“Such regulatory harmonisation ensures a predictable and orderly outcome for apparel and textiles producers, manufacturers of medical and industrial products, and consumers, all while achieving the presumed desired outcome of ensuring consumer product safety for the state,” they wrote in a letter.
Trade bodies AAFA and NCTO recently requested members of the Maryland House Health and Environment & Transportation Committee that legislation HB 1022 should mirror the textile article and apparel definitions that were negotiated and implemented through California law and have been replicated in multiple other states.
HB 1022 would phase out products containing intentionally added PFAS in Maryland.
HB 1022 would phase out products containing intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in Maryland, including very broadly defined ‘textiles’.
It would ban several products effective January 1, 2029, including ‘textiles’, currently defined as “an item made in whole or in part from a natural or synthetic fiber, yarn, or fabric, including leather, cotton, silk, jute, hemp, wool, viscose, nylon, or polyester. ‘Textile’ includes outerwear and bedding as well.
For US textile and apparel producers, this definition would cover some critical applications of personal protective equipment that, by January 1, 2029, will not have yet transitioned to suitable alternative materials, the letter said.
Moreover, this definition, and the restrictions of textiles as a distinct category, will have very significant, presumably unintended, consequences for the broader economy, they wrote.
The California law defines ‘textile articles’ as “textile goods of a type customarily and ordinarily used in households and businesses, and include, but are not limited to, apparel, accessories, handbags, backpacks, draperies, shower curtains, furnishings, upholstery, beddings, towels, napkins, and tablecloths”. The law goes on to provide exemptions.
Numerous products are an “item made in whole or in part from synthetic fiber… or fabric.”
In addition to apparel-like products, the definition would cover diverse end uses like filtration and separation media for emissions control and a wide range of industrial processes; medical textiles and components of medical devices; wire and cable applications; architectural and construction application; components in lab equipment and supplies; and parts for vehicles and aircraft.
Not only will this deny Marylanders of several critical products enjoyed and relied upon every day, but it will impact the ability of companies in Maryland to obtain materials and components to manufacture products within the state and sold elsewhere, the trade bodies noted in their letter.
Fibre2Fashion News Desk (DS)
