Earlier the Dutch Advertising Code Committee ruled that the company Atoomstroom (‘Atomic Power’) can not claim that its energy is clean (see our NEWS of of 5 March 2009). The Board of Appeal maintains that decision, but brings forward new arguments. In the opinion of the Board ‘clean energy’ should be considered as an absolute environmental claim within the meaning of the Dutch Advertising Code on Environment. Atoomstroom can not prove the accuracy of this absolute claim, because it is clear that with generating nuclear power highly radioactive waste is produced. Besides, the Board of appeal rules that the term 'clean’ is unclear regarding the nature of the product and should thus be considered misleading. The claim ‘clean energy’ cannot be used anymore for nuclear energy. In February the Committee ruled that consumers were being misled by the claim 'nucleair power is clean’ of Atoomstroom. Greenpeace complaints regarding the claims 'CO2-free’ and ‘non-subsidized’ were rejected by the Committee. Atoonmstroom appealed this decision, Greenpeace did not. Thus, the only question in appeal was whether Atoomstroom could claim that its nuclear power would be clean. It’s not. Kim Braber, advertising lawyer
|
office Emerald House Jozef Israëlskade 48-G Amsterdam, the Netherlands t +31 (0)20 - 305 3066 www.hoogenhaak.nl |
post PO Box 76780 1070 KB Amsterdam e info@hoogenhaak.nl f +31 (0)20 - 305 3069 chamber of commerce 34314579 |
Earlier the Dutch Advertising Code Committee ruled that the company Atoomstroom (‘Atomic Power’) can not claim that its energy is clean (see our NEWS of of 5 March 2009). The Board of Appeal maintains that decision, but brings forward new arguments. In the opinion of the Board ‘clean energy’ should be considered as an absolute environmental claim within the meaning of the Dutch Advertising Code on Environment. Atoomstroom can not prove the accuracy of this absolute claim, because it is clear that with generating nuclear power highly radioactive waste is produced. Besides, the Board of appeal rules that the term 'clean’ is unclear regarding the nature of the product and should thus be considered misleading. The claim ‘clean energy’ cannot be used anymore for nuclear energy. In February the Committee ruled that consumers were being misled by the claim 'nucleair power is clean’ of Atoomstroom. Greenpeace complaints regarding the claims 'CO2-free’ and ‘non-subsidized’ were rejected by the Committee. Atoonmstroom appealed this decision, Greenpeace did not. Thus, the only question in appeal was whether Atoomstroom could claim that its nuclear power would be clean. It’s not. Kim Braber, advertising lawyer