Discuto

Javascript is disabled. This site relies heavily on Javascript. Please enable Javscript to be able to use all features this site offers.

ESPR Textiles - 1. Teil der Diskussion

Offen bis 24.02.2025; offizielle Deadline 03.03.2025

ending
24 Feb

Follow discussion

Description
Discussion

Starting: 23 Jan Ending

0 days left (ends 24 Feb)

Jetzt zur Diskussion und die eigene Meinung einbringen

see discussion Ends in 0 days

description

Mit der Preparatory Study on Textile Products, 2nd Milestone sollen die Grundlagen geschaffen werden, um Ökodesign-Kriterien für Textilprodukte zu entwickeln, ebenso wie Kriterien für das EU Ecolabel und GPP (Green Public Procurement).

Alle interessierten Personen, wie zum Beispiel Expert:innen verschiedener Bereiche und Vertreter:innen von Firmen, Behörden und Interessensgruppen, sind in dieser Online-Diskussion dazu eingeladen, ihre Standpunkte dazu auszutauschen und zu diskutieren. Ziel dieser Diskussion ist nicht, eine gemeinsame Stellungnahme abzugeben. Daher muss auch kein Konsens erzielt werden.

Diese interne Diskussion orientiert sich an den Vorgaben des JRC (Joint Research Center), ebenso sind die Fragen des JRC angeführt, die in der Online-Präsentation der Studie am 09./10.12.2024 gestellt wurden. Jedes Kommentar darüber hinaus ist natürlich auch möglich. Als Frist ist Montag, 24.02.2025 vorgesehen.

Die offiziellen Kommentare sollen hier eingebracht werden: web form (Frist Montag, 03.03.2025) Es soll jeweils auf das Kapitel und die Zeile(n) referenziert werden. Zusätzliche Dokumente können an JRC-B5-TEXTILES@ec.europa.eu gesandt werden.

Sie können in dieser Diskussion zu- oder dagegen stimmen und Kommentare verfassen bzw. auf andere Kommentare reagieren. Es ist auch möglich, mehrfach und zu späteren Zeitpunkten wieder in die Diskussion einzusteigen. Wir freuen uns über Ihre Teilnahme!

Ein paar weitere Details dazu finden Sie in der Informationsseite weiter unten.

Bei Rückfragen kontaktieren Sie bitte: susanne.stark@vki.at / 01 588 77 208

Further info

WEITERE DETAILS

LATEST ACTIVITY

LEVEL OF AGREEMENT

- 0%
- (0 positive votes)
- 100%
- (3 negative votes)
3 votes in total

Most voted: 3
Most commented: 5
Most controversial: 0
Already decided: 0
In voting: 0
Supported: 0
My contributions: 0

MOST DISCUSSED PARAGRAPHS

P1 1. General analysis of product technologies

1 0

P2 2. Physical durability Präsentation 2nd_mil

1 0

P4 4. Waste generation / Recyclability and recy

1 0

P5 5. Environmental Impacts (Sie werden in eine

1 0

< prev next >

LATEST COMMENTS

Statement on microplastics and microparticles shedding from natural materials needs to be addressed. Preparatory study: Page 27-28, Chapter 3.3.2, Rows 616-624: Cellulose-based plants have existed for hundreds of millions of years. If cellulose—the main component of cotton—posed an environmental risk, ecosystems would have long been overwhelmed by plant waste and microparticles. While certain dye and finishing treatments can influence biodegradability of textiles, broad claims about microparticles without specifying processing factors (e.g., dyes, chemicals, finishing techniques) oversimplify the issue, especially given current scientific knowledge. A key distinction must be made between biodegradable fibers (natural and regenerated cellulose) and synthetic fibers. Regardless of treatments, synthetic fibers release microparticles that persist in the environment for centuries. In contrast, textiles made from renewable, biodegradable materials can degrade naturally and be optimized to minimize environmental impact. The primary concern with fragmented textile particles from natural fibers lies in chemical treatments used for durability, which aligns with the ESPR’s objectives. This presents a trade-off compared to the release of persistent synthetic microparticles. Scientific tests show that cotton fabrics—except those with durable press finishes—degrade as fast as oak leaves and, on average, as quickly as unfinished cotton. The EU’s stance on this issue remains unclear. On one hand, stricter durability requirements may force natural fibers to rely on heavy chemical treatments or blending with synthetics. On the other, the report raises concerns about microparticles from natural textiles, implying they pose similar risks to microplastics—an apparent contradiction. The statements in rows 620–622 are misleading. The environmental and human toxicity of chemicals applies to both natural and synthetic fibers. However, synthetic fragmented fibers persist indefinitely, while microparticles from natural and regenerated cellulose fibers degrade. The risks posed by microplastics are fundamentally different. Regarding rows 622–624, if dyeing and finishing treatments are non-toxic and degrade safely, is there scientific evidence suggesting that cellulosic microparticles from cotton are more harmful than those from toilet paper? The average U.S. citizen flushes 20.5 kg of toilet paper annually—equivalent in cellulose microparticle weight to washing 1.4 million cotton T-shirts—yet toilet paper microparticles are not flagged as an environmental concern. Furthermore, the assumption that textiles are the dominant source of natural fiber microparticles in aquatic systems lacks substantiation. Reducing cellulosic microparticles requires a broader focus beyond apparel, as presence alone does not equate to pollution. No reliable scientific methods currently exist to trace the origins (textiles, toilette paper, paper) of cellulose-based microparticles in marine environments. Finally, the JRC report does not appear to address fabric and garment design strategies that enhance biodegradability, despite evidence that such approaches are feasible. This aspect should be planned for the third milestone. References: - Zambrano MC, Pawlak JJ, Daystar J, Ankeny M and Venditti RA. Impact of dyes and finishes on the aquatic biodegradability of cotton textile fibers and microfibers released on laundering clothes: Correlations between enzyme adsorption and activity and biodegradation rates. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2021; 165. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X21000643?CMX_ID=&SIS_ID=&dgcid=STMJ_AUTH_SERV_PUBLISHED&utm_acid=122188762&utm_campaign=STMJ_AUTH_SERV_PUBLISHED&utm_in=DM119204&utm_medium=email&utm_source=AC_ - Zambrano MC, Pawlak JJ, Daystar J, Ankeny M and Venditti RA. Aerobic biodegradation in freshwater and marine environments of textile microfibers generated in clothes laundering: Effects of cellulose and polyester-based microfibers on the microbiome. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2020; 151, 110826. - Li L, Frey M and Browning KJ. Biodegradability study on cotton and polyester fabrics. Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics, 2010; 5(4): 42-53. Biodegradability Study on Cotton and Polyester Fabrics (sagepub.com) - Zambrano MC, Pawlak JJ, Daystar J, Ankeny M and Venditti RA. Microfibers generated from the laundering of cotton, rayon and polyester based fabrics and their aquatic biodegradation. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2019; 142(4):394-407. - Szadkowski B, Piotrowska M, Rybiński P and Marzec A. Natural bioactive formulations for biodegradable cotton eco-fabrics with antimicrobial and fire-shielding properties. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2023; 237: 124143. - Schneider R and Šostar-Turk S. Good quality printing with reactive dyes using guar gum and biodegradable additives. Dyes and pigments 2003; 57: 7-14. - Shahid I, Mohammad S and Faqeer M. Perspectives for natural product based agents derived from industrial plants in textile applications–a review. Journal of cleaner production 2013; 57: 2-18. - OWS Final Report FHO-25. Gent; October 18, 2019. Pilot-scale composting for qualitative evaluation of disintegration of lyocell and polyester shirt. - OWS Final Report FHO-3. Gent; April 26, 2013. Pilot-scale composting for qualitative evaluation of disintegration of woven fiber net and denim shirt. - Deheyn DD. On the biodisintegration of textiles along sequential steps of functionalization. Presented at Dornbirn Global Fiber Congres in Dornbirn (Austria) on September 12, 2024. - Cotton microfibers biodegrade similar or faster than tissue paper microfibers in wastewater treatment, fresh water and saltwater environments. In Cotton Today. March 26, 2024 https://cottontoday.cottoninc.com/cotton-microfibers-biodegrade-faster-than-tissue-paper-in-wastewater-fresh-water-and-saltwater/

This section of the Preparatory Study is quite general, making it challenging to provide specific feedback, as the details are crucial in such analyses. Regarding the environmental footprint, we believe that fair comparisons should be based on the following key factors: • A significant improvement in the quality of existing EF datasets. • The use of environmental impact categories with high or at least medium-to-high robustness (e.g., climate change, resource use, etc.). • Ensuring the credibility and reliability of LCA data. • Conducting LCAs at the facility level rather than relying on global averages, especially when production takes place in facilities across vastly different regions. • Avoiding the use of aggregated "environmental scores" that lack scientific evidence.

We support the definition of recyclability but emphasize the need for a balanced and pragmatic approach to avoid unintended disadvantages. 1. Recyclability should not penalize low-waste or niche materials: Recyclability should not be assessed solely based on existing waste streams or industrial-scale recycling trials. Some materials are underrepresented in textile waste due to lower production volumes rather than inherent limitations in recyclability. This should not be seen as a drawback, nor should materials be classified as non-recyclable simply because large-scale recycling processes are not yet established. Sorting and recycling efforts naturally prioritize high-volume materials like polyester and cotton, but this must not lead to the exclusion of lower-volume or specialized fibers. 2. Demand for recycled fibers is a key limiting factor: The availability of recycled fibers depends not only on recyclability but also on market demand. High-quality recycled fibers remain underutilized due to their higher production costs, limiting their competitiveness against virgin materials. While some stakeholders argue for expanding recycling infrastructure before mandating recycled content requirements, the reality is that infrastructure will only grow if demand increases first. Thermo-mechanically recycled polyester from plastic bottles is an exception, as it benefits from strong market demand due to its lower cost compared to virgin cotton. 3. Recycled content requirements must be defined with greater precision to ensure clarity, fairness, and effectiveness in promoting a truly circular textile economy: Setting mandatory recycled content requirements too broadly could lead to an overreliance on a single material—namely, polyester from plastic bottles—while hindering the advancement of alternative recycling and sorting technologies. A more nuanced approach is necessary to foster innovation and support a diverse range of sustainable fiber solutions. 4. Consideration of post-industrial textile waste Post-industrial textile waste should be included in EU recycled content requirements, as it provides a stable, unavoidable waste stream that reduces landfill and incineration while supporting circularity. Excluding it will not eliminate this waste but will push it further down the waste hierarchy. While post-consumer waste should be prioritized, post-industrial fabric cut-offs offer a more accessible feedstock with lower contamination, ensuring a stable material flow for recyclers. 5. Regulatory definitions must not disadvantage European industry: Linking recyclability to BC, BAT, and BNAT in Section 9.2.5.3 risks penalizing fiber types produced using best-available technologies, particularly in Europe’s specialized textile sector. If definitions favor high-volume commodity materials, they may disadvantage niche and innovative fibers developed with sustainability in mind. A fair and forward-looking regulatory framework should ensure that diverse fiber solutions remain viable and competitive within the EU market.

We strongly disagree with this definition of durability, as it will neither effectively address environmental challenges nor support the European / Austrian fiber and textile industry. Instead, it risks creating unintended negative consequences for the sector without delivering meaningful environmental benefits. Durability should be defined in a comprehensive and scientifically robust manner, or alternatively, replaced by a metric that more effectively addresses textile waste generation and its environmental impact. 1. A holistic approach to durability is essential, as it considers all key factors that lead to textile disposal. This is particularly relevant given that most textiles are discarded before reaching the end of their functional lifespan. 2. Scientific evidence and validated methods should form the basis for durability assessments, ensuring that the proposed approaches effectively align with the EU's sustainability objectives. At present, there is a considerable gap in scientific research and methodologies needed to define both physical and emotional durability in a rigorous manner. Using AITEX’s experience as a reference to define methods and thresholds for durability aspects (Table 44) that could potentially exclude high-quality products from the EU market raises significant concerns. The cited AITEX "experience" lacks transparency and does not appear to be substantiated by robust scientific evidence. Relying on such an unverified basis for critical regulatory decisions is problematic and requires careful reassessment to ensure a scientifically sound and fair approach. 3. Consumer empowerment through transparency is crucial, while maintaining the EU's credibility and trust. The principles outlined in the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition initiative and the Green Claims Directive should be upheld by avoiding generic or ambiguous claims such as "This product is durable." Instead, durability should be communicated through clear, specific, and verifiable information (e.g., "This product has an abrasion resistance of X cycles, tested according to standard Y"). Setting rigid thresholds that label products as inferior is not necessarily the most effective approach, as overengineered fabrics do not always equate to resource efficiency. For example, a blouse worn in an office setting does not require an exceptionally high abrasion resistance, as it is unlikely to reach such limits in its lifetime. Since durability is directly experienced by consumers, introducing an unverified scoring system that may not reflect real-world performance risks eroding trust in EU regulations. 4. Material-specific characteristics, durability trade-offs, and real-world usage must be taken into account. Different fibers exhibit unique properties (e.g., hydrophobic vs. hydrophilic materials), and durability optimization should focus on enhancing the best possible performance for each material category. Fabric weight has a direct impact on achievable durability thresholds, yet the absence of weight classifications is concerning, as it affects both woven and knitted textiles. Additionally, knitting technologies (e.g., jersey knitting, flat knitting, seamless) significantly influence durability outcomes, and their omission from current considerations presents a major oversight. Similarly, fabric construction plays a crucial role—for instance, open and decorative knitted fabrics inherently perform differently from tightly structured ones, just as woven fabrics exhibit varying durability characteristics depending on their weave pattern. Furthermore, balancing durability trade-offs is essential; for example, optimizing cellulose-based fabrics for high abrasion resistance may compromise dimensional stability and visual appearance. Lastly, durability assessment methods must accurately reflect real-world wear conditions to ensure meaningful and applicable results. 5. Durability requirements should align with the broader vision of phasing out (ultra) fast fashion and fossil-based materials, rather than unintentionally encouraging their continued dominance. It is essential to assess whether the proposed methods and thresholds support or contradict this objective. 6. Durability thresholds must not disproportionately penalize materials that do not contribute significantly to textile waste. The focus should remain on addressing actual waste drivers, rather than creating unnecessary disadvantages for materials that already demonstrate low environmental impact in this regard. 7. Durability requirements should facilitate rather than hinder the second life of garments. For example, if cotton textiles meet the set thresholds and are subsequently chemically recycled into viscose, but the resulting viscose textiles fail to meet the same thresholds unless blended with polyester—potentially compromising recyclability—it is worth questioning what has truly been achieved. 8. The impact of these durability thresholds on the European fiber and textile industry must be carefully assessed. If durability criteria are designed to accommodate mass-market commodity textiles, this could create unintended disadvantages for highly specialized European fiber and textile sectors. It is important to evaluate whether such thresholds will strengthen or weaken European industry competitiveness. The proposed framework outlined in Table 44 is of particular concern, as its implementation would have detrimental consequences for the European fiber and textile sector.

< prev next >

MOST ACTIVE USERS


	d.cafutakorn@lenzing.com	5	3

Status: Closed

Privacy: Public

Author: Österreichisches Umweltzeichen

Contact administrator

Der VKI ist für die Erstellung und Überarbeitung der Umweltzeichen-Richtlinien sowie die Administration von InteressentInnen und Umweltzeichen-Betrieben zuständig. VKI Verein für Konsumenteninformation - Team Umweltzeichen Linke Wienzeile 18, A-1060 Wien Tel: +43 (0)1 588 77 - 207 Email: umweltzeichen@vki.at www.umweltzeichen.at www.vki.at

CONTRIBUTORS (2)

filter: All Most voted (3) Most comments (5) Controversial (0) Decided (0) In voting (0) Supported (0) My contributions (0)

view:

P1

1. General analysis of product technologies

Präsentation 2nd_mil_day_1_v20241209.pdf S. 15-18

Textile-Prep-Study_2nd-Milestone_20241217.pdf S. 93-103

Section	Line
9.1	2517 - 2781

Identification and grouping of relevant product aspects

Physical durability, which includes physical durability, reliability and reusability
Maintenance
Repairability, which includes repairability, upgradeability, possibility of efurbishement and possibility of remanufactruing
Generation of waste
Recyclability and recycled content
Environmental impacts, which include environmental impacts, energy use and energy efficiency, water use and water efficiency, resource use and resource efficienty
Presence of substances of concern
(Possibility of recovery of materials was considered not relevant)

Fragen

Do you agree with the relevant aspects selected? Why?
Do you agree with the grouping performed? Why? How can it be improved?

[Bei direkten Antworten auf diese Fragen geben Sie bitte im Kommentar die jeweilige Nummer an]

1 vote

Add/View comment (1)

P2

2. Physical durability

Präsentation 2nd_mil_day_1_v20241209.pdf S. 21-28

Textile-Prep-Study_2nd-Milestone_20241217.pdf S. 104-113

EUROCOMMERCE hat dazu bereits eine umfassende Stellungnahme abgegeben: Answers_to_EuroCommerce_20250124.pdf

Section	Line
9.2.1	2802 - 3011

Fragen

Do you agree with the methology describing physical durability? Why? How can it be improved?
Would you agree to share data/studies on textile apparel consumption?
Do you agree with the categories proposed? Why?
Do you agree with currently not analysing physical durability of accessories? Why? What could be an alternative approach?
Do you agree with the intervals chosen when describing BC, BAT and BNAT? Why? How would it be improved?
Do you agree with the grouping performed? Why? How can it be improved?

[Bei direkten Antworten auf diese Fragen geben Sie bitte in Ihrem Kommentar die jeweilige Nummer an]

1 vote

Add/View comment (1)

P3

3. Maintenance and Repairability

Präsentation 2nd_mil_day_1_v20241209.pdf S. 29-34

Textile-Prep-Study_2nd-Milestone_20241217.pdf S. 113 -118 und 118-122

	Section	Line
Maintenance	9.2.2	3012 – 3127
Reparability	9.2.3	3128 – 3240

FRAGEN

Do you agree with the methologies used? Why? How can they be improved?
Do you agree with the description of BC, BAT and BNAT? Why? How can they improved?

[Bei direkten Antworten auf diese Fragen geben Sie bitte im Kommentar die jeweilige Nummer an]

Add comment

P4

4. Waste generation / Recyclability and recycled content

Präsentation 2nd_mil_day_1_v20241209.pdf S. 37-46

Textile-Prep-Study_2nd-Milestone_20241217.pdf S. 122 – 126 und 126 - 136

	Section	Line
Waste generation	9.2.4	3241 – 3411
Recyclability and recycled content	9.2.5	3412 – 3700

FRAGEN

Do you agree with the framework adopted to describe recyclability? Why? How can it be improved?
Do you agree with the framework adopted to describe recycöed content? Why? How can it be improved?

[Bei direkten Antworten auf diese Fragen geben Sie bitte im Kommentar die jeweilige Nummer an]

1 vote

Add/View comment (1)

P5

5. Environmental Impacts
(Sie werden in einer weiteren Diskussion – Teil 3 - genauer diskutiert)

Präsentation 2nd_mil_day_1_v20241209.pdf S. 47-49 – Inhaltliche Folie: S. 48

Textile-Prep-Study_2nd-Milestone_20241217.pdf S. 136-140

(o.g. Folie 48 wird in 9.2.6.2 beschrieben)

Section	Line
9.2.6	3701 - 3897

FRAGEN

Do you agree with the framework adopted to describe environmental impacts? Why? How can it be improved?

[Bei direkten Antworten auf diese Frage geben Sie bitte im Kommentar die jeweilige Nummer an]

Add/View comment (1)

P6

6. Presence of Substances of Concern
(Sie werden in einer weiteren Diskussion – Teil 2 - genauer diskutiert)

Präsentation 2nd_mil_day_1_v20241209.pdf S. 50-59

Textile-Prep-Study_2nd-Milestone_20241217.pdf S. 140-145

Section	Line
9.2.7	3898 – 4123

FRAGEN

Do you agree with the description made of substances of concern in textiles?
How can it be improved? What other aspects should be addressed?
How effective are current means to identify and track SoC in the textile supply chain?

[Bei direkten Antworten auf diese Fragen geben Sie bitte im Kommentar die jeweilige Nummer an]

Add comment

P7

7. Weitere Kommentare

Präsentation 2nd_mil_day_1_v20241209.pdf

Textile-Prep-Study_2nd-Milestone_20241217.pdf

Gerne können Sie hier weitere Kommentare angeben, die nicht durch obige Fragestellungen und Kapitel abgedeckt sind. Wenn möglich, geben Sie dabei jeweils die Section und Line an, auf die sich Ihre Anmerkung bezieht.