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

2. 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?

3. 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)

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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?

7. 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)

8. Criteria area 2: Materials
Maximal weight and composition of the product – Example
Size-4 and size-5 diapers from g up to % (99% of diapers weight %)
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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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)?

12. 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?

13. 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

14. 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

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