Textile industry and water pollution – brought to you by some of your favorite retailers.

14 11 2012

In 2011 Greenpeace published two reports: one investigating the discharge of hazardous substances from textiles manufacturing in China linked to major clothing and sportswear companies (Dirty Laundry), and another detailing the presence of NPEs in clothing and footwear of 15 leading brands (Dirty Laundry 2: Hung Out to Dry). With the publication of these reports Greenpeace challenged global brands to eliminate all releases of hazardous chemicals from their supply chains and products by 2020.

The Detox Campaign, as it is now known,  is especially targeting Chinese manufacturers.  With nearly 50,000 textile factories, the “factory of the world” is in fact the first victim of textile water pollution, prompting even the government to face up to the problem. “China is moving toward legislation where each company is responsible for its wastewater,” said Ulrike Kallee. “Awareness is now very high.”

The man-made chemical by-products of the textile industry are shown to have long-term effects on the environment and potentially devastating impacts on human and animal life. Furthermore, when testing clothing from 15 corporate brands, Greenpeace found that the chemicals used in the textile production process continue to be released when contaminated clothing is purchased and washed by consumers across the world.  These tests demonstrate the truly global danger posed by these toxic chemicals as they are released into rivers and water sources from the point of production to the consumer.

I don’t know why there is not an outcry about the clothing which is continuing to contaminate washwater – doesn’t it occur to people that  clothing contains chemicals which are being absorbed by our skin and causing us harm?  For that matter, think about the fabrics we subject ourselves to intimately every day, like sheets and towels.  Where is the disconnect here?

Greenpeace’s Detox Campaign is helping create a greener economy by challenging major global brands to rid their textile production processes of hazardous chemicals. The Detox Campaign has already successfully demonstrated the power of grassroots activism and social media in pressuring corporations to clean up their production practices.  Only months into the Detox Campaign, major retailers H&M, Puma, Adidas and Nike committed to eliminating discharges of hazardous chemicals across their supply chains by 202; most recently Marks & Spencer joined the group. In addition to pressuring corporations to adopt greener production practices, Greenpeace is pursuing legislative changes within the textile industries in several Asian countries and the European Union in order to protect rivers and the communities and ecosystems they support.

Advertisements




How to buy a quality sofa – part 4: So which fabric should it be?

17 10 2012

So for the past two weeks we’ve discussed the differences between synthetic and natural fibers. But there’s more to consider than just the fiber content of the fabric you buy. There is the question of whether a natural fiber is organically grown, and what kind of processing is used to create the fabric.

First, by substituting organic natural fibers for conventionally grown fibers you are supporting organic agriculture, which has myriad environmental, social and health benefits. Not only does organic farming take far less energy than conventional farming (largely because it does not use oil based fertilizers)[1], which helps to mitigate climate change, but it also:

  • eliminates the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) which is an improvement in human health and agrobiodiversity;
  • conserves water (making the soil more friable so rainwater is absorbed better – lessening irrigation requirements and erosion);
  • ensures sustained biodiversity;
  • and compared to forests, agricultural soils may be a more secure sink for atmospheric carbon, since they are not vulnerable to logging and wildfire.

Organic production has a strong social element and includes many Fair Trade and ethical production principles. As such it can be seen as more than a set of agricultural practices, but also as a tool for social change [2] . For example, one of the original goals of the organic movement was to create specialty products for small farmers who could receive a premium for their products and thus be able to compete with large commercial farms.

Organic agriculture is an undervalued and underestimated climate change tool that could be one of the most powerful strategies in the fight against global warming, according to Paul Hepperly, Rodale Institute Research Manager. The Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial (FST) soil carbon data (which covers 30 years) shows conclusively that improved global terrestrial stewardship–specifically including regenerative organic agricultural practices–can be the most effective currently available strategy for mitigating CO2 emissions. [3]

But if you start with organic natural fibers (a great choice!) but process those fibers conventionally, then you end up with a fabric that is far from safe. Think about making applesauce: if you start with organic apples, then add Red Dye #2, preservatives, emulsifiers, stablizers and who knows what else – do you end up with organic applesauce? The US Department of Agriculture would not let you sell that mixture as organic applesauce, but there is no protection for consumers when buying fabric. And the same issues apply, because over 2000 chemicals are used routinely in textile processing.[4] Many of the chemicals used in textile processing have unknown toxicity, and many others are known to be harmful to humans (such as formaldehyde, lead, mercury, bisphenol A and other phthalates, benzenes and others). In fact, one yard of fabric made with organic cotton fiber is about 25% by weight synthetic chemicals – many of which are proven toxic to humans. [5]

I know you’re saying that you don’t eat those fabrics, so what’s the danger? Actually, your body is busy ingesting the chemicals, which are evaporating (so we breathe them in), or through skin absorption (after all, the skin is the largest organ of the body). Add to that the fact that each time you brush against the fabric, microscopic pieces of the fabric abrade and fly into the air – so we can breathe them in. Or they fall into the dust in our homes, where pets and crawling babies breathe them in.

Should that be a concern? Well, there is hardly any evidence of the effects of textiles themselves on individuals, but in the US, OSHA does care about workers, so most of the studies have been done on workers in the textile industry:

  • Autoimmune diseases (such as IBD, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, for example, which are linked to many of the chemicals used in textile processing) are reaching epidemic rates, and a 14 year study published by the University of Washington and the National Institutes of Health found that people who work with textiles (among other industries) are more likely to die of an autoimmune disease than people who don’t [6];
  • We know formaldehyde is bad for us, but in fabric? A study by The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health found a link in textile workers between length of exposure to formaldehyde and leukemia deaths. [7] Note: most cotton/poly sheet sets in the U.S. are treated with a formaldehyde resin.
  • Women who work in textile factories with acrylic fibers have seven times the risk of developing breast cancer than does the normal population.[8]
  • A study in France revealed a correlation between the presence of cancer of the pharynx and occupation in the textile industry.[9]
  • A high degree of colorectal cancer, thyroid cancer, testicular cancer and nasal cancer has been found among textile workers, and a relationship between non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and working in the textile industry was observed.[10]

And consider this:

  • The Mt. Sinai Children’s Environmental Health Center published a list of the top 10 chemicals they believe are linked to autism – and of the 10, 6 are used in textile processing and 2 are pesticides used on fiber crops. [11]
  • Phthalates are so toxic that they have been banned in the European Union since 2005. They have recently been banned in the State of California in children’s toys. They are ubiquitous – and are also found in most textile inks.[12] So parents careful not to bring toxic toys into their homes for can be nevertheless unknowingly putting their kids to sleep on cute printed sheets full of phthalates.
  • Greenpeace did a study of children’s wear sold by the Walt Disney Company – you know, like those cute Tinkerbell pajamas? Turns out that of the 5 chemicals they tested for, most items tested had far more than is considered safe.

Are these rates of disease and the corresponding rise in the use of industrial chemicals a coincidence? Are our increased rates of disease due to better diagnosis? Some argue that we’re less prepared because we’re confronting fewer natural pathogens. All plausible.  But it’s also true that we’re encountering an endless barrage of artificial pathogens that are taxing our systems to the maximum. And our children are the pawns in this great experiment. And if you think artifical pathogens  are  not main culprits, your opinion is not shared by a goodly number of scientists, who believe that this endless barrage of artificial pathogens that is taxing our systems to the maximum has replaced bacteria and viruses as the major cause of human illness. We don’t have to debate which source is primary; especially because, with the rise of super bugs, it’s a silly debate. The point remains that industrial pollution is a cause of human illness – and it is a cause we can take concrete actions to stem.

Textiles are the elephant in the room – the industry is global, relatively low tech, and decentralized – certainly not the darling of venture capatalists who look for the next big thing. So not many research dollars are going into new ways of producing fabrics. Most of the time people are looking for the lowest price fabric for their projects or products – so the industry is on a race to cut costs in any way possible: in 2007, the Wall Street Journal’s Jane Spencer detailed the pollution caused by Chinese textile industries who were being pushing by their multinational clients to cut costs, resulting in untreated effluent discharge [13].


[1] Aubert, C. et al., (2009) Organic farming and climate change: major conclusions of the Clermont-Ferrand seminar (2008) [Agriculture biologique et changement climatique : principales conclusions du colloque de Clermont-Ferrand (2008)]. Carrefours de l’Innovation Agronomique 4. Online at <http://www.inra.fr/ciag/revue_innovations_agronomiques/volume_4_janvier_2009>

A study done by Dr. David Pimentel of Cornell University found that organic farming systems used just 63% of the energy required by conventional farming systems, largely because of the massive amounts of energy requirements needed to synthesize nitrogen fertilizers.

[2] Fletcher, Kate, Sustainable Fashion and Textiles, p. 19

[3] http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/Rodale_Research_Paper-07_30_08.pdf Also see: Muller, Adrian, “Benefits of Organic Agriculture as a Climate change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategy for Developing Countries’, Environement for Development, April 2009

[4] See the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists’ (AATCC) Buyers Guide, http://www.aatcc.org/

[5] Lacasse and Baumann, Textile Chemicals: Environmental Data and Facts, Springer, New York, 2004, page 609

[6] Nakazawa, Donna Jackson, “Diseases Like Mine are a Growing Hazard”, Washington Post, March 16, 2008

[7] Pinkerton, LE, Hein, MJ and Stayner, LT, “Mortality among a cohort of garment workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update”, Occupational Environmental Medicine, 2004 March, 61(3): 193-200.

[8] Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2010, 67:263-269 doi:
10.1136/oem.2009.049817 SEE ALSO: http://www.breastcancer.org/risk/new_research/20100401b.jsp AND http://www.medpagetoday.com/Oncology/BreastCancer/19321

[9] Haguenour, J.M., “Occupational risk factors for upper respiratory tract and upper digestive tract cancers” , Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol 47, issue 6 (Br J Ind Med1990;47:380-383 doi:10.1136/oem.47.6.380).

[12] “Textile Inkmaker Tackles Phthalates Ban”, Esther D’Amico, Chemical Week, September 22, 2008 SEE ALSO: Toxic Textiles by Disney, http://archive.greenpeace.org/docs/disney.pdf

[13] Spencer, Jane, “China Pays Steep Price as Textile Exports Boom”, Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2007.





Is biomass carbon neutral?

8 05 2012

Global climate change is the major environmental issue of current times. Evidence for global climate change is accumulating and there is a growing consensus that the most important cause is humankind’s interference in the natural cycle of greenhouse gases. (Greenhouse gases get their name from their ability to trap the sun’s heat in the earth’s atmosphere – the so-called greenhouse effect.)

CO2 emissions are recognized as the most important contributor to this problem. Since the turn of the 20th century the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases has been increasing rapidly, and the two main causes have been identified as:

  1. burning of fossil fuels and
  2. land-use change, particularly deforestation.

And now the world has discovered plants.  People seem to think there is some magic in nature – that they can keep taking and things will grow back.  We can buy “carbon offsets” to mitigate our guilt – trees planted to “offset” our energy consumption for, maybe, a plane ride to Hawaii.

Because the carbon emitted when plants are burned is equal to that absorbed during growing, it seems self-evident that biomass is a zero carbon (or carbon neutral) fuel.[1]  The thinking goes like this:  Plants are busy converting CO2 to stored (“sequestered”) carbon in their branches, roots, stems and leaves – so when that plant is burned, the carbon which is released (as CO2) is replaced by another plant which is busy sequestering that carbon.

Why is burning fossil fuel – which  also releases CO2 when burned  – not considered to be carbon neutral?  As far as I can tell, it’s a matter of definition.  Today, the definition of carbon neutral means that the greenhouse gases released  by burning fuel is the same or less than the carbon that was stored in recent history (translation = plants, which grow and mature within 100 years or so, i.e., “recent history”). Releasing carbon that was stored in ancient history, such as  burning fossil fuels (which comes from plant material millions of years old)  introduces extra carbon to the environment. Because fossil fuels contain carbon that was in the environment in ancient times, by burning fossil fuels we release greenhouse gasses that wouldn’t naturally be there!

That concept took off.  Beginning with the Koyoto Protocol, which overlooked reduction targets for biomass, others embraced the concept of using biomass as a carbon neutral fuel:  the EU Emissions Trading Scheme counts biomass as “carbon neutral” as do UK Building Regulations, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the World Resources Institute –  despite the recognition that this definition is problematic.[2]  Biomass burning is being ramped up all around the world in the name of green energy.

The concept of biomass as being carbon neutral is so popular that the European Union’s energy objectives for 2020 include the requirement that 20% of the total be from renewable sources, made up from biomass such as wood, waste and agricultural crops and residues.[3]  And the biomass industry in the US asked for an exemption from the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas regulations because, it claims, biomass is carbon neutral.  In January 2011, the EPA gave them a 3 year exemption.

This loophole gives oil companies, power plants and industries that face tighter pollution limits a cheap means to claim reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. According to a number of studies, applying this incentive globally could lead to the loss of most of the world’s natural forests as carbon caps tighten.  A very frightening scenario indeed, since deforestation is responsible for up to 20% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions – more than all cars, trains, planes, boats and trains in the world combined. [4]

I found a great blog post on this subject by Jeff Gibbs on Huffington Post Green, and I’ve relied on it for much of this post.  Here are just two of the issues:

Issue 1:  “Trees not harvested will eventually die and be decomposed by insects, fungi, bacteria, and other microorganisms which will release all the carbon dioxide that burning would. This cycling process has been going on for half a billion years, long before humans had a hand in it, and will continue with or without us.”

Here’s what Jeff Gibbs has to say:

  • “Actually nature has plans for that dead tree. For one it’s food for the next generation of forest life. And it turns out trees are pretty good at transferring their CO2 to the soil rather than the atmosphere when they fall over dead. Underground roots of mushrooms called mycorrhiza digest the wood and keeps the carbon the trees had sucked from the air in the forest soil.   The proof? It’s called coal.  Millions of generations of plants and trees have taken in carbon from the air and deposited it as mountains of coal. It’s what trees and plants do. Because trees and plants took the CO2 out of the atmosphere we have the nice comfortable climate we enjoy today. It’s not their fault we’re releasing everything they worked so hard to lock away, and if we cut then down they are going to have that much more difficult of a time soaking the carbon back up.”

Issue 2:  “Carbon dioxide –  released by burning biomass – is carbon dioxide that was taken from the air as the trees grew, and the trees that replace the harvested biomass will grow by taking in carbon dioxide again.”

This is so fraught with different issues that we have to break it down into manageable segments to understand why this is not as simple as it seems:

  1.   When you cut down a fully mature, multi-ton tree, how long do you think it will be before the one-ounce sapling that replaces it will be able to replicate the carbon uptake of the multi-ton tree?  Some trees take 100 years or more to mature.  When burned for energy, a mature tree (80-100 years old) takes minutes to release its full load of carbon into the atmosphere, but its replacement, if grown, takes a full century to re-sequester that carbon. For those 100 years, the CO2 is still aloft in the atmosphere helping push the climate toward the point of dangerous change, and yet carbon accounting rules treat it as non-existent.  After the initial release of carbon sequestered in a standing forest, a well-managed forest will start re-growing and at some point in time will achieve approximately the same concentration of carbon sequestration as the original forest.  But during that time, the atmospheric concentration of heat trapping gasses has been higher than it would otherwise have been, increasing associated environmental damages, and we have foregone the sequestration that would have happened in the original forest![5]
  2.  Chopping down forests to burn for ethanol production — even if replanted as tree plantations — is like biting the hand that feeds you. “Natural forests, with their complex ecosystems, cannot be regrown like a crop of beans or lettuce,” reports the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading environmental group. “And tree plantations will never provide the clean water, storm buffers, wildlife habitat and other ecosystem services that natural forests do.”[6]
  3.  Recent studies show that there is more biomass contained IN the soil than in what grows ON the soil above ground.   This soil carbon can be disturbed and released by harvesting and reforestation activities.[7]
  4.  In a study published by the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, it was found that burning  trees emits about 30% more carbon pollution than coal, which the report calls the “carbon debt” of biomass. [8]   According to the study,  under normal forest management   it takes over 21 years just to re-absorb the extra pollution that is released in the first year of burning the wood.    Also, the energy content of biomass is about 40% lower than that of regular fossil fuels, so you need to burn more of it to get the same power, which means more CO2. (to read more about this, click here.)
  5.  It is simply not possible to plant sufficient numbers of trees to deal with the increased carbon dioxide emissions that are expected over the next half century.  According to Harpers Index, the number of years the United States could meet its energy needs by burning all its trees is … 1.
  6.  Recent evidence suggests that global warming itself is stressing ecosystems and turning forests and forest soils into failing forests and, in the long run, into net sources of CO2. Thus, if we don’t curb our use of fossil fuels, it won’t matter how many trees we plant because these forests will be overcome and die as the climate continues to warm.[9]
  7.  Old-growth forests are often replaced by tree-farm plantations that are heavily managed (including with chemicals and fossil fuel-intensive machinery) and do not offer the same biodiversity benefits as natural forests.
  8.  Investment in forestry offsets does not contribute to reducing society’s dependence on fossil fuels, something that is ultimately needed to address climate change. Responding to climate change means fundamentally changing the way we produce and use energy.
  9.  All biomass is not created equal.  According to Jeff Gibbs, some biomass plants burn old tires; others shovel in old houses and creosote soaked railroad ties. I don’t know what’s “bio” about all this but the energy you get is considered carbon neutral and renewable.

Here are Jeff Gibb’s seven truths that the Lorax would have us remember:

  1. Saving our forests (and that doesn’t mean more tree plantations) is the best way to stop global warming and save humanity.
  2. Deforestation is just as likely to result in the end of humanity as climate change and it’s right on track to do so.
  3. Burning things is the most insane way to stop global warming since doctors drilled holes in skulls to let the demons out and gave you a bill for it.
  4. There is no extra in nature and there is not enough “bio” on the planet to be burned, turned to ethanol, biodiesel or jet fuel, or bio-charcoal.
  5. Woody biomass falsely deemed renewable energy increases the CO2 in the atmosphere, destroys forests, and prevents renewables from being fully explored.
  6. Geo-engineering the forests, atmosphere or oceans to stop global warming isn’t going to work. We can’t even figure out how to stop carp from taking over a river or bugs from eating a forest.
  7. There is a possibility that the only way to heal the planet is to get control of our own numbers and consumption while letting nature do the work she has done for three billion years: run the planet.

[2] Johnson, Eric, “Goodbye to carbon neutral:  Getting Biomass footprints right”, Atlantic Consulting, Gattikon, Switzerland, November 2008.

[3] Neslan, Arthur, Guardian Environment Network, April 2, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/02/eu-renewable-energy-target-biomass

[4] Greenpeace, “Solutions to Deforestation”;  http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/forests/solutions-to-deforestation/

[5] Natural Resrouces Defense Council comments with respect to draft Policy DAR-12, June 17, 2010.

[8] “Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study”, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, June 2010

[9] David Suzuki Foundation, Ibid.





Asbestos – and fire retardants.

24 10 2011

A half century ago, asbestos – a ” 100% natural” material by the way –  was hailed as the wonder fiber of the 20th century.   It was principally used for its heat resistant properties and to protect property (and incidentally, human lives) from the ravages of fire. Because of this, asbestos was used in virtually all industrial applications as well as the construction of buildings and sea-going vessels. In the United States, asbestos is still legally used in 3,000 different consumer products, predominantly building insulation (and other building materials), automobile parts such as brake pads, roofing materials, floor tiles. Since asbestos became known to be a potent human health risk, many manufacturers found alternatives to asbestos:  for example, since the mid-1990s, a majority of brake pads, new or replacement, have been manufactured instead with linings made of ceramic, carbon, metallic and aramid fiber( Twaron or Kevlar – the same material used in bulletproof vests).

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, three of the major health effects associated with asbestos exposure include:

  • Asbestosis —  a serious, progressive, long-term non-cancer disease of the lungs. It is caused by inhaling asbestos fibers that irritate lung tissues and cause the tissues to scar. The scarring makes it hard for oxygen to get into the blood. The latency period (meaning the time it takes for the disease to develop) is often 10–20 years. There is no effective treatment for asbestosis.
  • CancerCancer of the lung, gastrointestinal tract, kidney and larynx have been linked to asbestos. The latency period for cancer is often 15–30 years.
  •  Mesothelioma — Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that is found in the thin lining (membrane) of the lung, chest, abdomen, and heart. Unlike lung, cancer, mesothelioma has no association with smoking. The only established causal factor is exposure to asbesto  fibers. The latency period for mesothelioma may be 20–50 years. The prognosis for mesothelioma is grim, with most patients dying within 12 months of diagnosis.  This is why great efforts are being made to prevent school children from being exposed.

Worldwide, 52 countries (including those in the European Union) have banned the use of asbestos, in whole or in part.  In the United States, only six categories of products can NOT contain asbestos:  flooring felt, rollboard, and corrugated, commercial, or specialty paper. In addition, there is a ban on the use of asbestos in products that have not historically contained asbestos, otherwise referred to as “new uses” of asbestos.   

So today, asbestos remains in millions of structures throughout the country, as many people find out (to their dismay) when they are planning to repaint their home or do other remodeling tasks and must deal with the EPA rules for safe disposal or removal of products which may contain asbestos.   Millions of people are exposed at home or in their workplace by the monumental quantities of asbestos that remain in the built environment — the attic insulation in 30 million American homes, for instance — following decades of heavy use.  It also remains heavily used in brake shoes and other products, directly exposing auto mechanics and others who work with the materials, and indirectly exposing consumers and workers’ families.

No safe level of minimum exposure has ever been established for asbestos. Many of the first cases of mesothelioma were persons who never directly handled asbestos as part of their jobs. An early case in South Africa occurred in a young girl whose job it was to empty the pockets of miners before dry cleaning their clothes. The asbestos dust in the miners’ pockets made her fatally ill.[1]   People who have worked in plumbing, steel, insulation and electrical industries have very high chances of suffering from asbestos-related disease. In fact, they could have passed it on to their family members through the dust that could have clung to their shirts, shoes and other personal belongings.

Today, even though global asbestos use is down, there are more than 10,000 deaths per year due to the legacy of asbestos exposure.[2] Asbestos kills thousands more people each year than skin cancer, and kills almost as many people as are slain in assaults with firearms

With the science to back up the claims that asbestos is a serial killer, and with global use on the downward swing, wouldn’t you think that deaths from asbestos exposure would be going down?  Yet, the U.S. EPA reports that asbestos related deaths are increasing  and, according to the studies cited by the Environmental Working Group, many believe that  the U.S. asbestos disease epidemic may not even peak for another ten years or more.

This ongoing increase in asbestos mortality is due largely to the fact that asbestos-caused cancers and other diseases have a 20 to 50 year latency period, meaning that individuals exposed in the 1960s and 1970s are just now dying from their exposure. Better tracking accounts for the dramatic increase in mesothelioma mortality reported in 1999, but lung cancer deaths from asbestos are not reported at all, and asbestosis is still dramatically underreported even in worker populations where asbestos exposure is well established.

The legacy of asbestos, in the United States as in other countries such as the U.K. and Australia, is that the initial use of asbestos as a miracle fiber quickly gave rise to a burgeoning industry and adoption of asbestos in many products.   This happened long before any detrimental health effects were known, so now,  many years later,  asbestos related disease is killing significant numbers of people.  Environmental Health Perspectives last year published “The Case for a Global Ban on Asbestos”[3]

If you google “new asbestos” you can find many materials that people claim could be the “new asbestos” – nanotechnology, fly ash and climate-change litigation for example – because these are all being widely adopted before being well understood, and may well leave a legacy of death and destruction similar to that of asbestos.  Well, okay, litigation has not been known to kill directly, but you understand the point I’m trying to make.

I’d like to nominate flame retardant chemicals used in our furniture, fabrics and baby products – as well as a host of other products – as being in the running for the new asbestos.  These chemicals are called halogenated flame retardants, such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers – commonly known as PBDE’s.  Women in North America have 10 to 40 times the levels of the PBDEs in their breast milk, as do women in Europe or in Asia. And these chemicals pass through the placenta and are found in infants at birth, making a double dose of toxins for young children when they are most vulnerable.  When tested in animals, fire retardant chemicals, even at very low doses, can cause endocrine disruption, thyroid disorders, cancer, and developmental, reproductive, and neurological problems such as learning impairment and attention deficit disorder.   In humans, these chemicals are associated with reduced IQ in children, reduced fertility, thyroid impacts, undescended testicles in infants (leading to a higher cancer risk), and decreases in sperm quality and function.Ongoing studies are beginning to show a connection between these chemicals and autism in children.(4)  Pregnant women have the biggest cause for concern because animal studies show negative impacts on brain development of offspring when mothers are exposed during pregnancy. And bioaccumulating PBDEs can stay in our bodies for more than a decade.

A study published last week in the Environmental Health Perspectives  points to California’s unique furniture flammability standard called Technical Bulletin 117, or TB117, as the major reason for high fire retardant levels in California. The California standard, passed in 1975, requires that polyurethane foam in upholstered furniture be able to withstand an open flame for 12 seconds without catching fire. Because there is no other state or federal standard, many manufacturers comply with the California rule, usually by adding flame retardants with the foam.

The startling and disturbing result of the published study in Environmental Health Perspectives is that Latino children born in California have levels of PBDE in their blood seven times higher  than do children who were born and raised in Mexico.[5]  In general, residents of California have higher rates of PBDE in their blood than do people in other parts of the United States.

A home can contain a pound or more of fire retardants that are similar in structure and action to substances such as PCBs and DDT that are widely banned. They leak out from furniture, settle in dust and are taken in by toddlers when they put their hands into their mouths. A paper published in Environmental Science & Technology [6] also finds high fire retardant levels in pet dogs. Cats, because they lick their fur, have the highest levels of all.

One troubling example is chlorinated Tris, a flame retardant that was removed from children’s pajamas in the 1970s largely based on research done by Dr. Arlene Blum, a biophysical chemist, after it was found to mutate DNA and identified as a probable human carcinogen.  In the journal Environmental Science and Technology, new research published in 2011 shows that chlorinated Tris was found in more than a third of the foam samples tested – products such as nursing pillows, highchairs, car seats and changing pads.[7]

Tris is now being used at high levels in furniture being sold in California to meet the California standard.

The benefits of adding flame retardants have not been proved. Since the 1980s, retardants have been added to California furniture. From 1980 to 2004, fire deaths in states without such a standard declined at a similar rate as they did in California. And when during a fire the retardants burn, they increase the toxicity of the fire, producing dioxins, as well as additional carbon monoxide, soot and smoke, which are the major causes of fire deaths.

So why are we rolling the dice and exposing our children to substances with the potential to cause serious health problems when there is no proven fire safety benefit?

Under current law, it is difficult for the federal Environmental Protection Agency to ban or restrict chemicals – current federal  oversight of chemicals is so weak that manufacturers are not required to label products with flame retardants nor are they required to list what chemicals are used.[8]. Even now, the agency has yet to ban asbestos!

“We can buy things that are BPA free, or phthalate free or lead free. We don’t have the choice to buy things that are flame-retardant free,” says Dr. Heather Stapleton, an assistant professor of environmental chemistry at Duke University. “The laws protect the chemical industry, not the general public.”

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has been working on a federal flammability standard for upholstered furniture for 16 years. The current proposal would allow manufacturers to meet the flammability standard without fire retardants. An agency spokesman said that “additional research looking into consumer exposure and the impact of chemical alternatives is needed.”

This year, California State Sen. Mark Leno sponsored California Senate Bill 147, the Consumer Choice Fire Protection Act. The bill called for an alternative furniture flammability standard that would give consumers the choice to purchase furniture that is fire-safe and nontoxic.

However, aggressive lobbying in the form of multimillion-dollar campaigns from “Citizens for Fire Safety” and other front groups funded by three bromine producers –  Albemarle, Chemtura and Israeli Chemicals Ltd. –  resulted in a defeat of this bill in March, 2011.  Their main argument was that new flame retardants – similar in structure and properties to the old ones and lacking any health information – were safe.  This despite  opposition which included 30 eloquent firefighters, scientists, physicians and health officers representing thousands of Californians.

Although we stopped most uses of asbestos decades ago, workers and others inadvertently exposed continue to die from its long-term effects.  Let’s not add more chemicals to this sad list.


[5]  Eskenazi, B., et al., “A Comparison of PBDE Serum Concentrations in Mexican and Mexican-American
Children Living in California”,  http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1002874

[6]  Vernier, Marta and Hites, Ronald; “Flame Retardants in the Serum of Pet Dogs and in their Food”, Environmental Science and Technology, 2011, 45 (10),  pp4602-4608.  http://pubs.acs.org/action/doSearch?action=search&searchText=PBDE+levels+in+pets&qsSearchArea=searchText&type=within&publication=40025991

[7]  Martin, Andrew, “Chemical Suspected in Cancer is in Baby products”, The New York Times, May 17, 2011.

[8]  Ibid.





New LEED Pilot Credits for chemical avoidance

16 03 2011

I can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve been told:  “I’ve been an interior designer for (insert number of years here) and in all that time, not one person has ever asked for a “green” fabric!” Or the popular variation:  “my clients don’t care about “green”.   The implication, of course, is that I’m barking up the wrong tree in thinking anybody would ever consider “green” as a valid criteria when buying fabric.  Color – check.  Price – check.  Abrasion rating – check.  But “green”?

Well, if you can’t be altruistic about your purchase, then let’s simply look at what your fabric choices are doing to you and your family.  “Green” should really read as “safe”, because conventional fabrics are filled with process chemicals, many of which are outlawed in other products.  Right now the chemicals in your fabrics are contributing to changes that are taking place in your body.  You can’t see those changes, because they are subtle and insidious:  maybe headaches (especially when you draw the drapes at night); maybe sensitization to some new chemicals is giving you a runny nose.  Or maybe a cascading series of changes is taking place in your body and putting a more  dire outcome into play – cancerous tumors, or Parkinsons disease.  And studies are proving that these chemicals affect unborn babies and infants in much more egregious ways.

China exports fabric to the United States that would be outlawed in China – or in Japan or the European Union [1] – because of the chemicals contained in that fabric.  Americans don’t have a safety net protecting them from these chemical incursions.   The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found toxic chemicals in the bodies of virtually all Americans:  the most recent report on Americans exposure to environmental chemicals, July 2010 [2], listed 212 chemicals in people’s blood or urine – 75 of which have never before been been measured.   Some of these are linked to increases in prostate and breast cancers, diabetes, heart disease, lowered sperm counts, early puberty and other diseases and disorders – but the really scary thing is that we have no idea what most of the chemicals are doing to us because they’ve never been tested.

In the interest of fairness and letting you make up your own mind, I have seen some articles which refer to this concern about the many industrial chemicals which are seeping into our bodies as “chemophobia”.  “They” say that this so called “chemophobia” is both wrong and counterproductive (see http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/our-chemophobia-conundrum/) but I think their arguments are the same old saw: “the amount of what is considered toxic is found in such minute quantities that it’s not doing anybody any harm”.   I challenge you to check the rates of increase of certain health issues – even the development of new ones, such as multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) – and feel confident that we are entirely safe.   Or better yet,  take a look at what happened in Toms River, N.J. where the Ciba Geigy corporation dumped over 4,500 drums of contaminated waste into one farm (now a Superfund site) and, beginning in 1952, dumped effluent directly into the Toms River.  The children of Toms River developed statistically higher averages for cancers – particularly female children – than the rest of the nation.  The Dover Township landfill was declared a public health hazard.  But do the research yourself and see where you stand on the divide.  And if you’re REALLY interested, check out The Body Toxic: An Environmental Memoir by Susanne Antonetta, who happened to grow up in this area (read a review here.)

But before I go entirely off subject onto a diatribe about our toxic ignorance, what I really want to write about are the new LEED pilot credits which reward precautionary action for chemical avoidance:

  • Pilot Credit 2 tries to reduce the use (and hence release) of persistent bioacumulative toxic chemicals, including the use of PVC, Neoprene, and all brominated or halogenated flame retardants, such as PBDEs.
  • Pilot Credit 11 tries to reduce the quantity of indoor contaminants that are “harmful to the comfort and well-being of installers and occupants”, including halogenated flame retardants and phthalates.

Bill Walsh, Executive Director of  the Healthy Building Network, wrote a review of these new pilot credits in January 2011.  His article, quoted below, might give some of the people, who don’t consider “green” and “safe” when buying fabric, something to think about:

Last year the USGBC introduced two new Pilot Credits that reward precautionary action, the avoidance of certain classes of chemicals in the face of mounting evidence that they present significant threats to human health.[3] Industry trade groups fought these measures as they fight all chemical regulation, with the argument that restrictions or disincentives against chemical use must be based upon “sound science” that proves the connection between a specific chemical and a specific health problem beyond a shadow of a doubt. But due to a catch-22 in current US law, the EPA must prove potential risk or widespread exposure before it can get the data it needs to determine the extent of hazard, exposure or risk.[4] If we want to make green buildings healthy buildings, merely following the law will lead us in circles.

To fully appreciate the importance of precautionary measures such as the LEED Pilot Credits, consider the failure of the chemical industry’s voluntary effort to provide EPA with information about High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals – chemicals produced or imported into the US at volumes in excess of 1 million pounds per year. In the early 1980s, the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council found that 78% of the chemicals in highest-volume commercial use had not had even “minimal” toxicity testing.[5] Thirteen years later, a comprehensive report by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) found no significant improvement: “even the most basic toxicity testing results cannot be found in the public record for nearly 75% of the top-volume chemicals in commercial use.”[6]

In 1998, multiple studies by federal government agencies confirmed that the government lacked basic data needed to understand and characterize the potential hazards associated with HPV chemicals.[7] There are roughly 3,000 such chemicals. “Most Americans would assume that basic toxicity testing is available and that all chemicals in commerce today are safe… This is not a prudent assumption,” said one review. [8] An EPA review could find no safety information for more than half of them, and complete data for only 7 percent. Additionally, EDF reported, there are tens of thousands of non-HPV chemicals that remain to be addressed, which likely have even larger data gaps than were found for HPV chemicals.[9]

These findings prompted the EPA to swing into action – voluntary action. The High Production Volume Chemical Challenge of 1998 invited American industries to “sponsor” HPV chemicals and voluntarily provide health and safety data in lieu of regulatory action. More than 2,200 chemicals were eventually “sponsored,” but ten years later, in 2008, the EPA still had no data on more than half of them. Of the data sets it had received from industry, fewer than half were complete, according to EDF, an original sponsor of the program.

On January 5, 2011, the EPA finally took regulatory action. It will require testing of just “19 of the many hundreds of HPV chemicals on the market today for which even the most basic, ‘screening level’ hazard data are not publicly available.”[10]

The Dow Chemical Company calls the program “a tremendous success.”[11] An investigative report by the Milwaukee Journal deemed it “a failure.”[12] Richard Denison, Senior Scientist at EDF and one of the most knowledgeable independent experts on the program calls it “a perfect poster child for what’s wrong” with federal chemical regulations.[13]

Efforts to reform the major US law regulating chemical production, the Toxic Substances Control Act, are underway but are unlikely to make it through the Republican controlled House of Representatives. In the meantime, despite the data gaps, it is possible to make responsible, healthier choices based upon the best available evidence. The new LEED Pilot Credits help you make those choices and remove tons of toxic chemicals from our buildings, our bodies and our environment. Take your first step toward earning these credits with LEEDuser, and easily find products that qualify for the credits using the Pharos online system.

That will protect us at work – but there is still nothing to protect you at home.


[3] The 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle summarizes the principle this way: “When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” The US Green Building Council Guiding Principle #4 states: The USGBC will be guided by the precautionary principle in utilizing technical and scientific data to protect, preserve and restore the health of the global environment, ecosystems.

[4] Richard Denison, Environmental Defense Fund. “A Near Sisyphusian Task; EPA Soldiers On to Require More Testing Under TSCA.” 1/5/11. http://blogs.edf.org/nanotechnology/2011/01/05/a-near- sisyphusian-task-epa-soldiers-on-to-require-more-testing-under-tsca/

[5] Environmental Defense Fund. “Toxic Ignorance: The Continuing Absence of Basic Health Testing for Top-Selling Chemicals in the United States.” 1997, p.11. http://www.edf.org/documents/243_toxicignorance.pdf

[6]Environmental Defense Fund. “Toxic Ignorance: The Continuing Absence of Basic Health Testing for Top-Selling Chemicals in the United States.” 1997, p.11. http://www.edf.org/documents/243_toxicignorance.pdf

[7] Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust. “EPA fails to collect chemical safety data.” JS Online. 8/4/08. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/32597744.html.

[8] Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust. “EPA fails to collect chemical safety data.” JS Online. 8/4/08. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/32597744.html

[9] Environmental Defense Fund. “High Hopes, Low Marks: A Final Report Card on the High Production Volume Chemical Challenge.” p.30. 2007. http://www.edf.org/documents/6653_HighHopesLowMarks.pdf

[10] Denison, op. cit. Note that EPA has initiated another rulemaking targeting another 29 chemicals.

[12] Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust. “EPA fails to collect chemical safety data.” JS Online. 8/4/08. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/32597744.html

[13] Denison, op. cit.





The High Cost of Low Prices

8 12 2010

It’s the holiday season – and that usually means gifts.  I have begun the annual frenzy  and I’m watching my budget – yet I wince each time I hear an ad for an even cheaper price.  I’m especially worried by the Old Navy ads for really cheap cashmere sweater.  (Click here to read our blog post on cashmere and how it’s affecting our environment.)  My gifts are often jeans or clothing for my three boys, and so the Greenpeace report which was just published on November 30 really hit home.

Greenpeace  investigations found widespread pollution, including high concentrations of heavy metals, in Xintang and Gurao, two textile factory towns in Guangdong province that make blue jeans and bras, respectively.

As the Greenpeace web site   http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/press/release/textile-industrial-pollution tells it:

“Xintang is better known as the “Blue Jeans Capital of the World” – over 40% of its jeans are exported to the US, the EU, Russia and many other countries. It produces 260 million pairs of jeans annually, or more than 60% of China’s total jeans production and equivalent to 40% of all the jeans sold in the US each year.

Sewing Jeans These workers are sewing jeans in a makeshift shed that serves as a workshop in Xintang 2010 08/12/2010 © Qiu Bo / Greenpeace

Students on Street These students on their way to school try to block out the fumes from trash incineration Gurao, 06/08/2010 © Qiu Bo / Greenpeace

Meanwhile, 80% of Gurao’s economy is related to the underwear and lingerie industry. Each year, the “Capital of Sexy” produces 200 million bras, enough for one for every third woman in China.

“Xintang and Gurao are symbols of success in China’s export-model economy, yet we were horrified by the environmental degradation we saw during our fieldwork visits from April to September,” said Greenpeace Toxics campaigner Mariah Zhao. “Though we cannot pinpoint the pollution sources definitively at this stage, it’s worth noting that textile is the dominant industry in both towns by a long run.”

Testing by an independent laboratory revealed heavy metals such as copper, cadmium, and lead in 17 out of 21 samples of water and sediment from Xintang and Gurao. One sediment sample from Xintang contained cadmium at concentrations 128 times in excess of national environmental standards. “Dyeing, washing, bleaching, and printing are some of the dirtiest processes in the textile industry, requiring high volumes of water as well as heavy metals and other chemicals,” explained Zhao. “And Xintang is home to the complete blue jean manufacturing process, including dyeing, bleaching, and washing.”

Workers in the industry also testified to Greenpeace. “The water is discharged from the dyeing factories upstream. Sometimes it smells really awful. And every time the color of the water is different,” said Ren Shan (pseudonym), a migrant worker who moved to Gurao for a job in a textile factory.

Worker in GuangDong Every morning, workers at a denim washing factory must search through wastewater to scoop out stones that are washed with the fabric in industrial washing machines to make stonewash denim. Xintang, 08/14/2010 © Qiu Bo / Greenpeace

 

“With China nicknamed ‘the Factory of the World,’ it’s important to remember that Xintang and Gurao are emblematic of the larger problem of dirty textile manufacturing – they are just two of 133 textile industrial clusters in the country,” Zhao pointed out. “The responsibility of wastewater regulation and phasing out hazardous chemicals in textile manufacturing must be faced by not only Xintang and Gurao’s industries and government, but also throughout China.”

“Jeans and bras are synonymous with a modern, sexy lifestyle, yet we need to think about what these fashion icons mean for our environment. With many people demanding new jeans and clothing every year, it is imperative that the textile industry implements clean production methods, starting by phasing out the use and release of hazardous chemicals. At the same time, the government must adopt and enforce strict hazardous chemical management policies,” said Zhao. “We also hope that consumers will join us in pushing for change from the government and their favorite clothing companies. It would be tragic if fashion and economics comes at the cost of China’s clean water resources.” “

While you all ohh and ahhh about the terrible conditions in these Chinese cities– and of the chemicals being dumped into our groundwater – remember what motivates this behavior.  As we (you and I) push for ever lower prices, the factories have no recourse but to cut costs – by paying lower wages, (if wages are paid at all) and ignoring pollution control measures (which are expensive and force the cost up).

It is a simple equation that, if retailers want cheap prices and fast delivery times, they cannot expect high wages and comfortable working hours for the people on the production line, nor can they put in place expensive pollution control measures such as water treatment.

Somewhere there has to be a compromise.  In fact,  Ellen Ruppel Shell, in her book, “Cheap, The High Cost of Discount Culture”, asks: “What are we really buying when we insist on getting stuff as cheaply as possible?”  Her answer:  a low-quality food supply, a ruined economy, a polluted environment, low wages, a shoddy educational system, deserted town centers, ballooning personal debt, and the loss of craftsmanship.

Contact information for Greenpeace:

Shelley Jiang, Greenpeace Media Officer,   +86 1352 089 3941, +86 (10) 6554 6931 ext 149

Mariah Zhao, Greenpeace Toxics Campaigner
+86 1391 009 8563, +86 (10) 6554 6931 ext 107





Optical brighteners

14 07 2010

I got a call awhile ago from Harmony Susalla, founder and chief designer for Harmony Art  (if you haven’t seen her glorious fabrics go right now to www.harmonyart.com).  She was wondering about optical brighteners, and I discovered I couldn’t tell her much except to say that some are derived from benzene, which is a chemical nobody wants to live with.  GOTS allows the use of optical brighteners – with caveats (see below) – but they are supposed to reevaluate them “in two years from date of adoption” of version 2.0, which puts the reevaluation right about now.

So let’s explore optical brighteners, which are used extensively in:

  • Laundry detergents (to replace whitening agents removed during washing and to make the clothes appear cleaner.) – detergents may contain up to 0.2% whitening agents,
  • Paper, especially high brightness papers, resulting in their strongly fluorescent appearance under UV illumination. Paper brightness is typically measured at 457nm, well within the fluorescent activity range of brighteners. Paper used for banknotes does not contain optical brighteners, so a common method for detecting counterfeit notes is to check for fluorescence.
  • Cosmetics: One application is in formulas for washing and conditioning grey or blonde hair, where the brightener can not only increase the luminance and sparkle of the hair, but can also correct dull, yellowish discoloration without darkening the hair).  Some advanced face and eye powders contain optical brightener microspheres that brighten shadowed or dark areas of the skin, such as “tired eyes”.
  • as well as fabrics, which may contain 0.5% OBAs. A side effect of textile optical whitening is to make the treated fabrics more visible with Night Vision Devices than non-treated ones (the fluorescence caused by optical brighteners can easily be seen with an ordinary black light). This may or may not be desirable for military or other applications

You can still buy “bluing” – which is advertised to “whiten whites and brighten colors”.  Bluing works by removing yellow light to lessen the yellow tinge.   Optical brighteners – also called optical brightening agents (OBAs), fluorescent brightening agents (FBAs), and/or fluorescent whitening agents (FWAs) or “synthetic fluorescent dyes” –  work a bit differently.  Optical brighteners are chemicals similar to dyes which absorb ultraviolet light and emit it back as visible blue light – in other words, they fluoresce the ultraviolet light into visible light. The blue light emitted by the brightener compensates for the diminished blue of the treated material and changes the hue away from yellow or brown and toward white.

They are designed to mask yellow or brown tones in the fibers and make the fabric look cleaner and brighter than it would otherwise appear to the naked eye.   In other words, the undesirable color is made invisible to the eye in an “optical manner”.  Optical brighteners are used both on natural fibers (cotton, linen, hemp, silk) as well as in polymer melts for polyester and other synthetic fiber production.

Optical brighteners aren’t effective unless they remain in the fabric, and persist after washing.  They only last so long, until the point when they actually burn out and no longer do anything. They are also subject to fading when exposed long term to UV.

Brighteners can be “boosted” by the addition of certain polyols like high molecular weight polyethylene glycol or polyvinyl alcohol. These additives increase the visible blue light emissions significantly. Brighteners can also be “quenched”. Too much use of brightener will often cause a greening effect as emissions start to show above the blue region in the visible spectrum.

Optical brighteners are synthesized from various chemicals.  The group of chemicals which are called “optical brighteners” consists of approximately 400 different types listed in the Color Index, but less than 90 are produced commercially. (To get more information about the Color Index click here .)

Basic classes of chemicals used in OBAs  include:

  • Triazine-stilbenes (di-, tetra- or hexa-sulfonated)
  • Coumarins
  • Imidazolines
  • Diazoles
  • Triazoles
  • Benzoxazolines
  • Biphenyl-stilbenes

Using these chemicals, many companies compose their own chemical versions of an optical brightener, and sell it under a branded name, such as:

  • Blankophar R
  • Calcofluor
  • Uvitex
  • Bluton
  • CBS
  • DMS E=416
  • Kolorcron 2B

To find out what is in the optical brightener in any fabric, you must know the name of the optical brightener, and also the C.I. number (such as Brightener 24 or 220).  Then you can look up the chemical composition of the substance – but  only if you’re a subscriber to the Color Index database.  So it’s pretty difficult to confirm what is actually in an optical brightener.

In exploring some of the chemicals used in formulating optical brighteners,  I found one called cyanuric chloride, a derivative of 1,3,5 triazine.  Cyanuric chloride is used as a precursor and crosslinking agent in sulfonated triazine-stilbene based optical brighterners.   It is also classified as “very toxic”, “harmful” and “corrosive” by the EU and has several risk phrases identified with it – including R26 (“very toxic by inhalation”).  R26 is a substance which is specifically prohibited by GOTS.  So how can optical brighteners be allowed under GOTS?

The short answer is:  some are allowed, some are not – it depends on the chemical composition of each individual optical brightener.   Like dyestuffs, GOTS allows optical brighteners if they “meet all criteria for the selection of dyes and auxiliaries as defined in chapter 2.4.6, Dyeing.”  Those criteria include the prohibition of all chemicals listed in 2.3.1 and substances which are assigned certain risk phrases “or combinations thereof”.   But in order to know if a particular optical brightener meets these criteria, it’s necessary to know the chemical formula for that brightener.   And that takes a bit of detective work – and even so you might not be able to get final answers.  Don’t you begin to feel like a hamster in one of those wheels going round and round?

What are the problems associated with optical brighteners?
Some brighteners have been proven to cause allergic skin reactions or eye irritation in sensitive people.   The German Textiles Working Group conducted a health assessment of various optical brightening agents  following concerns of potential health risks to the public. It was found that there is a general lack of information on toxicity and a need for studies into dermal  absorption and the release of these substances from clothes.  While it has not been shown to negatively affect health, it has also not been proven safe.

They are known to be toxic to fish and other animal and plant life and have been found to cause mutations in bacteria.

Most OBAs are not readily biodegradable, so chemicals remain in wastewater for long periods of time, negatively affecting water quality and animal and plant life.  It is assumed that the substances accumulate in sediment or sludge, leading to high concentrations.
In wastewater, OBAs can also leach into groundwater, streams, and lakes. Since fluorescence is easy to detect,  optical brightener monitoring is an emerging technique to quickly and cost-effectivley detect the contamination of stormwater by sanitary wastewater.

REACH is the new European Union regulation which aims to  improve human health and the environment through better and earlier identification of the properties of chemical substances.  REACH stands for Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances.   REACH contains provisions to reduce the use of what are called “high volume production” chemicals.  These are defined as chemicals having annual production and/or importation volumes above 1 million pounds.  It is assumed that high volume production is a proxy for high exposure; in addition, large releases of low toxicity substances such as salts do cause environmental harm due to the sheer volume of the substance.
Much of the impact from optical brighteners comes in the form of large releases of low toxicity substances.  A number of these optical brighteners are listed as high and low production volume substances and so will be subject to REACH.   For example, C.I. Fluorescent Brightener 220 is listed as a high production volume chemical.