Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, two of which were Upheld. The other was informally resolved after the advertiser agreed to amend their advertising.
Ad description
A website and product listing on Amazon by Mum & You for baby wipes, seen on 2 February 2021:
a. The website www.mumandyou.com, stated “100% biodegradable* baby wipes” and “Being 100% biodegradable* is really important to us as it means today’s sticky mess won’t be a problem for tomorrow’s generation. Our tests show that our wipes break down quickly after they are thrown away; in as little as 15 days; even in landfill conditions*”. The asterisks linked to text which stated “*Biodegradation testing in line with ASTM D5511 showed 86.6% biodegradation after 15 days of testing, compared to the positive reference (cellulose), this translates to 100.7% relative biodegradation. Wipes will Home compost according to European Standards EN13432”.
b. The Amazon listing stated “100% Biodegradable […] the natural material breaks down in 15 days – even in landfill conditions” and “100% Biodegradable […] Being biodegradable is important to us as it means today’s mess won’t be a problem for tomorrow’s generation. Our tests show that our wipes break down quickly after they are thrown away; in as little as 15 days; even in landfill conditions – that’s faster than food waste! […]”.
Issue
Procter & Gamble UK challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. “Our tests show that our wipes break down quickly after they are thrown away; in as little as 15 days; even in landfill conditions” in both ads, because they believed that the most appropriate test had not been used; and
2. “Being biodegradable is important to us as it means today’s mess won’t be a problem for tomorrow’s generation”, in ad (b), and the similarly worded claim in ad (a).
Response
1. Q River Ltd t/a Mum & You said their wipes were made from viscose, a plastic-like material derived from wood. The wipes were plastic free and made from 99.5% naturally derived ingredients.
They provided two reports from a biodegradability testing company. The first related to the wipes’ biodegradation in landfill conditions, and the second to their biodegradation in home composting conditions. Both tests used industry standard methods.
The first report calculated the biodegradation of Mum & You Baby Wipes according to the international standard ASTM D5511 (2018) “Standard Test Method for Determining Anaerobic Biodegradation of Plastic Materials Under High-Solids Anaerobic-Digestion Conditions”.
The first test simulated an anaerobic landfill environment because the anaerobic digestion was a dry (>20% solids) and stationary (no mixing) environment. The test showed that, by 15 days, the wipe had an 86.6% biodegradation. This meant that 86.6% of the carbon in the wipe had been converted to carbon in the biogas (carbon dioxide and methane). The remaining carbon (13.4%) in the wipe was utilised by bacteria for energy. This demonstrated that the wipe degraded completely.
Mum & You also provided a statement from the biodegradability testing company that said the test used by Mum & You was the most used test method worldwide to test landfill biodegradation.
The testing company also said the test used by Mum & You was preferred over the test referenced by Procter & Gamble UK (P&G), which was the ASTM D5526 (2018) “Standard Test Method for Determining Anaerobic Biodegradation of Plastic Materials Under Accelerated Landfill Conditions”. Both test methods could be used to simulate biodegradation under landfill conditions. However, the test referenced by P&G was performed under less optimal conditions, and, as a result, took longer to obtain results and had more variation in the results obtained. The test used by Mum & You was more reliable and reproducible. As was common with lab tests, because of the optimised conditions, the test used by Mum & You was an accelerated test. In a real-life setting, the same level of biodegradation would be obtained but the rate would depend on local conditions, including, for example, temperature and humidity. Because the lab test had to follow strict protocols to enable the results to be repeatable and replicable, it could not contain every potential disposal scenario.
They said they stated on their packaging, website and marketing communications that the ASTM D5511 (2018) test had been used to determine the biodegradability rate. However, they would amend the claim to clarify that the rate of biodegradation was based specifically on simulated landfill conditions.
They recognised that the wipes would normally have some form of organic waste on them when they were disposed of. However, it was not practicable to test and measure the range of potential waste that may be on a used wipe. It was impossible to gauge what impact, if any, the organic contaminants would have of the speed of biodegradability. Additionally, the biodegradability claim was made about the wipe only. They believed that consumers, when purchasing the product, would understand that the claim related only to the wipe and did not extend to what the consumers then used the wipe to clean.
The second test report, which was carried out after the ad was published, calculated the compostability of the wipes in a home compostability testing programme according to the European standard EN 13432 “Packaging: requirements for packaging recoverable through composting and biodegradation”. It mixed the wipe with compost – which consisted of mature compost and garden, fruit and vegetable waste – and was incubated at an ambient temperature in the dark. The test showed that, after two weeks, only the border of the wipe in the samples remained, and after four weeks the samples had completely disintegrated. The test was stopped after four weeks instead of the maximum duration of 26 weeks.
They said that, prior to carrying out the above test, the manufacturer of the fibres in the wipe had provided them with a report that supported that the fibre was fully compostable according to the European standard EN 13432. They provided a copy of the report. They also provided a certificate from an accreditation organisation that certified that the wipes were compostable at home.
2. Mum & You said the vast majority of consumers in the UK had some knowledge about the possible options to alleviate the damage that had been caused to the environment by human activity, but that there was no instant cure. They considered consumers were aware that industries were slowly adapting to create replacement products that were more environmentally friendly, but that those products were probably not going to be perfect. They did not believe that consumers would expect a replacement for a wipe that contained plastic to be 100% environmentally friendly. Rather, a wipe that did not contain plastic would be less harmful to the environment than a wipe that did contain plastic and therefore would not biodegrade.
They considered that consumers would understand the claim as stating that being biodegradable was important as it meant that today’s mess was less of a problem for tomorrow’s generation; not that it would solve all of the problems for tomorrow’s generation.
They referred to a study that measured the full life cycle analysis (LCA) of wipes made from different materials and found that, compared to plastic-based wipes, bio-based wipes had a 38% lower environmental impact. Mum & You acknowledged that greenhouse gas emissions were produced when biodegradable wipes were placed in landfill, but understood that most of the methane was captured on site and used as an energy source. Additionally, the use of controlled biological processes such as anaerobic digestion allowed for the methane to be captured in a closed system, which prevented it from being released into the atmosphere.
Plastic-based wipes would have been produced in a high carbon emitting process, released microplastics into the environment, caused sewage blockages and contributed to plastic pollution. They believed that a product that did not contain plastic and was 100% biodegradable, but emitted greenhouse gases during its biodegradation, was still better for the environment than a similar non-biodegradable, plastic containing wipe.
They did not claim that the wipes were carbon neutral or net zero.
Assessment
1. Upheld
Both ads (a) and (b) referred to Mum & You baby wipes as 100% biodegradable and featured the claim “our wipes break down quickly after they are thrown away; in as little as 15 days; even in landfill conditions”. In that context, the ASA considered consumers would understand the claim to mean that the wipes would completely biodegrade often within 15 days in all conditions in which they might be disposed, including landfill.
We understood that the Mum & You wipes were made from viscose, a natural fibre derived from wood, and that viscose was able to biodegrade through the action of microorganisms to form water and carbon dioxide. We therefore understood that the wipes could eventually biodegrade in all conditions, including in environments such as landfills. However, given how consumers would understand the claim in the ads, we expected to see evidence that the baby wipes could fully biodegrade often within 15 days, in all conditions.
The advertiser had provided three reports, which they said tested the compostability of the fibres used in the wipes, and the biodegradation of the wipes in landfill and home composting conditions. Regarding the biodegradation of the wipes in landfill conditions, we assessed whether the methodology used to determine the biodegradation rate reflected the likely conditions that would consistently be found at UK landfills.
We noted the report stated that the test accelerated the biodegradation process because of the optimal conditions provided. The test used an anaerobic environment whereas we understood that when household waste was deposited at a landfill in the UK, the surrounding environment was aerobic and would only become anaerobic over time, and that this could take several months to a year.
Additionally, during the test, the wipes were milled to less than 1mm in size and were then mixed with methane producing bacteria and kept in an incubator set at 37 degrees Celsius for the duration of the test. However, we understood that consumers would place the used wipe in the bin whole, and we had not seen evidence that the test’s approach of breaking up the wipe would not speed up the rate of biodegradation. Additionally, during the test, the wipes were clean. However, we understood that baby wipes were seldom thrown away clean. Rather, they were used to clean away organic matter, namely food, faeces and other bodily secretions. We had not seen evidence that the test took account of the effect such organic matter would have on the wipes’ biodegradation rate.
Furthermore, we also understood that conditions would vary across a UK landfill, and in different landfills, depending on factors including the waste that had been deposited and compacted in a specific area, the moisture level, the temperature and the types of microorganisms that were present.
We accepted that the report showed that the wipes fully biodegraded in the test conditions within 15 days. However, the test was carried out under optimal conditions, and it did not replicate the condition of the wipes at the time of disposal or the conditions of a landfill, including when rubbish first arrived there. We therefore considered the test was not appropriate to substantiate a claim that the wipes would completely biodegrade within 15 days of arriving at a landfill.
We noted we had not been provided with any evidence relating to the speed of degradation of the wipes in aerobic landfill conditions.
Regarding the biodegradation of the wipes in home composting, we considered that when the wipes were disposed of, they would often not be suitable for home composting because they would be contaminated with matter that should not be composted. However, we nonetheless assessed the evidence in relation to situations where the wipes might be composted at home. The report produced by the manufacturer of the viscose fibre used in the wipe stated that the fibre was fully compostable in soil conditions according to the European standard EN13432. However, we considered that because the wipe was made up of ingredients other than the viscose fibre, these could have affected the rate of compostability. Additionally, the report did not state the rate that the viscose fibre composted under the test conditions. We therefore considered that the test did not substantiate the claim.
Regarding the compostability test that had been carried out on the wipe, we noted that the report post-dated the ad. Nonetheless, we assessed whether the methodology used to determine the biodegradation rate reflected the likely conditions that would consistently be found in home composts.
The test used mature compost whereas we understood that when waste was deposited in the compost bin or pile, the surrounding organic matter was likely to be that of other recent waste. Although that waste may have already started to decompose, it would take months to reach maturity. We had not seen evidence that the test’s approach of mixing the wipe with mature compost would not have speeded up the rate of biodegradation.
Additionally, during the test the compost was kept at 25 degrees Celsius and in the dark, the moisture content was monitored and adjusted as required, and it was stirred. We understood that there were different types of home composting structures, including composting bins and composting piles. We considered that the conditions, with regards to temperature, light level and moisture content would vary between different compost structures. Additionally, while most consumers would periodically stir the compost, we considered that most would not do so as frequently as was done during the test. We considered that the test conditions were optimal and therefore were likely to accelerate the biodegradation rate.
Furthermore, during the test, the wipes were clean. As referenced above, baby wipes would most often be contaminated when they were thrown away. We had not seen evidence that the test took account of what effect that organic matter would have on the wipes’ biodegradation rate.
We also considered that the specific composition of the compost would vary within and between composts depending on the other waste that had been composted, the environmental conditions mentioned above and the types of microorganisms that were present.
We accepted that the test demonstrated that after two weeks only the border of the baby wipe remained intact, and after four weeks it was completely biodegraded. However, because the wipe was not completely biodegraded within 15 days, and because the test was carried out under optimal conditions and it did not replicate the conditions consistently found when home composting, we concluded that the test did not substantiate the claim as consumers would understand it.
Because consumers would understand the claim to mean that the wipes would completely biodegrade often within 15 days in all conditions in which they might be disposed, including landfill, and the evidence we had seen did not substantiate that, nor had we seen evidence for the speed of degradation in all environments in which the wipe would be disposed, we concluded that it was misleading.
On this point, ads (a) and (b) 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), 11.3 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 11.7 11.7 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers about the environmental benefit that a product offers; for example, by highlighting the absence of an environmentally damaging ingredient if that ingredient is not usually found in competing products or by highlighting an environmental benefit that results from a legal obligation if competing products are subject to that legal obligation. (Environmental claims).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code required that absolute claims must be supported by a high level of substantiation, but that claims such as “greener” or “friendlier” could be justified if the advertised product provided a total environmental benefit over that of the advertiser’s previous product or competitor products and the basis of the comparison was clear. It also stated that claims must be based on the full life cycle of the advertised product, unless the ad stated otherwise. Claims that were based on only part of the advertised product’s life cycle must not mislead consumers about the product’s total environmental impact.
We considered that consumers would understand the claim “Being biodegradable is important to us as it means today’s mess won’t be a problem for tomorrow’s generation” in ad (b) and the similarly worded claim in ad (a), to mean that, once the wipe had been disposed of, it would not have any negative impact on the environment. We considered that this was an absolute claim. We therefore expected to see evidence relating to the environmental impact of the wipe for the part of its life cycle from when it had been disposed of. However, we had not seen such evidence relating to the advertised product.
As referenced at point 1, we accepted that the wipe was capable of physical decomposition. However, we understood that when organic waste such as the advertised wipe biodegraded in landfill anaerobically, it would emit methane. We understood that some landfills collected some of the methane that was produced, but that not all did. Because methane was a highly potent greenhouse gas, if it was released into the atmosphere it contributed to global warming; a problem which would affect future generations. We therefore considered that the disposal of the wipe could have a negative impact on the environment and we had not seen evidence to the contrary.
We therefore concluded that the claim “Being biodegradable is important to us as it means today’s mess won’t be a problem for tomorrow’s generation”, and the similar claim in ad (a), had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
On this point, ads (a) and (b) 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), 11.3 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. 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. and 11.7 11.7 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers about the environmental benefit that a product offers; for example, by highlighting the absence of an environmentally damaging ingredient if that ingredient is not usually found in competing products or by highlighting an environmental benefit that results from a legal obligation if competing products are subject to that legal obligation. (Environmental claims).
Action
Ads (a) and (b) must not appear again in the forms complained about. We told Q River Ltd t/a Mum & You to ensure that in future they did not make environmental claims about their products unless they held adequate substantiation.
