14 Clothing Brands Were Accused Of Sewage &Nbsp; Adidas, Lining And Other Famous Brands Were Involved.

Involved in Adidas, Lining and other well-known enterprises, "pollution" source is said to come from two Chinese suppliers.

"Under the demand of chain discounted retailers for cheap clothing, the pressure of cost cutting in textile industry is increasing, and investment needs for environmental protection are more easily ignored."

The textile industry, which is under heavy cost, is exacerbated by a global report issued by an environmental group on 13.

The report, "the poison of fashion - the global clothing brand's China water pollution survey", said that many well-known international and domestic clothing brands, such as Adidas and Lining, contained environmental hormone substances that could disrupt endocrine and affect reproductive system in the industrial wastewater discharged by two suppliers in China.

The 14 brands that were named include: Abercrombie &Fitch, Adidas, Bauer Hockey, Calvin Klein, Converse, Cortefiel, H&M, PVH, Cortefiel, and Lining.

According to the report, the two suppliers are YOUNGOR textile industrial city located in Ningbo and Zhongshan Guotai dyeing and finishing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Cathay Pacific), located in Zhongshan.

On the 14 day, Cathay Pacific's official website issued a special statement, which said the report was not in line with the actual situation.

The statement said that the water samples sampled and tested were not Cathay's water samples; Cathay's sewage accords with national emission standards and international standards.

According to Caixin net, YOUNGOR issued a public statement on July 13th evening, saying:

"Terminal management is not effective."

According to the report, since last spring, the publishers have sampled the waste water from the two suppliers several times and sent samples to the Research Laboratory of the organization in Exeter University, Holland, and the Omegam independent environmental analysis laboratory.

It was found that the main toxic and harmful substances in waste water were nonylphenol (NP), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).

These substances interfere with the endocrine of organisms, are toxic to the reproductive system, and have an impact on the immune system and the liver.

The report says that the European Union, the United States and relevant international conventions have all controlled these toxic substances.

In fact, the use of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and nonylphenol (NP) is decreasing worldwide.

Li Ping Fang, director of the green peace pollution control project, said yesterday that from the global regulatory experience, there is no way to design standard values for these toxic and harmful substances, because these toxic and harmful substances are persistent and accumulative and can be accumulated.

Therefore, the European Union and other measures to eliminate these toxic and harmful substances are phased out and banned.

This means that it can only be solved from the source.

For example, perfluorooctane sulfonate has been banned in the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants, and China is also one of the signatories.

According to the report, "toxic and harmful substances can be seen everywhere in the environment, indicating that the traditional way of" terminal treatment "is too long to fail - wastewater treatment plants can not cope with a large number of toxic and harmful substances.

Li Yifang believes that if these big brands stand out and promise to eliminate these toxic and harmful substances, the impact on China's entire industry will be very large.

Li Yifang said Adidas has hundreds of suppliers in China, and Lining has about 100 suppliers.

Ma Jun, director of the public environment research center, said yesterday that if there were big brands to do these things at that time, it would be possible to change the procurement standards.

It is very difficult to ask a supplier to do it alone.

The report said that while acknowledging the supply relationship, Bauer Hockey,

Green supply chain cost

The report hopes Brand Company will shoulder corresponding responsibilities and learn from the electronics industry.

The report says that in recent years, the electronics industry has taken measures in the two stages of product life cycle (design and processing) to reduce the toxic and hazardous substances emitted by the disposal or recycling of discarded products (also known as e-waste).

The emphasis is on reducing the use of brominated flame retardants (BFR) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).

Ma believes that supply chain management will initially have some cost problems, because there may be some changes in the process, and there may be some changes in the process.

If the cost is purely borne by the supplier, some suppliers may not be able to afford it.

But if it is shared in the industry chain, it is possible.

Even if textile prices are high, it is reasonable.

"In recent years, the price of textiles has fallen rapidly, without a large amount of environmental costs."

According to the report, the cost cutting pressure of textile industry is increasing day by day under the demand of chain discount retail stores, and the investment need for environmental protection is easier to be ignored.

The report says that the cost of treating polluted wastewater is about $0.13 per ton, but the bigger problem is that sewage treatment can only solve some of the pollution problems and has no effect on most toxic and harmful substances.

The report points out that many enterprises have overestimated the cost of environmental protection because of the conservative idea that they must adopt "traditional" pollution control methods.

In North Carolina in 1980s, textile enterprises must effectively remove the alkylphenol polyoxyethylene ether (APEs) from wastewater.

The cost of the process is prohibitive, but the cost is avoided when enterprises use safer chemicals instead of APEs in the production process.

Ma Jun also suggested that Brand Company's management of suppliers should be extended to two level suppliers, so that the procurement standards of brands can be extended to more links in the supply chain.

However, two days after the report was issued, the publisher told the Morning Post reporter yesterday that the Brand Company commitments had not yet been received.

Li Yifang said that after the report was released, Adidas told the media that its tailoring and sewing procedures were only made in YOUNGOR textile industrial city.

But in June, the official reply from Adidas headquarters to Greenpeace, Adidas said that the last process of processing garments in industrial city was washing water. Li Yifang thought that it was possible to use related toxic and harmful substances as cleaning agents.

Li Yifang said it was impossible to understand what had happened in this period, which led Adidas to overturn its own response.