Following this is a record of our correspondence so far. I will update accordingly:
From: Dylan Barsby [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: 20 May 2014 01:35 PM
To: Consumer Services
Subject: Enquiry about your product
I was in Pick n Pay in Gardens Centre, Cape Town yesterday and I looked at the label information on your “Bio Classic fabric conditioner” bags. I noticed it mentions “environmentally friendly” on the packaging, but offers absolutely no further information on how it might qualify for that status.
The South African Advertising Standards Authority states, among others, that “advertisements containing general statements such as “environmentally friendly”, “ozone friendly” or “green” or graphics or symbols designed to convey a similar environmental message, will not be permitted unless qualified by a description of the benefit conferred, for example: “ozone friendly -free from CFCs” “
Please explain to me how this product is “environmentally friendly” if, indeed, it is?
Dylan John Barsby
+27 (0)73 220 5305
Desmond Govender replied on 24th May:
Good Day Mr. Barsby;
We are in receipt of your e-mail and thank you for taking the time to contact us.
Please receive confirmation that our formulation includes an ingredient which is biodregadable hence useage thereof does not impact negatively on waste water treatment plants.
We can assure you that we value consumer related feedback and have circulated your response to our Technical and Marketing Divisions as well.
My response Sunday 25th May…
2) The fact that ONE ingredient in your formula is biodegradable does not make your ENTIRE product “environmentally friendly”. This is blatant green-washing which is a destructive, irresponsible and despicable practice.
I refer you once again to ASA’s guidelines: http://goo.gl/wuQbS1
I urge you to pay specific attention to points: 2.1; 2.3 & 2.4.
This article is also relevant http://goo.gl/j73Mdn
Tiger Brands’ actions come down to nothing more than Profit over People and Planet.