Local

Lawsuit filed against Proctor & Gamble alleging environmental deception of Charmin packaging

P&G Profit Rises Percent as Home-Care Product Sales Improve Procter & Gamble Co. Charmin brand toilet paper sits on display in a supermarket in Princeton, Illinois, U.S., on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013. Procter & Gamble Co., the worlds largest consumer-products maker, said fiscal first-quarter profit rose 7.6 percent as sales of home-care goods and baby products gained. Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg via Getty Images

A class-action lawsuit was filed against Proctor & Gamble (P&G) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Thursday, alleging the company used deceptive marketing practices regarding the environmental impact of Charmin toilet paper, according to court documents.

The suit claims P&G’s “Keep Forests as Forests” campaign and its “Protect-Grow-Restore” messaging are examples of “greenwashing” by misrepresenting the source and sustainability of their product.

The lawsuit alleges that P&G sources Charmin toilet paper from the Canadian boreal forest, one of the world’s most significant biological ecosystems, and engages in destructive clear-cutting practices while marketing the product as environmentally responsible.

According to the filing, P&G advertises the use of pulp certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while using a small fraction of their pulp from FSC-certified forests.

They also display the logo for the “Rainforest Alliance Certified” despite the fact the Rainforest Alliance ceased its certification program some years ago.

The suit also accuses P&G of misrepresenting its tree-planting claims, stating the company “replants single-species conifers, evenly spaced, and then cover these trees with chemical herbicides to intentionally eliminate all growth other than just a handful of tree species most valuable for logging” instead of replanting a biodiverse forest.

The claim further states that using “frankenforests” reduces overall forest health and carbon storage capabilities.

The lawsuit seeks damages and injunctive relief, alleging P&G’s practices violated state consumer protection laws and further claims that these misrepresentations violate the Federal Trade Commission’s “Green Guides.”

The plaintiffs also contend that “P&G’s competitors demonstrate that more sustainable practices are possible.”


0