The Toxic Risks of Non-toxic Product Claims

When it comes to sustainability, “non-toxic” reigns supreme in consumer preferences. A survey conducted by Crestline Custom Promotional Products, which included over two thousand residents from 25 U.S. cities, revealed that the label “nontoxic” topped the list of what shoppers prioritize. It’s clear that consumers are on the lookout for products that ensure their safety. But here’s the catch: when can consumers truly trust that a non-toxic label signifies a product is safe? The stakes of mislabeling or overpromising are high—not just for consumer health but also for the reputation of your brand. Making sure your claims are accurate is vital in maintaining trust and credibility in today’s marketplace.

What Does Non-Toxic Mean?

The term non-toxic lacks a universally accepted definition, which has resulted in ongoing litigation regarding whether a product causes harm. For marketers, non-toxic claims should be both health-related and environmental benefits claims, and both need to be considered when making the claim. According to the FTC Green Guides (§ 260.10), a non-toxic claim should not pose any risk to humans or the environment and should be backed by reliable scientific evidence.  Additionally, qualifying phrases like “practically non-toxic” and “essentially non-toxic” carry the same weight, and any product with these labels must also be safe.

What About Toxin Free?

Non-toxic claims are closely related to free-of claims in marketing. According to the Federal Trade Commission (Green Guides § 260.9), marketers can make a “free-of” or “free-from” claim for a product only if the product contains only trace amounts of the substance and does not cause harm that consumers typically associate with the substance. With so many chemicals in everyday products, how do you know if you can claim “Toxin Free?”

What Chemicals Are Considered Toxic?

Globally, the US lags behind chemical regulation. For example, the EU has banned over 1,300 chemicals in cosmetics, while the FDA prohibits only eleven. The EU is phasing out harmful substances in consumer products altogether and prohibits labeling products with hazardous chemicals as ‘non-toxic’ or other misleading terms that suggest a product is safe. 

Although not as far along as in Europe, chemical regulation in the personal care industry is increasing in the US through state legislation, with key advancements like Washington State’s HB 1047. This Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, which went into effect at the beginning of this year, bans the sale of cosmetics that contain specific chemicals. The 2005 California Safe Cosmetics Act (CSCA) prohibits 24 chemicals from cosmetics. 

Another state legislation that relies on lists of harmful chemicals to guide companies is California’s Proposition 65, which has been in effect since 1986. It mandates that businesses warn people about chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm before exposure. The law applies to all companies operating in California, including those selling products online or through catalogs. Businesses must provide clear warnings if their products expose individuals in the state to significant amounts of these listed chemicals.

It’s clear that states are cracking down on the inclusion of harmful chemicals in products like cosmetics, and consumers are taking notice. With global markets providing better protection against toxic ingredients, shoppers now have increased information available for their purchasing decisions.

Facing Legal Risks: Claims and Complaints 

If you have gone above and beyond following chemical legislation and feel that your product is safe and won’t make anyone sick, should you use a “non-toxic” label? While it may seem appealing, labeling your product as non-toxic could expose you to legal risks. Numerous complaints have been made to the Better Business Bureau, and class action lawsuits have been filed in state courts regarding such claims, some carrying hefty settlement costs.

Lumineux “Certified Non-Toxic” Mouthwash

Oral Essentials agreed to follow the recommendation to remove the “Certified Non-Toxic” claim from its label and is reviewing its MadeSafe certification.

The BBB’s recommendation emphasized the importance of substantial evidence to back up non-toxic claims due to potential health and environmental dangers, along with the possibility that consumers could misuse the product or misunderstand its safety based on unsupported claims. Therefore, businesses must provide clear, reliable information to ensure consumer awareness and safety.

The Windex Non-Toxic Claim

S.C. Johnson is under scrutiny by the NAD and in court. As with the Oral Essentials complaint, the NAD found that toxicity studies for its Windex brand were not based on real-world effects on humans but on mathematical calculations. Accordingly, the NAD determined that this data is insufficient to convey that the product is not harmful. Johnson disagreed with the NAD’s findings and is appealing the decision.

SC Johnson also faced allegations regarding its marketing of Windex as “Non-Toxic.” In numerous cases, plaintiffs argued that this claim is misleading, given that the product’s formula contains substances that can harm humans, pets, and the environment. Although several of the cases were dismissed, one case, Clark et al. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., was settled. These cases demonstrate the risks of using a non-toxic label.

The FTC has also brought claims against companies for deceptive use of the non-toxic claim. Most famously, Kohl’s had to pay a large settlement of $2.5M for falsely advertising its bamboo bedding as, among other claims, non-toxic. Other class action suits have resulted in large settlement amounts, including those against Seventh Generation and Simple Green Cleaner.

Are Certifications a Safety Net?

Sustainability Certifications support sustainability claims and promote transparency for your product. While many certifications examine products for harmful chemicals, they do not necessarily label them as non-toxic. For example, EWG Verified screens products against its standards, which includes their list of unacceptable and restricted chemicals, ensuring that companies are transparent about their ingredient disclosures. Similarly, the EPA’s Safer Choice program evaluates ingredients for their potential impacts on human health and the environment, ensuring that products contain only the least harmful ingredients. Both of these certifications signal to consumers that a product is safe to use.

However, the NAD complaint against Oral Essentials underscores that certifications do not always guarantee safety from the risks associated with labeling a product as “non-toxic.” This reality emphasizes the importance of selecting the appropriate certification for your product. Utilizing resources such as Softly’s Green Claim Navigator can help in this regard. This tool offers a comprehensive list of relevant sustainability certifications and third-party validations for various sustainability claims, ensuring that brands align their claims with recognized standards and maintain transparency. Additionally, it tracks pertinent lawsuits and provides a thorough overview of federal, state, and international regulations related to sustainability.

Schedule a free consultation with Softly to learn more about avoiding the risks of sustainability claims. 

Take the Risk out of Non-Toxic

The term “non-toxic” is a desired health and environmental claim, but it carries certain risks. Before promoting your product as non-toxic, it is important that you have solid evidence to back up your claim, using data that reflects real-world effects. Review your product’s ingredients to ensure they are not prohibited in the state or country where you intend to sell it. Additionally, make sure your certifications are current and sufficiently support your claim.

References

1. Consumer Guilt & Buying Dilemmas – Do Shoppers Care About Company Behavior? | Crestline
2. eCFR :: 16 CFR 260.10 — Non-toxic claims.
3. eCFR :: 16 CFR 260.9 — Free-of claims.
4. cosmetics-prohibited-subs – ECHA
5. Prohibited & Restricted Ingredients in Cosmetics | FDA
6. 52023PC0166 – EN – EUR-Lex
7. 5 Trends to Watch: 2025 Cosmetics & Personal Care Products – Lexology
8. ARTICLE 3.5. Chronic Health Effects of Cosmetics [111791 – 111793.5].
9. Proposition 65 – OEHHA.
10. The Proposition 65 List – OEHHA
11. NAD Recommends Oral Essentials Discontinue “Certified Non-Toxic” Claim – BBB National Programs
12. NAD Recommends S.C. Johnson Discontinue ‘Non-Toxic’ Claim on Windex Vinegar Glass Cleaner
13. Clark et al. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.,
14. US vs. Kohls
15. Rapoport-Hecht et al v. Seventh Generation, Inc.
16. O’Brien et al v. Sunshine Makers, Inc.
17. How to Protect Your Reputation from Greenwashing Using Sustainability Certifications | Softly Solutions
18. https://www.ewg.org/ewgverified/
19. https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice