More brand reaction to new Greenpeace PFC report
01/11/2012
PFCs are a class of chemical substances that belong to the larger family known as fluorinated chemicals. These fluoro-organic compounds are used in textile finishing technologies in outdoor clothing, sleeping bags, tents and shoes.
Some PFCs can break down to form long-chain (C8) perfluorinated chemicals such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). These substances pose a risk both to people and the environment; they accumulate in the environment and via the food chain in the human body and are not biodegradable, or are only biodegradable to a very limited extent. PFOS, which is legally restricted by the European Union and by the Environmental Protection Agency in the US, has already been eliminated from the clothing production process.
In tests Greenpeace carried out on finished garments for its new report, “Chemistry for Any Weather”, no traces of PFOS came to light. The campaign group did find traces of PFOA, but this contravenes no laws in the European Union or the US. The campaign group carried out its tests on products on sale in Germany.
Voluntarily, large chemical companies in the textile supply chain have committed to eliminating C8 products that may break down to form PFOA. These companies said in 2006 they would eliminate 95% of C8-based products by the end of 2012 and eradicate 100% of them by 2015. They have been working for years on alternative PFCs that they insist provide the benefits without the risks; these new solutions are based on shorter-chain (C6) rather than C8 chemistry.
Greenpeace disputes these claims on the basis that C6 and C8 are similar and because some tests have cast some doubt on some C6 compounds, although not specifically the ones that are now beginning to become available for outdoor clothing brands to use. It is, nevertheless, calling for an end to the use of all PFCs.
In follow-up statements to sportstextiles, the campaign group has said: “Greenpeace is calling for the elimination and regulation of the whole group of PFCs, based on the clear evidence of hazardousness of C8 compounds and on the similarity of other PFCs (including the C6 compounds) to them. There is indicative data on the hazards of some other PFCs, including evidence of the persistence and of the ability to bioaccumulate of certain C6 compounds. These data support the call for the elimination of the group on a precautionary principle basis. The textile industry has been looking for new alternatives to fluorine-based chemistry over the last few years. Coatings based on polyurethane, silicon, waxes, paraffins and dendrimer technology are already available. If we have good reason to suspect that something is inherently hazardous and we have alternatives, why continue putting the environment and the human health at risk?”
Of the brands whose responses to the report we have already published, one, Vaude, seems to accept Greenpeace’s point of view and has told us it will move to PFC-free solutions as soon as it can. The two others, Mammut and Kaikkialla, emphasised an equal commitment to making their environmental footprint as small as possible (what other position can companies take if they seek to help people enjoy spending time in the mountains and forests?), but insisted the alternatives Greenpeace has listed fall short of their requirements.
The two most recent responses have come from Jack Wolfskin and Marmot. Jack Wolfskin simply said it preferred to make no comment on the Greenpeace report at this time, although it recently said it was ending its use C8 in 2014, a year before the deadline and that it has been working towards offering weather protection products manufactured without the use of C8 since 2009.
Marmot, on the other hand, gave us a very detailed response, in which the company makes it clear that it views water-, oil- and dirt-repellent finishes based on C6 chemistry as an effective, safe and environmentally sound alternative to C8-based products. We report the Marmot response in full in a separate story.
Of the seven brands Greenpeace names in the report, only Patagonia and The North Face have given no response so far.
Share this story:
