Ya buying "green" products? WSJ says you might be gettin ripped off.

[Danno 1,228]

Misleading Claims on 'Green' Labeling

Text

By GWENDOLYN BOUNDS

Confused by all the "green" claims of products on store shelves out there? There's good reason to be.

According to a study due out Tuesday, more than 95% of consumer products examined committed at least one offense of "greenwashing," a term used to describe unproven environmental claims, according TerraChoice, a North American environmental-marketing company that issued the report.

Claims of Energy Star compliance were most commonly misstated.

While unsubstantiated claims of "green" attributes have declined slightly in recent years, the problem is still widely prevalent as more manufacturers flood the market with items deemed to be better for the environment. Of particular concern: items proclaiming to be free of controversial chemicals BPA and phthalates—especially baby and toy products, according to the report.

The study examined more than 5,000 consumer products in 34 stores in the U.S. and Canada and found 12,061 "green" claims among them. Among the infractions found: fibbing about or having no proof of environmental claims, vague or poorly defined marketing language, such as "all-natural," and the use of fake labels designed to imply a product has third-party certification or endorsement of its claims.

The Fine Print

These are labels used on some consumer products that TerraChoice, an environmental-marketing company, considers legitimate:

Biodegradable Products Institute

CFPA

CRI Green Label

EcoCert

EcoLogo*

OKO-TEX

Fair Trade Certified

FSC

Green-E

Green Guard

Green Seal

Natural Products Association

Nordic Swan

PEFC

Rainforest Alliance

SCS

SFI

Skal EKO

Soil Association

UL Environment Environmental Claim Validation**

UL Environment Energy Efficiency Verification**

USDA Organic

Water Sense

* TerraChoice runs the EcoLogo program.

** Underwriters Laboratories is an independent product-safety organization that owns TerraChoice.

"The scary thing is that manufacturers are not providing independent proof of these claims," says Scot Case, a market-development director for Underwriters Laboratories Inc. "The same verification we expect from accounting records, we should expect from BPA claims." TerraChoice was recently acquired by Underwriters Laboratories, an independent product-safety certification organization. Both TerraChoice and Underwriters Laboratories offer green-certification programs and could benefit if more manufacturers seek third-party verification of the eco-claims.

While the overall incidence of greenwashing dipped slightly—4.5% of products were dubbed "sin free" versus only 1% in 2007 when the first study was conducted—particular concerns were raised about the huge surge over the past year of products claiming to be free of Bisphenol A, a compound used in plastics such as baby bottles and other consumer products, and phthalates, which are used to give plastics like pacifiers flexibility and durability.

Concerns have been raised about BPA's possible health effects, including the impact on fetal and infant brains. Earlier this month the Canadian government added BPA to its toxic-substances list. Other health concerns have been raised about phthalates. The report says not a single "green" toy was free of greenwashing, and that less than 1% of baby products were "sin free."

Separately, the report found that the most common examples of outright fibbing came from products falsely claiming to be compliant with the federal government's Energy Star program. The government is tightening its monitoring of such claims.

The findings come as the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which can take action against unfair or deceptive marketing practices, has proposed tightening its guidelines to help marketers avoid making misleading environmental claims. Among the proposals: cautioning marketers not to use "unqualified certifications or seals of approval" regarding their claims, and not to make blanket, general assertions that a product is "environmentally friendly" or "eco-friendly" because such claims are nearly impossible to substantiate.

A proposal for a federal program has also been floated by the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would recognize consumer products that are environmentally preferable.

Write to Gwendolyn Bounds at wendy.bounds@wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303467004575574521710082414.html

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I'll show you how to save $100/week on energy costs..... just pay me $110/week.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Misleading claims on green items? NO!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Welcome to free market capitalism! It's not just for breakfast.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Welcome to free market capitalism! It's not just for breakfast.

Yeah, we would be so much better off without a free market.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yeah, we would be so much better off without a free market.

Nice straw man argument. Danno's outraged that any company would market 'Green' products using the same kinds of marketing strategies and tactics used for everything else. Most of the corporations that are now marketing 'Green' products do so because of consumer demand more than any altruistic ideals. The 'Green' consumer market is driven by the same market forces as everything else.

[mawilson 2,133]

I trust Whole Foods to make sure they source their green products from reputable producers.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Nice straw man argument. Danno's outraged that any company would market 'Green' products using the same kinds of marketing strategies and tactics used for everything else. Most of the corporations that are now marketing 'Green' products do so because of consumer demand more than any altruistic ideals. The 'Green' consumer market is driven by the same market forces as everything else.

"Green" is a giant load of BS anyway. It is just an excuse to put a pretty label on it and hike the price 100%. Only fools really thinks it makes a difference.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"Green" is a giant load of BS anyway. It is just an excuse to put a pretty label on it and hike the price 100%. Only fools really thinks it makes a difference.

It depends what you are talking about. Energy efficient appliances can save you hundreds of dollars a year as well has help reduce our use of fossil fuels. Using your own bags when buying groceries over one year cuts down on thousands of plastic bags that end up in landfills or even worse, in the ocean. Some people actually care about the planet and want to try and leave something for the children's children to enjoy. Sustainable living is not some far out concept.

Edited October 28, 2010 by El Buscador

[Danno 1,228]

Nice straw man argument. Danno's outraged that any company would market 'Green' products using the same kinds of marketing strategies and tactics used for everything else. Most of the corporations that are now marketing 'Green' products do so because of consumer demand more than any altruistic ideals. The 'Green' consumer market is driven by the same market forces as everything else.

How did you conclude I am outraged?

If people can make money off of dopes who think they are saving the planet by buying ####### that always costs more and very often, doesn't work as well..... thats fine by me.

It only bothers me when I am forced to do it... such as the changes in Paint.

Have you any ideas how much damage this inferior paint has cost people...not to mention the loss of life when people have to get up on a ladder and paint 3 x's as often as they used to?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How did you conclude I am outraged?

If people can make money off of dopes who think they are saving the planet by buying ####### that always costs more and very often, doesn't work as well..... thats fine by me.

It only bothers me when I am forced to do it... such as the changes in Paint.

Have you any ideas how much damage this inferior paint has cost people...not to mention the loss of life when people have to get up on a ladder and paint 3 x's as often as they used to?

The dangers of BPA are widely studied and known, which is why Canada has officially banned the use. Maybe you'd like to go back to the days when we had lead-based paints and leaded gasoline? While some companies will try to market moon cheese to anyone gullible, it is up to you as a consumer to be an informed one and not just poo-poo every claim as if it is all BS.

[Danno 1,228]

The dangers of BPA are widely studied and known, which is why Canada has officially banned the use. Maybe you'd like to go back to the days when we had lead-based paints and leaded gasoline? While some companies will try to market moon cheese to anyone gullible, it is up to you as a consumer to be an informed one and not just poo-poo every claim as if it is all BS.

Actually leadbase paint would be fine for exterior work and the dangers indoors are way over blown..... did you chew on paint chips as a child?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Actually leadbase paint would be fine for exterior work and the dangers indoors are way over blown..... did you chew on paint chips as a child?

Nope. What year were you born?

[Danno 1,228]

Nope. What year were you born?

Lead paint was used up until about 1978 ... which means we all had plenty of opportunity to chew it if we were so inclined.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Lead paint was used up until about 1978 ... which means we all had plenty of opportunity to chew it if we were so inclined.

Come on, Danno - what are afraid of by sharing here your age? I was born in 1966 and as far as I know, I didn't chew on paint chips, but who knows.