Chris Tebbs, Managing director, FCRA writes;
I read with interest your editorial on incorrect care labelling, as the FCRA has devoted considerable time and money to this subject. Your comments, while well meant, do not represent the full picture. To say that incorrect care labelling causes many acrimonious disputes assumes that the general public understands a care label.
Designer Label
That apart, while there seems to have been a small increase in mislabelling, it appears to be mainly in the designer label sector. On the whole, garments which have been properly care labelled, using the ISO/Ginetex symbols in conjunction with a fibre identification label, rarely give problems when processed in accordance with that label. If anything, manufacturers who apply these labels are more likely to be guilty of under-labelling, exasperating the professional cleaner who knows that the best results can be obtained from an alternative process, but is restricted to drycleaning.
However, the recent trend to designer-label garments appears to have brought an increase in the number of garments labelled "dryclean only" or "professional dryclean only." To suggest that these are care labels is incorrect. They do not give any details of what processing is to be carried out. They really suggest that the manufacturer has not bothered to test the garment, does not know what the garment will withstand and intends to pass the buck to the cleaner. Cleaners who accept such garments also accept the liability when problems occur. Often these garments do not even contain a fibre-identification label, a legal requirement! To suggest that the only people making money out of the problems are the garment testing laboratories and consultants, insults organisations such as the FCRA. Whilst FCRA offers a garment analysis service, we go much further. For over 50 years the Association has backed up garment analysis with its manufacturer contact programme.
This not only involves us in direct contact with manufacturers and retailers over specific problems, but in providing an education service on aftercare treatments. We liaise with care-labelling authorities such as HLCC/Ginetex as well as the various standards bodies. More recently we have been involved with the CINET Care Labelling Commission which is reviewing the current European situation from a drycleaner's perspective.
The cost of all this well exceeds the income generated from both the garment analysis and textile testing services. The balance is funded by those who support the association by becoming members. Only a relatively small number of cleaners support the FCRA, or any association, so reducing our resources.
FCRA also offers manufacturers the facilities to test for launderability, drycleanability in perchloroethylene or full care labelling. Although at present there are no approved tests for processing in the new hydrocarbon solvents or wetcleaning systems, we in partnership with other institutes in Europe and the US are working on these.
Sadly only a small number of manufacturers use our test facilities. Some purport to test by taking a sample to the local drycleaners. If it appears to process correctly then it is assumed it is suitable for longer-term wear and cleaning. This kind of testing is not much better than nothing. It takes no account of the process used and there is no control. If more controlled testing was carried out and appropriate care labels applied then with luck we might be able to close down our garment analysis laboratory. I would be delighted, for then we would have been successful in eliminating an ongoing problem.
I cannot realistically see this happening, even in the distant future.
Voluntary
At present, care labelling is voluntary. Some form of regulatory care labelling would obviously improve the situation and could address the question of offshore production by imposing import controls, as occurs in other countries.
This would not necessarily cure all our ills. I suspect we would start to see more incorrect care labelling. However, with incorrect labelling the buck rests with the retailer/manufacturer, with no care labelling it rests with the cleaner. An education programme aimed at the general public might have the desired effect, but although relatively inexpensive it would be very time consuming and require all cleaners to work together.
In the meantime cleaners can help themselves by refusing to accept garments without care labels or without written instructions from the retailers, particularly when they suspect there "may be a problem." Finally, I would ask all cleaners, whether members or not, to advise FCRA of any strange "care labels" or any manufacturing problems so that we can investigate and try to resolve them. We need to work together, FCRA, the cleaners and the manufacturers, for the benefit of the consumers.
A satisfied customer will produce repeat business, a dissatisfied one will take other business away by announcing their dissatisfaction to the world.
