Greenpeace has released a report condemning the widespread use of PFCs or 'perfluorinated compounds' in the outdoor sports industry. The campaigning environmental charity carried out detailed scientific tests on a selection of more than a dozen leading brands and found all contained PFCs, including some claiming environmental credentials and some more than 10 times as much as others.
PFCs are used to give water repellency to outdoor equipment by Greenpeace reports that the chemicals have also been linked to a range of health problems including cancer, compromised immune systems and reduced fertility. These issues are particularly acute at the point of manufacture, normally in Chinas or elsewhere in the far east, but as PFCs never fully break down in the environment, they can build up in the food chain where the garments are purchased in Europe and North America too.
The report is being welcomed by companies that have made an effort not to use PFCs in their products, including Nikwax which produces water repellent aftercare for boots and clothing,
"More than ten years ago when I was offered PFCs to put in my aftercare products for the first time, I looked carefully at the issues and decided – no way!" said Nick Brown, founder and CEO of Nikwax "It's my responsibility to make a safety judgement on behalf of my customers and the environment, and for me PFCs were an unacceptable risk. We've worked hard ever since to develop high performance alternatives, and raise the issue to consumers and the industry."
In Europe, aftercare products full of PFC chemicals are on the shelves in many outdoor shops. These are sprayed or washed into clothing in people's homes, where cross contamination of air and household surfaces is likely. Once washed down the drain, PFCs are not effectively removed at waste water treatment plants, and so are polluting European waters as well as in the Far East.
Most of the toxicological research done so far has been focussed on the PFCs most commonly used in the past, so called "C8" PFCs.
The health risks associated with other members of the perfluorinated family are still relatively unknown, but many chemical manufacturers are now pushing slightly shorter "C6" PFCs as 'safe alternatives'. ' Greenpeace does not support this move.
"The health effects of some PFCs have been more studied than others, but that doesn't mean that those we know less about are safe. Our assessment is that the whole PFC family share characteristics which are likely to cause harm, and therefore should be avoided wherever possible. The Greenpeace report makes the same assertion very clearly," Nick Brown concluded.