On this page
Banned and restricted words on pack: a market dictionary
How to use this page
A desk index, not a substitute for the articles it cites. “Banned” means a named word or equivalent is prohibited on the product or package. “Blacklisted” means a defined practice is unfair in all circumstances. “Conditioned” means the word can be used only with a specified qualification, explanation or evidence. Guidance is not a ban. A date is an application date, not a sell-through date, unless the cited article says otherwise.
biodégradable · eco-friendly · klimaneutral · recyclable · compostableBanned, restricted or litigated wording — not production artwork
ocean plasticBanned, restricted or litigated wording — not production artwork
Wording lock-ups record banned, restricted or litigated phrases for identification and commentary. They are not production artwork.
How to read the dictionary
Theme 3 maps marks. Theme 4 maps the enforcement that tests the sentence around the mark. This page is the remaining desk object: the words themselves, by market, with the legal relation that governs them. It does not invent millimetre rules. It does not treat guidance as a ban. It does not treat EmpCo’s 27 September 2026 application date as already having happened.
Status is assigned to a proposition in a market, never to a package as a whole. A French SKU can be required to carry Triman and forbidden to carry “biodégradable” on the same panel. An EU SKU can carry a Seedling and still be unable to say bare “biodegradable” after EmpCo. A US SKU can say “recyclable” under the Green Guides and still be a prohibited representation under California SB 343. Those collisions have their own article: Dual-market artwork conflicts.
The dictionary
| Market | Word or phrase | Relation | Instrument | In force | What survives |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| France | “biodégradable”, “respectueux de l’environnement”, equivalents | banned on product or pack | Environment Code L.541-9-1 (AGEC) | 1 January 2022 | Nothing. A test report does not restore the word. France AGEC article. |
| France | “compostable” on plastic compostable only in industrial units | banned | L.541-9-1 | 1 January 2022 | The Seedling or OK compost INDUSTRIAL mark is not a licence for the French word. Dual- or home-compostable plastic must also carry “Ne pas jeter dans la nature”. |
| France / advertising | “neutre en carbone” and equivalents in advertising | conditioned | Decree 2022-539 | 1 January 2023 | ISO 14067-equivalent LCA, avoid/reduce/compensate hierarchy, ten-year trajectory, qualifying offsets, annual public report, link on the medium or the pack. Not a pack ban. EmpCo point 4c later blacklists offset-based product climate-neutral claims. |
| European Union | Generic environmental claims (“eco-friendly”, “climate friendly”, “biobased”, “biodegradable” as examples) | blacklisted unless specified or excellence shown | Directive (EU) 2024/825 / EmpCo | Apply from 27 September 2026 | Specification in clear and prominent terms on the same medium takes the claim out of the generic definition; it must still be true. Recognised excellent environmental performance (EU Ecolabel / official Type I / top-tier Union law) is the other gate. Generic-claims article. |
| European Union | Offset-based product “climate-neutral / reduced / positive” GHG claims | blacklisted | EmpCo Annex I point 4c | Apply from 27 September 2026 | An explanation does not cure a blacklisted practice. Measurement scores are a different family. Climate-neutral article. |
| European Union | Sustainability label not based on a qualifying certification scheme or public authorities | blacklisted | EmpCo | Apply from 27 September 2026 | A house badge designed by the brand is the easy case. A licensed Type I or scheme mark is a different legal object. Self-declared labels. |
| Germany | “klimaneutral” (and, by the Court’s reasoning, other ambiguous environmental terms) | unexplained use misleading | UWG §§ 5, 5a; BGH I ZR 98/23 (27 June 2024) | Judgment 27 June 2024 | The advertisement itself must explain the specific meaning. A QR code to a compensator is not that explanation. After 27 September 2026, an explained offset-based product claim is still an EmpCo point 4c practice. Katjes article. |
| United States | Unqualified “recyclable” | conditioned | 16 CFR § 260.12 (Green Guides — guidance) | 2012 text still operative | Established programme; entire item minus incidental components; facilities available to a substantial majority (≥ 60%) of consumers or communities where sold. Shape/size rejections make the claim deceptive. California SB 343 is a different test. Recyclable-claim article. |
| United States | Unqualified “biodegradable / degradable / oxo-…” | deceptive for customary disposal | 16 CFR § 260.8 (guidance) | 2012 text still operative | Unqualified claims for items customarily landfilled, incinerated or recycled are deceptive because those environments do not yield complete decomposition within one year. Biodegradable article. |
| United States | Unqualified “compostable” | conditioned | 16 CFR § 260.7 (guidance); state statutes | 2012 text; state laws in force | Evidence that the whole item becomes usable compost in the named environment; qualify if facilities are not available to a substantial majority. Then apply the relevant state statute. US compostable labelling. |
| United States | Carbon-offset / carbon-neutral product claims | conditioned | 16 CFR § 260.5 (guidance) | 2012 text still operative | Quantification, no double-counting, disclose if reductions will not occur for two years or longer. Not a blacklist. Dual-market EU packs cannot rely on this after EmpCo point 4c. |
| California | Chasing arrows and related recyclability representations | list-conditioned; AG enjoined | SB 343 | Manufacture after 4 October 2026 in the code; AG enforcement preliminarily enjoined 14 July 2026 | The statute was not repealed. Independent local or private actions are not assumed to be covered by the injunction. Injunction article. |
| United Kingdom | Unqualified “recyclable”, “eco”, “sustainable” | conditioned by consumer law | CMA Green Claims Code; CAP s. 11; DMCC Act enforcement from 6 April 2025 | Code 2021; CAP in force; DMCC 6 April 2025 | Clear, accurate, substantiated; overall impression; OPRL classification is the scheme track, not a synonym of the US 60% test. UK article. |
| Australia | “Ocean plastic” / marine imagery over land-collected content | misleading as litigated | ACL ss 18, 29; ACCC v Clorox, 14 April 2025 | Conduct 2021–23; orders 14 April 2025 | A back-of-pack “ocean-bound / 50 km” asterisk did not save a front that connoted the ocean. The ACCC’s eight principles (Dec 2023) are guidance. GLAD article. |
| Australia | Broad and unqualified environmental claims; misleading visuals | conditioned | ACL; ACCC eight principles, 12 December 2023 | Guidance 12 December 2023 | Principles 5 and 7: avoid broad unqualified claims; visual elements should not give the wrong impression. Not a word-list. |
| Netherlands | Unspecified “Ecodesign”, “Conscious”, unexplained logos, unverifiable future slogans | guidance on mandatory law | ACM Guidelines 2021, rev. 13 June 2023 | Guidance; EmpCo from 27 September 2026 | Name the benefit. Visuals are claims. Future slogans are present representations. ACM article. |
| Nordic markets | “Environmentally friendly”, “green”, “ecological” without life-cycle basis | conditioned | National marketing law; Finnish KKV guidelines (1992/2002/2025 ch. 6) | Guidance on mandatory law | State whether the claim is about the pack or the product. Nordic sorting pictograms are not a claims licence. Nordic article. |
| European Union (SUPD) | “PLASTIC IN PRODUCT” / SUP pictogram on non-Part D items | wrong use is non-conformity | Directive (EU) 2019/904 Art. 7; IR 2020/2151 | 3 July 2021 | The mark is a harm-and-disposal notice for four product families only. It is not a recycling or compostability instruction. SUPD marking. |
What the table does not do
It does not list every generic adjective a CMA sweep might dislike. It does not treat the ACCC’s eight principles as a French-style word-ban. It does not convert How2Recycle, OPRL or ARL action names into statutory permissions. It does not record millimetre sizes, because none of these claim-word instruments publishes one. Production files for banned phrases are not supplied.
| Field | Rule |
|---|---|
| Banned | The named word or equivalent must not appear on the product or package. Evidence does not restore it. |
| Blacklisted | A defined commercial practice is unfair in all circumstances (EmpCo Annex I). Specification or excellence is a gate only where the instrument says so. |
| Conditioned | The word may appear if a named qualification, explanation, access test or evidence file travels with it, usually on the same medium. |
| Guidance | An authority’s reading of general consumer law. It binds the authority’s discretion more tightly than it binds a court. |
| Do not | Copy a row onto a dual-market SKU. Read “conditioned” as “banned”. Read “guidance” as “statute”. Treat a certification mark as a word-licence in France. |
Traps
The first trap is using this page as artwork instructions. It is an index. The cited article carries the source, the date and the exceptions. The second is assuming that EmpCo’s specification gate punches a hole in L.541-9-1. It does not: a specified “biodégradable in industrial composting to EN 13432” is still the French banned word. The third is treating a BGH-required explanation of “klimaneutral, via offsets” as a defence to EmpCo point 4c after 27 September 2026. The explanation satisfies Katjes; the offset-based product verdict remains blacklisted. The fourth is exporting “recyclable” from a How2Recycle “Widely Recyclable” panel into France as if Citeo printed that English verb. Citeo does not.
References
Each row cites the Atlas article that holds the primary-source record. Those articles, not this index, are the verification files. Instrument names and dates in the table are as stated in the cited articles, last verified there on 22 August 2026 unless a row names a different date.
Directive (EU) 2024/825 OJ L, 2024/825, 6.3.2024.. Available at: Open source (Accessed: 23 August 2026).
16 CFR § 260.12 Recyclable claims.. Available at: Open source (Accessed: 23 August 2026).
Code de l’environnement Article L.541-9-1.. Available at: Open source (Accessed: 23 August 2026).
Note on sources and verification
This page is a concordance of Theme 3 and Theme 4 articles, not a new primary-source review. Where a row restates L.541-9-1, EmpCo, § 260.12, BGH I ZR 98/23, ACCC v Clorox or the ACM guidelines, the quotation or close paraphrase lives on the linked article. No millimetre figure is stated. No production artwork is supplied. Status badges are this library’s coding of the cited instrument, using the same taxonomy as the rest of the Atlas.
Last verified: 23 August 2026.