Marknadens påstående om att ”använda så lite plast som möjligt” är vilseledande när 5 av 11 miljövänliga blöjmärken observerades innehålla 80-75% fossil baserad plast.  Detta demonstrerar att vilseledande marknadsföring är närvarande på marknaden av miljövänliga engångsblöjor. Enligt denna studie kan en produkt kan idag innehålla 80% fossilbaserad råvarumaterial och fortfarande bli klassad som en miljövänlig produkt. Förutom att gröntvättning vilseleder konsumenter så bidrar den med att bromsa utvecklingen mot en hållbar konsumtion. Detta eftersom gröntvättning förhindrar strävan utförd av uppriktiga miljövänliga företag och vägleder genuina konsumenter mot icke-optimala val. Som i sin tur ger upphov av effekten att öka produkt konsumtionen och minska rörelsen mot en mer hållbar miljö.  Det är därför av intresse att framhäva möjlig falsk marknandsföring genom att undersöka marknadens påståenden i jämförelse med laborativa resultat. De ”gröna” företag som undersökts var: Lillydoo, Naty, Pampers Pure, Kit & Kin, Bambo Nature, Love & Green, Moltex, Seventh Generation, The Honest company, Hello Bello, och Tooshies by Tom. Som referens valdes två “icke-gröna” märken Libero och Pampers. Dessa totalt 13 st märken undersöktes genom dem analytiska metoder FTIR, kol-14-metoden, och densitetsmätningar. För metoden GC/MS undersöktes enbart det ”icke-gröna” märket Pampers. Från dessa resultat kunde blöjans plast polymerer, okända ämnen, och den totala mängden biobaserat material per blöja bli identifierad. Dem polymerer som identifierades var polypropen, polyeten, polyetentereftalat, eller bioco polyprpylene/polyetylene, och även den nedbrytningsbara polylaktid. För dem ”icke-gröna” märkena, var den totala mängden biobaserade kol inom intervallet av 13-15%. För dem ”gröna” blöjorna så varierade den totala mängden biobaserat kol till 20-53%. Enligt dessa resultat framtagna av denna studie påvisas att endast en skillnad av 5% procentenheter behövs för blöjan ska marknadsföras som miljövänlig. De okända ämnena som observerades i Pampers blöjan var dioxiner och furaner på nivåer ng/kg materialprov. / The market claims of  “using as little plastic as possible” is misleading when 5 out of 11 “green” diaper brands analysed contain 80-75 % fossil based plastic. It is also evident that few brands have changed materials going against babies skin from fossil based plastic to plant based, although they claim only natural material touches babies skin. This demonstrates greenwashing present in marketing of environmentally friendly disposable diapers. Based on this study, calling a product “green” today is not related to any demands on product materials and parents are easily mislead. A product can include 80 % fossil based plastic and be considered green without going against the law. Not only will greenwashing mislead consumers, but it will also contribute to slowing the worldwide development towards sustainable consumption, since greenwashing may have a risk of discouraging sincere companies efforts to go green and guide truly genuine consumers towards non-optimal choices. This gives potentially the effect of unnecessarily increasing product consumption and thereby slowing the movement towards a more sustainable environment. It is therefore of interest to highlight possible greenwashing in the diaper industry. With the hope of creating customer awareness during purchase of “green” disposable diapers. This is accomplished by investigating the market claims compared to laboratory analytical results. The “green” brands under investigation were Lillydoo, Naty, Pampers Pure, Kit & Kin, Bambo Nature, Love & Green, Moltex, Seventh Generation, The Honest company, Hello Bello, and Tooshies by Tom. For reference values two “non-green” brands are chosen as Libero and Pampers. These in total 13 brands were examined using the analytical techniques  FTIR, radiocarbon dating, and density measurements. For the GC/MS method only the fossil based diaper brand Pampers was examined. From these experiments the diaper polymers, unknown substances, and total amount of biobased content may be identified.  The diaper polymers observed were polypropylene, polyethylene,polyethylene terephthalate, or the bicomponent fiber polypropylene/polyethylene, as well as the biodegradable polylactic acid. For “non-green” brands, the amount of biobased carbon content ranged from 13-15%. While for the “green” diaper brands the amount of biobased carbon varied from 20-53%. The results obtained from this study, show that some brands do not exchange more than  5 % of materials from fossil based to biobased and still contain 80% plastic while labelling themselves as green. As the certifications frequently used by diaper brands have too tolerant levels for fossile based materials, the “plastic” diapers can obtain certificates consumers falsely believe guarantees a green product. There is a big need for stricter laws on what a diaper needs to fullfil to be called itself green, equally so on how industry set up certification criteria. Today consumers who want to buy green diapers are too easily misled as majority of claimed green brands are not much greener than standard diapers.

MPH / Department of Public Health / See the attached abstract below