Report finds clothing contaminated with hormone disrupting chemicals
5:10 pm - 11/24/2012
Lots of people worry about their clothing. But they probably don't worry about whether it's toxic. Greenpeace International's newest research indicates that you probably should.
Greenpeace tested 141 items of clothing from 29 countries, and found that 89 contained nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), which are toxic, bioaccumulative chemicals that have been identified as hormone disruptors. They also found high levels of phthalates in four pieces of clothing, and amines from azo dyes that have been identified as carcinogens. The clothing came from major international brands, including Armani, Levi's and Zara. This was a follow up to an August 2011 report that found similarly distressing chemicals in clothing.
I read the report yesterday while wearing a Zara shirt and Levi's jeans. So yeah, not very reassuring.
Other brands Greenpeace IDed as including harmful chemicals: Benetton, Diesel, Esprit, Gap, H&M, Victoria’s Secret, Mango, Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger. See the full "Toxic Threads" report here.
source: Mother Jones
PDF of Greenpeace report has more detailed information, including methodology and raw data and pictures of the specific items tested
for those that can't read PDFs, yes, if you primarily buy used clothing, the repeated washings does mean your personal exposure will be much lower but you still have the environmental impact from all that washing. report was for ADULT clothing only. Children's clothes have specific standards about pthalates. the other things... not so much
Greenpeace tested 141 items of clothing from 29 countries, and found that 89 contained nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), which are toxic, bioaccumulative chemicals that have been identified as hormone disruptors. They also found high levels of phthalates in four pieces of clothing, and amines from azo dyes that have been identified as carcinogens. The clothing came from major international brands, including Armani, Levi's and Zara. This was a follow up to an August 2011 report that found similarly distressing chemicals in clothing.
I read the report yesterday while wearing a Zara shirt and Levi's jeans. So yeah, not very reassuring.
Other brands Greenpeace IDed as including harmful chemicals: Benetton, Diesel, Esprit, Gap, H&M, Victoria’s Secret, Mango, Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger. See the full "Toxic Threads" report here.
source: Mother Jones
PDF of Greenpeace report has more detailed information, including methodology and raw data and pictures of the specific items tested
for those that can't read PDFs, yes, if you primarily buy used clothing, the repeated washings does mean your personal exposure will be much lower but you still have the environmental impact from all that washing. report was for ADULT clothing only. Children's clothes have specific standards about pthalates. the other things... not so much
D:
" The levels of NPEs detected in all articles are not known to constitute any direct health risk to the wearers of the clothing "
It also says earlier in the report that another study from a different UK research group found these chemicals are all washed out completely after maximum of two washes.
BUT the big issue is this stuff ends up contaminating our rivers. You aren't eating your clothing, but wildlife will drink the water and I guess in some countries humans could drink the contaminated water too. I work with those cancer causing chemical they are worried about and they can be absorbed through the skin, but... not so easily in low dosages. Really, high dosages would be needed for wearing the clothes to be worse than walking around in city air and compared to the dangers of eating veggies sprayed with pesticides? Negligible unless you are a worker in the textiles factories. I would be worried if they all have adequate protections and they have doctors there to check for the skin lesions that can be a tell-tale sign of local amine toxicity from skin adsorption.
a report on underwear would probably make us all shriek in horror.
mte while I was reading this.
and so am I.
Naked mole rats are awesome.
Edited at 2012-11-24 11:44 pm (UTC)
(Everything's used, though, and has been washed dozens of times....)
I always wash new clothes before i let anyone wear them, as they always reek horribly of chemicals, plus i'm paranoid about them having been tried on by half a dozen people.
For example, people piss out an enormous amount of birth control. the compounds in that are NOT normally treated, so everyone downstream gets low doses of hormones in their water. ditto animals that swim in it.
another example, toxoplasmosis is often present in cat feces. So people flush cat litter and introduce it to water supply. most systems don't have proper screens to remove toxo. so it passes downstream... Toxo transmitted from cat feces is a major threat to sea otters.
so its a crap shoot based on type of water treatment available. Bacteria is sewage treatment plants primary concern. the rest... depends on how much money the city was willing to invest in infrastructure...
Do you think getting a filter would help, or is that only really effective against heavy metals?
however, it's not clear if such small amounts would have any effect on people. so far it doesn't really seem to be the case as far as anyone can tell, it's all just too little. but it is really a different matter for wildlife in many rivers, there effects seem to be rather visible, because tap water is much more well treated in many areas that the water just treated for waste that then goes into the rivers.
edit: google came up with this article on the topic of trying to filter your drinking water yourself.
Edited at 2012-11-26 12:01 am (UTC)
We do make things without fully understanding what we're doing long-term. The scientists in Plastic Planet who were freaked out by what we're creating said it all.
Edited at 2012-11-25 12:58 pm (UTC)
I agree re legislation. I don't know if politicians understand the situation or not--I imagine some do and some don't. The plastics industry's lobbyists probably can afford to get out more than those calling for regulation.
If you watch Plastic Planet, you'll see all these cheap soft plastics which are officially banned in the US but still sold at every dollar store. :(
If the US is anything like the UK I don't think the politicians understand anything at all with regards to that kind of thing. They couldn't understand a scientific report if their life depended upon it as in the UK they are all scientifically illiterate. So because they cannot understand the evidence presented they think it's a matter of opinion and feeling. They ignore their scientific advisers unless it fits in which something that they think will make them more popular or cool or what not. *sigh*
I think what's important is that regulations are enforced where they exist and tightened where they don't but should. It's very hard to get scientifically illiterate political circles to legislate on something in a meaningful way, rather than reacting out of proportion to 'media scares' and then completely ignoring real issue the media might not have picked up on, because they didn't feel the population need to be scared about XYZ right now >_>
*is cynical*
I always wash new clothes before wearing them, even those I buy online.
But this is scary. I buy organic clothing on occasion but it's a) very expensive and b) there aren't many choices.
It's encouraging that the report mentions they are trying to regulate this, because I'm more worried about this stuff for its environmental impact.