FTC takes action on 'Bamboo-zling' Claims

I've been rattling on for over a year about bamboo RAYON and arguing that manufacturers should follow the textile labeling laws, and that consumers need to be skeptical about green claims for bamboo. Now, the FTC has released two new Alerts addressing these issues, and have taken four companies to court to halt false environmental claims. One of the Alerts, How to Avoid Bamboozling Your Customers educates businesses who sell clothing and other textile products that unless a product is made directly with bamboo fiber, it can’t be called bamboo. Have You Been Bamboozled by Bamboo Fabrics? lets consumers know that the soft “bamboo” fabrics on the market today are really rayon, made using harsh chemicals in a process that releases pollutants into the air.

In additional, the FTC announced  that it has charged four sellers with deceptive labeling and with making false or unsubstantiated claims. The sub-title reads: Bamboo-based Textiles, Actually Made of Rayon, Are Not Antimicrobial, Made in an Environmentally Friendly Manner, or Biodegradable, which just about sums up my blogging efforts on this topic. Read the entire press release here.

It's a great new fashion trend: enforcing regulations!

Bamboo rayon, continued

Mo Saintsing of Bamboosa replied to my Earth Day post about bamboo rayon, pointing out -- quite correctly -- that Bamboosa has taken the high road on producing and marketing bamboo apparel. I've given them a hat-tip in the past and wish more companies would follow their lead. I do still wish they would use the FTC terminology for their fibers, just for the sake of clarity and because it's the right (and legal!) thing to do. The FTC is apparently not about to enforce of the Textile Fiber Products Labeling Act, because, as their representative said last summer, "it's not a rollover issue", i.e., no one is dying.

Here's the issue for me: there are scores of companies out there who do NOT use certified organic bamboo (if they did, wouldn't they say so?) and who AREN'T working with fiber producers to minimize the environmental impact of growing and processing bamboo into viscose rayon. They are not only competing with ethical producers, they are sowing the seeds of consumer backlash when the bamboo boom goes bust. Yesterday I saw a shampoo that featured green tea and bamboo among the ingredients, with all the usual claims for both (antioxident! antibacterial!).

Bamboosa's clothing may look, feel and wear better than most rayon, but if someone buys someone else's shirt first and it behaves like inexpensive rayon instead of the miracle fabric they thought they just paid a premium for, they will associate that outcome with bamboo. I have purchased and tested bamboo and bamboo-blend socks, towels, yarn and a T-shirt, and my samples behaved like rayon. The socks and T-shirt pilled, the towels shrank alarmingly and the yarn and T-shirt lost some elasticity and their silk-like hand.

For the time-being, the environmentally-conscious fashion consumer is on her own. There are standards and certifications, but right now the market is flooded with new "green" materials that ignore those standards, beginning with the FTC textile regulations. I prefer to do business with companies who treat me with respect and give me facts. Finding "rayon from bamboo" on the label is a step towards winning my trust.

"Dry Clean Only" -- what are my choices?

Thanks to Jacob for the link to this article in the New York Times.

Reporter Mireya Navarro explores green claims by dry cleaners, which, it turns out, are "not regulated at all". The usual solvent used in dry cleaning, perchloroethylene or perc, is linked to various nasty health problems, including cancer. The EPA has ordered "that perc be phased out in dry cleaners operating in residential buildings by 2020", which gives you some idea how great it is! The "green" cleaners are using other solvents which are not much better. There are no government standards for what makes dry cleaning "green", so once again the consumer if left to self-educate and beware. According to the article,

"The environmentally preferable choice for dry cleaning, experts say,
involves little more than water. In a process known as wet cleaning,
garments are washed with water and biodegradable detergents in
computerized machines that carefully control variables like agitation.
Most stains are water soluble, and most items labeled “dry clean
only” can be professionally wet cleaned without shrinkage or
damage, studies have found."

The Pollution Prevention Center at Occidental College has quite a bit of useful information on the topic.

And yes, you can hand wash that cashmere sweater in cold water and biodegradable detergent and it will be just fine. No wringing or twisting, though.

In the News: genetically engineered cotton "oops"

The FDA has announced that a small portion of an experimental genetically engineered cotton was harvested along with an approved GE cotton variety. They emphasize that there is no food or feed safety concern from the incident. From the news release:

Based on additional data provided by Monsanto on the protein produced
in the GE cotton--a variant of Cry 1A 105 that acts as a pesticide
against cotton insect pests--EPA has concluded that there would be no
risk to animals consuming small amounts of feed from the unauthorized
cotton, nor to humans from consuming meat or milk from these animals.
While EPA has concluded that consuming small amounts of the cottonseed
poses no food or animal feed safety risks, under that Agency’s LLP
policy, the presence of this material in food or feed would be illegal.

 I am merely reporting it as an example of the the reasons why ethical fashion mavens would like to see more organic cotton and less GE cotton. Note their use of "small amounts" to temper their reassurances. So larger amounts wouold be a problem? Keep this in mind when Cotton, Inc. tells you that today's cotton is grown using fewer pesticides; this is how the magic is done.

Election Connection

I've been AWOL for some time, thanks to a combination of good research/writing mojo and the distractions of the election. Today I was reading a blog about Senator Joe Lieberman's future and his possible "punishment" for supporting McCain, and happened to notice that one of his chairmanships is this one: Chairman of the Senate subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection (under the committee on Environment & Public Works). You'd think this might be a body with some interest in greenwashing and such, but they are not THAT interested; their last posted hearing is November, 2007. Given that, I'm all for replacing Joe with someone who might actually do something. After all, if the new President wants to empower and engage individual action on the important issues of our time, this subcommittee might want to get up to speed.

Sustainable Fashion -- An Array of Standards

In any emerging market, there is bound to be some misinformation and confusion. Consider, for example, the decades-long negotiation required before we finally had reliable standards for the term "organic". Before that, producers could make all kinds of claims and consumers needed to arm themselves with information -- and questions -- every time they went to the grocery store. The sustainable fashion market has exploded internationally in the last two years, and with the amount of information and misinformation available to consumers.

In this confusing scene, standards and certifications -- voluntary as well as mandatory -- can be an important consumer tool for sorting out the claims and making informed decisions. What follows is a summary of a few of the most common standards which you may find in advertising and labeling.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations - These are the granddaddies of textile rules, and they should carry the force of law. These statutes define what must appear on a permanently-attached label, in terms of fiber content, country of origin and garment care. I say "should" because, as I have pointed out repeatedly, the FTC has not been enforcing these statutes in the labeling of rayon made from bamboo.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) standards and accreditation - The National Organic Program (NOP) is responsible for the development and administration of the standards for organic agricultural products, including textiles. It is a national program, so does not apply to imported products.

Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) is an important worldwide standard. The international working group developing these standards has a very ambitious agenda which may make it the gold standard of certification for ethical fashion producers and consumers:

The aim of the standard is to define requirements to ensure organic status of textiles, from harvesting of the raw materials, through environmentally and socially responsible manufacturing up to labelling in order to provide a credible assurance to the end consumer.

GOTS looks beyond the fiber harvested in the field and looks at the entire process through a lens of environmental and social responsibility. Serious stuff!

Bluesign is an independent industry standard that particularly focuses on ways to minimize or exclude potential hazardous materials -- hazardous to the environment, worker or consumer. Bluesign certification can be applied to man-made and synthetic fibers and dyes, which the agricultural product standards can not.

Oeko-tex is a textile standard that also focuses on harmful chemicals in the production and finishing of textiles. It is an important standard for consumers to understand, because there are actually different levels of certification. Oeko-tex 100 certifies that the finished material contains nothing that will harm the consumer; Oeko-tex 1000 is more like GOTS and bluesign® in that it concerns the entire production chain. (In other words, bamboo rayon with an Oeko-tex 100 certification is not necessary "environmental friendly" to the worker and the land around the factory.)

I will probably continue with this anon; it's a big topic. Reader questions and feedback are always welcome, but especially now!

Feelgood Style: Kindred Spirit

Imagine my pleasure in finding a kindred spirit! Delia Montgomery, founder of Chic Eco, writes on sustainable fashion at Feelgood Style, part of the Green Options blog network. (My, that's a lot of links...). Her recent post "Bamboo Fiber: Greenwash or Treasure?" reinforces the message I've been trying to get across here. Here's a choice morsel:

Conscious fabric retailers need to look for certification from an independent and reliable certification company. Currently, Oeko-Tex is the most comprehensive label for insuring that the garment is healthy for consumers. Other certification bodies are Soil Association, SKAL, or KRAV. Bamboo fabric buyers are wise to ask specific questions about textile development in addition to a label demand.

Tomorrow I'll be winding up my FTC coverage with a post about certification and standards. Stayed tuned!

Bamboo-zled, part 2

On July 15, I attended the 2008 FTC Workshop: Green Building and Textiles in Washington, D.C.; this is the fifth of a series of reports about the presentations and discussions. (To see all, select blog entries tagged "regulation".)

Yesterday, I wrote about the scientific evidence about rayon made from bamboo in the first workshop panel. The final nails for the bamboo coffin were delivered by panelists in the next session, (Tying Up Loose Ends -- Substantiated Green Textile Claims & the Need for FTC Guidance).

Todd Copeland of Patagonia listed the major e-fibers his company uses in its products:

organic cotton
hemp
chlorine-free wool (chlorine is used in the shrink-proofing process)
recycled polyester and nylon
lyocell (the generic name for Tencel®)

Why not bamboo?

"We don't use bamboo because when we went to the processing factories we found out that a regular rayon processing factory is using waste products from the pulp industry to make raw material anyway so substituting bamboo it doesn't give you an environmental story." (source: FTC Workshop transcript.)

Then Kathleen Huddy of The Goodhousekeeping Research Institute took aim at the claims frequently made by designers and retailers of "green" fashion, including those associated with bamboo:

"Proof of substantiation is needed for all claims from ultimate absorbent to antifungal to very vague ones as eco sensitive, good for the environment, and my favorite, beneficial to those with allergies and sensitive skin. If you've got that claim, you better have [large gesture] this much data behind it to tell me that you have really reverend [no idea what this word was -- NWL] it and you can prove it." (source: FTC Workshop transcript.)

Pat Slaven of Consumer Reports batted clean-up and summed up the morning:

"A number of my colleagues have talked at length about rayon manufacturing. It's hardly benign. It includes pulp. Sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid, disulfide, lots of water, lots of power. I could go on at length. It's really the topic of a textile 101 lecture, it may be a full course. But we'll spare you this. So the question is is this green washing. A number of the previous panelists have pulled the FTC definition of rayon. Nowhere in it do we define what types of cellulose go into the manufacture of rayon. It's not like [lyocell] that is a clearly defined different process that does have some advantages. Rayon can be made from pretty much any sort of cellulose. We've had a number of discussions on cotton [linters], wood pulp. I went to U.C. Davis, one of my colleagues was working on extracting it from rice and turning it to rayon...So in conclusion, the consumer is being led to believe that she's purchasing a green superior product. But the consumer is indeed purchasing is a cotton-rayon blend path towel. She's paying premium price for the honor. And the privilege. And what does she get? She's getting an ordinary bath towel that at best say bit softer than 100% cotton. We would like to see better labeling. Well, rayon, while stating that something's made from bamboo rather than rayon is misleading, this isn't necessarily a hazard to life and limb [as, say] an automotive rollover standard is but it affects the consumer's pocketbook. As long as consumers are spending more money for something with these claims, we should be seeing better labeling and we should be seeing better superior products." (source: FTC Workshop transcript.)

So there it is, friends. if you like rayon, go ahead and buy RAYON MADE FROM BAMBOO. But don't pay extra for it and don't be greenwashed into thinking that all bamboo is good for the environment.

Bamboo-zled, part 1

On July 15, I attended the 2008 FTC Workshop: Green Building and Textiles in Washington, D.C.; this is the fourth of a series of reports about the presentations and discussions. (To see all, select blog entries tagged "regulation".)

The high point of the morning, for me, was the exposure of the greenwashing associated with bamboo materials. As I explained in an earlier post, while bamboo itself can be grown sustainably, the most commonly used process used to produce textiles are far from green or sustainable by any definition. Speakers Peter Hauser (a professor from North Carolina State University) and Janice Gerde (a specialist in textiles and other materials from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection) delivered a one-two punch to bamboo labeling. Hauser differentiated between materials which could be logically called "natural bamboo fiber" (processed mechanically to produce a linen-like material), "rayon from bamboo" (regenerated cellulose, using the viscose process) and "lyocell from bamboo" (regenerated cellulose, using the more environmentally-friendly lyocell process). According to Hauser, the claims often made for bamboo -- antimicrobial properties, absorbency and breathability -- have been substantiated ONLY for materials made from natural bamboo fiber, which account for a very, very small fraction of the bamboo textiles on the market.

Dr. Gerde followed up with a meticulous overview of existing classifications (U.S. Customs and FTC) for "regenerated cellulose", "cellulose", "man-made fibers", "artificial fibers" and "rayon". (Rayon is considered artificial, or man-made, and never, never "natural", since the processing completely alters the original material.) Gerde then produced the results of an infrared spectrographic comparision of bamboo yarn (purchased in a local yarn shop) and the standard rayon yarn used in testing. They were identical. It was, she emphasized, impossible for U.S. Customs to verify claims that a rayon garment was made of bamboo, as opposed to any other cellulosic material. LaRhea Pepper (Organic Exchange) added during the ensuing discussion that the claim "organic" can only legally be made for the original fiber, but should not be used as a product claim ("100% organic bamboo yarn"), except for natural bamboo (the mechanically-processed version).

2008 FTC Workshop: Cotton Incorporated

On July 15, I attended the 2008 FTC Workshop: Green Building and Textiles in Washington, D.C.; this is the second of a series of reports about the presentations and discussions. (To see all, select blog entries tagged "regulation".)

Some of the most interesting moments of the morning workshop focused on the interplay between the representatives of Organic Exchange and Cotton Incorporated. They were, or course, thoroughly polite and professional when making their own environmental claims with only oblique references to each other. But anyone who has been following the changes in the cotton market could detect the cracks beneath the surface of Cotton Inc's very public embrace of the "sustainability" label. Spokesperson Patricia O'Leary made the following points:

• Improved methods of growing cotton have reduced the crop's impact on soil, water and workers in the field.
• "Environmental friendliness" has consistently ranked below fit, price, style and color in the leading factors in consumer decision-making.
• Consumers are overwhelmingly skeptical or uncertain about environmental claims they see in advertising.

To address the last point first, there's no question that many consumers -- including myself -- are confused and frustrated by the proliferation of information and misinformation available, and the very loose use of terms such as "green", "sustainable", "earth-friendly" and "natural". O'Leary's recommendation to the FTC was that the Green Guides need to clarify the language used in marketing textiles. But is Cotton Inc's newest commercial (Green Fields) part of the solution or an example of the problem?

Yes, conventional cotton growing in the U.S. and other developed nations is much cleaner than it was even a decade ago. But according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the top four producers are China, the USA, India and Pakistan. China produces nearly twice as much cotton as the USA, and while both are increasing their cultivation of organic cotton, in China and other developing countries, pesticides and fertilizers are not only still used in large quantities, but are applied by hand, posing a significant health risk to the workers and their families, since some of these chemicals are linked to birth defects. Consumers may also be interested to know more about the "improved methods" used by US growers have adopted, especially the genetically modified cotton seed which not only helps grow cotton, but which, in the form of cottonseed and cottonseed oil, ends up in our food supply via dairy cattle or processed foods. So when you read Cotton Inc's sustainability claims, pay special attention to what -- and who -- they leave out.

As for environmental concerns ranking above fit, style and other clothing features, that's not surprising and it probably won't change for most people. But with 50% of consumers indicating this was a factor in their decision-making, doesn't that suggest that retailers who offer stylish, reasonably priced clothing in a range of sizes and body types will soon discover that being able to make an honest and credible green claim will give them the edge over the retailer who doesn't?

2008 FTC Workshop: regulation and certification of organic fibers

On July 15, I attended the 2008 FTC Workshop: Green Building and Textiles in Washington, D.C.; this is the second of a series of reports about the presentations and discussions. (To see all, select blog entries tagged "regulation".)

LaRhea Pepper, an organic cotton farmer from west Texas, represented Organic Exchange. Her presentation focused on trends in the demand for organic fibers (cotton, hemp, linen and wool) and on current and emerging regulation and certification programs. Overall, consumer demand for organic textile products has been rising steadily, especially in clothing for children.

Reasons for choosing organic generally fall into two categories: quality of life issues (allergies and sensitivities to particular products) and lifestyle choices, particularly environmentalism. It's interesting to consider that these motives suggest that the harm done by misleading advertising may not be a simple matter of an annoyed customer who wants to be green and is made a fool. People choosing organic products because of chemical sensitivities or allergies depend on regulations and certifications to protect them and their families.

Pepper pointed out that the agricultural nature of natural fibers means that, since 2002, producers of organic cotton and other fibers are governed by the USDA standards for organic certification. In addition, textile products are covered by several FTC regulations. Still problems exist, as consumers can be confused by the use and misuse of "organic" on a clothing label. The term "organic" can be meaningfully applied to the fibers used, but what about the dyes and finishes? (I wrote about this almost a year ago!)

2008 FTC Workshop: Green Building and Textiles

On July 15, I attended the 2008 FTC Workshop: Green Building and Textiles in Washington, D.C.; this is the first of a series of reports about the presentations and discussions.

The purpose of FTC public workshops is to engage all the various stakeholders with a particular issue -- in this case "to examine developments in green building and textiles claims and consumer perception of such claims", as part of the FTC's review of its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, also known as the Green Guides . The Green Guides are intended for marketers and industry, but consumers will also find them interesting, because they articulate the information and language which can -- and can't -- be used in advertising and marketing consumer products.

The agenda and other information about the workshop is still available at the FTC website; I attended only the morning sessions, devoted to textiles. Panelists included representatives of U.S. Customs & Border Protection, Organic Exchange, Patagonia and Consumer Reports. In his opening remarks, William E. Kovacic, FTC Chairman, described the plight of the consumer seeking accurate information in today's green market as "standing under a giant waterfall with a teacup". The questions for the day: What claims are being made by advertisers of "green" products. How do consumers perceive them? What misleading practices have emerged since the publication of the current Green Guides? What revisions are needed to the existing Guides in order to ensure that consumers have the information they need?

The FTC is soliciting public comment on these questions; if you have something to say about green marketing claims on your clothing and household textiles, go to the Filing a Comment section on the conference website.