Green marketing for products is at an all-time high.  According to David Mullen of the National Advertising Division at the Better Business Bureau, “Companies feel pressured to out green one another”.  The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) offers its “Green Guides” to help determine which products should be labeled “green” or “eco-friendly,” but recent revisions offered for these guides will change how many market their products (and not necessarily in a positive way).  Last updated in 1998, the new revisions to the Green Guides should result in less generalized claims and more fine print on packaging.  The question is – how accurate will this new fine print actually be?

Under the new proposals, products are no longer able to be labeled “green” or “eco-friendly”.  The claim will have to be linked to a specific benefit of the product (for example, bamboo being antimicrobial).  The term “degradable” can only be used if a product is capable of decomposing in a landfill within a year.  “Recyclable” may also be changed, because they have changed the definition of that too.  A product will not be considered recyclable if the facilities needed to recycle it aren’t widely available.  You may see products with the notice “recyclable only in the few communities that have recycling programs”.  The FTC also goes after the third party certifications and seals.  Marketers would have to disclose their relationships with a certifying organization.  Manufacturers will not be able to claim their product is made from renewable material  until they can show how much of the product is made from those materials, what those materials are, how they are sourced, and why they are considered renewable.  Additionally, manufacturers won’t be able to say that a product is made with renewable energy if any part of the product’s manufacturing involved fossil fuels. 

The FTC is taking comments on the proposed revisions for 60 days.  After that, they will issue their final guidelines during the first half of 2011.  At first glance, these revisions seem pretty innocent.  However, when you delve deeper into what the FTC has done in the past, these changes are worrisome. 

First, the FTC in the past stated that “rayon from bamboo” was the same as “traditional rayon” due to its similar processing.  They want you to believe that these companies were misrepresenting the fabric by calling it what it is:  bamboo or fiber from bamboo.  You also have the FTC’s consumer alert:  “There’s also no evidence that rayon made from bamboo retains the antimicrobial properties of the bamboo plant, as some sellers and manufacturers claim. Even when bamboo is the “plant source” used to create rayon, no traits of the original plant are left in the finished product.”  The issue?  Numerous studies have shown the exact opposite. 

Also, the problem is not that businesses are misrepresenting their biodegradable products. Landfills are a place that can literally host a head of lettuce for 5 years and a hot dog for 15 year as Dr. William Rathje has shown.  (He pioneered excavations on over 15 landfills throughout North America.)  You can read about several cases (not just about bamboo) about how the FTC oversteps into business.

Bamboo is THE most renewable, sustainable, pesticide free, herbicide free, water conserving (no need to water for harvesting) woody plant in the world!  However, if it is up the FTC, we won’t be able to tell you any of that!

The Green Police: FTC Eco-Friendly Standards Hard To Live Up To! is a post from: Green Earth News

As many of you are aware, the Federal Trade Commission has made the allegation that bamboo fabric (viscose from bamboo) does not retain any antimicrobial properties that are prevalent in the plant itself. They state this without providing any scientific evidence to back it up. However, there have been numerous studies, scientific test results and claims from China, Japan, India and the U.S. stating that bamboo fabric is in fact antimicrobial.

Furthermore, anyone who has had the pleasure of wearing bamboo clothing, bamboo socks or sleeping on bamboo sheets will verify that they wick away sweat and do not retain or emit odors as other fabrics do. Not only that, you can wear a shirt several days in a row without washing in between wearings. So even if this fabric has bionic super powers when it comes to its absorbency qualities, how is it possible that your body does not produce an odor if there are no antimicrobial properties?

We’ll leave that hypothesis to science and continue to provide you with actual scientific test results and case studies until the FTC concludes either they must be mistaken or they have in fact come up with their own scientific evidence to prove their theory.

Study of antimicrobial behavior of socks from bamboo fibers

by C. Gomathi

Study of Antimicrobial Behavior of Socks from Bamboo Fibers is a post from: Green Earth News

Many of you have been following our posts regarding the Federal Trade Commission’s claims on the bamboo textile industry. If you haven’t, it would be in your best interest to start from the beginning with our first post, “FTC Bamboozles Public on Bamboo Fabric”.

By now, I think it goes without saying that the FTC is making claims and allegations without their own evidence, while crucifying four bamboo companies for not having enough conclusive evidence of their own. Kind of an oxymoron isn’t it?

The reason I chose the words “smear campaign” for this title is because it is rather appropriate given the language the FTC continues to use in their press releases when referencing the bamboo textile industry as “deceptive”. In their consumer alerts, they formulate their sentences with words of mockery such as, “But when it comes to soft bamboo textiles, like shirts or sheets, there’s a catch: they’re actually rayon”, leading consumers to believe that all rayon is one in the same. This is our government writing statements like this…not a magazine ad trying to squeeze out their competition.

Notice the FTC’s choice of words “they’re actually rayon”? I highly recommend you review scientific test results on how different “bamboo rayon” is from “traditional rayon”, in our post “FTC Claims Bamboo and Rayon Are One in The Same“. This provides scientific evidence on only one characteristic that sets bamboo rayon apart from traditional rayon. We will be posting more scientific data over the upcoming weeks, so grab our rss feed to keep informed.

The FTC goes even further out on a limb by stating bamboo is not biodegradable when in fact it is, as many other things are that the FTC disqualifies because they cannot decompose in a landfill which is where nearly all of U.S. trash is disposed. Again, a bit of an oxymoron no? By this very definition the FTC would not qualify fruits and vegetables as biodegradable either.

I think the icing on the cake is their talent for creating an illusion that bamboo is not eco friendly. They go on and on about “false green claims” and yet at no point do they make recognition to the fact that bamboo is THE most renewable, sustainable, pesticide free, herbicide free, water free (no need to water for harvesting) woody plant in the world! Aside from providing people with shelter, food, medicine and products for centuries, it literally removes CO2 from the atmosphere and produces over 30% more oxygen than an equivalent stand of trees. Not only that, did you know it can be used for providing soil stability due to it’s incredible root system? All sounds pretty good for helping to prevent deforestation huh?

But the FTC doesn’t want you to know about these incredible qualities and they certainly don’t want “green claims” being made. Now I am not disputing that the manufacturing process of bamboo into fabric, whether it’s for bamboo clothing or bamboo sheets, is not the greenest option.  However, compared to its counterparts (other fabric sources), bamboo is clearly the choice if you look at the overall process from start to finish…not to mention the thousands of trees that could be saved for other products that are derived from wood. Everything you utilize that is made from wood can be made from bamboo and at a much better quality. Bamboo can be harvested every 4-5 years, trees every 20-30 years…you do the math.

Of course the production of bamboo for the textile industry would certainly put a damper on the cotton industry…an interesting point indeed. Flash forward 20 years into the future when the U.S. has harnessed how to grow and harvest bamboo so that there is no longer a need to import from China. Do you think the FTC would be putting on a show for the cotton industry? I don’t think so.

The fourth company that the FTC is attacking on the bamboo claims, is the M Group (Bamboosa). If you have followed this story then you already know that Bamboosa has been trying to fight the FTC on these claims, but they are a small company without the deep pockets required to fight the FTC. Unfortunately, Bamboosa fought the good fight but had to throw in the towel because clearly they are fighting a losing battle. And despite their attempts to get clarification from the FTC as to what scientific data is required of them for the antimicrobial claims, the FTC refuses to respond while disqualifying the test results Bamboosa had provided – calling it “inconclusive”.

Let me give you an example of FTC deception. They begin with a statement in their consumer alert, “There’s also no evidence that rayon made from bamboo retains the antimicrobial properties of the bamboo plant, as some sellers and manufacturers claim.” Notice the FTC clearly states that there is NO EVIDENCE. Yet, they go on to make this claim in their recent press release: “Bamboosa claimed that its products retain bamboo’s antimicrobial properties. However, even if the rayon used in Bamboosa’s clothing and textile products is manufactured using bamboo as the cellulose source, the FTC contends, rayon does not retain any natural antimicrobial properties of the bamboo plant. The rayon manufacturing process eliminates any of these natural bamboo properties.”

At no point has the FTC provided any scientific evidence to back up their claim. Knowing full well this isn’t going to make it to a court of law, I suppose the FTC can attempt to have you believe anything they want to. This is commonplace for the FTC. Just take a look at other documented cases that have made it to the court room in our post “Federal Trade Commission Discredits Itself“.  Two Words: Smear Campaign.

Mo from Bamboosa has a little something to say about their efforts in fighting this battle and where they stand with these claims.

“Hi, this is Mo from Bamboosa. I’d like to make a comment on this FTC thing if I may.

First, I want to say that the only reason that Bamboosa has decided to sign the consent order, after nearly a year of dealing with this, is that we feel we cannot fight the FTC. We are a small company with limited resources and we need to direct those resources where they will do the most good for our employees and our customers.

Bamboosa stands by our products as one of the best choices you can make for textiles or apparel. Our products, when taken as a whole, have a reduced environmental footprint when compared to most textile or apparel choices.

The FTC is incorrect in their assumption regarding the environmental impact of the fiber production and about any hazards to the workers. The FTC is looking at data from the standard production methods for rayon, not the production methods developed in the last several years for turning bamboo into a fiber.

They are also incorrect when they say that all fiber classified as rayon or viscose has the same attributes regardless of the cellulose source. Our tests have proven that there are significant differences between viscose from bamboo and viscose from a tree.

Regarding antimicrobial properties, the tests that we provided them with that show bamboo fabric inhibits the growth of bacteria may not have satisfied their requirements, but anyone who has ever worn a bamboo shirt or socks and sweated in them knows that the resistance to odor is there.

I would also like to say that any implication by the FTC that Bamboosa has engaged in any sort of ‘greenwashing’ is absolutely without merit. Our suppliers that sell us the fiber call it ‘bamboo fiber’. Our yarn spinner that sell us yarn says it is ‘bamboo yarn’. Bamboosa simply used the same terminology as we were getting from our suppliers. It is also worth noting that Bamboosa changed all of our labeling to read ‘viscose from bamboo’ prior to any FTC action. We made that change as soon as we were aware of the need for it.

Lastly, Bamboosa is a little company in a little town in SC. We started this company to try to bring some textile jobs back to Andrews. We are extremely proud of the products that we make and will put the environmental footprint of our products up against any apparel products on the market. While our fiber may come from China, the rest of our manufacturing, from yarn spinning to knitting, dyeing, sewing, and printing is done within a very small radius in SC.

The real story here should be why the FTC is trying to squash a small little company that is creating American jobs and who produces a product that, in reality, lives up to every claim that is made about it. Thanks, Mo”

If you are as dismayed with the FTC’s tactics in their bamboo smear campaign as we are, we want to hear from you. Textile chemists, scientists, lab technicians, attorneys have fought against the FTC, and those passionate about having a better environment for our future….we definitely want to hear from you!

Speak up America…before the FTC controls our freedom of speech on the internet, including blogs…no joke…it’s coming!

You have the chance to speak up on this matter and let your voice be heard, but time is running out!
The order will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until November 23, 2009, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. To file a public comment, please click on the following link:  https://public.commentworks.com/ftc/D9340/ and follow the instructions at that site.

FTC’S Bamboo Smear Campaign Riddled with Deception is a post from: Green Earth News

Can Rayon Really Save Your Life?

The FTC would have you believe that “rayon from bamboo” is the same quality fabric as “traditional rayon” due to its similar process. The FTC would also have you believe that companies have been misrepresenting this fabric by calling it bamboo or fiber from bamboo rather than rayon from bamboo.

What you may not realize is that bamboo fabric is so new to the industry that it has not been given a true textile classification and until it has, the FTC has recently decided it must be called “rayon from bamboo” because it is processed in a similar manner. What they don’t tell you is that rayon is a process and when that process is applied to different source materials, the finished products are not identical.

The FTC fails to mention that rayon is merely the process and when bamboo fabric is looked at under a microscope it proves to be far superior than your typical wood-derived rayon. After all, can rayon really save your life?

The Research Behind The Science

This particular topic is one we find to be incredibly fascinating and our plan is to provide you with as much scientific information as we can get our hands on. So be sure to grab an rss feed to this blog for future posts on this topic. In the mean time we will begin with the first aspect that clearly sets wood-derived rayon and bamboo-derived rayon apart from one another.

First, we would like to take a brief moment to thank Stan Eskridge, Jr., the CEO of Entegrion, Inc. for providing us with scientific data they have published in the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials 91B(1), 381-389, June, 2009 (1).  As some of you may know from our previous posts, Entegrion is a company located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, that has been contracted by the U.S. Navy for the development of products to control bleeding that are critically needed.

Entegrion has studied the characteristics of bamboo rayon at great length for purposes of finding a material that can transport blood in a manner that far surpasses that of any other material. With their discoveries, the Stasilon® dressing was born with the use of bamboo rayon and glass materials. This unique bandage, with all its scientific data, has been cleared for market by the FDA.

Throughout his research, Dr. Tom Fischer, Entegrion’s founder and Chief Science Officer, discovered remarkable qualities in bamboo rayon he has have never seen before in any other fiber. Because of this, Entegrion’s research is ongoing and continues to uncover amazing characteristics of bamboo rayon…one of which we will share with you here.

Scientific Results That Indicate “Rayon” and “Bamboo Rayon” are Entirely Different Animals

Entegrion’s quest for developing a unique dressing to be used for the military and civilian medicine to help save lives, led them to test approximately 70 textile fibers to determine which ones could literally make the difference in saving one’s life because of the fiber’s coagulation characteristics.

“The design and testing of a dual fiber textile matrix for accelerating surface hemostasis.”

Below is a graph indicating how “specialty rayon” (Bamboo rayon) surpasses that of every other textile in terms of thrombin generation (a key measure of coagulation prowess), with wood-derived rayon being near the far end of the spectrum (Regular Rayon).

“But the FTC told us that rayon from bamboo is the same as any other rayon?”
Far from it…

Taking a closer look at these test results, Entegrion concluded the following:

1)    The crystallinity of bamboo viscose is lower than that of standard viscose or lyocell.  However, the chemical and structural aspects of specialty rayon (bamboo) that make this fiber more prothrombogenic than other cellulosic fibers, such as wood-derived rayon and cotton gauze, are not yet fully understood.

2)    Test results revealed that the dual fiber Stasilon® textile bound approximately three times as many red blood cells (RBCs) per unit weight as gauze, and that the RBC binding to the dual fiber matrix is due primarily to the specialty rayon (bamboo) content.

It should also be noted that Stasilon® received clearance by the United States Food and Drug Administration for broad-based use in surgical and emergency medicine in December of 2007 (United States Food and Drug Administration 510(k) number K072890). Based on comparison with existing products and based on data from porcine hemorrhage studies, the FDA cleared Stasilon® with an indication as a hemostatic wound dressing.  Subsequent clinical studies with human burn patients validated these findings and also demonstrated unique properties for non-adherence of the textile to the wound bed.  Such non-adherence (which minimizes clot disruption and rebleeding upon removal of the device from the wound), is completely unique and is believed to result from the unique interaction of the bamboo rayon component of Stasilon® with RBCs.

We will be bringing you more scientific data on the remarkable qualities of bamboo fiber or “bamboo rayon” as it comes available to us. Whether it’s bamboo bandages or bamboo clothing, it’s important to be accurate so be sure to pass this important data on to everyone you feel has been “bamboozled” by the FTC.

A special thanks to Entegrion for allowing us to publish this information. Please visit Entegrion to learn more about their incredible success in developing products that can literally save someone’s life.

(1) Thomas H. Fischer,  John N. Vournakis, James E. Manning, Shane L. McCurdy, Preston B. Rich, Timothy C. Nichols, Christopher M. Scull, Marian G. McCord, Joseph A. Decorta, Peter C. Johnson, and Carr J. Smith (2009). “The design and testing of a dual fiber textile matrix for accelerating surface hemostasis.” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials 91B(1), 381-389. Abstract available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.31413.

FTC Claims Bamboo and Rayon Are One in The Same is a post from: Green Earth News

Does the FTC believe they are “untouchable” or is it consumers and business owners who have this misconception?

In relation to our previous post, “FTC Bamboozles the Public on Bamboo Fabric”, we felt it appropriate to inform consumers of a sampling of prior FTC cases that did not stand up in a court of law, or were shut down before making it to the courtroom. The reason these cases were ultimately won is not based solely on the evidence the FTC lacked, but more so on the fact that these companies and individuals had the determination and funds to fight the FTC on their false allegations.

It is important that consumer, whether purchasing bamboo sheets or male fertility supplements, understand and recognize that the FTC is a government agency whose power extends with great reach, constrained by no leash whatsoever. Though they have sometimes used this power in the interest of consumers, after reading a few outlined cases below, there should be no doubt in your mind that they not only have their own agendas, they often misuse their power.

Our intention is not to redirect focus to the FTC’s ineptness, rather there seems to be a lot of naïve individuals out there that simply believe “it must be so” because our government said so. All the while, the FTC has a history of wrong doings, incompetence, misusing its power and destroying peoples lives. What you might not realize…is this all has a great effect on you – the consumer. And because of that, we ask you to open your eyes and start paying attention to what is going on with our government agencies.

August  27, 2009 – American Bar Association vs. FTC

The American Bar Association files suit against the FTC to bar them from applying Red Flags Rule to practicing lawyers.

“Because the FTC is exceeding the powers delegated to it by Congress and misinterpreting the Rule, the ABA is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in advance of pending FTC Rule enforcement on Nov. 1, 2009,” stated the ABA in a recent press release.

The ABA complaint states the application of the Rule to practicing lawyers is “arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law,” and that the FTC has “failed to articulate, among other things.”

ABA President Carolyn Lamm said, upon the filing of the lawsuit, “Congress did not intend to cover lawyers under the Rule. The FTC’s decision to apply the Rule to lawyers is contrary to an unbroken history of state regulation of lawyers and intrudes on traditional state responsibilities. The Rule requires extensive reporting and bureaucratic compliance that would unnecessarily increase the cost of legal services. This kind of unauthorized federal regulation of law practice threatens the independence of the profession and the lawyer’s role as client confidante and advocate.”

August 17, 2009 – LaneLabs vs. FTC

FTC Allegations
The FTC had filed a motion against LaneLabs in 2007, alleging that it was making unsubstantiated claims for its calcium and male fertility supplement products. The FTC recommended a fine of $24 million.

The FTC’s claims took issue with statements that AdvaCal can “build bone density” and that it is “clinically shown to be three times more absorbable than other calciums”. They also took issue with marketing statements on LaneLabs other product, Fertil Male, stating that the product has been marketed as a “natural supplement for male fertility” and is “clinically shown to promote sperm count and motility”.

In its complaint, the FTC stated that these claims were “unsubstantiated”, and that the results of scientific trials had been “misrepresented”. “The defendants unsubstantiated claims constitute contempt and have resulted in injury to consumers,” stated the FTC complaint.

Ruling Against FTC
Judge Dennis Cavanaugh of the US District Court of New Jersey denied the motion on the grounds that LaneLabs had “clearly offered support and substantiation for the claims regarding their products”. The court also stated, “In considering the testimony offered by all of the experts, the difference between FTC’s experts and the Defendants’ experts came down to a difference of opinion – not necessarily matters of right and wrong”.

The court also said that the FTC had provided no evidence that consumers had complained or were harmed by the use of the supplements. Neither of the FTC experts said the products were not effective or constituted a health risk to the public.

“In this courts opinion, to tell Defendants that their efforts were not good enough years after not advising them of any compliance issues is disingenuous and is highly relevant to the inquiry into whether Defendants should have done something different in the first instance.” You can read the LaneLabs Court Ruling here.

September 14, 2007 – Federal Trade Commission Makes Vast Errors

Do you remember the battle over “hot fuel” back in 2007? FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras had stated that the effect of temperature on fuel was minimal – tablespoons in a 20-gallon tank for 20 degrees fluctuation – and therefore the FTC would not be investigating the issue of hot fuel.

What does this mean? Well, many consumers believe that oil companies and fuel retailers knowingly profit from the sale of “expanded fuel.”

Once subcommittee chairman Dennis Kucinich, D-OH, pointed out to Majoras that the data communicated between FTC and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-CA, was inaccurate and grossly underestimated the effects of hot fuel, the Federal Trade Commission apologized to the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy for “providing inaccurate information”.

Judy Dugan of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights stated that the Federal Trade Commission has “fallen on its sword.” “The FTC letter, riddled with error and false conclusions, should be the last straw for Congress, which Rep. Kucinich understands. We hope the Senate, which is already considering legislation to fix the “hot fuel” ripoff will also investigate the FTC’s utter dismissal of harm to consumers by oil companies,” said Dugan.

John Siebert, project leader of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, agreed with Dugan stating, “FTC officials have never indicated that they would take it up before, and now that they have, they’ve screwed it up so thoroughly, we’re going to agree with Judy Dugan that they should now recuse themselves from anything regarding this. They’ve already shown their true colors that they are pro-oil.”

Here is a snippet from The House Subcommittee letter, signed by Chairman Rep. Dennis Kucinich:
Majoras also claims, on the basis of this error, that “It appears that the sale of ‘hot fuel’ might not cost consumers extra money.” This statement was followed by a long explanation by Kucinich breaking down the miscalculations provided by the FTC, and stating the result was almost 12 times that calculated by the FTC. You can view the full letter by Dennis Kucinich here.

June 23, 2006 – FTC Lost Personal Data on Identity-Theft Suspects

As Fox News reported, the FTC had two government laptops containing sensitive personal data, sitting in an attorney’s car…easy for the taking. This took place after a series of breaches.

The Federal Trade Commission said it would provide free credit monitoring for 100 people targeted for investigation whose names, addresses, social security numbers, and in some instances, financial account numbers – were taken from an FTC attorney’s locked car.

“Many of the people whose data were compromised were being investigated for possible fraud and identity theft”, said Joel Winston, Associate Director of the FTC’s Division of Privacy and Identity theft protection.

March 9, 2005 – Upsher-Smith/Schering-Plough vs. FTC

FTC Allegations
In its 2001 complaint, the FTC alleged that the Upsher-Smith/Schering-Plough 1997 patent settlement violated antitrust laws.

Ruling Against FTC
In 2002, after a lengthy trial, the FTC’s own administrative law judge ruled in favor of Upsher-Smith and Schering-Plough, dismissing the complaint. However, the FTC reversed this ruling and found against the companies.

March 8, 2005, three years later, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled, in a unanimous decision, that the administrative law judge was right and the FTC was wrong. The appeals court stated that the FTC was “not supported by law or logic.” The appeals court also found that the FTC decision was “contradicted by overwhelming evidence.” The court also added, “it would seem as though the Commission clearly made its decision before it considered any contrary conclusion.”

January 22, 2003 – Mark O. Haroldsen vs. FTC

FTC Allegations
The FTC filed its action in 1996, claiming that Financial Freedom Report had engaged in deceptive sales practices and was liable for $146 million in consumer injury. The FTC claimed that Haroldsen was responsible for the companies’ activities and was personally liable to repay the alleged consumer injury. The FTC also indicated that it would require, at a minimum, a payment in excess of $10 million as a condition to any settlement.

In its complaint, the FTC claimed that Financial Freedom Report sold the products of its sister companies through seminars by using deceptive sales pitches intended to defraud consumers.

Ruling Against FTC
Judge David Sam found that the FTC had failed to present any evidence to support its claims. The court also ordered the FTC to pay Haroldsen $190,000 in attorney fees. This of course did not come close to what Haroldsen paid out and lost throughout his six-year battle.

Judge David Sam was so disgusted by the FTC’s actions, he declared, “The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) acted wantonly, oppressively, vexatiously and in bad faith in prosecuting claims against Mark O. Haroldsen.”

Evan A. Schmutz, Haroldsen’s lead attorney, stated, “The court was particularly displeased because FTC’s pretrial statements asserted the strength of its evidence yet, at the time of trial, the FTC failed to produce even a single consumer to provide relevant testimony in support of any of the government’s claims.” Schmutz added, “The court was clearly troubled by the FTC’s pursuit of its action against Haroldsen, long after it knew the evidence was lacking, simply because it believed Haroldsen had the ability to pay. The court concluded that the FTC’s pursuit of claims was an improper attempt to force Haroldsen to pay an unjustified settlement simply to avoid having to fight the U.S. government.”

Side Note
Haroldsen is a Salt Lake City businessman and best-selling author of “How to Wake Up the Financial Genius Inside You.” The Haroldsen companies employed more than 500 people and generated revenues in excess of $100 million in 1994. As a result of the lawsuit and negative publicity, Haroldsen’s companies lost their banking relationships and were forced to shut down their operations.

The FTC took away six years of Haroldsen’s life, caused his businesses to shut down, cost him hundreds of thousands, and clearly had an impact on the 500 employees when operations came to a close. Read more detail on the Haroldsen vs FTC case here.

January 4, 2002 – SOTA vs. FTC

FTC Allegations
On June 13, 2000 SOTA received a letter from the FTC charging SOTA Instruments, Inc. with engaging in deceptive acts and practices and is acting in the public’s best interest. They stated they believe SOTA has caused substantial injury to consumers by SOTA having an internet link on their site to another website. They believe the injury occurred because the website SOTA linked to posted letters from customers of SOTA that shared how SOTA’s products had helped them in their lives. If SOTA had only stated on their website that “results were not typical” then supposedly the FTC would have no problem with the link.

The FTC stated, “It is in the public interest to dispose of this matter expeditiously.” This statement was accompanied by a three-inch thick consent agreement, and the FTC required that the company keep the FTC fully informed of all their business activities for the next 20 years. Additionally, the FTC demanded that the company hand over its entire customer database.

These are just some of the initial demands put forth by the FTC, in the hopes that the company would not fight it, no doubt. The company…SOTA, chronicled their experience with the FTC. We urge you to review this for yourself and see just what tactics the FTC uses to pull rank.

Ruling Against FTC
Incidentally, after about 18 months of defending themselves… SOTA emerged victorious. On January 4, 2002 SOTA received a letter from the FTC stating, “The case against SOTA has been closed.”

After reading the chronicled communications between SOTA and the FTC, we can certainly understand why they were quick to dismiss this case.

June 19, 2001 – Dr. Tedd Koren vs. FTC

FTC Allegations
In 1995 the FTC made claims that chiropractor, Dr. Tedd Koren, was not allowed to write about the dangers of vaccination, the usefulness of pediatric chiropractic, and the latest information about clinical trails because he was a doctor of chiropractic, therefore, his writing faced a higher standard of review than the writings of nonprofessional, medically unlicensed journalists.  They claimed that the only “safe information” a chiropractor could give under “their theory” was on low back pain, and that the writing about the dangers of vaccination “terrorized” American families.

The FTC argued that the points made in Dr. Koren’s publications were outside the scope of practice of a chiropractor, and were therefore false and misleading.

Ruling Against FTC
On June 19, 2001 attorneys for the FTC informed Dr. Tedd Koren that they had dropped their investigation against him for allegations of false claims in three (of nearly one hundred) pamphlets that Koren Publications makes available to chiropractors and the public.

“This letter is to advise you that the matter about which you inquired in your letter to Ms. Maher dated April 26, 2001 has been closed. This action is not to be construed as a determination that a violation has not occurred, just as the pendency of an investigation should not be construed as a determination that a violation occurred. The commission reserves the right to take further action as the public interest may require.”

The Case Itself
This was such a compelling case, displaying the power and control the FTC tries to unjustly inflict on businesses. This case is exemplary of how the FTC could forever change the 1st amendment – it’s time consumers start paying attention to our “government agencies”.

Just to give you the overall magnitude of this case, Dr. Tedd Koren had a team of attorney’s fighting directly with the FTC for six years without this case ever making it into a courtroom. Because this was such a significant case for the future of health professionals and the peoples first amendment right, Dr. Koren was joined in his fight by high caliber attorneys including; James Turner of the Washington D.C. law firm of Swankin and Turner; Charles Brown, twice-elected former attorney general of West Virginia; David Swankin, former executive director of the White House Office of Consumer Affairs under Lyndon Johnson; Betsy Lehrfeld, former West Coast director of the Council on Economic Priorities; and Christopher Turner, a specialist in regulatory information law.

All the attorneys believed strongly that the restrictions proposed for Dr. Koren posed a threat to his constitutional first amendment right and, if successful, to the first amendment rights of all chiropractors, health care practitioners and other professionals.

This six-year siege could have resulted in heavy fines, restrictions on what he could write, and 20 years of “fencing-in” oversight by the FTC. And, at one point Dr. Koren signed a consent order negotiated between his first attorney and the FTC, only to have the agency turn around and reject that agreement.

We believe Donald M. Petersen Jr., BS, HCD(hc), FICC(h), Publisher of Dynamic Chiropractic, said it best in his article on chiroweb.com, “Of the many battles fought by our profession, few are as frustrating as those waged against federal bureaucracies. Elected officials act with a certain degree of accountability, but officials of federal agencies, whom are appointed to their offices for political reasons, seem aloof, if not domineering in their actions. When the power of these officials is misused or overextended, particularly when it is directed at a specific profession, what recourse does that profession have?”

He goes on to say, “This battle was not waged in the courtroom before an impartial judge. Dr. Koren and his team of lawyers were to fight a war with several FTC lawyers funded by taxpayer dollars and supported by chiropractic’s long-time nemesis Stephen Barrett.”

In regards to the FTC’s letter to Dr. Koren closing the case on three of the pamphlets, Donald Petersen remarked, “These words seem to suffice as the FTC’s version of “no harm, no foul.” But what about the six years and thousands of dollars spent getting the FTC lawyers to back off? There appears to be very little accountability, and even less remorse. One gets a sense that many people in these agencies see themselves as untouchable, and that they can do anything they want without incurring personal liability for their actions.”

August, 1998 – FTC Illegal Seizure of Business and Cover Up

In 1998 the FTC conducted nationwide sweeps, and in this particular “sweep”, it  involved 60 law enforcement actions (coined “Project Risky Business”) directed at investment opportunity businesses in the direct market/entertainment industry.

Without further ado, we turn your attention to the chronicled case against the NAB. Here you can review what transpired in great detail and decide for yourself if you believe the FTC was covering up their wrong doings.

In Conclusion

It seems the FTC often misuses its power, draws conclusions before obtaining proper evidence, threatens businesses with an insurmountable fine they couldn’t possibly afford in order to prevent them from proving the FTC wrong, makes false allegations and diminishes a company’s reputation in the public eye before the company has an opportunity to stand up for themselves, does not claim responsibility for their actions, most certainly has their own agenda – possibly supported by outside interests, and continues to claim they are “protecting consumers” in cases such as the ones indicated above.

Isn’t America supposed to be a country where people are innocent until proven guilty? Is the FTC above our justice system? Are they given so much rein that they can do as they see fit while spending years destroying peoples lives and businesses without accepting responsibility? Are American citizens so blind to what’s happening in our government, that we ourselves are to blame for allowing this to happen over and over again?

Will the FTC’s newest agenda on controlling journalism and the media as we know it be their final feat in killing our first amendment right? It’s a sad state of affairs when our “protectors” become our “dictators” because we gave them the power to do so.

Have we gotten your attention yet? Curious as to how far the FTC’s authority extends? Just take a gander at how much free rein they have under FTC Authority on their website. You might just want to do a little research of your own while you are visiting ftc.gov.

If you have found yourself up against the FTC in an ongoing battle that you believe was unjustified, please share your story here. Speak now or forever hold your peace – and this could be quite literal very soon.

Wake up America – this video is just a small snippet of what’s going on in our government. There are not enough people and politicians speaking up, and those that do have clearly not been heard. You want to see change but are you willing to fight for it?

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Discredits Itself is a post from: Green Earth News

A brief follow-up to the FTC – Kmart case regarding Dyna-E International’s Lightload Towel Brand from our previous post “FTC Bamboozles The Public on Bamboo Fabric.”

Despite Dyna-E International’s Lab Results to “scientifically substantiate” that their product is in fact biodegradable, the FTC stood their ground on the basis that anything that is disposed of in a “customary manner” would not be considered biodegradable.

The FTC proudly dispersed their press release on August 27th stating the following:

“The FTC’s “Green Guides” have advised marketers that to make unqualified biodegradable claims, they must have scientific evidence that their product will completely decompose within a reasonably short period of time under customary methods of disposal. In all three complaints, the FTC alleged that the companies’ products typically are disposed in landfills, incinerators, or recycling facilities, where it is impossible for these products to biodegrade within a reasonably short time.”

The Evidence:

The lab results clearly show that the towels are biodegradable, and in a “relatively short period of time”. In fact, under a mere 38 day incubation period, the samples were visually disintegrated and more than 90% of the theoretical yield was recovered as inorganic carbon. Now that’s a remarkable time frame for biodegradation.

“Samples of a viscose rayon fabric marketed as “Lightload Towels” were tested for biodegradability under anoxic conditions by the standard OECD 311 protocol. Thus, the product was rapidly and ultimately biodegradable by standard definitions. Because the anaerobic assay simulates the most challenging conditions, and because of the extensive scientific publications on biodegradation of “viscose rayon”, it is reasonable to assume that the product, excluding packaging, is biodegradable in virtually any biologically-active environment, including soils, aquatic habitats, sewage, and biologically-active landfill conditions.”

The Catch:

Although they are biodegradable “in a relatively short period of time” as the FTC requires, this would not be possible if they were disposed of in our customary landfills that are not designed to accommodate biodegradable products. Isn’t that a shame?

The Conclusion:

As we continue to maintain…according to the FTC, nothing can be claimed as biodegradable any longer because of our “customary methods of disposal” in the United States. Therefore, wouldn’t it just be easier for the FTC to put out a mass press release to the media informing all businesses that the term “biodegradable“ can no longer exist on marketing materials, period?

The Bottom Line:

So where then is the motivation for businesses to “go green” and make their products more eco-friendly and biodegradable if the FTC will not allow them to make this claim? The FTC is ultimately hindering environmental progress, in that companies have no motivation to spend their money on research and development, knowing that their product will not meet the FTC’s grossly irresponsible definition of biodegradable. Who is to gain from this? Certainly not the consumers who the FTC touts they are out to protect.

The real focus needs to be on modifying our landfills, and until such time, the FTC would best serve consumers by creating reasonable guidelines as to what is considered “biodegradable”.

FTC Disregards Dyna-E Biodegradable Tests is a post from: Green Earth News

A follow-up to our “FTC Bamboozles The Public on Bamboo Fabric” post.

Let’s take a closer look at this not so black and white question. Let’s begin with Webster’s definition of biodegradable—“Capable of being broken down especially into innocuous products by the action of living things (as microorganisms).”

Suffice it to say…we are dealing with the FTC here, so for the purposes of this discussion we are going to throw Webster’s definition out the window.

In looking at the FTC’s definition it becomes readily evident that they have placed much emphasis on the “materials breaking down in a reasonably short period of time after *customary disposal*”.

The operative phrase being “customary disposal”. The FTC states that *viscose/rayon from bamboo* does not meet the criteria for a biodegradable product whether it’s bamboo clothing or bamboo sheets. The FTC goes on to use such inflammatory terms as “false” and “deceptively” when describing the companies labeling and/or product descriptions.

It doesn’t take much research to learn that today’s modern landfills are designed (by law) to keep out air, moisture, and sunlight. This is done intentionally…as it prevents pollutants from getting into our air and drinking water. This does not bode well for decomposition rates.

Enter one Dr. William Rathje…author of the book “Rubbish”, an Archeologist, and Harvard Ph.D.
Dr. Rathje began a garbage project while teaching at the University of Arizona. His ambitious project included the excavation of 15 landfills across North America. To quote from Dr. Rathje’s book…”They are not vast composters: rather they are vast mummifiers.”

According to the QLPA (Queensland Litter Prevention Alliance), the decomposition time for a banana skin is 3 to 4 weeks. The decomposition time for a paper bag is 1 month. Is a banana peel biodegradable? Is a piece of paper or a head of lettuce biodegradable?

This is where it gets interesting—I submit too you that nothing is biodegradable! That’s right, I said it. What the hell am I talking about you ask? Well, remember that according to the FTC…the material must break down in a reasonably short period of time, after customary disposal (meaning the landfill).

Oh, sorry, the missing part of the equation—Dr. Rathje discovered that our landfills (mummifiers) just didn’t allow for the decomposition of much of anything. He found 40 year old newspapers that were still legible. He found a head of lettuce that was 5 years old amongst numerous other “biodegradable” items!

For the love of God…don’t nutritionist’s tell us that lettuce is mostly water?
Dare I say that according to the FTC—water is not biodegradable? No, I won’t go there.

The point here is that the FTC seems to be using our landfill decomposition rates as the main qualifier for whether or not *viscose/rayon from bamboo* is biodegradable or not.

Additionally, the FTC has designated that companies advertising bamboo products as biodegradable, as criminals that are intentionally misleading the public. I say…anyone with an I.Q. in excess of two digits, should be asking themselves…”what are the FTC’s motivations here?”

The last nail…………………

It appears that there was another incident in which the FTC went after Kmart’s American Fare paper plates, Bath brand moist wipes, and Dyna E International’s Lightload brand compressed dry towels. It was in relation to the biodegradable claims. The latter believing in their product, decided to fight the FTC’s allegations.

The final judgement still awaits, but the company has posted Lab Test Results as a pdf download. Here are some quotes from the report that was performed by an independent company that does biogeochemistry research and analysis:

“The material was found to be ultimately biodegradable, and was mineralized to an even greater extent than the cellulose reference material. The result is not surprising, since rayon is merely a modified cellulose, and there is extensive documentation in the published scientific literature demonstrating that rayon materials are biodegradable under most conditions.”

That last bit is particularly interesting, since the FTC insists that bamboo derived fibers must be represented as “rayon” and/or “viscose”.

So, we have what the FTC deems a rayon product, that is not biodegradable, yet there is extensive published scientific data that supports the fact that rayon is a biodegradable material.

Again, this is but one more illustration of the FTC’s ineptness and/or unwillingness to even look at these types of cases with a hint of objectivity…unless of course there is an ulterior motive at play. In either case, it’s a sad state of affairs when a government agency that is supposed to be looking out for consumers and small businesses alike, performs its duties like that of a local government in some 3rd world country- dictatorship.

FTC Claims Fruits and Vegetables Are Not Biodegradable is a post from: Green Earth News

If you read our post “FTC Bamboozles Public on Bamboo Fabric” then you will want to see what one of the four companies charged by the FTC has to say about their claims.

———-

Recently the FTC developed new labeling guidelines for the organic and natural product market including bamboo textiles. Our company, Sami Designs and the brands we produce including Jonano along with several other companies at the forefront of the eco textile and eco fashion world who work in bamboo were asked to ensure that our labeling and marketing to conform with these new guidelines. Jonano immediately signed on, agreeing to conform to the new labeling guidelines, while other companies are going to fight some of the specific new FTC guidelines that do not jive with the extensive testing and data widely available and accepted by research and testing facilities, and universities worldwide.

Here are the facts:

2005 Sami Designs began researching textiles and wrote a 90 page white paper on antimicrobial textiles including bamboo, chitin, alginin, and hemp. Testing data is included from several sources showing antimicrobial factors for both bamboo and hemp and biodegradability of bamboo crops and hemp crops and chitin/rayon fabrics. These quantitative tests were performed by Japan Textile Inspection Association, SWICOFIL, China Industrial Testing Center, Bambrotex.

2006 the Jonano Brand began designing marketing and selling bamboo and hemp clothing. Characteristics such as grown without the use of pesticides, produced in a “closed loop system” that recirculates and captures agents used to convert the plant into fiber, “antimicrobial” were used in our marketing. All of these “claims” were due diligently researched and substantiated in writing by independent sources, textile manufacturing agencies and textile research organizations.

2007 bamboo organic certification criteria was released by the FDA. Jonano chose to select only certified organic bamboo for our production and could then use the label “certified organic bamboo.”

Beginning in 2008 Jonano switched our labeling of the organic bamboo content on our clothing production from “organic bamboo” to “viscose from organic bamboo,” after we received information that the government was ready to present labeling guidelines for this new eco textile that might require this switch shortly. Prior to this time no FDA guidelines for bamboo textiles were available and this fiber and fabric was labeled “bamboo” as had been accepted by the US Customs Department during importation and customs clearance for all Sami Designs products since we began.

In 2009 Sami Designs received a mailing from the FTC asking that a settlement agreement be reached that Sami Designs would conform to the new FTC regulations and standards. We signed on immediately and went over all of our marketing materials with a fine tooth comb in order to ensure that we were in compliance with these new labeling and marketing standards.

As for the claim that Sami Designs and our brands misrepresented our clothing products in our labels, no standardization was available until after we began using the term viscose from bamboo on our clothing. We are compliant with the new FTC labeling standards and never tried to mislead.

As new eco textiles continue to be developed and brought to market, the challenge of this task includes working with agencies in developing labeling and organic certification standards, obtaining new organic certifications for these crops, and continually working towards better and safer ways to produce textiles. All textile production requires processing of crops into fibers to create fabrics that can be comfortably worn and enjoyed for years to come. Our goal is and has always been to develop great eco textiles that make a positive impact on the environment, on the farmers and growers, on our manufacturing and cooperative production facilities and most importantly on the lives of the people who choose to select organic fashion for their wardrobe.

Our company makes available detailed information that describes the process of turning hardy organically grown bamboo into fiber that we select to create our viscose from organic bamboo blends sold under the Jonano ecoKashmere Collection. If anyone is interested in obtaining our testing data, simply write me through the contact us pages on the jonano.com website.

We are currently working on new eco textiles including corn blends, peace silks and more. As always, technologies and scientific advancements precede governmental standardization. The end result of developing new and improved eco textiles, we envision, will be a world where fewer pesticides and fertilizers are used on textile crops, safer methods for producing textile fibers and fabrics continue to be developed and organic clothing and eco textiles continue to become more available.

Although Jonano will not be participating in any fight with the FTC, we support the work of the companies who will be fighting to secure acceptance of the extensive research, testing and documentation and research that supports emerging new eco textiles so that we can all continue to expand the world of eco fashion together.

With Metta,
Bonnie

Sami Designs Wrongly Accused by FTC is a post from: Green Earth News

The FTC recently accused four companies of making false and/or misleading claims about their bamboo textile products, possibly including bamboo sheets  or bamboo clothing.  There were three main *violations*, according to the FTC. Here are the FTC’s supposed *truths*:

A.    “Textile fiber products are not bamboo fiber, but instead are rayon, a regenerated cellulose fiber.”
B.    “Textile fiber products do not retain anti-microbial properties of the bamboo plant.”
C.    “Textile fiber products will not completely break down and return to nature, i.e., decompose into elements found in nature, within a reasonably short period of time after customary disposal because a substantial majority of total household waste is disposed of by methods that do not present conditions that would allow for Respondents’ textile fiber products to completely break down and return to nature, i.e., decompose into elements found in nature, within a reasonably short period of time.”

Let’s start with the first allegation: Bamboo cannot be a fiber. If bamboo is used to make a fiber, then it must be called viscose/rayon from bamboo.

Does this mean the FTC’s next target will be Entegrion from Research Triangle Park in North Carolina, whom the U.S. Navy just awarded a $4 million dollar contract for the development of critical blood products 2 weeks ago, making it the fourth major contract over the last six years? Entegrion’s success story with their Stasilon dressing (bandage) was initially created for the military in consultation with the U.S. Office of Naval Research, and has recently been approved by the FDA for consumer sales. This remarkable bandage is made from a combination of glass and bamboo fibers….yes, you heard that correctly…bamboo fibers…oops, were we suppose to say “rayon from bamboo”? Watch the Entegrion video and see for yourself the verbiage used by Dr. Peter Johnson, Medical Consultant for Entegrion. Or, you can read about the famous stasilon hemostatic bandage, how it works and what it’s made of.

The bottom line is that the FTC would have you believe very deceptive claims they have made by taking a shred of truth with no scientific evidence, then creating a consumer alert filled with their own “false marketing claims” when they are suppose to be protecting consumers from this very scam. They have taken the bamboo industry and smeared it across the internet with false allegations, just as they have done in past cases.

A perfect example of “stretching the truth” would be in regards to literally stating to consumers, and I quote the FTC, “But when it comes to soft bamboo textiles, like shirts or sheets, there’s a catch: they’re actually rayon.” Are they crazy? Did they define what rayon really is, or did they lead you to believe you have been completely duped?! Let us be the first to show you scientific proof that “bamboo rayon” and “traditional rayon” are a far cry from one another when it comes to their quality and characteristics.

The US system for characterizing fibers dates back almost a century and changes slowly so new fibers like Bamboo, take years and millions before a new classification is created. Until that happens, the fibers are grouped into the next closest thing, which for Bamboo happens to be viscose. Others products grouped into this category include fibers made from Soy, Corn, and Milk. Bamboo should have it’s own classification at some point, but until then it will be classified as man made and called viscose or rayon just like Modal, Cupro, Tencel, – all made with the viscose process.

The reality is that there is no past precedence set for the proper characterization of bamboo fabric. This is not uncommon with new products…be it a textile or otherwise. The FTC has independently decided that bamboo fabrics or fibers, cannot be referred to as “bamboo fiber” or “100% bamboo.” Instead, they have concluded that it has to be described as “viscose from bamboo” or “rayon from bamboo.” These are very recent developments, lest you think that this was some government issued criteria that was put in place years ago, it was not.

In any case…the significant factor here is that this FTC doctrine is a recent event. Prior to this, the U.S. Customs Department was allowing bamboo fiber to come into the country as just that…bamboo fiber. The FTC would have you believe that these companies engaged in malicious, deliberate and misleading descriptions of their products.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As an example…we decided just a few months ago, to put “viscose from bamboo” in our product descriptions. Did we do this because the FTC told us it was the only acceptable way to describe our products? No, we did it because we discovered in our research, that this was likely going to be a future requirement.

In the interest of full disclosure…I am not an employee of, and/or do not represent any of the four companies involved, but we do have a business relationship with one of them. I do not know all four owners, but I do know two of them, and I can attest to the fact that they would never intentionally put out false or misleading information about their products. They are not that type of businesspersons, and just aren’t that type of people…period.

The second allegation states that:  *Fibers from bamboo* do not have any anti-microbial properties.

Lest you think that because your government says so, it must be true, this would be naïve. There have been a handful of antimicrobial tests done that would say otherwise in Japan, China and the U.S. Another antimicrobial test was done on bamboo socks with fascinating results. The FTC was presented with such independent test data, and they refused to accept it or acknowledge it. Well, apparently they did look at one or more, and deemed them inconclusive. Not long after that…they began their current campaign which refutes any anti-microbial properties, while providing no test data of their own as evidence to back up their theory.

This is the FTC’s exact claim from their consumer alert…“There’s also no evidence that rayon made from bamboo retains the antimicrobial properties of the bamboo plant, as some sellers and manufacturers claim. Even when bamboo is the “plant source” used to create rayon, no traits of the original plant are left in the finished product.”

Karen Biers, a clothing and textiles specialist at the Utah State University provides information and an actual bamboo fabric case study to the contrary.

Remember Entegrion, the company contracted by the U.S. Navy who produced the Stasilon Wound Dressing consisting of Bamboo Fibers? Jeffrey Freeman, Vice President of Operations at Carolina Narrow Fabric Co., works directly with Entegrion in producing this product. Freeman stated, “The surface area of the fabric is primarily glass fiber, which does not absorb the blood but does help it to clot, and the bamboo weft yarn wicks the blood to the glass surface. He also pointed out bamboo’s antimicrobial properties as being important, but not as important as the clotting factor provided by the glass fiber.” You can view the full article at Textile World.

Want to do your own informal test? Wear your favorite cotton shirt for a week straight, and/or a pair of cotton socks for several days, and take note of any odiferous characteristics those items have afterward. Next, do the same test using bamboo socks and/or a bamboo t-shirt. I guarantee you that you will find a very noticeable difference between the two fabrics. This obviously does not provide us with scientific data, but until I have some actual test data in hand to publish for you, this is just one suggestion that may help you to draw your own conclusions, should you feel so inclined.

The third allegation deals with biodegradability. It states that: Textile fiber products will not completely break down and return to nature, i.e., decompose into elements found in nature, within a reasonably short period of time.

Ok, take a bamboo shirt and bury it in your backyard…just kidding. Seriously, though, in reading through the FTC’s actual complaints…I gleaned from it that if your bamboo textile goes to the landfill with the rest of your garbage…it won’t meet the criteria set forth for the definition of biodegradability. However, if it were put in a compost, it might meet the definition. Is everything that is advertised as biodegradable in line with this definition? I honestly don’t know. I do know, from a reliable source, that testing has shown that *fiber from bamboo* will–and does–meet the definition of biodegradability. Again, the FTC for some reason, is not interested in considering independent testing that contradicts their allegations.

The very definition of biodegradable is a process that stipulates no exact time frame…you can look this up for yourself. The problem is not in that businesses are misrepresenting their biodegradable products. The problem is that our government has yet to come up with a solution to solve our overabundance of trash that keeps being pumped into landfills…a place that can literally host a head of lettuce for 5 years and a hot dog for 15 years…as proven by Dr. William Rathje, who wrote the book “Rubbish”, and pioneered excavations on over 15 landfills throughout North America. In fact, most countries have regulations in place that do not even allow biodegradable materials to go into landfills. This begs the question, “are the business owners responsible for trying to produce eco-friendly and biodegradable products to help in this environmental fight for a greener earth…but are not allowed to claim their products are biodegradable…or is it time our government come up with a solution so that the very definition of biodegradable doesn’t become extinct?”

Perhaps you are familiar with the June, 2009 case of FTC against Kmart for marketing three different products that claim to be biodegradable? Once again, two of the three companies consented and settled with the FTC, probably because they did not want to go to battle in fear for their reputations being destroyed and publicized by the FTC. However, the third company, Dyna-E International decided to stand their ground and prove their Lightload brand of towels are in fact biodegradable. You can view their Lab Results (pdf download) and see for yourself that they are not only biodegradable in a “short time period” but also bring strong reference to “rayon” as being scientifically proven to have a short decomposition time. We are still awaiting the final verdict from the FTC on Dyna-E’s burden of proof.

I am not a conspiracy theorist–by any means. That said, though, when I see my government refusing to look at independent data that backs up facts contradicting their position, it gives me pause, and forces me to ask why?

There are certainly some big players in the textile industry that would not–and do not–want bamboo to continue to grow in popularity the way that it has over the last few years. Without regard to the “eco-friendly” issue, bamboo fabric is hugely superior to cotton, and anyone that owns bamboo clothing or bedding, will attest to this.

Here is an interesting quote: “The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) acted wantonly, oppressively, vexatiously and in bad faith in prosecuting claims against Mark O. Haroldsen.” That is some pretty harsh language.

The 2003 Haroldsen case was ruled on by the United States District Court for Utah. The interesting fact is, that most small businesses can not afford to take on the FTC, and their only alternative is to comply with whatever the totalitarian-like organization stipulates the business must change about their product descriptions.

The compliance order is typically followed up with a gag order, preventing the company from even being able to defend itself. In this case, though, the judge found that the FTC was grossly inept when it came to providing any evidence at all to support their claims.

Because of the FTC’s ineptness, the judge ordered them to pay $190,000 in attorney fees. Unfortunately, the judge’s award was grossly inadequate when it came to covering all of Haroldsen’s trial expenses and his lost income due to the damage the FTC did to his business reputation.

Here is another quote: “It is in the public interest to dispose of this matter expeditiously.” This statement was accompanied by a three-inch thick consent agreement, and the FTC required that the company keep the FTC fully informed of all their business activities for the next 20 years. Additionally, the FTC demanded that the company hand over its entire customer database.

These are just some of the initial demands put forth by the FTC, in the hopes that the company would not fight it, no doubt. The company…SOTA, chronicled their experience with the FTC. Incidentally, after about 18 months of defending themselves… SOTA emerged victorious.

As a side note: The FTC has dedicated a lot of time and resources to their bamboo witch hunt, which is full of ambiguity, semantics, and an unwillingness to even look at the facts. All the while…there are thousands of websites in many different genres, that are duping U.S. citizens.

One website genre that comes to mind are sites that promise that “working from home” will give you financial freedom and/or you’ll become wealthy. Hell, I talked to someone a few weeks ago that thought they had gotten a job with Google.

The site that they signed up with, and sent money too, had made themselves appear to be a division of Google. I know, it sounds ridiculous, but some of these sites employ expert marketers and copywriters…and often dupe people of average intelligence, that just aren’t that internet savvy. It actually took me about 10 minutes to convince this person that it was just a scam.

In the bamboo case, we feel the FTC has done a grave injustice to the bamboo textile industry by presenting claims to the public without providing any evidence to back up their “theories.”  They’re also stomping on the little guys who cannot afford to stand up for themselves in a court of law. And, while unemployed American citizens are looking to the internet for ways to earn income–and are being robbed of what little money they have–the FTC is busy making unsubstantiated claims against honest business owners who are providing jobs for American people.

But don’t take our word for it, see what judges have to say on previous FTC cases where the FTC took it just a little too far in tarnishing reputations and making false allegations.

LA Talk Radio speaks out about the FTC’s ulterior motives on “Green & Easy Living” with Rhonda, joined by Bryan Harris of Bamboo Provisions – Kane`ohe. This is about an hour segment but so worth listening to.

More posts and information coming soon, so stay tuned…tweet about it…spread the word…and by all means, leave a comment.

Related Posts:
Sami Designs Wrongly Accused by FTC
FTC Claims Fruits and Vegetables Are Not Biodegradable
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Discredits Itself – includes an in depth list of previous cases the FTC lost by court order due to gross negligence
FTC Claims Bamboo and Rayon Are One in The Same
FTC’s Bamboo Smear Campaign Riddled with Deception – includes a full response to the FTC’s claims from Mo at the M Group (Bamboosa)
Study of Antimicrobial Behavior of Socks from Bamboo Fibers

FTC BAMBOOZLES PUBLIC ABOUT BAMBOO FABRIC is a post from: Green Earth News