Eco-Labels: A Guide to Eco-Buying : Ecology: Several groups are mounting campaigns to help the shopper choose environmentally safe products.
The claims on store shelves are increasingly confusing.
Biodegradable. Recyclable. Ozone-friendly.
But is a plastic bag made with cornstarch really biodegradable when buried deep in a landfill, with no water and air to break it down?
Are plastic bottles really recyclable when there is no system to collect and reuse them? And what about aerosol sprays that replace propellants that eat the Earth’s ozone layer with others that produce smog?
In an attempt to guide shoppers through the maze, a national group this month will unveil an environmental “seal of approval” modeled after programs in West Germany, Canada and Japan.
The Green Seal, a nonprofit corporation based in Washington, expects by late this year to begin awarding its logo to products it judges environmentally sound, Chairman Denis Hayes said.
Hayes, who was instrumental in establishing the first Earth Day in 1970 and was the head of one of the major Earth Day 1990 organizations, said that national polls show a majority of U.S. consumers want to buy products that are environmentally responsible.
But with so many marketing claims being pitched by manufacturers and challenged by environmental groups, Hayes fears that consumers sincerely interested in using their buying power to help the environment will be turned off.
“They don’t know who to trust,” he said.
Green Seal’s program, in which companies or the public would suggest products to be judged, will rely on an independent panel of scientific and technical experts, Hayes said. Independent laboratories will be used to ensure that manufacturers’ claims are accurate.
The manufacturers will be asked to pay the costs of judging and testing products and awarding the logo.
“We want to give the public a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down on a basis they can understand,” Hayes explained.
Another labeling venture--Scientific Certification Systems Inc. of Oakland, Calif.--is a private, profit-making laboratory that intends to award a green cross to products it certifies; the cost to companies will vary from a few hundred dollars to $10,000, depending on the amount of research necessary.
Industry groups are carefully watching the “eco-labeling” movement in the United States and abroad, according to Theresa Pugh, director of environment for the 13,500-member National Manufacturers Assn.
She said that the trade group did not want to comment on any particular labeling program but generally was concerned that symbols could be simplistic and fail to take into account a product’s total life span, from manufacture to disposal.
“We’re urging companies to seriously look at this before they place that logo on their product because the public can be easily confused and become distrustful of industry,” Pugh warned.
She said there are limitations in what can be easily conveyed to the public in “buzz phrases” on packaging. “If the public wants a more reasonable, thought-out, meticulous approach to environment in terms of industry, they’re going to have to give us some time to do that.”
Ray Goldberg, a professor at the Harvard Business School who studies U.S. agribusiness from farms to supermarkets, said that “green” consumers are a large, growing market. “People do take this labeling very seriously; I don’t think it is a fad.”
“They are trying to make this a better place to live and they don’t think of this as a do-gooder segment of society, or a small segment of society any more,” said Goldberg, who has studied the Canadian labeling program.
He said shoppers “are willing to pay a premium to make sure what they’re getting is really biodegradable.”
Labeling programs also are being developed in Norway, Sweden and France; and the European Community wants to begin a labeling program before the 12 nations unify their markets in 1992.
Of those countries, only Norway provides a model for a private, nonprofit approach rather than government sponsorship.
The labeling programs in other countries are administered by a government agency, usually with an independent advisory board and the involvement of the public. All of the programs have been modeled after West Germany’s program, which is the oldest.
Since Germany’s program was established in 1978 by the Federal Environment Agency, more than 3,100 products in 57 categories have been awarded a Blue Angel seal.
Industry and consumers have embraced the German program, says a December report done for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency office of pollution prevention. “A survey of 3,000 households in 1987 showed that 78.9% were familiar with the Blue Angel label. Consumer demand for recycled paper products and . . . paints with the Blue Angel logo has been healthy,” the report states.
The German government says the program has reduced solvents from household paints entering the waste stream by 40,000 tons.
Despite its success, the German program has been criticized for not paying enough attention to the overall quality of products, for outdated criteria in selecting products and for picking products based on only one reason.
The Canadian labeling program, administered by Environment Canada, equivalent to the U.S. EPA, reviews products on a much broader basis. Products must be environmentally sound in their production, use and disposal, without any reduction in performance and safety. It was begun last year, and only about 10 products have been awarded the Canadian Eco-Logo.
