Rivers and Just Jeans were forced to recall a number of denim products this week over concerns the dye used could cause cancer. Apparel & Textile Industries Group Partner Paula Rogers argues it's time for change.
For many years now, due to reverse seasonality and very limited chemical product safety requirements, Australia has been the dumping ground of substandard product from northern hemisphere markets.
Unaware consumers unknowingly think they are bagging a bargain, but what they don’t know is if it part of the bargain is a heighten risk of cancer.
Further, this substandard product is also creating an unfair downward pressure on pricing making it increasingly difficult for retailers and brands to compete and do the right thing.
In apparel and textile manufactured goods, there are considered to be 11 core groups of harmful chemical substances.
One of these groupings –harmful AZO dyestuffs- was recently highlighted by the ACCC in requiring three Australian retailers to take action on product recalls on products that were found to contain harmful AZO dyes.
At present there is no legislative framework within Australia that restricts these harmful substances in apparel and textiles.
So while the current federal Government and the ACCC try to figure out a way forward on this topic, what can Australian brands and retailers do?
Many years ago in the mid-nineties when I first started working in Hong Kong for Umbro Sportswear, the European government made their first introduction on harmful cancer causing AZO dyestuffs.
At that time, our regional suppliers jumped up and down about how they were going to manage this requirement and still provide the pantone colours demanded.
Very soon, within six months in fact, everything settled down and we were back to business as usual.
Like many things in life the idea of something is often worse than the reality.
And when all the huffing and puffing from the suppliers died down, we got down to business.
We simply asked them to map and provide a list of all the fabric mills in their supply chain of our products.
We asked each in turn to make a written standard declaration that effective from this date, they would cease to use the list of chemical dyestuffs outlined in the attached “Restricted Substances List” (RSL).
Beyond that we waited a few months for goods to start being delivered from the order written after the effective date, and introduced random testing.
After a year or two it wasn’t necessary any longer to test because our entire supplier had been proven over a period of time to be compliant.
Being compliant isn’t hard.
The dye houses need to dispose of the harmful dyestuffs listed, find a replacement and continue to use the replacement going forward.
In essence the cost of being compliant was increased random testing until the situation was found to be under control, and some additional effort from the sourcing and QA teams.
So why do we need legislation? Because we cannot rely on all those selling apparel to Australian consumers, to simply do the “right thing”.
In every other country where this type of legislation had been developed it has been drive by the government in consultation with industry and the broader stakeholders affected.
The immediate reaction, I imagine for any retailer, getting caught in the recent product recalls by the ACCC is how do I to assure their customers that they are in control.
AS outlined above, this part in essence is not hard for any retailer committed to improvement.