BBB National Programs Newsroom

NAD Recommends S.C. Johnson Discontinue “Non-Toxic” Claim on Method Cleaning Products; Advertiser to Appeal to NARB

For Immediate Release

Contact: Laura Brett, Director, NAD, 212.705.0109 / lbrett@bbbnp.org

 

New York, NY – March 24, 2020 – The National Advertising Division (“NAD”) recommended that S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (“SCJ”) discontinue the claim “non-toxic” on package labeling for certain Method Cleaning Products, following a challenge by The Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”), maker of household goods including Mr. Clean cleaning sprays. The advertiser has said it will appeal NAD’s findings to the National Advertising Review Board.

NAD is an investigative unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation and is a division of the BBB National Programs’ self-regulatory and dispute resolution programs.

After considering the guidance offered by the Federal Trade Commission’s Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (“Green Guides”) and FTC precedent, NAD determined that the term “non-toxic,” as used on the label of the Method cleaning products at issue, reasonably conveys a message that the product will not harm people (including small children), common pets, or the environment. Importantly, NAD noted that a reasonable consumer’s understanding of the concept of “will not harm” is not limited to death, but also various types of temporary physical illness, such as vomiting, rash, and gastrointestinal upset.

NAD evaluated SCJ’s substantiation, noting that the applicable standard for the advertiser’s “non-toxic” claim, which is both a health-related claim and an environmental benefit claim, is competent and reliable scientific evidence. In support of its “non-toxic” claim, the advertiser provided NAD with results from a complex, four step Framework it developed in order to evaluate potential risk of harm posed by its product formulas, as well as expert declarations and an independent assessment of the Framework. After careful review, NAD determined that such evidence was insufficient to support the message conveyed that these products will not harm humans and the environment, including household pets.

NAD noted that for many of the challenged products, the advertiser and its experts based their conclusions regarding the appropriateness of classifying these products as “non-toxic” on a series of mathematical calculations. NAD concluded that while the techniques used to theorize the risk of harm posed by these products may be reasonable for evaluating toxicity within academia and the toxicological industry, they, by themselves, do not comport with the level of evidence a consumer would expect the advertiser to have in support of the strong message conveyed by its “non-toxic” claim. Without evidence demonstrating the real-world effects of the product’s toxicity, NAD determined that even when viewing the Framework holistically, as urged by the advertiser, the evidence fell short of providing the conclusive assessment of toxicity necessary to support a “non-toxic” claim. Thus, NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue the claim “non-toxic.”

In its advertiser’s statement, SCJ said that it “fundamentally disagrees” with NAD’s decision and will appeal NAD’s findings that the claim that Method cleaning products are “non-toxic” is not adequately substantiated. SCJ stated that it believes “NAD has created an unreasonable standard for ‘non-toxic’ claims that is not supported by the FTC or any other regulatory body.”  SCJ added that its “science-based substantiation meets and exceeds the FTC’s and NAD’s standard of competent and reliable scientific evidence, and is fully consistent with the FTC’s intent to permit companies to make ‘non-toxic’ claims based on ‘competent and reliable scientific evidence.’”

 

###

 

About the National Advertising Division: National Advertising Division (NAD), a division of BBB National Programs, provides independent self-regulation overseeing the truthfulness of advertising across the U.S. NAD reviews national advertising in all media and its decisions set consistent standards for truth and accuracy.

 

About BBB National Programs: BBB National Programs fosters trust, innovation, and competition in the marketplace through the development and delivery of cost-effective, third-party self-regulation, dispute resolution and other programs. BBB National Programs is the home of industry self-regulatory and dispute resolution programs that include the National Advertising Division (NAD), National Advertising Review Board (NARB), BBB EU Privacy Shield, BBB AUTO LINE, Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU), Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), Children’s Confection Advertising Initiative (CCAI), Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council (DSSRC), Digital Advertising Accountability Program (Accountability Program), and the Coalition for Better Advertising Dispute Resolution Program (CBA DRM). The programs are designed to resolve business issues and advance shared objectives by responding to marketplace concerns to create a better customer experience. To learn more about industry self-regulation, please visit: BBBNP.org.

NAD Recommends S.C. Johnson Discontinue “Non-Toxic” Claim on Method Cleaning Products; Advertiser to Appeal to NARB

For Immediate Release

Contact: Laura Brett, Director, NAD, 212.705.0109 / lbrett@bbbnp.org

 

New York, NY – March 24, 2020 – The National Advertising Division (“NAD”) recommended that S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (“SCJ”) discontinue the claim “non-toxic” on package labeling for certain Method Cleaning Products, following a challenge by The Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”), maker of household goods including Mr. Clean cleaning sprays. The advertiser has said it will appeal NAD’s findings to the National Advertising Review Board.

NAD is an investigative unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation and is a division of the BBB National Programs’ self-regulatory and dispute resolution programs.

After considering the guidance offered by the Federal Trade Commission’s Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (“Green Guides”) and FTC precedent, NAD determined that the term “non-toxic,” as used on the label of the Method cleaning products at issue, reasonably conveys a message that the product will not harm people (including small children), common pets, or the environment. Importantly, NAD noted that a reasonable consumer’s understanding of the concept of “will not harm” is not limited to death, but also various types of temporary physical illness, such as vomiting, rash, and gastrointestinal upset.

NAD evaluated SCJ’s substantiation, noting that the applicable standard for the advertiser’s “non-toxic” claim, which is both a health-related claim and an environmental benefit claim, is competent and reliable scientific evidence. In support of its “non-toxic” claim, the advertiser provided NAD with results from a complex, four step Framework it developed in order to evaluate potential risk of harm posed by its product formulas, as well as expert declarations and an independent assessment of the Framework. After careful review, NAD determined that such evidence was insufficient to support the message conveyed that these products will not harm humans and the environment, including household pets.

NAD noted that for many of the challenged products, the advertiser and its experts based their conclusions regarding the appropriateness of classifying these products as “non-toxic” on a series of mathematical calculations. NAD concluded that while the techniques used to theorize the risk of harm posed by these products may be reasonable for evaluating toxicity within academia and the toxicological industry, they, by themselves, do not comport with the level of evidence a consumer would expect the advertiser to have in support of the strong message conveyed by its “non-toxic” claim. Without evidence demonstrating the real-world effects of the product’s toxicity, NAD determined that even when viewing the Framework holistically, as urged by the advertiser, the evidence fell short of providing the conclusive assessment of toxicity necessary to support a “non-toxic” claim. Thus, NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue the claim “non-toxic.”

In its advertiser’s statement, SCJ said that it “fundamentally disagrees” with NAD’s decision and will appeal NAD’s findings that the claim that Method cleaning products are “non-toxic” is not adequately substantiated. SCJ stated that it believes “NAD has created an unreasonable standard for ‘non-toxic’ claims that is not supported by the FTC or any other regulatory body.”  SCJ added that its “science-based substantiation meets and exceeds the FTC’s and NAD’s standard of competent and reliable scientific evidence, and is fully consistent with the FTC’s intent to permit companies to make ‘non-toxic’ claims based on ‘competent and reliable scientific evidence.’”

 

###

 

About the National Advertising Division: National Advertising Division (NAD), a division of BBB National Programs, provides independent self-regulation overseeing the truthfulness of advertising across the U.S. NAD reviews national advertising in all media and its decisions set consistent standards for truth and accuracy.

 

About BBB National Programs: BBB National Programs fosters trust, innovation, and competition in the marketplace through the development and delivery of cost-effective, third-party self-regulation, dispute resolution and other programs. BBB National Programs is the home of industry self-regulatory and dispute resolution programs that include the National Advertising Division (NAD), National Advertising Review Board (NARB), BBB EU Privacy Shield, BBB AUTO LINE, Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU), Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), Children’s Confection Advertising Initiative (CCAI), Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council (DSSRC), Digital Advertising Accountability Program (Accountability Program), and the Coalition for Better Advertising Dispute Resolution Program (CBA DRM). The programs are designed to resolve business issues and advance shared objectives by responding to marketplace concerns to create a better customer experience. To learn more about industry self-regulation, please visit: BBBNP.org.

Blog

The Do’s and Don’ts of Buying Smart for Baby: A Primer from Privacy Experts

Researching a new product and finding the critical or in-depth information you are looking for to build confidence in your purchasing decision often requires sifting through superficial lists of “best products.” These lists are often sponsored by the products they feature, which means instead of a focus on being helpful they are full of incentivized endorsements and affiliate links. In this blog, we provide a list – not a sponsored list – of some do’s and don’ts for how to confidently research smart devices.
Read more
Blog

When Web Designs Turn Into Dark Patterns And What To Do About It

Recently I wrote about the proliferation of dark patterns and tried to give readers a sense of just how widespread these practices are. But it is not just the pervasiveness of dark patterns that has lawmakers and regulators concerned, it is the intent behind them and their impact on consumers. Nonprofit leaders, in particular, should be aware of this and how to guard against it given that they are well-positioned to garner and enhance consumer trust.
Read more
Blog

Politics Aside, Advertising Gains Guidance on Deception and Substantiation in the 1980s

As we continue to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the National Advertising Division (NAD) we are looking forward while taking stock of past decades, with a special focus on decisions and developments that continue to impact advertising law and NAD cases today. This month we highlight two pivotal moments from the 1980’s that helped shape NAD’s jurisprudence.
Read more
Blog

Marking a Milestone: New Ad Guidelines, Influencers, Gaming, and More at CARU 2021

In a world where ads are woven seamlessly into online content, advertising and data collection practices become more complex, especially in the children’s space. On June 8 and 9, 2021, the Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) virtually convened experts in children’s advertising, privacy, influencers, gaming, ed tech, and state and federal regulations around the globe for our annual conference, CARU 2021 to discuss challenges, best practices, and the year ahead.
Read more

NAD Recommends S.C. Johnson Discontinue “Non-Toxic” Claim on Method Cleaning Products; Advertiser to Appeal to NARB

For Immediate Release

Contact: Laura Brett, Director, NAD, 212.705.0109 / lbrett@bbbnp.org

 

New York, NY – March 24, 2020 – The National Advertising Division (“NAD”) recommended that S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (“SCJ”) discontinue the claim “non-toxic” on package labeling for certain Method Cleaning Products, following a challenge by The Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”), maker of household goods including Mr. Clean cleaning sprays. The advertiser has said it will appeal NAD’s findings to the National Advertising Review Board.

NAD is an investigative unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation and is a division of the BBB National Programs’ self-regulatory and dispute resolution programs.

After considering the guidance offered by the Federal Trade Commission’s Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (“Green Guides”) and FTC precedent, NAD determined that the term “non-toxic,” as used on the label of the Method cleaning products at issue, reasonably conveys a message that the product will not harm people (including small children), common pets, or the environment. Importantly, NAD noted that a reasonable consumer’s understanding of the concept of “will not harm” is not limited to death, but also various types of temporary physical illness, such as vomiting, rash, and gastrointestinal upset.

NAD evaluated SCJ’s substantiation, noting that the applicable standard for the advertiser’s “non-toxic” claim, which is both a health-related claim and an environmental benefit claim, is competent and reliable scientific evidence. In support of its “non-toxic” claim, the advertiser provided NAD with results from a complex, four step Framework it developed in order to evaluate potential risk of harm posed by its product formulas, as well as expert declarations and an independent assessment of the Framework. After careful review, NAD determined that such evidence was insufficient to support the message conveyed that these products will not harm humans and the environment, including household pets.

NAD noted that for many of the challenged products, the advertiser and its experts based their conclusions regarding the appropriateness of classifying these products as “non-toxic” on a series of mathematical calculations. NAD concluded that while the techniques used to theorize the risk of harm posed by these products may be reasonable for evaluating toxicity within academia and the toxicological industry, they, by themselves, do not comport with the level of evidence a consumer would expect the advertiser to have in support of the strong message conveyed by its “non-toxic” claim. Without evidence demonstrating the real-world effects of the product’s toxicity, NAD determined that even when viewing the Framework holistically, as urged by the advertiser, the evidence fell short of providing the conclusive assessment of toxicity necessary to support a “non-toxic” claim. Thus, NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue the claim “non-toxic.”

In its advertiser’s statement, SCJ said that it “fundamentally disagrees” with NAD’s decision and will appeal NAD’s findings that the claim that Method cleaning products are “non-toxic” is not adequately substantiated. SCJ stated that it believes “NAD has created an unreasonable standard for ‘non-toxic’ claims that is not supported by the FTC or any other regulatory body.”  SCJ added that its “science-based substantiation meets and exceeds the FTC’s and NAD’s standard of competent and reliable scientific evidence, and is fully consistent with the FTC’s intent to permit companies to make ‘non-toxic’ claims based on ‘competent and reliable scientific evidence.’”

 

###

 

About the National Advertising Division: National Advertising Division (NAD), a division of BBB National Programs, provides independent self-regulation overseeing the truthfulness of advertising across the U.S. NAD reviews national advertising in all media and its decisions set consistent standards for truth and accuracy.

 

About BBB National Programs: BBB National Programs fosters trust, innovation, and competition in the marketplace through the development and delivery of cost-effective, third-party self-regulation, dispute resolution and other programs. BBB National Programs is the home of industry self-regulatory and dispute resolution programs that include the National Advertising Division (NAD), National Advertising Review Board (NARB), BBB EU Privacy Shield, BBB AUTO LINE, Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU), Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), Children’s Confection Advertising Initiative (CCAI), Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council (DSSRC), Digital Advertising Accountability Program (Accountability Program), and the Coalition for Better Advertising Dispute Resolution Program (CBA DRM). The programs are designed to resolve business issues and advance shared objectives by responding to marketplace concerns to create a better customer experience. To learn more about industry self-regulation, please visit: BBBNP.org.

 

 

Media Inquiry