 |
Bruxelles, le 27 october 2000
DHB/ys/D256
GUIDELINES FOR MAKING AND ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS
Mr B Delogu
Head of Unit
European Commission
Head of Consumer Protection Directorate-General
Directorate B - Consumer Affairs
B4 - Product and Service Safety
Rue do la Loi, 200
B-1049 Bruxelles
Belgium
Dear Mr Delogu,
I refer to your letter of 2 october 2000, inviting comments on the above Guidelines. Euro-Coop was pleased to participate in the Working Group of Experts that assisted your Department in drawing up the proposed Guidelines.
The Guidelines have been discussed by the Euro-Coop Environment Policy Group, comprising environment experts from consumer co-operatives within the EU. Euro-Coop's comments reflect the debate that the Group had on the Guidelines at its recent meeting.
Firstly, it has been Euro-Coop's policy for some time that there should be regulation of environ-mental claims in order to protect consumers from misleading and confusing claims. We are un-convinced at present that Guidelines will be as effective as Regulations in dealing with mislead-ing claims. If a separate directive on environmental claims is not possible, then an amendment to the misleading advertising directive should be considered.
Nonetheless, if a Directive is not possible then we are keen to see strong Guidelines that are clear and unambiguous about the type of environment claims that are acceptable. We would ask that the Commission monitor the Guidelines and consider taking regulatory action should Guidelines prove ineffective in controlling misleading environmental claims.
Turning to the details of the proposed Guidelines, we would make the following comments:
1. SCOPE (PAGE 4)
We agree that the ISO Standard 15021 should be the basis for the Guidelines.
2. PRINCIPLES (PAGE 5)
We agree with the general principles outlined here. In terms of life cycle analysis, we would suggest that this should only be considered when any claim seeks to rely on an as-pect of the life cycle of the product. For example, if a claim was made that a product was produced using 20% less energy than conventional products, this would be misleading if this production method then resulted in a higher use of energy during distribution and re-tailing of the product. On the other hand, if a specific claim is made that a box is made of 100% recycled paper, then it should not be necessary to do a life cycle analysis to back up such a claim. We think there should be greater clarity about the use of the life cycle analysis technique.
It may be appropriate to refer to the ISO Standard on Life Cycle Analysis here.
3. EXAMPLES
We welcome the use of examples to clarify the promises of the Guidelines.
3.1 CLAIMS THAT MAY BE MISLEADING IF THEY OMIT RELEVANT FACTS
We are thinking here of 'CFC-free' claims and 'biodegradable' claims where there are already legal requirements.
We recognise that consumers may not know the law in relation to the use of CFCs and the requirements for biodegradability, but we know that these are issues of concern to them. Therefore, we are not opposed to the wordings of these claims given as examples (eg. on page 10 in relation to CFCs, or page 12 in relation to biodegradability). However, at some time, these claims will be misleading as con-sumers become aware of the legal framework. We suggest that the Commission should look at time limits for making these types of claims, where there are al-ready legal controls in place.
3.2 COMPARATIVE CLAIMS (PAGE 16)
The Guidelines should consider the EU as one market and cannot be expected to take local variations into account. For example, the example on page 16 implies that someone making a claim should take into account where a competitor sells his products before making a comparative claim. We do not think this is realistic.
I hope you find these comments useful.
Yours sincerely,
C Naett
Secretary-General
|
|
