Environmental claims should not be used without qualification unless advertisers can provide convincing evidence that their product will cause no environmental damage.
Qualified claims and comparisons may be acceptable if advertisers can demonstrate that their product provides an improvement in environmental terms either against their competitors? or their own previous products.
The basis of any claim should be explained clearly and should be qualified where necessary. Unqualified claims may mislead if they omit significant information.
Where there is a significant division of scientific opinion or where evidence is inconclusive this should be reflected in any statements made in the marketing communication. Advertisers should not suggest that their claims command universal acceptance if this is not the case.
If a product has never had a demonstrably adverse effect on the environment, marketing communications should not imply that the formulation has been changed to make it safe. It is legitimate, however, to make claims about a product whose composition has been changed or has always been designed in a way that omits chemicals known to cause damage to the environment.
The use of extravagant language should be avoided, as should bogus and confusing pseudo-scientific terms. If it is necessary to use a scientific expression, its meaning should be clear.
Symbols may imply environmental claims in themselves. They should be simple and used in such a way that they do not convey false impressions about the characteristics of goods or services.
Marketing communications for waste collection services should include:
(a) the name of the permit holder or the waste collection permit register number; and
(b) the name of the local authority that issued the same.