Environmental Claims Increase Scrutiny

We love the environment, but companies making broad sustainability claims are asking for increased scrutiny. This is because statements like “environmentally friendly” and “sustainably sourced” can be interpreted in many ways, and providing the required substantiation is very difficult.

A leading meat stick brand faced a challenge at the National Advertising Division (NAD) over its environmental and sourcing claims. In NAD cases, companies typically provide substantiating data to support their claims for review. However, rather than defending its claims, the company chose to remove the challenged environmental statements, including references to the product being “carbon neutral” and “sustainable.”

👉 From NAD. “(NAD) will treat the claims, for compliance purposes, as though NAD recommended they be discontinued.”

Here are a few comments and best practices when making “eco” type claims.

Provide measurable outcomes: For example, “Our packaging uses 30% post-consumer recycled content” is less likely to be challenged than “Our packaging is recyclable and sustainable.”

Stay Away from Broad Claims: Statements like “No carbon footprint” are well-intentioned but are difficult to support without an offset program or verified calculation on all products.

Specific vs. Broad Claims Example

🔹Broad Claim (Risky): “Our protein powder is eco-friendly and helps save the planet.”

🔹Specific Claim (Less Risky): “Our protein powder uses 25% less plastic per container compared to our 2021 packaging, reducing material waste.”

Read the NAD decision here. 

DATE ORIGINALLY POSTED: 2/12/25

Disclaimer: The educational information provided here is for informational purposes only. Contact an attorney for specific legal advice. Rule #1 in compliance is to ensure marketing is truthful and not misleading.