ECO-LABELLING

Forest and Bird, Volume 22, Issue 2, 1 May 1991, Page 48

ECO-LABELLING

By

Robin Major

Soon a new scheme will be launched so consumers can tell the genuine article from the green con.

ECENT RESEARCH has shown that 80 percent of New Zealanders are prepared to pay at least a little more for environmentally friendlier products but how do you know if the things you buy are as green as they seem? By the end of the year at the very latest, a hitherto little known government quango called Telarc will help consumers identify the genuine article when it starts awarding Environmental Choice New Zealand (ECNZ) labels to products which are proven to cause as little damage to the environment as is practically possible. The media industry's Advertising Standards Authority is also doing its bit with a new heavyweight code which outlaws misleading claims about the environmental benefit of products. The authority, which has enough teeth to force offending material to be withdrawn, put the code into action on the first of March although material written before that date is not affected until the beginning of June. Details about ECNZ are still being finalised but it is certain that the scheme will take a cradle-to-grave look at products. Factors such as the manufacturing process, pollution and disposal after use are therefore certain to be among the issues considered when the environmental friendliness of items is assessed. The ECNZ advisory committee, which consists of representatives from manufacturing, retailing, packaging, consumer and environmental groups including Forest and Bird, is now setting various criteria against which manufacturers can voluntarily have their products assessed in different categories. The committee is using the Canadian’s "green’ eco-labelling criteria as a basis from which to work.

Telarc director Dr Jack Garside explains: "The schemes operate in a similar fashion and carry their respective government endorsements. There has been a lot of work

done already and we see no point in re-in-venting the wheel." Since setting up their scheme in 1988, the Canadians have prepared 14 product category criteria and are working on another ten. The ECNZ committee is assessing the suitability of the battery, engine oil, recycled plastic and paper products and household detergent criteria at the moment. If it runs well, ECNZ will undoubtedly give New Zealand manufacturers a chance to gain a valuable marketing edge amongst green-

conscious consumers and Telarc marketing manager, Fiona McKenzie, has been working hard to present it to industry in this light. It is not a pass/fail situation, she says, but rather encourages manufacturers to meet a minimum standard through gradual improvement if need be. Although searching, the criteria will be attainable she says. "It would be pointless for the committee setting criteria to go totally over the top and make them unachievable given today’s technological and economic environment. There is simply no point in making something unachievable." The strength of consumer feeling about environmental issues means that manufacturers will not be able to ignore the swing toward green labelling, says McKenzie. She also believes the media’s sympathy toward conservation means if a company gets a bad name, it could cost it more to patch up its image than if it cleaned up its operations in the first place. "Those who ignore the trend risk an even bigger bashing than those who try, and then have to try again." From a consumer's point of view, both the ECNZ label and the new advertising code will go a long way towards reducing the "con" factor in green consumerism. Household detergents are particularly misleading in their claims of being biodegradeable because there is no official New Zealand standard of biodegradability. If at all possible many other items in supermarkets today claim to be green in some way or other. Consumer's Institute chief executive David Russell says supermarkets have "an absolute responsibility to substantiate any claims being made by manufacturers" but environmental consultant, Peter Davis, who has researched the greening of supermarkets, says the big stores do little investigation and as far as he knowns, no products have been rejected because of false statements. Under the present laws, even if shoppers do read labels to check whether claims are true, they are unlikely to be any wiser. For instance, cleaners do not have to have the contents listed unless they contain toxic substances. There is no way consumers can confirm whether products really are phos-phate-free or contain very slow biodegrading optical whiteners which make clothes "whiter than white" but not any cleaner. Davis reports overseas cleaning product giants such as Proctor & Gamble and Unilever have tried to keep their recipes secret, although in Europe a voluntary agreement among manufacturers has averted an EEC ruling requiring the labelling of ingredients. Meanwhile in New Zealand, there are no plans to force manufacturers to reveal what is in their products and they are reluctant to do so voluntarily, particularly as some feel terms

such , as "anionic surfactants" will mean nothing to consumers anyhow. It is also hard for consumers to know if the food items they buy are as natural as they are Claimed to be because, even though the ingredients must be listed, additives are referred to only by class such as flavour enhancer. There is, however, legislation in the pipeline requiring manufacturers to refer to additives by code numbers which can be translated into names via a codebreaking book. In the end though, one question must be asked: are the new green products just short term gimmicks or real efforts to address the major environmental issues of the day? The new green cleaners, for instance, may be phosphate-free and meet Australian and European standards of biodegradability, but they still harm the environment more than they need to because they are made out of slow biodegrading petroleum bases rather than faster biodegrading vegetable oil. Martin Brennan, marketing director for Reckitt & Colman, which makes the "Down to Earth" range of cleaners, cannot explain why his company, a self-declared "greenie’’, still uses petroleum bases except to say "it was more difficult to get hold of vegetable bases but then supply is drawn by demand so there is no reason why we can't do it’. Likewise the company’s Mortein Natural flyspray includes Pyrethrum Daisy Extract, but it is still in an aerosol can rather than a pump action container. The latter is often re-usable and does not use greenhouse gases. Brennan, who hastens to add that Reckitt & Colman plans to use vegetable bases in the future, says he would be quite happy if aerosols disappeared tomorrow which is most likely to happen if consumers stop buying them. He goes on to explain the company’s product range has changed enormously over the last 10 years because of green consumerism, proving that shoppers have the power to change manufacturers’ practices. "The consumer has the ultimate power the purchasing power," says Brennan. "I

never underestimate consumers and spend a lot on research to find out what their needs are But surely the problem for business is that, taken to its ultimate conclusion, green consumerism must threaten consumerism itself. As The Ecologist said in its summer 1989 issue, in an article entitled "The Limits of Green Consumerism’, the whole concept of consumerism must be questioned because the world cannot sustain Western-style consumptive habits for ever. However, for the moment, Brennan

believes business has a viable future if it gives consumers what they want. This is why Reckitt & Colman not only has a more natural flyspray and greener cleaners but also makes multipurpose products which cut down on the number of bottles in the cupboard and offers trigger packs as an alternative to aerosols. "Green consumerism is only a threat if you don’t want to do what the consumers want. If you see the consumer change and you dig your toes in and don’t want to change then you become a dinosaur." y=