What will it take to eliminate hazardous chemicals from everyday products?

Brands such as Burberry and Adidas have pledged to phase out dangerous chemicals, but face significant challenges
Model showing the periodic elements of chemistry
Model showing the periodic elements of chemistry. Photograph: Wellcome Images

When Burberry last month announced its plans to eliminate some chemicals of concern by July 2016, it's likely that few people outside of the sustainability community realized the ambitiousness of the goal and the timeline.

Phasing out potentially hazardous chemicals might sound simple, but is actually incredibly complicated, and sometimes costly, to accomplish, says Michelle Harvey, senior retail project manager at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). "If it was easy, everybody would have done it a long time ago," she says.

And as consumer awareness of potential chemical hazards has grown, more and more corporations are setting goals to phase them out.

Adidas last year committed to phasing out the use of long-chain perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), which some studies have linked to osteoarthritis in women and asthma in children and which were recently restricted by countries that have joined The Stockholm Convention – by 1 January 2015. And Walmart in September announced a new chemical policy requiring suppliers to reduce or eliminate potentially hazardous chemicals commonly used in beauty products, household cleaners and cosmetics.

While it is clear that many major brands are starting to address the issue, they still have a long way to go: a recently published report by Greenpeace alleged that some products manufactured by recognized clothing brands, including Adidas and Burberry, still contained "harmful" PFCs.

Given the difficulty of the task and the slow start, are the timelines feasible? "It's not a simple process [but] it's a doable process," says Joel Tickner program director for the Department of Community Health and Sustainability at the University of Massachusetts.

Timelines depend on how "necessary" the chemical is for the performance the company is trying to achieve and whether similar substitutes are available in sufficient quantities to make the substitution happen, he says.

"For example, Burberry may have little need for water resistance as their clothing is not used in high impact ways [eg heavy outdoors activity, mountain climbing, etc] and so they may be able to avoid the water repellency all together or get it through a substitute material," he explains.

In cases where a material can be eliminated via a simple switch, timelines can be shorter; when substitutes don't already exist and an entirely new chemistry has to be developed, that takes longer, particularly if government approvals are needed, he says. Some companies have said the cost of a major substitution can run to millions of dollars for a single product line, he adds.

Even when ingredients to replace problematic chemicals exist, they're not always as good, or cost-effective, says EDF's Harvey. Sometimes they come with other complications: "One ingredient change can sometimes deactivate six other ingredients," she says. "So you're left with a question of how much motivation do these businesses have to really change the chemical."

The lack of good substitutes may be holding back commitments from more companies. Adidas' Frank Henke, global director of social and environmental affairs, says that it is essential for the companies buying these chemicals to be able to rely on the expertise of those developing the formulas.

"We as the buyer of these products do not have such an in-depth knowledge compared to those that develop these applications specifically," he says. "So this requires a very close collaboration and the utmost transparency about the chemicals and substances, so that they're used in the right way and precautionary measures can be taken."

Available alternatives may not be able to meet some of Adidas' specific performance requirements, Tickner says, but it's also possible that some brands are insisting on higher performance than they actually need. " I have heard some brands strongly advocate for water repellency for fabrics that probably don't need it for their intended use and the normal customer would never notice a difference if the chemicals were not there," he says.

A new crop of innovative chemists is working to come up with viable substitutes to end the chemical stalemate, Harvey says. But they've got their work cut out. Over time, a huge number of chemicals have been created and used in products even though we don't really understand the full array of what they do, Harvey says. "The reason why companies today are finding this so hard is that for so long, at a fundamental level of chemical creation, nobody was ever taught to look at the impact of the chemical they were creating on the planet or on people."

For now, though, a two-year timeline seems to be the rule of thumb for phasing out chemicals of concern in retail, she says. "Can companies move faster if they have to? Sure. But I think systematic is preferable to ensure a better end result."

Leigh Stringer, the sustainability editor for edie.net, specialises in corporate sustainability, climate change and the environment