1. The FTC has put up a website for manufacturers who use bamboo rayon products and consumers who buy them.

2. The National Textile Association reports the FTC has sent warning letters to 78 retailers about the labeling of bamboo products:

FTC Warns 78 Retailers, Including Wal-Mart, Target, and Kmart, to Stop Labeling and Advertising Rayon Textile Products as “Bamboo”

Seventy-eight companies nationwide have received Federal Trade Commission letters warning that they may be breaking the law by selling clothing and other textile products that are labeled and advertised as “bamboo,” but actually are made of manufactured rayon fiber. The letters, which the agency’s staff sent last week, make the retailers aware of the FTC’s concerns about possible mislabeling of rayon products as “bamboo,” so the companies can take corrective steps to avoid Commission action.

If you look back at my post…I think you will see that I was not attempting to argue with the whole bamboo/rayon-proper tagging issue. I am not a textile expert and I am pretty new to the textile business in general. I’m not a manufacturer, and I’m not a distributor/wholesaler. Frankly, the knowledge of bamboo fabric being described as viscose from bamboo, did not even enter my repertoire until a couple of months ago. I first read about it when Canada instituted as proper protocol. I subsequently read something about our FTC introducing the same thing here in the states. At that time…we decided to change our product descriptions.

If you take a look at my blog referenced above…you will see some pretty scary examples of the FTC’s ineptness and false accusations. Regardless of what people think about *rayon from bamboo*, when a U.S. judge uses language like “The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) acted wantonly, oppressively, vexatiously and in bad faith in prosecuting claims against Mark O. Haroldsen.” I would like to believe that would piss people off. It pissed me off. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and when they lose all credibility and/or possibly go under as a result of one of our government agencies making false accusations…that just sucks. That is only one case–I’m happy email you many more cases where the FTC lost and was deemed to have provided ostensibly no evidence. What about all the cases that didn’t make the news, because the company couldn’t afford to fight it? It ain’t cheap to go up against the government.

The FTC uses language toward these companies…that would seemingly put them right up there with the guy tele-scamming your grandmother. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Don’t get me wrong…I have seen plenty of ecommerce stores that sell bamboo products, and make grandiose claims about how green the processing and production is. Or they lead you to believe that they have bamboo fabric derived from the mechanical process–Those are the companies that they SHOULD be going after.

When a company spends the money, and has tests done by an independent laboratory, and those tests support what they are claiming…how does that make those individuals of the false and deceptive variety, as the FTC states?

Again, not my area of expertise, and I get that it is not so hard to take numbers and twist them to your liking. Whether it’s U.S. prison statistics or the antimicrobial behavior of a textile.

But I submit to you that the FTC has 0 test data (as with a lot of their other cases), and there are several papers whereby 100% *rayon from bamboo* was tested against various control samples…and the numbers certainly supported antimicrobial characteristics…well beyond traditionally derived viscose/rayon.

I know two of these people, and they just aren’t the kind of people that would intentionally mislead their customer. All I can tell you is…knowing everything that I know, in my mind…your right the FTC is demonizing them.

Again…thanks for your intelligent comments (whether I agree or not)

Doug

To get a new name on the list of generic fiber names, you have to go through a formal process with the FTC. In March 2009, “triexta” was added to the list, and it took about 3 or 4 years for the petition to grind through the bureacracy. In January 2003, “lastol” was added to the list. In 2002, “elasterel-p” was added to the list. In 1996, “lyocell” was added to the list. The bamboo fabric industry, or representatives of it, could start the process of getting “bamboo” added to the list. But until it is on the list, you are not allowed to use it as a generic fiber name, and garment labels require the use of generic fiber names. “rayon from bamboo” is an allowed usage, because that phrase begins with the generic fiber name.

If you are using fabric labels that don’t obey even the most basic of the existing rules, you better expect to get pounced. There’s really no excuse for ignoring this very well-documented rule. Go here, although this makes a better overall starting point. The list of US-recognized and -accepted generic fiber names is at the bottom of that first document.

As far as the other disputes, like claims of antimicrobial action, I think there is some legitimate room for give-and-take on the strength of the evidence from various tests. One test result doesn’t constitute scientific proof. Rayon explicitly not from bamboo also has some claim to antimicrobial action, but the FTC doesn’t allow consumer marketing with this claims either, I believe.

As to viscose rayon from bamboo having different properties than viscose rayon from other sources of cellulose, that’s certainly possible. But the degree to which the characteristics of the original source cellulose is reflected in the final product depends very heavily on the exact technical details of the viscose processing used. And the bamboo mills in China are notoriously close-mouthed and vague about their processing, to the point of implying they are using something comparable to the lyocell process, when they very clearly are not.

So, I don’t think this is a witch hunt at all. I think attention has just been focused on a previously neglected part of the industry, and past poor practices are going to have to be corrected. Unsupported or disputed statements will have to be retracted until a body of proper evidence (and by that I mean quantitative, repeatable laboratory work) has been established. Hopefully, members of the bamboo fabric industry (such as yourself) will work to get that evidence established properly, and perhaps petition to add “bamboo” to the list of generic fiber names.

Much of what I’m about to say, I was not apprised of until I had done much research and/or talked with people more knowledgeable than I…in this genre.
I make that statement to let it be known that I do not begrudge the average consumer their viewpoints on this issue (even when their wrong). However, I do take issue with journalists that are clearly neophytes, and have no business writing out a postcard, let alone an article for a mainstream publication.(of course, I’ve never had patience for incompetent people, that’s just me) Ok, enough hate’n.
The FTC for some unknown reason (to me), has taken a very one sided and distorted view of this bamboo/rayon issue. I won’t argue the naming of the product…the bottom line is that if the FTC says it has to be called rayon, then so be it, today. The fact of the matter is technologies and scientific advancements precede governmental standardization. This is applicable to the textile industry, as well as other markets.
In the interest of full transparency, I know two of the four business owners, and have a business relationship with one of those two. I understand that anyone reading this likely does not know me, but I need to say this regardless of that caveat: The two owners that I know…do not, and would not intentionally mislead their customers, period. They are not that type of people, and they just don’t run their businesses like that. They are people that I would be proud to call friends, and I have no interest in befriending someone that lacks character and integrity…it’s just how I roll (to borrow a line from the kids).
The simple fact is…bamboo fabric is a new product in the textile industry. It started finding its way into the U.S. market around 2004ish. There were no guidelines or *rules* on what the fabric should be called, prior to the very recent FTC witch hunt. It was imported and recognized by U.S. customs, as “bamboo fabric” or “bamboo fiber”. Additionally, regardless of the claims that bamboo derived fiber…is the same as any other rayon, is simply false. Admittedly I’m not up on all the technical jargon, but I have looked at scientific data that substantiates that *viscose from bamboo* has unique characteristics that are discernible from…say, wood derived viscose. And yes, you can view the document on my site. (I have an upcoming blog post where I will have included some of the actual data), but if your interested…I believe you can access it from the left nav bar…under “news and articles”, and then click on the antimicrobial socks case study.
I suppose that brings me to my next point–In the FTC’s mission to demonize bamboo fabric…they pointed their finger next, at the “antimicrobial” claims. The sock study that I referenced above…was done for the sole intention of determining the antimicrobial characteristics of a bamboo fabric product (In this case, socks). You can have look for yourself, but I will tell you here (in case you don’t want to bother looking at a bunch of numbers), that it clearly shows that the bamboo fabric has antimicrobial properties, well beyond that of non-bamboo derived viscose.

FTC Claims Fruits and Vegetables Are Not Biodegradable
That is the title of my most recent post. Yes, shocking…I know. Hey, don’t blame me, blame your FTC. If we take that head of lettuce in your fridge, and hold it to the same standard as what the FTC is using for bamboo fabric…then the title of my post is actually accurate (and not just a hook to grab readers). It is all explained in the post, and I believe that any reasonable person that reads it…will begin to understand why I use language like “witch hunt”.
In addition to the case study referenced above, I am hoping to have my hands on another independent laboratory test(by the end of this week)…which will also support the antimicrobial characteristics of bamboo fabric. Unfortunately the one I referenced above does not state the base material for the viscose control sample, only stating that it is 100% viscose. The current testing be done, will be utilizing a wood base viscose as the control sample.

Like my counterparts, I have made every attempt to gather and make available accurate and reliable information on my site’s facts section, as well as my blog posts. Although a self proclaimed genius, I am certainly not perfect, so if anyone finds anything that they are certain is incorrect, then by all means, tell me and I will make any necessary changes.

For any of you hardened cynics, don’t bother…you probably are not tall enough to ride this roller coaster.

Kathleen, thank you for your due diligence. Sorry about the novel, but rather than just throw up a link to my posts, it seemed only right for me to take the time to make a few of my (many) points here…as you did your homework, and seemed to have a dialogue going with your readers.
Email:doug@greenearthbamboo.com
Blog:http://blog.greenearthbamboo.com
Site:www.greenearthbamboo.com

I think the plight of the poor ‘well-meaning’ cloth diaper manufacturers is a bit overdone… They could have been honest about the processing of the fabric all along. After all even putting double-knit polyester on your baby’s butt is clearly more ecological than any sort of disposable. If the manufacturers have chosen to overlook all the info that has been available for years about the real ecological status of bamboo rayon, and to hype the fabric instead of the product, they shouldn’t wonder their customers are disillusioned and unhappy with them. Very small violins..

I’m only sorry that some disillusioned consumers about this fabric lies will mean that some people give up on any effort to make the best ecological choice at all..

I also agree with Kathleen that green consumerism isn’t a solution. I’m in France at the moment, where green is in (stop laughing, German readers, it affects you too). The upshot? Everyone is rushing to buy new ‘ecological’ products, many of them from generic bamboo rayon, most of them dyed a subdued green.. It’s a uniform. Meanwhile, the landfills overflow with discarded perfectly good clothes that don’t reflect enough the sensitivity and political consciousness of their previous owners (higher than yours of course). Suggest to a French woman that wearing out last year’s t-shirt in last year’s color might be more ecological, and you get a wounded doe look that implies that you’re a fanatic trying to turn her into a vegetarian or something .

Thank you sfrieberg for the info about rayon vs viscose. All I knew was that I’ve only ever seen ‘viscose’ in Europe, never ‘rayon’, or in the US on snobbish fake-European products.

And Annie, sorry but yarn is really spun in Italie about as often as it’s hand-ground from raw bamboo… For a long time that mostly means that it’s labeled by an Italian company, and I have heard eyewitness reports of ‘made in Italy’ yarn piled up in Chinese factories..

Rayon is made from artificially digested cellulose. There are many different methods for doing the digesting, and some of them lead to noticeably different fibers. Viscose processing is one way to make rayon. All viscose is rayon, but not all rayon is viscose! (That was a chemical statement, not a legal statement.) For example, Bemberg is rayon made from the cuprammonium process, not the viscose process.

It is a matter of law, not chemistry, which of those regenerated cellulose fibers are considered generic fibers. A generic fiber name is what you are required to use on your garment labels. At one point, all of the methods produced something labeled as “rayon” in the US. Decades ago, the “acetate” fiber was promoted out of the “rayon” group and given status as a generic fiber. Much more recently, “lyocell” was given status as a generic fiber.

The US rules do not list “viscose” as a generic fiber, but _will_ allow its use because the ISO rules _do_ treat “viscose” as a generic fiber. This is a sort of labeling reciprocity, I guess. I don’t know whether ISO and the European Community treat “rayon” and “viscose” as distinct generic fibers, or if “viscose” is simply the EC name for “rayon”.

Now that this is coming to light I think hemp will gain popularity in the cloth diapering community, and the makers of diapers will follow suit my offering more hemp products.

I have quoted your claims and facts in an article along with a link back to this post. It isn’t posted yet so if you do not wish to be quoted or only wish to be linked please let me know, although I hope you will allow it. It was such a great list I couldn’t make a better explanation myself!

-Kim