Ref. Ares(2017)858793 - 16/02/2017
Euratex considerations on the scope of
CMR restriction in textile and clothing
2 February 2017
Euratex, the European Textile and Apparel Confederation, welcomes the Commission efforts and latest
steps to protect human health and the environment from hazardous chemicals in textile and clothing.
Euratex wishes to draw attention on the following considerations regarding the scope of the restriction:
1) Clarification of “prolonged and direct contact with skin” and “comparable”
2) Confirmation on exclusion of disposable products and articles made of reused or recycled material
3) Exclusion of upholstery from the scope of the restriction
4) Exclusion of special clothing from the scope of the restriction
1) Clarification of “prolonged and direct contact with skin” and “comparable”
In order to avoid “grey zones”, the Commission should clarify the meaning of “prolonged and direct skin
contact” with regards to the articles covered by the restriction. Such definition has been addressed by
ECHA and the ISO standard 10993-1.
In the sentence “where other textile articles coming into contact with skin is comparable to clothing” the
term “comparable” might be interpreted in different ways.
In the sentence on the scope of the restriction for all clothing articles, the words “direct and prolonged”
should be added.
2) Confirmation on exclusion of disposable products and articles made of reused or recycled material
At the CARACAL meeting (minutes; point 3.4), the Commission has listed among possible exemptions
disposable products. However, the Commission has not confirmed whether disposable products are
excluded, as seen from the document provided for the workshop. The Commission should consider the
clear distinction between single use products and other products which is reflected in the Regulation EU
1007/2011. The Regulation defines disposable textile products as “a textile product designed to be used
only once or for a limited time, and the normal use of which is not intended for subsequent use for the
same or a similar purpose”, hence disposable textile products cannot be in prolonged skin contact.
At the CARACAL meeting a possible exemption for recycled textiles is mentioned, however, the document
circulated in December refers to the exemption for second hand articles only. The Commission should
exclude articles made of reused or recycled material for the same reasons of excluding second hand articles
notably supporting recycling and reuse of textile products in line with the circular economy priorities.
3) Exclusion of upholstery from the scope of the restriction
The Commission document intended for the workshop states that upholstery falls within the scope of the
restriction due to “direct and prolonged contact with the skin”. However, we recommend upholstery to
be excluded from the scope of the restriction for two reasons:
1) In most cases upholstery does not come into direct and prolonged contact with the skin. This is
recognized by Oekotex product categorizations which lists upholstery in the category 4 with lowest skin
contact. 1
2) The treatments for upholsteries are not comparable with clothing treatment, for instance certain
upholstery fabrics need to be fire retardant. This is done with a back coating, i.e. a coating on the
“underside” (the back) of the fabric. However, this fire-retardant back coating has limit values for
formaldehyde that cannot be met with the current proposal. However, once the fabric is assembled in a
sofa, there is no direct contact between the coating and the skin of the person sitting on the sofa. The
person is sitting on the upperpart of the fabric, which is the textile part. Therefore, there is no direct
exposure to formaldehyde. The issue is that by analyzing total content of formaldehyde it is impossible to
make a distinction between upper side (the textile) and the underside (coating).
It shall be also noted that the currently set concentration limits for PAHs and formaldehyde are not feasible
for upholstery production.
4) Exclusion of special clothing which has a protective/safety function for people and not just workers
At the CARACAL meeting it was confirmed that PPE for workers is excluded from the scope. Special clothing
which also has a protective/safety function for people should also be exempted. For such clothing, certain
standards have to be met (flame retardancy) for which the currently proposed limits are not sufficient, or
for instance in the case of wet suit, the production processes do not allow to meet currently proposed
concentration limits.
Finally, we recommend a Q&A and guideline to be developed in collaboration with the experts and to be
released at the same time of the restriction to avoid legal uncertainty.
1
The more intensive the skin contact of a product and the more sensitive the skin, the stricter the humanecological requirements that need to be complied with. Accordingly, a distinction is made between four product
classes: Product class I: Articles for babies and toddlers up to 3 years of age (underwear, rompers, clothing, bed
linen, terry products etc.) Product class II: Articles that are worn close to the skin (underwear, bed linen, t-shirts,
socks etc.) Product class III: Articles used away from the skin (jackets, coats etc.) Product class IV:
Decoration/Furnishing materials (curtains, tablecloths, upholstery covers etc.);
https://www.oeko-tex.com/en/business/certifications_and_services/ots_100/ots_100_start.xhtml