Credit: OceanSaver
OceanSaver has pulled advertising for its laundry capsules after the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found claims regarding the environmental benefits of their PVOH membrane, including biodegradability and reduction of plastic pollution, to be misleading.
In an advertisement on its website, OceanSaver made such statements as: “Each pod is made of PVOH film, and even though technically plastic… it’s one of the good plastics that are dissolvable and fully biodegrade!” Other phrases used to market the products included “100% plastic-free” and “contain zero microplastics”.
These were accompanied by the assertion that the OceanSaver lineup had kept “over 2 million pieces of plastic and 11,000 litres of harmful chemicals” out of the ocean so far.
Rival company Ecover and charity People Against Dirty Holdings questioned OceanSaver’s claims to use a safely dissolvable film, pointing out that the products contain polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH).
Initially, OceanSaver explained that organisms commonly found in water treatment facilities can apparently break PVOH down into water and carbon dioxide – and that the same organisms have been identified in the natural environment.
It went on to argue that PVOH was exempt from the Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055’s microplastic restrictions due to its solubility in water, alongside the suggestion that it does not produce solid microparticles to contribute to plastic waste.
Nevertheless, ASA has ruled that OceanSaver had failed to back up its claims with sufficient evidence that the products did not contain plastic, would not degrade into microplastics, and would not harm marine life. The resources cited do not apply to OceanSaver’s products specifically, ASA says, and some were region-specific.
A television advertisement also came under fire for its song lyrics, which included: “You switched all your cleaning to be plastic-free, without harmful chemicals, so you don’t harm the sea.” It featured the same pack shots as the company’s online advertisement, accompanied by the slogan: “OCEAN SAVER. THE OCEAN WILL THANK YOU.”
In response to the criticism, Clearcast, a non-governmental organization responsible for pre-approving television advertising, added that PVOH is not a plastic, but a water-soluble synthetic polymer made from the monomer vinyl alcohol. As such, it does not consider PVOH a ‘traditional’ plastic with a long-term presence or impact in nature, which it believes is the general consumer perception of the term ‘plastic’.
OceanSaver also pointed to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, in which substances considered to have long-term impacts on aquatic life based on their chronic toxicity are expected to carry a hazard statement; the OceanSaver range did not display such information.
Even so, ASA considers such a warning to only apply to the chemical content of the laundry pods, so its absence does not guarantee the safety of its PVOH membrane. Further evidence raised by OceanSaver is not thought to prove that its own products, specifically, contained PVOH that would break down completely in a normal washing machine.
Additionally, OceanSaver cited WWF in its assertion that 80% of plastic in the ocean originates on land. Given that it claimed to have sold 775,634 units of its laundry products in the year leading up to its television advertisement airing, it calculated that it had saved 4,178,212 pieces of plastic from its competitors’ non-biodegradable products (e.g. plastic bottles) from being purchased.
ASA rejects this defence as unsubstantiated, finding no evidence that consuming OceanSaver products would lead to prevention on that scale, nor that these unit sales keep plastic or chemicals out of the water.
In response to ASA’s ruling, OceanSaver has commented: “It’s clear that while our intentions were good, we could have provided more detailed explanations about the environmental impact of plastics and harmful chemicals—and what our products do to address them.
“For example, we described our products as ‘biodegradable.’ A more accurate statement would have been: ‘Biodegradable in accordance with ASTM D6691, UNI EN ISO 14852, and OECD 301-F testing methodologies.’
“We used the line “so you don’t harm the sea” as a reference to the fact our products, unlike most other laundry capsules sold in the UK at the time, were formulated in a way to not carry the Global Harmonized System Code H412 – ‘Harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects’. In hindsight we appreciate our explanation was an oversimplification.
“We also claimed ‘zero microplastics’ without elaboration. The full explanation should have read: ‘The film dissolves upon contact with water and does not contribute to microplastic pollution, in line with the EU restriction on Synthetic Polymeric Microparticles under Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH).’
“We often talk about choosing plastic-free products and avoiding ingredients that harm aquatic life. Specifically, we aim to steer consumers away from materials like polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene, and polyethylene, as well as formulations carrying the H412 hazard warning: Harmful to aquatic life with long-lasting effects which often goes unnoticed as part of the back of pack warnings.
“In our effort to make sustainable choices simple, we’ve sometimes avoided using technical names or regulatory references. However, going forward, we’ll aim to be more precise and transparent.”
Last year, we reported that the Court of Justice of the European Union had dismissed Symphony Environmental’s £82 million compensation claim for reputational damage, loss in profits, and a general decline in the company’s value following the European market’s ban on oxo-degradable plastics.
According to the General Court, the legislature ‘did not make a manifest error’ in preventing products containing a pro-oxidant additive from being placed on the market, with scientific evidence showing ‘low to non-existent’ biodegradation in open environments, landfill, and the ocean.
More recently, Hagens Berman has filed a class-action lawsuit against Procter & Gamble for environmental claims made on the packaging for its Charmin toilet paper brand. These claims are alleged to ‘mask’ the corporation’s ‘widespread deforestation practices’ via misleading online marketing, an ‘altered but nearly identical’ environmental seal, and more.
If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:
Reuse vs. single use – which is better for the environment?
Sustainable Innovation Report 2025: Current trends and future priorities
What can the world learn from South Korea’s world-leading performance in plastics circularity?
No comments yet