When “green” claims reveal a gray area

According to the “Our Products” page on the Seventh Generation Web site, “Seventh Generation offers a complete line of non-toxic household products. All of our products are designed to work as well as their traditional counterparts, but use renewable, non-toxic, phosphate free and biodegradable ingredients, and are never tested on animals.”

But in reporting a story on whether eco-friendly products meet their green claims, Consumer Reports Senior Editor Doug Podolsky discovered that Seventh Generation Automatic Dishwashing Gel—available in green apple (bottle shown) and lemon scents—is not “biodegradable,” a claim that appears on the front label of the 45-ounce container. The gel contains a petroleum-based ingredient that’s listed on the bottle as a “non-toxic acrylic polymer.” The presence of this polymer means that the gel is not biodegradable, as the company defines the term.

Officials at the Vermont-based Seventh Generation have confirmed that the gel contains this polymer, which is not readily biodegradable, and that the company is working to remove the biodegradability claim from packaging. “Our Automatic Dishwashing Gel is the only Seventh Generation product with the ingredient in question and a biodegradable claim,” wrote Chrystie Heimert, director of public relations for the company, in a June 8 e-mail to Podolsky. "It is not our intention to recall or remove the product in question from retail distribution, as it poses no health issues. We will honor our pre-existing money-back guarantee.”

In an e-mail three days later, she said that new product labeling would be produced beginning June 15, and that it will take two to three months for the newly labeled products to reach retailers. She said the company had made it a priority “to identify and engage with a third party expert to conduct a thorough audit of our product line, including a comprehensive review of our claims.”

Eco-labeling of dishwasher detergents is not a new issue to Seventh Generation. In the same June 8 e-mail to Podolsky, Heimert wrote, “As you've noted, on our Web site we state that we were first aware that the polymer was not readily biodegradable in 2004. Having purchased the formulation from another manufacturer, we began the task of upgrading the formulation to reflect the label claim. This took much longer than anticipated, and in 2006, we removed both the ‘Natural’ and ‘Biodegradable’ claims from our Automatic Dishwashing Detergent powder formulation. Unfortunately, we neglected to remove the biodegradability claim from the front of the Automatic Dishwashing Gel package. This was an oversight on our part, and one which we are grateful to you for bringing to our attention.” (Read more about the dishwashing powder in “Wondering Why We Are Not Calling This Product ‘Natural’ Anymore?”)

“Certainly, this is bad marketing practice on the part of Seventh Generation,” says Urvashi Rangan, senior scientist/policy analyst, for Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. Still, “The company's products do appear to contain less harmful chemicals than conventional cleaners. Its dishwasher detergents don't contain phosphates, so they do have some environmental value.”

There are no U.S. government standards for "nontoxic" or "biodegradable," according to Rangan. If you’re interested in eco-labeling, don’t miss Podolsky’s story in the Upfront section of the September 2007 issue of Consumer Reports, on sale in August.—Steven H. Saltzman

Essential information: The Seventh Generation gel appears in our Ratings of dishwasher detergents (available to subscribers). Look for our latest report on dishwasher detergents in the August 2007 issue of Consumer Reports, on sale in July. And visit our Eco-labels.org for more information on environmental labels on a range of consumer goods, including household cleaners, food, and personal-hygiene products.

Comments

[Yuwsuf R Abdulghafoor]

Thanks C.U. for doing your job and a lifetime of Organically Grown 'raspberries' for you Seventh Generation for your dedication to 'Serving the Public'!

[harvie st. clair]

In North America and around the world we have consistently attacked green movements, companies trying to initiate a spiritual revolution around "we as humans thinking differently about our place among all other living things on the planet". It's not about something specific per se, but about the vision, and envisioning the world with a holistic viewpoint. Sadly, we tend to resist these ideas in the name of other ideologies. I'm certainly not defending labelling that's incorrect on cleaners or medicines or personal health products. If a company says they are "green" in some way, they should back that up with some integrity. I think what I am saying is, that given the collossal portfolio of things on the shelf that are absolutely horrible for us to put in or on our bodies, on our lawns, feed to our pets or wash our dishes with, it's a sad affair when the best we can come up with is the rogue cleaner, cosmetic or medicine that somehow doesn't meet standard at worst, and then condemn them while ignoring the atrocity of products that are truly harmful to the public. What about all the companies still stocking shelves with products that are just wrong for human use, consumption or use on our pets, cars, laundry and dishes. If Consumer Reports can't come must assume its customers are complete idiots. The public has seen this before, and in the end it doesn't change anything. Currently, the public is looking for a vision of "green living" that will extend beyond products and into how we actually live as human beings. Although it's right to point out that not all "green products" are as green as they should be, there might be bigger fish to fry in your community. I think consumer reports direction in general is disharmonious in trying to evaluate green products, medicines, cosmetics etc., not because there isn't perfect labelling on these products, but because it's incorrectly focussed on what society needs, and respectfully, what is the right thing to do. I think if they want to go green, they should compare 6 products - 3 that are your standard non-environmental approach to ie. Weed-ex and compare them to the non-conventional green products, and see how they measure up. The same could be said for medicines, cosmetics and personal products such as tampons or shampoo. I think the consumer market is done with listening to the rhetoric of some over zealous author who wants to attack a single product, citing its inefficacies without comparing it side by side with other comparable products. If we look at products in isolation we can always find faults, and this is true of every product. The consumer market is sophisticated, and its pretty obvious that writers such as Doug Podolsky don't recognize that. His articles on citing the faults of green products is misdirected and lacks vision of the consumer market altogether. People need information related to products comparable to, and need explainations why "green products" are suitably comparable to "non-green products". Educate the public about that and don't underestimate your readers intelligence. Show a little leadership and integrity on your articles in regard to the "green products" that are still largely outnumbered by products that are horrible for the environment and human use.

H. St.Clair