[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 16, Volume 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 16CFR260.7]

[Page 201-207]
 
                     TITLE 16--COMMERCIAL PRACTICES
 
                   CHAPTER I--FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 
PART 260--GUIDES FOR THE USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING CLAIMS--Table of Contents
 
Sec. 260.7  Environmental marketing claims.

    Guidance about the use of environmental marketing claims is set 
forth in this section. Each guide is followed by several examples that 
illustrate, but do not provide an exhaustive list of, claims that do and 
do not comport with the guides. In each case, the general principles set 
forth in Sec. 260.6 should also be followed.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These guides do not currently address claims based on a 
``lifecycle'' theory of environmental benefit. The Commission lacks 
sufficient information on which to base guidance on such claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) General environmental benefit claims. It is deceptive to 
misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product, package or 
service offers a general environmental benefit. Unqualified general 
claims of environmental benefit are difficult to interpret, and 
depending on their context, may convey a wide range of meanings to 
consumers. In many cases, such claims may convey that the product, 
package or service has specific and far-reaching environmental benefits. 
As explained in the Commission's Advertising Substantiation Statement, 
every express and material implied claim that the general assertion 
conveys to reasonable consumers about an objective quality, feature or 
attribute of a product or service must be substantiated. Unless this 
substantiation duty can be met, broad environmental claims should either 
be avoided or qualified, as necessary, to prevent deception about the 
specific nature of the environmental benefit being asserted.

    Example 1: A brand name like ``Eco-Safe'' would be deceptive if, in 
the context of the product so named, it leads consumers to believe that 
the product has environmental benefits which cannot be substantiated by 
the manufacturer. The claim would not be deceptive if ``Eco-Safe'' were 
followed by clear and prominent qualifying language limiting the safety 
representation to a particular product attribute for which it could be 
substantiated, and provided that no other deceptive implications were 
created by the context.
    Example 2: A product wrapper is printed with the claim 
``Environmentally Friendly.'' Textual comments on the wrapper explain 
that the wrapper is ``Environmentally Friendly because it was not 
chlorine bleached, a process that has been shown to create harmful 
substances.'' The wrapper was, in fact, not bleached with chlorine. 
However, the production of the wrapper now creates and releases to the 
environment significant quantities of other harmful substances. Since 
consumers are likely to interpret the ``Environmentally Friendly'' 
claim, in combination with the textual explanation, to mean that no 
significant harmful substances are currently released to the 
environment, the ``Environmentally Friendly'' claim would be deceptive.
    Example 3: A pump spray product is labeled ``environmentally safe.'' 
Most of the product's active ingredients consist of volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs) that may cause smog by contributing to ground-level 
ozone formation. The claim is deceptive because, absent further 
qualification, it is likely to convey to consumers that use of the 
product will not result in air pollution or other harm to the 
environment.
    Example 4: A lawn care pesticide is advertised as ``essentially non-
toxic'' and ``practically non-toxic.'' Consumers would likely interpret 
these claims in the context of such a product as applying not only to 
human health effects but also to the product's environmental effects. 
Since the claims would likely convey to consumers that the product does 
not pose any risk to humans or the environment, if the pesticide in fact 
poses a significant risk to humans or environment, the claims would be 
deceptive.
    Example 5: A product label contains an environmental seal, either in 
the form of a globe icon, or a globe icon with only the text ``Earth 
Smart'' around it. Either label is likely to convey to consumers that 
the product is environmentally superior to other products. If the 
manufacturer cannot substantiate this broad claim, the claim would be 
deceptive. The claims would not be deceptive if they were accompanied by 
clear and prominent qualifying language limiting the environmental 
superiority representation to the particular product attribute or 
attributes for which they could be substantiated, provided that no other 
deceptive implications were created by the context.
    Example 6: A product is advertised as ``environmentally 
preferable.'' This claim is likely to convey to consumers that this

[[Page 202]]

product is environmentally superior to other products. If the 
manufacturer cannot substantiate this broad claim, the claim would be 
deceptive. The claim would not be deceptive if it were accompanied by 
clear and prominent qualifying language limiting the environmental 
superiority representation to the particular product attribute or 
attributes for which it could be substantiated, provided that no other 
deceptive implications were created by the context.

    (b) Degradable/biodegradable/photodegradable: It is deceptive to 
misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is 
degradable, biodegradable or photodegradable. An unqualified claim that 
a product or package is degradable, biodegradable or photodegradable 
should be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence 
that the entire product or package will completely break down and return 
to nature, i.e., decompose into elements found in nature within a 
reasonably short period of time after customary disposal. Claims of 
degradability, biodegradability or photodegradability should be 
qualified to the extent necessary to avoid consumer deception about:
    (1) The product or package's ability to degrade in the environment 
where it is customarily disposed; and
    (2) The rate and extent of degradation.

    Example 1: A trash bag is marketed as ``degradable,'' with no 
qualification or other disclosure. The marketer relies on soil burial 
tests to show that the product will decompose in the presence of water 
and oxygen. The trash bags are customarily disposed of in incineration 
facilities or at sanitary landfills that are managed in a way that 
inhibits degradation by minimizing moisture and oxygen. Degradation will 
be irrelevant for those trash bags that are incinerated and, for those 
disposed of in landfills, the marketer does not possess adequate 
substantiation that the bags will degrade in a reasonably short period 
of time in a landfill. The claim is therefore deceptive.
    Example 2: A commercial agricultural plastic mulch film is 
advertised as ``Photodegradable'' and qualified with the phrase, ``Will 
break down into small pieces if left uncovered in sunlight.'' The claim 
is supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence that the 
product will break down in a reasonably short period of time after being 
exposed to sunlight and into sufficiently small pieces to become part of 
the soil. The qualified claim is not deceptive. Because the claim is 
qualified to indicate the limited extent of breakdown, the advertiser 
need not meet the elements for an unqualified photodegradable claim, 
i.e., that the product will not only break down, but also will decompose 
into elements found in nature.
    Example 3: A soap or shampoo product is advertised as 
``biodegradable,'' with no qualification or other disclosure. The 
manufacturer has competent and reliable scientific evidence 
demonstrating that the product, which is customarily disposed of in 
sewage systems, will break down and decompose into elements found in 
nature in a short period of time. The claim is not deceptive.
    Example 4: A plastic six-pack ring carrier is marked with a small 
diamond. Many state laws require that plastic six-pack ring carriers 
degrade if littered, and several state laws also require that the 
carriers be marked with a small diamond symbol to indicate that they 
meet performance standards for degradability. The use of the diamond, by 
itself, does not constitute a claim of degradability. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The guides' treatment of unqualified degradable claims is 
intended to help prevent consumer deception and is not intended to 
establish performance standards for laws intended to ensure the 
degradability of products when littered.

    (c) Compostable. (1) It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by 
implication, that a product or package is compostable. A claim that a 
product or package is compostable should be substantiated by competent 
and reliable scientific evidence that all the materials in the product 
or package will break down into, or otherwise become part of, usable 
compost (e.g., soil-conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and timely 
manner in an appropriate composting program or facility, or in a home 
compost pile or device. Claims of compostability should be qualified to 
the extent necessary to avoid consumer deception. An unqualified claim 
may be deceptive if:
    (i) The package cannot be safely composted in a home compost pile or 
device; or
    (ii) The claim misleads consumers about the environmental benefit 
provided when the product is disposed of in a landfill.
    (2) A claim that a product is compostable in a municipal or 
institutional composting facility may need to be qualified to the extent 
necessary to avoid deception about the limited

[[Page 203]]

availability of such composting facilities.

    Example 1: A manufacturer indicates that its unbleached coffee 
filter is compostable. The unqualified claim is not deceptive provided 
the manufacturer can substantiate that the filter can be converted 
safely to usable compost in a timely manner in a home compost pile or 
device. If this is the case, it is not relevant that no local municipal 
or institutional composting facilities exist.
    Example 2: A lawn and leaf bag is labeled as ``Compostable in 
California Municipal Yard Trimmings Composting Facilities.'' The bag 
contains toxic ingredients that are released into the compost material 
as the bag breaks down. The claim is deceptive if the presence of these 
toxic ingredients prevents the compost from being usable.
    Example 3: A manufacturer makes an unqualified claim that its 
package is compostable. Although municipal or institutional composting 
facilities exist where the product is sold, the package will not break 
down into usable compost in a home compost pile or device. To avoid 
deception, the manufacturer should disclose that the package is not 
suitable for home composting.
    Example 4: A nationally marketed lawn and leaf bag is labeled 
``compostable.'' Also printed on the bag is a disclosure that the bag is 
not designed for use in home compost piles. The bags are in fact 
composted in yard trimmings composting programs in many communities 
around the country, but such programs are not available to a substantial 
majority of consumers or communities where the bag is sold. The claim is 
deceptive because reasonable consumers living in areas not served by 
yard trimmings programs may understand the reference to mean that 
composting facilities accepting the bags are available in their area. To 
avoid deception, the claim should be qualified to indicate the limited 
availability of such programs, for example, by stating, ``Appropriate 
facilities may not exist in your area.'' Other examples of adequate 
qualification of the claim include providing the approximate percentage 
of communities or the population for which such programs are available.
    Example 5: A manufacturer sells a disposable diaper that bears the 
legend, ``This diaper can be composted where solid waste composting 
facilities exist. There are currently [X number of] solid waste 
composting facilities across the country.'' The claim is not deceptive, 
assuming that composting facilities are available as claimed and the 
manufacturer can substantiate that the diaper can be converted safely to 
usable compost in solid waste composting facilities.
    Example 6: A manufacturer markets yard trimmings bags only to 
consumers residing in particular geographic areas served by county yard 
trimmings composting programs. The bags meet specifications for these 
programs and are labeled, ``Compostable Yard Trimmings Bag for County 
Composting Programs.'' The claim is not deceptive. Because the bags are 
compostable where they are sold, no qualification is required to 
indicate the limited availability of composting facilities.

    (d) Recyclable. It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by 
implication, that a product or package is recyclable. A product or 
package should not be marketed as recyclable unless it can be collected, 
separated or otherwise recovered from the solid waste stream for reuse, 
or in the manufacture or assembly of another package or product, through 
an established recycling program. Unqualified claims of recyclability 
for a product or package may be made if the entire product or package, 
excluding minor incidental components, is recyclable. For products or 
packages that are made of both recyclable and non-recyclable components, 
the recyclable claim should be adequately qualified to avoid consumer 
deception about which portions or components of the product or package 
are recyclable. Claims of recyclability should be qualified to the 
extent necessary to avoid consumer deception about any limited 
availability of recycling programs and collection sites. If an 
incidental component significantly limits the ability to recycle a 
product or package, a claim of recyclability would be deceptive. A 
product or package that is made from recyclable material, but, because 
of its shape, size or some other attribute, is not accepted in recycling 
programs for such material, should not be marketed as recyclable.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act 
establishes uniform national labeling requirements regarding certain 
types of nickel-cadmium rechargeable and small lead-acid rechargeable 
batteries to aid in battery collection and recycling. The Battery Act 
requires, in general, that the batteries must be labeled with the three-
chasing-arrows symbol or a comparable recycling symbol, and the 
statement ldquo;Battery Must Be Recycled Or Disposed Of Properly.'' 42 
U.S.C. 14322(b). Batteries labeled in accordance with this federal 
statute are deemed to be in compliance with these guides.


[[Page 204]]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 1: A packaged product is labeled with an unqualified claim, 
``recyclable.'' It is unclear from the type of product and other context 
whether the claim refers to the product or its package. The unqualified 
claim is likely to convey to reasonable consumers that all of both the 
product and its packaging that remain after normal use of the product, 
except for minor, incidental components, can be recycled. Unless each 
such message can be substantiated, the claim should be qualified to 
indicate what portions are recyclable.
    Example 2: A nationally marketed 8 oz. plastic cottage-cheese 
container displays the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) code 
(which consists of a design of arrows in a triangular shape containing a 
number and abbreviation identifying the component plastic resin) on the 
front label of the container, in close proximity to the product name and 
logo. The manufacturer's conspicuous use of the SPI code in this manner 
constitutes a recyclability claim. Unless recycling facilities for this 
container are available to a substantial majority of consumers or 
communities, the claim should be qualified to disclose the limited 
availability of recycling programs for the container. If the SPI code, 
without more, had been placed in an inconspicuous location on the 
container (e.g., embedded in the bottom of the container) it would not 
constitute a claim of recyclability.
    Example 3: A container can be burned in incinerator facilities to 
produce heat and power. It cannot, however, be recycled into another 
product or package. Any claim that the container is recyclable would be 
deceptive.
    Example 4: A nationally marketed bottle bears the unqualified 
statement that it is ``recyclable.'' Collection sites for recycling the 
material in question are not available to a substantial majority of 
consumers or communities, although collection sites are established in a 
significant percentage of communities or available to a significant 
percentage of the population. The unqualified claim is deceptive 
because, unless evidence shows otherwise, reasonable consumers living in 
communities not served by programs may conclude that recycling programs 
for the material are available in their area. To avoid deception, the 
claim should be qualified to indicate the limited availability of 
programs, for example, by stating ``This bottle may not be recyclable in 
your area,'' or ``Recycling programs for this bottle may not exist in 
your area.'' Other examples of adequate qualifications of the claim 
include providing the approximate percentage of communities or the 
population to whom programs are available.
    Example 5: A paperboard package is marketed nationally and labeled, 
``Recyclable where facilities exist.'' Recycling programs for this 
package are available in a significant percentage of communities or to a 
significant percentage of the population, but are not available to a 
substantial majority of consumers. The claim is deceptive because, 
unless evidence shows otherwise, reasonable consumers living in 
communities not served by programs that recycle paperboard packaging may 
understand this phrase to mean that such programs are available in their 
area. To avoid deception, the claim should be further qualified to 
indicate the limited availability of programs, for example, by using any 
of the approaches set forth in Example 4 above.
    Example 6: A foam polystyrene cup is marketed as follows: 
``Recyclable in the few communities with facilities for foam polystyrene 
cups.'' Collection sites for recycling the cup have been established in 
a half-dozen major metropolitan areas. This disclosure illustrates one 
approach to qualifying a claim adequately to prevent deception about the 
limited availability of recycling programs where collection facilities 
are not established in a significant percentage of communities or 
available to a significant percentage of the population. Other examples 
of adequate qualification of the claim include providing the number of 
communities with programs, or the percentage of communities or the 
population to which programs are available.
    Example 7: A label claims that the package ``includes some 
recyclable material.'' The package is composed of four layers of 
different materials, bonded together. One of the layers is made from the 
recyclable material, but the others are not. While programs for 
recycling this type of material are available to a substantial majority 
of consumers, only a few of those programs have the capability to 
separate the recyclable layer from the non-recyclable layers. Even 
though it is technologically possible to separate the layers, the claim 
is not adequately qualified to avoid consumer deception. An 
appropriately qualified claim would be, ``includes material recyclable 
in the few communities that collect multi-layer products.'' Other 
examples of adequate qualification of the claim include providing the 
number of communities with programs, or the percentage of communities or 
the population to which programs are available.
    Example 8: A product is marketed as having a ``recyclable'' 
container. The product is distributed and advertised only in Missouri. 
Collection sites for recycling the container are available to a 
substantial majority of Missouri residents, but are not yet available 
nationally. Because programs are generally available where the product 
is marketed, the unqualified claim does not deceive consumers about the 
limited availability of recycling programs.

[[Page 205]]

    Example 9: A manufacturer of one-time use photographic cameras, with 
dealers in a substantial majority of communities, collects those cameras 
through all of its dealers. After the exposed film is removed for 
processing, the manufacturer reconditions the cameras for resale and 
labels them as follows: ``Recyclable through our dealership network.'' 
This claim is not deceptive, even though the cameras are not recyclable 
through conventional curbside or drop off recycling programs.
    Example 10: A manufacturer of toner cartridges for laser printers 
has established a recycling program to recover its cartridges 
exclusively through its nationwide dealership network. The company 
advertises its cartridges nationally as ``Recyclable. Contact your local 
dealer for details.'' The company's dealers participating in the 
recovery program are located in a significant number--but not a 
substantial majority--of communities. The ``recyclable'' claim is 
deceptive unless it contains one of the qualifiers set forth in Example 
4. If participating dealers are located in only a few communities, the 
claim should be qualified as indicated in Example 6.
    Example 11: An aluminum beverage can bears the statement ``Please 
Recycle.'' This statement is likely to convey to consumers that the 
package is recyclable. Because collection sites for recycling aluminum 
beverage cans are available to a substantial majority of consumers or 
communities, the claim does not need to be qualified to indicate the 
limited availability of recycling programs.

    (e) Recycled content. (1) A recycled content claim may be made only 
for materials that have been recovered or otherwise diverted from the 
solid waste stream, either during the manufacturing process (pre-
consumer), or after consumer use (post-consumer). To the extent the 
source of recycled content includes pre-consumer material, the 
manufacturer or advertiser must have substantiation for concluding that 
the pre-consumer material would otherwise have entered the solid waste 
stream. In asserting a recycled content claim, distinctions may be made 
between pre-consumer and post-consumer materials. Where such 
distinctions are asserted, any express or implied claim about the 
specific pre-consumer or post-consumer content of a product or package 
must be substantiated.
    (2) It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, 
that a product or package is made of recycled material, which includes 
recycled raw material, as well as used, \5\ reconditioned and 
remanufactured components. Unqualified claims of recycled content may be 
made if the entire product or package, excluding minor, incidental 
components, is made from recycled material. For products or packages 
that are only partially made of recycled material, a recycled claim 
should be adequately qualified to avoid consumer deception about the 
amount, by weight, of recycled content in the finished product or 
package. Additionally, for products that contain used, reconditioned or 
remanufactured components, a recycled claim should be adequately 
qualified to avoid consumer deception about the nature of such 
components. No such qualification would be necessary in cases where it 
would be clear to consumers from the context that a product's recycled 
content consists of used, reconditioned or remanufactured components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``used'' refers to parts that are not new and that have 
not undergone any type of remanufacturing and/or reconditioning.

    Example 1: A manufacturer routinely collects spilled raw material 
and scraps left over from the original manufacturing process. After a 
minimal amount of reprocessing, the manufacturer combines the spills and 
scraps with virgin material for use in further production of the same 
product. A claim that the product contains recycled material is 
deceptive since the spills and scraps to which the claim refers are 
normally reused by industry within the original manufacturing process, 
and would not normally have entered the waste stream.
    Example 2: A manufacturer purchases material from a firm that 
collects discarded material from other manufacturers and resells it. All 
of the material was diverted from the solid waste stream and is not 
normally reused by industry within the original manufacturing process. 
The manufacturer includes the weight of this material in its 
calculations of the recycled content of its products. A claim of 
recycled content based on this calculation is not deceptive because, 
absent the purchase and reuse of this material, it would have entered 
the waste stream.
    Example 3: A greeting card is composed 30% by fiber weight of paper 
collected from consumers after use of a paper product, and 20% by fiber 
weight of paper that was generated after completion of the paper-making 
process, diverted from the solid waste stream, and otherwise would not 
normally have been

[[Page 206]]

reused in the original manufacturing process. The marketer of the card 
may claim either that the product ``contains 50% recycled fiber,'' or 
may identify the specific pre-consumer and/or post-consumer content by 
stating, for example, that the product ``contains 50% total recycled 
fiber, including 30% post-consumer.''
    Example 4: A paperboard package with 20% recycled fiber by weight is 
labeled as containing ``20% recycled fiber.'' Some of the recycled 
content was composed of material collected from consumers after use of 
the original product. The rest was composed of overrun newspaper stock 
never sold to customers. The claim is not deceptive.
    Example 5: A product in a multi-component package, such as a 
paperboard box in a shrink-wrapped plastic cover, indicates that it has 
recycled packaging. The paperboard box is made entirely of recycled 
material, but the plastic cover is not. The claim is deceptive since, 
without qualification, it suggests that both components are recycled. A 
claim limited to the paperboard box would not be deceptive.
    Example 6: A package is made from layers of foil, plastic, and paper 
laminated together, although the layers are indistinguishable to 
consumers. The label claims that ``one of the three layers of this 
package is made of recycled plastic.'' The plastic layer is made 
entirely of recycled plastic. The claim is not deceptive provided the 
recycled plastic layer constitutes a significant component of the entire 
package.
    Example 7: A paper product is labeled as containing ``100% recycled 
fiber.'' The claim is not deceptive if the advertiser can substantiate 
the conclusion that 100% by weight of the fiber in the finished product 
is recycled.
    Example 8: A frozen dinner is marketed in a package composed of a 
cardboard box over a plastic tray. The package bears the legend, 
``package made from 30% recycled material.'' Each packaging component 
amounts to one-half the weight of the total package. The box is 20% 
recycled content by weight, while the plastic tray is 40% recycled 
content by weight. The claim is not deceptive, since the average amount 
of recycled material is 30%.
    Example 9: A paper greeting card is labeled as containing 50% 
recycled fiber. The seller purchases paper stock from several sources 
and the amount of recycled fiber in the stock provided by each source 
varies. Because the 50% figure is based on the annual weighted average 
of recycled material purchased from the sources after accounting for 
fiber loss during the production process, the claim is permissible.
    Example 10: A packaged food product is labeled with a three-chasing-
arrows symbol without any further explanatory text as to its meaning. By 
itself, the symbol is likely to convey that the packaging is both 
``recyclable'' and is made entirely from recycled material. Unless both 
messages can be substantiated, the claim should be qualified as to 
whether it refers to the package's recyclability and/or its recycled 
content. If a ``recyclable'' claim is being made, the label may need to 
disclose the limited availability of recycling programs for the package. 
If a recycled content claim is being made and the packaging is not made 
entirely from recycled material, the label should disclose the 
percentage of recycled content.
    Example 11: A laser printer toner cartridge containing 25% recycled 
raw materials and 40% reconditioned parts is labeled ``65% recycled 
content; 40% from reconditioned parts.'' This claim is not deceptive.
    Example 12: A store sells both new and used sporting goods. One of 
the items for sale in the store is a baseball helmet that, although 
used, is no different in appearance than a brand new item. The helmet 
bears an unqualified ``Recycled'' label. This claim is deceptive 
because, unless evidence shows otherwise, consumers could reasonably 
believe that the helmet is made of recycled raw materials, when it is in 
fact a used item. An acceptable claim would bear a disclosure clearly 
stating that the helmet is used.
    Example 13: A manufacturer of home electronics labels its video 
cassette recorders (``VCRs'') as ``40% recycled.'' In fact, each VCR 
contains 40% reconditioned parts. This claim is deceptive because 
consumers are unlikely to know that the VCR's recycled content consists 
of reconditioned parts.
    Example 14: A dealer of used automotive parts recovers a serviceable 
engine from a vehicle that has been totaled. Without repairing, 
rebuilding, remanufacturing, or in any way altering the engine or its 
components, the dealer attaches a ``Recycled'' label to the engine, and 
offers it for resale in its used auto parts store. In this situation, an 
unqualified recycled content claim is not likely to be deceptive because 
consumers are likely to understand that the engine is used and has not 
undergone any rebuilding.
    Example 15: An automobile parts dealer purchases a transmission that 
has been recovered from a junked vehicle. Eighty-five percent by weight 
of the transmission was rebuilt and 15% constitutes new materials. After 
rebuilding \6\ the transmission in accordance with industry practices, 
the dealer

[[Page 207]]

packages it for resale in a box labeled ``Rebuilt Transmission,'' or 
``Rebuilt Transmission (85% recycled content from rebuilt parts),'' or 
``Recycled Transmission (85% recycled content from rebuilt parts).'' 
These claims are not likely to be deceptive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``rebuilding'' means that the dealer dismantled and 
reconstructed the transmission as necessary, cleaned all of its internal 
and external parts and eliminated rust and corrosion, restored all 
impaired, defective or substantially worn parts to a sound condition (or 
replaced them if necessary), and performed any operations required to 
put the transmission in sound working condition.

    (f) Source reduction: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or 
by implication, that a product or package has been reduced or is lower 
in weight, volume or toxicity. Source reduction claims should be 
qualified to the extent necessary to avoid consumer deception about the 
amount of the source reduction and about the basis for any comparison 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
asserted.

    Example 1: An ad claims that solid waste created by disposal of the 
advertiser's packaging is ``now 10% less than our previous package.'' 
The claim is not deceptive if the advertiser has substantiation that 
shows that disposal of the current package contributes 10% less waste by 
weight or volume to the solid waste stream when compared with the 
immediately preceding version of the package.
    Example 2: An advertiser notes that disposal of its product 
generates ``10% less waste.'' The claim is ambiguous. Depending on 
contextual factors, it could be a comparison either to the immediately 
preceding product or to a competitor's product. The ``10% less waste'' 
reference is deceptive unless the seller clarifies which comparison is 
intended and substantiates that comparison, or substantiates both 
possible interpretations of the claim.

    (g) Refillable: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by 
implication, that a package is refillable. An unqualified refillable 
claim should not be asserted unless a system is provided for the 
collection and return of the package for refill or the later refill of 
the package by consumers with product subsequently sold in another 
package. A package should not be marketed with an unqualified refillable 
claim, if it is up to the consumer to find new ways to refill the 
package.

    Example 1: A container is labeled ``refillable x times.'' The 
manufacturer has the capability to refill returned containers and can 
show that the container will withstand being refilled at least x times. 
The manufacturer, however, has established no collection program. The 
unqualified claim is deceptive because there is no means for collection 
and return of the container to the manufacturer for refill.
    Example 2: A bottle of fabric softener states that it is in a 
``handy refillable container.'' The manufacturer also sells a large-
sized container that indicates that the consumer is expected to use it 
to refill the smaller container. The manufacturer sells the large-sized 
container in the same market areas where it sells the small container. 
The claim is not deceptive because there is a means for consumers to 
refill the smaller container from larger containers of the same product.

    (h) Ozone safe and ozone friendly: It is deceptive to misrepresent, 
directly or by implication, that a product is safe for or ``friendly'' 
to the ozone layer or the atmosphere. For example, a claim that a 
product does not harm the ozone layer is deceptive if the product 
contains an ozone-depleting substance.

    Example 1: A product is labeled ``ozone friendly.'' The claim is 
deceptive if the product contains any ozone-depleting substance, 
including those substances listed as Class I or Class II chemicals in 
Title VI of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101-549, 
and others subsequently designated by EPA as ozone-depleting substances. 
Chemicals that have been listed or designated as Class I are 
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, methyl bromide and hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs). 
Chemicals that have been listed as Class II are hydrochlorofluorocarbons 
(HCFCs).
    Example 2: An aerosol air freshener is labeled ``ozone friendly.'' 
Some of the product's ingredients are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 
that may cause smog by contributing to ground-level ozone formation. The 
claim is likely to convey to consumers that the product is safe for the 
atmosphere as a whole, and is therefore, deceptive.
    Example 3: The seller of an aerosol product makes an unqualified 
claim that its product ``Contains no CFCs.'' Although the product does 
not contain CFCs, it does contain HCFC-22, another ozone depleting 
ingredient. Because the claim ``Contains no CFCs'' may imply to 
reasonable consumers that the product does not harm the ozone layer, the 
claim is deceptive.
    Example 4: A product is labeled ``This product is 95% less damaging 
to the ozone layer than past formulations that contained CFCs.'' The 
manufacturer has substituted HCFCs for CFC-12, and can substantiate that 
this substitution will result in 95% less ozone depletion. The qualified 
comparative claim is not likely to be deceptive.

[57 FR 36363, Aug. 13, 1992, as amended at 61 FR 53318, Oct. 11, 1996; 
61 FR 67109, Dec. 19, 1996; 63 FR 24248, May 1, 1998]