a lire : le rapport de greenpeace "dirty laundry 2" (linge sale 2)

8/4/2019 A lire : le rapport de Greenpeace "Dirty Laundry 2" (Linge Sale 2)

1/32

Unravelling the toxic trailfrom pipes to products

Dirty L undry 2:Hung Out to Dry


2/32

Executive Summ ry 5

Section 1 : Methodology nd results 11

Section 2: Discussion of results in rel tion to

the st nces of m jor clothing br nds 17

Section 3: Conclusions nd recommend tions 21

Appendix 1 24

Appendix 2 26

Appendix 3 29

References 30

.

Published byGreenpe ce Intern tion lOttho Heldringstraat 51066 AZ Amsterdam

The Netherlands Tel: +31 20 7182000greenpe ce.org

Note to the re der Throughout this report we refer to the terms Global North and Global South to describe two distinct groups of countries. The term Global South is used to describe developing and emerging countries, including those facing the challenges of

often rapid industrial development or industrial restructuring, such as Russia. Most of the Global South i s located in South andCentral America, Asia and Africa. The term Global North is used for developed countries, predominantly located in North

America and Europe, with high human development, according to the United Nations Human Development Index.* Most, butnot all, of these countries are located in the northern hemisphere.

* United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2005). Human Development Report 2005. International cooperation at a crossro ads. Aid, trade and security in anunequal world. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR05_complete.pdf

For more information contact:

[email protected]

A knowledgements:We would like to thank the followingpeople who contributed to the creationof this report. If we have forgottenanyone, they know that that ourgratitude is also extended to them:Kristin Casper, Jamie Choi,

Tommy Crawford, Steve Erwood,Marietta Harjono, Martin Hojsk,Li Yifang, Sara del Rio,

Tony Sadownichik, Melissa Shinn,Ilze Smit, Dave Walsh

Cre tive Direction & Design by: Arc Communications

F ont ove image and odu tshots, ages 14-15: Alex Stoneman / GreenpeaceBa k ove image: Rachel Corner / Greenpeace

JN 387

Contents

Bio ccumul tion : the mechanism by which chemicalsaccumulate in living organisms and get passed along the

food chain.

Hormone disruptors: chemicals known to interferewith hormone systems of organisms. For nonylphenol,the most widely recognised hazard is the ability to mimicnatural oestrogen hormones. This can lead to alteredsexual development in some organisms, most notably thefeminisation of fish. 1

Persistence: the property of a chemical whereby it does notdegrade in the environment, or degrades very slowly.

Pl stisol: a suspension of PVC particles in a plasticiser.Used as ink for screen-printing images and logos ontotextiles.

Surf ct nts: chemicals used to lower the surface tension of liquids. They include wetting agents, detergents, emulsifiers,foaming agents and dispersants used in a variety of industrialand consumer applications including textile manufacture.

Terminology used in this report


3/32

A L E X

S T ONE MA N

/ Gr E E Np E A

c E

Who will rise tothe ch llengend ch mpion

toxic-free future?

Greenpe ceIntern tion l

Dirty L undry 2:Hung Out to Dry Unravelling the toxictrail from pipes toproducts

Dirty L undry 2: Hung Out to Dry Unravelling the toxic trail from pipes to products 3


4/32

4 Dirty L undry 2: Hung Out to Dry Unravelling the toxic trail from pipes to products


5/32


ExecutiveSummary



Detox our clothing,detox our waterResearch commissioned by GreenpeaceInternational has revealed that clothing andcertain fabric-based shoes sold internationallyby major clothing brands are manufacturedusing nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs). NPEs which are used as surfactants in textileproduction - subsequently break down to

form toxic nonylphenol (NP). Nonylphenol is apersistent chemical with hormone-disruptingproperties that builds up in the food chain, andis hazardous even at very low levels.

The investigation involved the analysis of 78 articles of sports and recreational clothing and shoes bearing thelogos of 15 leading clothing brands. The 15 brands were:

Abercombie & Fitch, Adidas, Calvin Klein 2, Converse, GAP,G-Star RAW, H&M, Kappa, Lacoste, Li Ning, Nike, Puma,Ralph Lauren, Uniqlo and Youngor.

Greenpeace purchased the articles tested from companiesflagship stores and from other stores authorised to sellthe branded products. The stores were located across 18countries from both the Global North and Global South,and articles were purchased during April and May 2011. 3

Product labels show that the articles were manufacturedin 13 different countries, while three items are of unknownmanufacturing origin. 4 The clothing sampled was madefrom both natural and synthetic fabrics, and included itemsdesigned for men, women and children. A variety of items including shirts, jackets, trousers, underwear and fabric-based shoes were tested.

Greenpeace submitted all 78 articles of clothing foranalysis by a leading independent laboratory, whichexamined them for the presence of NPEs. Wherereleased untreated, NPEs break down in rivers to formthe persistent, toxic and hormone disrupting NP. Evenwhere wastewater treatment facilities are present, they areunable to fully breakdown NPEs, and instead only partiallydegrade them often even speeding up their conversioninto the toxic NP.

Detection of NPEs in f brics is therefore n indic torth t NPEs were used during production, resultingin incre sed levels of nonylphenol re ching theenvironment; such s in w terw ys or rivers.

Exe utiveSumma y

A L E X

S T ONE MA N

/ Gr E E Np E A

c E


6/32

It is also important to note that the non-detection of NPEs does not rule out NPEs being used in the productionof a garment, as the finished clothing may have undergonethorough washing prior to retailing. This may have washedout all residues of NPEs from the fabric prior to sale.Such washing would only have further contributed toinputs of NPEs/NP into the environment during themanufacturing stage.


Key findingsOf the 78 rticles n lysed, 52 (two-thirds) testedpositive for the presence of NPEs bove the limit ofdetection of 1 milligr m NPEs/kilogr m m teri l (mg/ kg). (For more detailed results please refer to the Results section on page 11). NPEs were detected in clothing soldby 14 out of the 15 brands tested, in clothing from 17 out of 18 of the countries where the items were purchased, and

in 12 out of 13 of the countries where the products testedoriginated from.

The companies whose products tested positive for NPEsinclude the major international brands: Abercombie & Fitch, Adidas, Calvin Klein, Converse, G-Star RAW, H&M,Kappa, Lacoste, Li Ning, Nike, Puma, Ralph Lauren, Uniqloand Youngor.

Hung out to dryThe results of the rese rch cle rly demonstr teth t NPEs h ve been used t some st ge in them nuf cturing processes of clothing be ring thebr nds of number of m jor intern tion l clothingcomp nies. These include items bearing the logos of

Adidas and 13 of the other 14 brands examined as part of this investigation.

This analysis also confirms that the use of hazardouschemicals in textile production is not limited to clothingproducts manufactured in China; it is in fact the casefor major-brand articles manufactured in a number of countries. The results demonstrate that this is a globalissue tying major clothing brands to toxic pollution releasedby multiple facilities and suppliers and found in multiple

clothing items.Furthermore, m jor clothing br nds re m king theirconsumers unwitting contributors to incre singlevels of h z rdous nonylphenol in the environmentnd w ter bodies of countries where the productsre purch sed , as the washing of these clothing itemscan release residual levels of NPEs contained within theapparel into sewage systems. Although the level of NPEsin any given article of clothing is small, the sheer volume of clothing being sold and subsequently washed means thatthe total quantities being released may be substantial.

The global nature of clothing production and trade alsomeans that articles containing residual levels of NPEs arebeing imported into countries, such as members of the EU,where the use of these chemicals in clothing manufacturehas effectively been banned. 5

B and Numbe of sam lesNumbe

tested ositive

3

9

4

6

5

2

6

5

4

4

10

9

4

4

3

78TOTaL

3

4

3

5

3

0

4

4

1

4

5

7

3

3

3

52


7/32




Exe utiveSumma y

1) Formulations

containingnonylphenolethoxylates (NPEs)and other chemicalsare delivered to textilemanufacturers for useas surfactants.

3) NPsaccumulate insediments andcan build up inthe food chain,such as in sh.

4) Global exports deliver clothing containing residuallevels of NPEs to marketseven where these chemicalsare banned in clothingmanufacture.

5) Washingreleases NPEsto water treatmentfacilities.

6) Water treatmentis generallyineffective indealing with NPEs,essentially onlyspeeding up their

breakdownto toxic NPs.

7) Hormone-disruptingNPs end up in aquaticsystems even incountries where use ofthe parent compounds(NPEs) is banned.

2) Lax regulation permitswastewater dischargesof NPEs which break

down into persistent,bioaccumulative andhormone-disruptingnonylphenols (NPs)in rivers.

Clothing and theglobal toxic cycle

The problem nd thesolution re not only c use

for loc l concern. This is truly glob l issue.


8/32


Signs of progress The findings from this analysis build on two earlier studiespublished by Greenpeace. The report Swimming inChemicals found that nonylphenol (as well as PFOS, andother perfluorinated chemicals) were present in fish fromthe Yangtze River Delta. 6 A more recent study, detailedin the Dirty Laundry report, found hazardous chemicalsin samples of wastewater discharges from two Chinese

textile processing facilities, the Youngor Textile CityComplex and the Well Dyeing Factory Limited. 7 Thesefacilities have links to a number of major international andnational clothing brands including Adidas, Nike, Puma andthe Chinese company Li Ning.

Following the release of Dirty Laundry in July 2011, theinternational sport lifestyle company Puma committedto the elimination of all releases of hazardous chemicalsthroughout its supply chain by 2020, along with an actionplan detailing how it would deliver on this commitmentto be made publicly available within the followingeight weeks 8. Nikes subsequent commitment to zero

discharge by 2020 not only adds a commitment to actionon disclosing its hazardous chemical discharges to thepublic but also offers to share its tools with the wholeapparel sector, seeking to catalyse a sectoral shift, andalso supports the goal of systemic societal change. 9 Greenpe ce is c lling on ll the other br ndsto elimin te rele ses of h z rdous chemic lsthroughout their supply ch ins nd from theirproducts nd to convert their words into concretections th t help bring bout toxic-free world.

The need for leadershipIrrespective of statements about corporate responsibility,the results presented in this study indicate that majorclothing brands do not currently have adequate policies,practices or control over their production processesto prevent their supply chains from using and releasinghazardous chemicals into the environment, nor toprevent them from leaving residues of these chemicals in

their products.The rese rch highlights th t the use of h z rdouschemic ls by the textile industry is widespre dnd perv sive problem which intern tion l clothingbr nds re currently not ddressing dequ tely.

as br nd owners, they re in the best position toinfluence the environment l imp cts of productionby working together with their suppliers to elimin tethe rele ses of ll h z rdous chemic ls from theproduction process nd their products. These brandsneed to take responsibility for the use and release of persistent, hormone-disrupting chemicals into our criticaland life-sustaining waterways, in both textile-producingcountries and in the countries where their products areultimately sold.

Major brands have a special responsibility to ensure thattheir overall environmental policies and performanceare consistent with the brand values they espouse.

This is something they are currently failing to achieve. a commitment to zero disch rge of h z rdouschemic ls nd gre ter tr nsp rency throughout thesupply ch in long with pl n on how to chievethis is urgently needed in order to prevent thefurther ccumul tion of h z rdous subst nces in thequ tic environment, nd the resulting build-up inpeople nd wildlife.


9/32




Exe utiveSumma y


W

I L L r

O S E

/ Gr E E Np E A

c E


10/32



11/32


Methodologyand results 1



Sectionone

Scope and extent of the research

The analysis of clothing and certain fabric-basedshoes focused on the quantification of NPEconcentrations in the products. This does notrule out the possibility that other toxic chemicalswere used in the production process, or thattraces of other pollutants were present in someof the tested articles.

This research is believed to be the mostextensive analysis of its kind to have beenconducted to date as far as products soldby major clothing brands are concerned,and certainly with respect to the coverage of countries of manufacture and sale.

Protocol for purchase,transport and analysisPurch se

Greenpeace purchased the articles of clothing that wetested from companies flagship stores and other storesauthorised to sell the branded products, in 18 countries.In order to ensure that the branded products purchasedand tested were legitimate branded products, Greenpeaceundertook a number of measures:

All branded products were purchased from retailers whohave represented themselves as legitimate distributors of the respective branded products named in this report.

Greenpeace requested confirmation from each of therespective brands named in this report as to whether

the branded product tested was purchased via alegitimate distributor. All stores have been confirmedas legitimate distributors for the branded products thatwe purchased 10 , with the exception of two stores fromKappa 11 and one from Puma 12 .

While still in the store, purchased articles were immediatelysealed in individual clean polyethylene bags.

Tr nsport

Sealed bags containing the articles were sent to theGreenpeace Research Laboratories, at the University of Exeter in the UK, from where they were dispatched foranalysis.

an lysis

Analysis of clothing was commissioned and organisedby the Greenpeace Research Laboratories and wasconducted by an independent accredited laboratory.

For the majority of articles, a section of fabric that did notbear any printing was removed and extracted.

From a small number of articles bearing a plastisol print of an image, logo or text on the surface, the section on whichthis item was printed was removed and extracted.

Samples were extracted with an acetonitrile-water mixturein the ratio 70:30 and then analysed with reversed-phase HPLC liquid chromatography along with AppliedBiosystems API 4000 tandem mass spectrometry

(LC-MS/MS)..

A L E X

S T ONE MA N

/ Gr E E Np E A

c E


12/32

B andNumbe

of sam lesNumbe

tested ositive

3

9

4

6

5

2

6

5

4

4

10

9

4

4

3

78TOTaL

3

4

3

5

3

0

4

4

1

4

5

7

3

3

3

52

Nonylphenol (NP) andNonylphenol ethoxylates(NPEs)Nonylphenol ethoxyl tes (NPEs): NPEs are agroup of man-made chemicals that do not occurin nature other than as a result of human activity.

These compounds belong to a broader group of chemicals known as alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs),

chemicals most widely used as surfactants, includingin formulations used by textile manufacturers. Oncereleased to wastewater treatment plants, or directlyinto the environment, NPEs degrade to nonylphenol. 13 Due to concerns about their hazardous properties,there have been restrictions on the use of NPEs insome regions for almost 20 years. 14

Nonylphenol (NP): NP is manufactured for avariety of specialised industrialised uses, includingthe manufacture of NPEs. Following use, NPEscan break back down into the NP from which theywere produced. 15 NP is known to be persistent,

bio ccumul tive nd toxic, nd is ble to ct s hormone disruptor. 16 NP is known to ccumul tein the tissues of fish nd other org nisms, ndto m gnify (be found t ever incre sing levels)through the food ch in. 17 NP h s lso recently been detected in hum n tissue. 18

In some regions, the manufacture, use and release of NP and NPEs have been regulated for many years.For example, NP and NPEs were included on the firstlist of chemicals for priority action towards achievingthe OSPAR Convention target of ending discharges,emissions and losses of all hazardous substances

to the marine environment of the north-east Atlanticby 2020. 19 NP has also been included as a priorityhazardous substance under the EU Water Framework Directive. 20 Furthermore, within the EU, since January2005 products containing greater than 0.1% of NPor NPEs may no longer be placed on the market,with some minor exceptions principally for closed-loop industrial systems. 21 However, the restriction ontreated textile products imported from outside the EUhas yet to be developed. Elsewhere, NP and NPEshave very recently been included on the list of toxicchemicals severely restricted for import and export in

China, which means that their import or export acrossChinas borders now requires prior permission, thoughtheir manufacture, use and release are not currentlyregulated in China. 22

p odu ts tested, listed by b and


13/32




Results and interpretationRegarding the 78 articles analysed:

52 (two-thirds) tested positive for the presence of NPEsabove the limit of detection of 1 milligram NPE/kilogrammaterial (mg/kg);

Levels of NPEs in plain fabric ranged from just above the limitof detection up to 1100 mg/kg. One plastisol printed imagesample was found to contain NPEs at 27000 mg/kg.

Clothing from all brands but one (GAP, two samples)contained NPEs above the detection limit;

Clothing from 12 of the 13 countries of manufacturecontained NPEs above the detection limit (the exceptionbeing Tunisia, one sample);

Clothing purchased in 17 out of the 18 countriescontained NPEs above the detection limit (the exceptionbeing Sweden, two samples).

A summary of results is presented in the adjacent tables.

Levels of NPEsThe presence of NPEs in product indic tes itw s used during the m nuf cture of the product.However, the level of NPEs in the rticles is notindic tive of the mount of NPEs used duringm nuf cture . It is possible that NPEs are washed outfrom materials during manufacture, resulting in a low levelof NPEs in the final product. Therefore, a finished articlefound to contain a low level of NPEs could have beenmanufactured using far more NPEs than a finished articlethat was found to contain a higher level.

This study cannot indicate the extent to which NPEs areused in the manufacture of articles for each brand as awhole. Similarly, no estimate can be made of the extentto which NPEs are used in textile manufacture in eachproducing country as a whole. Nonetheless, the resultscle rly indic te th t the use of NPEs is widespre dthroughout the intern tion l textile industry ndduring the production of items for host of m jorintern tion l clothing br nds .

More detailed results showing the variety of articlesanalysed are contained in Appendix 1.

count y ofpu hase

Argentina

Austria

China

Czech Republic

Denmark

Finland

Germany

Italy

Japan

Netherlands

Norway

Philippines

Russia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Thailand

UK

TOTaL

Numbe tested ositive

4

2

7

1

2

1

4

3

3

3

2

2

4

3

0

5

4

2

52

4

4

10

4

3

1

7

4

5

5

2

4

4

4

2

6

4

5

78

Numbe of sam les

p odu ts tested, listed by the ount ies in whi hthey we e u hased

Sectionone


14/32


ABERCROMBIE & FITCHTx11074

ADIDASTx11005

G-STARTx11061

H&MTx11078

PUMATx11015

NIKETx11027

LI NINGTx11018

YOUNGORTx11039

CALVIN KLEINTx11050

CONVERSETx11033

LACOSTETx11056

UNIQLOTx11065

Implications for wearers The levels of NPEs detected in all articles are not knownto constitute any direct health risk to the wearers of theclothing (for more information about NPEs and NP pleasesee page 13).

CALVIN KLEINTx11049

KAPPATx11053

Some of the branded products analysed for this report.


15/32




Sectionone

CONVERSETx11036

LI NINGTx11021

NIKETx11028

ABERCROMBIE & FITCHTx11073

ADIDASTx11008

CALVIN KLEINTx11048

G-STARTx11064

H&MTx11072

KAPPATx11055

RALPH LAURENTx11043

PUMATx11010

RALPH LAURENTx11045

YOUNGORTx11038

UNIQLOTx11068


16/32


A L E X S T O N E M A N / G r E E N p E A c E


17/32


Discussion of results inrelation to the stances of major clothing brands

2



Sectiontwo

Many of the major clothing brands whoseproducts were tested in this analysis havepublic policies restricting the presence of some hazardous substances in their products.Regarding pollution arising from their supplychain, these policies are often limited to onlyensuring that suppliers comply with localstandards most of which rarely consider thedischarge of the hazardous and persistentchemicals highlighted in this report.

Several brands mentioned in this report regulate thepresence of NPEs/NP and other chemicals in theirproducts, though so far, only two have committed torequire the elimination of their releases throughout theirsupply chain and products. 23, 24

At present, none of the brands have establishedmechanisms for accountability that would require theirsuppliers to publicly disclose their use or discharge of hazardous substances. This study provides an opportunityfor the brands to be transparent and publicly reveal wherethe products tested have been manufactured and whereNPEs and NP have been used and released in their supplychains. Greenpeace is calling on the brands to work withall their suppliers, to disclose and eliminate all releases of hazardous chemicals.

One example where the need for elimination andsubstitution of hazardous chemicals has been recognisedis by the EU in its chemical management law REACH. 25

This constitutes the best system currently in force toprotect the environment and human health against thevarious adverse effects resulting from the use of hazardouschemicals. Yet it is partly due to the fact that REACH hasnot been fully implemented, and that it is yet to fully coverimported products, that there are still loopholes that allowNP to be released into environment in the EU, for examplevia imported items containing residues of NPEs, suchas clothing.

Given recognition of the need for cessation of releases of NP in the EU, and the different restrictions a number of countries have imposed on NP and NPEs, it is surprisingthat none of the brands mentioned in this report requiretheir suppliers to eliminate the use of these chemicals inproduction. This is despite many of the brands havingrecognised the hazards of NPEs/NP, and other dangerouschemicals, and placing restrictions on their presence intheir products.

The most effective w y to ensure th t no h z rdouschemic ls re present in clothing products,

while lso ensuring there re no rele ses duringm nuf cture, is to require the elimin tion of the useof h z rdous chemic ls in production.

It is clear that leading clothing brands have not yetmade sufficient efforts to eliminate the use and releaseof hazardous chemicals during production or to ensurethat these chemicals are not present in products sold tothe consumer. While some brands are now beginningto engage and show leadership on this issue, most of them still lack even a commitment to zero dischargeof hazardous chemicals and the accompanyingimplementation plan and clear timelines for elimination.

Given the urgency of the situation, the risk these hazardouschemicals pose and the responsibility these global brandshave towards their customers and the environment it isclear that this needs to change.


18/32


Abercrombie& Fitch states:

Sustainability is aglobal initiative that wefeel st ongly about at

Abe ombie & Fit hand we stand by ou ontinued ommitmentto envi onmentalsustainability andom lian e effo ts.

Abercrombie & Fitch 27

La c o s t e s t a t e s:

La os te does no t ha ve

a s ta temen t o f cSr

poli y bu t suppo ts

o odile ons e va tion

p o je ts : Us ing fo o ve

78 yea s a o odile as

a logo, t he L A c OS TE

b and a ti vel y s uppo ts

p o je ts s e le ted b y

t he GEF to s a fegua d o

p o te t e ta in spe ies

o f o odile , a lliga to s ,

a iman o ga via ls no w

in dange o f e x tin tion

and w hose los s would

jeopa dis e t he biologi a l

balan e o f t he i habi ta t

a eas .

L a c o s t e p r e s s k i t2 8

A d id a s s t a t e s:

Ou s t a teg y is to be ome

a ze o-emis s ions ompan y

b y:

- Embedding en v

i onmen ta l

bes t p a ti e in e ve y t hing

we do

- Ma ximis ing en vi onmen ta l

e f fi ien y gains

- Suppo ting and ha nes s ing

ou peoples pass ion fo a

g eene plane t.

A d i d a s w e b s i t e2 6


19/32


H & M s t a t e s :

We appl y t he p e au tiona y

p in iple in ou

en vi onmen t wok

and ha ve adop ted a

p e ven ta ti ve appoa h

wi t h t he subs ti tu tion o f

ha za dous hemi als .

H&M C o n s c i ou s

A c t i o n s Su s t a i n a b i l i t y

R e p o r t 2 01 03 0

W e r e c ognis e t ha t our s up p ly c ha in p r oc e s s e s im pa c t t he e nv ir onme nt . W hile w e d o no t ha v e d ir e c t c ont r o l ov e r our s upp lie r s , v e nd or s a nd s e r v ic e p r ov id e r s , w e [ ... ] s e e k t o ha

v e our s up p lie r s a nd v e nd or s me e t our e nv ir onm e nt a l r e q uir e m e nt s w it h r e s p e c t t o w a s t e w a t e r t r e a t me nt , ha za r d ous c he mic a ls , a ir qua lit y a nd r e c y c ling .

P h i l l i p s -V a n H e u s e n , o w n e r s o f t h e C a l v i n K l e i n b r a n d , E n v i r o n m e n t a l S t a t e m e n t 2 9



Sectiontwo


20/32




21/32


Conclusions andrecommendations 3



Sectionthree

Key conclusions The problem of toxic pollution from textile

m nuf cturing is perv sive nd extensivecross producer countries. The textile industry is responsible for unknown but potenti lly signific nt qu ntities of h z rdous chemic lssuch s nonylphenol ccumul ting in the qu ticenvironment.

Irrespective of statements about corporate responsibility,the results presented in this study indicate that m jorclothing br nds currently do not h ve dequ tepolicies, pr ctices or control over their supply ch ins in respect of the use of h z rdouschemic ls. They must do more to prevent toxicchemic ls from re ching the environment in bothtextile-producing countries nd countries wheretheir products re sold. The problem is by no meanslimited to major brands but these companies havesignificant leverage over their suppliers. Major brandsalso have a special responsibility to ensure that theiroverall environmental policies and performance areconsistent with the brand values they espouse. This issomething they are currently failing to achieve.

Major clothing brands are m king consumers of theirclothing unwitting contributors to incre sing levelsof h z rdous nonylphenol in the environments ofcountries where the products re sold , includingwhere the parent groups of chemicals (the NPEs) havebeen banned. This is because washing will releaseresidual levels of NPEs in clothing into sewage systems,and ultimately contribute to increasing levels of NP in theenvironment. Although the level of NPEs in any givenarticle of clothing is small, the sheer volume of clothingbeing sold and subsequently washed means that thetotal quantities being released may be substantial.

Irrespective of the relatively small number of samplesincluded in the analysis, this research highlights that theuse of hazardous chemicals by the textile industry is awidespread and pervasive problem that the internationalclothing industry is currently not addressing adequately.

These findings presented within this study re likely to be just the tip of the iceberg , with the problemsassociated with the release of hazardous chemicalsnot only limited to NPEs and NPs but a great numberof hazardous substances currently used by the textileindustry.


22/32


Recommendations Toxic pollution has to be dealt with in all countries.Hazardous chemicals continue to be used and released,contaminating our waterways and threatening ourlivelihoods and our future. As influential actors implicatedas part of a broken system, brands have a responsibilityto act now.

Greenpeace is calling on the brands identified in thisreport to become ch mpions for toxic-free future by elimin ting ll rele ses of h z rdous chemic ls fromtheir supply ch ins nd their products . Specifically, thisentails establishing clear company and supplier policiesthat commit their entire supply chain to shift from the useof hazardous to safer chemicals, accompanied by a plan of action containing clear and realistic timelines.

Effective policies to eliminate the use and release of allhazardous chemicals across companies entire supplychains should be based on a prec ution ry ppro ch to chemicals management, and ccount for the wholeproduct lifecycle nd rele ses from ll p thw ys .

To be credible, these policies need to be accompaniedby a plan of implementation, containing clear timelinesand recognising the need for mechanisms for disclosureand transparent chemicals management, based on theright-to-know principle 31 . Steps, such as knowing whichhazardous chemicals their suppliers use and release, beingtransparent and accountable by making this data publiclyavailable, and prioritising the more hazardous chemicals forimmediate elimination are fundamental to demonstratingreal and substantial action in the shift towards championinga toxic-free future.

Above all, these comp nies need to ct s le dersnd innov tors . The problems associated with the useand release of hazardous chemicals within the textileindustry will not be fixed by severing ties with one or twopolluting suppliers, or by eliminating one or two hazardouschemicals. The solutions re to be found in workingtogether with suppliers to bring bout system ticch nge in the way brands and businesses create theirproducts. Such action requires vision, commitment

and a desire to improve upon the current approach tochemical management. Every brand and supplier hasthe responsibility to know when and where hazardouschemicals are being used and released up and down theirsupply chain and to strive to eliminate them.

It will therefore be through their ctions not theirwords th t these br nds c n become genuinech mpions of toxic-free future nd gents ofpositive ch nge.

The time to act is now.www.greenpeace.org/detox


23/32




Sectionthree

W

I L L r

O S E

/ Gr E E Np E A

c E


24/32

Abercrombie & Fitch

Abercrombie & Fitch

Abercrombie & Fitch

Adidas

Adidas

Adidas Adidas

Adidas

Adidas

Adidas

Adidas

Adidas

Calvin Klein

Calvin Klein

Calvin Klein

Calvin Klein

ConverseConverse

Converse

Converse

Converse

Converse

G-Star RAW

G-Star RAW

G-Star RAW

G-Star RAW

G-Star RAW

Gap

Gap

H&M

H&M

H&M

H&M

H&M

H&M

Kappa

Kappa

KappaKappa

1100

39

18

18

14

2.01.1


25/32

Reference NPEs(mg/kg)

S mpleCode

Country,purch se

City,purch se

Country ofm nuf cture

Kind ofproduct

Kappa

Lacoste

Lacoste

Lacoste

Lacoste

Li NingLi Ning

Li Ning

Li Ning

Nike

Nike

Nike

Nike

Nike

Nike

Nike

NikeNike

Nike

Puma

Puma

Puma

Puma

Puma

Puma

Puma

Puma

Puma

Ralph Lauren

Ralph Lauren

Ralph Lauren

Ralph Lauren

Uniqlo

Uniqlo

Uniqlo

Uniqlo

Youngor

Youngor Youngor


26/32

Bangladesh

(8 out of 11)

Cambodia

(2 out of 2)

China

(19 out of 28)

41

13


27/32




Sectionxxx


Appendixtwo



28/32




29/32




Sectionxxx

Hung Out to Dry Unravelling the toxic trail from pipes to products 29

78 products tested from 15 brands purchased in 18 countries.52 items found above detection limit. (NPEs; mg/Kg)

A endix 3

Br ndNPEs(mg/kg)

Country ofpurch se

Country ofpurch se

NPEs(mg/kg)

Br nd

Argentina

(4 out of 4)

Austria

(2 out of 4)

China

(7 out of 10)

Czech Republic

(1 out of 4)

Denmark

(2 out of 3)

Finland (1 out of 1)

Germany

(4 out of 7)

Italy

(3 out of 4)

Japan(3 out of 5)

Netherlands

(3 out of 5)

Norway

(2 out of 2)

Philippines

(2 out of 4)

Russia

(4 out of 4)

Spain

(3 out of 4)

Sweden

(0 out of 2)

Switzerland

(5 out of 6)

Thailand

(4 out of 4)

UK

(2 out of 5)

29

2.0

1.2

51


30/32


1 Jobling S, Reynolds T, White R, Parker MG & Sumpter JP (1995). A variety of environmentally persistent chemicals, including some phthalateplasticisers, are weakly estrogenic. Environmental Health Perspectives103(6): 582-587; Jobling S, Sheahan D, Osborne JA, Matthiessen P& Sumpter JP (1996). Inhibition of testicular growth in rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss) exposed to estrogenic alkylphenolic chemicals.Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15(2): 194-202

2 All communications concerning Calvin Klein products have beenconducted with Philips van Heusen Corporation, the owners of the CalvinKlein brand. The four Calvin Klein products tested in this report are licensedby PVH to Warnaco.

3 Clothing was purchased in 18 countries: Argentina, Austria, China, theCzech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands,Norway, the Philippines, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand andthe UK.

4 Clothing was manufactured in 13 countries: Bangladesh, Cambodia,China, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka,

Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey and Vietnam. Three items of were of an unknowncountry of manufacture.

5 EU (2003). Directive 2003/53/EC of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 18 June 2003, amending for the 26th time Council Directive76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certaindangerous substances and preparations (nonylphenol, nonylphenolethoxylate and cement), now entry number 46 of annex 17 of COMMISSIONREGULATION (EC) No 552/2009 of 22 June 2009 amending Regulation(EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on

the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals(REACH) as regards Annex XVII. Official Journal L 164. 26.6.2009: 7-31

6 Brigden K, Allsop M & Santillo D (2010). Swimming in chemicals.Greenpeace Research Laboratories, GRL-TN 07/2010 available at http:// www.greenpeace.to/publications/swimming-in-chemicals.pdf

7 Greenpeace International (2011). Dirty Laundry. Unravelling the corporateconnections to toxic water pollution in China, available at http://www.greenpeace.org/dirtylaundryreport

8 Pumas commitment is available at http://safe.puma.com/us/en/2011/07/ puma-is-committed-to-eliminate-discharges-of-hazardous-chemicals-2/

9 Nikes commitment is available at http://www.nikebiz.com/media/ pr/2011/08/17_zero_discharge.html

10 Youngor did not respond to our letter. Greenpeace however, has

substantial information that the store where we bought the products from isan authorised dealer.

11 These two stores are in Bangkok and Vienna. They both representedthemselves as authorised Kappa retailers. To further ensure we hadpurchased and tested legitimate Kappa branded products, Greenpeacemade repeated communications to Kappas head office in Turin, Italy.However, over several weeks, Kappa neither confirmed nor denied theauthenticity of these stores with regards to the Kappa branded products.

12 While a trademark dispute, between Puma AG and the Spanishdistributor Estudio 2000, is under litigation, Puma does not recognisethe Madrid Studio 2000 store, where we purchased the Puma brandedproducts we tested, as a legitimate distribution outlet for its products.Estudio 2000 claims the products currently sold in this store weremanufactured by Puma AG.

13 OSPAR (2004). Nonylphenol/nonylphenol ethoxylates, OSPAR PrioritySubstances Series 2001, updated 2004, OSPAR Convention for theProtection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, OSPARCommission, London, ISBN 0-946956-79-0: 20 pp. http://www.ospar.org/ documents/dbase/publications/p00136_BD%20on%20nonylphenol.pdf

14 PARCOM (1992). PARCOM Recommendation 92/8 on nonylphenol-ethoxylates, OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine

Environment of the North-East Atlantic, OSPAR Commission, London: 1 p.OSPAR (1998). OSPAR Strategy with Regard to Hazardous Substances,OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of theNorth-East Atlantic, OSPAR 98/14/1 Annex 34: EU (2001). Decision No2455/2001/EC Of The European Parliament And Of The Council Of 20November 2001 Establishing The List Of Priority Substances In The Field Of Water Policy And Amending Directive 2000/60/EC, Official Journal L 249 ,17/09/2002: 27-30

15 OSPAR (2004) op cit.

16 Jobling et al (1995) op cit; Jobling et al (1996) op cit.

17 OSPAR (2004) op cit.18 Lopez-Espinosa MJ, Freire C, Arrebola JP, Navea N, Taoufiki J,Fernandez MF, Ballesteros O, Prada R & Olea N (2009). Nonylphenol andoctylphenol in adipose tissue of women in Southern Spain. Chemosphere76(6): 847-852

19 OSPAR (1998). OSPAR Strategy with Regard to Hazardous Substances,OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of theNorth-East Atlantic, OSPAR 98/14/1 Annex 34

20 EU (2001) op cit.

21 EU (2003) op cit.

22 MEP (2011). List of Toxic Chemicals Severely Restricted for Import andExport in China 2011). Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP), ThePeoples Republic of China.

http://www.crc-mep.org.cn/news/NEWS_DP.aspx?TitID=267&T0=10000&LanguageType=CH&Sub=125

23 Following the release of the first Dirty Laundry report in July 2011, theinternational sportlifestyle company Puma committed to the elimination of allreleases of hazardous chemicals from throughout its supply chain by 2020,along with an action plan detailing how it would deliver on this commitmentto be made publicly available within the following 8 weeks. The commitmentcan be viewed at: http://safe.puma.com/us/en/2011/07/puma-is-committed-to-eliminate-discharges-of-hazardous-chemicals-2/

24 Nikes subsequent commitment to zero discharge by 2020 not only addsa commitment to action on disclosing its hazardous chemical dischargesto the public but also offers to share its tools with the whole apparel sector,seeking to catalyse a sectoral shift, and also supports the goal of systemicsocietal change. Nikes commitment is available at http://www.nikebiz.com/ media/pr/2011/08/17_zero_discharge.html

25 Regulation No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation,

Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

26 https://afcares.anfcorp.com/anf/intranet/site/afcares/sustainability

27 Adidas Group (2011) Green company. http://www.adidas-group.com/ en/sustainability/Environment/green_company/default.aspx

28 http://www.hm.com/filearea/corporate/fileobjects/pdf/en/CSR_REPORT2010_PDF_1302846254219.pdf

29 http://www.lacoste.com/library/download/pdf/LACOSTE_presskit_en.pdf

30 http://www.pvh.com/pdf/environmental_policy.pdf

31 The right to know, in the context of workplace and community

environmental law, is a term commonly used to refer to the legal principle(or recognition of this principle) whereby the individual has the right to knowabout the environmental hazards - including chemicals - to which they maybe exposed in their daily life. More specifically, community right-to-knowaims to allow members of the public greater access to environmentalinformation held by companies or public authorities, thereby increasing thetransparency and accountability of both.

refe en es


31/32


G r E E N p E A c E / X X X



A L E X

S T ONE MA N

/ Gr E E Np E A

c E


32/32

Greenpe ce Intern tion lOttho Heldringstraat 51066 AZ Amsterdam

The Netherlands

Greenpeace is an independent globalcampaigning organisation that actsto change attitudes and behaviour,

to protect and conserve the environmentand to promote peace.

greenpe ce.org

a lire : le rapport de greenpeace "dirty laundry 2" (linge sale 2)

Documents