Are Companies Greenwashing Us Into Buying Toxic Products?
Over the past few years there has been an increase in consumers asking: “What is in the products I am purchasing and using? What do these vague labels actually mean? And are these marketing claims actually legitimate?” The rise in this consumer concern? The access to improved chemical testing and the increase in the finding of PFAS or ‘forever chemicals’ in many of our everyday-use products such as baby products, food containers, furniture and even our undergarments, specifically period products.
No matter which products are used (tampons, pads, cups or underwear) all period products are used near or in highly absorptive and sensitive parts of our bodies. Recently a report surfaced that accused the underwear brand Thinx of having PFAS in the lining of its sustainable and organic period products. Read, right next to that delicate area. However, while the idea of forever chemicals and plastics making their way into our intimates is disturbing, this lawsuit against Thinx isn’t about the potential harm of the products, but rather, it’s focused on Thinx’s misleading advertising.
The LAWSUIT
Here’s a brief synopsis of Thinx and the class action lawsuit against them. In 2020, an article by a journalist at the Sierra Club, a nonprofit environmental organization, reported that through independent testing, PFAS were found in both of the Thinx products that were tested. Now, there hasn’t been significant testing to determine just how much PFAS can be absorbed through contact via the skin, but it is safe to say it is not zero. The EPA counts acceptable levels of PFAS in water between 0.004 and 0.02 parts per trillion. The level of PFAS found in the lining of the crotch of the Thinx underwear were 3,624 parts per million and 2,053 parts per million. This number is high enough to suggest that these toxic, forever chemicals were intentionally added.
As a result of these findings, lawyers seized an opportunity to sue Thinx in the name of misrepresentation – as Thinx claimed that its products were non-toxic. While this false claim came from Thinx, the brand was able to hide behind the false legitimacy of an Oeko-Tex certification. However, an Oeko-Tex is a paid certification program that essentially is a form of greenwashing, as brands are attempting to pay into building sustainability credibility. To be fair to Oeko-Tex, during the certification of Thinx, they only tested for a few dozen types of PFAS at the time; however, the EPA has identified over 12,000 types of PFAS that can be found in our clothing. So, claiming that a product doesn’t contain harmful chemicals isn’t really reassuring when organizations are currently only testing for a fraction of a percent of these PFAs.
Read the full article at Remake.
