3. ISSUES FOR COMMENT

The Commission solicits written public comment on the following questions:

A. General Issues

• 1. Is there a continuing need for the guides?

   

  (a) What benefits have the guides provided to consumers?

  (b) Have the guides imposed costs on consumers?

  2. What changes, if any, should be made to the guides to increase the benefits of the guides to consumers?

   

  (a) How would these changes affect the costs the guides impose on firms subject to their provisions?

  3. What significant burdens or costs, including the cost of adherence, have the guides imposed on firms subject to their provisions?

   

  (a) Have the guides provided benefits to such firms?

  4. What changes, if any, should be made to the guides to reduce the burdens or costs imposed on firms subject to their provisions?

   

  (a) How would these changes affect the benefits provided by the guides?

  5. Since the guides were issued, what effects, if any, have changes in relevant technology or economic conditions had on the guides?

   

  (a) What impact, if any, have the guides had on the development of environmentally beneficial innovations in technology and products?

  (b) Is there other information concerning science or technology that the Commission should consider in determining whether the guides should be modified?

  6. Do the guides overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or local laws and regulations? Is there evidence concerning whether the guides have assisted in promoting national consistency with respect to the regulation of environmental claims?

   

  7. Are there international developments with respect to environmental marketing claims that the Commission should consider as it reviews the guides? Do these developments indicate that the guides should be modified?

   

  8. What new evidence is available concerning consumer perception of environmental claims? Please provide any empirical data that are available on all categories of environmental claims, including claims not currently covered by the guides. Does this new information indicate that the guides should be modified?

   

  9. What new evidence is available concerning consumer awareness of and knowledge about environmental issues? Please provide any available empirical data. Does this new information indicate that the guides should be modified?

   

  10. What impact have the guides had on the flow of truthful information to consumers and on the flow of deceptive information to consumers?

   

  11. To what extent have the guides reduced consumer skepticism or confusion about environmental claims?

   

  12. What evidence is available concerning the degree of industry compliance with the guides?

   

  (a) To what extent has there been a reduction in deceptive environmental claims since the guides were issued?

  (b) To what extent has there been an increase in the degree and accuracy of qualifications of environmental claims? Please provide any available empirical data, including any data relevant to the findings of the Utah Tracking Study cited above. Does this evidence indicate that the guides should be modified?

  13. To what extent have the guides reduced manufacturers' uncertainty about which claims might lead to FTC law enforcement actions?

   

  14. Is there a need for guidance on environmental claims not currently addressed in the guides? If so, what specific claims should be addressed and what should this guidance take?

   

  15. Are there claims addressed in the guides on which guidance is no longer needed?

   

B. Specific Issues

A number of specific issues concerning the guides have arisen since their adoption. The Commission is seeking comment on these issues but the questions listed below should not be construed as an indication of the Commission's intent to make any specific modifications to the guides.

• 16. The Commission is seeking comment on the following specific issues relating to the "ozone friendly/ozone safe" guide.

   

  (a) To what extent do phrases like "ozone friendly" or "No CFCs," by themselves, convey broad claims of environmental benefit to consumers, including claims about the harmlessness of the product to the atmosphere as a whole (i.e., both the upper ozone layer and ground-level air pollution)? How important is the context in which the claim appears? Please provide any empirical data, including any data relevant to the findings of the FTC survey.⁶ Are there methodological issues concerning the survey that are relevant to the survey's findings? Does the survey evidence suggest that the guides should be modified? If so, what form should the modification take? How would these modifications affect the benefits the guides provide to consumers and the costs they impose on firms subject to their provisions?

  17. The Commission is seeking comment on the following specific issues relating to the "recyclable" and "compostable" guides:

   

  (a) The September 1993 COPE survey (cited above) may be interpreted to suggest that the presence of a "recyclable" claim may not increase the percentage of consumers who think that recycling facilities for a product or package are available in their community. Please provide any empirical data regarding whether an unqualified recyclable or an unqualified compostable claim conveys a deceptive claim concerning local availability. Are there methodological issues concerning the COPE survey that are relevant to its findings? Does the COPE survey and any other new evidence provided indicate that the recyclable and/or compostable sections of the guides should be modified, and if so, in what manner? What effect would the proposed changes have on the benefits the guides provide to consumers and the costs that the guides impose on firms?

  (b) The COPE surveys (cited above) suggest that certain of the qualifying disclosures suggested in the recyclable and compostable guides may be more effective than others in conveying to consumers that facilities may not be available in their community to recycle or compost the product. Please provide any empirical data relevant to the findings of the COPE surveys. Are there methodological issues concerning the COPE surveys that are relevant to the surveys' findings? Does the COPE evidence (or any other evidence provided) indicate that these disclosures should be modified, and if so, in what manner? How would such modifications affect the benefits the guides provide to consumers and the costs they impose on firms?

  (c) Please provide any relevant empirical data regarding consumer perception of phrases such as "Please Recycle" and "Coded for Recycling" and of the "three chasing arrows" logo. To what extent do such claims suggest to consumers that a product or package is recyclable? What, if any, modifications should be made to the guides in light of such consumer perceptions? How would such modifications affect the benefits the guides provide to consumers and the costs they impose on firms?

  (d) The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) code, a logo introduced in 1988 for voluntary use by SPI, has since been mandated for use on certain plastic packages by thirty-nine states to facilitate identification of different types of plastic resins. In its guides, the Commission states that the use of the code, without more, on the bottom of package, or in a similarly inconspicuous location, does not constitute a claim of recyclability. What consumer perception data are available concerning how consumers interpret the SPI code? What, if any, modifications should be made to the guides in light of such data? How would such modifications affect the benefits the guides provide to consumers and the costs they impose on firms?

  18. Please provide any empirical data relevant to whether consumers perceive that products made from reconditioned parts that would otherwise have been thrown away should qualify as "recycled" products. What modifications, if any, should be made to the guides to address these consumer perceptions? How would such modifications affect the benefits the guides provide to consumers and the costs they impose on firms?

   

  19. Are there other specific issues concerning the guides that the Commission should review? What empirical data are available to assist the Commission in its review of these issues? What, if any modifications should be made in light of these issues? How would such modifications affect the benefits the guides provide to consumers and the costs they impose on firms?

   

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 260: Environmental Marketing Claims: Advertising.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark
Secretary

Footnotes

⁶ The FTC survey (cited above) suggests that when consumers see claims like "No CFCs" and "Ozone Friendly" on aerosol products, they may interpet the claim to mean that the product is not only harmless to the upper ozone layer, but to the atmosphere as a whole. In Creative Aerosol Corp., No. C-3548 (January 13, 1995) (final consent order), the Commission required the company to cease and desist from representing, through the use of terms such as "No Fluorocarbons," that any product containing Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), will not harm the atmosphere, unless the claim is substantiated. The Order defines VOCs as "any compound of carbon which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency," that is, compounds of carbon that EPA has determined are potential contributors to smog.

HOME SEARCH