N.Y. Consumer Affairs Commish challenges aerosol product labels - New York, State. Consumer Protection Board

Discount Store News, August 5, 1991

N.Y. Consumer Affairs Commish Challenges Aerosol Product Labels

NEW YORK -- Another category of consumer goods has come under legal attack over the issue of environmental labeling.

Last year, environmentalists attacked Mobil's claim that its Hefty plastic trash bags were degradable. Now, aerosol products from Gillette, Revlon, Procter & Gamble and S.C. Johnson have been challenged over claims, such as "Ozone Friendly/No CFCs," a statement that appears on cans of Gillette's Foamy Shave Cream and Right Guard.

Under New York's consumer protection law, Consumer Affairs Commissioner Mark Green accused the four last month of deceptive advertising regarding environmental statements their products carry.

His action stopped short of a lawsuit, but rather was a "notice of violation" served upon the companies that allows them to submit evidence to support environmental claims.

Besides the Gillette statement, Green is questioning these environmental claims:

* "Contains no Propellant Alleged to Damage Ozone," carried on Pledge furniture polish and Glade air fresheners from S.C. Johnson & Co.; * "Contains no CFC's which Harm the Ozone Layer," carried on Sure and Secret anti-perspirants from Procter & Gamble; * "Environmentally Safe," carried on cans of Flex and Almay hairsprays from Revlon.

Green disclosed his charges in written testimony submitted last month to the Federal Trade Commission, which is looking into the issue of environmental claims. "The firms falsely claim their aerosol products are |ozone friendly' and good for the atmosphere," he said in a statement released to the press. These aerosol products are not "air-friendly," Green said. "They release hydrocarbons [usually butane or propane] that cause ozone to form at ground level."

Furthermore, Green said the statement about lack of CFC's as a propellant is a "smoke-screen meant to obscure the harmful, smog-producing effects of these sprays." Green claimed that CFC's have been banned as an aerosol propellant for 13 years.

Revlon declined to comment on the charges, but a Gillette spokeswoman said that Gillette decided last year to drop the words "Ozone Friendly," from its aerosols after Hefty came under attack over its degradability claim. By the end of year, 75% of Gillette product on shelves will no longer carry the term.

Hefty dropped the claim from packaging after several attorneys general brought suit.

Green was unaware of the decision when he brought up the charges, he said. Gillette contacted Green's office, but the spokeswoman declined to speculate about whether the information would be enough to prompt Green to drop the charge against Gillette.

In a brief statement, Procter & Gamble responded to the charges by saying, "Our labeling for Secret and Sure antiperspirants and deodorants features the statement: |No CFC's which harm the ozone layer.' This statement is absolutely true.

"We decided to put this statement on our antiperspirant and deodorant products because many consumers told us they want to know whether these products contain CFC's.

"We'll be meeting the New York City Office of Consumer Affairs to make sure we understand their concerns about our labeling and, we hope, resolve those concerns."

A Procter & Gamble spokeswoman declined to elaborate on the statement.

S.C. Johnson has proof that can back its claims, a spokeswoman said, and is planning to meet with Green to present that evidence.

S.C. Johnson chose its environmental statements because the public wants to know the environmental impact of products, she said.

The S.C. Johnson statements correct public misconceptions about environmental claims, she added.

S.C. Johnson takes the position that only adopting federal standards on uniform environmental labeling will stop the conflicting interpretations that lead to action such as Green's, the spokeswoman said.

In May, 11 attorneys general of states including California, New York, Minneapolis and Texas, made their recommendations for responsible environmental advertising. While lacking the authority of federal standards, the guidelines in Green Report II imply immunity from prosecution, if followed.

Its first recommendation is to make environmental claims as specific as possible, rather than general, vague, incomplete or overly broad. The guidelines also advise against using terms such as "Environmentally Friendly" and "Safe for the Environment."

Regarding claims about removing a harmful ingredient, the guidelines recommend: "In promoting the removal of a single harmful ingredient or a few harmful ingredients from a product or package, care should be taken to avoid the impression that the product is good for the environment in all respects."

The International Mass Retail Association also endorses federal guidelines for green claims. In a statement filed during the FTC hearings on environmental labeling, IMRA asked the FTC to clarify the circumstances where retailers would be responsible for the environmental claims of vendors.

IMRA also endorsed the attorneys general green guide and called for FTC guidelines requiring green claims to be specific and fully disclose the environmental benefits or attributes of products.