New York, NY – December 13, 2006 – The Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program (ERSP) announced that 4-E Corporation, and Ethos Environmental, Inc., as marketer and manufacturer, respectively, of the Ethos Fuel Re-formulator, have provided a reasonable basis for general product-performance claims and safety claims.

However, ERSP has recommended that certain establishment claims and more specific, quantified performance claims be modified. Advertising for the product was reviewed pursuant to an anonymous complaint.

ERSP,  the  electronic  direct-response  industry’s  self-regulatory  forum,  is  administered  by  the Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB) with policy oversight by the National Advertising Review Council (NARC).

ERSP reviewed  Internet  advertisin g for  the  Ethos  Fuel  Re-formulator.  Claims  at issue  in the ERSP inquiry included:

• “EPA laboratory tests confirm that Ethos FR is 99.99976% ashless upon combustion and is free of carcinogenic compounds.”
• “Product has been Government tested and Approved.”
• “7%-19% fuel savings!” “PROVEN 10-year track record” “Non-Toxic!”
• “Non-hazardous!”
• “You could drink it; it’s just a mineral oil with an incredible patent behind it.”

ERSP noted in its decision that the marketer removed claims that its product has been “Government Tested and Approved” in order to better communicate that the product was tested in EPA-certified laboratories and not by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) itself.

Following its review of the evidence, ERSP determined the marketer should modify the claim that “EPA laboratory tests confirm that Ethos FR is 99.99976% ashless upon combustion and is free of carcinogenic compounds” so as not to imply that the claim is based upon an EPA test.

ERSP found that the scientific information submit ted by the companies provided a reasonable basis for general product performance claims, but remained concerned by the marketer’s supporting evidence for the more specific, quantified product performance claims.

ERSP determined that the marketer had adequately addressed the claim that the product has a “PROVEN 10-year track record” but recommended that the marketer modify the claim “7%-19% fuel savings” to indicate that these results were based on anecdotal consumer reports and that individual results will vary.