Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld
Ad description
A website and a TV ad for cleaning product manufacturer OceanSaver, seen on 25 April 2024:
a. The website www.ocean-saver.com, included the claims: “Biodegradable Film. Each pod is made of PVOH film, and even though technically plastic…it’s one of the good plastics that are dissolvable and fully biodegrade!”; “Plastic-free”; “100% plastic-free and contain zero microplastics”; “Zero Plastics. Zero Microplastics”; and “Every product bought makes an impact, with over 2 million pieces of plastic […] saved from our ocean so far”. The ad also featured listings with pack shots of OceanSaver’s “Eco Laundry Capsules” and “Eco Dishwasher Tablets”, both of which included the claim “Plastic free”.
b. The TV ad featured a person using a washing machine while computer-generated crabs sang a song that included the lyrics “You switched all your cleaning to be plastic-free, without harmful chemicals, so you don’t harm the sea […] OCEAN SAVER, the ocean will thank you”. The same pack shots as ad (a) were shown alongside on-screen text that stated, “OCEAN SAVER. THE OCEAN WILL THANK YOU”.
Issue
Ecover (UK) Ltd and People Against Dirty Holdings Ltd, who understood OceanSaver’s “Eco Laundry Capsules” and “Eco Dishwasher Tablets” used a dissolvable film that contained polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH), challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
- “plastic-free” in both ads, “zero microplastics” in ad (a);
- “so you don’t harm the sea” in ad (b);
- “Biodegradable film” and “fully biodegrade” in ad (a); and
- 4. “over 2 million pieces of plastic and 11,000 litres of harmful chemicals saved from our Ocean so far” in ad (a).
Response
1. & 2. OceanSaver Ltd said the word “plastic” was used by many brands as a synonym for “polymer”, despite the difference between the two. They explained that PVOH, uniquely, could change shape and break down into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water when consumed by organisms common in water treatment facilities and that had been found in the environment. They said PVOH was exempt from European microplastics restrictions set out in Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055 (the 2023 Regulation), owing to its water solubility and because it did not produce solid microparticles. Since PVOH did not produce microplastics, it did not create plastic waste. They provided a piece of legislation from the US State of Maine, a peer-reviewed journal article, two webpages, ingredients for their products, and two manufacturer statements.
On the claim “so you don’t harm the sea” in ad (b), OceanSaver said that pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 which related to the labelling of chemicals, substances assessed under that regime as being harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects had to carry a hazard statement. Specifically hazard statement H412 which stated, “Harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects”. Classification as such was based on a substance’s chronic toxicity. They explained that even if a substance was biodegradable, it could still be classified as long-term hazardous to the aquatic environment. They said OceanSaver’s laundry capsules did not carry the harmful to aquatic life designation and did not carry the statement.
Clearcast said, in relation to ad (b), that PVOH was a water-soluble synthetic polymer made from the monomer vinyl alcohol, rather than a plastic, and that it biodegraded into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water. Because of that, in their view it was not a traditional plastic that would remain in the ecosystem for a long time with detrimental consequences to the environment, which is how most consumers would understand the term “plastic”.
3. OceanSaver said they would remove the term “fully” from future “biodegradable” claims. They explained there was no scientific literature on the biodegradability of PVOH specifically naming any particular brand. They provided four peer-reviewed journal articles, a magazine article, a book chapter, a blog post, a fact sheet from a US cleaning product producer trade body, two statements from a US chemical manufacturer, and a biodegradability report from the manufacturing factory for the products.
4. OceanSaver said 80% of plastic in the ocean originated on land and provided a web page from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) in support. They explained that they had sold more than two million units of their products, and that each individual sale would result in one less equivalent non-biodegradable product being purchased from a competitor brand, therefore saving one plastic bottle for each unit sold. Furthermore, they had sold in excess of 407,000 capsules, resulting in consumers purchasing 11,000 litres less from competitor brands. They had sold 775,634 units in the 12 months leading to ad (b) airing, which they said equated to 4,178,212 pieces of plastic saved by not buying plastic competitor products. They said that if even 50% of plastic in the ocean originated on land instead of 80%, they were in excess of the claimed amount of plastic saved from entering the sea.
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA considered consumers would understand the claims “plastic-free” and “zero microplastics” as meaning the products about which the claims were made, and their packaging, did not contain plastic and would not degrade into microplastics. We further considered the claim “so you don’t harm the sea” in ad (b), as meaning the claimed “plastic-free” nature of the advertised products meant they were not harmful to marine life. To support the claims we expected to see evidence that showed the advertised product did not contain plastic, would not degrade into microplastics and would not harm marine life.
We assessed the evidence provided by OceanSaver. The state legislation did not pertain to PVOH-containing laundry or dishwasher tablets; the London Recycles article listed only plastics that could be recycled in London and did not comment on the composition of PVOH; and the Centre for Science in the Public Interest web page made only general statements about the use of plastics in food packaging rather than in laundry or dishwasher products. We therefore considered they were not sufficiently robust substantiation to support claims for a detergent generally available in the UK.
The journal article discussed the use of biodegradable films in liquid detergent capsules and had considered six studies on the biodegradation of PVOH. It concluded that PVOH used in liquid detergent films did not meet any of the definitions of a microplastic. However, we understood the studies reviewed did not relate to OceanSaver’s product specifically. The ingredients lists for the advertised products listed their contents only, and not the composition of the film. We therefore considered the findings of the article could not be cross applied to the advertised products and were consequently not adequate substantiation for the claims.
One statement from a manufacturer of the PVOH film stated the product complied with the 2023 Regulation. While the 2023 Regulation was silent on whether PVOH was designated as a microplastic, we considered its omission from the Regulation did not, per se, mean it was not a plastic or source of microplastics. Nor did the omission demonstrate that it would cause no harm to the sea or aquatic life.
Ad (b) stated “so you don’t harm the sea” and implied that because they had the claimed property of being “plastic-free”, by using OceanSaver’s products consumers would not be contributing to marine pollution or harming marine life. We acknowledged OceanSaver’s comments that the packaging for the advertised laundry pods did not carry the H412 hazard warning statement, which meant their content was not harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects. However, we understood that warning pertained only to the chemical content of the pods, rather than their PVOH membrane. We therefore considered the absence of an H412 hazard warning statement on the advertised product was not in itself adequate substantiation for the implied claim that the product in its entirety would not harm sea or aquatic life.
For those reasons we concluded the claim “zero microplastics” in ad (a) and “plastic-free” in both ads, and “so you don’t harm the sea” in ad (b), had not been substantiated.
On point 1, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), and 11.1 (Environmental claims).
On point 2, ad (b) breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation), and 9.2 (Environmental claims).
3. Upheld
We considered consumers would understand the claims “Biodegradable film” and “fully biodegrade” in ad (a), which appeared alongside an image of a laundry pod, to mean OceanSaver’s laundry pods, and the film in which they were coated, would fully biodegrade through normal use in a washing machine.
We assessed the evidence provided by OceanSaver. Two of the journal articles, the book chapter, and the blog post discussed PVOH but did not relate to either its application in laundry, OceanSaver’s products or products with a similar composition.
The fact sheet, the remaining journal articles, the two statements and the magazine article referred to the use of PVOH in laundry pods. However, they did not relate to OceanSaver’s laundry pods nor a product with the same composition and did not show that they were fully biodegradable through normal use in a washing machine. Additionally, one of the articles reviewed studies that showed different levels of degradation of between 38% and 86%, which meant that some PVOH was left.
The biodegradability report from the manufacturing factory and a statement from a manufacturer of the PVOH film showed between them the results of three different testing methods – ASTM D6691, which tested the rate of aerobic biodegradation of plastic materials in seawater; UNI EN ISO 14852, which determined the ultimate aerobic biodegradability of plastic materials in an aqueous medium; and OECD 301-F, which determined the complete biodegradability of organic substances in water. However, they did not show the laundry pods were fully biodegradable through normal use.
For those reasons we concluded the claims “Biodegradable film” and “fully biodegrade” in ad (a) had not been adequately substantiated and were likely to mislead.
On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 11.1, 11.3, and 11.4 (Environmental claims).
4. Upheld
We considered consumers would understand from the claim “over 2 million pieces of plastic and 11,000 litres of harmful chemicals saved from our Ocean so far” in ad (a) that by buying OceanSaver’s products consumers were in some way contributing to that effort.
The web page was a fact sheet from the WWF that stated 80% of plastic in the ocean originated on land. While OceanSaver had provided information about its unit sales, we had not seen evidence that showed they had prevented the claimed plastic and chemicals from entering the sea, nor that by buying OceanSaver’s products consumers would contribute to that level of prevention. We therefore concluded the claim had not been substantiated.
On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
Action
Ads (a) and (b) must not appear or be broadcast again in the form complained of. We told OceanSaver Ltd to ensure they held suitably robust substantiation for environmental claims, related to the full life cycle of a product where relevant.
