US Clothing Brands are Phasing out PFAS In Their Products
Written By: Atanu Das on Wednesday, April 13, 2022
In the executive summary, the US PIRG outlined the following main points:
On the basis of their time lines for PFAS phaseout, the range of products covered by their PFAS policy, and public availability of company PFAS commitments, as well as their PFAS labeling and testing protocols. The survey found:
-
Levi Strauss & Co. Leads the Way With Strong PFAS Elimination Policies
The growing list of companies committed to a phaseout of PFAS comprises some of the best-known apparel brands in the United States. Several companies have already eliminated PFAS use in their supply chain. Levi Strauss & Co. leads the industry, followed closely by Victoria’s Secret and Deckers Brands (including UGG, Teva, and others). Keen Footwear also earns high marks for removing the toxic chemicals from its shoes.
Other companies have clear, time-bound commitments to phase out all PFAS from their apparel, including American Eagle, Ralph Lauren, Gap Inc., and PVH (the parent company for brands like Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein, Speedo, and Patagonia). Their commitments should serve as a call to the rest of the apparel industry to immediately adopt their own policies to stop using PFAS in their products.
-
The Majority of Apparel Companies Have Weak Commitments
Of the 30 apparel brands and retailers surveyed, 18 brands and retailers received a grade of D or lower. Some of these companies did not have a publicly available commitment to eliminate any PFAS, while others had pledged to eliminate only PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate)—two PFAS chemicals already phased out of use in the United States. Some of these brands and retailers are among the best known in the United States and include Walmart, Wolverine (the parent of Hush Puppies, Keds, Merrell, Stride Rite, and other brands), Macy’s, and Skechers.
-
The Outdoor Industry Lags Behind Customer Values in PFAS Policy
Patagonia received the highest grades of all the outdoor apparel brands surveyed for having established a time line to eliminate use of all PFAS in its supply chains in the future. However, the remaining U.S. brands within the outdoor apparel sector received surprisingly low grades despite the environmental and public health concerns of many of their customers. REI, VF Corp. (parent of The North Face, Timberland, Jansport, and others) and L.L. Bean, for instance, received grades of D or F for incomplete commitments that excluded some PFAS or for long time lines for phaseout.
European outdoor apparel companies Jack Wolfskin, Houdini, and Vaude, and outdoor textile supplier Polartec® have eliminated PFAS from their supply chains, demonstrating that it can be done and that U.S. brands are delaying unnecessarily.
-
Inaccurate and Misleading Definitions of PFAS Lead to Consumer Confusion
Many companies use outdated, inaccurate, or misleading definitions of PFAS in their commitments and communications regarding the chemicals. These outdated definitions can result in consumer confusion around whether the products they purchase contain PFAS. For instance, companies should cease using the label “PFCs of environmental concern–free” if their products contain any PFAS, because it falsely suggests some PFAS are not of environmental concern.
On the basis of our findings, we compiled the following recommendations for apparel manufacturers and retailers, policymakers, and consumers:
Apparel manufacturers and retailers should act immediately to protect public health and the planet. They should publicly commit to a time-bound phaseout of all added PFAS in their apparel supply chains and label any products that contain PFAS until a phaseout is achieved. They should also urge industry trade associations to adopt these recommendations for their memberships.
To ensure protection across states and the country, the federal and state governments should ban all PFAS in consumer apparel and require labeling of products that contain PFAS until all uses are phased out. Policymakers should also ensure that these laws contain no loopholes that would allow manufacturers to substitute other toxic PFAS for those already banned, and that existing PFAS contamination is subject to strong cleanup standards that safeguard public health.