Sanitary Products/ Absorbent Hygiene Products JRC- IPTS 21-22 November 2012

Timeline Preliminary report (background info) – Draft v.1/2 May-Jun 2012 1ST AHWG Meeting for EU Ecolabel criteria revision Jun 2012 Consultation of industry stakeholders Jul-Aug 2012 Meeting with EDANA Sep 2012 Preliminary report (background info) – Draft v.3 Oct 2012 Technical report (criteria proposal) – Draft v.1 Oct 2012 EUEB meeting Nov 2012 2nd AHWG Meeting for EU Ecolabel criteria revision 2013?

Definition of the product scope From Sanitary Products to Absorbent Hygiene Products!? Fibres content < 90% by weight and disposable: Children’s diapers Sanitary pads/napkins and panty liners Tampons Breast pads NO incontinence products = medical devices (Council Directive 93/42/EEC)

Identification of criteria areas Individual criteria 1. Fitness for use a. Technical performance of the product 2. Production and Consumption of Materials a. Maximal weight and composition (cellulose content) b. Production and supply of: Fluff pulp; Viscose; Cotton; Polymers; Other materials 3. Manufacture a. Minimisation of the production waste b. Social criteria? (c. energy issue important but no criteria now) 4. Substances Compliance with Art. 6.6 and 6.7 (5. End-of-life) Important issue but no criteria now (6. Environmental performance)

Criteria area 1: Fitness-for-use Identification of parameters to describe the performance of AHPs: Overall performance Absorption capacity under pressure Moisture retention Leakage protection Skin dryness and compatibility Fit and comfort Odour control Dermatological testing List of available testing procedures (see working documents) But… NO harmonised standards, NO performance thresholds

Criteria area 1: Fitness-for-use Current proposal: Declaration about the good performance of the product and report on the tests performed (adapted from Nordic Swan; guidelines = reference list of tests) Open issues: Lack of harmonised standards within industry Lack of performance thresholds Which areas to prioritise for each product?

Criteria area 2: Materials Materials = 62%-97% of environmental impacts = f (weight; single materials) LCA not implementable (lack of ready-to-use tools and information) Simplifications needed when setting criteria Decoupling the problem in two parts… acceptable? to decrease the weight of the product and the content of certain materials to select more eco-friendly materials (Criteria 1 to fulfil the functions expected from the product)

Criteria area 2: Materials Maximal weight and composition of the product – Example Size-4 and size-5 diapers from 30-38 g up to +63-77% (99% of diapers weight +12-20%) Content of cellulose lower than 2011 average (36.6% by weight) Open issues: Deeper investigation on weight distributions for classes of products is needed Apparent lack of harmonised classifications between different producers

Criteria area 2: Materials Measures on single materials Fluff pulp Sustainable sourcing ECF and TCF Bleaching AOX emissions Absence of visual whitening and colouring agents Emissions of COD, P, S and NOx Emissions of CO2 Energy consumption Promotion of best industrial practices Viscose Consumption and emission limits for viscose production

Criteria area 2: Materials Measures on single materials Cotton Sustainable sourcing TCF Bleaching Absence of visual whitening and colouring agents Promotion of best industrial practices Polymers Renewable polymers? Heavy metals / organostannic compounds Residual monomers and water-soluble extracts for SAPs Others Adhesive materials (prohibited substances) Inks and dyes (no dying of parts in direct contact with skin) Lotions and fragrances (fragrances according to list from IFRA + declaration) Silicone (protection of workers, avoidance of siloxanes) Further insight and discussion still needed

Criteria area 3: Manufacture of the product Manufacture = 1-12% of the environmental impacts 1st = Energy, but… low potential for setting criteria (lack of statistical information) Criterion on waste more feasible, but… less significant Current proposal: Production waste that is not reused or recovered < 0.5% by weight of the end product Social criteria (based on HTF)?

Criteria area 4: Use of substances in the product 1 Horizontal approach: List of H-statements/Risk-phrases (specific and generic concentrations) Art. 57 of REACH (0.1% w/w conc. threshold) 2 List of substances contained in the product Apparentely, no critical difficulties… but problem of image for AHPs Attention on wording! And… variation on size? Derogation for sodium polyacrylates (H412: harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects) needed?

Criteria area 4: EoL of the product Important issue, but… low potential for setting criteria Criteria area 5: Environmental performance of the product Key issue, but… Lack of information Methods and tools not ready-to-use Burdens for SME

Position paper from EDANA Difficult definition of criteria: Environmental improvement achieved without an ecolabel Life cycle based criteria vs. pass-fail criteria Complexity of this product group (types, models and sizes) Lack of recognised life cycle assessment database Lack of universal standards and performance tests But… other industry stakeholders and retailers potentially interested in an EU Ecolabel

Interest in the product group? Feedback/guidelines/support? Questions to the EUEB Interest in the product group? Feedback/guidelines/support?