Now here's a story that gets right to the heart and soul of this blog. Three companies--K-Mart, Tender and Dyna-E--have been
charged by the Federal Trade Commission with making false biodegradability claims about various products (plates, moist wipes and towels).
K-Mart and Tender have agreed to settle their cases. But Dyna-E is ready to go to the mat on this. So it remains to be seen whether the allegations against them can be proved--assuming they don't settle later. (A development that will probably get overlooked by the press. Who me, cynical? Never . . .)
And while we're talking about the press, lets talk about sloppy journalism. I mean, really sloppy folks. To quote the article:
"While the products may actually biodegrade in certain conditions, the FTC said the claims are misleading since they do not follow the recommendations in the FTC's
Green Guides, which say claims of biodegradability should only be used if there is scientific evidence showing the product will completely decompose in a reasonably short period of time under normal disposal methods.
[Now here's the part that bugs me.]
"Since the products in question are typically throw [sic] in the trash and end up in landfills or incinerators, they would not biodegrade in a reasonably short period of time."
Huh? Wait a second. Is this writer saying that because
users throw products out that those products aren't biodegradable? (Call me crazy, but I think that's what it says.) No, no, no . . . the issue here is whether there's
evidence to show the product is
capable of completely decomposing in a reasonably short time under normal disposal methods (whatever "reasonably short time" and "normal disposal methods" may mean, but those are other issues). If the product meets that standard, it does so whether users burn it or trash it. And how does this writer know that the product isn't capable of biodegrading in a landfill, anyway? Besides, how could anyone expect a product to meet this standard if incineration has to be taken into account? By definition, that would rule everything out.
Bottom line: this case is supposed to be decided based upon scientific evidence, not some reporter's suppositions.
Gol'durn inexact journalists . . . grrr . . .
Addendum: in fairness to the article's author, here's an example of a deceptive claim from the guidelines themselves:
"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." (Emphasis added.)
Okay, fine, in this example they don't have enough evidence. But if they
do have evidence that the stuff can biodegrade in a landfill, then the mere fact that it ends up in landfills doesn't settle the question.
So, I can see where the writer might oversimplify things based on this example. But I stand by my verdict on the inaccuracy.
Posts
