National Consumer Protection Week 2014

UPDATE: Big congratulations to our Thursday winner: Tammy van Dongen! 

In answer to our question, What does a marketer need to have in order to claim that their product is non-toxic?, Tammy shared the following answer:

“Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.”

Here’s the link to enter Friday’s contest: http://www.dsef.org/2014/03/07/national-consumer-protection-week-2014-contest-day-5/

It’s one of our favorite weeks of the year…National Consumer Protection Week (NCPW)! It’s a time to highlight some of the amazing resources available on the web to help you make informed choices as a consumer and business owner. And since we love this week so much, we’ve decided once again to make it even MORE fun with a contest!

Each day this week, we’ll post a question. Use the NCPW resources we’ve provided to answer the question, and you’ll be entered to win an amazing gift bundle full of products from a number of generous companies in the direct sales industry. We’ve provided some bonus entry options as well.

We’re giving away a bundle of amazing products worth over $750 each day, so be sure to come back each day to enter!

Prize Details

Today’s winner will receive a bundle of products from over 20 DSA member companies, including at least one of the following from each of these companies:

On Friday, we will choose one name from among all entries throughout the week to win an iPad mini, donated by Mannatech.

Contest also sponsored by Nu Skin, who is generously providing program funding.

 

How to Enter

Simply leave a comment answering today’s question: What does a marketer need to have in order to claim that their product is non-toxic? (Find the link to the answer on our NCPW resources page! – Opens in a separate window)

a Rafflecopter giveaway

* Contest is open to residents of the US and Canada, ages 18 and older, and ends at midnight ET, Thursday, March 6.

Good luck, and don’t forget to tell your friends!

114 Responses to National Consumer Protection Week 2014 Contest (Day 4)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  1. Marketers who say a product is “non-toxic” must have proof that the product is safe for both humans and the environment. If it’s safe for humans or the environment, the product or package should say which one

  2. Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  3. Karen Lane says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  4. Aleasha says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  5. Lisa Nicholson says:

    Reliable scientific tests that product is safe. And if they have certificates make sure they are backed up by solid standards.

  6. Carl Miller says:

    Can’t seem to find this answer specifically, but I’m assuming a NSF lable should do the trick.

  7. Vickie Courson says:

    Proof that it is non-toxic.

  8. Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  9. Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  10. Sharon Setterholm says:

    Marketers who say a product is “non-toxic” must have proof that the product is safe for both humans and the environment. If it’s safe for humans or the environment, the product or package should say which one.

  11. Must have documented proof

  12. Jaime Tucker says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  13. CATHY BOLTZ says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  14. Janice Nisly says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  15. Scientific evidence its nontoxic.

  16. Stephanie says:

    Marketers need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  17. Marketers should qualify general claims with specific environmental benefits. Qualifications for any claims should be clear, prominent, and specific.
    When a marketer qualifies a general claim with a specific benefit, consumers understand the benefit to be significant. As a result, marketers shouldn’t highlight small or unimportant benefits.

  18. margie says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment

  19. Alice Andreat says:

    Competent and reliable scientific evidence!

  20. Kristina Tyrer says:

    Wow this is great! Thanks for the great information. A marketer needs to have proven scientific evidence to prove that the product is safe for both humans and the environment. Thanks for another great opportunity!

  21. Non-Toxic

    Marketers who say a product is “non-toxic” must have proof that the product is safe for both humans and the environment. If it’s safe for humans or the environment, the product or package should say which one.

  22. Karen Teeters says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  23. Grace Wybraniak says:

    A marketer needs to have proven scientific evidence to prove that the product is safe for both humans and the environment. :)

  24. Karen Klajbor says:

    Green guide is the way to help show you are non toxic also all materials should be on the manufacturer lable MSDS sheets too!

  25. Bob Niles says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  26. A marketer needs to have competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is non-toxic and safe for both people and the environment.

  27. Lorna says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  28. Kai B says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  29. Charlene P says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  30. Competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment!

  31. Marketers who say a product is “non-toxic” must have proof that the product is safe for both humans and the environment. If it’s safe for humans or the environment, the product or package should say which one.

    Quote taken directly from NCPW article on “green” claims.

  32. Priscilla says:

    Have competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  33. Marj says:

    To claim a product is non toxic, you must have proof it doesn’t harm humans or the environment

    • Marj says:

      You must have scientific evidence a product doesn’t harm humans or the environment for it to be called non toxic

  34. Natalie says:

    Non-Toxic

    Marketers who say a product is “non-toxic” must have proof that the product is safe for both humans and the environment. If it’s safe for humans or the environment, the product or package should say which one.

  35. Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  36. Sue Millard says:

    They need competent scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  37. Tammy van Dongen says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment

  38. Nancy says:

    Marketers that claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment. Marketers should qualify their non-toxic claims to the extent necessary to avoid deception.

  39. Devra Betts says:

    To make claims marketers must have competent and reliable scientific proof that their product is safe for humans and the environment

  40. Renee Gates says:

    competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  41. Non-toxic means the products must be safe for humans and the environment and in order to state this they must have reliable scientific proof of this claim.

  42. Scientific proof its safe for human and environment.

  43. eleanor cooper says:

    competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  44. Magdalena says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need to have a documented proof from scientist about product quality and safety.

  45. Kate Aldrich says:

    The need proof that the product is safe for both humans and the environment. Or if it’s one or the other they must specify which it’s non-toxic for.

  46. Kendra says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  47. DSA members are required to back up claims with scientific evidence. A peer approved scientific study would have to be ready and available. When in doubt read through DSA policies and procedures.

  48. Leslie says:

    Competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  49. DSA members are required to back up claims with scientific evidence. A peer approved scientific study would have to be ready and available. When in doubt read through DSA policies and procedures, and use them to encourage trust and sales from customers:)

  50. Deborah L says:

    It needs to be safe foe both humans and the environment. Reliable scientific evidence must back this claim.

  51. Mandy Manley says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  52. PeggyLeigh says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment

  53. Bons says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  54. need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  55. Gina Edmond says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  56. Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment. So proud that Shaklee is a trusted company….. their get clean line is non-toxic and the best out there!

  57. Laura Holmes says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  58. Marketers who say a product is “non-toxic” must have proof that the product is safe for both humans and the environment. If it’s safe for humans or the environment, the product or package should say which one.

  59. Kalyani N says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  60. Cortney Wilson says:

    A MSDS fact sheet

  61. Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment

  62. Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  63. Chelle O says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  64. Mr Thomas E Ticknor says:

    Well if they claim that their product is non-toxic, they need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  65. Brenda Penton says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  66. Tammi Wolaver Laney says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  67. caroline kudera says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment. Basically if you don’t have it in writing and you don’t have concrete proof don’t advertise it.

  68. caroline kudera says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.Basically if you don’t have concrete proof and and in writing don’t advertise it.

  69. tammy shelton says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  70. Julie Winters says:

    competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment

  71. tammy says:

    •Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment…. should be labeled and clear

  72. What does a marketer need to have in order to claim that their product is non-toxic? They need scientific evidence as proof their products are safe
    for both the environment and people

  73. Jenny L. says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  74. Marco Chim says:

    Document, scientific and third party proof

  75. Crystal Stillabower says:

    In order for a marketer to claim that their product is non-toxic, competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both humans and the environment must be provided.

  76. linda mccoul says:

    claims must be sustansiated by scientific tests,

  77. A document from the company that has Scientific proof that their products are safe , never make claims that are not Corporate claims made by your company.
    FTC Act and Endorsements

  78. Lena Angutiqjuaq says:

    Scientific proof that its safe for human and environment.

  79. Rebekah Sheley says:

    Must have scientific proof that product is safe for humans & enveionment.

  80. Lesley Brydon says:

    marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable
    scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment

  81. Margaret says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  82. Stephanie says:

    Marketers who say their product is non toxic just have proof of this, not only safe for humans but also the environment. If it’s safe for humans or environment or both the package should clearly state for which is it safe for when stating that it’s non toxic

  83. Chris Weaver says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  84. They need to have scientific information to show that their products is proven to be safe for people and the environment.

  85. Jan says:

    The “non-toxic” claim implies that a product, substance, or chemical will not cause adverse health effects, either immediately or over the long-term. However, there are no specific standards for the “non-toxic” claim.

    “Toxic” is defined by the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, which regulates hazardous household products. A product is toxic if it can produce personal injury or illness to humans when it is inhaled, swallowed, or absorbed through the skin. In addition, a product is toxic if it can cause long term chronic effects like cancer birth defects, or neurotoxicity (adverse effects on the nervous system). The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is the federal agency responsible for administering the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. While neither the Act nor the CPSC define non-toxic, some manufacturers might assume that a product or chemical is non- toxic if it does not meet the definition of toxic under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.

    The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) requires certain hazardous household products to be labeled to alert consumers to certain potential hazards, and how consumers can protect themselves. To require labeling, a product must (1) be toxic (as defined above), corrosive, flammable or combustible, an irritant, or a strong sensitizer, or capable of generating pressure through decomposition, heat or other means, and (2) have the potential to cause substantial personal injury or illness during or as a result of customary or reasonably foreseeable handling or use, including reasonably foreseeable ingestion by children. Specific labels are required depending on the level and type of toxicity and include “Danger,” “Caution,” “Warning,” “Flammable,” Harmful if Swallowed,” “Causes Burns,” and “Poison.”

    However, just because a product or chemical does not meet the definition of “toxic” as defined by the Act and CPSC does not mean it is harmless. For example, most toxicologists rate the acute (immediate) toxicity of substances along a continuum, not as toxic or non-toxic. One common scale rates acute toxicity from a 6 (supertoxic) to a 1 (practically nontoxic). What CPSC calls “toxic” would get a 3, 4, or higher rating according to this scale. Thus, substances that are still slightly toxic according to this common scale would not meet the CPSC definition of “toxic” and might even be labeled “non-toxic.” Moreover, a consumer could see both a “non-toxic” label and a “This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer” label on the same product since the threshold for what CPSC considers to be toxic is lower than that for the State of California.

    CPSC describes tests that can be used to determine acute toxicity in terms of doses lethal to animals. By their definition, if a pint of a substance would be lethal to an average adult, it is considered acutely toxic. If it takes more than this to produce a lethal effect (say a quart), then CPSC would not regard the chemical as toxic. However, a substance that could kill an average adult who drank a quart is certainly not harmless. Such a product could be labeled “non-toxic” and not be in violation of the law.

    CPSC also considers a substance to show chronic toxicity if it is or contains a “known” or “probable” human carcinogen, neurotoxin, or developmental or reproductive toxicant. However, many if not most substances have not been tested sufficiently to know whether they cause cancer or adverse effects on development, reproduction, or the nervous system in humans and CPSC does not require manufacturers to conduct testing.. Thus, while many substances would not meet the definition of “toxic” according to CPSC, we do not know with certainty that they are “non-toxic.”

    The Environmental Protection Agency regulates cleaning products labeled as “antibacterial” (Antibacterial Labels) and considers claims such as “nontoxic,” “contains all natural ingredients,” and other statements about the safety of a pesticide to be false or misleading.

    Foods, drugs, and cosmetics are required to list their ingredients (with a few exceptions, such as fragrances in cosmetics), but household cleaning products are not required to disclose their ingredients (except for disinfectants or other ingredients considered to be antimicrobial pesticides).

  86. EmilyB says:

    competent and reliable scientific evidence.

  87. joti says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  88. Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  89. Mary Eigler says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  90. Ebony Harbut says:

    Proof that it is non toxic with scientific evidence…

  91. Debbie Wold says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment

  92. Jayne Maxwell says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  93. Lisa Thurman says:

    Non-Toxic Marketers who say a product is “non-toxic” must have proof that the product is safe for both humans and the environment.

  94. Claudette says:

    It has to be safe for humans and the environment to be considered non toxic.

  95. Shirley says:

    Marketer claims (like a product being nontoxic) must be truthful and accurate…and the DSA code says to follow up with the customer to make sure they were satisfied. Truth-in-advertising principles apply and companies must back up what they say with competent and reliable scientific evidence.

  96. Mandy Nobles says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  97. It means that there must be proof that It is not harmful to people and environment.

  98. Kristina cabral says:

    The product must be safe for both humans and the environment. There must be scientific evidence to support the claim.

  99. Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  100. Shelly Smith says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  101. kara kjellman says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  102. Tia S says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  103. Amanda says:

    Marketers who say a product is “non-toxic” must have proof that the product is safe for both humans and the environment. If it’s safe for humans or the environment, the product or package should say which one.

  104. Beth Mammano says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  105. Fact/Evidence in writing… A fact guide of the product

  106. Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment.

  107. Thank you ! They need scientific evidence that their product is safe for both

  108. Sherisse White says:

    For non-toxic claims: “Marketers who say a product is “non-toxic” must have proof that the product is safe for both humans and the environment. If it’s safe for humans or the environment, the product or package should say which one.”

  109. Angelia says:

    Interesting comments.

  110. Sandy Kreps says:

    Competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for people and the environment.

  111. Nicole Cowen says:

    Marketers who claim that their product is non-toxic need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment