Formaldehyde in Textiles
While Levels in Clothing Generally Appear to Be Low, Allergic Contact Dermatitis Is a Health Issue for Some People Gao ID: GAO-10-875 August 13, 2010Formaldehyde--one of the most widely produced chemicals in the world--is used in many products, including disinfectants, pressed-wood, and clothing and other textiles. Exposure to this chemical, which has been linked to adverse health effects for more than 30 years, typically occurs through inhalation and dermal (skin) contact. Formaldehyde can be used to enhance wrinkle resistance in some clothing and textiles, especially those made of cotton. The Consumer Product Safety Commission reviewed formaldehyde in clothing in the 1980s and determined that the levels found did not pose a public health concern. At that time, most clothing sold in the United States was made here--but the market has changed such that most U.S. clothing is now made in other countries. This market change has raised anew questions about the levels of formaldehyde in clothing. In response to a mandate in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, this report provides information on what is known about (1) the health risks of exposure to formaldehyde, particularly from clothing, and (2) the levels of formaldehyde in clothing sold in the United States. GAO analyzed government reviews and the medical literature, as well as studies on levels of formaldehyde in clothing, and had a sample of 180 textiles--primarily clothing--tested for formaldehyde by an accredited laboratory. While illustrative of formaldehyde levels that may be found in clothing, the test results from GAO's sample cannot be projected to all clothing sold in the United States.
The potential health risks associated with formaldehyde vary,depending largely on the means of exposure (e.g., inhalation or dermal contact), the concentration of the formaldehyde, and the duration of exposure. Inhaled formaldehyde may cause such effects as nausea, exacerbation of asthma, and cellular changes that may lead to the development of tumors. In fact, comprehensive reviews by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the World Health Organization have found that chronic inhalation exposure to formaldehyde may cause cancer. However, the health risk of greatest concern associated with formaldehyde in clothing--allergic contact dermatitis--stems from dermal exposure. A form of eczema, allergic contact dermatitis affects the immune system and produces reactions characterized by rashes, blisters, and flaky, dry skin that can itch or burn. Another potential health effect from dermal exposure to formaldehyde--irritant contact dermatitis--is also a form of eczema and has similar symptoms; however, this condition does not affect the immune system. Avoiding clothing containing formaldehyde is typically effective at preventing allergic and irritant contact dermatitis and relieving symptoms, but doing so can be difficult as clothing labels do not identify items treated with or containing formaldehyde. Washing clothing before it is worn often reduces formaldehyde levels but is not always successful. In some cases, avoiding or relieving allergic contact dermatitis requires more drastic measures, such as taking medications with potentially serious side effects. Finally, consumers may also experience dermal exposure to formaldehyde by using some cosmetics and skin care products, such as shampoos and sunscreens that contain formaldehyde. Comprehensive data on formaldehyde levels in clothing sold in the United States are not publicly available. While formaldehyde levels in clothing are not regulated in the United States, the apparel industry reports that 13 countries have laws or regulations that limit formaldehyde levels in clothing. Most of the 180 items GAO had tested had formaldehyde levels that were below the most stringent of these industry-identified regulatory limits. GAO's test results are similar to those of recent studies of formaldehyde levels in clothing by the European Union, New Zealand, and Australia--that is, most items were found to meet the most stringent limits. Moreover, government studies we reviewed showed a decline in the formaldehyde levels in clothing since the 1980s, and the levels reported in these studies are generally consistent with the decline in levels reported in the medical literature. This decline is associated with the development and use of low-formaldehyde technologies (resins) in manufacturing clothing, which has been encouraged by such factors as the identification of formaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen via inhalation; the promulgation of federal regulations protecting workers from inhalation exposure to formaldehyde; and limits on formaldehyde levels that some U.S. retailers have established for clothing they sell. This report contains no recommendations.
GAO-10-875, Formhaldehyde in Textiles: While Levels in Clothing Generally Appear to Be Low, Allergic Contact Dermatitis Is a Health Issue for Some People
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-875
entitled 'Formaldehyde In Textiles: While Levels in Clothing Generally
Appear to Be Low, Allergic Contact Dermatitis Is a Health Issue for
Some People' which was released on August 13, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
August 2010:
Formaldehyde In Textiles:
While Levels in Clothing Generally Appear to Be Low, Allergic Contact
Dermatitis Is a Health Issue for Some People:
GAO-10-875:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-875, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Formaldehyde-”one of the most widely produced chemicals in the world”-
is used in many products, including disinfectants, pressed-wood, and
clothing and other textiles. Exposure to this chemical, which has been
linked to adverse health effects for more than 30 years, typically
occurs through inhalation and dermal (skin) contact. Formaldehyde can
be used to enhance wrinkle resistance in some clothing and textiles,
especially those made of cotton. The Consumer Product Safety
Commission reviewed formaldehyde in clothing in the 1980s and
determined that the levels found did not pose a public health concern.
At that time, most clothing sold in the United States was made here-”
but the market has changed such that most U.S. clothing is now made in
other countries. This market change has raised anew questions about
the levels of formaldehyde in clothing.
In response to a mandate in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement
Act of 2008, this report provides information on what is known about
(1) the health risks of exposure to formaldehyde, particularly from
clothing, and (2) the levels of formaldehyde in clothing sold in the
United States. GAO analyzed government reviews and the medical
literature, as well as studies on levels of formaldehyde in clothing,
and had a sample of 180 textiles”primarily clothing”tested for
formaldehyde by an accredited laboratory. While illustrative of
formaldehyde levels that may be found in clothing, the test results
from GAO‘s sample cannot be projected to all clothing sold in the
United States. This report contains no recommendations.
What GAO Found:
The potential health risks associated with formaldehyde vary,
depending largely on the means of exposure (e.g., inhalation or dermal
contact), the concentration of the formaldehyde, and the duration of
exposure. Inhaled formaldehyde may cause such effects as nausea,
exacerbation of asthma, and cellular changes that may lead to the
development of tumors. In fact, comprehensive reviews by the
Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the World Health Organization have found that chronic
inhalation exposure to formaldehyde may cause cancer. However, the
health risk of greatest concern associated with formaldehyde in
clothing”allergic contact dermatitis”stems from dermal exposure. A
form of eczema, allergic contact dermatitis affects the immune system
and produces reactions characterized by rashes, blisters, and flaky,
dry skin that can itch or burn. Another potential health effect from
dermal exposure to formaldehyde”irritant contact dermatitis”is also a
form of eczema and has similar symptoms; however, this condition does
not affect the immune system. Avoiding clothing containing
formaldehyde is typically effective at preventing allergic and
irritant contact dermatitis and relieving symptoms, but doing so can
be difficult as clothing labels do not identify items treated with or
containing formaldehyde. Washing clothing before it is worn often
reduces formaldehyde levels but is not always successful. In some
cases, avoiding or relieving allergic contact dermatitis requires more
drastic measures, such as taking medications with potentially serious
side effects. Finally, consumers may also experience dermal exposure
to formaldehyde by using some cosmetics and skin care products, such
as shampoos and sunscreens that contain formaldehyde.
Comprehensive data on formaldehyde levels in clothing sold in the
United States are not publicly available. While formaldehyde levels in
clothing are not regulated in the United States, the apparel industry
reports that 13 countries have laws or regulations that limit
formaldehyde levels in clothing. Most of the 180 items GAO had tested
had formaldehyde levels that were below the most stringent of these
industry-identified regulatory limits. GAO‘s test results are similar
to those of recent studies of formaldehyde levels in clothing by the
European Union, New Zealand, and Australia”that is, most items were
found to meet the most stringent limits. Moreover, government studies
we reviewed showed a decline in the formaldehyde levels in clothing
since the 1980s, and the levels reported in these studies are
generally consistent with the decline in levels reported in the
medical literature. This decline is associated with the development
and use of low-formaldehyde technologies (resins) in manufacturing
clothing, which has been encouraged by such factors as the
identification of formaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen via
inhalation; the promulgation of federal regulations protecting workers
from inhalation exposure to formaldehyde; and limits on formaldehyde
levels that some U.S. retailers have established for clothing they
sell.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-875] or key
components. For more information, contact John B. Stephenson at (202)
512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Formaldehyde Poses Different Health Risks Depending on the Type and
Extent of Exposure:
While Comprehensive Data Are Not Available, Recent Studies Suggest
That Formaldehyde Levels in Clothing Are Generally Low and Have
Declined over Time:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Government Reviews of the General Health Effects of
Exposure to Formaldehyde and Medical Literature on the Health Effects
of Formaldehyde in Textiles:
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix III: Voluntary Labeling Programs:
Appendix IV: Top Ten Exporters of Clothing to the United States in
2008:
Appendix V: Results of Formaldehyde Tests for a Sample of Clothing and
Bed Linens Sold in the United States:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Ten Items Sold in the United States That Exceeded the Most
Stringent Regulatory Standards for Formaldehyde Identified by the
American Apparel and Footwear Association:
Table 2: Levels of Formaldehyde in Clothing and Other Textiles
Reported in Government Studies, 1984-2010:
Table 3: Formaldehyde Limits Set by 14 U.S. Retailers for Clothing and
Bed Linens:
Table 4: Examples of Voluntary Labeling Programs:
Table 5: Information on Items Sold in the United States and Tested for
Formaldehyde Levels, 2010:
Abbreviations:
AATCC test: American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists 112
test:
CPSC: Consumer Product Safety Commission:
DMDHEU: dimethylol dihydroxy ethylene urea:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
IARC: International Agency for Research on Cancer:
ISO: International Organization for Standardization:
Japanese test: Japanese Law 112 test:
OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration:
USDA: Department of Agriculture:
WHO: World Health Organization:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
August 13, 2010:
The Honorable Jay Rockefeller:
Chairman:
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Joe Barton:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Energy and Commerce:
House of Representatives:
Formaldehyde is a colorless, pungent-smelling chemical well known for
its use as a preservative and disinfectant in laboratories and
mortuaries but is also widely used in consumer products such as
pressed-wood products, glues and adhesives, cosmetics, and clothing
and other textiles. Some clothing--generally garments made of cotton
and other natural fibers--is treated with resins[Footnote 1]
containing formaldehyde primarily to enhance wrinkle resistance.
Formaldehyde is toxic and has been linked to serious adverse health
effects, including cancer, and some federal agencies have regulations
that limit human exposure, which occurs primarily through inhalation
and dermal (skin) contact. Regarding inhalation exposure, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates formaldehyde emissions
to the ambient air from both industrial sources and vehicles under the
Clean Air Act, and the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) has standards in place that limit
employee exposure to formaldehyde emissions in the workplace.
Regarding dermal exposure to textiles, formaldehyde levels in clothing
and other textiles that come into contact with the skin are not
regulated. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which is
charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious
injury or death from consumer products, including clothing, reviewed
formaldehyde in clothing sold in the United States in the 1980s and
found that formaldehyde levels were sufficiently low so as not to be a
public health concern.[Footnote 2]
At the time of the CPSC review, most textiles sold in the United
States were also manufactured in the United States. However, the
market for textiles has changed significantly in recent years, raising
questions about what the current levels of formaldehyde in clothing
are. Currently, most clothing sold in the United States is imported
from other countries, particularly from China, Vietnam, and other
countries in Asia, as well as from countries in Central America. In
2008, for example, nearly 35 percent of clothing imported into the
United States was manufactured in China, up from about 6 percent in
2000. Moreover, in contrast with the United States, some countries,
including China, have established legal limits on the levels of
formaldehyde that clothing may contain. For example, China and Japan
have similar restrictions on levels of formaldehyde that may be
contained in infant and other clothing that comes into direct contact
with the skin. Further, the level of formaldehyde in clothing depends
largely on the variability in the way the manufacturing process is
conducted. For example, formaldehyde levels can vary among the same
type and make of clothing because of, among other things, differences
in the type of resin used and the ways it is applied.
Section 234 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008
requires GAO to conduct a study on the use of formaldehyde in the
manufacturing of textiles and apparel.[Footnote 3] This report
provides information on what is known about (1) the health risks from
exposure to formaldehyde, particularly from clothing, and (2) the
levels of formaldehyde found in clothing sold in the United States. To
determine what is known about the health risks from exposure to
formaldehyde, we analyzed comprehensive government reviews of the
health effects of exposure to formaldehyde and conducted a literature
review of articles in medical, textile, and environmental journals and
books published from 1980 through April 2010 (see app. I for more
information on this research).[Footnote 4] To determine what is known
about the levels of formaldehyde found in clothing sold in the United
States, we analyzed information about (1) the use of formaldehyde-
containing resins in clothing, (2) formaldehyde levels in clothing
reported in government studies, and (3) relevant voluntary labeling
programs, corporate limits, and regulatory limits for formaldehyde
levels in clothing in the United States and other countries. Because
of complexities in obtaining English translations of formaldehyde laws
and regulations in other countries and confirming their application
within the context of these countries' legal systems, we relied
primarily on the American Apparel and Footwear Association for
information on formaldehyde limits set in other countries, including
the limits identified as the most stringent.[Footnote 5] In addition,
using an accredited commercial laboratory, we tested a nonprobability
sample[Footnote 6] of 180 textile items--primarily clothing (165) and
some bed linens (15)--purchased from selected U.S. retailers in six
metropolitan areas: Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Seattle, and
Washington, D.C. We selected low-or moderately priced items. We
compared our test results with the most stringent regulatory limits
for formaldehyde in clothing and other textiles established in other
countries, as identified by the American Apparel and Footwear
Association. The results from testing our nonprobability sample are
illustrative of formaldehyde levels that may be found in some clothing
and are not projectable to clothing sold in the United States in
general. Throughout our review, we consulted with CPSC on our
methodology and to obtain relevant background information stemming
from the agency's mission to ensure consumer protection. Appendix II
provides a more detailed description of our scope and methodology. We
conducted this performance audit from September 2009 to August 2010 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
Formaldehyde--one of the most widely produced and used chemicals in
the world--is a water-soluble gas often used in a water-based solution
(aqueous form) as a disinfectant or tissue preservative. In terms of
toxicity, ingestion by an adult of as little as 1 ounce of a solution
containing 37 percent formaldehyde has been reported to be lethal.
[Footnote 7] Formaldehyde is also used in other forms, including
resins, that combine formaldehyde with other compounds. Aqueous
formaldehyde and products containing formaldehyde tend to emit some
formaldehyde into the air. Formaldehyde is also produced naturally in
the environment and is found in low levels in people and most living
things. In addition, formaldehyde is a by-product of combustion
processes, such as wood burning and cigarette smoking. When
formaldehyde is exposed to air, it begins to break down and dissipate.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reports that average
levels of formaldehyde in outdoor air are often less than 0.01 parts
of formaldehyde per million parts of air, and the average levels in
indoor air in homes are often less than 0.04 parts per million.
[Footnote 8] Major sources of formaldehyde in outdoor air are man-
made, such as power plants, manufacturing facilities, incinerators,
and automobile exhaust. Formaldehyde levels in outdoor air are often
found to be higher near some industry facilities and in heavily
populated urban areas. In addition, people exposed to formaldehyde at
work--such as medical personnel, embalmers, cabinetmakers, and textile
plant employees--may be exposed to higher levels of formaldehyde. In
general, the highest levels of airborne formaldehyde are detected
indoors, where it can be released from various building materials,
consumer products, and tobacco smoke.
Because formaldehyde is highly toxic, it is regulated by various
federal and state agencies to protect human health and the
environment.[Footnote 9] For example, EPA lists formaldehyde as a
hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and as a hazardous
waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Other
agencies, such as OSHA and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, regulate airborne formaldehyde concentrations in the
workplace and in manufactured homes, and the Food and Drug
Administration limits the food-related use of formaldehyde to
packaging components. In addition, California regulates formaldehyde
emissions from composite wood products to protect human health from
airborne exposure to formaldehyde.[Footnote 10] According to an
official from the California Environmental Protection Agency, the
agency found that emissions from textiles commonly found in the home,
such as draperies, dissipate quickly, whereas emissions from composite
wood products are higher and remain relatively constant over time.
Formaldehyde-containing resins have been used in clothing and other
textiles since the mid-1920s primarily to impart durable press
characteristics to fabrics made from natural fibers, especially plant-
based fibers such as cotton.[Footnote 11] These resins may also
provide other easy-care benefits, such as shrink resistance and color
fastness.[Footnote 12] The use of these resins in cotton clothing and
other textiles became more prevalent in the 1950s and 1960s to compete
with the increased use of synthetic fabrics, which often provided
durable press characteristics. Under certain conditions, formaldehyde-
containing resins may chemically degrade and release (off gas) free
formaldehyde, including when exposed to high temperature and humidity.
The level of formaldehyde in clothing identified by testing and the
level of formaldehyde that may be emitted by that clothing into the
air will vary under different conditions--especially heat and
humidity--and the test method used. Formaldehyde release mechanisms
are numerous and complex, and emissions of formaldehyde from fabrics
are much lower than the levels found in the fabrics by testing.
Several analytical tests may be used to identify the levels of
formaldehyde in clothing and other textiles. Test results are
generally expressed as micrograms of formaldehyde per gram of fabric--
typically either as microgram per gram or as parts per million.
The two analytical tests now commonly used in the textile industry to
identify levels of formaldehyde in clothing and textiles are the
Japanese Industrial Standard L 1041 test, also known as the Japanese
Law 112 test (Japanese test), and the American Association of Textile
Chemists and Colorists 112 test (AATCC test).[Footnote 13] The
Japanese test was developed to measure the amount of formaldehyde that
may be released by clothing and other textiles that may come into
contact with the skin, and the AATCC test was developed to measure the
amount of formaldehyde that may be released from clothing and other
textiles during extended storage or hot and humid conditions.[Footnote
14] Because of different testing specifications, as well as variables
related to the particular formaldehyde resins used, formaldehyde
levels measured by the two tests are not comparable, and the results
from the Japanese test cannot be used to predict what the results
would be under the AATCC test and vice versa.[Footnote 15] Regarding
the tests performed on our sample of clothing and bed linens, the
laboratory tested all of them using the Japanese test and a subset of
them using the AATCC test. According to the American Apparel and
Footwear Association, the Japanese test is used to determine whether
formaldehyde levels in clothing are consistent with levels cited in
international regulations. In addition, most of the U.S. retailers
that provided us with information on internal corporate limits use the
Japanese test or its equivalent. Further, the Japanese test was more
frequently used in the studies we identified that conducted
formaldehyde testing in clothing and other textiles.
The American Apparel and Footwear Association has identified the most
stringent regulatory limits for formaldehyde in clothing and home
textiles in other countries for its members that may wish to sell
their products internationally.[Footnote 16] The most stringent
formaldehyde limits identified use the Japanese (or equivalent) test
as a basis for measurement and are:
* not detectable (defined as less than 20 parts per million) for
products intended for children younger than 3 years of age,
* less than 75 parts per million for products that come into direct
contact with the skin for children who are 3 years of age and older
and for adults, and:
* less than 300 parts per million for products that do not come into
direct contact with the skin--e.g., outerwear--for children who are 3
years of age and older and for adults.
Some countries do not limit formaldehyde levels in clothing but
require disclosure in labels if formaldehyde levels exceed specified
amounts.[Footnote 17] Further, some countries and private entities
offer "eco labels" for clothing and other textiles, if their
formaldehyde levels--as well as levels of other chemicals--are within
specified ranges. Appendix III provides more information on voluntary
labeling programs. Finally, while the United States does not legally
limit formaldehyde levels in clothing, some U.S. retailers have set
internal corporate limits on formaldehyde in clothing.
In the mid-1980s, most of the clothing sold in the United States was
also manufactured in the United States and its territories. However,
imports of clothing and other textiles from other countries now make
up a majority of U.S. sales. Although textile industries are dispersed
throughout the world, China is now the world's largest producer and
exporter of clothing and textiles. Much of China's growth occurred
during the 10-year phaseout of textile quotas under the 1995 World
Trade Organization Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, which was
completed on January 1, 2005.[Footnote 18] As of 2008, China accounted
for the largest share of total U.S. clothing imports--34.3 percent, an
increase from 6.5 percent in 1999. Vietnam and Bangladesh rank second
and third at 6.7 percent and 6.3 percent, respectively. Appendix IV
provides additional information on the 10 countries that exported the
most clothing to the United States in 2008.
Formaldehyde Poses Different Health Risks Depending on the Type and
Extent of Exposure:
Key government reviews on the health effects of exposure to
formaldehyde, including those conducted by EPA, HHS, and the World
Health Organization (WHO), have concluded that chronic inhalation
exposure to formaldehyde may cause cancer. Regarding exposure to
formaldehyde in clothing, the health risk of greatest concern
identified in key government reviews and in the medical literature is
allergic contact dermatitis.
Key Government Reviews Have Concluded That Chronic Inhalation Exposure
to Formaldehyde May Cause Cancer:
The potential health risks from exposure to formaldehyde vary
depending on the means of exposure (inhalation, dermal, ingestion, or
eye contact), the concentration of formaldehyde, and the duration of
exposure, among other factors. Inhaled formaldehyde may cause such
effects as (1) discomfort or nausea stemming from the chemical's
pungent odor; (2) irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat; (3)
exacerbation of asthma; and (4) changes at the cellular level that may
lead to the development of tumors. In fact, several comprehensive
government reviews of the health risks of exposure to formaldehyde
have found that chronic inhalation exposure to formaldehyde may cause
cancer.
Concerns about the health risks of exposure to formaldehyde were
heightened in 1979 when the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
[Footnote 19] reported that formaldehyde caused nasal cancer in
laboratory rats. Since then, government and industry entities have
extensively studied the potential human health risks of inhalation
exposure to this commonly used chemical. Concerns about formaldehyde
are based on its cancer-causing potential in humans as well as its
irritant properties. Research efforts on inhalation exposure have
focused on indoor air levels of formaldehyde, where concentrations are
known to be higher, and in particular on exposure in occupational
settings. These research efforts include long-term epidemiological
studies conducted on workplace exposure. For example, the largest
study to date was conducted by the National Cancer Institute, which
has tracked close to 26,000 workers employed in 10 different
formaldehyde-producing or -using plants since the 1960s; the latest
update to this study was published in 2009. Similarly, HHS's National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has studied about 11,000
textile workers exposed to formaldehyde in the workplace. These
studies have suggested that formaldehyde exposure is associated with
nasopharyngeal cancer and possibly with cancers of the hematopoietic
and lymphatic systems, particularly myeloid leukemia.[Footnote 20]
Based on these and other studies, at least three government entities--
EPA, HHS, and WHO--have conducted comprehensive reviews of the health
effects of formaldehyde. For example, in 2005, the HHS's National
Toxicology Program[Footnote 21] concluded that chronically inhaled
formaldehyde is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen; the
agency is currently considering upgrading this designation to "known
to be a human carcinogen."[Footnote 22] Similarly, beginning in 1987,
EPA classified inhaled formaldehyde as a probable human
carcinogen[Footnote 23] and in June 2010 released a revised draft
assessment classifying it as a known human carcinogen.[Footnote 24]
The draft EPA assessment is undergoing a review by the National
Academies,[Footnote 25] one of several key steps the agency must take
prior to finalizing the assessment. In addition, in 2006, WHO's
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reclassified
formaldehyde from "probably carcinogenic to humans," a classification
based on its 1995 assessment, to "carcinogenic to humans."[Footnote
26] For the 2006 classification, IARC found sufficient evidence that
formaldehyde causes nasopharyngeal cancer in humans, limited evidence
for cancer of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses, and strong but
not sufficient evidence for leukemia. In 2009, IARC's Cancer Monograph
Working Group determined on the basis of additional epidemiological
studies that there was sufficient evidence to associate formaldehyde
exposure with leukemia.[Footnote 27] This finding will be published in
an upcoming IARC monograph.
Most studies supporting a link between exposure to formaldehyde and an
increased risk of cancer studied workers exposed to formaldehyde
occupationally, rather than people exposed to formaldehyde in consumer
products, although people may be exposed to formaldehyde in consumer
goods, such as pressed-wood products and textiles, that may "off gas"
formaldehyde indoors. While EPA is required to develop regulations
establishing standards for emissions of formaldehyde from hardwood
plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and particleboard under July 2010
amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act, the comprehensive
government studies we reviewed do not indicate that formaldehyde
levels in clothing present an inhalation health risk to consumers.
The Health Risk of Greatest Concern Associated with Dermal Exposure to
Formaldehyde in Clothing Is Allergic Contact Dermatitis:
Regarding exposure to formaldehyde in clothing, CPSC officials said
that, on the basis of research the agency conducted in the 1980s,
[Footnote 28] (1) there were no data indicating that formaldehyde in
clothing and other textiles could penetrate the skin and cause cancer
and (2) levels of formaldehyde found in clothing did not pose an acute
or chronic health hazard to consumers. As a result, CPSC concluded
that a regulatory standard was not needed for levels of formaldehyde
in clothing and other textiles or for emissions of formaldehyde from
these items. Further, the United States has no other legal limit on
the level of formaldehyde that may be found in clothing and other
textiles.
Based on our review of the medical literature, the health risk of
greatest concern associated with formaldehyde in clothing--allergic
contact dermatitis--stems from dermal exposure.[Footnote 29] A form of
eczema, allergic contact dermatitis produces reactions characterized
by rashes, discoloration (particularly redness), swelling, blisters,
scaling, and flaky dry skin that can itch or burn. These reactions are
often very painful and can last indefinitely if left untreated. The
reactions can be exacerbated by heat, humidity, friction, and
perspiration and are usually worse where clothing fits closely. In
some cases, repeated scratching of the affected area can lead to
patches of tough, leathery skin. Allergic contact dermatitis also
affects the immune system. Another potential health effect from dermal
exposure to formaldehyde in clothing--irritant contact dermatitis--is
also a form of eczema and has similar symptoms; however, this
condition does not affect the immune system.
Formaldehyde is classified as a "strong sensitizer"--a substance that
can cause hypersensitivity through recurring or prolonged contact.
According to the medical literature, people with allergic contact
dermatitis caused by contact with formaldehyde in clothing have
generally become hypersensitive to the chemical through previous
exposure. The test used to determine whether an individual has
allergic contact dermatitis does not identify the level of
formaldehyde in clothing that would trigger this condition. Although
the estimates vary widely, the medical literature suggests that the
amount of formaldehyde in clothing needed to trigger an allergic
contact dermatitis reaction in sensitized individuals can be as little
as 30 parts per million. The amount of formaldehyde in clothing that
would cause a reaction is an area needing further research, according
to a 2009 medical journal article by experts on contact dermatitis.
[Footnote 30]
Some of the medical literature has estimated the number of people with
allergic and irritant contact dermatitis caused by dermal exposure to
formaldehyde. This literature focuses on subpopulations of patients--
those with eczema--and therefore the results cannot be generalized to
the rest of the population. For example, one study reported that 9.2
percent of patients suspected of having contact dermatitis tested
positive to a diagnostic skin test--called a patch test--that applied
a 1 percent formaldehyde solution to the skin to test for any dermal
reaction. Other studies estimate that between 1.2 percent and 2.3
percent of people with eczema have dermatitis related to formaldehyde
in their clothing. Some of the medical literature suggests that
allergic contact dermatitis may be underreported because medical
practitioners might not distinguish it from cases of dermatitis with
other causes, because of differences in how patch testing is conducted
to determine dermatitis, and because some individuals may attempt to
treat the condition themselves without seeking medical attention or
are reluctant to make the number of visits to the doctor necessary to
make a reliable diagnosis.
Avoiding clothing containing formaldehyde is typically effective at
preventing allergic or irritant contact dermatitis and at relieving
symptoms, but doing so may be difficult because labels for clothing
sold in the United States generally do not provide information on
formaldehyde content or on whether the clothing item was treated with
formaldehyde. One dermatologist with whom we spoke published an
article that identifies some clothing companies that report using
little or no formaldehyde in their clothing.[Footnote 31] Also, a
number of medical articles recommend that patients allergic to
formaldehyde wash articles of clothing before wearing them to reduce
the level of formaldehyde to which they may be exposed. The success of
this technique in limiting exposure to formaldehyde in clothing may
vary, however. For example, studies conducted by the Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service report that the
effect of laundering on formaldehyde levels depends on the type of
resin that is applied to the clothing as well as on other factors,
such as the alkalinity and hardness of the water and whether bleach is
used. Other studies report that while formaldehyde levels may decline
initially after washing, the levels may start increasing again after
multiple washes. One publication explains that while washing clothing
does remove some formaldehyde, levels may increase again over time as
the resin is broken down by, among other things, washing and ironing.
[Footnote 32] Additionally, certain clothing items, such as hats, are
generally not washed before being worn.
In some cases, more drastic measures may be necessary to avoid
allergic contact dermatitis. Some researchers suggest that some
patients may need to change occupations or job responsibilities to
avoid contact with formaldehyde-containing products. If wearing
clothing with formaldehyde cannot be avoided, some researchers suggest
wearing synthetic or silk undergarments to act as a barrier between
the skin and the clothing. When avoidance is not feasible or does not
sufficiently relieve symptoms for those with allergic contact
dermatitis, other treatment options include strong oral or topical
medications, including immunosuppressive agents that may have serious
side effects. Topical medications should be used with caution because
some of these medications may actually contain formaldehyde, which
could potentially perpetuate or worsen the reaction. Finally, we note
that consumers may also experience dermal exposure to formaldehyde by
using some cosmetics and skin care products, such as some shampoos and
sunscreens that contain formaldehyde.
While Comprehensive Data Are Not Available, Recent Studies Suggest
That Formaldehyde Levels in Clothing Are Generally Low and Have
Declined over Time:
In the absence of U.S. regulation of formaldehyde levels in clothing,
and associated compliance testing, comprehensive data on the levels of
formaldehyde in clothing sold in the United States are not publicly
available.[Footnote 33] Tests conducted by an accredited commercial
laboratory of 180 items we purchased in stores across the country
indicate that formaldehyde levels in most of the items are low or not
detectable. Moreover, these test results indicate that the levels of
formaldehyde found in most of these items would meet the most
stringent regulatory standards set by other countries as identified by
the American Apparel and Footwear Association: not detectable in
clothing and other items for infants and toddlers younger than 3 years
of age and less than 75 parts per million for clothing and other items
that come into direct contact with the skin for adults and for
children 3 years of age and older.[Footnote 34] However, 10 of the
items exceeded these limits, with formaldehyde levels ranging from
75.4 to 206.1 parts per million. As table 1 shows, nine of these items
exceeded the limits for adults and for children 3 years of age and
older, and one item--a sheet for a child's crib--exceeded the limit
for infants and toddlers younger than 3 years of age as well as that
for adults and for children 3 years of age and older. More than half
of the items we had tested that exceeded these limits were labeled as
having fabric performance characteristics related to durable press,
which may indicate the use of resins that contain formaldehyde and can
alert consumers who wish to avoid formaldehyde in clothing.[Footnote
35] Both domestic and imported clothing and bed linens had
formaldehyde levels that exceeded the limits identified by the apparel
industry. Appendix V provides more complete information on the items
we had tested.
Table 1: Ten Items Sold in the United States That Exceeded the Most
Stringent Regulatory Standards for Formaldehyde Identified by the
American Apparel and Footwear Association:
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Wrinkle free;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[A]: 206.1.
Item type: Hat;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton exclusive of decoration;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[A]: 192.6.
Item type: Bed linens (pillow cases);
Fiber content identified on label: 60% cotton, 40% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Soft finish, easy care;
Country identified on label: Bahrain;
Target customer: Adults or children 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[A]: 189.6.
Item type: Khakis;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging: No
iron, permanent crease;
Country identified on label: India;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[A]: 169.6.
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 60% cotton, 40% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[A]: 95.1.
Item type: Bed linens (pillow cases);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Wrinkle free, easy care, no ironing needed, eco-friendly;
Country identified on label: USA;
fabric imported from Pakistan;
Target customer: Adults or children 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[A]: 93.8.
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Noniron;
Country identified on label: Indonesia;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[A]: 92.6.
Item type: Bed linens (pillow cases);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Wrinkle free performance;
Country identified on label: Pakistan;
Target customer: Adults or children 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[A]: 89.3.
Item type: Bed linens (crib sheet);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Preshrunk;
Country identified on label: Thailand;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[B];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[A]: 85.4.
Item type: U.S. military combat uniform pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 50% cotton, 50% nylon;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[A]: 75.4.
Source: GAO analysis of information provided on items' labels or
packaging and test data from an accredited commercial laboratory.
[A] These formaldehyde levels were determined using the Japanese test.
[B] Infants/toddlers refers to children younger than 3 years of age.
[End of table]
In 2007, the European Union and New Zealand government conducted
studies of formaldehyde levels in clothing using methodologies similar
to ours and also found that most clothing items tested had levels of
formaldehyde that were low or not detectable.[Footnote 36],[Footnote
37] Specifically, the European Union found that 212 of 221 items
tested either had formaldehyde levels below 75 parts per million for
adults and older children or levels that were not detectable for
infants. Of the 9 items that exceeded these levels, 5 were either
dress shirts labeled as "easy care" or T-shirts. Moreover, our
analysis of the New Zealand government study showed that 96 of 99
items tested had formaldehyde levels below 75 parts per million; the 3
exceptions were men's dress or casual pants. A more limited study of
10 clothing items, conducted in 2007 by the Australian government,
reported that all 10 items had formaldehyde levels that were not
detectable.[Footnote 38] These studies, as well as our own test
results, provide important data on levels of formaldehyde that may be
found in clothing, but these data cannot be projected to clothing in
general.
Regarding the decline in levels of formaldehyde in clothing over time,
government studies we reviewed have reported decreasing levels since
the 1960s. While researchers have used various test methods in the
past, which has limited comparisons of formaldehyde levels in clothing
over time, the available data on formaldehyde levels in items tested
show a decline over time. For example, the USDA Agricultural Research
Service reported that in the early 1960s formaldehyde levels in
clothing were found to be generally above 3,000 parts per million
using the AATCC test.[Footnote 39] However, tests conducted in the
early 1980s by the textile industry showed that formaldehyde levels in
clothing were generally below 500 parts per million using the AATCC
test. Further, tests conducted by government entities in Australia,
Denmark, the European Union, Finland, New Zealand, and the United
States from 1984 to 2010--more often using the Japanese test--show
that the percentage of items with formaldehyde levels greater than 100
parts per million has generally declined (see table 2). For example,
although in 1985 67 percent of items tested by CPSC[Footnote 40] had
levels of formaldehyde above 100 parts per million using the Japanese
test, studies since 2003 have shown that 2 percent or less of the
items tested using the Japanese test had formaldehyde levels above 100
parts per million. Similarly, the maximum formaldehyde level
identified in any item in each study has generally declined.
Table 2: Levels of Formaldehyde in Clothing and Other Textiles
Reported in Government Studies, 1984-2010:
Source: CPSC[B];
Year tested: 1984-1985;
Type of items tested: Clothing and bed linens;
Number of items tested: 12;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: Japanese test[A]: 67%;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: AATCC test[A]: 92%;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): Japanese test[A]: 736.6;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): AATCC test[A]: 2,897.
Source: Tampere Regional Institute of Occupational Health, Finland;
Year tested: 1986-1987;
Type of items tested: Clothing, home textiles, and cotton fabrics;
Number of items tested: 20;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: Japanese test[A]: 50%;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: AATCC test[A]: 90%;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): Japanese test[A]: 855;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): AATCC test[A]: 1,680.
Source: Tampere Regional Institute of Occupational Health, Finland;
Year tested: 1987-1994;
Type of items tested: Fabrics, textiles;
Number of items tested: 144;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: Japanese test[A]: 11%;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: AATCC test[A]: [C];
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): Japanese test[A]: 2,000;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): AATCC test[A]: [C].
Source: Finnish Customs Laboratory;
Year tested: 1988;
Type of items tested: Imported textiles;
Number of items tested: 2,719;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: Japanese test[A]: 12%;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: AATCC test[A]: [C];
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): Japanese test[A]: 2,200;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): AATCC test[A]: [C].
Source: Finnish Customs Laboratory;
Year tested: 1989;
Type of items tested: Imported textiles;
Number of items tested: 1,922;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: Japanese test[A]: 7%;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: AATCC test[A]: [C];
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): Japanese test[A]: 1,050;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): AATCC test[A]: [C].
Source: Finnish Customs Laboratory;
Year tested: 1990;
Type of items tested: Imported textiles;
Number of items tested: 1,547;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: Japanese test[A]: 11%;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: AATCC test[A]: [C];
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): Japanese test[A]: 1,500;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): AATCC test[A]: [C].
Source: Finnish Customs Laboratory;
Year tested: 1991;
Type of items tested: Imported textiles;
Number of items tested: 2,173;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: Japanese test[A]: 9%;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: AATCC test[A]: [C];
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): Japanese test[A]: 805;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): AATCC test[A]: [C].
Source: Finnish Customs Laboratory;
Year tested: 1992;
Type of items tested: Imported textiles;
Number of items tested: 1,407;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: Japanese test[A]: 10%;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: AATCC test[A]: [C];
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): Japanese test[A]: 1,319;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): AATCC test[A]: [C].
Source: Finnish Customs Laboratory;
Year tested: 1993;
Type of items tested: Imported textiles;
Number of items tested: 1,680;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: Japanese test[A]: 5%;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: AATCC test[A]: [C];
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): Japanese test[A]: 643;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): AATCC test[A]: [C].
Source: Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy;
Year tested: 2003[D];
Type of items tested: Clothing and home textiles;
Number of items tested: 10;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: Japanese test[A]: 0;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: AATCC test[A]: [C];
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): Japanese test[A]: 82;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): AATCC test[A]: [C].
Source: New Zealand Ministry of Consumer Affairs;
Year tested: 2007;
Type of items tested: Clothing, home textiles, and footwear;
Number of items tested: 99;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: Japanese test[A]: 2%;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: AATCC test[A]: [C];
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): Japanese test[A]: 250;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): AATCC test[A]: [C].
Source: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission;
Year tested: 2007;
Type of items tested: Clothing;
Number of items tested: 10;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: Japanese test[A]: 0;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: AATCC test[A]: 0;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): Japanese test[A]: Not detectable;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): AATCC test[A]: Not detectable.
Source: European Union;
Year tested: 2007;
Type of items tested: Clothing and home textiles;
Number of items tested: 221 items (Japanese test);
127 items (AATCC test);
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: Japanese test[A]: 1%;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: AATCC test[A]: 9%;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): Japanese test[A]: 162.5;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): AATCC test[A]: 397.3.
Source: GAO;
Year tested: 2010;
Type of items tested: Clothing and bed linens;
Number of items tested: 180 items (Japanese test);
21 items (AATCC test);
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: Japanese test[A]: 2%;
Percentage of items tested with greater than 100 parts per million of
formaldehyde: AATCC test[A]: 10%;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): Japanese test[A]: 206.1;
Maximum level of formaldehyde identified in any item (parts per
million): AATCC test[A]: 550.7.
Sources: Government-sponsored or -supported studies and GAO analysis
of test data from an accredited commercial laboratory.
[A] Or an equivalent test method.
[B] CPSC-sponsored study tested a subset (12 items) of its full sample
using the Japanese and AATCC tests. The entire sample of 180 clothing
and bed linens was tested using a proprietary method developed by the
Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which conducted
the testing. Based on this test method, 14 percent of the items had
more than 100 parts per million of formaldehyde, and the maximum
formaldehyde level identified in an item was 940.2 parts per million.
[C] Only the Japanese or Japanese-equivalent tests were used in this
study.
[D] This is the year the report was published.
[End of table]
The levels of formaldehyde found in the these studies are generally
consistent with information reported since the 1980s in the medical
literature and trade publications that documents a decline in
formaldehyde levels in clothing since that time. This decline is
associated with the development and use of low-formaldehyde resins in
manufacturing clothing, which has been encouraged by such key factors
as the following: (1) the identification of formaldehyde as a probable
human carcinogen via inhalation and the promulgation of regulations by
OSHA to protect workers, such as those in textile factories, from
exposure to formaldehyde; (2) legal limits on the levels of
formaldehyde in clothing and other textiles adopted in other
countries; (3) limits on formaldehyde levels that some U.S. retailers
have established for clothing they sell; and (4) the textile
industry's development of improved resins that provide durable press
characteristics but release less formaldehyde.
More specifically, as discussed earlier, formaldehyde was classified
as a probable human carcinogen in the 1980s based on animal and human
studies showing that airborne formaldehyde exposure is associated with
certain types of cancer. In 1987 and 1992, OSHA decreased the
permissible airborne exposure level of formaldehyde in the workplace.
The current OSHA regulation, among other things, limits airborne
exposure to 0.75 parts of formaldehyde per million parts of air.
[Footnote 41] While this regulation primarily addresses the airborne
concentration of formaldehyde to which workers--such as those in
textile factories--may be exposed, several government studies and the
medical literature have noted that OSHA regulations have encouraged
lower formaldehyde levels in clothing and other textiles. Information
provided in a Finnish Regional Institute of Occupational Health study
illustrates the relationship between the levels of formaldehyde being
applied to textiles in the workplace and airborne formaldehyde
emissions in the factory. The Finnish study reported that formaldehyde
levels in textiles should be under 200 parts per million[Footnote 42]
to ensure airborne formaldehyde emission levels in factories remain
below 1 part per million under adverse conditions such as low
ventilation and high humidity.[Footnote 43]
Another factor that may have encouraged the use of lower levels of
formaldehyde in clothing is the adoption in other countries of legal
limits on formaldehyde in clothing and textiles and on the airborne
levels of formaldehyde in the workplace. For example, according to
HHS's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, over 20
countries have established occupational exposure limits to protect
workers, including those in the textile industry.[Footnote 44] In
addition, the European Union's European Scientific Committee on
Occupational Exposure Limits has issued provisional occupational
exposure limits for formaldehyde. Further, according to the American
Apparel and Footwear Association, 13 countries regulate the level of
formaldehyde in clothing.[Footnote 45] Another factor that may limit
formaldehyde levels in clothing is the use of voluntary labeling
programs such as the Oeko-Tex® Standard 100 label.[Footnote 46] Such
labels may be displayed by clothing and other textile items that meet
certain limits on formaldehyde and other substances. Appendix III
provides more information on voluntary labeling programs.
In addition, while there are no legal limits on the levels of
formaldehyde in clothing in the United States, some U.S. retailers
have established their own corporate limits on formaldehyde in
clothing and bed linens. These corporate formaldehyde limits are
generally considered proprietary, although some may be disclosed upon
request. We obtained information on corporate limits for formaldehyde
in clothing established by 14 U.S.-based retailers.[Footnote 47] Many
of these limits were set within the last 10 years, although one was
set as early as 1995. In some cases, the limits established by
retailers apply only to private store brands and not to national
brands, some of which may establish their own limits. Some of the 14
retailers told us they review regulations adopted in other countries
to inform their own corporate limits or to comply with regulations in
countries where they operate.
Table 3 shows the corporate limits for formaldehyde in clothing and
bed linens sold in the United States that we obtained from 14
retailers. The retailers' limits vary both by age and item category.
For example, a retailer may have limits for clothing and bed linens
for infants and toddlers but not for clothing or bed linens for adults.
Table 3: Formaldehyde Limits Set by 14 U.S. Retailers for Clothing and
Bed Linens:
Formaldehyde limits[A,B]: None;
Number of retailers reporting formaldehyde limits, by category:
Clothing for infants/toddlers: 0;
Bed linens for infants/toddlers: 1;
Clothing for children: 0;
Bed linens for children: 1;
Clothing for adults: 3;
Bed linens for adults: 3.
Formaldehyde limits[A,B]: less than 250 parts per million;
Number of retailers reporting formaldehyde limits, by category:
Clothing for infants/toddlers: 0;
Bed linens for infants/toddlers: 1;
Clothing for children: 0;
Bed linens for children: 1;
Clothing for adults: 0;
Bed linens for adults: 1.
Formaldehyde limits[A,B]: less than 200 parts per million[C];
Number of retailers reporting formaldehyde limits, by category:
Clothing for infants/toddlers: 1;
Bed linens for infants/toddlers: 1;
Clothing for children: 1;
Bed linens for children: 1;
Clothing for adults: 1;
Bed linens for adults: 2.
Formaldehyde limits[A,B]: less than 150 parts per million;
Clothing for infants/toddlers: 0;
Bed linens for infants/toddlers: 1;
Clothing for children: 0;
Bed linens for children: 1;
Clothing for adults: 0;
Bed linens for adults: 1[C].
Formaldehyde limits[A,B]: less than 100 parts per million;
Number of retailers reporting formaldehyde limits, by category:
Clothing for infants/toddlers: 0;
Bed linens for infants/toddlers: 0;
Clothing for children: 1;
Bed linens for children: 1;
Clothing for adults: 2;
Bed linens for adults: 1.
Formaldehyde limits[A,B]: less than 75 parts per million;
Number of retailers reporting formaldehyde limits, by category:
Clothing for infants/toddlers: 2;
Bed linens for infants/toddlers: 4;
Clothing for children: 11[D];
Bed linens for children: 9[D];
Clothing for adults: 8[D];
Bed linens for adults: 6[C].
Formaldehyde limits[A,B]: less than 20 parts per million;
Number of retailers reporting formaldehyde limits, by category:
Clothing for infants/toddlers: 11[C];
Bed linens for infants/toddlers: 6[D];
Clothing for children: 1;
Bed linens for children: 0;
Clothing for adults: 0;
Bed linens for adults: 0.
Formaldehyde limits[A,B]: Number of retailers reporting limits;
Number of retailers reporting formaldehyde limits, by category:
Clothing for infants/toddlers: 14;
Bed linens for infants/toddlers: 14;
Clothing for children: 14;
Bed linens for children: 14;
Clothing for adults: 14;
Bed linens for adults: 14.
Source: GAO analysis of data from 14 U.S. retailers.
Notes: Retailers' age designations for infants/toddlers and children
vary.
[A] Unless otherwise noted, retailers reported using the Japanese test.
[B] Formaldehyde limits for clothing are applicable to clothing that
comes in direct contact with the skin.
[C] One retailer determines compliance with this limit using the AATCC
test.
[D] Two retailers determine compliance with this limit using the AATCC
test.
[End of table]
However, retailers may use their corporate limits more as guidelines
than as absolute compliance limits. For example, one retailer told us
that when its test results for formaldehyde content exceed corporate
limits, the company may conduct additional testing to determine the
extent of the problem to inform its response. In contrast, this
retailer told us that if a single sample exceeds a U.S. regulatory
standard--for example, for lead in clothing--the company rejects the
entire shipment. Another retailer told us the company complies with
Japan's formaldehyde limit--the most stringent--when selling products
in Japan but has established a less stringent limit for clothing sold
in the United States.
Finally, another factor that may have contributed to lower levels of
formaldehyde in clothing, according to government and trade
publications, is industry actions to address concerns about some
formaldehyde-containing resins. The older resins, such as urea
formaldehyde and melamine formaldehyde, impart durable press
characteristics to clothing but also tend to release more formaldehyde
during the manufacture, storage, retailing, and use of fabrics and
clothing than newer resins because they are less chemically stable. In
addition, the older resins can also stiffen fabric, degrade after
repeated washing, damage fabrics if chlorine bleach is used, and cause
the fabrics to emit a noticeable odor. The development and use of
newer resins in clothing production to impart durable press
characteristics have addressed some of these issues as well as reduced
the level of formaldehyde in clothing. These newer resins, also called
cross-linking agents, became widely used in the 1980s. For example,
dimethylol dihydroxy ethylene urea (DMDHEU) and its derivatives are
reported to be the most commonly used resins today. Fabrics finished
with DMDHEU may release moderate amounts of formaldehyde but can be
modified to release low to ultra-low levels.[Footnote 48] Newer resins
that do not contain formaldehyde have also been developed, but they
are not as widely used because of their higher cost; some may also
have negative effects on fabrics.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Chairman, CPSC, for review
and comment. CPSC provided technical comments, which we have
incorporated, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees; the Chairman, CPSC; and other interested parties. The
report is also available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Government Reviews of the General Health Effects of
Exposure to Formaldehyde and Medical Literature on the Health Effects
of Formaldehyde in Textiles:
Following is more detailed information on the sources we used in our
analysis to determine what is known about the health effects of
exposure to formaldehyde.
Aalto-Korte, K., R. Jolanki, and T. Estlander. "Formaldehyde-Negative
Allergic Contact Dermatitis from Melamine-Formaldehyde Resin." Contact
Dermatitis, vol. 49, no. 4 (2003).
Andersen, Klaus E. and Howard I. Maibach. "Multiple Application
Delayed Onset Contact Urticaria: Possible Relation to Certain Unusual
Formalin and Textile Reactions?" Contact Dermatitis, vol. 10, no. 4
(1984).
Andersen, Klaus E. and Knud Hamann. "Cost Benefit of Patch Testing
with Textile Finish Resins." Contact Dermatitis, vol. 8, no. 1 (1982).
Australia Department of Health and Ageing. National Industrial
Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme, Priority Existing
Chemical Assessment Report No. 28, Formaldehyde. Sydney, Australia,
2006.
Belsito, Donald V. "What's New in Contact Dermatitis: Textile
Dermatitis." American Journal of Contact Dermatitis, vol. 4, no. 4
(1993).
Bracamonte, B.G., F.J. Ortiz de Frutos, and L.I. Diez. "Occupational
Allergic Contact Dermatitis due to Formaldehyde and Textile Finish
Resins." Contact Dermatitis, vol. 33, no. 2 (1995).
Carlson, Ryan M., Mary C. Smith, and Susan T. Nedorost. "Diagnosis and
Treatment of Dermatitis Due to Formaldehyde Resins in Clothing."
Dermatitis, vol. 15, no. 4 (2004).
Cockayne, Sarah E., Andrew J.G. McDonagh, and David J. Gawkrodger.
"Occupational Allergic Contact Dermatitis from Formaldehyde Resin in
Clothing." Contact Dermatitis, vol. 44, no. 2 (2001).
Cronin, Etain. Contact Dermatitis, New York City, New York: Churchill
Livingstone, 1980.
De Groot, Anton C., et al. "Formaldehyde-Releasers: Relationship to
Formaldehyde Contact Allergy. Formaldehyde-Releasers in Clothes:
Durable Press Chemical Finishes. Part 1." Contact Dermatitis, vol. 62,
no. 5 (2010).
De Groot, Anton C. and Freddy Gerkens. "Contact Urticaria from a
Chemical Textile Finish." Contact Dermatitis, vol. 20, no. 1 (1989).
De Groot, Anton C. and Howard I. Maibach. "Does Allergic Contact
Dermatitis from Formaldehyde in Clothes Treated with Durable-Press
Chemical Finishes Exist in the USA?" Contact Dermatitis, vol. 62, no.
3 (2009).
Donovan, Jeff and Sandy Skotnicki-Grant. "Allergic Contact Dermatitis
from Formaldehyde Textile Resins in Surgical Uniforms and Nonwoven
Textile Masks." Dermatitis, vol. 18, no. 1 (2006).
Environment Canada and Health Canada, Canadian Environmental
Protection Act, 1999, Priority Substances List Assessment Report,
Formaldehyde. Canada, 2001.
Fowler, Joseph F. "Formaldehyde as a Textile Allergen." In Textiles
and the Skin (Current Problems in Dermatology), vol. 31, edited by P.
Elsner, K. Hatch, and W. Wigger-Alberti, 156-165. Basel, Switzerland:
S. Karger AG, 2003.
Fowler, Joseph F. Jr., Steven M. Skinner, and Donald V. Belsito.
"Allergic Contact Dermatitis from Formaldehyde Resins in Permanent
Press Clothing: An Underdiagnosed Cause of Generalized Dermatitis."
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 27, no. 6 (1992).
Geldof, B.A., I.D. Roesyanto, and Th. van Joost. "Clinical Aspects of
Para-Tertiary-Butylphenolformaldehyde Resin (PTBP-FR) Allergy."
Contact Dermatitis, vol. 21, no. 5 (1989).
Hatch, Kathryn L. "Chemicals and Textiles Part II: Dermatological
Problems Related to Finishes." Textile Research Journal, vol. 54, no.
11 (1984).
Hatch, Kathryn L. and Howard I. Maibach. "Textile Chemical Finish
Dermatitis." Contact Dermatitis, vol. 14, no. 1 (1986).
Hatch, Kathryn L. and Howard I. Maibach. "Textile Dermatitis: An
Update." Contact Dermatitis, vol. 32, no. 6 (1995).
Hatch, Kathryn L. and Howard I. Maibach. "Textile Dye Dermatitis."
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 32, no. 4 (1995).
Hegewald, Janice, et al. "Meteorological Conditions and the Diagnosis
of Occupationally Related Contact Sensitizations." Scandinavian
Journal of Work, Environment & Health, vol. 34, no. 4 (2008).
Imbus, Harold R. "Clinical Evaluation of Patients with Complaints
Related to Formaldehyde Exposure." Journal of Allergy and Clinical
Immunology, vol. 76, no. 6 (1985).
Iversen, Olav Hilmar. "Formaldehyde and Skin Carcinogenesis."
Environment International, vol. 12, no. 5 (1986).
Lazarov, A. "Textile Dermatitis in Patients with Contact Sensitization
in Israel: a 4-Year Prospective Study." Journal of the European
Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, vol. 18, no. 5 (2004).
Lazarov, A. and M. Cordoba. "Purpuric Contact Dermatitis in Patients
with Allergic Reaction to Textile Dyes and Resins." Journal of the
European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, vol. 14, no. 2 (2000).
Le Coz, Christophe-J. "Clothing." In Textbook of Contact Dermatitis,
3rd ed., edited by R.J.G. Rycroft, T. Menne, P.J. Frosch, and Jean-
Pierre Lepoittevin, 727-749. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer,
2001.
Maibach, Howard. "Formaldehyde: Effects on Animal and Human Skin." In
Formaldehyde Toxicity, edited by J.E. Gibson, 166-174. Washington,
D.C.: Hemisphere, 1983.
Marks, James G. Jr., et al. "North American Contact Dermatitis Group
Patch-Test Results, 1998 to 2000." American Journal of Contact
Dermatitis, vol. 14, no. 2 (2003).
Metzler-Brenckle, Lorrie and Robert L. Rietschel. "Patch Testing for
Permanent-Press Allergic Contact Dermatitis." Contact Dermatitis, vol.
46, no. 1 (2002).
National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Toxicology, Board of
Toxicology and Environmental Health Hazards, Assembly of Life
Sciences, National Research Council. Formaldehyde--An Assessment of
the Health Effects, Prepared for the Consumer Product Safety
Commission. Washington, D.C., 1980.
Nordman, Henrik, Helena Keskinen, and Matti Tuppurainen. "Formaldehyde
Asthma--Rare or Overlooked?" The Journal of Allergy and Clinical
Immunology, vol. 75, no. 1 (1985).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. SIDS Initial
Assessment Report for 14th SIAM, Formaldehyde (CAS No. 50-00-0).
Paris, France: United Nations Environment Programme Publications, 2002.
Reich, Hilary C. and Erin M. Warshaw. "Allergic Contact Dermatitis
from Formaldehyde Textile Resins." Dermatitis, vol. 21, no. 2 (2010).
Rietschel, Robert L. and Joseph F. Fowler, Jr. "Textile and Shoe
Dermatitis." In Fisher's Contact Dermatitis, 4th ed., 358-413.
Baltimore, Maryland: Williams & Wilkins, 1995.
Robbins, Joe D., et al. "Bioavailability in Rabbits of Formaldehyde
from Durable-Press Textiles." Journal of Toxicology and Environmental
Health, vol. 14, no. 2-3 (1984).
Scheman, Andrew J., et al. "Formaldehyde-Related Textile Allergy: An
Update." Contact Dermatitis, vol. 38, no. 6 (1998).
Seidenari, S., B.M. Manzini, and P. Danese. "Contact Sensitization to
Textile Dyes: Description of 100 Subjects." Contact Dermatitis, vol.
24, no. 4 (1991).
Seidenari, S., B.M. Manzini, P. Danese, and A. Motolese. "Patch and
Prick Test Study of 593 Healthy Subjects." Contact Dermatitis, vol.
23, no. 3 (1990).
Sherertz, Elizabeth F. "Clothing Dermatitis: Practical Aspects for the
Clinician." American Journal of Contact Dermatitis, vol. 3, no. 2
(1992).
Trattner, Akiva and Michael David. "Textile Contact Dermatitis
Presenting as Lichen Amyloidosus." Contact Dermatitis, vol. 42, no. 2
(2000).
Trattner, A., J.D. Johansen, and T. Menne. "Formaldehyde Concentration
in Diagnostic Patch Testing: Comparison of 1% with 2%." Contact
Dermatitis, vol. 38, no. 1 (1998).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry. Medical Management Guidelines for
Formaldehyde, [hyperlink, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg111.html].
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for
Formaldehyde. Atlanta, GA, 1999.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,
National Toxicology Program. Report on Carcinogens, 11th Edition.
Research Triangle Park, NC, 2005.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,
National Toxicology Program. Report on Carcinogens, Background
Document for Formaldehyde. Research Triangle Park, NC, 2010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information
System, Formaldehyde (CASRN 50-00-0), [hyperlink,
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0419.htm].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. IRIS Toxicological Review of
Formaldehyde--Inhalation Assessment (External Review Draft).
Washington, D.C., June 2010.
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Safety and Health
Assessment and Research for Prevention, Clothing Dermatitis and
Clothing-Related Skin Conditions. Report: 55-8-2001.
World Health Organization. Concise International Chemical Assessment
Document 40, Formaldehyde. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations
Environment Programme, the International Labour Organization, and the
World Health Organization, 2002.
World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on
Cancer. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to
Humans, Volume 88, Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert-
Butoxypropan-2-ol. Lyon, France, 2006.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Section 234 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008
requires GAO to conduct a study on the use of formaldehyde in the
manufacturing of textiles and apparel.[Footnote 49] This report
provides information on what is known about (1) the health risks from
exposure to formaldehyde, particularly from clothing, and (2) the
levels of formaldehyde found in clothing sold in the United States.
Throughout our review, we consulted with the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) on our methodology and to obtain relevant background
information stemming from the agency's mission to ensure consumer
protection.
To determine what is known about the health effects of exposure to
formaldehyde, particularly from clothing, we conducted literature
reviews on both the general health effects of formaldehyde and the
health effects of exposure to formaldehyde in clothing. For the
general health effects, we summarized the findings of several
comprehensive government reviews, including (1) the Health and Human
Services' (HHS) 2005 National Toxicology Program report on carcinogens
(currently being updated),[Footnote 50] (2) HHS's Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry 1999 toxicological profile for
formaldehyde,[Footnote 51] (3) the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) 1991 Integrated Risk Information System formaldehyde
assessment[Footnote 52] and the 2010 draft update,[Footnote 53] (4)
the 2006 monograph on formaldehyde prepared by the World Health
Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer,[Footnote
54] and (5) the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development's 2002 Screening Information Data Set for formaldehyde.
[Footnote 55]
To determine the health effects of exposure to formaldehyde in
clothing, we reviewed and summarized the findings of over 40 relevant
articles published from 1980 to April 2010 primarily in medical
journals, but also in textile industry and environmental journals and
books. We targeted reviews and meta-analyses, rather than individual
studies, published in English but also included articles presenting
original research, such as clinical studies. In addition, we
interviewed and obtained studies from medical professionals, officials
from the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and CPSC, and
representatives from industry organizations such as the American
Apparel and Footwear Association, Cotton Incorporated, and the
Formaldehyde Council, Inc.
To determine what is known about the levels of formaldehyde found in
clothing sold in the United States, we analyzed information on
formaldehyde-containing resins and formaldehyde levels in clothing
from government studies, patent applications, and trade publications;
interviewed officials from government agencies including USDA's
Agricultural Research Service, industry associations, retailers,
testing laboratories, and academia, as well the medical profession;
and contracted with an accredited commercial laboratory to test the
formaldehyde levels in a nonprobability sample[Footnote 56] of 180
articles of clothing (165) and bed linens (15).
For our nonprobability sample, we purchased clothing and bed linens
from 10 national retailers, two military facilities, and a store
selling children's scout uniforms. In March 2010, our staff purchased
items in six major metropolitan areas: Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Los
Angeles, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. Our sample was approximately
evenly split by gender and included items worn by adults and children.
We purchased only items that come into direct contact with the skin;
we did not buy outerwear such as jackets or coats. We used clothing
sizes to determine whether clothing was intended for children 3 years
of age and older. We also considered crib sheets and cloth diapers to
be intended for use by infants and toddlers. The results from testing
our nonprobability sample are illustrative of formaldehyde levels that
may be found in some clothing and are not projectable to clothing sold
in the United States in general.
We selected items that were likely to contain formaldehyde, such as
those made from plant-based fibers, like cotton, that are likely to be
treated for durable press. Almost all of the items in the sample were
made from 50 percent or more natural (mostly plant-based) fibers.
About 76 percent of the items were made from 90 percent or more
cotton. About a fifth of the items were labeled as being treated for
durable press, including bed linens and career apparel such as dress
shirts. We also included some commonly worn items, such as T-shirts
and jeans, based on a review of Department of Commerce data for
volumes of clothing and bed linens imported or produced in the United
States. We selected low-or moderately priced items. Most of the items
in our sample were imported; however, we also made an effort to ensure
that about 10 percent of them were American made.
An accredited commercial laboratory tested the items for formaldehyde.
The laboratory is accredited by, among others, the American
Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists and the American
Association for Laboratory Accreditation.[Footnote 57] To prepare
items for shipment, we placed each one in its own zippered plastic bag
shortly after its purchase to avoid cross-contamination from other
items or packaging materials. Samples received by the laboratory were
cut, weighed, and kept wrapped in foil inside a plastic bag until the
formaldehyde test was run.
The laboratory tested the items using two test methods commonly used
by the textile industry--the Japanese Industrial Standard L 1041 test,
also known as the Japanese Law 112 test (Japanese test), and the
American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists 112 test (AATCC
test). Results from the Japanese test and the AATCC test are not
comparable because, for example, they use different testing
specifications. The procedure the laboratory used for the Japanese
test included placing 1 gram of the sample in a stoppered flask with
100 mL of water and immersing it in a bath of 40°C water for 1 hour.
The procedure the laboratory used for the AATCC test included
suspending 1 gram of the sample in a sealed jar above 50 mL of water.
The jar was kept in an oven at 49°C for 20 hours and then cooled at
room temperature for 30 minutes. For both tests, an acetyl acetone
reagent was added as the next step, and the solution was heated at
40°C for 30 minutes and allowed to cool at room temperature for 30
minutes. The laboratory ran quality control tests for each batch of
samples.
We had each of the 180 items tested using the Japanese test and a
smaller number using the AATCC test because most of the regulatory and
corporate formaldehyde limits we identified used the Japanese test or
its equivalent. According to the American Apparel and Footwear
Association, this test or its equivalent is used to determine whether
formaldehyde levels in clothing are consistent with levels cited in
international formaldehyde regulations, which we used as a basis of
comparison for our own test results. Also, the Japanese test was more
frequently used in the government studies we identified that conducted
formaldehyde testing in clothing and other textiles. In addition, most
of the U.S. retailers that provided us with information on internal
corporate limits on formaldehyde in clothing, and the voluntary
labeling programs we identified, use the Japanese test or its
equivalent. We tested 21 of the 180 items using both the Japanese test
and the AATCC test. This latter test is used by some U.S. retailers
that have established corporate limits on formaldehyde and has been
used in some studies cited in government reviews, trade publications,
and the medical literature. The 21 items tested by both methods were
selected to include a similar mix of clothing and bed linens as the
overall sample.
If items contained more than one type of fabric that could potentially
contain varying levels of formaldehyde, the laboratory tested a
composite sample that included equal amounts of these fabrics.
Decorative elements that do not come into direct skin contact, such as
sequins, were not included as part of the composite. This composite
approach would tend to result in formaldehyde levels falling between
the highest and lowest levels in the different fabrics.
In addition, we contacted U.S.-based, publicly owned retailers to
determine if they have internal corporate limits for formaldehyde in
clothing. We contacted 16 retailers and received responses from 14, of
which 13 had limits. We also found information on the Internet on the
limits set by one of the two retailers that did not respond.
To identify regulatory and voluntary labeling programs that may be
used in other countries as well as relevant studies on the levels of
formaldehyde in clothing, we contacted government and European Union
officials and conducted Internet searches. We identified a number of
countries that have regulatory standards for formaldehyde in textiles
as well as voluntary labeling programs. Because of complexities in
obtaining translations of other countries' formaldehyde laws and
regulations into English and confirming their application within the
context of these countries' legal systems, we relied primarily on the
American Apparel and Footwear Association for information on
formaldehyde limits set in other countries, including the limits
identified as the most stringent.[Footnote 58] We obtained information
on international worker safety standards for formaldehyde primarily
from a report by HHS's National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2009 to August 2010
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Voluntary Labeling Programs:
Table 4 lists examples of voluntary labeling programs, which are
primarily used in other countries.[Footnote 59] Clothing and other
items meeting the specified limits for formaldehyde and other
substances would typically display a label indicating their
compliance. The formaldehyde limits in the table are those applicable
to clothing and other textiles that come into direct contact with the
skin.
Table 4: Examples of Voluntary Labeling Programs:
Governing body: European Union;
Label name: European Ecolabel;
Formaldehyde limit for infants/toddlers,[A] in parts per million: 20;
Formaldehyde limit for children and adults, in parts per million: 30;
Test method specified (or equivalent): Japanese test.
Governing body: Good Environmental Choice Australia Ltd;
Label name: Australian Ecolabel;
Formaldehyde limit for infants/toddlers,[A] in parts per million: 30;
Formaldehyde limit for children and adults, in parts per million: 30;
Test method specified (or equivalent): Japanese or AATCC tests[B].
Governing body: International Association for Research and Testing in
the Field of Textile Ecology;
Label name: Oeko-Tex® Standard 100;
Formaldehyde limit for infants/toddlers,[A] in parts per million: Not
detectable[C];
Formaldehyde limit for children and adults, in parts per million: 75;
Test method specified (or equivalent): Japanese test.
Governing body: International Working Group on Global Organic Textile
Standard;
Label name: Global Organic Textile Standard;
Formaldehyde limit for infants/toddlers,[A] in parts per million: Any
level prohibited;
Formaldehyde limit for children and adults, in parts per million: Any
level prohibited;
Test method specified (or equivalent): Not specified.
Governing body: New Zealand Ecolabelling Trust;
Label name: Environmental Choice New Zealand;
Formaldehyde limit for infants/toddlers,[A] in parts per million: 30;
Formaldehyde limit for children and adults, in parts per million: 30;
Test method specified (or equivalent): Japanese test.
Source: GAO analysis of voluntary labeling programs.
[A] The transition from limits applicable to infants/toddlers to those
for children and adults, where applicable, is 3 years of age.
[B] Or certified according to the most recent Oeko-Tex® Standard 100.
[C] Formaldehyde limit listed as "not detectable" is 16 parts per
million.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Top Ten Exporters of Clothing to the United States in
2008:
Country: China;
Percentage of total U.S. imports[A]: 34.3%.
Country: Vietnam;
Percentage of total U.S. imports[A]: 6.7%.
Country: Bangladesh;
Percentage of total U.S. imports[A]: 6.3%.
Country: Honduras;
Percentage of total U.S. imports[A]: 5.9%.
Country: Indonesia;
Percentage of total U.S. imports[A]: 4.8%.
Country: Mexico;
Percentage of total U.S. imports[A]: 4.6%.
Country: Cambodia;
Percentage of total U.S. imports[A]: 3.9%.
Country: India;
Percentage of total U.S. imports[A]: 3.9%.
Country: El Salvador;
Percentage of total U.S. imports[A]: 3.7%.
Country: Pakistan;
Percentage of total U.S. imports[A]: 3.1%.
Source: GAO analysis of the Department of Commerce Office for Textiles
and Apparel data.
Notes: Data include all apparel imports under notional category 1.
[A] By square meter equivalents.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Results of Formaldehyde Tests for a Sample of Clothing and
Bed Linens Sold in the United States:
Table 5 shows the results of tests we had performed on 180 items--165
articles of clothing and 15 bed linen items.
Table 5: Information on Items Sold in the United States and Tested for
Formaldehyde Levels, 2010:
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Exceeds;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Wrinkle free;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 206.1;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Exceeds;
Item type: Hat;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton exclusive of decoration;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 192.6;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Exceeds;
Item type: Bed linens (pillow cases);
Fiber content identified on label: 60% cotton, 40% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Soft finish, easy care;
Country identified on label: Bahrain;
Target customer: Adults or children 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 189.6;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: 550.7.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Exceeds;
Item type: Khakis;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging: No
iron, permanent crease;
Country identified on label: India;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 169.6;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Exceeds;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 60% cotton, 40% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 95.1;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Exceeds;
Item type: Bed linens (pillow cases);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Wrinkle free, easy care, no ironing needed, eco-friendly;
Country identified on label: USA of fabric imported from Pakistan;
Target customer: Adults or children 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 93.8;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Exceeds;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Noniron;
Country identified on label: Indonesia;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 92.6;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Exceeds;
Item type: Bed linens (pillow cases);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Wrinkle free performance;
Country identified on label: Pakistan;
Target customer: Adults or children 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 89.3;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Exceeds;
Item type: Bed linens (crib sheet);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Preshrunk;
Country identified on label: Thailand;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 85.4;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Exceeds;
Item type: U.S. military combat uniform pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 50% cotton, 50% nylon;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 75.4;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: 205.5.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Bed linens (pillow cases);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Adults or children 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 72.4;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: U.S. military combat uniform pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 50% cotton, 50% nylon;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Insect repellent;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 71.0;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Noniron, stain resistant;
Country identified on label: Indonesia;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 63.0;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: U.S. military combat uniform shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 50% cotton, 50% nylon;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 57.8;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging: No
iron, permanent crease;
Country identified on label: Vietnam;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 54.3;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Hat;
Fiber content identified on label: 79% cotton, 19% polyester, 2% other;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 50.1;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Bed linens (pillow cases);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Wrinkle free, bleach friendly;
Country identified on label: India;
Target customer: Adults or children 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 47.9;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Khakis;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Wrinkle free, easy care;
Country identified on label: Dominican Republic;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 45.9;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Polo shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Minimal shrinkage, fade and pill resistant, nonroll collar;
Country identified on label: Pakistan;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 45.5;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: T-shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 42.5;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: 32.7.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% worsted wool (polyester
lining);
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Wrinkle and stain resistant;
Country identified on label: Mexico;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 41.7;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Noniron, stain resistant;
Country identified on label: Honduras;
Target customer: Men;
[Empty];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 38.0;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Easy iron;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 37.2;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Bed linens (sham);
Fiber content identified on label: 60% cotton, 40% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Pakistan;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 35.9;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Wrinkle resist;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 32.7;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Jeans;
Fiber content identified on label: 98% cotton, 2% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 24.0;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Khakis;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Stain resistant, wrinkle free;
Country identified on label: Assembled in Nicaragua;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 23.7;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: 43.2.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Blouse;
Fiber content identified on label: 69% cotton, 27% nylon, 4% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 23.5;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 60% cotton, 40% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Easy care, wrinkle resist;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 22.5;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: 33.1.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Hat;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 22.5;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Khakis;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging: No
iron, wrinkle free, easy care;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 22.4;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Scout skirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Girls 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 21.6;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Sweatpants;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Honduras;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 21.0;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Khakis;
Fiber content identified on label: 97% cotton, 3% elastane;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: India;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 20.5;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: U.S. military dress uniform shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 65% polyester, 35% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: 20.3;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Pajamas;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Thailand;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: 24.1.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 60% cotton, 40% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Wrinkle free, stain repellent;
Country identified on label: Vietnam;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: 21.8.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 90% cotton, 10% cashmere;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA of imported fabric;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: 21.1.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Underwear;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: India;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: 14.0.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Bed linens (crib sheet);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton sateen;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: 13.8.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Shrink resistant, wrinkle resistant, stain repellant, soil release;
Country identified on label: Vietnam;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: 11.1.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress;
Fiber content identified on label: 54% cotton, 45% polyester, 1%
metallic. Lining: 65% polyester, 35% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Girls 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: 11.0.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Bed linens (crib sheet);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Easy care;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Cargo pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Kenya;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Cargo pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Indonesia;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Cloth diapers;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Extra absorbent and quick drying;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Cloth diapers;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Extra absorbent and quick drying;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Hat;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Hat;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton exclusive of decoration;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Jeans;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton exclusive of decoration;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Indonesia;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Jeans;
Fiber content identified on label: 99% cotton, 1% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Pajamas;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Pajamas;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Pajamas;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton exclusive of decoration;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Romper;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% combed cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Romper;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Romper;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Romper;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Set (dress and leggings);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: Not detectable.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Set (romper, pants, and bib);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton/80% cotton, 20%
polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Set (top and bottom);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Set (top and bottom);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Thailand;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Set (top and bottom);
Fiber content identified on label: Shell: 100% cotton exclusive of
decoration;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Set (tops and bottom);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Socks;
Fiber content identified on label: 82% cotton, 15% nylon, 2% spandex,
1% rubber;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Sweatpants;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Sweatpants;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: T-shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: T-shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: El Salvador;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: T-shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Guatemala;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: T-shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Guatemala;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: T-shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Thailand;
Target customer: Infants/toddlers[D];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Bed linens (pillow cases);
Fiber content identified on label: 60% cotton, 40% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Pakistan;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Cargo pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 55% linen, 45% rayon;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Jeans;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Pajamas;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Polo shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% organic cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: India;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Polo shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 60% cotton, 40% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Lesotho;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Scout pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 67% cotton, 33% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Scout shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 67% cotton, 33% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Sweatpants (shorts);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Vietnam;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: T-shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Honduras;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: T-shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Honduras;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Underwear;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Boys 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: Not detectable.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Bed linens (pillow cases);
Fiber content identified on label: 60% cotton, 40% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Pakistan;
Target customer: Girls 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Blouse;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Girls 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Bra;
Fiber content identified on label: 95% cotton, 5% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Girls 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Bra;
Fiber content identified on label: 95% cotton, 5% spandex, inner cup:
100% polyester (padded);
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Girls 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Vietnam;
Target customer: Girls 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton. Mesh--100% polyester,
exclusive of decoration;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Girls 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 97% cotton, 3% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Girls 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Jeans;
Fiber content identified on label: 56% ramie, 25% cotton, 18%
polyester, 1% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Girls 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: Not detectable.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Khakis;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Girls 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Polo shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton exclusive of decoration;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Vietnam;
Target customer: Girls 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Scout shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 65% polyester, 35% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Girls 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: T-shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Mexico of USA Parts;
Target customer: Girls 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: T-shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 95% cotton, 5% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Girls 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Underwear;
Fiber content identified on label: 95% cotton, 5% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Girls 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Bed linens (fitted sheet);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton exclusive of decoration;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Adults or children 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Bed linens (flat sheet);
Fiber content identified on label: 60% pima cotton, 40% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Easy care;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Adults or children 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Bed linens (pillow cases);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Adults or children 3 years of age and older;
[Empty];
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Bed linens (pillow cases);
Fiber content identified on label: 60% cotton, 40% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Easy care, wrinkle resistant;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Adults or children 3 years of age and older;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Cargo pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Egypt;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% wool;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Vietnam;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 60% cotton, 40% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Easy care;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress pants;
Fiber content identified on label: Shell: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Easy iron;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Easy care;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 55% cotton, 45% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Wrinkle free;
Country identified on label: Vietnam;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 60% cotton, 40% polyester exclusive
of decoration;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Easy care;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Hat;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Moisture management;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Hat;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton exclusive of decoration;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Hat;
Fiber content identified on label: 97% cotton, 3% P.U. spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: Not detectable.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Jeans;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% Cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: India;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Jeans;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Mexico;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Jeans;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Mexico;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Khakis;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% combed cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Wrinkle resistant;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Khakis;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% combed cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Khakis;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging: No
iron, wrinkle free, permanent crease, polished finish;
Country identified on label: Vietnam;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Khakis;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Shrink resistant, wrinkle resistant, stain repellant, soil release;
Country identified on label: Vietnam;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Pajama pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Cambodia;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Polo shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: India;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Polo shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton exclusive of decoration;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: India;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Polo shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 60% cotton, 40% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Easy care;
Country identified on label: Indonesia;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Polo shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 65% cotton, 35% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Easy care, wrinkle resistant, super soft touch;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Socks;
Fiber content identified on label: 84% cotton, 15% nylon, 1% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Sweatpants (shorts);
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Honduras;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: T-shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: T-shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Mexico;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: T-shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Pakistan;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: T-shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: U.S. military combat uniform shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 50% cotton, 50% nylon;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Insect repellent;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: U.S. military dress uniform shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 75% polyester, 25% wool;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Underwear;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% combed cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Antimicrobial, pre-shrunk;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Underwear;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Underwear;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Honduras;
Target customer: Men;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Blouse;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Indonesia;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: Not detectable.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Blouse;
Fiber content identified on label: 65% cotton, 35% silk;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Blouse;
Fiber content identified on label: 68% cotton, 28% nylon, 4% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Bra;
Fiber content identified on label: 95% cotton, 5% lycra;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Bra;
Fiber content identified on label: Body/cup: 80% nylon, 20% lycra.
Back lining: 84% polyester, 16% lycra;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: Not detectable.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Cargo pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 97% cotton, 3% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Cargo pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 98% cotton, 2% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Indonesia;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 54% linen, 44% cotton, 2% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Vietnam;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 97% cotton, 3% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Vietnam;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 97% wool, 3% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress pants;
Fiber content identified on label: 98% cotton, 2% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Sri Lanka;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 60% cotton, 37% polyester, 3%
spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Easy care;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 96% cotton, 4% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 96% cotton, 4% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: Not detectable.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 97% cotton, 3% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 97% cotton, 3% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 97% cotton, 3% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Indonesia;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress skirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 71% polyester, 26% rayon, 3%
spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Washable stretch, minimum care required;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Dress skirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 97% cotton, 3% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Sri Lanka;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: Not detectable.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Jeans;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Khakis;
Fiber content identified on label: 96% cotton, 4% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Indonesia;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Khakis;
Fiber content identified on label: 97% cotton, 3% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Vietnam;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Khakis;
Fiber content identified on label: 97% cotton, 3% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Khakis;
Fiber content identified on label: 98% cotton, 2% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Khakis;
Fiber content identified on label: 98% cotton, 2% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Vietnam;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Polo shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% organic cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Soft hand, shrink resistant;
Country identified on label: Vietnam;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Polo shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 95% pima cotton, 5% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Vietnam;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Socks;
Fiber content identified on label: 76% cotton, 21% nylon, 3% lycra;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Pakistan;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Socks;
Fiber content identified on label: 77% cotton, 18% polyester, 3%
natural latex rubber, 1% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: USA;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Sweatpants;
Fiber content identified on label: 85% cotton, 15% polyester;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Cambodia;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Sweatpants;
Fiber content identified on label: 90% cotton, 10% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: T-shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Assembled in Guatemala;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: T-shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: Not detectable.
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: T-shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
Pre-shrunk;
Country identified on label: Honduras;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: T-shirt;
Fiber content identified on label: 100% cotton;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Thailand;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Underwear;
Fiber content identified on label: 92% cotton, 8% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: China;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Comparison to most stringent regulatory standards for formaldehyde[A]:
Meets;
Item type: Underwear;
Fiber content identified on label: 95% cotton, 5% spandex;
Fabric performance characteristic identified on label or packaging:
None identified;
Country identified on label: Bangladesh;
Target customer: Women;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: Japanese test: Not
detectable;
Formaldehyde level in parts per million[B]: AATCC test: [C].
Source: GAO analysis of information provided on items' labels or
packaging and test data from an accredited commercial laboratory.
[A] As compared with the most stringent regulatory standards for
formaldehyde identified by the American Apparel and Footwear
Association, Restricted Substance List, Release 6, 2010.
[B] Formaldehyde levels listed as "not detectable" are below 20 parts
per million for the Japanese test and 10 parts per million for the
AATCC test.
[C] This item was tested only by the Japanese test.
[D] Infants/toddlers refers to children younger than 3 years of age.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Christine Fishkin, Assistant
Director; Gezahegne Bekele; Mark Braza; Antoinette Capaccio; Keya
Chateauneuf; Nancy Crothers; Lorraine Ettaro; Melissa King; Nathan A.
Morris; and Ruth Solomon made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] In this report, the term "resin" encompasses both the older resin
technologies that may release high levels of formaldehyde and the more
recent cross-linking agents that may release little to no formaldehyde.
[2] Formaldehyde is one of five substances CPSC has identified as a
strong sensitizer--a substance that can cause hypersensitivity through
recurring contact--under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.
Therefore, formaldehyde and any products containing 1 percent of
formaldehyde or more (10,000 parts per million) are required to bear a
warning label. The 1 percent refers to the concentration of
formaldehyde in solutions and products, not in the air. This reporting
level for formaldehyde far exceeds amounts likely to be found in
clothing.
[3] Pub. L. No. 110-314, § 234 (2008).
[4] Most of the relevant articles identified from our literature
review were from medical journals or addressed medical issues, and in
this report, we use the term "medical literature" to refer to the
articles.
[5] American Apparel and Footwear Association, Restricted Substance
List, Release 6 (2010).
[6] A nonprobability sample is a sample in which some items in the
population have no chance, or an unknown chance, of being selected.
Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences
about a population.
[7] Medical Management Guidelines for Formaldehyde (Atlanta: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry, Feb. 7, 2008), [hyperlink,
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg111.html] (accessed Aug. 5, 2009).
[8] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, National Toxicology Program, Report on Carcinogens,
Background Document for Formaldehyde (Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 2010).
[9] In this report, we use the terms "toxic" and "highly toxic" as
they are used by EPA's Toxics Release Inventory Program and HHS's
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, respectively.
[10] EPA initiated an advanced notice of a proposed rulemaking in
December 2008 indicating that the agency intends to investigate
whether and what type of federal regulation or other action might be
appropriate to protect against the risks posed by formaldehyde emitted
from composite and pressed-wood products. Furthermore, on July 7,
2010, the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Act was signed
into federal law. The new law amends the Toxic Substances Control Act
to establish standards for emissions of formaldehyde from hardwood
plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and particleboard. EPA must
promulgate regulations to implement the standards by January 2013.
[11] In this report, "durable press" is used to encompass terms such
as wrinkle resistant, wrinkle free, noniron, no iron, and easy care.
The durable press fabric characteristic applies to items treated to
retain their shape and pressed appearance after many uses, washing,
and tumble drying. All-synthetic fabrics, such as 100 percent
polyester, are inherently durable press and do not need to be treated.
[12] Formaldehyde may also be used in binders for prints, in various
coatings such as fire retardant chemicals, and for other purposes.
[13] The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has
equivalent tests: ISO 14184-1 Textiles--Determination of Formaldehyde--
Part 1: Free and Hydrolyzed Formaldehyde (Water Extraction Method),
which is equivalent to the Japanese test; and ISO 14184-2 Textiles--
Determination of Formaldehyde--Part 2: Released Formaldehyde (Vapour
Absorption Method), which is equivalent to the AATCC test.
[14] Formaldehyde Release from Fabric, Determination of: Sealed Jar
Method, AATCC Test Method 112-2008.
[15] In general, the AATCC test results in higher formaldehyde levels
than the Japanese test--except at low formaldehyde levels, such as 30
parts per million or less--although the difference between the
formaldehyde levels measured by the two tests depends, in part, on the
type of fabric and resin used.
[16] In the Restricted Substance List, the American Apparel and
Footwear Association, a national trade association, provides
information about the regulatory limits for various substances in
countries in which its members may operate. The Restricted Substance
List identifies Austria, China, Finland, France, Germany, Japan,
Lithuania, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russia, and
South Korea as countries that regulate formaldehyde in apparel, home
textiles, and footwear products.
[17] Information on countries that require disclosure was compiled by
the Hong Kong Standards and Testing Centre, a laboratory that provides
formaldehyde testing services according to international standards and
regulations.
[18] Various international agreements (or quotas) capping textile and
apparel imports into the United States were put in place, in part, to
attempt to curb the trend toward offshore production, which many U.S.
manufacturers were using in order to control costs. The World Trade
Organization agreement was put in place to lift these quotas.
[19] This organization is now called the Hamner Institutes for Health
Sciences.
[20] The hematopoietic and lymphatic systems are, among other things,
involved in the production of blood and in the immune system function.
[21] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, National Toxicology Program, Report on Carcinogens, 11th
Edition (Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 2005).
[22] 74 Fed. Reg. 67883 (Dec. 21, 2009).
[23] EPA, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Assessment of
Health Risks to Garment Workers and Certain Home Residents From
Exposure to Formaldehyde (Washington, D.C., 1987); and Integrated Risk
Information System, Formaldehyde (CASRN 50-00-0) (Washington, D.C.:
EPA), [hyperlink, http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0419.htm]
(downloaded Dec. 9, 2009).
[24] EPA, IRIS Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde--Inhalation
Assessment (External Review Draft) (Washington, D.C., June 2010).
[25] The National Academies comprises four organizations: the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the
Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council.
[26] World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on
Cancer, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to
Humans, Volume 88, Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert-
Butoxypropan-2-ol (Lyon, France, 2006).
[27] Robert Baan et al. "A Review of Human Carcinogens--Part F:
Chemical Agents and Related Occupations," The Lancet Oncology, vol.
10, issue 12 (2009).
[28] Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Formaldehyde
Release From Durable-Press Apparel Textiles, Final Project Report to
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Oak Ridge, Tennessee,
1985).
[29] Dermal exposure occurs when skin comes in contact with free
formaldehyde in textiles. Formaldehyde in clothing may be either bound
or free, and it is the skin contact with free formaldehyde that is
associated with the negative health effects. Free formaldehyde occurs
when there is an incomplete binding process between the formaldehyde-
based resin and the clothing fibers or when the resin decomposes.
Unless otherwise noted in this report, references to the health
effects associated with formaldehyde in clothing or textiles refer to
free formaldehyde.
[30] Anton C. De Groot and Howard I. Maibach, "Does Allergic Contact
Dermatitis from Formaldehyde in Clothes Treated with Durable-Press
Chemical Finishes Exist in the USA?" Contact Dermatitis, vol. 62, no.
3 (2009).
[31] Ryan M. Carlson, Mary C. Smith, and Susan T. Nedorost, "Diagnosis
and Treatment of Dermatitis Due to Formaldehyde Resins in Clothing,"
Dermatitis, vol. 15, no. 4 (2004).
[32] Etain Cronin, Contact Dermatitis (New York City: Churchill
Livingstone, 1980).
[33] While a national regulation of formaldehyde in clothing would not
necessarily produce comprehensive data on levels in clothing, such
data are unlikely to be compiled without a requirement to do so.
[34] We considered all items in our sample to come into direct contact
with the skin, although some textile industry standards consider bed
linens for older children and adults to be subject to the formaldehyde
limits applicable to items that do not come into direct contact with
the skin.
[35] We are using "durable press" to include terms such as wrinkle
resistant, wrinkle free, noniron, no iron, and easy care.
[36] European Commission Directorate General Joint Research Centre,
Physical and Chemical Exposure Unit, Chemical Release from Textiles,
European Survey on the Release of Formaldehyde from Textiles (Ispra,
Italy, 2007).
[37] Evaluation of Alleged Unacceptable Formaldehyde Levels in
Clothing (Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Ministry of Consumer
Affairs, Oct. 17, 2007), [hyperlink,
http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/legislation-policy/policy-reports-
and-papers/reports] (accessed Oct. 22, 2009). The New Zealand
government also received information from four retailers that tested
203 items. One item, a preproduction fabric, was found to be above the
acceptable level, which was defined by New Zealand to be 100 parts per
million.
[38] No Formaldehyde Found in Clothing, Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission, (October 17, 2007), [hyperlink,
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml?itemId=801314] (accessed
Aug. 5, 2009).
[39] B.A. Kottes Andrews, "Wrinkle Resistant Cotton and Formaldehyde
Release," Colourage Annual (1995).
[40] Formaldehyde Release from Durable-Press Apparel Textiles, Final
Project Report to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (1985).
[41] The current OSHA regulation, among other things, limits airborne
exposure to 0.75 parts of formaldehyde per million parts of air over
an 8-hour workday; sets a short-term exposure limit of 2 parts of
formaldehyde per million parts of air; and includes a hazard
communication requirement pertaining to formaldehyde gas, all mixtures
or solutions composed of greater than 0.1 percent formaldehyde
(equivalent to 1,000 parts per million), and materials capable of
releasing formaldehyde into the air, under reasonably foreseeable
conditions of use, at concentrations reaching or exceeding 0.1 parts
per million. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
has established nonenforceable guidelines for formaldehyde exposure
and recommends an occupational exposure limit over an 8-hour workday
of 0.016 parts per million and a 15-minute ceiling of 0.1 parts per
million in the air.
[42] This formaldehyde level in textiles is based on the Japanese test.
[43] Eero Priha, "Are Textile Formaldehyde Regulations Reasonable?
Experiences from the Finnish Textile and Clothing Industries,"
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 22, 243-249 (1995).
[44] Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, The Registry of Toxic Effects of
Chemical Substances, No. LP8925000, CAS No. 50-00-0 (Washington, D.C.,
2009).
[45] The countries the American Apparel and Footwear Association
identifies as having regulatory standards for formaldehyde in clothing
and other textiles are Austria, China, Finland, France, Germany,
Japan, Lithuania, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland,
Russia, and South Korea.
[46] The Austrian Textile Research Institute and the German Research
Institute Hohenstein jointly developed the Oeko-Tex® Standard 100 in
1992. The International Oeko-Tex® Association, which includes 14
textile research and test institutes in Europe and Japan, is
responsible for the independent tests for harmful substances according
to Oeko-Tex® Standard 100.
[47] We requested information on corporate limits on formaldehyde in
clothing and other textiles, if any, from 16 publicly traded U.S.-
based clothing retailers. One of the 14 retailers responding reported
that it had not established formaldehyde limits. For one of the two
retailers that did not respond, we were able to obtain, from its Web
site, information about the corporate limits it has established.
[48] According to medical literature, moderate amounts of formaldehyde
are defined as between 1,000 and 100 parts per million, while low and
ultra-low levels are below 100 parts per million, based on the AATCC
test.
[49] Pub. L. No. 110-314, § 234 (2008).
[50] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology
Program, Report on Carcinogens, 11th Edition (Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, 2005).
[51] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
Toxicological Profile for Formaldehyde (Atlanta, Georgia, 1999).
[52] Integrated Risk Information System, Formaldehyde (CASRN 50-00-0)
(Washington, D.C.: EPA), [hyperlink,
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0419.htm] (downloaded Dec. 9, 2009).
[53] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, External Review Draft:
Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde--Inhalation Assessment, in
Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information
System, Volume I of IV (Washington, D.C., June 2010).
[54] World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on
Cancer, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to
Humans, Volume 88, Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert-
Butoxypropan-2-ol (Lyon, France, 2006).
[55] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, SIDS
Initial Assessment Report for 14th SIAM, Formaldehyde (CAS No. 50-00-
0) (Paris, France, 2002).
[56] A nonprobability sample is a sample in which some items in the
population have no chance, or an unknown chance, of being selected.
Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences
about a population.
[57] The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation bases its
accreditation on the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) 17025:2005, General requirements for the competence of testing
and calibration laboratories.
[58] American Apparel and Footwear Association, Restricted Substance
List, Release 6 (2010).
[59] We have identified a few U.S.-based retailers that comply with
some voluntary programs, but they do not generally sell individual
items that are labeled to indicate compliance.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
