Speaking to the EU DG in Brussels, John Moraes, also from AFIRM, echoed these concerns, noting how the EU proposal aimed at skin sensitisers includes over 1,000 substances, including a dynamic restriction process for substances classified as sensitisers in the future, as a precautionary approach. “However, it is notable that individual AFIRM members can count the number of customer skin complaints they have received over the last few years on one hand,” he said, claiming that product safety is therefore already well managed among AFIRM brands at least.
Legacy chemicals
As Europe and its legislators push for a more circular textile sector and to divert waste streams so that existing products get a second life, the problem that mechanical textile recycling – which will be a huge part of this solution – literally re-processes legacy dyes and chemicals, meaning that if they are restricted in recycled goods, entire groups of colours would need to be excluded from the textile recycling process given fabrics are sorted by colour prior to recycling. “Dilution is not a solution to this issue,” said Moraes.
He noted how it usually takes around five years to substantially remove a chemical or chemical group from global textile and footwear supply chains, whereas the EU sensitiser restriction proposal includes a short three year transition period for 1,000+ substances.
Industry experts expect that eliminating widely, and intentionally used substances from recycled materials will take much longer, with Moraes noting that recyclers continue to struggle with nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPE) in wool – eight years after the REACH NPE restriction entered into force. In addition, textile recyclers are also requesting a 15 year transition period under the pending REACH PFAS restriction proposal for similar reasons.
Brands cannot rely on disclosure of chemical ingredients from upstream suppliers since this information is often unreliable.
“Brands perform an enormous amount of risk-based testing to ensure compliance of their products with REACH and other regulatory and voluntary restrictions. They cannot rely on disclosure of chemical ingredients from upstream suppliers since this information is often unreliable, and chemistry is dynamic with side-reactions often forming unintended substances in small concentrations that may still exceed legal limits,” he said.

He also pointed out that chromium(VI) – an impurity due to widely used chromium-based leather tanning over the years – is almost certainly going to present compliance problems in recycled leather due to the conversion of trivalent chromium to hexavalent chromium during a product’s lifecycle and when recycling.
Barriers to compliance
Meanwhile, Mauro Scalia, EURATEX director for sustainable businesses, expressed concerns about the initial scope (complete CLP Annex VI) and dynamic link of the restriction proposal including barriers to compliance textile manufacturers would face.
“Comparing the sensitiser restriction proposal with the REACH CMR restriction (entry 72 of REACH Annex XVII), both started with an initial scope of around 1,000 substances, the latter of which ultimately landed on 33 chemicals addressed by the restriction,” he said.
This process included careful dialogue and engagement with industry stakeholders. An approach that Scalia advocates. “Industry has valuable information to share about implications for recycled (and virgin) materials, and whether proposed generic limits and transition periods are appropriate.”
Independent consultant Stign Steuperaert, who advises the Belgian testing institute Centexbel, added that although having reliable test methods is essential for compliance – it is not always a given. “Most of the substances included in the sensitiser restriction proposal do not have validated analytical methods”, he pointed out adding that investigating restricted substances in recycled materials is now underway – but far from being completed.
Following the talks, Commission and member state representatives were cautioned that the new proposals could actually put an end to the textile recycling industry and hobble Europe’s attempt to grow circular textile supply chains. While the Commission did not reveal any further information about the status of the pending sensitiser restriction proposal.
If it is too unsafe to put recycled garments on the market, then we need to discontinue selling secondhand garments.
Sponsler noted that almost universally across all product chemical safety regulation – garments placed on the secondhand market are exempt from restriction limits. “I think it is very important to point this out since regulators (and others) often express concerns that recycled garments will be unsafe if they do not meet the same chemical standards as garments made with virgin materials,” he said. “However, if it is too unsafe to put recycled garments on the market, then we need to discontinue selling secondhand garments as well since recycled garments generally meet a higher chemical safety standard compared to secondhand garments that are often many years old. And what about the clothes we are all wearing right now and that are in our closets? A lot of them are not meeting the newest chemical safety standards since they were enacted years after those garments were produced. Should these garments be recalled?”
The talks in Brussels were arranged by AFIRM, EURATEX, and the chemical industry associations ETAD and EUCTL through the communication consultancy KREAB.
These alarm calls follow recent appeals from the EuRIC (European Recycling Industries’ Confederation) trade body and the UK Textile Recycling Association (TRA) warning that textile reuse and recycling is on the brink of collapse across Europe.
EuRIC says that rising costs, dropping sales due to intense competition and legislative gaps are combining to put reusable textile resources and the circular economy at risk.
“The prospect of incineration becoming the only remaining option if sorting discarded textiles becomes financially unviable is deeply alarming,” said Mariska Boer, president of EuRIC’s textiles branch.
