There has been a lot of talk lately about ‘greenwashing’ or the current trend in advertising to make something appear ‘green’ or eco-friendly that in reality – isn’t. Enter the green police.

An article by Tom Wright in the WSJ today, tells of an ad by the Malaysian Palm Oil Council depicting a man running through a natural rain forest interspersed with shots of palm-oil plantations and wildlife with a voice-over that says “Malaysia palm oil. Its trees give life and help our planet breathe.”

The United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority didn’t buy it and determined that a product that is derived from plants that are often planted in illegally cleared natural rain forests or in plantations that destroy the natural habitat of species like the Sumatran elephant, isn’t really green. The U.K. authority ruled that -

“The ad was likely to mislead viewers as to the environmental benefits of oil-palm plantations, compared with native rain forest,”

Officials in Norway made a similar ruling on automakers labeling their vehicles as ‘green’ and banned all car ads from alluding that their vehicles are “green”, “clean”, or “environmentally friendly”. The officials expressed the opinion that all car production leads to more, not fewer carbon emissions.

Even the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the body that oversees advertising claims, began hearings this month to establish guidelines for appropriate green marketing in an effort to update its 10 year old advertising guidelines for eco-friendly marketing.

Even though much of the damage is done before the green police show up and false advertisers get nothing more than a good hand-slapping, it is progress and possibly the best we can ask for right now. What do you think? Is there a better way to regulate false green claims?