Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Three ads for different trading styles of Evergreens (UK) Ltd, seen in September 2021:
a. A website for ArtificialGrass.com, www.artificialgrass.com, stated “Introducing AIR Our new eco-friendly artificial grass … 1m2 of AIR treated grass is comparable to the air purifying effects of one mature tree … Our innovative AIR range uses technology capable of reducing up to 70% of harmful NOX by oxidising organic components and malodours at molecular level, helping to cultivate a sustainable, cleaner environment”.
b. A YouTube video, posted on ArtificialGrass.com’s channel, included on-screen text which stated “Introducing AIR, from award winning ArtificialGrass.com an eco-friendly, air purifying … artificial grass solution” and “… the AIR artificial grass range is able to reduce nitrogen oxides by 70 percent. One metre squared of AIR treated grass is comparable to the air purifying effects of one mature tree. Considering an average garden lawn covers a 50 square metre area, it’s the equivalent of planting 50 fully grown trees in your own back yard”.
c. A YouTube video, posted on LazyLawn, featured the same claims as ad (b).
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. “eco-friendly” in ads (a)-(c);
2. “capable of reducing up to 70% of harmful NOX” in ad (a), and “able to reduce nitrogen oxides by 70 percent” in ads (b) and (c); and
3. “1m2 of AIR treated grass is comparable to the air purifying effects of one mature tree” in ad (a), and “One metre squared of AIR treated grass is comparable to the air purifying effects of one mature tree” in ads (b) and (c).
Response
Evergreens (UK) Ltd said that their marketing had been based on scientific research and that ads (b) and (c) were adapted versions of a video produced for the product by their European manufacturer. They said that their AIR range of products could breakdown odours, moss, algae and contribute to improving air quality.
1. Evergreens said that they understood the need to demonstrate that their products had a net positive environmental impact over their full life cycles in order to use claims such as “eco-friendly”. They had received an initial draft of the full environmental impact of the product from the European Synthetic Turf Council (ESTC) and would update their advertising accordingly once the full draft had been received. In the meantime, they would amend their advertising to make more limited claims about specific aspects of the product. They said that they were in the process of transitioning towards “greener” production methods using more efficient transportation, as well as actively pursuing potential UK-based recycling facilities.
2. Evergreens said their AIR artificial grass had been treated with PURETi, a titanium dioxide (TiO2) containing, water-based photocatalytic surface treatment. They explained that UV light, oxygen and humidity reacted with PURETi to create cleaning agents, such as hydroxyl radicals and superoxide anions. Those substances converted pollutants such as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) into harmless mineral nitrates, water, and a small amount of residual carbon dioxide (CO2). They said PURETi actively and continuously reduced the indirect greenhouse gasses, NOx and SOx (sulphur oxide), and fine particulate matters (PM) 2.5 and 10. They provided four published studies, two unpublished studies, two conference papers, two project reports, a lab test report, a website, and three documents from the manufacturer of PURETi in support of the claim that AIR could reduce NOx in the air by up to 70%, and on the efficacy of PURETi in reducing NOx levels.
3. Evergreens explained that one square metre of AIR could neutralise 188 kg of NOx per year. They provided two studies and a best practice document on the pollution reduction achieved by trees and said that although trees were proven to reduce CO2, they were less effective at reducing NOx and ultra-fine pollutants from traffic exhausts, such as PM 2.5, PM5 and PM10. They said the expected lifespan of AIR was approximately eight years, and that during that time it was 10 to 25 times more photo-catalytically effective than conventional catalysts. They provided one study as evidence.
Evergreens said the area quoted in the ads, “one square metre”, was conservative and that actual NOx reduction by one square metre of AIR could in some instances equate to the planting of three trees, dependent on tree species, temperature, relative humidity and meteorological conditions. They had used the claim “one metre square” to offset emissions from the production, removal and end-of-life recycling processes. They said PURETi and AIR performance outweighed NOx reductions by trees.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code required that the basis of environmental claims must be clear and that unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information. It required that absolute claims must be supported by a high level of substantiation. It also said that claims must be based on the full life cycle of the advertised product, unless the ad stated otherwise.
The ASA considered the claim “eco-friendly” was absolute, and in the absence of further context or qualification, would be understood to mean AIR artificial grass was not harmful to the environment in any way, throughout the full life cycle of the product. We therefore expected to see evidence that demonstrated the grass was not harmful to the environment at any point during its full life cycle.
We acknowledged Evergreens’ comments that they had received an initial draft of the full environmental impact of AIR artificial grass from ESTC and would update their advertising accordingly once the full draft had been received. We also acknowledged their comments regarding their transition to using more efficient transportation, as well as pursuing UK-based recycling facilities. However, we understood the artificial grass was made from plastic. We considered that, even if it was transported efficiently and recycled at the end of its life cycle, the extraction of raw materials and subsequent processing of those materials in order to produce the artificial grass had a negative impact on the environment.
We welcomed Evergreen’s assurance that they would amend their advertising to make more limited claims about specific aspects of the product. However, because at the time the ads appeared they had featured the claim “eco-friendly”, and because we had not seen evidence regarding the full life cycle of the product, we considered the claim “eco-friendly” overstated the environmental benefit of the product and was therefore misleading.
On that point, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), 11.1 11.1 The basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information. 11.3 11.3 Absolute claims must be supported by a high level of substantiation. Comparative claims such as "greener" or "friendlier" can be justified, for example, if the advertised product provides a total environmental benefit over that of the marketer's previous product or competitor products and the basis of the comparison is clear. and 11.4 11.4 Marketers must base environmental claims on the full life cycle of the advertised product, unless the marketing communication states otherwise, and must make clear the limits of the life cycle. If a general claim cannot be justified, a more limited claim about specific aspects of a product might be justifiable. Marketers must ensure claims that are based on only part of the advertised product's life cycle do not mislead consumers about the product's total environmental impact. (Environmental claims).
2. Upheld
We considered the claim “capable of reducing up to 70% of harmful NOX” in ad (a) would be likely to be understood by consumers to mean that in certain circumstances AIR artificial grass could remove 70% of NOx from the air in the area where it was installed. We considered the claim in ads (b) and (c) that the product was “able to reduce nitrogen oxides by 70 percent” would be likely to be interpreted to mean that it was able to reduce NOx by 70% in all environments.
We assessed the evidence provided by Evergreens. We noted that only one piece of evidence provided examined the use of PURETi on artificial grass; the majority of the evidence focused on the use of PURETi on buildings and pavements in urban settings. We considered because that evidence was not focused on the use of PURETi on artificial grass specifically, it was therefore not relevant to the claims under investigation.
The remaining piece of evidence, a brochure for artificial grass sports pitches enriched with PURETi, featured excerpts from a lab report. The excerpt showed that an NOx conversion of 49% had been observed in a small sample of artificial grass treated with PURETi. The brochure claimed that on a larger scale, that figure could increase to 85%. We had not seen a full copy of the report from which the figures were drawn. Based on the available information, we noted that the testing had been conducted on a small sample of artificial grass under laboratory conditions, and considered that the observed reduction in NOx was significantly below the 70% reduction claimed in the ads. We therefore considered the brochure was not adequate substation for the claims.
For those reasons we concluded that the claims “capable of reducing up to 70% of harmful NOX” in ad (a) and “able to reduce nitrogen oxides by 70 percent” in ads (b) and (c) had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
On that point, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
3. Upheld
We considered the claims “1m2 of AIR treated grass is comparable to the air purifying effects of one mature tree” in ad (a), and “One metre squared of AIR treated grass is comparable to the air purifying effects of one mature tree” in ads (b) and (c) would be understood to mean that, once installed, one square metre of AIR artificial grass had the same ability as one mature tree to remove and breakdown greenhouse gasses, and other pollutants, from the air in the area where it was installed.
We assessed the evidence provided by Evergreens: two studies and a best practice document focused on the impact of trees on air pollution, and a further study on the use of PURETi in mitigating livestock odours. The first study examined the removal of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2), ozone, and PM10 by urban trees and shrubs in 55 cities across the USA. The second study examined the NO2 assimilation of NO2 by 70 different species of tree, under laboratory conditions. The best practice document laid out guidance for Green Infrastructure implementation and made recommendations for using trees, shrubs, and hedges to improve urban air quality. The final study focused on the use of PURETi in mitigating livestock odours. We considered that the first two studies and best practice document focused on the impact of trees on improving air quality, but did not show that AIR artificial grass had the same air purifying abilities as a mature tree. The other study focused solely on livestock odours and made no comment on greenhouse gasses.
For those reasons, we considered the documents provided were not relevant to the claims under investigation and were therefore inadequate substantiation. We concluded that the claims “1m2 of AIR treated grass is comparable to the air purifying effects of one mature tree” in ad (a) and “One metre squared of AIR treated grass is comparable to the air purifying effects of one mature tree” in ads (b) and (c) had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
On that point, the ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), and 11.1 11.1 The basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information. (Environmental claims).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Evergreens (UK) Ltd to ensure their advertising did not overstate the environmental benefits and air purifying qualities of their products.
