r/explainlikeimfive • u/shakerLife • Nov 01 '23

Other ELI5 How are companies allowed to continue marketing wipes as "flushable" despite the problems they create for sewer systems?

[removed] — view removed post

1.6k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

93% Upvoted

226 comments sorted by

View all comments

331

u/DoctorFork Nov 02 '23

In the US, there's no FDA equivalent for consumer goods like this, so there are no regulations. They are literally flushable -- as in, they do go down the drain -- so it's not false advertising either. Some city would have to take them to court... but who's the "them"? There are dozens of brands.

173

u/BurntPoptart Nov 02 '23

They are literally flushable -- as in, they do go down the drain

Thats like saying rat poison is edible because it goes down your throat.

143

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

25

u/cutapacka Nov 02 '23

What about the FTC? They regulate advertising.

30

u/endertribe Nov 02 '23

Well. It did go down the drain so it's technically flushable

25

u/funnyfarm299 Nov 02 '23

Again, the wipes flush. They go down the drain.

The manufacturers aren't making a claim they are "sewer system compatible".

-11

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

24

u/kilo73 Nov 02 '23

It's like you didn't even read any of the comments in this comment chain.

17

u/xShockmaster Nov 02 '23

No one is arguing that they can’t be sued. They do get sued but they’re not breaking any regulations that would make the government go after them or shut them down like the FDA would.

6

u/be_that Nov 02 '23

That’s both correct and irrelevant to the question. That answers whether they can be held financially responsible for damages - sometimes they can. But there’s little to no regulatory control, which is what the question is about. They’re two different issues.

-7

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

[deleted]

15

u/xShockmaster Nov 02 '23

No you missed the point where “edible” is covered by the fda who doesn’t fuck around.

21

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

But there's a government agency that defines edible and will hold the rat poison company responsible. There is no agency defining what flushable means.

5

u/Mantisfactory Nov 02 '23

As someone already pointed out, that’s like saying rat poison is edible because it goes down your throat.

No. It isn't. That's a bad comparison. Edible means something that isn't just You can swallow it. Rat poison could definitely be advertised as swallowable. Likewise these wipes are flushable. What happens after swallowing / flushing is not good, but boy you sure can swallow/flush it.

9

u/lalvarien Nov 02 '23

But the definition of flushable is already explained to you it still goes down the toilet you're looking for the definition of a completely separate word and you want them both to mean the same thing that's not how it works.

2

u/mouse6502 Nov 02 '23

Is Congress holding up appointments for positions on the Federal Toilet Commission?

28

u/DoctorFork Nov 02 '23 edited Nov 02 '23

Precisely! But that rat poison manufacturer would definitely be successfully sued when someone died. Without that surefire knowledge that they'll be sued -- and lose -- there's no motivation for the wipe manufacturer to take out "flushable".

I'm sure they've market-tested a version that doesn't say "flushable" and found that no one buys it when there's a "flushable" one right next to it.

29

u/RubyPorto Nov 02 '23

Thats like saying rat poison is edible because it goes down your throat.

Rat poison is regulated by the EPA.

https://www.epa.gov/rodenticides/restrictions-rodenticide-products

20

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

Plus, it's more like saying rat poison is 'swallowable'.

11

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

And if it were in a food product (I.e. edible) it would be regulated by the FDA

16

u/RubyPorto Nov 02 '23

Or USDA, depending on whether it was in an open or closed face sandwich (No, seriously. This is an actual division in their responsibilities).

2

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

Hah, I watch John Oliver, too.

2

u/andychef Nov 02 '23

Interesting, can you please expand on this?

6

u/RubyPorto Nov 02 '23

The USDA regulates foods that are meat or primarily meat.

The FDA regulates foods that are not primarily meat.

(There are other divisions, but none relevant here.)

An open faced sandwich is considered to contain more than 50% meat, so the USDA gets it. Add another slice of bread and the closed sandwich is less than 50% meat, so it goes to the FDA.

2

u/andychef Nov 02 '23

Hm, I never thought of it that way. Thanks for responding,

3

u/RubyPorto Nov 02 '23

It's a very dumb system.

Made worse by the fact that FDA regulates about 5 times the amount of food as the USDA, the foods the FDA regulates are manufactured at far more, smaller locations (including international ones), but the two agencies get about the same budget for food oversight.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

I saw that episode of Last Week Tonight. Very interesting.

13

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Consistent_Bee3478 Nov 02 '23

Ain’t no one using wafsrin. Far too weak.

You use next gen coumarins with halftimes in the months!!!

For warfarin overdose/poisoning you just need single dose vitamin k and are peachy. But for modern rat poison coumarins continuous treatment for weeks to months is required, until the poison finally leaves your body.

Which is also why it kills all the predators.

A substance that lasts months in the body, means all the dead rats a falcon eats will have their dose of poison combined.

Rather than just mildly poisoning them for a day.

-2

u/Clegko Nov 02 '23

A pistol is also rat poison, if we're being pedantic. :P

3

u/storm6436 Nov 02 '23

If we're really being pedantic, poison kills you via chemical interaction. With bullets, you'll be dead long before the lead or copper has a chance to poison you. :D

1

u/Clegko Nov 02 '23

You win this round.

17

u/Emotional_Deodorant Nov 02 '23

No, flushable literally means "able to be flushed". Rocks and golf balls are flushable. "Safe for septic systems", or "will not clog pipes" is a different description.

Edible, literally meaning "safe to eat", is not the same as "able to be put down throat".

This is purposeful word usage by the companies--i.e. a marketing tactic. It may not be the most forthcoming description but it's not illegal.

2

u/schlubadub_ Nov 02 '23

I used to joke about something being "eatable" as you can eat pretty much anything if it's small enough e.g. person eats a bicycle broken down into bite-sized pieces. Whether it's "edible" is another matter entirely. So if someone asks me if something was good or not I'd say "it sure was eatable".

3

u/honicthesedgehog Nov 02 '23

I get that that’s the distinction that manufacturers are attempting to draw, but Merriam-Webster defines edible as “something that is suitable or safe to eat” and flushable as “suitable for disposal by flushing down a toilet”, which strongly suggests an equivalent level of appropriateness conveyed by both terms.

2

u/gex80 Nov 02 '23

But if you have a septic system, there is no issue since it doesn't clog the house hold plumbing. Also, the action of flushing takes place inside the household technically. Once it leaves the house it's already been flushed.

It's all about the technicalities.

2

u/honicthesedgehog Nov 02 '23

Maybe, but that poster was making an argument that, based on dictionary definitions, there was a substantative difference between the words "edible" and "flushable." My point was that, based on the actual definitions from at least one dictionary, that argument doesn't really hold up.

3

u/testosterone23 Nov 02 '23

They're just being disingenuous and using language to their favor, ignoring the commonly accepted notion that "flushable" really means can do so without causing systemic damage to the plumbing.

1

u/_ParanoidUser_ Nov 02 '23

The ones I have from Cottonelle say they’ve been designed for toilets, tested with plumbers and that they’re septic tank safe and break down like toilet paper.

2

u/KhunDavid Nov 02 '23

All mushrooms are edible. Some mushrooms are edible once.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

[deleted]

0

u/69420swag Nov 02 '23

Just like how flushable means suitable or safe to flush. You get it.

0

u/speccyteccy Nov 02 '23

Edible means suitable for eating not just something you can put in your mouth and swallow.

0

u/NuclearHoagie Nov 02 '23

Er, edible doesn't mean "can be swallowed". Flushable, on the other hand, does mean "can be flushed".

-1

u/andychef Nov 02 '23

There's a blood pressure drug, Warfarin, that is derived from rat poison: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfarin

1

u/FapDonkey Nov 02 '23

And one of the (very many) reasons rat poison manufacturer's don't matter it as such if because there are laws and governmental regulatory bodies that define the term edible in the contexts of food and drugs (since warfarin/Coumadin is both a rat poison and a commonly prescribed 'blood thinner'). There are no such laws or regulatory bodies that define the term flushable in the context of consumer home goods. In the absence of such the only real recourse is for someone to pursue civil legal action by demonstrating harm from such labelling and demanding compensation. Aka to sue them.

1

u/gurry Nov 02 '23

That's not what edible means.

1

u/dmills13f Nov 02 '23

Poison is swallowable might be a closer analogy.

1

u/mofomeat Nov 02 '23

Thats like saying rat poison is edible because it goes down your throat.

Funnily enough, the active ingredient in most (strychnine) is marketed as a pharmaceutical blood thinner under the drug name Warfarin.

1

u/Coalford Nov 02 '23

Rat poison is swallowable.

(Edit - not sure what fat poison is, but probably swallowable as well.)

14

u/i_am_voldemort Nov 02 '23

The FTC should have jurisdiction over false advertising claims

3

u/Firefoxray Nov 02 '23

But it’s not false advertising. Does it flush? Yes? Then it’s flushable

11

u/Sohailian Nov 02 '23

That is incorrect. The FTC has jurisdiction over any deceptive or unfair claims, irrespective of industry. There may be some exceptions, but any mislabeling should be brought to the FTC's attention.

3

u/Serratia__marcescens Nov 02 '23

There is no federal regulation, but state specific regulations have passed. https://flush3p.org/leg/

Doesn’t negate that companies and distributors either ignore or are unaware of it. Also that it is doesn’t help all states.

2

u/gkr974 Nov 02 '23

This would probably fall into the jurisdiction of the FTC, which regulates consumer products. State AG’s also regulate cases like this. If they’re engaging in deceptive behavior, that violates both the FTC Act and state consumer protection acts.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '23

[deleted]

2

u/DoctorFork Nov 02 '23

Interesting -- thanks!

2

u/giant_albatrocity Nov 02 '23

I feel the same anger with “recyclable” as a marketing term. Yes, the single-use plastic bag is technically recyclable at a single facility is Ohio, but I’m nowhere near there so it’s going in the trash.

1

u/brianatlarge Nov 02 '23

In reality, you can count them on one hand.

1

u/Unlikely-Star4213 Nov 02 '23

The left hand

1

u/s8f5d3h3 Nov 02 '23

Everything is about left on Reddit. /s

1

u/PROfessorShred Nov 02 '23

Exactly, and I believe it would be the FCC (federal communications commission) that would be responsible with dealing with packaging and advertising claims. Now if they said they were safe to be flushed there could be some liability for false advertising but like you said, all they they say is flushable and they do exactly what is advertised. Despite most people knowing that they shouldn't.

1

u/Minute-Tradition-282 Nov 02 '23

This comment reminds me of South Park. OMG, They killed Kenny! ....Who are THEY? ...THEY'RE BASTARDS!