UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSI 

COMMISSIONERS: 

In the Matter of 

ECM BioFilms, Inc., 

Edith Ramirez, Chairwoman 

Julie Brill 

Maureen K. Ohlhausen 

Joshua D. Wright 

Terrell McSweeny 

Docket No. 9358 

a corporation, also d/b/a 

Enviroplastics International 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

PUBLIC 

577917 

ORIGINAL 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 

RESPONDING TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE COMMISSION1 

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. 

1 Complaint Cmmsel has made no substantive changes to the Brief or Declaration filed 

Jlme 22, 2015. The Amended Brief reflects removal of duplicate pages in the Declaration and 

ref01m atting of Appendix B and C per the request of the Office of the Secretaty . 
38%/,& '2&80(17



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.

([SHULPHQWDO VXUYH\ HYLGHQFH LQ WKH UHFRUG KDV DSSURSULDWH WHVW DQG FRQWURO JURXSV DQG

GHPRQVWUDWHV WKDW DW OHDVW D VLJQLILFDQW PLQRULW\ RI FRQVXPHUV XQGHUVWDQG WKH ELRGHJUDGDEOH

FODLP WR PHDQ FRPSOHWH GHFRPSRVLWLRQ ZLWKLQ RQH \HDU DQG PRUH ZLWKLQ ILYH \HDUV

1. The Legal Standard For Extrinsic Evidence

7KH &RPPLVVLRQ SUHIHUV H[SHULPHQWDO VXUYH\V DV GLUHFW HYLGHQFH RI ZKDW FRQVXPHUV

WKLQN RI WKH VSHFLILF DGYHUWLVHPHQW LQ TXHVWLRQ In re Thompson Medical Co. Inc.  )7&

   Kraft, Inc. v. FTC  )G   WK &LU  %XW LW DOVR UHOLHV RQ

RWKHU IRUPV RI H[WULQVLF HYLGHQFH LQFOXGLQJ FRQVXPHU WHVWLPRQ\ JHQHUDO PDUNHWLQJ UHVHDUFK

DQG H[SHUW RSLQLRQ DOO RI ZKLFK FDQ KHOS WR H[SODLQ KRZ FRQVXPHUV 3RUGLQDULO\ ́ SHUFHLYH RU

XQGHUVWDQG DGYHUWLVHPHQWV See Thompson  )7& DW  see also Kraft  )G DW 

citing FTC Policy Statement on Deception  )7&    3Deception 

Statement ́ In re Telebrands Corp.  )7&    ,QGHHG WKH &RPPLVVLRQ ZLOO

FRQVLGHU DQ\ IRUP RI UHOLDEOH HYLGHQFH RI FRQVXPHU LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ Deception Statement 

)7& DW  Q 

 ,Q IDFW H[WULQVLF HYLGHQFH LV QRW UHTXLUHG WKH &RPPLVVLRQ PD\ UHO\ RQ LWV RZQ

UHDVRQHG DQDO\VLV In re Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp.  )7&   FTC v. ColgatePalmolive Co.  86   Kraft  )G DW  &RQVLGHULQJ H[WULQVLF HYLGHQFH LV

RQO\ QHFHVVDU\ LI 3LQLWLDO UHYLHZ RI HYLGHQFH IURP WKH DGYHUWLVHPHQW LWVHOI GRHV QRW DOORZ >WKH

&RPPLVVLRQ@ WR FRQFOXGH ZLWK FRQILGHQFH WKDW LW LV UHDVRQDEOH WR UHDG DQ DGYHUWLVHPHQW DV

FRQWDLQLQJ D SDUWLFXODU LPSOLHG PHVVDJH ́ Thompson Med.  )7& DW   :KHQ

HYLGHQFH LV RIIHUHG WR DVVLVW WKH &RPPLVVLRQ LQ LQWHUSUHWLQJ DGYHUWLVLQJ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV LW

VXSSOHPHQWV UDWKHU WKDQ VXSSODQWV WKH &RPPLVVLRQ¶V H[SHUWLVH Crown Cent.  )7& DW 

7KH &RPPLVVLRQ KDV ORQJ KHOG WKH YLHZ WKDW DQ XQTXDOLILHG ELRGHJUDGDEOH FODLP LPSOLHV

FRPSOHWH EUHDNGRZQ LQ D UHDVRQDEO\ VKRUW SHULRG  &)5   7KH UHFRUG¶V H[WULQVLF

HYLGHQFH ERWK FRQILUPV WKLV YLHZ see infra DQG GHPRQVWUDWHV WKDW FRQVXPHUV XQGHUVWDQG D
38%/,& '2&80(17



7KH &RPPLVVLRQ ZHLJKV WKH SUREDWLYH YDOXH RI H[WULQVLF HYLGHQFH WKH VDPH DV RWKHU

HYLGHQFH Crown Cent.  )7& DW  ,W FRQVLGHUV LQHYLWDEO\ LPSHUIHFW VXUYH\ HYLGHQFH

UHOLDEOH DV ORQJ DV WKH VXUYH\ LV 3PHWKRGRORJLFDOO\ VRXQG ́ i.e. LW GUDZV YDOLG VDPSOHV IURP WKH

DSSURSULDWH SRSXODWLRQ DVNV DSSURSULDWH TXHVWLRQV LQ ZD\V WKDW PLQLPL]H ELDV DQG DQDO\]HV

UHVXOWV FRUUHFWO\ See && $SS %U DW  citing In re POM Wonderful 1R   )7&

/(;,6  DW 
 TXRWLQJ Kraft  )7& DW  Thompson Med.  )7& DW 

Stouffer Foods  )7&   Q  ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH &RPPLVVLRQ FRQVLGHUV H[SHUW

RSLQLRQV UHOLDEOH LI DGHTXDWHO\ VXSSRUWHG i.e. WKH\ 3GHVFULEH HPSLULFDO UHVHDUFK RU DQDO\VHV

EDVHG RQ JHQHUDOO\ UHFRJQL]HG PDUNHWLQJ SULQFLSOHV RU RWKHU REMHFWLYH PDQLIHVWDWLRQV RI

SURIHVVLRQDO H[SHUWLVH ́ Thompson  )7& DW  Q

7KH UHFRUG LQ WKLV FDVH FRQWDLQV UHOLDEOH H[SHULPHQWDO DQG REVHUYDWLRQDO FRQVXPHU VXUYH\

HYLGHQFH 7KDW HYLGHQFH ERWK LQGHSHQGHQWO\ DQG FROOHFWLYHO\ GHPRQVWUDWHV DORQJ ZLWK WKH LQWHQW

HYLGHQFH

 WKDW D VLJQLILFDQW PLQRULW\ RI FRQVXPHUV XQGHUVWDQG D ELRGHJUDGDEOH FODLP WR PHDQ

FRPSOHWH GHFRPSRVLWLRQ ZLWKLQ RQH \HDU RU ILYH \HDUV

ELRGHJUDGDEOH FODLP FDXVHV WKDW SHULRG WR EH ZLWKLQ DW OHDVW ILYH \HDUV IRU D WKLUG RI FRQVXPHUV

DQG ZLWKLQ RQH \HDU IRU D VLJQLILFDQW PLQRULW\  7KH &RPPLVVLRQ VKRXOG DOVR FRQVLGHU WKH RYHUZKHOPLQJ HYLGHQFH WKDW (&0 LQWHQGHG WR

LPSO\ WKDW LWV DGGLWLYH ZRXOG PDNH SODVWLF FRPSOHWHO\ EUHDN GRZQ LQWR HOHPHQWV IRXQG LQ QDWXUH

LQ D ODQGILOO LQ D UHDVRQDEO\ VKRUW SHULRG RI QLQH PRQWKV WR ILYH \HDUV && $SS %U DW 

POM 1R   )7& /(;,6  DW 
 Accord Novartis Corp.  )7&  

 3>(@YLGHQFH RI LQWHQW WR PDNH D FODLP PD\ VXSSRUW D ILQGLQJ WKDW WKH FODLPV ZHUH LQGHHG

PDGH ́ Telebrands  )7& DW  ILQGLQJ VXSSRUW WKDW FODLPV ZHUH PDGH LQ 3DPSOH

HYLGHQFH WKDW UHVSRQGHQWV LQWHQGHG WR FRQYH\ WKH FKDOOHQJHG FODLPV ́ Thompson  )7& DW

 37KRPSVRQ LQWHQGHG WR PDNH WKHVH FODLPV    >DQG@ >W@KHUHIRUH LW LV UHDVRQDEOH WR LQWHUSUHW

WKH DGV DV PDNLQJ WKHP>@ ́ (YHQ ZKHQ (&0 EHJDQ XVLQJ WKH 3VRPH SHULRG JUHDWHU WKDQ D \HDU ́

GLVFODLPHU LW FRQWLQXHG WR WHOO FXVWRPHUV WR H[SHFW FRPSOHWH ODQGILOO ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ LQ QLQH

PRQWKV WR ILYH \HDUV && $SS %U DW  ,Q IDFW DV 'U )UHGHULFN H[SODLQHG WKH GLVFODLPHU

DFWXDOO\ reinforced FRQVXPHUV¶ H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU VKRUW ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ WLPHV E\ DQFKRULQJ 3D

\HDU ́ LQ FRQVXPHUV¶ PLQGV  Id. DW 
38%/,& '2&80(17



2. Experimental Evidence Demonstrates that the Biodegradable Claim Causes 

Consumers to Infer a Short Timeframe. 

$OWKRXJK WKH &RPPLVVLRQ GRHV QRW UHTXLUH H[SHULPHQWDO VXUYH\V LW KDV UHFRJQL]HG WKH

QHHG IRU D FRQWUROOHG H[SHULPHQW LQ FHUWDLQ FLUFXPVWDQFHV VXFK DV FORVHGHQG VXUYH\V RU ZKHQ

HYLGHQFH VXJJHVWV WKDW D SUHH[LVWLQJ EHOLHI FRXOG ELDV WKH UHVXOWV See, e.g. Stouffer  )7&

DW  ([SHULPHQWDO VWXGLHV PDQLSXODWH DQ LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH WR GHWHUPLQH LWV HIIHFW RQ D

GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH e.g. GLG x ODQJXDJH LPSO\ WKH FODLP" LQ FRQWUDVW WR REVHUYDWLRQDO VWXGLHV

ZKLFK JDXJH FRQVXPHU EHOLHIV DW D PRPHQW LQ WLPH e.g ZKDW GRHV WKLV ODQJXDJH PHDQ WR \RX"

See )UHGHULFN 'HF  DE  &RPSDULQJ WHVW DQG FRQWURO TXHVWLRQV DOORZV D UHVHDUFKHU WR

UXOH RXW DOWHUQDWLYH H[SODQDWLRQV IRU WKH REVHUYHG HIIHFW See id DW   E

7KH REVHUYHG HIIHFW LQ HYHU\ VWXG\ LQ WKH UHFRUG LV WKDW PDQ\ FRQVXPHUV XQGHUVWDQG DQ

XQTXDOLILHG ELRGHJUDGDEOH FODLP WR FRQYH\ EUHDNGRZQ ZLWKLQ D VKRUW SHULRG DERXW  ZLWKLQ

RQH \HDU DERXW  ZLWKLQ ILYH Id. DW   %\ FRPSDULQJ WHVW DQG FRQWURO TXHVWLRQV ZLWKLQ

WKH *&6 VWXG\ WKH 6\QRYDWH VWXG\ DQG LQ D FURVVVWXG\ PHWDDQDO\VLV 'U )UHGHULFN UXOHV RXW

DOWHUQDWLYH H[SODQDWLRQV WR WKH FODLP FDXVLQJ WKLV HIIHFW VXFK DV D SUHH[LVWLQJ EHOLHI WKDW SODVWLF LV

ELRGHJUDGDEOH

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

control groups. 

7KH *&6 VWXG\ LV D FODVVLF H[SHULPHQWDO VWXG\ Id. DW   'U )UHGHULFN DVNHG YDULRXV

TXHVWLRQV DERXW ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ WLPHV IRU SODVWLF EDJV SODVWLF FRQWDLQHUV DQG SODVWLF ZDWHU ERWWOHV

EHDULQJ XQTXDOLILHG 3ELRGHJUDGDEOH ́ FODLPV Id   &&; DW  +H DOVR DVNHG

LGHQWLFDO RU QHDUO\ LGHQWLFDO TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH VDPH SODVWLF LWHPV ZLWKRXW WKH FODLP Id. 7KLV

GHVLJQ2WHVW DQG FRQWURO TXHVWLRQV2LV WKH HVVHQFH RI HYHU\ H[SHULPHQWDO VXUYH\ See )UHGHULFN

'HFO  E 
38%/,& '2&80(17



&RPSDULQJ WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH *&6 WHVW DQG FRQWURO TXHVWLRQV GHPRQVWUDWHV WKDW D

ELRGHJUDGDEOH ODEHO FDXVHV WKH QXPEHU RI FRQVXPHUV ZKR SHUFHLYH D IDOVH FODLP RI EUHDNGRZQ LQ

RQH \HDU RU OHVV WR DW OHDVW GRXEOH DQG RIWHQ PRUH WKDQ TXDGUXSOH Id.   7KH ODEHO FDXVHV

HYHQ PRUH FRQVXPHUV WR SHUFHLYH D FODLP RI EUHDN GRZQ ZLWKLQ ILYH \HDUV See id. 6SHFLILFDOO\

DIWHU ILOWHULQJ RXW SRWHQWLDO DOWHUQDWLYH H[SODQDWLRQV GXH WR SUHH[LVWLQJ ELDVHV JXHVVLQJ RU RWKHU

IDFWRUV WKH GDWD VKRZV WKDW WKH FODLP FDXVHV  WR  RI FRQVXPHUV WR SHUFHLYH D RQH\HDU

EUHDNGRZQ FODLP DQG  WR  WR SHUFHLYH D ILYH\HDU FODLP

x Plastic Bag

o 25% RI FRQVXPHUV QHW RI FRQWURO XQGHUVWDQG WKDW D SODVWLF EDJ ODEHOHG

ELRGHJUDGDEOH ZLOO EUHDNGRZQ ZLWKLQ one year. )UHGHULFN 'HFO $SSHQGL[ $ DW

 FRPSDULQJ FRQWURO TXHVWLRQ 3 WR VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQ .

o 32% RI FRQVXPHUV QHW RI FRQWURO XQGHUVWDQG WKDW D SODVWLF EDJ ODEHOHG

ELRGHJUDGDEOH ZLOO FRPSOHWHO\ EUHDNGRZQ ZLWKLQ five years Id

x Plastic Container

o 22% RI FRQVXPHUV QHW RI FRQWURO XQGHUVWDQG WKDW D SODVWLF FRQWDLQHU ODEHOHG

ELRGHJUDGDEOH ZLOO EUHDNGRZQ ZLWKLQ one year Id. DW  FRPSDULQJ FRQWURO

TXHVWLRQ 2 WR VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQ -

o 35% RI FRQVXPHUV QHW RI FRQWURO XQGHUVWDQG WKDW D SODVWLF FRQWDLQHU ODEHOHG

ELRGHJUDGDEOH ZLOO EUHDNGRZQ ZLWKLQ five years Id.

x Plastic Water Bottle

o 34 - 41% RI FRQVXPHUV QHW RI FRQWURO XQGHUVWDQG WKDW D SODVWLF ZDWHU ERWWOH

ODEHOHG ELRGHJUDGDEOH ZLOO EUHDNGRZQ ZLWKLQ one year Id. DW  FRPSDULQJ

FRQWURO TXHVWLRQ 1 WR VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQV ' WKURXJK *¶

o 49 – 58% RI FRQVXPHUV QHW RI FRQWURO XQGHUVWDQG WKDW D SODVWLF ZDWHU ERWWOH

ODEHOHG ELRGHJUDGDEOH ZLOO EUHDNGRZQ ZLWKLQ five years Id

 'XULQJ RUDO DUJXPHQW &RPPLVVLRQHU 2KOKDXVHQ DVNHG DERXW WKH DSSDUHQWO\ VPDOO GHOWD

EHWZHHQ WKH DQVZHUV WR 'U )UHGHULFN¶V FRQWURO TXHVWLRQV DQG KLV WHVW TXHVWLRQV 7KLV VPDOO GHOWD

UHVXOWV IURP DQ XQGHUVWDQGDEOH EXW LQFRUUHFW FRPSDULVRQ 7KH FRQWURO TXHVWLRQV VKRXOG QRW EH

FRPSDUHG WR TXHVWLRQV + DQG , EHFDXVH WKHVH TXHVWLRQV GLVSOD\HG SURGXFWV ZKRVH ORJR ZDV

LOOHJLEOH WR VXUYH\ UHVSRQGHQWV See 7U   )UHGHULFN 'HFO   Q
38%/,& '2&80(17



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

included a control-and-test-question pair.

$OWKRXJK WKH 6\QRYDWH VWXG\ ZDV ODUJHO\ REVHUYDWLRQDO LW DVNHG D SDLU RI TXHVWLRQV WKDW

\LHOG YDOLG H[SHULPHQWDO HYLGHQFH )UHGHULFN 'HFO   6SHFLILFDOO\ 6\QRYDWH  DVNHG

3+RZ PDQ\ \HDUV GR \RX WKLQN LW WDNHV IRU WUDGLWLRQDO SODVWLF SURGXFWV WR ELRGHJUDGH" ́ &&;

 $SSHQGL[ $ DW  6\QRYDWH  DVNHG 3:KDW GR \RX EHOLHYH LV D UHDVRQDEOH DPRXQW RI

WLPH IRU D μELRGHJUDGDEOH¶ SODVWLF SDFNDJH WR GHFRPSRVH LQ D ODQGILOO" ́ Id. DW  6\QRYDWH 

IXQFWLRQV DV D FRQWURO IRU  EHFDXVH LW DVNHG DERXW 3WUDGLWLRQDO SODVWLF ́ UDWKHU WKDQ D

3μELRGHJUDGDEOH¶ SODVWLF ́ )UHGHULFN 'HFO   7KH QXPEHU RI UHVSRQGHQWV ZKR WKRXJKW

3ELRGHJUDGDEOH ́ SODVWLF ZRXOG GHFRPSRVH LQ OHVV WKDQ WHQ \HDUV  ZDV more than five 

times greater WKDQ WKH QXPEHU ZKR WKRXJKW 3WUDGLWLRQDO ́ SODVWLF ZRXOG ELRGHJUDGH LQ WKH VDPH

WLPH SHULRG  ZLWK D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WHVW DQG FRQWURO RI  Id.

6\QRYDWH  GLG QRW RIIHU UHVSRQGHQWV WKH FKRLFH RI 3OHVV WKDQ ILYH \HDUV ́ OLNH 

&&; $SSHQGL[ & DW  %XW HYHQ DVVXPLQJ WKDW HYHU\ UHVSRQGHQW ZKR FKRVH 3OHVV WKDQ

WHQ \HDUV ́ LQ UHVSRQVH WR  ZRXOG KDYH RSWHG IRU ILYH \HDUV LI JLYHQ WKH FKRLFH WKH GLIIHUHQFH

EHWZHHQ ILYH\HDU UHVSRQVHV WR   DQG DVVXPHG ILYH\HDU UHVSRQVH WR  i.e. WKH 

ZKR VHOHFWHG WHQ \HDUV LV D VWLOOUHPDUNDEOH  &&; $SSHQGL[ & DW  )UHGHULFN

'HFO  

*LYHQ WKH PDJQLWXGH RI WKH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ WLPHV IRU 3WUDGLWLRQDO ́ DQG

3ELRGHJUDGDEOH ́ SODVWLFV 'U )UHGHULFN H[SODLQV WKDW WKHVH UHVXOWV GHPRQVWUDWH WKDW WKH SUHVHQFH

RI D ELRGHJUDGDEOH FODLP RQ D SODVWLF LWHP FDXVHV D VLJQLILFDQW QXPEHU RI FRQVXPHUV EHOLHYH LW

ZLOO EUHDN GRZQ LQ ILYH \HDUV RU OHVV )UHGHULFN 'HFO  

 'U )UHGHULFN H[SODLQV WKDW 6\QRYDWH  LV QRW D SHUIHFW FRQWURO ,GHDOO\ WKH FRQWURO DQG

WHVW ZRXOG XVH WKH VDPH ZRUG SURGXFW or SDFNDJH DQG ZRXOG TXHU\ UHVSRQGHQWV XVLQJ WKH VDPH
38%/,& '2&80(17



c. APCO as a natural experimental survey. 

5HVHDUFKHUV UHJXODUO\ XVH PHWDDQDO\WLF WHFKQLTXHV WR GUDZ YDOLG LQIHUHQFHV IURP

XQLQWHQWLRQDOO\ PDQLSXODWHG YDULDEOHV DFURVV VXUYH\V XVLQJ VLPLODU PHWKRGRORJLHV VRPHWLPHV

UHIHUUHG WR DV D 3QDWXUDO H[SHULPHQW ́ )UHGHULFN 'HFO  F FLWLQJ 5RVHQWKDO  &RRSHU

+HGJHV 	 9DOHQWLQH  +HGJHV 	 2ONLQ  /DX ,RDQQLGLV 	 6FKPLG  7KXV WR

WKH H[WHQW WKDW WKHUH LV LQFLGHQWDO XQSODQQHG YDULDWLRQ LQ VRPH YDULDEOHV WKH VWXGLHV FDQ

IXQFWLRQ OLNH DQ H[SHULPHQW Id. ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV D TXHVWLRQ LQ RQH VWXG\ FDQ EH WUHDWHG DV D

FRQWURO IRU D VLPLODU TXHVWLRQ LQ DQRWKHU VWXG\ ZKHUH WKH WZR RQO\ YDU\ VOLJKWO\ )UHGHULFN 'HFO

 

)RU LQVWDQFH FRPSDUH *&6 / WR $3&2 4

x ,I D SODVWLF SDFNDJH LV 127 ODEHOHG 3ELRGHJUDGDEOH ́ KRZ ORQJ ZLOO LW WDNH WR

GHFRPSRVH" *&6 /

x ,I D SDFNDJH LV ODEHOHG 3ELRGHJUDGDEOH ́ ZKDW VKRXOG EH WKH PD[LPXP DPRXQW RI

WLPH WKDW LW VKRXOG WDNH IRU WKDW SDFNDJH WR GHFRPSRVH" $3&2 4

7KRXJK QRW LGHQWLFDO WKH TXHVWLRQV DUH VLPLODU 7KHUHIRUH *&6 / FDQ DFW DV D FRQWURO IRU WKH

$3&2 WHVW TXHVWLRQ )UHGHULFN 'HFO   &RPSDULQJ WKH *&6 TXHVWLRQ WR WKH $3&2 TXHVWLRQ

VKRZV WKH QXPEHU RI FRQVXPHUV ZKR WKLQN WKDW D SURGXFW ODEHOHG ELRGHJUDGDEOH ZLOO ELRGHJUDGH

LQ RQH \HDU DQG ILYH \HDUV VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQFUHDVHV ZKHQ D 3ELRGHJUDGDEOH ́ FODLP LV PDGH Id

TXHVWLRQ VWHP i.e. 3KRZ PDQ\ \HDUV GR \RX WKLQN LW WDNHV ́ YHUVXV 3ZKDW GR \RX EHOLHYH LV D

UHDVRQDEOH DERXW RI WLPH ́ )UHGHULFN 'HFO   Q  0RUHRYHU D EHWWHU FRQWURO ZRXOG RIIHU WKH

UHVSRQGHQWV WKH VDPH DQVZHU FKRLFHV i.e. OHVV WKDQ RQH ILYH RU WHQ \HDUV HWF DV  GLG UDWKHU

WKDQ VWDUWLQJ DW 3/HVV WKDQ  \HDUV ́ DV  GLG Id. 'HVSLWH WKHVH LPSHUIHFWLRQV 'U )UHGHULFN

H[SODLQV WKDW WKH FRPSDULVRQ RI WKHVH TXHVWLRQV \LHOGV YDOXDEOH LQIRUPDWLRQ SDUWLFXODUO\ JLYHQ

WKH PDJQLWXGH RI WKH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ UHVSRQVHV 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 instmctive- here such comparisons also yield large 

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

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

8 
38%/,& '2&80(17



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.

7KH UHFRUG¶V REVHUYDWLRQDO VXUYH\V $3&2 6\QRYDWH 'U 6WHZDUW FRUURERUDWH WKH

H[SHULPHQWDO HYLGHQFH VKRZLQJ WKDW ELRGHJUDGDEOH FODLPV FDXVH FRQVXPHUV WR LQIHU VKRUW

ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ WLPHV RI RQH WR ILYH \HDUV $V UHDVRQDEO\ UHOLDEOH DQG YDOLG FRUURERUDWLQJ VWXGLHV

WKH REVHUYDWLRQDO VWXGLHV DUH HQWLWOHG WR VXEVWDQWLDO ZHLJKW See && $SS %U DW  GLVFXVVLQJ

UHOLDELOLW\ DQG YDOLGLW\ RI HDFK

'U )UHGHULFN H[SODLQV WKDW 3REVHUYDWLRQDO VWXGLHV FDQ LQIRUP VSHFXODWLRQ DQG UHYLVH

DVVXPSWLRQV ́ )UHGHULFN 'HFO  D $OWKRXJK REVHUYDWLRQDO VWXGLHV DUH QRW VSHFLILFDOO\

GHVLJQHG WR HYDOXDWH FDXVH DQG HIIHFW VXUYH\ UHVHDUFK H[SHUWV URXWLQHO\ PDNH FDXVDO LQIHUHQFHV

IURP REVHUYDWLRQDO GDWD )UHGHULFN 'HFO  D see also id DW   GLVFXVVLQJ WKH YDOXH RI DOO

PHWKRGV LQFOXGLQJ REVHUYDWLRQDO VWXGLHV EXW QRWLQJ WKDW WKH VWURQJHVW LQIHUHQFHV FRPH IURP

H[SHULPHQWV FLWLQJ 6DOPRQ  6KDGLVK &RRN 	 &DPSEHOO  'U )UHGHULFN H[SODLQV

WKDW DOO RI WKH observational HYLGHQFH2$3&2 6\QRYDWH 'U 6WHZDUW¶V VWXG\2VKRZV WKDW

FRQVXPHUV

x EHOLHYH WKDW WKHUH DUH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ KRZ ORQJ LW WDNHV WKLQJV WR ELRGHJUDGH

)UHGHULFN 'HFO    

x LQIHU VKRUW ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ WLPHV IRU LWHPV WKH\ FRQVLGHU ELRGHJUDGDEOH VXFK DV

SDSHU DQG ORQJ ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ WLPHV LQFOXGLQJ QHYHU IRU WUDGLWLRQDO SODVWLF

LWHPV Id
38%/,& '2&80(17



x EHOLHYH ELRGHJUDGDEOH SURGXFWV DQG SDFNDJHV DUH EHWWHU IRU WKH HQYLURQPHQW2

WKH\ DUH OHVV EXUGHQVRPH RQ WKH HQYLURQPHQW JHQHUDOO\ DQG ODQGILOOV VSHFLILFDOO\

Id. DW  

x DUH ZLOOLQJ WR SD\ PRUH IRU ELRGHJUDGDEOH SURGXFWV EHFDXVH RI WKHVH SRVLWLYH

DWWULEXWHV Id. DW 

'U )UHGHULFN FRQFOXGHV WKDW IURP WKH GDWD FROOHFWHG RQ YDULRXV PHDVXUHV RI FRQVXPHU

XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI ELRGHJUDGDELOLW\ RQH FDQ LQIHU WKDW WKH SUHVHQFH RI D ELRGHJUDGDEOH ODEHO

FDXVH ORZHUV FRQVXPHUV¶ HVWLPDWHV RI ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ WLPHV HIIHFW )UHGHULFN 'HFO   



&ROOHFWLYHO\ WKHVH REVHUYDWLRQDO VWXGLHV FRUURERUDWH ZKDW WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VWXGLHV

GHPRQVWUDWH2FRQVXPHUV XQGHUVWDQG D 3ELRGHJUDGDEOH ́ LWHP ZLOO EUHDN GRZQ LQ D VKRUW WLPH

7KLV LQIHUHQFH IROORZV WKH &RPPLVVLRQ¶V RZQ YLHZ WKDW WKH ELRGHJUDGDEOH FODLP FDXVHV

FRQVXPHUV WR LQIHU VKRUW WLPHIUDPHV  &)5   cf. Kraft  )G DW 

3>$@OWHUQDWLYH RU FRQILUPLQJ H[WULQVLF HYLGHQFH ZKLFK VXSSOHPHQWV UDWKHU WKDQ VXSSODQWV WKH

&RPPLVVLRQ¶V H[SHUWLVH LQFOXGHV DGHTXDWHO\ VXSSRUWHG FRQFOXVLRQV DV WR FRQVXPHU UHVSRQVHV WR

DGYHUWLVLQJ E\ PDUNHWLQJ H[SHUWV ́ LQWHUQDO FLWDWLRQV DQG TXRWDWLRQV RPLWWHG 7KXV WKH

REVHUYDWLRQDO HYLGHQFH EROVWHUV WKH FRQFOXVLRQV RI WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VWXGLHV DQG WKHUHIRUH WKH

&RPPLVVLRQ VKRXOG JLYH WKHP FRQVLGHUDEOH ZHLJKW Cf. POM Wonderful, LLC v. F.T.C. 

)G   '& &LU  REVHUYLQJ WKDW D UHVHDUFKHU PD\ GUDZ FRQFOXVLRQV IURP D VLQJOH

3EOXH ULEERQ WHVW ́ 5&7 ZKRVH UHVXOWV DUH UHLQIRUFHG E\ REVHUYDWLRQDO VWXGLHV 'U )UHGHULFN

H[SODLQV WKDW WKH REVHUYDWLRQDO VWXGLHV LQ WKH UHFRUG $3&2 6\QRYDWH DQG 'U 6WHZDUW¶V VWXG\

RYHUZKHOPLQJO\ GHPRQVWUDWH WKDW FRQVXPHUV HVWLPDWH VKRUW ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ WLPHV RI RQH WR ILYH
38%/,& '2&80(17



\HDUV IRU LWHPV ODEHOHG ELRGHJUDGDEOH See )UHGHULFN 'HFO   see also && $SS %U DW 



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.

,W LV QRW SRVVLEOH WR TXDQWLI\ WKH GHJUHH RI FRQYHUJHQFH &RQYHUJHQW YDOLGLW\ UHIHUV WR

ERWK WKH GLYHUVLW\ DQG TXDQWLW\ RI HYLGHQFH IRU D FODLP RU FRQVWUXFW DQG QR VLQJOH VWDWLVWLFDO

PHWULF RI FRQYHUJHQFH RU GLYHUJHQFH HQFDSVXODWHV LW :KDW LV VLJQLILFDQW KHUH LV WKDW IRXU

LQGHSHQGHQW ERGLHV RI UHVHDUFK DOO \LHOG TXDOLWDWLYHO\ VLPLODU UHVXOWV LQ SDUWLFXODU WKH\ DOO VKRZ

WKDW FRQVXPHUV XQGHUVWDQG WKDW LWHPV GHVFULEHG DV ELRGHJUDGDEOH ZLOO EUHDN GRZQ LQ D VKRUW WLPH

&RQYHUJHQW YDOLGLW\ SHUWDLQV WR WKH SUHVHQFH RU DEVHQFH RI FRQVLVWHQW VXSSRUW IRU D

FRQVWUXFW RU FODLP IURP D VHW RI VWXGLHV RU PHDVXUHV WKDW EHDU RQ LW )UHGHULFN 'HFO   FLWLQJ

&DPSEHOO 	 )LVNH  -DFRE\  7KLV FRQFHSW H[WHQGV EH\RQG WHFKQLFDO SURFHGXUHV WKDW

H[LVW WR FRPSDUH GLVWULEXWLRQV RU SRRO UHVXOWV IURP PXOWLSOH VWXGLHV EHFDXVH LW SHUWDLQV ERWK WR

WKH TXDQWLW\ DQG GLYHUVLW\ RI HYLGHQFH WKDW H[LVWV LQ VXSSRUW RI D FODLP Id FLWLQJ 0DVVH\ 

+LJJLQV 	 7KRPSVRQ 

&RQYHUJHQW YDOLGLW\ LQYROYHV GUDZLQJ LQIHUHQFHV IURP D VHW RI VWXGLHV WKDW KDYH D

WKHRUHWLFDO UHODWLRQ WR WKH FRQVWUXFW RI LQWHUHVW e.g. EHOLHIV DERXW ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ RI PDWHULDOV

ZKLFK DUH >RU DUH QRW@ UHIHUUHG WR DV ELRGHJUDGDEOH &RQYHUJHQW YDOLGLW\ FDQ SURYLGH SRZHUIXO

HYLGHQFH2QRW RQO\ WR UHVHDUFKHUV EXW DOVR WR FRXUWV2WR YDOLGDWH WKH UHVXOWV RI GLIIHUHQW VWXGLHV

XVLQJ GLIIHUHQW PHWKRGRORJLHV FRQGXFWHG DW GLIIHUHQW WLPHV E\ GLIIHUHQW UHVHDUFKHUV See, e.g.

K.S. v. Fremont Unified School District  )6XSSG   1' &DO  $/- GLG

 'U )UHGHULFN H[SODLQV WKDW WKHUH LV FRQVLGHUDEOH FRQYHUJHQFH LQ WKLV QDUURZHU VHQVH DV

ZHOO )UHGHULFN 'HFO   Q
38%/,& '2&80(17



QRW HUU E\ UHO\LQJ RQ H[SHUW¶V FRQYHUJHQW YDOLGLW\ WKHRU\ United States v. Montgomery 1R

FU-30  86 'LVW /(;,6  DW 
 :' 7HQQ -DQ  

3>7@KH &RXUW LV JXLGHG E\ WKH SULQFLSOH RI μFRQYHUJHQW YDOLGLW\¶ μFRQVLVWHQW WKHPHV    <RX

ZDQW WR ORRN DW DOO WKH SLHFHV RI HYLGHQFH DQG WU\ WR FRPH XS ZLWK WKH PRVW FRKHUHQW H[SODQDWLRQ

IRU WKH SDWWHUQV WKDW \RX VHH LQ WKH KLVWRU\¶ ́ 7KH FULWLFDO TXHVWLRQ LV ZKHWKHU VWXGLHV FRQGXFWHG

GLIIHUHQWO\ e.g. IRU VRPHZKDW GLIIHUHQW SXUSRVHV XVLQJ GLIIHUHQW QXPEHUV DQG W\SHV RI

TXHVWLRQV ZLWK VRPHZKDW GLIIHUHQW ZRUGLQJ JLYHQ WR VRPHZKDW GLIIHUHQW SRSXODWLRQV DW

GLIIHUHQW WLPHV E\ GLIIHUHQW UHVHDUFKHUV XVLQJ GLIIHUHQW PHGLD all \LHOG TXDOLWDWLYHO\ VLPLODU

UHVXOW +HUH WKH DQVZHU LV D UHVRXQGLQJ \HV )UHGHULFN 'HFO   H[SODLQLQJ WKDW WKH GHJUHH RI

FRQYHUJHQW YDOLGLW\ LV KLJK

II. Conclusion 

)RU WKH UHDVRQV VWDWHG DERYH 5HVSRQGHQW¶V SUDFWLFHV DV DOOHJHG LQ WKH &RPSODLQW

FRQVWLWXWH XQIDLU RU GHFHSWLYH DFWV RU SUDFWLFHV LQ RU DIIHFWLQJ FRPPHUFH LQ YLRODWLRQ RI 6HFWLRQV

D DQG  RI WKH )7& $FW &RPSODLQW &RXQVHO UHVSHFWIXOO\ UHTXHVWV WKDW WKH &RPPLVVLRQ HQWHU

WKH UHOLHI SURSRVHG LQ WKH 1RWLFH 2UGHU

'DWHG -XQH  

5HVSHFWIXOO\ 6XEPLWWHG

V .DWKHULQH -RKQVRQ

.DWKHULQH -RKQVRQ

(OLVD -LOOVRQ

)HGHUDO 7UDGH &RPPLVVLRQ

%XUHDX RI &RQVXPHU 3URWHFWLRQ

'LYLVLRQ RI (QIRUFHPHQW

 3HQQV\OYDQLD $YH 1: &&

:DVKLQJWRQ '& 

7HOHSKRQH   

)DFVLPLOH  

Counsel Supporting the Complaint
38%/,& '2&80(17



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

, KHUHE\ FHUWLI\ WKDW RQ -XQH   , FDXVHG D WUXH DQG FRUUHFW FRS\ RI WKH IRUHJRLQJ WR

EH VHUYHG DV IROORZV

2QH HOHFWURQLF FRS\ DQG RQH FRS\ WKURXJK WKH )7&¶V HILOLQJ V\VWHP WR WKH Office of the 

Secretary

'RQDOG 6 &ODUN 6HFUHWDU\

)HGHUDO 7UDGH &RPPLVVLRQ

 3HQQV\OYDQLD $YH 1: 5RRP +

:DVKLQJWRQ '& 

(PDLO VHFUHWDU\#IWFJRY

2QH HOHFWURQLF FRS\ WR WKH Office of the Administrative Law Judge: 

7KH +RQRUDEOH ' 0LFKDHO &KDSSHOO

$GPLQLVWUDWLYH /DZ -XGJH

 3HQQV\OYDQLD $YH 1: 5RRP +

:DVKLQJWRQ '& 

2QH HOHFWURQLF FRS\ WR Counsel for the Respondent:

-RQDWKDQ : (PRUG

(PRUG 	 $VVRFLDWHV 3&

 :ROI 5XQ /DQH

&OLIWRQ 9$ 

(PDLO MHPRUG#HPRUGFRP

3HWHU $UKDQJHOVN\

(PRUG 	 $VVRFLDWHV 3&

 6 *LOEHUW 5RDG 6XLWH 

&KDQGOHU $= 

(PDLO SDUKDQJHOVN\#HPRUGFRP

(ULF - $ZHUEXFK

(PRUG 	 $VVRFLDWHV 3&

 6 *LOEHUW 5RDG 6XLWH 

&KDQGOHU $= 

(PDLO HDZHUEXFK#HPRUGFRP

%HWKDQ\ .HQQHG\

(PRUG 	 $VVRFLDWHV 3&

 6 *LOEHUW 5RDG 6XLWH 

&KDQGOHU $= 

(PDLO ENHQQHG\#HPRUGFRP

'DWH -XQH   V .DWKHULQH -RKQVRQ

.DWKHULQH -RKQVRQ NMRKQVRQ#IWFJRY

(OLVD -LOOVRQ HMLOOVRQ#IWFJRY

)HGHUDO 7UDGH &RPPLVVLRQ

 3HQQV\OYDQLD $YH 1: &&

:DVKLQJWRQ '& 

3KRQH 

)D[ 


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 

,Q DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK  86&   , GHFODUH XQGHU SHQDOW\ RI SHUMXU\ WKDW WKH

IROORZLQJ LV WUXH DQG FRUUHFW

 , DP RYHU  \HDUV RI DJH DQG , DP D FLWL]HQ RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV , DP D IXOO

3URIHVVRU RI 0DUNHWLQJ DW <DOH 8QLYHUVLW\¶V 6FKRRO RI 0DQDJHPHQW See &&; DW 

VXPPDUL]LQJ HGXFDWLRQ DQG H[SHULHQFH id. DW ([K $ FXUULFXOXP YLWDH

 , KDYH SHUVRQDO NQRZOHGJH RI WKH IDFWV VHW IRUWK LQ WKLV GHFODUDWLRQ ZKLFK DUH

UHOHYDQW WR WKUHH TXHVWLRQV SRVHG E\ WKH )HGHUDO 7UDGH &RPPLVVLRQ

I. SUMMARY OF ANSWERS

 Commission Questions 1 & 2. 7KH H[SHULPHQWDO HYLGHQFH RQ UHFRUG P\ *&6

VWXGLHV DQG D ZLWKLQVXEMHFW PDQLSXODWLRQ IURP WKH 6\QRYDWH VWXG\ VKRZV WKDW ODUJH IUDFWLRQV RI

$PHULFDQV    EHOLHYH WKDW SODVWLFV ZKLFK DUH FDOOHG ELRGHJUDGDEOH ZLOO ELRGHJUDGH

TXLFNO\ ZLWKLQ RQH RU ILYH \HDUV DQG WKDW IDU IHZHU    KROG VXFK EHOLHIV IRU SODVWLF

PUBLIC DOCUMENT


SURGXFWV WKDW ODFN VXFK FODLPV 7KH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH 3WHVW ́ DQG 3FRQWURO ́ TXHVWLRQV FDQ

EH LQWHUSUHWHG DV WKH IUDFWLRQ RI FRQVXPHUV ZKRVH EHOLHIV LQ UDSLG ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ DUH caused E\

WKH FODLP 7KH PDJQLWXGH RI WKLV ILJXUH UDQJHV IURP   GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH H[DFW

FRPSDULVRQ DQG ZKHWKHU RQH XVHV D RQH\HDU RU ILYH\HDU VWDQGDUG 7KH UHVXOWV IURP WKH RWKHU

VWXGLHV $3&2 6\QRYDWH DQG 'U 6WHZDUW¶V ZKLFK ZHUH ODUJHO\ REVHUYDWLRQDO IXUWKHU VXSSRUWV

WKLV FRQFOXVLRQ

 7R UHFDSLWXODWH DOO HYLGHQFH RQ UHFRUG ERWK IURP FRQWUROOHG H[SHULPHQWDWLRQ DQG

IURP FRPSDULVRQV EHWZHHQ VWXGLHV VXSSRUWV WKH IROORZLQJ FRQFOXVLRQ PRVW $PHULFDQV EHOLHYH

WKDW WKLQJV WKDW DUH DGYHUWLVHG DV RU ODEHOHG ELRGHJUDGDEOH ZLOO ELRGHJUDGH ZLWKLQ ILYH \HDUV DQG

D ODUJH PLQRULW\ URXJKO\ D WKLUG EHOLHYH WKDW ZLOO RFFXU ZLWKLQ RQH \HDU )DU IHZHU GR ZKHQ

VXFK FODLPV DUH QRW PDGH 7KXV DOO RI WKH HYLGHQFH RQ UHFRUG VWURQJO\ VXSSRUWV WKH FRQFOXVLRQ

WKDW DIIL[LQJ ELRGHJUDGDEOH ODEHOV WR LWHPV WKDW DUH QRW WUDGLWLRQDOO\ UHJDUGHG DV ELRGHJUDGDEOH

OLNH SODVWLF causes D VXEVWDQWLDO IUDFWLRQ RI FRQVXPHUV WR WKLQN WKH\ ZLOO EUHDN GRZQ TXLFNO\

 Commission Question 3. &RQYHUJHQW YDOLGLW\ UHIHUV WR ERWK WKH GLYHUVLW\ DQG

TXDQWLW\ RI HYLGHQFH IRU D FODLP RU FRQVWUXFW 1R VLQJOH VWDWLVWLFDO PHWULF RI FRQYHUJHQFH RU

GLYHUJHQFH HQFDSVXODWHV LW :KDW LV VLJQLILFDQW KHUH LV WKDW IRXU LQGHSHQGHQW ERGLHV RI UHVHDUFK

DOO \LHOG TXDOLWDWLYHO\ VLPLODU UHVXOWV LQ SDUWLFXODU WKH\ DOO VKRZ WKDW FRQVXPHUV XQGHUVWDQG WKDW

LWHPV GHVFULEHG DV ELRGHJUDGDEOH ZLOO EUHDN GRZQ LQ D VKRUW WLPH

PUBLIC DOCUMENT


II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES FOR ASSESSING CONSUMER ATTITUDES

 &RQVXPHU DWWLWXGHV DQG EHOLHIV FDQ EH LQYHVWLJDWHG ZLWK VHYHUDO GLIIHUHQW PHWKRGV

LQFOXGLQJ REVHUYDWLRQ H[SHULPHQWV DQG PHWDDQDO\VHV

D Observational research PHDVXUHV EXW GRHV QRW PDQLSXODWH YDULDEOHV /LNH RWKHU

IRUPV RI UHVHDUFK REVHUYDWLRQDO VWXGLHV FDQ LQIRUP VSHFXODWLRQ DQG UHYLVH

DVVXPSWLRQV 5RVHQEDXP  )RU H[DPSOH REVHUYDWLRQDO VWXGLHV RI FRQVXPHU

EHKDYLRU KDYH RYHUWXUQHG SULRU DVVXPSWLRQV WKDW WKH FRQYHUVLRQ UDWH RI D VWRUH

DSSURDFKHV  8QGHUKLOO  7KH VWXGLHV FRQGXFWHG E\ $3&2 DQG E\ 'U

6WHZDUW ZHUH REVHUYDWLRQDO VWXGLHV 7KH\ ZHUH LQWHQGHG WR PHDVXUH YDULRXV

DVSHFWV RI UHVSRQGHQWV¶ EHOLHIV DERXW ELRGHJUDGDELOLW\ EXW DOO UHVSRQGHQWV

UHFHLYHG WKH VDPH YHUVLRQ RI WKH VXUYH\ DQG QRWKLQJ ZDV LQWHQWLRQDOO\

PDQLSXODWHG 7KH 6\QRYDWH VWXG\ DOVR LQYROYHG MXVW RQH FRQGLWLRQ DQG WKXV

IXQFWLRQHG SULPDULO\ DV DQ REVHUYDWLRQDO VWXG\ +RZHYHU DQVZHUV WR SDLUV RI WKH

LWHPV ZLWKLQ WKH VXUYH\ FRXOG EH FRPSDUHG DQG WKXV LQ VRPH ZD\V WKLV SDLU RI

LWHPV IXQFWLRQHG OLNH DQ H[SHULPHQW 2EVHUYDWLRQDO UHVHDUFK LV QRW LGHDOO\ VXLWHG

IRU DVVHVVLQJ FDXVDWLRQ EXW RQH FDQ PDNH FDXVDO LQIHUHQFHV E\ H[DPLQLQJ

GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ GLIIHUHQW REVHUYDWLRQDO VWXGLHV WKDW PHDVXUHG VLPLODU WKLQJV

7KHVH LQIHUHQFHV FDQ EH ULJRURXVO\ WHVWHG ZLWK H[SHULPHQWDO UHVHDUFK

 

 $V GLVFXVVHG E\ *ULFH  PDQLSXODWLQJ YDULDEOHV 3ZLWKLQVXEMHFW ́ FRPSDULQJ WZR DQVZHUV

RI RQH UHVSRQGHQW PD\ \LHOG GLIIHUHQW UHVXOWV IURP PDQLSXODWLQJ YDULDEOHV 3EHWZHHQVXEMHFW ́

FRPSDULQJ WZR DQVZHUV IURP UHVSRQGHQWV ZKR UHFHLYHG GLIIHUHQW YHUVLRQV ,QGHHG LW LV RIWHQ

LQVWUXFWLYH WR KDYH ERWK W\SHV RI PDQLSXODWLRQV .DKQHPDQ 	 )UHGHULFN   6\QRYDWH

PDQLSXODWHV ZLWKLQ VXEMHFWV WKH YDULDEOHV WKDW WKH )UHGHULFN VWXGLHV PDQLSXODWH EHWZHHQ VXEMHFWV

%RWK W\SHV RI PDQLSXODWLRQV \LHOG ODUJH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ SODVWLFV WKDW GR >RU GR QRW@ EHDU

ELRGHJUDGDEOH FODLPV

PUBLIC DOCUMENT


E Experimental research PDQLSXODWHV DV ZHOO DV PHDVXUHV YDULDEOHV LW XVHV WZR RU

PRUH FRQGLWLRQV HJ D 3WHVW ́ TXHVWLRQ YV D 3FRQWURO ́ TXHVWLRQ WR GHWHUPLQH

ZKLFK IDFWRUV DIIHFW WKH FRQVWUXFW RI LQWHUHVW HJ 6KDGLVK &RRN 	 &DPSEHOO

 ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV H[SHULPHQWDO UHVHDUFK LV GHVLJQHG WR H[SORUH FDXVH DQG

HIIHFW 0\ UHVHDUFK XVLQJ *&6 ZDV H[SHULPHQWDO UHVHDUFK ZLWK 3WHVW ́ DQG

3FRQWURO ́ TXHVWLRQV , GHOLEHUDWHO\ PDQLSXODWHG YDULRXV DVSHFWV RI WKH TXHVWLRQV

SRVHG WR WKH VDPH SRSXODWLRQ RI UHVSRQGHQWV

F Meta-analysis GUDZV LQIHUHQFHV IURP DQDO\VHV RI PXOWLSOH VWXGLHV ZKLFK FRXOG

LQFOXGH ERWK REVHUYDWLRQDO DQG H[SHULPHQWDO VWXGLHV 5RVHQWKDO  &RRSHU

+HGJHV 	 9DOHQWLQH  +HGJHV 	 2ONLQ  /DX ,RDQQLGLV 	 6FKPLG

 ,Q VRPH FDVHV XQLQWHQWLRQDO PDQLSXODWLRQ RI D YDULDEOH EHWZHHQ WZR

LQGHSHQGHQW VWXGLHV SHUPLWV VLPLODU VRUWV RI LQIHUHQFHV DV H[SHULPHQWDO UHVHDUFK

ZKLFK GHOLEHUDWHO\ PDQLSXODWHV IDFWRUV EHWZHHQ FRQGLWLRQV RU EHWZHHQ LWHPV LQ

WKH VDPH VWXG\ $WWULEXWLRQV RI FDXVH DUH QRW DV VWUDLJKWIRUZDUG DV ZLWK

H[SHULPHQWDO UHVHDUFK VLQFH WZR LQGHSHQGHQW VWXGLHV W\SLFDOO\ GLIIHU LQ PXOWLSOH

ZD\V EXW PHWDDQDO\VHV UHDVRQDEO\ SHUPLW LQIHUHQFHV IURP DOO DYDLODEOH UHOHYDQW

GDWD

 

 $V , QRWHG LQ P\ LQLWLDO UHSRUW LQ WKLV FDVH , URXWLQHO\ XVH *&6 WR FRQGXFW H[SHULPHQWV IRU P\

DFDGHPLF UHVHDUFK LQFOXGLQJ WZR RI WKH VWXGLHV UHSRUWHG LQ )UHGHULFN /HH 	 %DVNLQ 

7KLV SDSHU ZDV SXEOLVKHG LQ WKH Journal of Marketing Research ZKLFK LV RQH RI WKH PRVW KLJKO\

UHJDUGHG LQ P\ ILHOG DQG ZDV VHOHFWHG DV RQH RI IRXU ILQDOLVWV IRU WKH 3DXO *UHHQ DZDUG ZKLFK

3UHFRJQL]HV WKH EHVW DUWLFOH LQ WKH Journal of Marketing Research WKDW GHPRQVWUDWHV WKH JUHDWHVW

SRWHQWLDO WR FRQWULEXWH WR WKH SUDFWLFH RI PDUNHWLQJ UHVHDUFK ́ 6HH

KWWSZZZWKHPDUNHWLQJIRXQGDWLRQRUJJUHHQKWPO

PUBLIC DOCUMENT


 $OO WKUHH W\SHV RI UHVHDUFK FDQ EH YDOXDEOH +RZHYHU WUXH H[SHULPHQWDO UHVHDUFK

HQDEOHV WKH VWURQJHVW WHVWV RI FDXVDWLRQ 6DOPRQ  6KDGLVK &RRN 	 &DPSEHOO 

7KHUHIRUH , ZLOO ILUVW DGGUHVV WKH H[SHULPHQWV , FRQGXFWHG XVLQJ *&6 EHIRUH WXUQLQJ WR WKH

DGGLWLRQDO LQIHUHQFHV WKDW FDQ EH GUDZQ IURP WKH 6\QRYDWH $3&2 DQG 6WHZDUW VWXGLHV

III. THE EFFECT OF A BIODEGRADABLE LABEL

A. Experimental Evidence in Frederick’s GCS Studies

 0\ *&6EDVHG VWXGLHV ZHUH SULPDULO\ H[SHULPHQWDO UHVHDUFK , PDQLSXODWHG

YDULDEOHV WR H[SORUH WKHLU HIIHFW RQ D FRQVWUXFW RI LQWHUHVW 7KH FRQVWUXFW RI LQWHUHVW LQ P\ VWXGLHV

ZDV W\SLFDOO\ UHVSRQGHQWV¶ EHOLHIV DERXW WKH UDWH RI ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ , LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH HIIHFW RI

YDULRXV IDFWRUV RQ WKHVH SHUFHSWLRQV %HORZ , OLVW WKH IDFWRUV WKDW D KDG OLWWOH HIIHFW RQ WKHVH

EHOLHIV E WKRVH WKDW KDG VRPH HIIHFW DQG F WKRVH WKDW KDG D VXEVWDQWLDO HIIHFW

a. Little Effect on Beliefs about Biodegradation Rates 

L 7KH ZRUG XVHG WR UHIHUHQFH WKH SURFHVV LQ TXHVWLRQ ,W GRHV QRW PDWWHU

VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZKHWKHU WKH SURFHVV LV FDOOHG ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ GHFRPSRVLWLRQ

RU GHJUDGDWLRQ FRPSDUH $ % 	 &

LL :KHWKHU WKH SURGXFW LV GHVFULEHG EHLQJ GHSRVLWHG LQ D ODQGILOO RU QRW

FRPSDUH ( 	 )

 

 , DWWDFK WR WKLV GHFODUDWLRQ DV $SSHQGL[ $ WKH DSSHQGL[ WR P\ LQLWLDO H[SHUW UHSRUW &&;

ZKLFK FRQWDLQV WKH UHVXOWV IURP WKH *&6 VWXG\ WKH $3&2 VWXG\ DQG WKH 6\QRYDWH VWXG\ ,

DWWDFK DV $SSHQGL[ % 'U 6WHZDUW¶V VXUYH\ GDWD ZKLFK LV $SSHQGL[ ' LQ KLV LQLWLDO UHSRUW &&;

 , DWWDFK DV $SSHQGL[ & D FKDUW GHYHORSHG IRU WKLV GHFODUDWLRQ ZKLFK KLJKOLJKWV WKH

GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH WHVW DQG FRQWURO FRQGLWLRQV

 4XHVWLRQ  LQ 6\QRYDWH DOVR ILQGV OLWWOH GLIIHUHQFH

PUBLIC DOCUMENT


LLL :KHWKHU WKH WHPSRUDO LQWHUYDO LV UHIHUHQFHG DV 3KRZ ORQJ ́ RU 3KRZ PXFK

WLPH ́ FRPSDUH % 	 '

LY :KHWKHU WKH TXHVWLRQ LV SKUDVHG DV DVNLQJ IRU DQ RSLQLRQ RU DQ REMHFWLYH

IDFW FRPSDUH ' 	 ( DQG * 	 *¶

Y :KHWKHU WKH REMHFW LQ TXHVWLRQ LV D SODVWLF 3SDFNDJH ́ RU D SODVWLF 3SURGXFW ́

FRPSDUH $ 	 %

YL ,I D ELRGHJUDGDEOH ODEHO LV SUHVHQW WKH SUHFLVH IRUP LW WDNHV FRPSDUH '

( ) 	 *

b. Some Effect on Beliefs about Biodegradation Rates 

L ,I DVNHG WKH DPRXQW RI WLPH D SDFNDJH ODEHOHG ELRGHJUDGDEOH should WDNH

WR ELRGHJUDGH FRQVXPHUV H[SHFW VRPHZKDW IDVWHU ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ UDWHV

WKDQ LI DVNHG KRZ ORQJ LW would WDNH 3UHVXPDEO\ WKH ZRUG should HYRNHV

PRUH RI D VHQVH RI ZKDW PLJKW EH DFKLHYDEOH XQGHU LGHDO FRQGLWLRQV

ZKHUHDV WKH ZRUG would HYRNHV PRUH RI D VHQVH RI ZKDW LW LV UHDVRQDEOH WR

H[SHFW JLYHQ WKDW WKH PDWHULDO PLJKW QRW EH SURSHUO\ GLVSRVHG WKDW WKH

FODLPV LQ TXHVWLRQ PD\ EH IDOODFLRXV DQG VR RQ FRPSDUH * 	 +

LL $PRQJ SURGXFWV RU SDFNDJHV EHDULQJ D ELRGHJUDGDEOH ODEHO FRQVXPHUV

H[SHFW VRPHZKDW ORQJHU ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ WLPHV IRU plastic SURGXFWV WKDQ

IRU SURGXFWV ZKRVH FRPSRVLWLRQ LV XQVSHFLILHG FRPSDUH $ 	 & ' 	

%

PUBLIC DOCUMENT


c. Substantial Effect on Beliefs of Biodegradation Rate 

L $OWKRXJK , PRVWO\ DYRLGHG VXFK TXHVWLRQV WR DYRLG ELDVLQJ WKH UHVSRQGHQW

LI D WHPSRUDO XQLW LV SURYLGHG VKRUWHU XQLWV HJ PRQWKV LQGXFH ORZHU

HVWLPDWHV WKDQ ORQJHU XQLWV HJ \HDUV &RPSDUH , ZLWK -

LL :KHWKHU WKH SDFNDJH RU SURGXFW LQ TXHVWLRQ EHDUV D ELRGHJUDGDEOH ODEHO RU

LV RWKHUZLVH FODLPHG WR EH ELRGHJUDGDEOH &RPSDULVRQV GLVFXVVHG QH[W

 %\ XVLQJ YDULRXV WHVW DQG FRQWURO TXHVWLRQV P\ H[SHULPHQWDO VWXGLHV RQ *&6

SULPDULO\ H[SORUHG WKH HIIHFW RI WKLV ODVW IDFWRU2D ELRGHJUDGDEOH ODEHO 0\ VWXGLHV UHYHDOHG WKDW

ELRGHJUDGDEOH FODLPV RQ D SODVWLF SURGXFW VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQFUHDVH WKH IUDFWLRQ RI FRQVXPHUV ZKR

LQIHU UDSLG EUHDNGRZQ RI WKH PDWHULDO VR ODEHOHG 7KHVH DUH QRW MXVW statistically VLJQLILFDQW

GLIIHUHQFHV WKH\ DUH substantively VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV 7KH SUHVHQFH RI D ELRGHJUDGDEOH ODEHO

RU FODLP RIWHQ GRXEOHV RU WULSOHV WKH IUDFWLRQ RI UHVSRQGHQWV ZKR EHOLHYH WKH PDWHULDO LQ TXHVWLRQ

ZLOO UDSLGO\ ELRGHJUDGH

 , WHVWHG WKH HIIHFWV RI VXFK FODLPV RQ WKUHH LWHPV  D WKLQ ZKLWH SODVWLF EDJ

GHSLFWHG ZKLFK ZDV GHVFULEHG DV EHLQJ PDGH RI SODVWLF  D SODVWLF 37XSSHUZDUH ́ FRQWDLQHU

GHSLFWHG DQG  D SODVWLF ZDWHU ERWWOH UHIHUHQFHG 6RPH RI WKH H[SHULPHQWDO PDWHULDOV XVHG

(&0¶V ORJR VSHFLILFDOO\ ZKHUHDV RWKHUV XVHG RWKHU ODEHOV FRQWDLQLQJ DQDORJRXV

3ELRGHJUDGDEOH ́ FODLPV

 

 4XHVWLRQV + DQG , ZHUH LGHQWLFDO WR - DQG . EXW GLG QRW FODULI\ LQ WKH TXHVWLRQ VWHP WKDW

WKH GHSLFWHG ORJR VD\V 3(&0 ELRGHJUDGDEOH ́ 7KH VPDOO IRQW FRQWDLQHG LQ WKH LPDJH RI WKH ODEHO

LV QRW OHJLEOH RQ PDQ\ FRPSXWHU VFUHHQV 7KXV , LQFOXGHG WKHVH FRQGLWLRQV WR KHOS HQVXUH WKDW

WKH YDULDEOH , LQWHQGHG WR PDQLSXODWH WKH SUHVHQFH RU DEVHQFH RI WKH ODEHO¶V FODLP ZDV LQ IDFW

EHLQJ PDQLSXODWHG

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

11. As shown in the tables below, biodegradable claims of any so1t had marked 

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

(1) "TUPPERW ARE" 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 oftime it would take for the container below to 

(no claim) biodegrade? 

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

Biodegradable oftime 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 concemed 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 permissive 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 occurred if products adve1iised 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 manufacturer should be prohibited from 

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

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

10 


B. Observational and Experimental Evidence in the Synovate Study. 

 7KH VWXG\ FRQGXFWHG E\ 6\QRYDWH ZDV SUHGRPLQDQWO\ DQ REVHUYDWLRQDO VWXG\

LQYHVWLJDWLQJ FRQVXPHU¶V EHOLHIV DQG DWWLWXGHV UHJDUGLQJ ELRGHJUDGDELOLW\ ELRGHJUDGDEOH SODVWLFV

DQG FRPSRVWLQJ $PRQJ RWKHU WKLQJV WKH 6\QRYDWH VWXG\ REVHUYHG

x  UHSRUWHG WKDW ELRGHJUDGDEOH SODVWLFV ZLOO KHOS UHGXFH EXUGHQ RQ ODQGILOOV 6\QRYDWH



x  UHSRUWHG WKDW D ELRGHJUDGDEOH SODVWLF SDFNDJH FRXOG UHDVRQDEO\ EH H[SHFWHG WR

GHFRPSRVH LQ D ODQGILOO ZLWKLQ ILYH \HDUV  WKRXJKW WKDW D UHDVRQDEOH DPRXQW RI WLPH

ZDV RQH \HDU 6\QRYDWH 

x  UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH\ ZRXOG SUHIHU SODVWLFV WKDW ELRGHJUDGH LQ D ODQGILOO 6\QRYDWH 

x 7KH VXSSRUWLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDW FRQVXPHUV PRVW ZDQWHG WR VHH RQ SDFNDJHV ODEHOHG

ELRGHJUDGDEOH ZDV KRZ ORQJ LW ZRXOG WDNH WR ELRGHJUDGH 6\QRYDWH 

x  UHSRUWHG WKDW DW OHDVW RFFDVLRQDOO\ WKH\ ORRN IRU HFRIULHQGO\ SDFNDJLQJ 6\QRYDWH



x %LRGHJUDGDELOLW\ ZDV PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ UDQNHG DV WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW DWWULEXWH IRU ORZHULQJ

D SURGXFW¶V EXUGHQ RQ WKH HQYLURQPHQW2PRUH LPSRUWDQW HYHQ WKDQ QRQWR[LFLW\

6\QRYDWH D

x  UHSRUWHG WKH\ ZRXOG EH ZLOOLQJ WR SD\ DW OHDVW  PRUH IRU SURGXFWV WKDW DUH OHVV

EXUGHQVRPH RQ WKH HQYLURQPHQW 6\QRYDWH 

 7KH 6\QRYDWH VWXG\ LV QRW DQ H[SHULPHQW LQ WKH WUDGLWLRQDO VHQVH RI KDYLQJ WZR RU

PRUH FRQGLWLRQV LH RQO\ RQH YHUVLRQ RI WKH VXUYH\ ZDV DGPLQLVWHUHG +RZHYHU WZR RI WKH

VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQV  DQG  IXQFWLRQ DV FRQWUROV IRU HDFK RWKHU DQG WKXV GR SHUPLW D

FRPSDULVRQ 1DPHO\ ZKHQ DVNHG 3+RZ PDQ\ \HDUV GR \RX WKLQN LW WDNHV IRU WUDGLWLRQDO SODVWLF

 

 7KH LWHPV DUH QRW perfect FRQWUROV IRU HDFK RWKHU )LUVW WKH FRQWH[W SURYLGHG E\ RWKHU TXHVWLRQV

LV QRW KHOG FRQVWDQW TXHVWLRQV  FRXOG SRVVLEO\ DIIHFW UHVSRQVHV WR  EXW REYLRXVO\ QRW WR

 6HFRQG WKH TXHVWLRQ VWHP GLIIHUV  DVNV 3+RZ PDQ\ \HDUV GR \RX WKLQN LW WDNHV ́

ZKHUHDV  DVNV 3:KDW GR \RX EHOLHYH LV D UHDVRQDEOH DERXW RI WLPH ́ 7KLUG WKH WZR TXHVWLRQV

UHIHUHQFH VOLJKWO\ GLIIHUHQW WKLQJV SURGXFWV YV SDFNDJH )RXUWK WKH UHVSRQVH RSWLRQV DUH QRW

FRQVWDQW 7KH VKRUWHVW UHVSRQVH RSWLRQ LQ  LV 3OHVV WKDQ  \HDUV ́ ZKHUHDV LQ  WKH UHVSRQVH

RSWLRQV LQFOXGH 3OHVV WKDQ ILYH \HDUV ́ DQG 3OHVV WKDQ RQH \HDU ́ +RZHYHU ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKLV

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 

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% 

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

decompose in a landfill? 

54% 

Difference between conditions 

16. These two smvey items effectively function 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 ovetw helmingly 

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 petmit 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 

16% 

87% 

71% 


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

 7KH VWXG\ FRPPLVVLRQHG E\ $3&2 ZDV DQ REVHUYDWLRQDO VWXG\ ZKLFK

LQYHVWLJDWHG UHVSRQGHQWV¶ EHOLHIV DQG DWWLWXGHV UHJDUGLQJ ELRGHJUDGDELOLW\ FRPSRVWLQJ UHF\FOLQJ

DQG VR RQ $3&2 PDGH WKH IROORZLQJ REVHUYDWLRQV DERXW FRQVXPHU DWWLWXGHV DQG EHOLHIV

UHJDUGLQJ ELRGHJUDGDELOLW\

x  WKRXJKW WKDW VRPHWKLQJ ODEHOHG ELRGHJUDGDEOH ZLOO GHFRPSRVH LQ D ODQGILOO 

WKRXJKW WKDW VRPHWKLQJ ODEHOHG ELRGHJUDGDEOH ZLOO GHFRPSRVH LQ RQH¶V EDFN\DUG $3&2



x  UHSRUWHG WKDW D SDFNDJH ODEHOHG ELRGHJUDGDEOH VKRXOG GHFRPSRVH ZLWKLQ IRXU \HDUV

 WKRXJKW LW VKRXOG GHFRPSRVH ZLWKLQ RQH \HDU $3&2 

x  UHSRUWHG WKDW ELRGHJUDGDEOH SDFNDJHV ZLOO UHGXFH ODQGILOO EXUGHQV  UHSRUWHG

WKDW ELRGHJUDGDEOH SDFNDJHV ZLOO UHGXFH SROOXWLRQ LQ RFHDQV ULYHUV DQG EHDFKHV $3&2



 7KH $3&2 VWXG\ LV QRW H[SHULPHQWDO EXW LWV UHVXOWV DUH DPHQDEOH WR PHWDDQDO\WLF

WHFKQLTXHV 2QH RI P\ VXUYH\V2*&6 /2SURYLGHV D XVHIXO FRPSDULVRQ DV LW LV ZRUGHG

VLPLODUO\ WR WKH $3&2 TXHVWLRQ PLQXV WKH ELRGHJUDGDEOH FODLP 7KH FRPSDULVRQ DQG UHVXOWV DUH

EHORZ 7KRXJK WKLV LV QRW D WUXH H[SHULPHQW LW SURYLGHV DGGLWLRQDO HYLGHQFH WKDW D

3ELRGHJUDGDEOH ́ ODEHO LV causing UHVSRQGHQWV WR H[SHFW IDVWHU ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ

 

 

 7KLV TXHVWLRQ DSSHDUV GHVLJQHG WR HOLFLW VKRUWHU UHVSRQVH WLPHV WKDQ DQ DQDORJRXV TXHVWLRQ LQ

WKH 6\QRYDWH VWXG\ EHFDXVH PRUH RI WKH UHVSRQVH RSWLRQV DUH DOORFDWHG WR VKRUWHU WLPH SHULRGV

+RZHYHU RQH FRXOG VLPSO\ FRPSDUH WKH WZR PRVW H[WUHPH UHVSRQVH RSWLRQV WR HDFK RWKHU DQG

QRWH WKDW PRUH UHVSRQGHQWV VHOHFWHG 3 PRQWK RU OHVV ́  WKDQ ILYH \HDUV RU PRUH  2QH

RI P\ *&6 VWXGLHV XVHG D QHDUO\ LGHQWLFDO UHVSRQVH IRUPDW VHH . DQG , IRXQG VLPLODU UHVXOWV

DJDLQ PRUH UHVSRQGHQWV VHOHFWHG  PRQWK RU OHVV  WKDQ VHOHFWHG ILYH \HDUV RI PRUH 

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 amotmt 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 yem·s 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 


E. Conclusions. 

 $OO RI WKH observational HYLGHQFH RQ UHFRUG2$3&2 6\QRYDWH 'U 6WHZDUW¶V

VWXG\2VKRZV WKDW FRQVXPHUV GHVLUH PRUH ELRGHJUDGDEOH SODVWLFV EHFDXVH WKH\ EHOLHYH WKH\ DUH

EHWWHU IRU WKH HQYLURQPHQW $OO RI WKH observational HYLGHQFH RQ UHFRUG VKRZV WKDW FRQVXPHUV

EHOLHYH WKH\ XQGHUVWDQG ZKDW ELRGHJUDGDEOH PHDQV  LQ 'U 6WHZDUW¶V VWXG\  LQ WKH

6\QRYDWH VWXG\ $OO RI WKH observational HYLGHQFH RQ UHFRUG VKRZV WKDW FRQVXPHUV UHMHFW WKH

DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKDW WHUP WR SURGXFWV WKDW GR QRW ELRGHJUDGH RU ZKLFK WDNH D YHU\ ORQJ WLPH WR GR

VR

 $OO RI WKH observational HYLGHQFH RQ UHFRUG FRPSHOV WKH LQIHUHQFH WKDW DIIL[LQJ

ELRGHJUDGDEOH ODEHOV WR WKLQJV2OLNH SODVWLF2WKDW DUH QRW WUDGLWLRQDOO\ UHJDUGHG WR EH

ELRGHJUDGDEOH FKDQJHV FRQVXPHUV EHOLHIV DERXW WKHP

 

 , FRGHG WKH YHUEDWLP UHVSRQVHV IURP 'U 6WHZDUW¶V VXUYH\ WR REWDLQ WKHVH QXPEHUV )RU D

GHWDLOHG H[SODQDWLRQ RI P\ FRGLQJ PHWKRGRORJ\ LH FRGLQJ DQ\ DQVZHU ZLWK D QXPEHU DQG XQLW

RI WLPH VHH P\ LQLWLDO UHSRUW &&; DW  , XQGHUVWDQG WKDW &RPSODLQW &RXQVHO DOVR

FRGHG WKHVH GDWD DQG IRXQG VLPLODU WKRXJK QRW LGHQWLFDO UHVXOWV  UHVSRQVHV ZHUH FRGHG ZLWK

  RQH \HDU DQG   ILYH \HDUV DQG WKDW 'U 6WHZDUW DFFHSWHG WKH  QXPEHU DW WULDO 7U

  5HJDUGOHVV RI WKH H[DFW QXPEHUV WKH SRLQW UHPDLQV WKH VDPH2'U 6WHZDUW¶V

UHVXOWV FRQFXU ZLWK WKH RWKHU VWXGLHV LQ WKH VHQVH WKDW D ODUJH IUDFWLRQ RI SHRSOH H[SHFW WKLQJV WKDW

DUH UHIHUHQFHG DV ELRGHJUDGDEOH WR GR VR ZLWKLQ ILYH RU HYHQ RQH \HDU

 'U 6WHZDUW¶V 4 LV YDJXH2LW GRHV QRW VSHFLI\ WKH QDWXUH RU FRPSRVLWLRQ RI WKH 3VRPHWKLQJ ́

LQ TXHVWLRQ QRU ZKHWKHU WKDW VRPHWKLQJ EHDUV D ELRGHJUDGDEOH ODEHO >RU QRW@2VR LW LV

XQVXUSULVLQJ WKDW PDQ\ UHVSRQGHQWV JDYH QRQQXPHULF UHVSRQVHV OLNH 3LW GHSHQGV ́ +RZHYHU

VHYHUDO GLG H[SODLQ WKHLU XQZLOOLQJQHVV WR UHQGHU D QXPHULF HVWLPDWH IRU WKLV TXHVWLRQ E\ QRWLQJ

WKDW GLIIHUHQW WKLQJV WDNH GLIIHUHQW OHQJWKV RI WLPH DQG LQ GRLQJ VR PDQ\ UHVSRQGHQWV VSHFLILFDOO\

PHQWLRQHG WKDW WUDGLWLRQDO SODVWLF GRHV QRW ELRGHJUDGH RU ELRGHJUDGHV PRUH VORZO\ WKDQ RWKHU

WKLQJV )RU H[DPSOH

3⁄4 5HVSRQGHQW   3Depends 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


 $OO RI WKH experimental HYLGHQFH RQ UHFRUG P\ *&6 VWXGLHV DQG D ZLWKLQVXEMHFW

PDQLSXODWLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH 6\QRYDWH VWXG\ FRQILUPV WKH LQIHUHQFH WKDW WKH REVHUYDWLRQDO UHVHDUFK

FRPSHOV2ZKHQ DIIL[HG WR SODVWLF SURGXFWV ELRGHJUDGDEOH ODEHOV cause FRQVXPHUV WR DVVXPH

PRUH UDSLG ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKH HYLGHQFH GHPRQVWUDWHV WKDW WKH ELRGHJUDGDEOH

FODLPV cause D VXEVWDQWLDO IUDFWLRQ RI FRQVXPHUV WR DVVXPH UDSLG ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ RI WKDW SURGXFW

OHVV WKDQ ILYH \HDUV RU HYHQ RQH \HDU

IV. CONVERGENT VALIDITY

 &RQYHUJHQW YDOLGLW\ SHUWDLQV WR WKH SUHVHQFH RU DEVHQFH RI FRQVLVWHQW VXSSRUW IRU

D FRQVWUXFW RU FODLP IURP D VHW RI VWXGLHV RU PHDVXUHV WKDW EHDU RQ LW &DPSEHOO 	 )LVNH 

-DFRE\  7KLV FRQFHSW H[WHQGV EH\RQG WHFKQLFDO SURFHGXUHV WKDW H[LVW WR FRPSDUH

GLVWULEXWLRQV RU SRRO UHVXOWV IURP PXOWLSOH VWXGLHV VHH HJ 0DVVH\  +LJJLQV 	

7KRPSVRQ  DV LW SHUWDLQV ERWK WR WKH TXDQWLW\ DQG GLYHUVLW\ RI HYLGHQFH WKDW H[LVWV LQ

VXSSRUW RI D FODLP

 

 7KHUH LV FRQVLGHUDEOH FRQYHUJHQFH KHUH LQ WKLV QDUURZHU VHQVH DV ZHOO $OO RI WKH UHVHDUFK

GLVFXVVHG KHUH HLWKHU GLUHFWO\ HOLFLWHG $3&2 6\QRYDWH )UHGHULFN RU SHUPLWWHG 6WHZDUW

TXDQWLWDWLYH UHVSRQVHV UHJDUGLQJ WLPHV UHTXLUHG IRU ELRGHJUDGDWLRQ 7KXV WKHVH TXDQWLWDWLYH GDWD

FDQ EH SORWWHG DV GLVWULEXWLRQV WKDW FDQ EH FRPSDUHG DQG FRQWUDVWHG 7KHVH GLVWULEXWLRQV RYHUODS

FRQVLGHUDEO\ LQ SDUWLFXODU LQ DOO FDVHV PRVW RI WKHLU PDVV H[LVWV EHORZ ILYH \HDUV 7KH

GLVWULEXWLRQV DUH QRW LGHQWLFDO RI FRXUVH GXH WR ERWK VDPSOLQJ YDULDELOLW\ DQG RWKHU DVSHFWV RI

VXUYH\ GHVLJQ WKDW LQGXFH V\VWHPDWLF GLIIHUHQFHV VXFK DV ZKHWKHU WKH UHVSRQVH ZDV RSHQHQGHG

DQG WKXV FRQWLQXRXV DW OHDVW LQ SULQFLSOH RU PXOWLFKRWRPRXV DQG WKHUHE\ QHFHVVDULO\

GLVFUHWH

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 


REFERENCES

&DPSEHOO ' 7 	 )LVNH ' :  &RQYHUJHQW DQG GLVFULPLQDQW YDOLGDWLRQ E\ WKH

PXOWLWUDLWPXOWLPHWKRG PDWUL[ Psychological bulletin 56 

&RRSHU + +HGJHV / 9 	 9DOHQWLQH - & (GV  The handbook of research synthesis 

and meta-analysis 5XVVHOO 6DJH )RXQGDWLRQ

&URQEDFK / - 	 0HHKO 3 (  &RQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ LQ SV\FKRORJLFDO WHVWV Psychological 

bulletin 52 

)UHGHULFN 6 /HH / 	 %DVNLQ (  7KH OLPLWV RI DWWUDFWLRQ Journal of Marketing 

Research 51 

*ULFH * 5  'HSHQGHQFH RI HPSLULFDO ODZV XSRQ WKH VRXUFH RI H[SHULPHQWDO YDULDWLRQ

Psychological Bulletin 66 

+HGJHV / 9 	 2ONLQ ,  Statistical method for meta-analysis $FDGHPLF SUHVV

+LJJLQV - 3 	 7KRPSVRQ 6 *  4XDQWLI\LQJ KHWHURJHQHLW\ LQ D PHWDDQDO\VLV

Statistics in medicine 21 

-DFRE\ -  &RQVXPHU UHVHDUFK $ VWDWH RI WKH DUW UHYLHZ The Journal of Marketing 



.DKQHPDQ ' 	 )UHGHULFN 6  5HSUHVHQWDWLYHQHVV UHYLVLWHG $WWULEXWH VXEVWLWXWLRQ LQ

LQWXLWLYH MXGJPHQW Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment 49

.DKQHPDQ ' 	 )UHGHULFN 6  $ PRGHO RI KHXULVWLF MXGJPHQW The Cambridge 

handbook of thinking and reasoning 

/DX - ,RDQQLGLV - 3 	 6FKPLG & +  6XPPLQJ XS HYLGHQFH RQH DQVZHU LV QRW

DOZD\V HQRXJK The lancet 351 

0DVVH\ ) -  7KH .ROPRJRURY6PLUQRY WHVW IRU JRRGQHVV RI ILW Journal of the American 

statistical Association 46 

5RVHQEDXP 3 5  Observational studies 6SULQJHU 1HZ <RUN

5RVHQWKDO 5  Meta-analytic procedures for social research 9RO  6DJH

6DOPRQ : &  Causality and explanation SS  2[IRUG 2[IRUG 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV

6KDGLVK :LOOLDP 5 &RRN 7 ' 	 &DPSEHOO ' 7  Experimental and quasi-experimental 

designs for generalized causal inference :DGVZRUWK &HQJDJH OHDUQLQJ

PUBLIC DOCUMENT


8QGHUKLOO 3  Why we buy: The science of shopping--updated and revised for the Internet, 

the global consumer, and beyond 6LPRQ DQG 6FKXVWHU

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, l H, 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 19 Q.5c - What does claim "Plastic products made with ECM additives: Fully biodegrade" mean to you? 28 

 to you? Table 18 Q.5b - What does the claim "Plastic products manufactured with our additives will biodegrade" mean 26 Table 17 Q.5a - What does transform any plastic into biodegradable plastic mean to you? 24  or decay? Table 16 Q.4b - What differences exist in the time for different types of products to biodegrade, decompose 22  products to biodegrade, decompose or decay? Table 15 Q.4a - Do you think there are differences in the amount of time it takes for different types of 21  decay? Table 14 Q.4 - If something is biodegradable, how long do you think it would take for it to decompose or 19 Table 13 Q.3c - How is being biodegradable helpful to the environment? 17 Table 12 Q.3a - Why is it helpful (product is biodegradable helpful to environment)? 15 Table 11 Q.3 - Is the fact that a product is biodegradable helpful to the environment or not? 14 Table 10 Q.2b - Why is it not important (product/package is biodegradable important to you)? 12 Table 9 Q.2a - Why is it important (product/package is biodegradable important to you)? 10 Table 8 Q.2 - Is the fact that a product or package is biodegradable important to you? 9 Table 7 Q.1 - When you hear the term "biodegradable" what does that mean to you? 7 Table 6 Q.S6 - Do you have a general understanding of what the term biodegradable means? 6  or that was made of plastic? Table 5 Q.S5 - In the past month have you personally purchased any product that came in a plastic container 5 Table 4 Q.S4 - Do you or does anyone in your household work for any of the following? 4 Table 3 Q.S3 - Which of the following categories best describes your age? 3 Table 2 Q.S2 - Gender 2 Table 1 Q.S1 - Would you be willing to answer a few questions? 1  Page Table of contents 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

No - - - - - - -  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Yes 400 199 201 76 92 117 115  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.S1 - Would you be willing to answer a few questions? Table 1-1 

 Page 1 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 50% 100% 53% 49% 49% 51% Female 201 - 201 40 45 57 59  50% 100% 47% 51% 51% 49% Male 199 199 - 36 47 60 56  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.S2 - Gender Table 2-1 

 Page 2 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

Std. Err. 0.8 1.2 1.2 - - - - Std. Dev. 16.8 16.5 17.0 - - - - Median 54.3 54.4 54.3 26.5 42.5 58.0 73.0 Mean 52.8 52.9 52.7 26.5 42.5 58.0 73.0  29% 28% 29% 100% 66+ 115 56 59 - - - 115  29% 30% 28% 100% 50 – 65 117 60 57 - - 117 -  23% 24% 22% 100% 35 – 49 92 47 45 - 92 - -  19% 18% 20% 100% 18 – 34 76 36 40 76 - - - Under 18 - - - - - - -  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.S3 - Which of the following categories best describes your age? Table 3-1 

 Page 3 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

disabled 44% 42% 45% 9% 17% 45% 85% Retired/unemployed/ 174 83 91 7 16 53 98  50% 51% 48% 79% 76% 44% 14% Some other organization 198 101 97 60 70 52 16 organization A waste disposal - - - - - - - products A manufacturer of plastic - - - - - - - distributes food products processes, sells or 6% 7% 4% 7% 5% 9% 1% An organization that 22 13 9 5 5 11 1 automobiles makes or sells 2% 1% 3% 8% 1% 1% An organization that 8 2 6 6 1 1 -  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.S4 - Do you or does anyone in your household work for any of the following? Table 4-1 

 Page 4 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
Q.S5 - In the past month have you personally purchased any product that came in a plastic container or that was made of plastic

Table 5-1 

? 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 No - - - - - - -  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Yes 400 199 201 76 92 117 115  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender 

 Page 5 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

No - - - - - - -  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Yes 400 199 201 76 92 117 115  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.S6 - Do you have a general understanding of what the term biodegradable means? Table 6-1 

 Page 6 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 environment (NS) 9% 7% 10% 5% 7% 11% 10%  Not harmful to 35 14 21 4 6 13 12  earth/will not pollute  environment/soil/water/  not harm the 17% 17% 17% 25% 22% 13% 11%  Safely breaks down/will 67 33 34 19 20 15 13 ------------ 26% 24% 27% 30% 28% 24% 22% Safety (Net) 102 47 55 23 26 28 25  decompose comments 4% 3% 5% 3% 3% 6% 4%  Other breakdown/ 17 6 11 2 3 7 5  time  a reasonable amount of 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2%  Breaks down/degrades in 5 2 3 1 2 2 -  faster 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 2%  Degrades/breaks down 9 3 6 3 4 2 -  to a natural state 3% 3% 3% 1% 4% 4% 1%  Goes back/breaks down 11 5 6 1 4 5 1  soil/in a landfill 10% 10% 9% 4% 8% 15% 10%  Breaks down with/by 38 19 19 3 7 17 11  11% 15% 7% 14% 20% 6% 6%  Breaks down naturally 43 29 14 11 18 7 7  form/degrades  remain in its original 17% 15% 18% 18% 14% 15% 18%  Breaks down/doesn't 66 30 36 14 13 18 21  environment  back into the 21% 22% 20% 24% 23% 22% 16%  Goes back to the earth/ 83 43 40 18 21 26 18  over time  breaks down/decomposes 22% 22% 22% 21% 17% 22% 27%  Disintegrates/rots/ 89 44 45 16 16 26 31 ------------------- (Net) 82% 83% 80% 80% 86% 84% 77% Breakdown/Decompose 326 166 160 61 79 98 88  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.1 - When you hear the term "biodegradable" what does that mean to you? Table 7-1 

 Page 7 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 comments 6% 6% 5% 3% 2% 5% 10%  Other miscellaneous 22 11 11 2 2 6 12  3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 5% 3%  Can be reused/reusable 12 6 6 2 1 6 3  7% 4% 9% 11% 7% 4% 6%  It can be recycled 26 8 18 8 6 5 7 ------------------- 14% 11% 16% 14% 9% 13% 17% Miscellaneous (Net) 54 21 33 11 8 15 20  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.1 - When you hear the term "biodegradable" what does that mean to you? Table 7-1 

 Page 8 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 25% 29% 20% 36% 25% 23% 19% No 99 58 41 27 23 27 22  75% 71% 80% 64% 75% 77% 81% Yes 301 141 160 49 69 90 93  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.2 - Is the fact that a product or package is biodegradable important to you? Table 8-1 

 Page 9 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 the environment  harm/safer/better for  friendly/won't hurt/ 25% 23% 28% 39% 30% 21% 18%  Environmentally 76 32 44 19 21 19 17 ------------ 49% 48% 49% 69% 58% 41% 39% Safety (Net) 147 68 79 34 40 37 36  2% 1% 2% 3% 2%  Other disposal comments 5 2 3 - - 3 2  itself/is not permanent 6% 7% 4% 6% 1% 8% 6%  Degrades/takes care of 17 10 7 3 1 7 6  environment  harmful to the  degrade/lasts forever/  much plastic/does not 7% 9% 6% 8% 6% 9% 5%  Dislike plastic/too 21 12 9 4 4 8 5  forever  garbage to be around 8% 7% 9% 6% 7% 9% 10%  Don't want trash/ 25 10 15 3 5 8 9  for the trash to go  to accumulate/no place  trash filled/don't want 12% 9% 15% 10% 6% 11% 18%  Planet/world would be 36 12 24 5 4 10 17  trash/waste  reduces the amount of 13% 11% 15% 4% 13% 17% 15%  Too much garbage/ 40 16 24 2 9 15 14  landfills  filling up/needing more 18% 18% 17% 8% 22% 13% 24%  Keeps landfills from 53 26 27 4 15 12 22 -------------- 54% 54% 54% 35% 45% 60% 66% Disposal (Net) 163 76 87 17 31 54 61 important biodegradable is product/package being 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Those who feel 301 141 160 49 69 90 93  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.2a - Why is it important (product/package is biodegradable important to you)? Table 9-1 

 Page 10 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 comments 6% 7% 6% 2% 4% 6% 11%  Other miscellaneous 19 10 9 1 3 5 10  reused  recycled/composted/ 19% 16% 21% 16% 20% 20% 17%  Its important to/can be 56 23 33 8 14 18 16 ------------------- 25% 23% 26% 18% 25% 26% 27% Miscellaneous (Net) 74 33 41 9 17 23 25  3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 1% 5%  Other safety comments 10 4 6 2 2 1 5  to animals  animals safe/do no harm 3% 4% 2% 2% 1% 2% 4%  Want to keep the 8 5 3 1 1 2 4  harm/it's safer (NS) 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3%  Not harmful/won't do 9 4 5 - 3 3 3  4% 5% 3% 6% 1% 4% 4%  Reduces/less pollution 12 7 5 3 1 4 4  oceans/rivers  pollute the water/  clean/don't want to 5% 6% 5% 4% 9% 3% 5%  Water/oceans should be 16 8 8 2 6 3 5  the planet/earth  future/preservation of  for future generations/ 11% 14% 9% 20% 16% 10% 4%  Keeps environment safe 34 20 14 10 11 9 4  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.2a - Why is it important (product/package is biodegradable important to you)? Table 9-1 

 Page 11 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 4% 10% 4% 4% 4% 5% I don’t recycle 4 - 4 1 1 1 1 biodegradable to make the product responsibility/they need 4% 7% 7% 7% Manufacturers 4 4 - 2 - 2 - to biodegrade landfill/burned/no need place/disposed of in a 5% 7% 2% 4% 15% Waste goes to the same 5 4 1 1 - 4 - for me movement/not the cause environment/green 6% 5% 7% 7% 4% 7% 5% I am not into the 6 3 3 2 1 2 1 biodegradable if product is the time to look/notice 9% 5% 15% 15% 9% 11% Don’t pay attention/take 9 3 6 4 2 3 - price conscious prices/I shop by price/ 10% 10% 10% 26% 4% 7% Costs more/increases 10 6 4 7 1 2 - don’t think about it 12% 14% 10% 4% 13% 15% 18% Never thought about it/ 12 8 4 1 3 4 4 important to me difference to me/not 13% 16% 10% 7% 17% 15% 14% Doesn’t matter/makes no 13 9 4 2 4 4 3 items I need concerned only for the 16% 16% 17% 7% 35% 11% 14% I buy what I want/ 16 9 7 2 8 3 3 be reused waste properly/waste can 20% 21% 20% 7% 22% 19% 36% I/we recycle/dispose of 20 12 8 2 5 5 8 important biodegradable is not product/package being 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Those who feel 99 58 41 27 23 27 22  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.2b - Why is it not important (product/package is biodegradable important to you)? Table 10-1 

 Page 12 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 1% 2% 4% Don't know/no answer 1 - 1 1 - - -  12% 16% 7% 11% 9% 7% 23% Other comments 12 9 3 3 2 2 5 on die but the earth lives won’t be around/I will 3% 2% 5% 7% 4% Pointless to worry/I 3 1 2 2 1 - - don’t create much waste 3% 5% 7% 5% I don’t buy that much/ 3 3 - 2 - - 1  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.2b - Why is it not important (product/package is biodegradable important to you)? Table 10-1 

 Page 13 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 6% 7% 4% 4% 5% 4% 8% No, not helpful 22 13 9 3 5 5 9  95% 93% 96% 96% 95% 96% 92% Yes, helpful 378 186 192 73 87 112 106  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.3 - Is the fact that a product is biodegradable helpful to the environment or not? Table 11-1 

 Page 14 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 7% 8% 6% 10% 3% 9% 7%  Reduces/less pollution 27 15 12 7 3 10 7  nature  harm the environment/  friendly/won't hurt/ 17% 15% 19% 12% 22% 21% 12%  Environmentally 65 28 37 9 19 24 13 ------------ 37% 37% 36% 29% 37% 43% 36% Safety (Net) 139 69 70 21 32 48 38  1% 1% 2% 2% 3%  Other disposal comments 5 2 3 - 2 3 -  forever  garbage to be around 7% 6% 7% 8% 7% 4% 8%  Don't want trash/ 25 12 13 6 6 5 8  faster 8% 10% 5% 5% 9% 9% 7%  Dissolves/decomposes 29 19 10 4 8 10 7  degrades/decomposes 8% 9% 7% 10% 11% 7% 5%  It breaks down/ 30 17 13 7 10 8 5  waste  to accumulate trash/  trash filled/don't want 8% 9% 8% 7% 5% 8% 13%  Planet/world would be 32 17 15 5 4 9 14  trash/less waste 13% 8% 18% 22% 14% 9% 10%  Reduces the amount of 49 14 35 16 12 10 11  to earth/dust to dust 13% 15% 12% 10% 16% 10% 18%  Natural recycling/earth 51 28 23 7 14 11 19  landfills  filling up/needing more 16% 15% 18% 21% 17% 19% 10%  Keeps landfills from 62 27 35 15 15 21 11 -------------- 65% 64% 67% 73% 64% 62% 65% Disposal (Net) 247 119 128 53 56 69 69 to the environment biodegradable is helpful a product is 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Those who feel that 378 186 192 73 87 112 106  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.3a - Why is it helpful (product is biodegradable helpful to environment)? Table 12-1 

 Page 15 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 3% 4% Don't know/no answer 9 4 5 1 1 3 4  comments 5% 8% 3% 7% 6% 4% 4%  Other miscellaneous 19 14 5 5 5 5 4  something else 10% 9% 11% 15% 10% 7% 10%  Can be reused/made it 39 17 22 11 9 8 11 ------------------- 15% 17% 13% 19% 16% 12% 14% Miscellaneous (Net) 56 31 25 14 14 13 15  2% 1% 3% 3% 2% 3%  Other safety comments 7 1 6 2 - 2 3  future of the planet  for future generations/ 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 4% 2%  Keeps environment safe 9 5 4 1 2 4 2  not harm animals  decomposes safely/will 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3%  Less impact on animals/ 13 8 5 2 3 5 3  for cleaner water  ocean/waters/important 5% 6% 3% 4% 1% 7% 6%  Less harmful to the 18 12 6 3 1 8 6  harm/contaminate (NS) 6% 8% 4% 4% 6% 7% 7%  Not harmful/won't do 23 15 8 3 5 8 7  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.3a - Why is it helpful (product is biodegradable helpful to environment)? Table 12-1 

 Page 16 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 (NS)  harm the environment  friendly/won't hurt/ 12% 13% 10% 14% 9% 13% 10%  Environmentally 44 24 20 10 8 15 11  13% 13% 13% 18% 15% 11% 10%  Reduces/less pollution 49 25 24 13 13 12 11 ------------ 37% 38% 36% 42% 36% 37% 36% Safety (Net) 141 71 70 31 31 41 38  2% 1% 3% 1% 1% 4% 1%  Other disposal comments 7 2 5 1 1 4 1  faster 6% 5% 6% 8% 9% 3% 4%  Dissolves/decomposes 21 10 11 6 8 3 4  waste  to accumulate trash/  trash filled/don't want 6% 8% 5% 7% 6% 5% 8%  Planet/world would be 24 14 10 5 5 6 8  forever  garbage to be around 6% 6% 7% 5% 7% 7% 6%  Don't want trash/ 24 11 13 4 6 8 6  to earth/dust to dust 11% 12% 10% 11% 6% 9% 18%  Natural recycling/earth 42 22 20 8 5 10 19  degrades/decomposes 13% 11% 14% 7% 14% 15% 13%  It breaks down/ 48 21 27 5 12 17 14  trash/less waste 13% 10% 15% 19% 18% 9% 8%  Reduces the amount of 48 19 29 14 16 10 8  landfills  filling up/needing more 15% 16% 15% 16% 18% 12% 16%  Keeps landfills from 58 30 28 12 16 13 17 -------------- 60% 58% 63% 62% 67% 56% 58% Disposal (Net) 228 107 121 45 58 63 62 to the environment biodegradable is helpful a product is 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Those who feel that 378 186 192 73 87 112 106  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.3c - How is being biodegradable helpful to the environment? Table 13-1 

 Page 17 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 4% 5% 4% 4% 3% 4% 7% Don't know/no answer 17 9 8 3 3 4 7  comments 5% 5% 5% 3% 6% 5% 6%  Other miscellaneous 19 10 9 2 5 6 6  not used up  natural resources are 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 2% 5%  Use fewer resources/ 9 4 5 1 1 2 5  environment  back/renews the soil/ 3% 3% 3% 5% 3% 3% 1%  Feeds the soil/gives 11 6 5 4 3 3 1  recycle 4% 4% 4% 8% 2% 3% 5%  Recycled/able to 16 8 8 6 2 3 5  something else 9% 8% 9% 10% 5% 11% 9%  Can be reused/made into 33 15 18 7 4 12 10 ------------------- 21% 21% 20% 22% 16% 21% 24% Miscellaneous (Net) 78 39 39 16 14 23 25  2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2%  Other safety comments 6 2 4 2 - 2 2  future of the planet  for future generations/ 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1%  Keeps environment safe 4 3 1 - 2 1 1  doesn't put off gases 2% 1% 3% 2% 4%  Gases/no harmful gases/ 6 1 5 - 2 - 4  processes 2% 3% 2% 1% 3% 4% 1%  Does not clog systems/ 9 5 4 1 3 4 1  to the air we breathe 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 4% 3%  Cleaner air/not harmful 11 5 6 2 1 5 3  harm/contaminate (NS) 4% 4% 5% 5% 1% 4% 6%  Not harmful/won't do 16 7 9 4 1 5 6  cleaner  oceans/rivers are 4% 5% 4% 11% 3% 4% 2%  Helps water quality/ 17 9 8 8 3 4 2  and animals/sea life 6% 6% 5% 7% 3% 6% 6%  Not harmful to plants 21 11 10 5 3 7 6  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.3c - How is being biodegradable helpful to the environment? Table 13-1 

 Page 18 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

the item/product 3% 2% 4% 4% 4% 2% 3% Depends on the size of 12 4 8 3 4 2 3 down quicker 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 2% Vegetation is fast/breaks 12 5 7 2 4 4 2  3% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3% 3% 6 months to one year 13 9 4 3 2 4 4  4% 3% 4% 7% 4% 3% 2% More than 10 years 15 6 9 5 4 4 2  4% 4% 4% 7% 5% 4% 1% 5 to 10 years 16 8 8 5 5 5 1  4% 4% 4% 3% 8% 4% 2% Two years 16 8 8 2 7 5 2  4% 2% 6% 8% 5% 5% Less than 6 months 17 4 13 6 5 6 -  5% 5% 4% 11% 4% 3% 3% One year 18 9 9 8 4 3 3 is disposed of environment/how product conditions/climate/ 5% 6% 5% 3% 3% 6% 8% Depends on the 21 11 10 2 3 7 9 time/100 years 6% 5% 6% 3% 8% 6% 5% Forever/takes a long 22 10 12 2 7 7 6 takes years to decay plastic lasts forever/ 6% 7% 4% 5% 5% 7% 5% Plastic does not degrade/ 23 14 9 4 5 8 6 degrade fast/faster 6% 7% 4% 3% 8% 8% 4% Paper/paper products 23 14 9 2 7 9 5  6% 6% 6% 7% 10% 3% 7% One to less than 5 years 25 12 13 5 9 3 8 material/what it is product/depends on the 39% 44% 33% 30% 43% 38% 40% Varies on the type of 154 88 66 23 40 45 46  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.4 - If something is biodegradable, how long do you think it would take for it to decompose or decay? Table 14-1 

 Page 19 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 12% 9% 14% 7% 5% 11% 21% Don't know/no answer 47 18 29 5 5 13 24  8% 8% 7% 9% 9% 7% 7% Other comments 31 16 15 7 8 8 8  1% 1% * 3% 1% 3-4 weeks 3 2 1 2 - 1 -  1% 1% 2% 3% 2% 1% One month 5 1 4 2 - 2 1  3% 3% 3% 1% 4% 3% 3% 10 years 11 5 6 1 4 3 3  3% 3% 3% 1% 2% 5% 2% 5 years 11 5 6 1 2 6 2  3% 3% 3% 8% 1% 3% 1-2 weeks 11 5 6 6 - 1 4  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.4 - If something is biodegradable, how long do you think it would take for it to decompose or decay? Table 14-1 

 Page 20 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
Q.4a - Do you think there are differences in the amount of time it takes for different types of products to biodegrade, decompo

Table 15-1 

se or decay? 

 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014  2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% No 8 4 4 - 2 2 4  98% 98% 98% 100% 98% 98% 97% Yes 392 195 197 76 90 115 111  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender 

 Page 21 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 6% 6% 6% 3% 9% 7% 5% Other comments 24 12 12 2 8 8 6 degrade years/a long time to 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% Metal/metal products take 5 1 4 - 1 3 1 are in the product 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 5% 3% Chemicals/what chemicals 17 7 10 4 4 6 3 nature or man 5% 4% 5% 11% 4% 3% 3% Is the product made by 18 8 10 8 4 3 3 fast/faster 5% 4% 6% 4% 7% 4% 5% Plant/vegetation degrade 19 7 12 3 6 5 5  5% 7% 4% 12% 7% 1% 4% Size of the product 20 13 7 9 6 1 4 climate/temperature 6% 8% 5% 5% 8% 5% 7% Weather conditions/ 25 15 10 4 7 6 8 material 7% 8% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% Density of the product/ 27 16 11 5 6 8 8 degrade fast/faster 8% 9% 7% 8% 11% 10% 4% Paper/paper products 31 18 13 6 10 11 4 plastic is in the product take longer/how much 10% 11% 10% 12% 12% 12% 6% If contains plastic will 41 22 19 9 11 14 7 located/surrounding 11% 15% 7% 9% 13% 10% 11% The environment/where its 43 30 13 7 12 12 12 is made of/what the product 28% 30% 25% 33% 36% 24% 22% Composition/what it’s 109 59 50 25 32 28 24  30% 33% 26% 29% 34% 31% 24% Timing varies 116 64 52 22 31 36 27 decompose or decay products to biodegrade, for different types of differences exist in time 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Those who believe 392 195 197 76 90 115 111  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.4b - What differences exist in the time for different types of products to biodegrade, decompose or decay? Table 16-1 

 Page 22 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 18% 12% 24% 12% 10% 21% 27% Don't know/no answer 72 24 48 9 9 24 30  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.4b - What differences exist in the time for different types of products to biodegrade, decompose or decay? Table 16-1 

 Page 23 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

products reusable/make new plastic 3% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 4% Can be reusable/its 13 8 5 2 2 4 5 environment/people/food harmful to the additive/chemical/is it 4% 4% 4% 3% 7% 3% 3% Concerns about safety of 15 7 8 2 6 4 3 the environment 4% 5% 3% 4% 5% 6% 1% Would be better/safer for 16 10 6 3 5 7 1 details 4% 3% 5% 3% 7% 3% 4% Need more information/ 16 6 10 2 6 3 5 characteristics maintain integrity/ biodegradable and plastic to be 6% 5% 6% 9% 10% 5% Can change/transform 22 9 13 7 9 6 - faster with additive to breakdown/decompose 7% 9% 6% 7% 5% 10% 6% Faster breakdown/ability 29 17 12 5 5 12 7  8% 9% 6% 11% 7% 9% 5% Good idea/good news 30 18 12 8 6 10 6 explanation sense/need better confusing/doesn’t make 9% 8% 9% 4% 5% 9% 14% Too hard to understand/ 34 16 18 3 5 10 16 doubt statement 13% 13% 13% 8% 13% 14% 15% Unbelievable/not true/ 51 25 26 6 12 16 17 otherwise it would not to break things down when 14% 13% 15% 16% 15% 14% 12% New procedure/technology 56 25 31 12 14 16 14 down/biodegradable to make plastic break 27% 25% 29% 36% 30% 27% 19% Additive/chemical added 109 50 59 27 28 32 22  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.5a - What does transform any plastic into biodegradable plastic mean to you? Table 17-1 

 Page 24 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 10% 8% 11% 4% 7% 8% 17% Don't know/no answer 38 15 23 3 6 9 20  2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 3% Nothing/means nothing 7 3 4 1 - 3 3  11% 14% 8% 11% 12% 9% 12% Other comments 44 27 17 8 11 11 14 question asked/was about wordy/lost track of what 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 3% Question was too long/too 8 4 4 1 3 1 3  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.5a - What does transform any plastic into biodegradable plastic mean to you? Table 17-1 

 Page 25 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

environment 2% 4% 1% 5% 3% Better/good for the 9 7 2 - - 6 3 safety of the additive 4% 3% 4% 5% 4% 3% Concerns/questions about 14 6 8 - 5 5 4 specifics/details 4% 5% 2% 3% 1% 2% 9% Need more information/ 15 10 5 2 1 2 10 less plastic in landfills 6% 8% 4% 8% 5% 4% 7% Landfills will benefit/ 24 15 9 6 5 5 8 break down faster break down faster/plastic 8% 8% 7% 16% 4% 7% 6% Additive will make it 31 16 15 12 4 8 7 like that 8% 9% 6% 8% 7% 9% 7% Great/wonderful/would 31 18 13 6 6 11 8 exactly beyond one/how much time 9% 8% 10% 3% 11% 8% 12% How many more years 35 15 20 2 10 9 14 claim/not true 9% 11% 7% 8% 8% 10% 9% Unbelievable/doubt the 35 21 14 6 7 12 10 down/type of landfill environment to break 10% 9% 11% 14% 7% 14% 7% Needs specific 41 18 23 11 6 16 8 biodegradable 11% 10% 12% 7% 12% 14% 10% Plastic becomes 44 20 24 5 11 16 12 becomes biodegradable 13% 10% 15% 21% 17% 9% 7% If you add something it 50 19 31 16 16 10 8 year biodegrade/longer than a longer/longer to 14% 14% 14% 12% 10% 15% 17% Some products will take 55 27 28 9 9 17 20 biodegrade in one year 24% 21% 26% 25% 24% 25% 22% Gone/decomposed/ 95 42 53 19 22 29 25  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.5b - What does the claim "Plastic products manufactured with our additives will biodegrade" mean to you? Table 18-1 

 Page 26 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 2% 2% 3% 4% 3% 1% 2% Don't know/no answer 9 3 6 3 3 1 2  1% 1% 2% 2% 3% Nothing/means nothing 5 1 4 - - 2 3  8% 9% 7% 8% 12% 7% 6% Other comments 32 18 14 6 11 8 7 sense understand/doesn’t make 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3% Confusing/I don’t 6 3 3 - 1 2 3  2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 3% Proof/need proof of claim 8 5 3 - 2 2 4  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.5b - What does the claim "Plastic products manufactured with our additives will biodegrade" mean to you? Table 18-1 

 Page 27 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 anaerobically  mean/aerobically/  know what the words 11% 9% 13% 7% 11% 9% 17%  Don't understand/don't 45 18 27 5 10 11 19  environments  or the air/different  without oxygen/in land 14% 15% 13% 16% 21% 15% 8%  Will biodegrade with or 57 30 27 12 19 17 9  biodegrade  additive it will 22% 18% 26% 29% 24% 25% 12%  If it has the chemical/ 87 35 52 22 22 29 14 ------------------- 76% 78% 74% 82% 82% 76% 69% Miscellaneous (Net) 305 156 149 62 75 89 79  4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 5% 3%  Other timing comments 16 8 8 3 3 6 4  biodegrade  still too long to 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% 4%  5 years is too long/ 9 5 4 1 2 1 5  months 3% 1% 4% 4% 3% 3%  Could biodegrade in 9 10 1 9 3 3 - 4  times  degrade at different 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3%  Timing varies/items 12 5 7 2 2 4 4  faster 8% 8% 9% 17% 5% 9% 3%  Will degrade/breakdown 33 15 18 13 5 11 4  years  within/less than 5 11% 10% 12% 7% 12% 13% 12%  Biodegrade/be gone 45 20 25 5 11 15 14  months to 5 years 14% 15% 13% 18% 15% 18% 6%  Will biodegrade in 9 56 30 26 14 14 21 7 ------------ 42% 38% 45% 47% 43% 45% 32% Timing (Net) 166 75 91 36 40 53 37  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Base: Total sample 400 199 201 76 92 117 115  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.5c - What does claim "Plastic products made with ECM additives: Fully biodegrade" mean to you? Table 19-1 

 Page 28 

Continued 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
 Dave Stewart Environment Survey #2 May, 2014 

 7% 6% 8% 4% 5% 6% 10% Don't know/no answer 27 11 16 3 5 7 12  1% 1% 1% 3% 2% Nothing/means nothing 4 1 3 2 - - 2  comments 11% 12% 9% 11% 12% 11% 10%  Other miscellaneous 43 24 19 8 11 13 11  of claim 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 1%  Need proof/need proof 7 3 4 1 2 3 1  animals  environment/people/  toxic/harmful to the 4% 5% 2% 3% 2% 5% 3%  Safety concerns/is it 14 10 4 2 2 6 4  true 4% 5% 3% 4% 2% 3% 7%  Don't believe claim/not 16 9 7 3 2 3 8  what ECM additive is 6% 9% 3% 4% 2% 5% 11%  What is ECM/don't know 24 17 7 3 2 6 13  special circumstances  environment to degrade/ 7% 6% 7% 14% 12% 3%  Requires a specific 26 12 14 11 11 4 -  good 8% 9% 6% 8% 2% 9% 10%  Great/wonderful/sounds 30 18 12 6 2 11 11  special landfill  in a landfill/in soil/ 8% 8% 7% 5% 12% 9% 4%  Will breakdown/degrade 31 16 15 4 11 11 5  ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----  Total Male male 18-34 35-49 50-65 66+  Fe- ==========================  ============ Age  Gender Q.5c - What does claim "Plastic products made with ECM additives: Fully biodegrade" mean to you? Table 19-1 

 Page 29 

APPENDIX B (to 6-22-2015 Frederick Declaration)

PUBLIC DOCUMENT
PLASTIC CONTAINER GCS (30) vs. GCS (3J) 

Question Type 

Control 

(no logo) 

Biodegradable 

logo 

Wording 

GCS (30) What is your best 

estimate for the amount of time 

it would take for this container 

to biodegrade? 

GCS (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? 

1 Year or Less 

16% 

34% 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

APPENDIXC 

5 Years or Less 

21% 

56% 

Difference between conditions [ 18% 1

1

35% , 

' 

30 APPEN DIX C PAGE 1 3J 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

PLASTIC BAG GCS (3P) vs. GCS (3K) 

APPENDIXC 

Question Type 

Control 

(no logo) 

Biodegradable 

logo 

Wording 

GCS (3P) What is your best 

estimate of the amount of time 

it would take for this plastic bag 

to biodegrade? 

GCS (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? 

1 Year or Less II 5 Years or Less 

[ 13% 1_2_5_% ______ ___, 

38% I 157% 

Difference between conditions [ 25% 1

1

32% , 

3P APPENDIX C PAGE 2 3K 
PLASTIC CONTAINER GCS (8A) vs. GCS (88) 

Question Type 

Control 

(no logo) 

Biodegradable 

logo 

Wording 

GCS (SA) Will this container break down completely 

into elements found in nature? 

GCS (88) Will this container break down completely 

into elements found in nature? 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

APPENDIXC 

Yes 

18% 

37% 

Difference between conditions 19% 

' 

8A APPENDIX C PAGE 3 88 
PLASTIC CONTAINER GCS (8A) vs. GCS (8C) 

Question Type 

Control 

(no logo) 

Biodegradable 

logo 

Wording 

GCS (SA) Will this container break down completely 

into elements found in nature? 

GCS (8C) Will this container (which bears the symbol 

"ECM biodegradable") break down completely into 

elements found in nature? 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

APPENDIXC 

Yes 

18% 

39% 

Difference between conditions [ 21% I 

' 

8A APPENDIX C PAGE 4 8C 
PLASTIC BAG GCS (9A) vs. GCS (98) 

Question Type 

Control 

(no logo) 

Biodegradable 

logo 

Wording 

GCS (9A) Will this plastic bag break down completely 

into elements found in nature? 

GCS (98) Will this plastic bag break down completely 

into elements found in nature? 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

APPENDIXC 

Yes 

11% 

42% 

Difference between conditions 

1

31% I 

9A APPENDIX C PAGE 5 98 
PLASTIC BAG GCS (9A) vs. GCS (9C) 

Question Type 

Control 

(no logo) 

Biodegradable 

logo 

Wording 

GCS (9A) Will this plastic bag break down completely 

into elements found in nature? 

GCS (9C) Will this plastic bag (which bears the symbol 

"ECM biodegradable") break down completely into 

elements found in nature? 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

APPENDIXC 

Yes 

11% 

45% 

Difference between conditions [ 34% I 

9A APPEN DIX C PAGE 6 9C 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

PLASTIC PACI<AGE GCS (3L) AND 3(M) vs. GCS (3A) 

APPENDIXC 

Question Type 

Control 

(no claim) 

Control 

(no claim) 

Biodegradable 

claim made 

Wording II 1 Year or Less II 5 Years or Less 

GCS (3L) If a plastic package is 

NOT labeled "biodegradable," 113% I 17% 

how long will it take to _ . ________ ___. 

decompose? 

GCS (3M) How long does it take 

a plastic package to I 14% I I 22% 

decompose? 

GCS (3A) Suppose a plastic 

package is labeled biodegradable. 131% I 56% 

How long do you think it will take _ . ._ _______ _, 

to biodegrade? 

Difference between conditions (3A) - (3L) I 18% 39% 

Difference between conditions (3A)- (3M) r7% ll 34% , 

APPENDIX C PAGE 7 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

PLASTIC PACI<AGE GCS (3L) AND 3(M) vs. GCS (38) 

APPENDIX C 

Question Type 

Control 

(no claim) 

Control 

(no claim) 

Biodegradable 

claim made 

Wording II 1 Year or Less II 5 Years or Less 

GCS (3L) If a plastic package is 

NOT labeled "biodegradable," 113% I 17% 

how long will it take to ----------------~ 

decompose? 

GCS (3M) How long does it take 

a plastic package to I 14% I I 22% 

decompose? 

GCS (38) Suppose a plastic 

product is labeled biodegradable. 

How much time do you think it 

would take to biodegrade? 

[ 28% 1._4_7_% ______ ---.J 

Difference between conditions (38) - (3L) 1 15% 30% 

Difference between conditions (38)- (3M) r4% [

1

25% , 

APPEN DIX C PAGE 8 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

PLASTIC PACI<AGE GCS (3L) AND 3(M) vs. GCS (3C) 

APPENDIXC 

Question Type 

Control 

(no claim) 

Control 

(no claim) 

Biodegradable 

claim made 

Wording 

GCS (3L) If a plastic package is 

NOT labeled "biodegradable," 

how long will it take to 

decompose? 

GCS (3M) How long does it take 

a plastic package to 

decompose? 

GCS (3C) If a plastic package is 

labeled "biodegradable," how 

long will it take to decompose? 

1 Year or Less II 5 Years or Less 

[ 13% 1_1_7_% ______ ___, 

14% I 122% 

44% I 64% 

Difference between conditions (3C)- (3L) 1 31% 47% 

Difference between conditions (3C)- (3M) [3o% J

1

42% I 

APPENDIX C PAGE 9 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

WATER BOTTLE GCS (3N) vs. GCS (3D) 

APPENDIXC 

Question Type 

Control 

(no claim) 

Biodegradable 

claim made 

Wording 1 Year or Less 5 Years or Less 

GCS (3N) How long would it take r I I 

a plastic water bottle to 1% 18~ 

decompose? 

GCS (3D) If you saw this label 

on a plastic water bottle, how 

long would it take to 

decompose? 

% I I % I I 

Difference between conditions 41% I 52% I 

3D 

APPENDIX C PAGE 10 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

WATER BOTTLE GCS (3N) vs. GCS (3E) 

APPENDIXC 

Question Type 

Control 

(no claim) 

Biodegradable 

claim made 

Wording 1 Year or Less 5 Years or Less 

GCS (3N) How long would it take r I I 

a plastic water bottle to11% 18% 

decompose? - . . 

GCS (3E) If you saw this label on l I I 

a plastic water bottle, how long 50% I 68% 

would it take to decompose? ....____ ___ ~---'----' 

Difference between conditions 39% I I 50% I I 

3E 

APPENDIX C PAGE 11 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

WATER BOTTLE GCS (3N) vs. GCS (3F) 

APPENDIXC 

Question Type 

Control 

(no claim) 

Biodegradable 

claim made 

Wording 1 Year or Less 5 Years or Less 

GCS (3N) How long would it take r I I 

a plastic water bottle to11% 18% 

decompose? - . . 

GCS (3F) If you saw this label on l I I 

a plastic water bottle, how long 45% I 68% 

would it take to decompose? ....____ ___ ~---'----' 

Difference between conditions 34% I I 50% I I 

3F 

APPENDIX C PAGE 12 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

WATER BOTTLE GCS (3N) vs. GCS (3G) 

APPENDIXC 

Question Type 

Control 

(no claim) 

Biodegradable 

claim made 

Wording 1 Year or Less 5 Years or Less 

GCS (3N) How long would it take r I I 

a plastic water bottle to 1% 18~ 

decompose? 

GCS (3G) If you saw this label 

on a plastic water bottle, how 

long would it take to 

decompose? 

t7% I I % I I 

Difference between conditions 36% I I , 53% I I 

3G 

APPENDIX C PAGE 13 
PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

WATER BOTTLE GCS (3N) vs. GCS (3G') 

APPENDIXC 

Question Type 

Control 

(no claim) 

Biodegradable 

claim made 

Wording 1 Year or Less 5 Years or Less 

GCS (3N) How long would it take r I I 

a plastic water bottle to 1% 18~ 

decompose? 

GCS (3G') If you saw this label 

on a plastic water bottle, how 

long do you think it would take 

to decompose? 

% I I % I I 

Difference between conditions 41% I 1 -

58% I I 

3G' 

APPENDIX C PAGE 14