With as accompanying text:
"ASICS doesn't have only attention for the sportmen, but also for the environment. We are the only sportsmark which doesn't use harmful PVC in its products."The labels of the sportscloths sold by Asics in the Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg) contain a similar symbol:
Herewith we, the Chlorophiles, an NGO of workers in the chlorine and PVC industry, file a complaint against the enclosed web page and labels of the company Asics.
In the disputed web page (which can be found at
http://www.asics.nl/), one can read the following sentence under a green
worldsymbol that mentions "PVC free":
"ASICS doesn't have only attention for the sportmen, but also for the
environment. We are the only sportsmark which doesn't use harmful PVC in
its products."
Besides that, the same symbol can be found on labels attached to sportsgoods which is sold by Asics amongst others in The Netherlands.
We esteem that the environmental claim by Asics is in contradiction with article 3 and article 5 of the Environmental Advertising Code.
At one side Asics must prove that the absolute claim that PVC is "harmful" is true, which they didn't do on our request, at the other side Asics has to porve that the replacing materials they use have less impact on the environment, which they equally haven't done until now.
We kindly ask you to hear this complaint and we are, as far as necessary, willing to elucidate this complaint.
Sincerely,
Ferdinand Engelbeen
Chairman Chlorophiles
RECLAME CODE COMMISSIE
Dossier 03.0086
Because the plaintiff has unrefutedly posed that PVC is not a harmful component, one can not judge that the announcement is in conflict with article 5 of the MRC [*].
Concerning the symbol, the Commission considers that the words "PVC free" suggests that PVC is harmful. For that reason, the Commission also considers the symbol itself, as wel as in combination with the disapproved sentence, in conflict with the aricles 2 and 3 of the MRC.
| De Voorzitter | De Secretaris |
| (get.) | (get.) |
| mr N.J. van der Lee | mr A.E. de Gelder |
Confirmed by mr N.J. van der Lee, chairman, mr drs. A.M.E. de Kroon, L.G. Schram and mr M.M. Wolff, members and mr A.E. de Gelder, dep. member and secretary.
Amsterdam, April 10, 2003.
[*] Article 2 of the MRC says that an
environmental claim may not deceive about the contribution of the
advertiser toward a better environment.
Article 3 of the MRC says that all environmental claims must be
provable exact. The advertiser must deliver the proof.
Article 5 of the MRC says that if one reduces or eliminates the amount
of harmful components, an environmental claim is allowed if the
replacing components are less harmful.
In this case the Chlorophiles undisputedly have posed that PVC is not
harmful, thus article 5 can not be judged...
You are at level two of the Chlorophiles pages.
Created: 12 april 2003.
Last update: 26 October 2003.
Greenpeace and others about chlorine
Complaint from
Greenpeace against the chairman of the Chlorophiles in Hamburg (Germany)
Complaint against Asics for the court in
Haarlem (The Netherlands)
For any comment on this or other pages::
chlorofielen@pandora.be
