By Rachel Cernansky | May 31st 2019
Fluorinated chemicals are among the world’s most toxic materials. The evidence is damning about their long-lasting impact on the environment, and they’ve been found in the blood and breast milk of the vast majority of people who’ve been tested. These chemicals are used in much clothing.
That’s also the case with formaldehyde, which is known to cause cancer, and phthalates, which can disrupt the body’s endocrine system, impacting metabolism and fertility.
Fluorinated chemicals are lauded for their efficacy at imparting stain, oil and water repellency into fabric, and formaldehyde is utilised during the finishing process for fabrics and anti-wrinkle treatments. Phthalates, which are present in many body care products, are a component of screenprinting and some footwear.
As customers get smarter about what goes into their clothing, brands are being forced to respond. Vogue Business spoke to more than a dozen fashion brands and environmental and health experts to find out what’s on the verge of being phased out, what should be phased out, and how the transition is being managed.
There is no alternative
Fashion brands know certain chemicals are toxic, but most of them continue using the materials because of a lack of substitutes.
Consider fluorinated chemicals. While Teflon EcoElite has emerged as a substitute due to its ability to repel water, none exist that work on stains and oils. “I would say that for the apparel industry, the most challenging chemicals to phase out are [fluorinated chemicals],” says Amanda Cattermole, a consultant who works with brands on chemical management. “They serve a freaking amazing function.”
But Levi Strauss & Co. decided the benefit of stain resistance didn’t justify its environmental cost, so in 2016, it discontinued its line of Dockers Stain Defender khakis, although it was a significant business, says Linda Gallegos, senior designer for the company’s Product Innovation team.
Similarly, there is no way to replace the anti-wrinkle characteristics offered by formaldehyde, a chemical Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard has shunned since he founded the brand in the 1970s. Patagonia decided to take ownership of the fact that its clothes won’t meet the demands of some customers. “As a result, we have wrinkly lightweight travel shirts, which I think we’re OK with,” says Matt Dwyer, senior director of materials innovation for Patagonia. “Our clothes are meant to be worn to get dirty and explore in — people can worry about wrinkles in their other clothes.”
Changing consumer behaviour
Antimicrobial chemicals are popular with athletic brands since their compounds are used to fight odour in clothing. (In 2013, Lululemon announced it was using antimicrobial technology from Noble Biomaterials that had “undergone extensive safety testing.”) The drawback is that they may increase the chance of microbial resistance, just like the overuse of antibiotics has led to increased resistance by bacteria to these medicines, causing “superbug”-related health scares.
Patagonia is choosing to train customers in proper care and use of their clothing, so the brand doesn’t need to rely on chemicals to artificially enhance clothing performance. “If you buy a Ferrari and you don’t change the oil, your Ferrari is not going to work very well in a little bit,” says Dwyer. “To keep your garment, your high-performance item, in service for as long as possible, you have to keep it clean.” For instance, that means teaching customers not to be afraid to wash a pricey outdoor jacket and encouraging garment repair. A Patagonia team has toured the country to help customers mend their garments — regardless of what brand made them.
Short of banning chemicals altogether, there is growing movement toward reserving chemicals for specialist clothing. Fluorinated compounds might remain for emergency workers — in firefighting gear or hospital uniforms — while being eliminated elsewhere. “It’s possible we use them kind of like antibiotics. You use it when needed,” says Scott Echols, programme director for ZDHC, an industry collaborative that aims for zero discharge of hazardous chemicals.
Investing in alternatives
For all the nascent consumer anxiety about toxic materials, though, there has only been limited investment in better chemicals. “Most innovation dollars are used to make new materials, product redesigns, but not necessarily to implement safer chemistries,” says Joel Tickner, an environmental health professor at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. It’s also hard to track progress since companies jealously guard information about the ingredients used in their products.
But that also means space for entrepreneurial opportunity. Evolved By Nature uses “activated silk” to give fabrics either moisture-wicking or water-resistant properties, or to give it a softer handfeel — replacing various toxic substances traditionally used on textiles.
“A whole swap-out of chemistry at the mill is what we’re after,” says founder Greg Altman. “We’re applying chemistry to the surface of our underwear and our yoga pants [in quantities] that at the mill level, the workers are not allowed to have come in contact with their skin.” The company is closing in on its patent, and Altman says they are negotiating deals with brands that are likely to be made public by the end of the year.
Due to the complexity of the supply chain, brands might not even know certain substances are used in their clothes. VF Corporation now has Chem-IQ, a programme that targets potentially hazardous chemicals in its supply chain. Through the tool, the company has identified printing inks and dry cleaning auxiliaries as the categories with the highest percentage of chemicals that need to be replaced.
Levi Strauss & Co. is also merging its Screened Chemistry programme into a single standard on chemical management overseen by the ZDHC. (Though the ZDHC’s list of restricted chemicals only includes substances that have alternatives or ones coming out.) This would provide “a single approach that can be used across the industry to evaluate the hazards of chemical ingredients and formulations”, says Tickner.
“In my ideal world, we’d be moving away from all these chemicals,” says Martin Mulvihill, general partner at Safer Made, a venture capital fund investing in safer alternatives to toxic materials. “Who is going to make the leap?”
Posted from Vogue Business, to find out more go to https://www.voguebusiness.com/.