30 to 50 years 28%

40 to 60 years 9%

18 Of the following products which would you

prefer? [Please select one]

Plastic products that will biodegrade in a landfill 96%

Plastic products that will not biodegrade in a landfill 4%

19

What do you believe is a reasonable amount of

time for a “biodegradable” plastic package to

decompose in a landfill?

Less than 1 year 25%

Less than 5 years 45%

Less than 10 years 17%

Less than 20 years 6%

Less than 40 years 3%

40 years or greater 4%

20

Would it be okay, in your opinion, is it correct for

plastic packaging to be labeled “biodegradable” if

it is designed to decompose in a landfill in [INSERT

RESPONSE FROM Q19]?

Yes 93%

No 7%

21 In your opinion what percentage of plastics in the

U.S. is composted? [Please select one]

Less than 1% 33%

1Ͳ 21%

6Ͳ10% 15%

11Ͳ19% 8%

20Ͳ29% 9%

30Ͳ39% 5%

40Ͳ49% 3%

Greater than 50% 7%

22 Which of the following is true? [Please select all

that apply]

I have a composting device or compost pile in my home or yard 19%

Curbside composting pickͲup is available in my area 14%

Curbside recycling pickͲup available in my area 62%

None of these 27%

23

In your opinion, is it correct for plastic packaging

to be labeled “biodegradable” if it is designed to

decompose specifically in a commercial

composting site and will not really decompose in

your backyard? [Please select one]

Yes 37%

No 63%

24

As a consumer, what supporting information

would you like to see on a package labeled

“biodegradable”? Please be as specific as possible.

Where it biodegrades 27%

How long it will take to biodegrade 39%

Conditions under which it will biodegrade 18%

Contact details 1%

What should be done with it after use 10%

Safety/toxicity issues 5%

Environmental benefits 1%

Miscellaneous mentions 11%

Don’t know/no answer 23%

25

How often do you look for EcoͲFriendly/Green

labels when purchasing a plastic product? [Please

select one]

Always 8%

Often 30%

Occasionally 35%

Rarely 17%

Never 11%

25a

Each one of the following attributes contributes

to lowering a product’s burden on the

environment. Please rank the following six

attributes on what you believe is the most

beneficial for the environment with “1” being the

most beneficial and “6” being the least beneficial

of the response options.

RANKED 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th

Made from recycled materials 14% 17% 23% 21% 14% 9%

Made with renewable materials 7% 11% 17% 20% 27% 28%

Biodegradable 28% 24% 16% 15% 11% 7%

Recyclable 19% 27% 21% 14% 13% 7%

Made with renewable energy 6% 20% 11% 17% 24% 33%

NonͲtoxic 26% 11% 12% 13% 12% 26%

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 50

CCX - 860 Page 50

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
26

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree

with the following statement. If the products I

currently purchase were made less burdensome

on the environment, I would be willing to pay a

higher price.

Strongly Agree 10%

Somewhat Agree 52%

Somewhat Disagree 24%

Strongly Disagree 14%

27

How much more would you be wiling to pay for

products that are less burdensome on the

environment?

5% Ͳ additional 5 cents per $1 spent 47%

10% Ͳ additional 10 cents per $1 spent 29%

15% Ͳ additional 15 cents per $1 spent 7%

20% Ͳ additional 20 cents per $1 spent 3%

25% Ͳ additional 25 cents per $1 spent 2%

More than 25% 1%

Not sure how much 12%

28

You indicated that you would be willing to pay

[INSERT SELECTION FROM Q27] for products that

are less burdensome on the environment. Please

explain why you selected this response.

5% 10% 15%/+ NOT SURE

ADDT’L

Seems to be a reasonable amount/what 77% 74% 49% 52%

can or can’t afford/cost factors

Impact on the environment 20% 26% 39% 12%

The companies should be responsible too 4% 4% 2% 6%

Miscellaneous 3% 5% 7% 28%

Don’t know/now answer 5% 6% 15% 15%

No reason/had to put something down 3% 2% 4% 2%

D1 What is the highest level of education you have

completed? [Please select one]

Some high school 2%

High school graduate 17%

Some college 33%

College graduate 34%

Post graduate degree 15%

D2 What is your current employment status?

Employed fullͲtime 40%

Employed partͲtime 12%

Seeking employment 8%

FullͲtime homemaker 12%

Student 4%

Retired 24%

D3

[Ask if D2 = “Employed fullͲtime” OR “Employed

partͲtime”)

What industry do you work in? [Please select one]

Banking/finance 4%

Construction 3%

Education 14%

Entertainment/hospitality/tourism 2%

Food service 2%

Government/public service/military 8%

Healthcare 11%

Manufacturing 6%

Professional/business services 12%

Retail 7%

Skilled trades 3%

Social services 2%

Transportation 3%

Other 22%

D4 Which of the following best describes your racial

or ethnic background? [Please select one]

White/Caucasian 85%

Black/AfricanͲAmerican 5%

Hispanic/Spanish/Latino 4%

Asian 4%

Other 2%

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 51

CCX - 860 Page 51

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
D5 What is your annual household income?

Under $30,000 25%

$30,000 to $49,999 21%

$50,000 to $74,999 19%

$75,000 to $99,999 14%

$100,000 to $149,999 14%

$150,000 to $199,999 3%

Over $200,000 3%

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 52

CCX - 860 Page 52

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
Q# 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration) 

APPENDIX D 

APCO study (September 2006) 

Question 

From what you know, if something is labeled 

'biodegradable,' does that mean it will decompose 

in ... 

As you may know, some manufacturers are starting 

to make packaging products - things like water 

bottles, coffee cups, food takeout containers, and 

shopping bags - that are designed to be 

biodegradable. Which would be less burdensome in 

a landfill: traditional packaging products or 

biodegradable packaging products, or is there no 

difference? [PROBE: Would that be much less 

burdensome or somewhat less burdensome in a 

landfill?] 

If a package is labeled 'biodegradable,' what should 

be the maximum amount of time that it should take 

for that package to decompose? 

In your view, which is better for the environment: a 

package that will biodegrade or a package that can 

be recycled at the end of its useful life, or is there no 

difference? 

Thinking about various types of packaging - things 

like water bottles, coffee cups, food takeout 

containers, and shopping bags - if these items were 

"biodegradable," do you think there would be much 

more littering, somewhat more littering, somewhat 

less littering, much more littering or no difference? 

Agree or disagree with the following statements ... 

• Biodegradable packages will reduce landfill 

burdens 

• Biodegradable packages will reduce pollution in 

oceans, rivers, beaches 

• Biodegradable packages will reduce amount of 

litter in environment 

• Littering isn't really a problem 

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. 

Response Options 

YES NO UNSURE 

The natural environment 86% 8% 6% 

A landfill 83% 11% 6% 

Your backyard 80% 15% 5% 

Somewhat less Much less Total 

Traditional 4% 4% 8% 

Biodegradable 22% 52% 74% 

No difference 13% 

Unsure 5% 

1 month or less 19% 

3 months 7% 

6 months 8% 

1 year 26% 

2 to 4 years 5% 

5 years or more 16% 

Unsure 17% 

Somewhat better Much better Total 

Recycled 17% 30% 47% 

Biodegradable 7% 20% 27% 

No difference 22% 

Unsure 4% 

Somewhat Much Total 

More littering 11% 11% 22% 

Less littering 8% 10% 18% 

No difference 57% 

Unsure 3% 

Biodegradable packages will reduce landfill burdens 

Strongly Somewhat Total 

Agree 49% 34% 83% 

Disagree 8% 5% 13% 

Unsure 3% 

... will reduce pollution in oceans, rivers, beaches 

Strongly Somewhat Total 

Agree 46% 33% 79% 

Disagree 12% 7% 19% 

Unsure 2% 

... will reduce amount of litter in environment 

Agree 

Disagree 

Unsure 

Strongly Somewhat Total 

23% 

25% 

35% 58% 

14% 39% 

3% 

Appendix at 53 

CCX - 860 Page 53 
Littering isn’t really a problem

Strongly Somewhat Total

Agree 10% 15% 25%

Disagree 38% 36% 74%

Unsure 2%

8

As you may know, packaging can be made from

natural materials, like trees, corn and other plantͲ

based matter, or can be made from synthetic

materials, like traditional plastics which are made

from petroleum. If a package is made with natural

materials, such as the newer cornͲbased plastics, is

it more likely to be biodegradable than a package

made from synthetic materials, or not?

Yes 80%

No 10%

Unsure 10%

10

If something were said to be ‘biodegradable,’ does

that mean the same thing, or something different

than if something were said to be ‘compostable?’ [IF

SAME THING: Does it mean exactly the same thing

to you, does it mean something very similar, or only

somewhat similar?]

Exactly the same 7%

Very similar 13%

Somewhat similar 20%

Different 48%

Unsure 12%

10a

In what way is it similar for something to be

‘biodegradable’ and something to be

‘compostable’?

Decompose/break down 50%

Neither harmful to environment 14%

Return to the earth 8%

Reused 7%

Basically the same 4%

Biodegradable 3%

Garbage/organic waste 2%

Are different 9%

Other 2%

Unsure 2%

10b

In what way is it different for something to be

‘biodegradable’ and something to be

‘compostable’?

Bio breaks down, compost is reusable 21%

Bio is manmade/synthetic; compost is natural 15%

Bio doesn’t harm soil but compost helps it 14%

Different amount of time to break down 12%

Bio breaks down naturally, compost needs help 8%

Bio less harmful, enriches soil 2%

Similar processes 10%

Other 9%

Unsure 10%

11 Do you have a composting device or compost pile in

your home or yard?

Yes 24%

No 75%

Unsure 1%

12

Some newer types of packaging are designed to be

compostable – that is, the packaging will

decompose naturally when placed in a certain

environment. If a package, such as a water bottle or

deli container, were labeled ‘compostable’ would

that mean to you that it can decompose in a home

compost pile or home composting device?”

Yes 71%

No 17%

Unsure 12%

13

Some newer types of packaging are designed to be

under professionally managed conditions requiring

high heat, moisture and oxygen flow. After the

packaging is used, these items must be collected

and taken to a largeͲscale, industrial composting

facility in order to fully breakdown as intended. In

your view, is it correct for packaging like this to be

labeled “biodegradable”, or not ?

Yes 37%

No 56%

Unsure 7%

14 If a packaging item is designed to decompose in a YES NO UNSURE

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 54

CCX - 860 Page 54

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
largeͲscale, industrial composting facility under

professionallyͲmanaged conditions and can’t readily

decompose in the natural environment or in your

backyard – would it be okay to label it ...”

Biodegradable? Compostable?

Biodegradable 32% 61% 7%

Compostable 31% 63% 6%

15

LargeͲscale composting facilities are a relatively new

thing and are not yet available in all areas. If you

were at your local grocery store and saw items,

such as water bottles or deli containers, that were

labeled “compostable,” would you assume that

largeͲscale composting facilities were available in

your area?

Yes 43%

No 53%

Unsure 4%

16

If a packaging label carried the following

information: “This package was designed to be

composted in a largeͲscale composting facility.

LargeͲscale composting facilities are not yet

available in all areas. Check with your community to

see if composting is available in your area,” how

likely would you be to check to see if a largeͲscale

composting facility was available in your

community?

Very likely 25%

Somewhat likely 26%

Not very likely 26%

Not at all likely 21%

Unsure 2%

17 Is curbside recycling available in your area?

Yes 61%

No 34%

Unsure 5%

18

Thinking about packaging items that are designed

for composting, but only after being collected and

taken to a largeͲscale facility, how willing would

you be to sort these items, much as you do your

recycling, but in a separate container from your

recyclables?

Very willing 55%

Somewhat willing 31%

Not very willing 6%

Not at all willing 6%

Unsure 1%

19

Imagine you are sorting a mixture of empty plastic

water bottles for recycling or composting. Some of

the water bottles are made from traditional plastics

that are recyclable and some of the water bottles

are made from cornͲbased plastics that can be

composted in a largeͲscale composting facility. In

your view, which do you think would cause a bigger

problem: Accidentally sending recyclable plastics to

a composting facility or accidentally sending

compostable plastics to a recycling facility?

Sending recycling to compostable 54%

Sending compostable to recycling 21%

Both errors would present an equal problem 9%

Neither error would present a problem 3%

Unsure 13%

20

Do you happen to know whether a largeͲscale

composting facility is available in your area? [IF YES:

Is the largeͲscale composting facility part of a

curbside collection program, or are residents

required to dropͲoff discards at a designated

location?]

Yes (Curbside) 4%

Yes (Drop off) 3%

Yes (Not sure which) 3%

No 62%

Unsure 28%

SHANE FREDERICK, Ph.D. Appendix at 55

CCX - 860 Page 55

APPENDIX A (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
Table of contents 

 Page 

Table 1 Q.S1 - Would you be willing to answer a few questions? 1 

 

Table 2 Q.S2 - Gender 2 

 

Table 3 Q.S3 - Which of the following categories best describes your age? 3 

 

Table 4 Q.S4 - Do you or does anyone in your household work for any of the following? 4 

 

Table 5 Q.S5 - In the past month have you personally purchased any product that came in a plastic container 5 

 or that was made of plastic? 

 

Table 6 Q.S6 - Do you have a general understanding of what the term biodegradable means? 6 

 

Table 7 Q.1 - When you hear the term "biodegradable" what does that mean to you? 7 

 

Table 8 Q.2 - Is the fact that a product or package is biodegradable important to you? 9 

 

Table 9 Q.2a - Why is it important (product/package is biodegradable important to you)? 10 

 

Table 10 Q.2b - Why is it not important (product/package is biodegradable important to you)? 12 

 

Table 11 Q.3 - Is the fact that a product is biodegradable helpful to the environment or not? 14 

 

Table 12 Q.3a - Why is it helpful (product is biodegradable helpful to environment)? 15 

 

Table 13 Q.3c - How is being biodegradable helpful to the environment? 17 

 

Table 14 Q.4 - If something is biodegradable, how long do you think it would take for it to decompose or 19 

 decay? 

 

Table 15 Q.4a - Do you think there are differences in the amount of time it takes for different types of 21 

 products to biodegrade, decompose or decay? 

 

Table 16 Q.4b - What differences exist in the time for different types of products to biodegrade, decompose 22 

 or decay? 

 

Table 17 Q.5a - What does transform any plastic into biodegradable plastic mean to you? 24 

 

Table 18 Q.5b - What does the claim "Plastic products manufactured with our additives will biodegrade" mean 26 

 to you? 

 

Table 19 Q.5c - What does claim "Plastic products made with ECM additives: Fully biodegrade" mean to you? 28 

 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 1-1 

Q.S1 - Would you be willing to answer a few questions? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115 

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 

Yes 400 199 201 76 92 117 115 

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 

No - - - - - - - 

 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 2-1 

Q.S2 - Gender 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115 

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 

Male 199 199 - 36 47 60 56 

 50% 100% 47% 51% 51% 49% 

 

Female 201 - 201 40 45 57 59 

 50% 100% 53% 49% 49% 51% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 3-1 

Q.S3 - Which of the following categories best describes your age? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115 

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 

Under 18 - - - - - - - 

 

 

18 – 34 76 36 40 76 - - - 

 19% 18% 20% 100% 

 

35 – 49 92 47 45 - 92 - - 

 23% 24% 22% 100% 

 

50 – 65 117 60 57 - - 117 - 

 29% 30% 28% 100% 

 

66+ 115 56 59 - - - 115 

 29% 28% 29% 100% 

 

Mean 52.8 52.9 52.7 26.5 42.5 58.0 73.0 

 

Median 54.3 54.4 54.3 26.5 42.5 58.0 73.0 

 

Std. Dev. 16.8 16.5 17.0 - - - - 

 

Std. Err. 0.8 1.2 1.2 - - - - 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 4-1 

Q.S4 - Do you or does anyone in your household work for any of the following? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115 

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 

An organization that 8 2 6 6 1 1 - 

makes or sells 2% 1% 3% 8% 1% 1% 

automobiles 

 

An organization that 22 13 9 5 5 11 1 

processes, sells or 6% 7% 4% 7% 5% 9% 1% 

distributes food products 

 

A manufacturer of plastic - - - - - - - 

products 

 

A waste disposal - - - - - - - 

organization 

 

Some other organization 198 101 97 60 70 52 16 

 50% 51% 48% 79% 76% 44% 14% 

 

Retired/unemployed/ 174 83 91 7 16 53 98 

disabled 44% 42% 45% 9% 17% 45% 85% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 5-1 

Q.S5 - In the past month have you personally purchased any product that came in a plastic container or that was made of plastic? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115 

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 

Yes 400 199 201 76 92 117 115 

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 

No - - - - - - - 

 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 6-1 

Q.S6 - Do you have a general understanding of what the term biodegradable means? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115 

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 

Yes 400 199 201 76 92 117 115 

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 

No - - - - - - - 

 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 7-1 

Q.1 - When you hear the term "biodegradable" what does that mean to you? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115 

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 

Breakdown/Decompose 326 166 160 61 79 98 88 

(Net) 82% 83% 80% 80% 86% 84% 77% 

------------------- 

 

 Disintegrates/rots/ 89 44 45 16 16 26 31 

 breaks down/decomposes 22% 22% 22% 21% 17% 22% 27% 

 over time 

 

 Goes back to the earth/ 83 43 40 18 21 26 18 

 back into the 21% 22% 20% 24% 23% 22% 16% 

 environment 

 

 Breaks down/doesn't 66 30 36 14 13 18 21 

 remain in its original 17% 15% 18% 18% 14% 15% 18% 

 form/degrades 

 

 Breaks down naturally 43 29 14 11 18 7 7 

 11% 15% 7% 14% 20% 6% 6% 

 

 Breaks down with/by 38 19 19 3 7 17 11 

 soil/in a landfill 10% 10% 9% 4% 8% 15% 10% 

 

 Goes back/breaks down 11 5 6 1 4 5 1 

 to a natural state 3% 3% 3% 1% 4% 4% 1% 

 

 Degrades/breaks down 9 3 6 3 4 2 - 

 faster 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 2% 

 

 Breaks down/degrades in 5 2 3 1 2 2 - 

 a reasonable amount of 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 

 time 

 

 Other breakdown/ 17 6 11 2 3 7 5 

 decompose comments 4% 3% 5% 3% 3% 6% 4% 

 

Safety (Net) 102 47 55 23 26 28 25 

------------ 26% 24% 27% 30% 28% 24% 22% 

 

 Safely breaks down/will 67 33 34 19 20 15 13 

 not harm the 17% 17% 17% 25% 22% 13% 11% 

 environment/soil/water/ 

 earth/will not pollute 

 

 Not harmful to 35 14 21 4 6 13 12 

 environment (NS) 9% 7% 10% 5% 7% 11% 10% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 7-1 

Q.1 - When you hear the term "biodegradable" what does that mean to you? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Miscellaneous (Net) 54 21 33 11 8 15 20 

------------------- 14% 11% 16% 14% 9% 13% 17% 

 

 It can be recycled 26 8 18 8 6 5 7 

 7% 4% 9% 11% 7% 4% 6% 

 

 Can be reused/reusable 12 6 6 2 1 6 3 

 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 5% 3% 

 

 Other miscellaneous 22 11 11 2 2 6 12 

 comments 6% 6% 5% 3% 2% 5% 10% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 8-1 

Q.2 - Is the fact that a product or package is biodegradable important to you? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115 

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 

Yes 301 141 160 49 69 90 93 

 75% 71% 80% 64% 75% 77% 81% 

 

No 99 58 41 27 23 27 22 

 25% 29% 20% 36% 25% 23% 19% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 9-1 

Q.2a - Why is it important (product/package is biodegradable important to you)? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Those who feel 301 141 160 49 69 90 93 

product/package being 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

biodegradable is 

important 

 

Disposal (Net) 163 76 87 17 31 54 61 

-------------- 54% 54% 54% 35% 45% 60% 66% 

 

 Keeps landfills from 53 26 27 4 15 12 22 

 filling up/needing more 18% 18% 17% 8% 22% 13% 24% 

 landfills 

 

 Too much garbage/ 40 16 24 2 9 15 14 

 reduces the amount of 13% 11% 15% 4% 13% 17% 15% 

 trash/waste 

 

 Planet/world would be 36 12 24 5 4 10 17 

 trash filled/don't want 12% 9% 15% 10% 6% 11% 18% 

 to accumulate/no place 

 for the trash to go 

 

 Don't want trash/ 25 10 15 3 5 8 9 

 garbage to be around 8% 7% 9% 6% 7% 9% 10% 

 forever 

 

 Dislike plastic/too 21 12 9 4 4 8 5 

 much plastic/does not 7% 9% 6% 8% 6% 9% 5% 

 degrade/lasts forever/ 

 harmful to the 

 environment 

 

 Degrades/takes care of 17 10 7 3 1 7 6 

 itself/is not permanent 6% 7% 4% 6% 1% 8% 6% 

 

 Other disposal comments 5 2 3 - - 3 2 

 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 

 

Safety (Net) 147 68 79 34 40 37 36 

------------ 49% 48% 49% 69% 58% 41% 39% 

 

 Environmentally 76 32 44 19 21 19 17 

 friendly/won't hurt/ 25% 23% 28% 39% 30% 21% 18% 

 harm/safer/better for 

 the environment 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 9-1 

Q.2a - Why is it important (product/package is biodegradable important to you)? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

 Keeps environment safe 34 20 14 10 11 9 4 

 for future generations/ 11% 14% 9% 20% 16% 10% 4% 

 future/preservation of 

 the planet/earth 

 

 Water/oceans should be 16 8 8 2 6 3 5 

 clean/don't want to 5% 6% 5% 4% 9% 3% 5% 

 pollute the water/ 

 oceans/rivers 

 

 Reduces/less pollution 12 7 5 3 1 4 4 

 4% 5% 3% 6% 1% 4% 4% 

 

 Not harmful/won't do 9 4 5 - 3 3 3 

 harm/it's safer (NS) 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 

 

 Want to keep the 8 5 3 1 1 2 4 

 animals safe/do no harm 3% 4% 2% 2% 1% 2% 4% 

 to animals 

 

 Other safety comments 10 4 6 2 2 1 5 

 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 1% 5% 

 

Miscellaneous (Net) 74 33 41 9 17 23 25 

------------------- 25% 23% 26% 18% 25% 26% 27% 

 

 Its important to/can be 56 23 33 8 14 18 16 

 recycled/composted/ 19% 16% 21% 16% 20% 20% 17% 

 reused 

 

 Other miscellaneous 19 10 9 1 3 5 10 

 comments 6% 7% 6% 2% 4% 6% 11% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 10-1 

Q.2b - Why is it not important (product/package is biodegradable important to you)? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Those who feel 99 58 41 27 23 27 22 

product/package being 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

biodegradable is not 

important 

 

I/we recycle/dispose of 20 12 8 2 5 5 8 

waste properly/waste can 20% 21% 20% 7% 22% 19% 36% 

be reused 

 

I buy what I want/ 16 9 7 2 8 3 3 

concerned only for the 16% 16% 17% 7% 35% 11% 14% 

items I need 

 

Doesn’t matter/makes no 13 9 4 2 4 4 3 

difference to me/not 13% 16% 10% 7% 17% 15% 14% 

important to me 

 

Never thought about it/ 12 8 4 1 3 4 4 

don’t think about it 12% 14% 10% 4% 13% 15% 18% 

 

Costs more/increases 10 6 4 7 1 2 - 

prices/I shop by price/ 10% 10% 10% 26% 4% 7% 

price conscious 

 

Don’t pay attention/take 9 3 6 4 2 3 - 

the time to look/notice 9% 5% 15% 15% 9% 11% 

if product is 

biodegradable 

 

I am not into the 6 3 3 2 1 2 1 

environment/green 6% 5% 7% 7% 4% 7% 5% 

movement/not the cause 

for me 

 

Waste goes to the same 5 4 1 1 - 4 - 

place/disposed of in a 5% 7% 2% 4% 15% 

landfill/burned/no need 

to biodegrade 

 

Manufacturers 4 4 - 2 - 2 - 

responsibility/they need 4% 7% 7% 7% 

to make the product 

biodegradable 

 

I don’t recycle 4 - 4 1 1 1 1 

 4% 10% 4% 4% 4% 5% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 10-1 

Q.2b - Why is it not important (product/package is biodegradable important to you)? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

I don’t buy that much/ 3 3 - 2 - - 1 

don’t create much waste 3% 5% 7% 5% 

 

Pointless to worry/I 3 1 2 2 1 - - 

won’t be around/I will 3% 2% 5% 7% 4% 

die but the earth lives 

on 

 

Other comments 12 9 3 3 2 2 5 

 12% 16% 7% 11% 9% 7% 23% 

 

Don't know/no answer 1 - 1 1 - - - 

 1% 2% 4% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 11-1 

Q.3 - Is the fact that a product is biodegradable helpful to the environment or not? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115 

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 

Yes, helpful 378 186 192 73 87 112 106 

 95% 93% 96% 96% 95% 96% 92% 

 

No, not helpful 22 13 9 3 5 5 9 

 6% 7% 4% 4% 5% 4% 8% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 12-1 

Q.3a - Why is it helpful (product is biodegradable helpful to environment)? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Those who feel that 378 186 192 73 87 112 106 

a product is 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

biodegradable is helpful 

to the environment 

 

Disposal (Net) 247 119 128 53 56 69 69 

-------------- 65% 64% 67% 73% 64% 62% 65% 

 

 Keeps landfills from 62 27 35 15 15 21 11 

 filling up/needing more 16% 15% 18% 21% 17% 19% 10% 

 landfills 

 

 Natural recycling/earth 51 28 23 7 14 11 19 

 to earth/dust to dust 13% 15% 12% 10% 16% 10% 18% 

 

 Reduces the amount of 49 14 35 16 12 10 11 

 trash/less waste 13% 8% 18% 22% 14% 9% 10% 

 

 Planet/world would be 32 17 15 5 4 9 14 

 trash filled/don't want 8% 9% 8% 7% 5% 8% 13% 

 to accumulate trash/ 

 waste 

 

 It breaks down/ 30 17 13 7 10 8 5 

 degrades/decomposes 8% 9% 7% 10% 11% 7% 5% 

 

 Dissolves/decomposes 29 19 10 4 8 10 7 

 faster 8% 10% 5% 5% 9% 9% 7% 

 

 Don't want trash/ 25 12 13 6 6 5 8 

 garbage to be around 7% 6% 7% 8% 7% 4% 8% 

 forever 

 

 Other disposal comments 5 2 3 - 2 3 - 

 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 

 

Safety (Net) 139 69 70 21 32 48 38 

------------ 37% 37% 36% 29% 37% 43% 36% 

 

 Environmentally 65 28 37 9 19 24 13 

 friendly/won't hurt/ 17% 15% 19% 12% 22% 21% 12% 

 harm the environment/ 

 nature 

 

 Reduces/less pollution 27 15 12 7 3 10 7 

 7% 8% 6% 10% 3% 9% 7% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 12-1 

Q.3a - Why is it helpful (product is biodegradable helpful to environment)? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

 Not harmful/won't do 23 15 8 3 5 8 7 

 harm/contaminate (NS) 6% 8% 4% 4% 6% 7% 7% 

 

 Less harmful to the 18 12 6 3 1 8 6 

 ocean/waters/important 5% 6% 3% 4% 1% 7% 6% 

 for cleaner water 

 

 Less impact on animals/ 13 8 5 2 3 5 3 

 decomposes safely/will 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 

 not harm animals 

 

 Keeps environment safe 9 5 4 1 2 4 2 

 for future generations/ 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 4% 2% 

 future of the planet 

 

 Other safety comments 7 1 6 2 - 2 3 

 2% 1% 3% 3% 2% 3% 

 

Miscellaneous (Net) 56 31 25 14 14 13 15 

------------------- 15% 17% 13% 19% 16% 12% 14% 

 

 Can be reused/made it 39 17 22 11 9 8 11 

 something else 10% 9% 11% 15% 10% 7% 10% 

 

 Other miscellaneous 19 14 5 5 5 5 4 

 comments 5% 8% 3% 7% 6% 4% 4% 

 

Don't know/no answer 9 4 5 1 1 3 4 

 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 3% 4% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 13-1 

Q.3c - How is being biodegradable helpful to the environment? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Those who feel that 378 186 192 73 87 112 106 

a product is 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

biodegradable is helpful 

to the environment 

 

Disposal (Net) 228 107 121 45 58 63 62 

-------------- 60% 58% 63% 62% 67% 56% 58% 

 

 Keeps landfills from 58 30 28 12 16 13 17 

 filling up/needing more 15% 16% 15% 16% 18% 12% 16% 

 landfills 

 

 Reduces the amount of 48 19 29 14 16 10 8 

 trash/less waste 13% 10% 15% 19% 18% 9% 8% 

 

 It breaks down/ 48 21 27 5 12 17 14 

 degrades/decomposes 13% 11% 14% 7% 14% 15% 13% 

 

 Natural recycling/earth 42 22 20 8 5 10 19 

 to earth/dust to dust 11% 12% 10% 11% 6% 9% 18% 

 

 Don't want trash/ 24 11 13 4 6 8 6 

 garbage to be around 6% 6% 7% 5% 7% 7% 6% 

 forever 

 

 Planet/world would be 24 14 10 5 5 6 8 

 trash filled/don't want 6% 8% 5% 7% 6% 5% 8% 

 to accumulate trash/ 

 waste 

 

 Dissolves/decomposes 21 10 11 6 8 3 4 

 faster 6% 5% 6% 8% 9% 3% 4% 

 

 Other disposal comments 7 2 5 1 1 4 1 

 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% 4% 1% 

 

Safety (Net) 141 71 70 31 31 41 38 

------------ 37% 38% 36% 42% 36% 37% 36% 

 

 Reduces/less pollution 49 25 24 13 13 12 11 

 13% 13% 13% 18% 15% 11% 10% 

 

 Environmentally 44 24 20 10 8 15 11 

 friendly/won't hurt/ 12% 13% 10% 14% 9% 13% 10% 

 harm the environment 

 (NS) 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 13-1 

Q.3c - How is being biodegradable helpful to the environment? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

 Not harmful to plants 21 11 10 5 3 7 6 

 and animals/sea life 6% 6% 5% 7% 3% 6% 6% 

 

 Helps water quality/ 17 9 8 8 3 4 2 

 oceans/rivers are 4% 5% 4% 11% 3% 4% 2% 

 cleaner 

 

 Not harmful/won't do 16 7 9 4 1 5 6 

 harm/contaminate (NS) 4% 4% 5% 5% 1% 4% 6% 

 

 Cleaner air/not harmful 11 5 6 2 1 5 3 

 to the air we breathe 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 4% 3% 

 

 Does not clog systems/ 9 5 4 1 3 4 1 

 processes 2% 3% 2% 1% 3% 4% 1% 

 

 Gases/no harmful gases/ 6 1 5 - 2 - 4 

 doesn't put off gases 2% 1% 3% 2% 4% 

 

 Keeps environment safe 4 3 1 - 2 1 1 

 for future generations/ 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 

 future of the planet 

 

 Other safety comments 6 2 4 2 - 2 2 

 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 

 

Miscellaneous (Net) 78 39 39 16 14 23 25 

------------------- 21% 21% 20% 22% 16% 21% 24% 

 

 Can be reused/made into 33 15 18 7 4 12 10 

 something else 9% 8% 9% 10% 5% 11% 9% 

 

 Recycled/able to 16 8 8 6 2 3 5 

 recycle 4% 4% 4% 8% 2% 3% 5% 

 

 Feeds the soil/gives 11 6 5 4 3 3 1 

 back/renews the soil/ 3% 3% 3% 5% 3% 3% 1% 

 environment 

 

 Use fewer resources/ 9 4 5 1 1 2 5 

 natural resources are 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 2% 5% 

 not used up 

 

 Other miscellaneous 19 10 9 2 5 6 6 

 comments 5% 5% 5% 3% 6% 5% 6% 

 

Don't know/no answer 17 9 8 3 3 4 7 

 4% 5% 4% 4% 3% 4% 7% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 14-1 

Q.4 - If something is biodegradable, how long do you think it would take for it to decompose or decay? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115 

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 

Varies on the type of 154 88 66 23 40 45 46 

product/depends on the 39% 44% 33% 30% 43% 38% 40% 

material/what it is 

 

One to less than 5 years 25 12 13 5 9 3 8 

 6% 6% 6% 7% 10% 3% 7% 

 

Paper/paper products 23 14 9 2 7 9 5 

degrade fast/faster 6% 7% 4% 3% 8% 8% 4% 

 

Plastic does not degrade/ 23 14 9 4 5 8 6 

plastic lasts forever/ 6% 7% 4% 5% 5% 7% 5% 

takes years to decay 

 

Forever/takes a long 22 10 12 2 7 7 6 

time/100 years 6% 5% 6% 3% 8% 6% 5% 

 

Depends on the 21 11 10 2 3 7 9 

conditions/climate/ 5% 6% 5% 3% 3% 6% 8% 

environment/how product 

is disposed of 

 

One year 18 9 9 8 4 3 3 

 5% 5% 4% 11% 4% 3% 3% 

 

Less than 6 months 17 4 13 6 5 6 - 

 4% 2% 6% 8% 5% 5% 

 

Two years 16 8 8 2 7 5 2 

 4% 4% 4% 3% 8% 4% 2% 

 

5 to 10 years 16 8 8 5 5 5 1 

 4% 4% 4% 7% 5% 4% 1% 

 

More than 10 years 15 6 9 5 4 4 2 

 4% 3% 4% 7% 4% 3% 2% 

 

6 months to one year 13 9 4 3 2 4 4 

 3% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3% 3% 

 

Vegetation is fast/breaks 12 5 7 2 4 4 2 

down quicker 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 2% 

 

Depends on the size of 12 4 8 3 4 2 3 

the item/product 3% 2% 4% 4% 4% 2% 3% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 14-1 

Q.4 - If something is biodegradable, how long do you think it would take for it to decompose or decay? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

1-2 weeks 11 5 6 6 - 1 4 

 3% 3% 3% 8% 1% 3% 

 

5 years 11 5 6 1 2 6 2 

 3% 3% 3% 1% 2% 5% 2% 

 

10 years 11 5 6 1 4 3 3 

 3% 3% 3% 1% 4% 3% 3% 

 

One month 5 1 4 2 - 2 1 

 1% 1% 2% 3% 2% 1% 

 

3-4 weeks 3 2 1 2 - 1 - 

 1% 1% * 3% 1% 

 

Other comments 31 16 15 7 8 8 8 

 8% 8% 7% 9% 9% 7% 7% 

 

Don't know/no answer 47 18 29 5 5 13 24 

 12% 9% 14% 7% 5% 11% 21% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 15-1 

Q.4a - Do you think there are differences in the amount of time it takes for different types of products to biodegrade, decompose or decay? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115 

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 

Yes 392 195 197 76 90 115 111 

 98% 98% 98% 100% 98% 98% 97% 

 

No 8 4 4 - 2 2 4 

 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 16-1 

Q.4b - What differences exist in the time for different types of products to biodegrade, decompose or decay? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Those who believe 392 195 197 76 90 115 111 

differences exist in time 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

for different types of 

products to biodegrade, 

decompose or decay 

 

Timing varies 116 64 52 22 31 36 27 

 30% 33% 26% 29% 34% 31% 24% 

 

Composition/what it’s 109 59 50 25 32 28 24 

made of/what the product 28% 30% 25% 33% 36% 24% 22% 

is 

 

The environment/where its 43 30 13 7 12 12 12 

located/surrounding 11% 15% 7% 9% 13% 10% 11% 

 

If contains plastic will 41 22 19 9 11 14 7 

take longer/how much 10% 11% 10% 12% 12% 12% 6% 

plastic is in the product 

 

Paper/paper products 31 18 13 6 10 11 4 

degrade fast/faster 8% 9% 7% 8% 11% 10% 4% 

 

Density of the product/ 27 16 11 5 6 8 8 

material 7% 8% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 

 

Weather conditions/ 25 15 10 4 7 6 8 

climate/temperature 6% 8% 5% 5% 8% 5% 7% 

 

Size of the product 20 13 7 9 6 1 4 

 5% 7% 4% 12% 7% 1% 4% 

 

Plant/vegetation degrade 19 7 12 3 6 5 5 

fast/faster 5% 4% 6% 4% 7% 4% 5% 

 

Is the product made by 18 8 10 8 4 3 3 

nature or man 5% 4% 5% 11% 4% 3% 3% 

 

Chemicals/what chemicals 17 7 10 4 4 6 3 

are in the product 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 5% 3% 

 

Metal/metal products take 5 1 4 - 1 3 1 

years/a long time to 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% 

degrade 

 

Other comments 24 12 12 2 8 8 6 

 6% 6% 6% 3% 9% 7% 5% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 16-1 

Q.4b - What differences exist in the time for different types of products to biodegrade, decompose or decay? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Don't know/no answer 72 24 48 9 9 24 30 

 18% 12% 24% 12% 10% 21% 27% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 17-1 

Q.5a - What does transform any plastic into biodegradable plastic mean to you? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115 

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 

Additive/chemical added 109 50 59 27 28 32 22 

to make plastic break 27% 25% 29% 36% 30% 27% 19% 

down/biodegradable 

 

New procedure/technology 56 25 31 12 14 16 14 

to break things down when 14% 13% 15% 16% 15% 14% 12% 

otherwise it would not 

 

Unbelievable/not true/ 51 25 26 6 12 16 17 

doubt statement 13% 13% 13% 8% 13% 14% 15% 

 

Too hard to understand/ 34 16 18 3 5 10 16 

confusing/doesn’t make 9% 8% 9% 4% 5% 9% 14% 

sense/need better 

explanation 

 

Good idea/good news 30 18 12 8 6 10 6 

 8% 9% 6% 11% 7% 9% 5% 

 

Faster breakdown/ability 29 17 12 5 5 12 7 

to breakdown/decompose 7% 9% 6% 7% 5% 10% 6% 

faster with additive 

 

Can change/transform 22 9 13 7 9 6 - 

plastic to be 6% 5% 6% 9% 10% 5% 

biodegradable and 

maintain integrity/ 

characteristics 

 

Need more information/ 16 6 10 2 6 3 5 

details 4% 3% 5% 3% 7% 3% 4% 

 

Would be better/safer for 16 10 6 3 5 7 1 

the environment 4% 5% 3% 4% 5% 6% 1% 

 

Concerns about safety of 15 7 8 2 6 4 3 

additive/chemical/is it 4% 4% 4% 3% 7% 3% 3% 

harmful to the 

environment/people/food 

 

Can be reusable/its 13 8 5 2 2 4 5 

reusable/make new plastic 3% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 4% 

products 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 17-1 

Q.5a - What does transform any plastic into biodegradable plastic mean to you? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Question was too long/too 8 4 4 1 3 1 3 

wordy/lost track of what 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 3% 

question asked/was about 

 

Other comments 44 27 17 8 11 11 14 

 11% 14% 8% 11% 12% 9% 12% 

 

Nothing/means nothing 7 3 4 1 - 3 3 

 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 3% 

 

Don't know/no answer 38 15 23 3 6 9 20 

 10% 8% 11% 4% 7% 8% 17% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 18-1 

Q.5b - What does the claim "Plastic products manufactured with our additives will biodegrade" mean to you? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115 

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 

Gone/decomposed/ 95 42 53 19 22 29 25 

biodegrade in one year 24% 21% 26% 25% 24% 25% 22% 

 

Some products will take 55 27 28 9 9 17 20 

longer/longer to 14% 14% 14% 12% 10% 15% 17% 

biodegrade/longer than a 

year 

 

If you add something it 50 19 31 16 16 10 8 

becomes biodegradable 13% 10% 15% 21% 17% 9% 7% 

 

Plastic becomes 44 20 24 5 11 16 12 

biodegradable 11% 10% 12% 7% 12% 14% 10% 

 

Needs specific 41 18 23 11 6 16 8 

environment to break 10% 9% 11% 14% 7% 14% 7% 

down/type of landfill 

 

Unbelievable/doubt the 35 21 14 6 7 12 10 

claim/not true 9% 11% 7% 8% 8% 10% 9% 

 

How many more years 35 15 20 2 10 9 14 

beyond one/how much time 9% 8% 10% 3% 11% 8% 12% 

exactly 

 

Great/wonderful/would 31 18 13 6 6 11 8 

like that 8% 9% 6% 8% 7% 9% 7% 

 

Additive will make it 31 16 15 12 4 8 7 

break down faster/plastic 8% 8% 7% 16% 4% 7% 6% 

break down faster 

 

Landfills will benefit/ 24 15 9 6 5 5 8 

less plastic in landfills 6% 8% 4% 8% 5% 4% 7% 

 

Need more information/ 15 10 5 2 1 2 10 

specifics/details 4% 5% 2% 3% 1% 2% 9% 

 

Concerns/questions about 14 6 8 - 5 5 4 

safety of the additive 4% 3% 4% 5% 4% 3% 

 

Better/good for the 9 7 2 - - 6 3 

environment 2% 4% 1% 5% 3% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 18-1 

Q.5b - What does the claim "Plastic products manufactured with our additives will biodegrade" mean to you? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Proof/need proof of claim 8 5 3 - 2 2 4 

 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 3% 

 

Confusing/I don’t 6 3 3 - 1 2 3 

understand/doesn’t make 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3% 

sense 

 

Other comments 32 18 14 6 11 8 7 

 8% 9% 7% 8% 12% 7% 6% 

 

Nothing/means nothing 5 1 4 - - 2 3 

 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 

 

Don't know/no answer 9 3 6 3 3 1 2 

 2% 2% 3% 4% 3% 1% 2% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 19-1 

Q.5c - What does claim "Plastic products made with ECM additives: Fully biodegrade" mean to you? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115 

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 

Timing (Net) 166 75 91 36 40 53 37 

------------ 42% 38% 45% 47% 43% 45% 32% 

 

 Will biodegrade in 9 56 30 26 14 14 21 7 

 months to 5 years 14% 15% 13% 18% 15% 18% 6% 

 

 Biodegrade/be gone 45 20 25 5 11 15 14 

 within/less than 5 11% 10% 12% 7% 12% 13% 12% 

 years 

 

 Will degrade/breakdown 33 15 18 13 5 11 4 

 faster 8% 8% 9% 17% 5% 9% 3% 

 

 Timing varies/items 12 5 7 2 2 4 4 

 degrade at different 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 

 times 

 

 Could biodegrade in 9 10 1 9 3 3 - 4 

 months 3% 1% 4% 4% 3% 3% 

 

 5 years is too long/ 9 5 4 1 2 1 5 

 still too long to 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% 4% 

 biodegrade 

 

 Other timing comments 16 8 8 3 3 6 4 

 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 5% 3% 

 

Miscellaneous (Net) 305 156 149 62 75 89 79 

------------------- 76% 78% 74% 82% 82% 76% 69% 

 

 If it has the chemical/ 87 35 52 22 22 29 14 

 additive it will 22% 18% 26% 29% 24% 25% 12% 

 biodegrade 

 

 Will biodegrade with or 57 30 27 12 19 17 9 

 without oxygen/in land 14% 15% 13% 16% 21% 15% 8% 

 or the air/different 

 environments 

 

 Don't understand/don't 45 18 27 5 10 11 19 

 know what the words 11% 9% 13% 7% 11% 9% 17% 

 mean/aerobically/ 

 anaerobically 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P
Table 19-1 

Q.5c - What does claim "Plastic products made with ECM additives: Fully biodegrade" mean to you? 

 

 

 Gender 

 ============ Age 

 Fe- ========================== 

 Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+ 

 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 

 

 Will breakdown/degrade 31 16 15 4 11 11 5 

 in a landfill/in soil/ 8% 8% 7% 5% 12% 9% 4% 

 special landfill 

 

 Great/wonderful/sounds 30 18 12 6 2 11 11 

 good 8% 9% 6% 8% 2% 9% 10% 

 

 Requires a specific 26 12 14 11 11 4 - 

 environment to degrade/ 7% 6% 7% 14% 12% 3% 

 special circumstances 

 

 What is ECM/don't know 24 17 7 3 2 6 13 

 what ECM additive is 6% 9% 3% 4% 2% 5% 11% 

 

 Don't believe claim/not 16 9 7 3 2 3 8 

 true 4% 5% 3% 4% 2% 3% 7% 

 

 Safety concerns/is it 14 10 4 2 2 6 4 

 toxic/harmful to the 4% 5% 2% 3% 2% 5% 3% 

 environment/people/ 

 animals 

 

 Need proof/need proof 7 3 4 1 2 3 1 

 of claim 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 1% 

 

 Other miscellaneous 43 24 19 8 11 13 11 

 comments 11% 12% 9% 11% 12% 11% 10% 

 

Nothing/means nothing 4 1 3 2 - - 2 

 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 

 

Don't know/no answer 27 11 16 3 5 7 12 

 7% 6% 8% 4% 5% 6% 10% 

 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Fr

P