An environmentally-friendly alternative to dry clean only instructions, wet cleaning, could soon be showing up on our care labels. 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in an effort to reduce environmental and social health impacts, will hold a public roundtable discussion on March 28, 2014 about the expansion of clothing care labels to include wet cleaning.

“This suggests that the vast majority of garments currently labeled ‘dry clean’ or ‘dry clean only’ could be labeled with a wet cleaning instruction,” the Coalition for Clean Air says.

What is better about wet cleaning?

Professional wet cleaning services actually use less water than dry clean methods, and save on energy, detergents and soaps. Plus, delicate fabric like wool, silk and leather can still undergo professional wet cleaning processes.

More over, dry cleaning is a dirty businesses full of toxic chemicals. The most dangerous being perchloro ethyele used throughout all dry cleaning businesses.

“Perchloro ethylele, which is sometime called perc, is a very highly toxic substance,” says Mark Myles, Training Manager of the Toxics Use Reduction Institute at UMass Lowell. “And yet it is the most commonly used substance by dry cleaners.” In fact, the EPA recently approved a ban on the use of perchloro ethylele, in the state of California, effective by 2020.

Currently, professional wet cleaning services do not comply with the Care Labeling Rule due to lack of standardization. But since 2000, when the FTC first denied the expansion, “standards-setting organizations and other interested participants in this proceeding appear to have been working independently to resolve these outstanding issues,” said the FTC in a detailed report.

Now with greater pressures from environmental organizations, and the growing expansion of wet cleaning services as an environmentally friendly alternative to dry cleaning, the FTC will revisit the issue.

Under the Care Labeling Rule, “manufacturers and importers [are required] to attach labels with care instructions for dry cleaning washing, bleaching, drying and ironing of garments and certain piece goods,” says the FTC. If the rule were to change, the FTC would add professional wet cleaning services as an alternative to dry cleaning.

Opening up the conversation

“In our members experience, a dry clean label is interpreted to mean ‘do not wash’ by many, if not all, consumers,” the Drycleaning and Laundry Institute wrote in comments to the FTC.

But just because a label says dry clean only doesn’t mean you can’t get the garment wet. The labeling even deters some customers from purchasing certain clothing so as not to deal with dry cleaning.

“There is a subset of consumers that will not buy anything with a dry clean label. If all methods of care are required to be on the label, this consumer might be willing to purchase the item,” the group said.

Before the FTC moves forth into a decision they want to ensure customers have access to such facilities before changing the labeling.

“We want to know the extent to which professional wet cleaning is available to consumers,” FTC attorney Robert Frisby said.

The discussion on March 28th, 2014 will focus on the economic costs of implementing wet cleaning instructions, what instructions and details need to be on wet cleaning labels, the availability of wet cleaning and consumer awareness around alternative.

Take part in the discussion by filing a comment to the FTC.

Related on Ecosalon

Wet Cleaning Vs. Dry Cleaning

Dry Clean Only? An Eco Expert Tells Us When It’s Safe to Ignore Labels

9 Ways To Wash Your Delicates Without Dry Cleaning

10 Myths About Dry Cleaning

image: Juliette Donatelli

The post Is This The End of Dry Clean Only Labels? appeared first on EcoSalon.

In my local market I stand in the “not food” aisle and look at the dishwashing liquid. I remember an old TV commercial pitching presumably safe, “mild” Palmolive in which a manicurist, Madge, tells a woman whose nails she’s tending, “you’re soaking in it.” I always think about that ad when I buy this junk, figuring maybe I can find something that’s at least a little non-toxic. Increasingly, though, I’m perplexed as virtually every brand’s label screams: “Pick me! Pick me! I’m eco-all that! You can bathe in me! I swear!” Can this be true? Uh, no, it can’t.

Greenwashing, the tsunami of eco-friendly white noise we experience each day in brand-land, is everywhere, taking advantage of our better instincts and our lack of self-education regarding the products we buy. Every day, real live Mad Men are pulling the eco-cover over our eyes to sell us stuff based on vague and sometimes false claims that what they’re selling is good for us, the environment, and all creatures, great and small. Acknowledging this, and in an effort to protect us, the Federal Trade Commission released its “Green Guides” in 1992 (revised in 1996 and 1998) to “help marketers ensure that the claims they make are true and substantiated.” Hmm – 1998. A dozen years ago.

Last week, the FTC proposed updates to those Green Guides designed to make them easier for companies to understand and use. The changes include new guidance on marketers’ use of “product certifications and seals of approval, renewable energy claims, renewable materials claims, and carbon offset claims.” (They’re looking to hear from you, by the way, on proposed changes until December 10, after which they’ll decide which changes to make final.)

In a brief homage to ridiculously diplomatic language, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said: “In recent years, businesses have increasingly used “˜green’ marketing to capture consumers’ attention and move Americans toward a more environmentally friendly future. But what companies think green claims mean and what consumers really understand are sometimes two different things. The proposed updates to the Green Guides will help businesses better align their product claims with consumer expectations.”

Yeah, well, nice companies need nice reminders every so often, I guess.

Here are some highlights (and we quote):

Degradable: For solid waste products other than those destined for landfills, incinerators, or recycling facilities, the proposal clarifies that the “reasonably short period of time” for complete decomposition is no more than one year after customary disposal… Marketers should not make unqualified degradable claims for items destined for landfills, incinerators, or recycling facilities because decomposition will not occur within one year.

(Read: If it’s still going to be around a year after it’s been used, it’s not “degradable.”)

Free-of: Even if true, claims that an item is free-of a substance may be deceptive if the item has substances that pose the same or similar environmental risk as the substance not present.

(Read: You can’t play with poisons and say you’re poison free.)

General Environmental Benefit (e.g., “green,” “eco-friendly”): Marketers should not make unqualified general environmental benefit claims. They are difficult, if not impossible, to substantiate. Qualifications should be clear and prominent, and should limit the claim to a specific benefit.

(Read: Enough with the eco-babble. If it doesn’t mean anything, don’t say it.)

There’s more good stuff in this long overdue update. Take a quick perusal of the proposed changes and you’ll get a sense of what’s been going down (i.e. overlooked) in the world of greenwashing over the past twelve years. After all, for my money, this isn’t about fixing something that ain’t broke.

Image: Samuel Mann; See also: GOOD

The post Truth Be Told: Changes Coming in ‘Green’ Marketing Guidelines appeared first on EcoSalon.