Free-from claims from twelve brands, and what each one commits to

“No harsh chemicals” has no definition in US marketing law. The Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides run from general environmental benefit claims through compostable, degradable, free-of, non-toxic, ozone, recyclable, recycled content, refillable, renewable energy and renewable materials, and there is no section on harsh chemicals because there is no way to write one1. What the guides do say about general claims is that marketers should not make unqualified general environmental benefit claims, because it is unlikely they can substantiate every reasonable interpretation of them1. A phrase with no definition cannot be checked, so it counts for nothing here.

“Plant-based” sits in the same position with one exit. The USDA Certified Biobased Product label puts a number on it: the percentage is the ratio of new organic carbon to total organic carbon, measured under ASTM D6866 and verified by a third party before the label may be used2. A brand carrying that mark has a figure a reader can hold it to. A brand without it has an adjective.

“Non-toxic” is the one claim in this set the FTC addresses head on. The guides state that such a claim likely conveys that a product is non-toxic both for humans and for the environment generally, so a marketer should hold competent and reliable scientific evidence for both, or qualify the claim clearly and prominently1. “Free from dyes” is the straightforward one: a free-of claim is appropriate where the substance has not been added intentionally and any trace present causes no material harm1. A reader can settle it against a published list without leaving the page, which makes it the only claim here a shopper can verify unaided.

“No synthetic fragrance” has no legal boundary between synthetic and natural, and the single word fragrance can lawfully stand in for dozens of components. The checkable version of the claim is disclosure. California’s Cleaning Product Right to Know Act has required cleaning product ingredients online since 01/01/2020 and on the label since 01/01/2021, with fragrance allergens named at 0.01 per cent and above3. A brand that publishes its allergens has said something. A brand that writes fragrance and stops has not.

“Biodegradable” is the most demanding claim in the set. An unqualified degradable claim calls for competent and reliable scientific evidence that the entire item will completely break down into elements found in nature within a reasonably short period after customary disposal, and the guides state that such a claim is deceptive for items entering the solid waste stream that do not completely decompose within one year1. Scope matters as much as timing. “Plastic-free” has no section in the guides at all, and the nearest thing to a legal test runs the other way: the EU restriction on intentionally added microplastics has applied since 17/10/2023 and places soluble and biodegradable polymers outside its definition4. That is how a product can carry a microplastic-free line and still contain a polymer without anyone having lied.

One more thing to hold on to. A certification mark is backing for what it certifies and nothing else. EPA Safer Choice is an ingredient-level programme whose Safer Chemical Ingredients List marks each chemical from a green circle, verified to be of low concern, down to a grey square, may not be acceptable in products seeking the label5. It is not a packaging claim, a fragrance claim or a biodegradation claim, and it appears on pages making all three.

Dropps is the clearest case of a claim written so it can be held to. The renewable content figure is a percentage under the USDA scheme rather than a description102, the film polymer is named as PVOH on the product page rather than left to an ingredients hub, and the biodegradability argument for it is attached to a named test protocol, OECD 30110. A reader who disagrees with Dropps has something specific to disagree with, which is more than most of this list offers.

Dirty Labs does the same trick with fragrance. “Free of all EU listed fragrance allergens” is bounded: the list of allergens exists, it is public, and the claim either holds against it or does not9. Compare that with a page promising no synthetic fragrance and naming nothing. Branch Basics does it with scope, stating that the formula is biodegradable and the packaging is not7, which is the qualification the Green Guides ask for and almost nobody writes voluntarily1.

Blueland and method sit at opposite ends of ambition and both land. Blueland’s free-from string names six substances and the page carries five third-party marks, including the one programme that assesses ingredients65. method claims two absences, parabens and phthalates, and a bottle of recycled plastic excluding the pump13. The second is a small claim, and small claims that are fully specified are worth more than large ones that are not.

Earth Breeze is the structural case. The product page for its detergent sheets promises “No Plastic Waste” and “No Harsh Chemicals” and publishes no ingredient list11. The brand’s own ingredients page lists polyvinyl alcohol, with the functions film former and structuring agent, described as holding the cleaning ingredients until dissolved in water12. Read against the EU definition, nothing there is false: a soluble polymer is outside the microplastics restriction4. Read by a shopper who takes no plastic waste to mean no polymer, the two pages give different answers, and only one of them is the page a buyer lands on.

Cleancult shows what an undefined phrase does to a good page. The ingredient list is complete and on the product page, which is more than several brands here manage, and it ends with methylisothiazolinone and benzisothiazolinone8. The same page promises no harsh chemicals. We are not going to tell a reader what to make of that pairing, because harsh has no definition and the list is right there; what we will not do is dock a product on a phrase that cannot be checked either way.

Puracy and Tru Earth run the same pattern from different directions. Puracy’s named absences are long and specific and its ingredient lists are published per scent, but the page also carries “Eco-friendly”, the unqualified general claim the guides single out, and the only mark on it certifies animal testing policy rather than any environmental attribute161. Tru Earth’s five named absences are checkable in principle, but the product page carries no list to check them against, and its three certifications, B Corp, 1% for the Planet and Ocean Wise, are company-level commitments rather than statements about a formula17. No Tox Life makes the boldest unqualified claim in the table, “Septic safe, biodegradable”, with no standard, no certifier and no statement of what the bar is wrapped in15. Molly’s Suds names Safer Choice and ISO 16128 as compliance rather than certification, which is a real distinction: nobody outside the brand has signed either statement14.

The brand that owns this site is in the table and gets the same treatment, which means starting with the page that reads worst. Vove’s dish soap starter set leads its bullets with “No SLS, microplastics or synthetics”, and the ingredient list on the same page labels three entries Synthetic: an olefin sulfonate, a water softener called MGDA, and the preservative pair18. The list is complete and gives the origin of every entry, so nothing is concealed; the bullet above it is wrong regardless. Our own dish soap comparison reads ingredient transparency off the published list itself, not off the bullet above it, and the list there is complete and sourced in full. The bullet is a page-copy fix owed to a reader who reads the two lines together, not a comparison problem, and it is ours to fix rather than to explain away.

The dishwasher tablets page is the version that works. “No PVA, microplastics, phosphates or chlorine bleach” sits above a full ingredient list with each entry labelled Natural, Mineral or Synthetic19, so every word of the claim can be tested against the list beneath it without leaving the page. That is the standard the dish soap page does not meet, and the two pages belong to the same brand.

The certification column is Vove’s weakest, and by the standard set out above it is weaker than it looks. Four logos appear on the tablets page, FSC, ISO, a seedling mark and BPI, with no certificate number, licence code or standard reference against any of them19. FSC is a forestry mark and speaks to the carton; the seedling and BPI marks are compostability schemes. A logo with no number names a scheme without letting a reader look up the entry, and this piece has already criticised another brand for citing a company-level mark as backing for a formula-level claim. The same criticism lands here.

Two things follow, and they are ours to fix rather than to explain. The bullet on the dish soap page is the error, not the list, so the bullet is what should change. And a logo published without a licence number is an assertion rather than a citation, on our page as much as on anyone’s.

• Ask what the claim names. A claim that names substances can be checked; a claim that names a feeling cannot.
• Find the list before you weigh the bullet. Where a marketing line and an ingredient list disagree, the list is the document carrying a legal duty.
• Check what a mark covers. A company certification is not a formula certification, and an ingredient programme is not a packaging claim5.
• Treat an unqualified biodegradable claim as the strongest thing on the page, and look for the standard behind it. The guides ask for complete decomposition within one year after customary disposal1.

None of this needs a laboratory. Every judgement above was made by reading a page a shopper can open, on a date recorded next to the claim, and the pattern that emerges is not honest brands against dishonest ones. It is brands that write claims narrow enough to be checked, and brands that write claims wide enough not to be. Both kinds appear here, and on one page out of two, so do we.