This article was originally published in the July 8th, 2008 issue of the Bremer Baumwollbörse Cotton Report.
With judgement of 29 January 2008 the district court Giessen confirmed a prohibitory injunction that had been ordered already a year ago against the mail order company Hess Natur-Textilien, Butzbach, Germany. Thus the enterprise is not allowed to promote its so called bio products to the debit of conventional cotton.
The controversy was caused by a three pages advertisement campaign in the well known German lifestyle magazines Stern, Spiegel and Brigitte in October 2007.On the first full colour page a cotton blossom was shown combined with the text: "Why is cotton so attractive? Since more than 6000 years cotton is one of the healthiest fibres, however only as long until it is massively poisoned". On the second page two workers standing on a mountain of seed cotton with protection masks are shown together with the text: "pesticides can be deathly" and on the third page the opening of a new Hess shop in Hamburg is announced. With it's decision the court prohibited the further publication of the advertisement. In the reasons the three judges of the court chamber state that the average consumer understands this advertisement as a danger if he is wearing cotton textiles from conventional grown cotton whereas he is running no risk if he wears the so called bio cotton products of Hess Naturtextil.
The advertisement is — according to the court — a violation of the code of fair competition since Hess Natur characterizes only its own products as harmless and inoffensive while conventionally grown cotton products are described as a danger for the health of a consumer wearing cotton textiles. As a consequence of their opinion the judges had not to take into account the residue analyses which the Bremen Cotton Exchange is undertaking since almost 20 years according Oekotex 100 in the neutral research institute Hohenstein, where in none of the samples harmful substances could be detected. On the other hand Hess Naturtextil, the advertiser, has to produce evidence that the consumer is endangered in his health as consequence of pesticides by cotton from conventional production.