Quantcast

ST. LOUIS RECORD

Saturday, April 27, 2024

Class actions claim Glad recycling trash bags aren't biodegradable

Federal Court
2

Delmar

ORLANDO — Two class action lawsuits have been filed against The Glad Products Compay and The Clorox Company alleging misleading marketing on non-biodegradable products.

Wendy Keirsted filed a class action in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, while Chris Wall filed a class action in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against just The Glad Products Company.

The plaintiffs claim the proliferation of non-biodegradable products, particularly plastics, poses a significant threat to the environment, according to the complaints.

Misleading environmental claims by the companies further exacerbate the problem by misleading consumers and undermining recycling efforts, according to the complaints.

The plaintiffs claim effective regulation and consumer education are essential to address this issue and promote genuine sustainability practices.

The harmful environmental impact of non-biodegradable products is a pressing concern due to their inability to decompose naturally, according to the suits.

The plaintiffs claim biodegradable materials break down over time and integrate into the environment, while non-biodegradable materials persist for centuries, contributing to pollution, ecosystem disruption and various environmental issues.

Plastics, a significant component of non-biodegradable waste, pose a particularly severe threat to the environment. A staggering 8.3 billion tons of plastic have been produced by humans, with around 60% of it still present in some form on Earth. Every year, hundreds of millions of tons of single-use plastic packaging are discarded, exacerbating the problem.

Incinerating plastic waste, where it is not recycled or sent to landfills, releases harmful carbon dioxide and toxic gases into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change and air pollution, according to the suits.

The plaintiffs claim this practice endangers the health of local communities and further degrades environmental quality.

Despite growing awareness of environmental issues among consumers, recycling efforts have proven inadequate, the complaints state.

The plaintiffs claim contamination of recycling streams with non-recyclable items renders otherwise recyclable materials unrecyclable.

Approximately 25% of recycling is contaminated, leading to its disposal in landfills alongside non-recyclable waste.

The plaintiffs claim it is considered deceptive to market products as recyclable unless they can be recycled through established programs.

Companies must ensure that their products can be recycled by a significant majority of consumers or communities where they are sold.

Misleading claims about recyclability can lead to confusion and consumer distrust.

The plaintiffs claim despite being labeled as designed for recycling, the defendants' bags are typically not accepted in recycling programs due to their material and shape. 

LDPE plastics, the material used in the bags, are generally not recycled domestically, according to the suits.

The company's marketing tactics, including using green font and recycling symbols, reinforce the misconception that the bags are recyclable, according to the suits.

The plaintiffs claim consumers are directed to the company's website to learn about its sustainability efforts, creating the impression of a commitment to environmental responsibility.

However, the product's labeling fails to disclose the limited availability of recycling programs for these bags, leading consumers to believe they are recyclable when they are not, according to the suits.

The plaintiffs claim consumers also may pay a premium price for these bags under false pretenses.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages. Wall is represented by Daniel F. Harvath of Harvath Law Group in Webster Groves, Mo. Keirsted is represented by William Wright of the Wright Law Office in West Palm Beach.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs declined to comment on the pending lawsuits.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida case number: 6:23-cv-02472

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri case number: 4:24-cv-00078

More News