Greenpeace’s Detox campaign triggered some deft marketing moves this month and may just be accelerating innovation in the outdoor industry. Two weeks after the German branch of the non-profit released a second study finding fluorine chemicals prevalent in jackets and gloves made by 12 outdoor specialty brands, companies are scrambling to out green each other.

 


On Dec. 11, the German brand Jack Wolfskin announced it had accelerated its plans to remove fluorine chemicals from its production process in direct response to “Chemistry For Any Weather – Part II.”  The company announced that half the apparel it introduces at ISPO Munich next month for fall/winter 2014 will be free of PFCs (perfluorinated and polyfluorinated chemicals), which is two years earlier than originally planned. Jack Wolfskin had already planned to introduce a PFC-free travel collection at the show, but said has learned to adapt new chemistry to more of its fabrics faster than originally planned. Tellingly, it did not mention what that new chemistry is.

 

“We have distinguished ourselves as the first outdoor company with a concrete roadmap until 2020, outlining our plans to move away from fluorine chemicals, ban harmful substances from the supply chain and ensure transparent manufacture among our suppliers,” crowed Christian Brandt, chief operating officer at Jack Wolfskin. “And we are working purposefully towards this goal.”

 

Virtually all the leading U.S. technical outerwear brands are participating in the Outdoor Industry Association Chemical Working Group, which is exploring potential alternatives to traditional PFC-based Durable Water Repellency (DWR) chemistries. But most technical brands have said they will not sacrifice performance, particularly if that means shifting to less known chemicals that may pose yet unknown hazards of their own.

 

This cautious approach was validated by the new Greenpeace report, which draws on findings by two independent laboratories Greenpeace Germany commissioned to measure PFC as well as other hazardous substances in 17 products sold by 12 specialty outdoor brands. Tested products included three products by The North Face, two by Mammut, two by Jack Wolfskin, two by Vaude and jackets from Adidas, Columbia, Kaikkialla, Northland, Patagonia, Salewa, Schöffel and Seven Summits. They were purchased not only in German-speaking countries, as in a 2012 edition of the study, but also in China and the United States. The majority were made in China (8), followed by Vietnam (5), Indonesia (2) and Thailand (1).

 

The study found PFCs were prevalent, and also detected the presence of more “short-chain” PFC compounds that indicate brands are turning to lesser known chemicals that are not only less effective DWR treatments, but are likely to create a whole new set of environmental consequences.  

 

“The test chamber analyses show that these shorter chain compounds are more likely to evaporate from clothing,” reads the report. “Since they are less effective as water repellents, they are apparently being used in greater quantities.”

 

Greenpeace argues industry and political decision makers urgently need to rethink “this misguided approach” of substituting well-known and controversial hazardous chemicals and longer chained volatile PFCs with larger quantities of the lesser known volatile PFCs. “This is all the more important because alternatives that completely avoid the use of any PFCs are already available for many applications in outdoor clothing.”

 

The debate has taken on new meaning in the last two years as several outdoor brands have introduced DWR treated down blends for use in apparel and sleeping bags.

 

Greenpeace cites multiple studies that have shown that PFCs, including PFOS and PFOAs, can disrupt hormones and harm the reproductive and immune systems in animal tests. Their health effects on humans, however, are still largely not understood.

 

Some studies have found that there are higher concentrations of volatile PFCs in the air in stores selling outdoor clothing than in rooms without outdoor gear. But Greenpeace Germany notes that because humans are exposed to PFCs through food and tap water, it is not possible to estimate the exposure and potential risk to health from rooms containing outdoor-clothing or other sources of volatile PFC.

 

Either way, it’s clear that Greenpeace will play a larger role in shaping industry standards and even in brand marketing campaigns.

 

On Friday, the German company Sympatex issued a press release proclaiming that a Kaikkialla jacket treated with its waterproof-breathable PTFE-free membrane tested better than any of the other jackets tested by Greenpeace.
For its part, Greenpeace asserts that recent pledges by global brands such Mango, Marks & Spencer and now Jack Wolfskin to halt the use of PFCs by 2020 proves it can be eliminated.

 

“Big brands like The North Face, Mammut or Adidas have the power and the responsibility to follow in the footsteps of these leaders by taking the necessary steps to clean up their supply chains,” wrote Ieva Vilimaviciute, Detox Campaigner at Greenpeace International in a Dec. 12 blog post.