Case study
New Zealand’s Fair Trading Act (FTA) is an extremely important piece of
legislation that exists to ensure accuracy and honesty in the advertising of
products and services for Kiwi consumers. In particular, the FTA is in place to:
– Promote fair competition
– Ensure consumers get accurate information before purchasing
products and services
– Promote product safety.
Periodically, consumer products fail to deliver on the advertised promises
or claims of their product, or deliberately mislead or deceive the public.
Promoting inaccurate information and/ or, withholding important product
information, is illegal and a direct breach of the Fair Trading Act.
When this occurs or is suspected of occurring, businesses and the public can contact Consumer NZ to investigate the claims, who will report back on their independent findings.
This case study shows how NZWTA Materials & Textiles Testing has assisted Consumer NZ with testing and technical advice in several investigations.
Client Background
Consumer NZ is an independent, non-profit organisation with the goal of protecting and empowering New Zealand consumers. They do this through thorough investigations, research and testing.
Consumer NZ does not have in-house laboratories, but rather calls on other independent experts and technicians to carry out the required testing and analysis, to deliver an accurate and impartial result.
Challenge 1 – Natural baby wipes
Consumer NZ suspected that a major brand of baby wipes were misleading consumers through its front of pack claim that the product was “pure and natural”, with additional claims of being made from “100% vegetable fibre” and “100% biodegradable”.
Consumer NZ noted that “Companies are increasingly trying to cash in on consumer concern for the environment by dressing up their products as ‘greener’ choices. However, unless traders can substantiate their green claims, they risk breaching the Fair Trading Act”.
The team at NZWTA Textiles and Materials Testing performed quantitative analysis of fibre mixtures and found a fibre content of 83% rayon and 17% polyester. Rayon is a regenerated cellulose fibre, generally derived from wood pulp (in most cases eucalyptus, bamboo or pine trees). This is a natural product and will biodegrade – however, it is worth noting that to produce the fibre, the plant cellulose goes through a process involving a lot of chemicals, energy and water. Polyester is a thermoplastic synthetic fibre and this does not biodegrade.
Our laboratory was able to verify the suspicions of Consumer NZ, which resulted in a total product recall from the market.
Challenge 2 – Bedding
When Consumer NZ wanted a greater understand of bedding, they came to NZWTA Textiles and Materials Testing.
Our lab can analyse bedding for thread counts, fibre identification, pilling, durability and fuzzing, and much more. Consumer NZ wanted to understand durability and pilling on sheets with a thread count ranging from 180 to 400. They sent us five sheets in a blind trial which we assessed using the Australian standard for abrasion resistance: AS 2001.2.25.1-2006 – Determination of the abrasion resistance of fabrics by the Martindale Method.
Durability was measured by rubbing the textile 20,000 times. While the standard doesn’t set a minimum “pass” mark for bed linen, NZWTA Textiles and Materials Testing lab used 20,000 abrasions as the benchmark.
The pilling test used ISO 12945-2:2000 – Determination of fabric propensity to surface fuzzing and to pilling (part 2 modified Martindale method).
In this test, the fabric is rubbed against itself 7000 times and graded on a scale from one to five. A measure of five at 7000 cycles shows no change in fabric, four indicates slight fuzz, and three or below shows moderate to dense pilling.
Consumer NZ published that the cheapest sheet with thread count of 180 performed the worst for pilling, with the next cheapest sheet, also with 180 thread count, performed slightly better. The others all passed the pilling testing, however the mid-price range sheet at 250 thread count showed signs of wear under the durability test. Surprisingly, it was not the top priced sheet that performed the best under both tests.
Consumer NZ reported their results as a buying guide to consumers. The full article also explained a range of jargon and gave consumers tips to use when buying bedding and sheets.
Challenge 3 – Guppyfriend
Consumer NZ wanted to verify if the environmental claim that Guppyfriend washing bags captured microplastics released from synthetic clothing during washing was correct. The claim was that they washing bags were a “scientifically approved solution against microplastic pollution from washing”. To investigate, Consumer NZ put the product through its paces.
Consumer NZ used two medium-sized Guppyfriend washing bags in a top-loader washing machine.
In the first bag, they washed two new polyester and elastane tops. In the second, they washed older garments: a polyester sweatshirt, and a polyester, viscose rayon and elastane blend T-shirt. Both bags were washed on delicate, cold-water cycles with liquid detergent.
Each loaded bag was washed five times, balancing the machine with whatever household washing was in the laundry basket at the time.
After the third wash, fibres that looked to be lint were seen collected in the bag. The bags and fibres were then sent to the NZWTA laboratory to see how they had performed.
NZWTA Textiles and Materials Testing found that fibres had accumulated on the inside edges of the bag. The quantities were not large but could be seen with the naked eye. Both these samples and the pore size of the mesh of the Guppyfriend bags were examined with an electron microscope.
NZWTA found that the weave was uneven. The washed fibres had fibrillated (with potential to break off and be lost). Some fibres were sticking out of the weave with the potential to migrate further and escape.
Guppyfriend acknowledged that probably around 90% of fibres are captured and that nanoparticles will be lost. The rest of those fibres don’t end in the ocean but, if disposed of in the bin, will instead end up in landfill.
