Can You Call a Candle Non-Toxic, Clean or Natural?

You can use these words only if you can back up what a shopper will take them to mean. The FTC's advertising guide says "the law requires that advertisers have proof before the ad runs." For "non-toxic," the FTC's Green Guides say you need competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product is safe for both people and the environment. I am a candle maker, not a lawyer, and I am not giving a verdict on any brand.

What does the FTC say about "non-toxic"?

16 CFR 260.10 says a marketer may not misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product is non-toxic. It says a non-toxic claim is likely understood to mean safe for people and for the environment in general. So you need competent and reliable scientific evidence for both, or you must qualify the claim clearly and prominently. Its example is a cleaning product called "essentially non-toxic," which would likely suggest no risk to humans or the environment, pets included. If the product is safe for people but toxic to the environment, the claim is deceptive.

What about "clean" and "natural"?

I did not find an FTC page that defines "clean." That is not permission. The same rule applies: whatever a shopper reasonably reads into a claim, you need proof for.

For "natural," the FTC said in 2012, when it issued the revised Green Guides, that the Guides do not address "sustainable," "natural" and "organic." The FTC said it either lacked a sufficient basis for meaningful guidance or wanted to avoid duplicating or conflicting with other agencies' rules. That is not an approval of the word. The same release says organic claims for products made from agricultural products are covered by the USDA's National Organic Program, so check that before you say organic. The Guides, per the FTC, describe the claims it may or may not treat as deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act. 16 CFR 260.1 says the Guides do not bind the FTC or the public, and that a marketer may take another approach that still meets Section 5. If a claim is misleading, the FTC can still act, and it must prove the practice violates Section 5.

What about "eco-friendly" and "green"?

16 CFR 260.4 says unqualified general environmental benefit claims are likely to suggest specific, far-reaching benefits, and marketers can rarely substantiate every reasonable reading. A qualifier must be clear and prominent and limit the claim to specific benefits. One example: "Eco-friendly" as a brand name is deceptive, while "Eco-friendly: made with recycled materials" can be acceptable if the recycled content is substantiated and beneficial overall. Another example, a printer ad with forest pictures and no environmental words, is deceptive because the images and text together imply benefits.

What about "free of"?

The FTC's summary of the Green Guides says a "free-of" claim can be made if the product has no more than trace amounts or background levels of the substance, the amount does not cause the harm consumers associate with it, and the substance was not added intentionally. It also says that claiming "free" of one substance while including another with a similar environmental risk is deceptive. 16 CFR 260.9 adds that a true free-of claim can still deceive if the substance has never been associated with that kind of product.

How much proof is enough?

The FTC's advertising guide says a reasonable basis means objective evidence that supports the claim. In most cases, for health or safety claims, it calls for competent and reliable scientific evidence, using testing methods that experts in the field accept. It says statements from satisfied customers are usually not enough, and a money-back guarantee does not replace proof. It also says advertisers need proof for both express claims (what you say) and implied claims (what shoppers reasonably take from the ad).

Worked example: reviewing one label

This label is made up. It says: "Clean, non-toxic soy candle. Free of paraffin. Hand poured."

The NCA's label page makes a related point. It says "hand-poured" simply means the wax is poured by hand, and that reputable makers hold to rigid quality standards whatever the method. It also says a "lead-free wick" claim does not distinguish one candle from another, since lead wicks have been banned in the US since 2003. CPSC's candle page gives the rule: the metal core of a wick may not exceed 0.06 percent lead by weight.

Common mistakes

• Using "non-toxic" because it feels harmless. The FTC reads it as safe for people and the environment.
• Copying another brand's words without their proof.
• Using customer reviews as your proof.
• Claiming "free of" something your fragrance oil's safety data sheet lists.
• Using leaf and forest pictures that imply benefits you cannot show.
• Forgetting to update claims when you change wax, oil or dye.

Questions

Can I say "made with natural ingredients"?

The Green Guides do not address the word "natural," but Section 5 still applies. Say what you mean in specific terms you can prove, such as "soy wax blend, cotton wick."

Do I have to test every candle?

I did not find a rule that says how much testing. The FTC says you need a reasonable basis before the claim, and in most cases for health and safety claims that means scientific evidence. If you cannot afford the evidence, the safe move is to drop the claim.

Do state laws add anything?

Probably. 16 CFR 260.1 says the Guides do not preempt state or local laws. I did not open a state page, so I cannot say what yours adds. Outside the US, rules differ. For example, Business Companion's candle guide for Great Britain says the claim "organic" is still controlled, because misleading claims on products are illegal.