An environmentally-friendly alternative to dry clean only instructions, wet cleaning, could soon be showing up on our care labels. 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in an effort to reduce environmental and social health impacts, will hold a public roundtable discussion on March 28, 2014 about the expansion of clothing care labels to include wet cleaning.

“This suggests that the vast majority of garments currently labeled ‘dry clean’ or ‘dry clean only’ could be labeled with a wet cleaning instruction,” the Coalition for Clean Air says.

What is better about wet cleaning?

Professional wet cleaning services actually use less water than dry clean methods, and save on energy, detergents and soaps. Plus, delicate fabric like wool, silk and leather can still undergo professional wet cleaning processes.

More over, dry cleaning is a dirty businesses full of toxic chemicals. The most dangerous being perchloro ethyele used throughout all dry cleaning businesses.

“Perchloro ethylele, which is sometime called perc, is a very highly toxic substance,” says Mark Myles, Training Manager of the Toxics Use Reduction Institute at UMass Lowell. “And yet it is the most commonly used substance by dry cleaners.” In fact, the EPA recently approved a ban on the use of perchloro ethylele, in the state of California, effective by 2020.

Currently, professional wet cleaning services do not comply with the Care Labeling Rule due to lack of standardization. But since 2000, when the FTC first denied the expansion, “standards-setting organizations and other interested participants in this proceeding appear to have been working independently to resolve these outstanding issues,” said the FTC in a detailed report.

Now with greater pressures from environmental organizations, and the growing expansion of wet cleaning services as an environmentally friendly alternative to dry cleaning, the FTC will revisit the issue.

Under the Care Labeling Rule, “manufacturers and importers [are required] to attach labels with care instructions for dry cleaning washing, bleaching, drying and ironing of garments and certain piece goods,” says the FTC. If the rule were to change, the FTC would add professional wet cleaning services as an alternative to dry cleaning.

Opening up the conversation

“In our members experience, a dry clean label is interpreted to mean ‘do not wash’ by many, if not all, consumers,” the Drycleaning and Laundry Institute wrote in comments to the FTC.

But just because a label says dry clean only doesn’t mean you can’t get the garment wet. The labeling even deters some customers from purchasing certain clothing so as not to deal with dry cleaning.

“There is a subset of consumers that will not buy anything with a dry clean label. If all methods of care are required to be on the label, this consumer might be willing to purchase the item,” the group said.

Before the FTC moves forth into a decision they want to ensure customers have access to such facilities before changing the labeling.

“We want to know the extent to which professional wet cleaning is available to consumers,” FTC attorney Robert Frisby said.

The discussion on March 28th, 2014 will focus on the economic costs of implementing wet cleaning instructions, what instructions and details need to be on wet cleaning labels, the availability of wet cleaning and consumer awareness around alternative.

Take part in the discussion by filing a comment to the FTC.

Related on Ecosalon

Wet Cleaning Vs. Dry Cleaning

Dry Clean Only? An Eco Expert Tells Us When It’s Safe to Ignore Labels

9 Ways To Wash Your Delicates Without Dry Cleaning

10 Myths About Dry Cleaning

image: Juliette Donatelli

The post Is This The End of Dry Clean Only Labels? appeared first on EcoSalon.

A government assault on the pomegranate.

Everyone knows that juice is good for you. But can a company claim that its benefits extend beyond general healthfulness? That was the question at hand last week, when a judge ruled that pomegranate juice purveyor Pom Wonderful was misleading customers by saying that its product reduces the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer, and impotence. The ruling came two years after a complaint from the Federal Trade Commission contending that Pom’s advertising was false and misleading.

Though the decision clearly stated that the juice company had insufficient evidence to support its claims, Pom reacted with a set of full-page celebratory advertisements in publications like the New York Times, with pull-out quotes from the ruling about the health benefits of pomegranates, which many critics say were taken out of context. The case begs the question: is pomegranate juice the “antioxidant superpower,” “death cheater,” and “life preserver” that Pom claims it is? Or is it no different than a glass of Tropicana?

When Stewart and Linda Rae Resnick started Pom Wonderful in 2002, few were familiar with the sweet, juicy, seed-filled pomegranate. But thanks to an aggressive marketing campaign on the fruit’s health benefits, pomegranates soon started showing up in everything from muffins to green tea to vodka, with Pom at the center of the frenzy.

Though the fruit originally hails from modern-day Iraq and Iran, Pom’s juice comes from pomegranates grown in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Pom promotes its juice as coming from “tree to bottle,” without added sugars, colorants, or low-grade fruit juices. In fact, in an interesting twist, Pom has previously sued competitor brand Minute Maid for false and misleading advertising surrounding its Enhanced Pomegranate Blueberry Juice, which contains just 0.3% pomegranate juice. The full story, from Pom’s point of view, is available in an article titled The True Story Behind Pomegranate Juice: Why POM is the Real Deal and Why Minute Maid is a Deceptive Sham. (Those juice guys sure don’t mince words.)

The Good

As far as juices go, pomegranate is pretty exceptional. One 8-ounce bottle provides about 50 percent of an adult’s recommended daily allowance of vitamins A, C, and E; 100 percent RDA of folic acid; and 13 percent RDA of potassium. In 2008, a UCLA study ranked it the healthiest fruit juice, above red wine and concord grape juice, because of its high levels of disease-fighting antioxidants.

Claims that pomegranate juice can help fight prostrate cancer originated in a series of studies reported in Harvard Men’s Health Watch in 2007. In the first study, pomegranate fruit extracts were shown to slow the growth of cultured cancer cells. Those cancer cells were then implanted in mice, which developed smaller tumors than untreated animals after receiving water laced with pomegranate juice. In another study, of men living with prostrate cancer, drinking pomegranate juice lengthened PSA doubling time and slowed tumor growth.

The same article referenced previous studies of pomegranate juice’s effect on heart disease, which showed that it can protect bad cholesterol from oxidative damage. Two small clinical trials also showed that pomegranate juice can lead to a decrease in carotid artery thickness and an improvement in cardiac blood flow.

But while the Harvard studies suggest a correlation between pomegranate juice consumption and better health, the article made sure not to state a direct causal relationship. It concluded:

The bottom line: Early studies raise hopes that pomegranates may have potential benefits for prostate cancer and heart disease, but more research is needed to determine whether these hopes are justified.

The Bad

Pom’s troubles began about two years ago, in September 2010, when the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against Pom for deceptive and misleading advertising, particularly relating to claims about the juice’s prevention and treatment of heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction. “Any consumer who sees POM Wonderful products as a silver bullet against disease has been misled,” said David Vladeck, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a CBS News report.

On May 17, the complaint reached a conclusion with a cease-and-desist order from FTC chief administrative judge D. Michael Chappell, which stated:

The greater weight of the persuasive expert testimony demonstrates that there is insufficient competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate claims that the Pom products treat, prevent or reduce the risk of erectile dysfunction or that they are clinically proven to do so.

The ruling mentioned similar findings on Pom’s claims regarding heart disease and prostate cancer, and it ordered Pom and parent company Roll Global to submit ad and marketing materials, complaints, and comments to the FTC for the next five years.

Though some might see the ruling as devastating, Pom Wonderful seemed to view it as a win. On its website, Pom announced that it was “vindicated,” and in a corporate press release, it stated: “In a 335 page ruling, the FTC’s Administrative Law Judge has upheld POM Wonderful’ s right to share valuable, scientifically-validated information about the health benefits of its safe food with consumers.”

Pom also followed up the ruling with a number of provocative advertisements published last week, taglined: “FTC vs. POM: You be the judge.”

In the advertisements, Pom quotes statements from Judge Chappell’s ruling, which state that the health benefits of pomegranate juice are not in doubt and that pomegranate juice provides a benefit to erectile and prostate health.

But food scientist and activist Marion Nestle, who authors the blog Food Politics, decided to fact-check these quotes. One ad, for example, reads:

Competent and reliable scientific evidence supports the conclusion that the consumption of pomegranate juice and pomegranate extract supports prostate health, including by prolonging PSA doubling time in men with rising PSA after primary treatment for prostate cancer (page 282).

But after that quotation in the actual FTC document, the paragraph continues:

However, the greater weight of the persuasive expert testimony shows that the evidence relied upon by Respondents is not adequate to substantiate claims that the POM Products treat, prevent, or reduce the risk of prostate cancer or that they are clinically proven to do do so.

It’s the same story with another Pom-celebrated quote:

Competent and reliable scientific evidence shows that pomegranate juice provides a benefit to promoting erectile health and erectile function (page 198).

Followed immediately by:

There is insufficient competent and reliable scientific evidence to show that pomegranate juice prevents or reduces the risk of erectile dysfunction or has been clinically proven to do so.

The Questionable

The FTC’s ruling itself was considered a blow to Pom Wonderful and the pomegranate industry as a whole. But the company’s response seems to have damaged its reputation even more. Forbes columnist David Vinjamuri sums it up well:

Corporate communications groups rarely get high points for transparency, but this release shows a singular lack of accountability to the consumer that hurts POM Wonderful, its sister brands and the consumer brand community as a whole.

In this case, no one seems to be debating the fact that pomegranate juice is good for you. Taken in moderation as part of a healthful diet, it’s a great source of antioxidants and vitamins. But as with all juices, Pom’s health benefits have to be weighed against its natural sugar content, which clocks out at a whopping 31 grams per 8-ounce bottle – nearly as much as a can of Coca Cola.

In short, if you like fruit juice and enjoy the taste of pomegranates, by all means drink Pom. But if you’re looking to prevent and treat disease, you’d be better off reevaluating your entire diet and lifestyle, rather than relying on the “miracle juice” that Pom says it is.

SEE ALSO:

Behind the Label: The Kashi Controversy

Behind the Label: Whole Foods 365 Everyday Value

Behind the Label: McDonald’s See What We’re Made Of Campaign

Behind the Label: Chipotle, Food With Integrity

Check out all Behind the Label columns here.

Images: Pom Wonderful

The post Behind the Label: Pom Wonderful vs. The FTC appeared first on EcoSalon.

In my local market I stand in the “not food” aisle and look at the dishwashing liquid. I remember an old TV commercial pitching presumably safe, “mild” Palmolive in which a manicurist, Madge, tells a woman whose nails she’s tending, “you’re soaking in it.” I always think about that ad when I buy this junk, figuring maybe I can find something that’s at least a little non-toxic. Increasingly, though, I’m perplexed as virtually every brand’s label screams: “Pick me! Pick me! I’m eco-all that! You can bathe in me! I swear!” Can this be true? Uh, no, it can’t.

Greenwashing, the tsunami of eco-friendly white noise we experience each day in brand-land, is everywhere, taking advantage of our better instincts and our lack of self-education regarding the products we buy. Every day, real live Mad Men are pulling the eco-cover over our eyes to sell us stuff based on vague and sometimes false claims that what they’re selling is good for us, the environment, and all creatures, great and small. Acknowledging this, and in an effort to protect us, the Federal Trade Commission released its “Green Guides” in 1992 (revised in 1996 and 1998) to “help marketers ensure that the claims they make are true and substantiated.” Hmm – 1998. A dozen years ago.

Last week, the FTC proposed updates to those Green Guides designed to make them easier for companies to understand and use. The changes include new guidance on marketers’ use of “product certifications and seals of approval, renewable energy claims, renewable materials claims, and carbon offset claims.” (They’re looking to hear from you, by the way, on proposed changes until December 10, after which they’ll decide which changes to make final.)

In a brief homage to ridiculously diplomatic language, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said: “In recent years, businesses have increasingly used “˜green’ marketing to capture consumers’ attention and move Americans toward a more environmentally friendly future. But what companies think green claims mean and what consumers really understand are sometimes two different things. The proposed updates to the Green Guides will help businesses better align their product claims with consumer expectations.”

Yeah, well, nice companies need nice reminders every so often, I guess.

Here are some highlights (and we quote):

Degradable: For solid waste products other than those destined for landfills, incinerators, or recycling facilities, the proposal clarifies that the “reasonably short period of time” for complete decomposition is no more than one year after customary disposal… Marketers should not make unqualified degradable claims for items destined for landfills, incinerators, or recycling facilities because decomposition will not occur within one year.

(Read: If it’s still going to be around a year after it’s been used, it’s not “degradable.”)

Free-of: Even if true, claims that an item is free-of a substance may be deceptive if the item has substances that pose the same or similar environmental risk as the substance not present.

(Read: You can’t play with poisons and say you’re poison free.)

General Environmental Benefit (e.g., “green,” “eco-friendly”): Marketers should not make unqualified general environmental benefit claims. They are difficult, if not impossible, to substantiate. Qualifications should be clear and prominent, and should limit the claim to a specific benefit.

(Read: Enough with the eco-babble. If it doesn’t mean anything, don’t say it.)

There’s more good stuff in this long overdue update. Take a quick perusal of the proposed changes and you’ll get a sense of what’s been going down (i.e. overlooked) in the world of greenwashing over the past twelve years. After all, for my money, this isn’t about fixing something that ain’t broke.

Image: Samuel Mann; See also: GOOD

The post Truth Be Told: Changes Coming in ‘Green’ Marketing Guidelines appeared first on EcoSalon.