Skip to main content
  • Feature Story

Sweden’s Proposal for SVHC Labeling of Textiles Rejected by Private Textile Organizations

January 21, 2015

The Swedish Chemicals Agency (KEMI) has submitted a proposal to label textiles with Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) by revising the scope of the Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 on textile fiber names and related labeling and marking of the fiber composition of textiles.

The private textile organizations submitting a report to reject the proposal include:

  • European Apparel and Textile Organization (EURATEX)
  • Textile Auxiliaries and Colourants (TEGEWA)
  • Ecological and Toxicological Association of Dyes and Organic Pigments Manufacturers (ETAD)

The Report, entitled “Strengthening the Existing Information Requirements in REACH and Exploring the Possibilities of Labelling Hazardous Substances in Textiles,” incorporates worrying aspects for the disagreement with Sweden’s proposal and results in the following conclusions:

A very unsettling attempt has been made in this study to move from the well‐established and commonly agreed risk approach under REACH to an unacceptable overall hazard approach. Additionally, existing current information has been clearly neglected, leading, at the end, to an untrue depiction of the textile and textile chemistry industries. As representative of associations which have product safety as a specific goal, we cannot accept to be identified with such a picture. We were ready to collaborate to the Swedish report, and we regret that this collaboration has not resulted in the updated evaluation we expected. On the contrary, a worrying issue has been presented where, as well-founded in the present position, no such issue exists.

Against this background, the recommendation made by Swedish Chemicals Agency is unfounded, not justified and prejudicial to the European textile industry. It will only cause additional costs with debatable additional benefits.

Industry is well aware of the limitations article 33 and article 7 of REACH pose and is keen to promote its efficient implementation but this shall be done within the framework of the REACH policy and not outside it.”