The AAFA's president and CEO Steve Lamar has told the Department of Ecology in the State of Washington that fashion brands and retailers already treat existing PFA restrictions in California and New York as being country-wide.
For this reason he said "an additional state-level restriction on PFAS in apparel is unnecessary."
He explained the AAFA added the entire PFAS chemicals class to its open-industry Restricted Substances List in February last year. The AAFA is also actively supporting members in their efforts to phase out this chemical class, including by working to educate and support the entire supply chain in finding and using safer PFAS alternatives.
In a letter to Meredith Marshburn at the Department of Ecology, he said he hoped his comments "would help to prevent adding to an increasingly complicated patchwork of state-based regulations of PFAS that are creating compliance burdens for the industry and inhibiting
crucial sustainability and circularity work, all while the industry is already working to phase out PFAS use".
AAFA's suggestions ahead of Washington State PFAS legislation
Lamar outlined three points the AAFA is keen for Washington State to take into consideration if does decide to pursue a PFAS legislation.
- Sell-through language is necessary
The AAFA believes the strict sales prohibitions included in the existing and proposed legislation did not adequately account for the time needed for the industry to fully phase out or for the post-pandemic softening of consumer demand. This means the industry will have significant volumes of unsold inventory come 1 January 2025 and there is currently no recommended disposal option for products containing PFAS. The AAFA recommends adopting a sell-through provision that allows the sale of products manufactured before 1 January 2025.
Lamar explained: "Allowing existing inventory to be sold off provides additional time for identification of safe destruction methods before consumers are finished with the product."
2. Definitions and exemptions must align
The AAFA highlighted that significant care has been taken to align definitions and exemptions in existing requirements. Lamar highlighted that it is unclear precisely what is included in Ecology’s definition of “apparel and gear.” The AAFA has recommended aligning definitions with those used in California and New York.
Lamar added: "It is important that products are consistently covered or exempted. For instance, exemptions and derogations for personal protective equipment, products for use by the US Defense Department and outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions are all the result of significant deliberation. Changes in those definitions will create unnecessary compliance burdens, as well as potentially conflict with Food and Drug Administration and Department of Defense requirements."
3. Science-based testing thresholds are required
While existing restrictions focus on intentionally added PFAS, unintentional contamination is a significant concern for the AAFA. Lamar stated any restrictions must include a science-based safe harbour level to account for contamination. He shared that California has adopted a 100ppm Total Organic Fluorine (TOF) testing threshold. Theoretically, a TOF result of less than 100ppm demonstrates the PFAS found in the item was not intentionally added, because the presence of PFAS below 100ppm would not provide the item any characteristics associated with intentionally added PFAS (e.g. water resistance or chemical/oil repellency). However, this particular threshold is not universally applicable (for instance, products utilising recycled material may test above the threshold, even if no PFAS were added from the recycling point onward). Additionally, there is not a standardised test method for Total Organic Fluorine. The AAFA has encouraged Ecology to adopt and use a science-based standard for delineating between intentional addition and unintentional contamination.
AAFA questions need for PFAS reporting requirement
Lamar also noted that the Draft Regulatory Determinations Report recommends the adoption of reporting requirements for certain apparel and footwear. However, he stated that given the industry is committed to phasing out the use of PFAS and other states have restricted the use of PFAS in apparel and footwear products, the AAFA questions the utility of an ongoing reporting requirement.
He said: "By the time a requirement is enacted, what will be left to sell is dwindling quantities of legacy inventory and given the limitations of testing, it is not clear useful information will be gained from such a requirement.
He advised that should Washington State pursue a reporting requirement, it must be done with the understanding that:
- PFAS testing in consumer products is complicated.
- Exemptions are necessary to support circularity.
Lamar pointed out that Washington State's Ecology Department has provided some examples of research conducted on potential PFA alternatives. However, he believes it has not identified alternatives for any non-fabric components that can be part of apparel and gear.
He concluded: "We recommend Ecology continue work on identifying safer alternatives for all parts of apparel and gear" and the AAFA looks forward "to working with Washington State on the regulation of substances in consumer products for the benefit of consumer product safety and public health".
