Certifications

Within the home furnishings industry, there is no requirement for ingredient or material composition disclosure. There are Material/Safety Data Sheet requirements, though these are often incomplete and primarily concerned with acute health hazards - often in relation to fabrication and on-site installation. Additionally, any proprietary ingredient is considered a trade secret and is not required to be disclosed at all. As consumers we are frustratingly in the dark when it comes to the material safety of items we bring into our homes.

This is what the various certifications applicable to home furnishings and building products seek to address. Even within these certifications, though, there is often a lack of transparency as to what the certification actually means. That this flooring is Greenguard Gold certified, or this mattress has CertiPUR-certified foam - does that mean it’s safe from a material health and potential toxin perspective?

We ran into this countless times ourselves as we rebuilt our empty home post-remediation and learned the hard way that certifications can be both very good indicators of Non-Toxic options and/or highly misleading - and can even play outsize roles in bolstering cleanwashing claims.

Certification companies themselves are also, for the most part, businesses. From our perspective, the main thing this informs is that they need enough items to potentially certify to keep themselves in business.

Our overview is based on months-long rabbit holes and extensive research. It was not enough for us to superficially cruise the available information or regurgitate the same few bullet points you’ll see elsewhere - rather, we went deep, to the point where we interviewed representatives from every certification you’ll see below to try to get as much information as we could to answer that one question - what does this certification actually mean?

We are not chemists, nor are we doctors. All interpretations and conclusions drawn, and any corresponding errors, are our own. We will be updating this list as we continually learn ourselves, always to the best of our knowledge. The categories below reflect our perspective that there are no infallible certifications - all have areas where they succeed and all where they potentially fail. When it comes to certifications, context is key. We take great pains to try to present the nuance within these certifications as holistically as possible.

A quick note on terminology: Certifications are also referred to as schemes (sounds nefarious, is not), and scheme holders are responsible for the development of the certification standards and often the implementation (though this can be outsourced as well). RSL stands for Restricted Substances List - the list of substances that are either banned or restricted, unique to each certification and a big part of answering that question: what does this certification actually mean?

Better

  • One of the best textile certifications, from what we can tell, when it works correctly. 

  • The Global Organic Textile Standard is a textile certification that requires a minimum 95% organic material composition by weight, with 5% inorganic materials permissible. There is a separate, less encompassing certification – Made with Organic – which only requires 70%. We will be focusing our recommendation and overview on the full certification. Important to ensure it is this certification and not the Made with Organic when researching and purchasing, which in our opinion allows too high a threshold of potential synthetic and other ingredients.

    • Most often GOTS is product certification, which can also be applied to specific materials within the larger composition. 

    • In theory, any product that can be considered Organic can be GOTS certified. In practice, we most often see GOTS certification in products with a high percentage of textile components, including bedding, mattresses, pillows, mattress protectors, pads and toppers, rugs and upholstery textiles. 

    • There is a bit of nuance here, with the certification requirements often necessitating full product certification, while in other cases there are material or component certifications within products – for instance upholstery textiles that are GOTS certified, though the sofa itself is not. 

    • Additionally, GOTS approves several ancillaries that may be used within certified products – like TPU/PU layers within mattress protectors, or polypropylene coil wraps within mattresses, even though these materials are inorganic/synthetic. We were unable to get a clear answer from GOTS on whether these are approved because of evaluation criteria of their chemical makeup, or because they fall under the 5% inorganic threshold. 

    • For Dyes – GOTS approves/certifies dyes used in textiles that are synthetic/petrochemical based. Again, we were unable to obtain detailed answers as to what chemicals/chemical classes are/are not permissible within GOTS approved dyes. We would assume they prohibit the worst and most toxic dye ingredients, though this is an assumption as textile dyes are incredibly complex and a bit of a black box for all the potential ingredients that can be used.

    • Certification schemes when it comes to chemical evaluation criteria. Their RSL we’ve been told is more extensive than pretty much anything else in textiles, with a high number of substances outright prohibited. To our frustration, we were unable to get any further or more detailed insight into exactly what chemical classes are prohibited, which are allowed and in what levels, and how permissible residual levels are calculated. GOTS plays their cards very close to the chest, which results in less transparency than we consider ideal. 

    • What we do know is that GOTS requires all textiles to be grown organically, without pesticides or other biocides, and then processed using only what they determine to be organic and/or Non-Toxic inputs (there are certain synthetic inputs allowed). Any processing input that a company desires to use must be submitted to GOTS for chemical analysis and approval prior to use. 

    • GOTS is mostly a paper certification – meaning that the analysis is focused on evaluating every ingredient a company will use in all the various stages of textile manufacturing. The company secures approval for their ingredient list and must then use only those ingredients.  

    • In addition to screening for chemicals and potential toxins, GOTS employs a holistic production criterion that evaluates several variables directly related to worker welfare, sustainability and environmental health. This includes healthy working conditions, fair wages, facility energy efficiency and wastewater management, amongst others. 

    • GOTS is a full cycle certification, meaning every single facility that a product passes through – including all staging depots and warehouses – must be fully GOTS compliant and certified to achieve the final GOTS material or product certification. This has both benefits and potential drawbacks – see below. 

    • Annual on-site audits are performed by contracted third-party auditors to help ensure compliance, in addition to the potential random spot-checks. During these audits, the prescribed course of action is to take a snippet of the item and send it back for testing. Companies must also provide proof of purchase and internal usage tracking for approved ingredients. In cases of suspected non-compliance, a company must take steps to prove they have only used approved inputs. Failure may result in being banned from GOTS.

    • As mentioned, GOTS is, as far as we can tell, the most stringent textile-oriented certification for what it does and does not allow. We take this to mean that GOTS certified textiles, if everything holds true, are amongst the cleanest commercially available. 

    • GOTS has a large amount of credibility in the industry, as they are fully and completely independent – which is not always the case.

    • There are several manufacturers and dyehouses that have been proven non-compliant and are now on the Banned list. This is both an initial failure, and subsequent success as these companies no longer will be part of the ecosystem.  

    • With GOTS largely being a paper certification, there is always the risk that non-approved inputs will be used. However, in the annual audits GOTS does check approved ingredient levels to help ensure it is actually these ingredients being used and not alternative ones. For instance, if the vat of approved dye is out back of the dyehouse and completely full, it’s clearly not being used.

    • The flip side of this - because GOTS mostly does not perform final product testing, and for the most part only performs facility audits annually through third-party contractors, there is no guarantee that the inputs submitted for clearance by manufacturers are actually the ones being used. There was a bit of a situation with some recurrent fraud at GOTS certified facilities in certain countries over the past number of years, a situation that GOTS is still working on resolving. 

    • With this in mind, we would argue there is still a degree of trust that a company is acting within prescribed parameters. 

    • Internally, GOTS is going through a bit of overhaul at the moment, and this does lead to a degree of skepticism for how stringently compliance will be enforced during this period. The largest charge that can be levied against GOTS is that it is a system that can be gamed, and this is something that they are working on addressing. 

    • With GOTS requiring every single touchpoint along a product or material’s life cycle to be equally certified (including all staging depots, warehouses, and everywhere that each material is sourced from), it can and often is prohibitively expensive for companies to pursue – as it can easily reach into the 6 figures for a single certification depending on the total ingredients and varying provenance. 

    • With GOTS being both a material and product certification – this is an important nuance to keep in mind with how the information is portrayed, as it’s somewhat easy to manipulate through marketing to imply that an entire product is non-toxic, when it’s solely one or a few materials within the product. For example, a mattress that uses GOTS certified cotton but polyurethane foam – the GOTS certification can provide a misleading and false sense of security. 

    • We’d love to see some more information on how GOTS decides which dyes to approve, and what compounds and ingredients are allowed in these dyes.

    • Mostly textiles and textile-based products. This includes finished textiles like upholstery textiles and sheets, and products like pillows, mattress protectors, and mattresses (the entire mattress must be certified to use GOTS properly). Sofas are a bit of an outlier, with no GOTS certified sofas existing to our knowledge, though GOTS certified cotton/wool and upholstery textiles may be used. 

    • Claiming GOTS certified components within a product class that necessitates full certification – mattresses for instance. 

    • Best to ensure it is fully GOTS certified and not Made with Organic – as the 70% threshold for the latter allows for a high enough to be concerning degree of synthetic inputs.

  • A comprehensive textile certification that has largely been commercially focused, and appears to be pivoting to encompass more consumer-facing goods.

    • One of the oldest textile certifications that exists, started in 2000. Bluesign is quite a complex system, as the textile manufacturing process is quite complex. Every single fabric has a vast number of potential inputs, with many hundreds of potential ingredients going into a single piece of clothing or upholstery fabric. 

    • Essentially, the bluesign system is based on Input Stream Management – every single fiber or chemical which goes into the textile is audited by bluesign. This means bluesign not only audits textile manufacturers and dyehouses; they audit all the chemical plants that are producing all the chemicals and inputs for the many manufacturing processes. 

    • In addition to the chemical criteria, there are also social and environmental components – including sustainability-oriented electricity usage/emissions/waste disposal, and worker wages and access to healthcare and safe working conditions, etc.

    • bluesign is in the process of being renamed bluepass, which is the new mark/certification moving forward, and will extend the scope to include a wider variety of consumer-facing products. For the purposes of our evaluation, we will continue to refer to it as bluesign until it is formally and fully changed to bluepass (at which time we’ll update). 

    • Textiles specifically, including finished consumer articles containing textiles. While the certification itself is not as consumer facing as many others (though it appears to be evolving in this direction), it does encompass a litany of textile-based goods, including:

      •  Apparel, Denim, Home Textiles, Equipment, Footwear, Backpages, Home and Outdoor Gear. 

    • bluesign also certifies intermediate articles, including fabrics, accessories and trims, which will appear in materials and components used in outdoor fabrics and yarns, footwear and accessories, and specialized home textiles. 

    • Lastly, bluesign will certify chemical components and products that are used in manufacturing, which will carry the bluepass mark and be listed in the bluesign finder. 

    • Textile certification extends to both natural and synthetic textiles, and leather. Natural textiles are not required to be grown organically, though there are numerous usage bans within pesticides/biocides, and leather is allowed to be chrome tanned, but only under very specific conditions that result in the cleanest available chrome tanning approach (but still does use chrome).

    • bluesign’s methodology is comprehensive, and as it evaluates the entire production process, there are two distinct substance lists – the BSSL, which is the RSL for standard textiles, and the BSBL, which is the RSL for chemical inputs and manufacturing components. 

    • These substance lists, and the BSSL in particular, are informed by consistently looking to EU REACH regulations and other changes in governmental ISOs and various legislations globally. bluesign employs a small army of people combing through these legislative updates. 

    • Many thousands of chemical substances are contained within these two lists, and many have outright Usage Bans – which translates to no intentional usage is permitted. There are residual limit values permissible within many of these Usage Bans, which account for impurities. For instance, dyes are quite complex synthetic molecules and can contain several impurities – which are not allowed to be used on purpose, but typically the limit value considers these impurities or the potential for cross-contamination. 

      • For instance, the entire PFAS category is broadly prohibited for intentional use, but certain exceptions exist within recycled fibers.

      • On Dyes – Azo dyes are broadly banned, as are many with heavy metal components. Fiber-reactive dyes and certain metal complex dyes are allowed, along with certain disperse dyes. 

    • All other chemical groups are substance specific, for what is a full Usage Ban vs what is restricted to limited amounts, or allowed altogether. 

      • The toxicology methodology is extremely comprehensive, and considers the CLP classification (EU chemical classification system), both acute and chronic effects, as well as single variable and synergistic effects across chemical compounds. For permissible residual levels, these are based on very conservative calculations. This is a much more thorough tox methodology than most. 

      • This approach accounts for the understanding that there are individual relatively benign compounds within hazardous chemical classes – for instance biocides, of which many are toxic and therefore fully banned, while certain select silver-based ones are benign to the point of being allowed. 

    • Auditing and review are based on the Input Stream Management approach – the manufacturer of the fabric will be audited once a year, as will all the suppliers of every chemical that is included in the fabric processing, in addition to the chemical processes that go into the manufacturing chemicals. Every formulation is checked against the BSBL, and then the final product is checked against the BSSL. 

      • Raw materials get tested for relevant substances, then during audits they also collect samples for random spot checking. 

      • Annual on-site auditing is performed through each stage, and every processing input and the source is annually audited to ensure compliance with BSBL and BSSL. 

      • When a manufacturer is making bluepass certified material, not everything they make will be 100% bluepass certified; part of the audit is looking at the system, to ensure there is a system in place to avoid cross-contamination

    • We’re big fans of bluesign’s overall approach and toxicology methodology. It’s as comprehensive as we’ve seen anywhere, with uninhibited Usage Bans that are highly informed, and with the residual permissible levels being calculated with more stringent criteria than most. 

    • As every input is subject to evaluation and must be equally bluepass certified, bluesign has structured an approach that avoids unnecessary testing and the corresponding costs.

    • An opportunity for improvement would be to become more consumer-facing; as we consider this to be a highly comprehensive certification scheme, we’d love to see more of it within textile-containing and textile-based finished home furnishing products – and it appears this is in the works! 

    • As bluesign extends certification to synthetic textiles, there is the consistent concern with microplastics, as with all other certifications that encompass synthetic textiles. However, from our conversation with bluesign, they are far more aware of this than most and have been formulating a plan to address this component, in part by introducing requirements on textile shedding – which will begin to address microplastic shedding within synthetics.

  • Textiles and finished consumer articles containing textiles referenced above, including bedding within home textiles category.

  • Potentially misleading if a company highlights the bluesign certified component within a larger item – for instance, a mattress that highlights bluesign certification. The textiles within the mattress may be certified, but the mattress itself would not be, an important distinction to be aware of.

  • One of the two best natural latex certifications, applicable specifically to Dunlop latex. Unfortunate it won’t be around for much longer (unless someone else picks it up!)

  • The Global Organic Latex Standard is similar in scope to GOTS, but with the entire focus on natural rubber latex. It was created to ensure that latex products are genuinely organic, safe, and sustainably sourced. 

  • The certification encompasses specifically organically grown and processed Dunlop latex – one of two primary manufacturing processes used to turn the sap of the Hevea Brasiliensis tree into natural rubber latex. The other process is known as Talalay, and as the manufacturing process requires a higher chemical/additive load, and the result is most often a mixture of natural and synthetic rubber, it is inadmissible for certification under GOLS. 

    • GOLS does not establish its own toxicology testing standard. Instead, it recognizes and accepts the test criteria of the eco-INSTITUT-Label (specifically for mattresses and bedding goods) as complying with GOLS chemical and finished product safety criteria.

    • GOLS controls toxic substances using threshold limits, broad bans, and standard regulations. Synthetic latex is entirely prohibited, and strict emission caps on total VOCs and TSVOCs are enforced, along with nitrosamines and formaldehyde. It also restricts any VOC, VVOC, or SVOC categorized as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic to reproduction. Flame retardants such as silica, boric acid, and modacrylic are not permitted (though not all flame retardants are banned, as GOLS is mostly focused on processing inputs and not final chemical composition), phthalates must be under 0.1% by weight, and PAHs must be under 0.5 mg/Kg.

    • Compliance is ensured through mandatory on-site audit framework and physical chemical testing. Latex mattresses and bedding must undergo content analysis testing to verify that the polymer is 100% natural rubber latex and that processing chemicals or fillers do not exceed 5% of the total sample weight

    • GOLS also has social and environmental criteria that are evaluated and enforced for certification.

    • GOLS is a straightforward certification, as it focuses entirely on Organic Natural (Dunlop) Latex. By banning synthetic latex entirely, a number of chemicals of concern are eliminated from the equation. 

    • The toxicology overlap with eco-INSTITUT is encompassing, and broadly eliminates many chemicals of concern, while having acceptably low thresholds of those remaining (though phthalates in any level are still a cause for concern, as recent research is showing that there are no safe levels of exposure to this chemical family; this is an area that can be improved upon).

    • For certain products like mattresses or toppers, combining with GOTS certification provides a more comprehensive and overall better approach. 

    • GOLS is a material certification specific to the rubber latex in a product. Therefore, context and caution must be employed – for instance, if a mattress has a GOLS certification, that’s a great start, but still necessary to ensure it’s not surrounded by conventionally grown and processed materials and a whole host of other finishing chemicals. 

    • GOLS is administered by the Control Union, which oversees a large number of certifications and programs. Long story short – the GOLS certification is being phased out by Control Union, with current clients allowed to renew certifications during the transition phase, but no new enrollment currently being offered. It remains to be seen whether another scheme owner/certifying body will take up GOLS, or whether there will be a new certification with accompanying criteria created. We will update accordingly.

    • Specifically applied to 100% natural rubber Dunlop latex. There is a bit of a nuance when it comes to mattresses – with GOTS certifying full products, we’ve seen companies using GOLS certified latex within their fully GOTS certified mattress, but only displaying the GOTS certification and labeling their latex as Organic….always worth double-checking with the company whether the latex is GOLS certified, or just Organically grown.  

    • The best mattresses of those we recommend are fully GOTS certified, using GOLS certified latex.

    • If GOLS is used with Talalay latex or synthetic latex, this would be incorrectly applied. 

    • A mattress with GOLS certified latex should prompt questions about what textiles are used to surround the latex, and what other ingredients. We’ve seen mattresses with GOLS latex that also contain polyurethane foam and are encased with conventional textiles – which does not equate to a Non-Toxic mattress. 

  • A more comprehensive VOC emissions certification that has a more robust testing protocol and evaluates chemical composition as well. 

  • The ecoINSTITUT certification evaluates both VOC/TVOC emissions and chemical composition, screening for prohibited and restricted chemicals.  

    • Conceived as a construction products specific scheme, which remains a primary focus, ecoINSTITUT has evolved to include certifying parameters across multiple home furnishings categories, including mattresses, bedding, furniture, and flooring/floor coverings. 

    • A particular nuance – ecoINSTITUT certifies both full mattresses and mattress latex on its own. The latex-specific criteria require natural latex solely, which can be either Dunlop or Talalay (Talalay must be 100% natural rubber, no synthetic styrene-butadiene rubber allowed); the mattress criteria permit both natural latex and Polyurethane foam.

    •  ecoINSTITUT does not certify textiles on their own, or leather/leather containing goods at all, as these categories are highly complex and there are other certification schemes that cover these respectively.

    • The RSL for ecoINSTITUT is informed by various European governmental regulations and restrictions, including the German Environment Agency, the WHO, and various publications and consumer associations. While the RSL is not as comparatively long as other certifications, their testing methodology is rigorous. 

    • To obtain ecoINSTITUT certification, a company must first submit the article/product MSDS/SDS for review and evaluation. If the article passes the paper screening, it then moves to physical evaluation. This includes both chamber testing for specific VOCs and Total VOC emissions, as well as chemical composition testing via material samples and mass spectrometry. 

      • The chamber testing is a more comprehensive evaluation than other VOC/emissions testings – ecoINSTITUT requires articles to be evaluated for a full 7 days in the chamber, and 28 days for construction products. 

      • VOC-specific and TVOC limits are comparable with UL Greenguard, though are less lenient with several chemical classes. They are somewhat specific to product class, but don’t vary too greatly from what we can tell – for example, Formaldehyde emissions are generally capped at 24 ug/m3, or .024 ppb. Though there are potential exceptions – ie for natural hardwood products, which will naturally emit formaldehyde (albeit a less harmful version compared to synthesized formaldehyde). 

    • The chemical analysis determines whether residual chemical compounds are within allowable limits. ecoINSTITUT’s RSL is informed by H-phrase chemical classes – the designated worst/most-toxic categories, including mutagenic, carcinogenic, reprotoxic compounds, and certain heavy environmental toxins. 

      • Within these categories, the worst are prohibited – including most Flame Retardants, Phthalates, Biocides, and Heavy Metals – while others are allowed in limited amounts.  For instance, Organohalogen flame retardants are completely prohibited, along with the other most toxic ones. 

      • If any prohibited substances are found, or any restricted substances in excess of the prescribed limits, the article will not pass certification. 

    • Textile dyes – certain Heavy Metal and Azo-based dyes are prohibited; fiber-reactive, metal complex and disperse dyes are allowed as long as not exceeding limit values for H-phrases or other concerning compounds. 

    • Re-certification is required every 2 years, and certifications are published on the website.

    • ecoINSTITUT strives to be the strictest standard for emissions testing, and from what we can tell, they have succeeded in this metric. 

    • We love their approach, combining both a full paper analysis and actual testing – in part as it’s not limited to only measuring TVOCs but looks to the actual ingredients & chemical composition, its more challenging to just encase something during the test and get it to pass a limited VOC screening component. 

    • One specific material instance where we would argue ecoINSTITUT succeeds is with Polyurethane Foam. While we would generally hesitate to recommend PU Foam within mattresses/etc – there are certain individual exceptions to this, for instance those with highly sensitized bodies that have reactions to specific proteins that are found in natural latex and wool. In these instances, synthetic options can be the better choice from a chemical sensitivity standpoint (see our materials section for more information). When this is the case, ecoINSTITUT certified PU Foam is going to be the best option out there – their testing criteria are far more rigorous than CertiPUR, and more stringent than UL Greenguard from what we can tell (as it not only looks at VOC/TVOC emissions, but also chemical composition).

    • As with other certifications that extend to products containing synthetic textiles that will be subject to abrasion, we would argue there remains a massive miss in not accounting for microplastic shedding and exposure/inhalation. 

    • The rest is more so opportunities for improvement – as the RSL is comparatively smaller, this could be somewhat improved. And certain chemical classes are still challenging to account for – for instance PFAS, which are not entirely banned, as according to ecoINSTITUT they are extremely hard to measure. 

    • While ecoINSTITUT does consider certain environmental toxins, there is not a standalone focus on environmental or social criteria, such as there is with other certifications – another potential area for improvement.

  • According to the scope above. 

  • We don’t see ecoINSTITUT misused (or misleadingly used) with the same frequency as we do certain other certifications, potentially as it’s mostly been applied to building products and is gaining momentum with consumer products; though we are starting to see some of this in the mattress/bedding category.

  • A great tiered approach certification scheme that is widely applicable, though not so much in home furnishings yet.

    • Cradle to Cradle is a multi-attribute standard used across industries that focuses on circularity by analyzing products within 5 certifying components: material health, product circularity, social fairness, water and soil stewardship, clean air and climate protection. 

    • Since its launch in 2005, the C2C Certified Product Standard has been evolving to address a greater understanding of the environmental and human health impacts of the design, manufacturing, use, reuse, and disposal of materials, advances in best practices and technology, and its application to a wider variety of product and material types.

    • Ultimately, it evaluates whether a product is designed to be safe, healthy, and regenerative for both people and the planet. 

    • There are 4 tiers – Bronze, Silver, Gold & Platinum. Our focus is mostly on the top 3, with the top 2 preferred – in conversation with one of C2C’s Directors, the recommendation was to stick to products that are Silver and above for Material Health.

    • Cradle to Cradle is largely a commercial-product facing certification. Within the multitude of applicable industries, C2C offers certification within the built environment and home furnishings.

    • For residential/consumer facing products, you’ll see C2C mostly within paint, flooring (including engineered wood), window coverings, and Talalay latex. 

    • Outside of home furnishings, they do certify personal care products and are a good Non-Toxic indicator within this realm. They also certify some textiles, though mainly within fashion/clothing, as they mostly work with finished products and not raw materials. Consequently, we rarely see C2C certifications within home-textiles (ie sofa cushion covers, bedding, rugs).

    • Cradle to Cradle’s RSL list is comprised of 50k chemical numbers – a higher amount than many other certifications. The RSL is heavily informed by EU REACH standards. All chemicals that measure over 0.01% by weight, or around 100ppm, are subject to review. 

    • Within Silver to Platinum tiers, several chemical classes are outright prohibited, including Flame Retardants, Formaldehyde, Heavy Metals, PFAS and Ortho-Phthalates. 

    • Of the prohibited chemicals, C2C restricts the entire chemical class, to avoid the potential for regrettable substitutions. Chemical compounds that are still allowed are limited to levels prescribed by REACH standards. 

    • One of the things we greatly appreciate with C2C is that their methodology is consistently informed by chemists; in fact, the certification’s two founding members were a chemist and an architect. 

    • To be certified by C2C, a company must work with an assessor and a toxicology team. It is a testing verified certification – the product is subject to full testing and material review. Certifications last 3 years, at which point the company will need to reapply – and through this time, are consistently being coached by C2C to improve their approach and material composition, with the goal to reach a higher level in the next testing round. 

    • One of the nuances within C2C – as it not only looks at material health but the other four sustainability/circularity components as well, a product’s end score will be reflective of the lowest score within these 5 categories. Therefore, it is possible that a Bronze or Silver C2C product has a Gold or Platinum material health rating. This information can be accessed through the C2C website. Example – Alkemis paint has a Silver Full Scope certification, but a Gold Material Health certification level.

    • We’re greatly impressed by C2C’s overall approach and methodology, and readily include this within the highest standards for home building products and construction materials. Great certification to look for within these fields – including things like kitchen lighting, appliances, etc. 

    • As the certification requires actual testing and working with toxicologists, it is much harder to game the system.

  • With much of the focus being commercial, there’s not a whole lot in the way of residential/consumer products that are C2C certified. We hope that their scope grows to include additional items and product fields, as we’d love to see more C2C certified products! (May we suggest home-textiles…)

  • Within the scope indicated above. 

    • A material certification portrayed as a product certification. Ie, a mattress containing C2C Talalay latex that indicates the entire product is C2C certified. 

    • C2C is cautious with their language – not claiming necessarily that because something holds certification it is “healthy” or Non-Toxic; rather that it has passed their screening criteria to be free of their prohibited chemical classes and residual levels of permissible chemicals are within acceptable limits. This reflects more so that every human body is different and may react to something that another body would not; sweeping claims are always a clue for caution. 

Good/Ok

  • A textile certification that has a wide variance in application and meaning. 

    • OEKO-Tex offers several certifications; for our purposes, we will be focusing on the OEKO-Tex Standard 100, which is their most prevalent textile and related products certification. 

    • OEKO-Tex tests the final material or product for residual chemical levels, ensuring amounts are within the prescribed limits of their Restricted Substances List (RSL). The RSL is comprised of chemicals that have been proven toxic to human health, which currently number around 1000. Not every article or item will be tested against every one of these chemical compounds, rather those that OEKO deem applicable for the specific article. 

    • Final product analyses test every component of a finished product – including fabric, thread, buttons, zippers, etc. 

    • As its focus is entirely on residual chemical levels, the Standard 100 does not consider any environmental or social criteria, nor does it require textiles to be Organically grown. It has recently begun to address these gaps by introducing new certifications such as Made In Green for the former, and Organic Cotton for the latter. Both certifications require a product to pass the Standard 100 chemical screening, and then the supplementary environmental & social criteria for the former, and Organic sourcing traceability for the latter.  

    • OEKO-Tex as a certification is applied to both natural and synthetic materials.

  • Mainly textiles and related products, OEKO-Tex certifies a broad spectrum within this field, including many home goods and fashion/clothes/etc.

    • The threshold for permissible amounts within the RSL is based on a combination of global legislation, and OEKO’s own toxicology methodology. In situations where the permissible amount through various governmental legislations is lower than OEKO’s calculated permissible amount, it defers to the lower of the two. Their own methodology is informed by toxicological data and scientific risk assessment. 

    • The vast majority of substances OEKO screens for are permitted in limited levels; the test outright bans only a handful of substances. In conversation with the certification overseeing body, the Hohenstein Institute, we were unable to determine whether the risk assessments focus on single chemical variables, or if they consider synergistic effects across chemical compounds – which frequently occur and can amplify individual chemical impact. Similarly, we are uncertain whether the risk assessment focuses solely on acute effects (i.e., does this chemical compound cause a skin reaction), or if long-term effects with chronic exposure over time are considered. 

    • What was confirmed is that acceptable residual levels are calculated based in part on the probability of the chemical in question being released from the textile, and subject to potential ingestion/absorption. 

    • There are 4 Classes within the OEKO-Tex Standard 100 – with Class 1 and 2 being the most stringent. Class 1 is applicable for all products that are baby oriented, and Class 2 covers adult textiles – mostly items that will have extended periods of skin contact. Most Standard 100 certified items will be within these 2 classes, though Class 4 is the designation for home furnishing-oriented textiles – including sofa cushion covers and bedding. While there is an argument to be made that there is still extended direct skin contact with these textiles, the permissible levels are more relaxed compared to Class 1 & 2.  

    • OEKO-Tex does not require textiles to be grown organically and only prohibits residual biocide levels within Class 1 items. Their position being that the majority of pesticides will wash out during wet processing, and are virtually undetectable in final items so not an area of concern - though this doesn’t necessarily consider systemic pesticides (there are both surface and systemic pesticides, and systemic ones can work their way into textiles and stick around for a longer time period). 

    • As OEKO-Tex runs actual tests on the final materials and products, it is much harder to “game” the system and use different chemical inputs from those submitted for approval, as is the possibility with paper certification schemes. 

    • It is a widely known and used certification, to the point where we’re seeing OEKO-Tex tags on products at big box chains like Target.

    • When OEKO-Tex is used in the right context – this is a good indication that the article in question has been held to a higher standard and is likely a safer overall choice compared to an uncertified/conventional textile.

    • Potential failure points for natural textile OEKO-Tex certified products revolve around how they calculate “safe” levels of acceptable residual chemicals, and the potential for regrettable substitutions. This is for two reasons: 1. Their RSL is restricted to chemicals that have been proven toxic to human health at this point in time – around 1000 in total. The total number of chemicals used in textile and product manufacturing is a far greater number, with the majority having not yet been studied enough to determine their effect on human health. 2. As stated by the Hohenstein representative in our conversation – every human body is different, and what one body may react to, another may not. Their calculations are based on the average human body’s reactivity. 

    • PFAS are one of the few chemicals that are banned outright, though this prohibition didn’t take effect until 2023. This was phased in over time, and regrettable substitutions were rife in the first few phases – with only certain chemical compounds in the greater PFAS family initially banned, companies readily substituted nearly identical chemical compounds that weren’t yet banned. As there are around 15,000 chemicals in the greater PFAS family, this was a significant problem that has taken multiple phases to address. As it stands now, intentional use of any chemical in the greater PFAS family is banned, with total fluorine level tests being used as a determinant. 

    • For synthetic textiles, outside of the chemical load necessary to turn a plastic into a textile, one of the primary concerns is that any plastic-based textile – which is most synthetic textiles – that is subject to abrasion, like bedding, pillow covers, rugs, or couch cushion covers, will molecularly break down the plastic and release microplastics into the air, to then be inhaled and ingested by anyone using these textiles. This is a massive oversight by OEKO-Tex – as we are just beginning to understand how incredibly harmful microplastics are to our collective health.

    • The best use for OEKO-Tex is natural textiles that are organically grown, as this will prevent any systemic biocides being in the final product, in addition to a likely lower overall chemical load compared to a conventionally grown and processed textile. 

    • Even within this correct Context – the official stance of OEKO-Tex is that their certification does not explicitly signify a material, or product, is Non-Toxic or Safe. Specifically, what the Standard 100 certification indicates is that the article has been tested to confirm residual levels are within the prescribed limits of the applicable chemicals within the RSL for that specific article. Nothing more, nothing less – though we see often companies using this certification with phrasing along the lines of – Certified by OEKO-Tex to confirm that this item is Safe.

    • We would recommend being very specific with OEKO-Tex certified products to ensure that they are comprised of 100% natural materials, and would highly recommend avoiding any OEKO-Tex certified synthetic textiles or products. In fact, we see this often – companies using OEKO-Tex credentials as part of their Non-Toxic claims, when the materials are all synthetic and we would argue are not Non-Toxic. It’s a prevalent example of cleanwashing, and frustrating every time we see it. 

    • While OEKO-Tex Standard 100 can be a full product certification, most often it is used as a material certification – which can also either intentionally or unintentionally lead to a false sense of security. For example, a sofa that uses Organically grown OEKO-Tex certified natural textiles is a great start…but not Non-Toxic if they’re using engineered hardwood with high formaldehyde levels, polyurethane foam with flame retardants, glues that offgas high levels of VOCs, etc. Always best to make sure what the certification is actually certifying.

  • A voluntary product transparency label that is mostly applicable towards building products and which achieves its goal – though does not necessarily equate to a product being Non-Toxic. 

  • Declare is not itself a certification, but a self-disclosed transparency label; a paper certificate that is voluntary, initiated and overseen by the International Living Future Institute (ILFI), that seeks to provide transparency about the environmental and health aspects of building products.

    • Primarily Declare labels are oriented towards building products, which make up the vast majority of participating companies and products. 

    • Within home furnishings, we mainly see Declare & Red List Free declarations with leather upholstery. There are some participating companies that have Declare labels on wall coverings, paint, and office furniture – but these are mostly for commercial applications, rather than residential.

    • Declare information transparency is made up of 3 components: 

      • Origin of the product and its supply chain

      • Composition including all intentionally added ingredients at or above 100ppm (.01%) present in the final product 

      • End-of-life details, which highlight environmental impact post-use, including options for disposal, recycling or composting. 

    • The Red List is a significant part of the Declare labeling process. This list contains “worst in class” materials, chemicals and elements known to pose serious risks to human health and the greater ecosystem that are prevalent in the building products industry. Currently totaling around 14k chemical substances, The Red List is informed by various governmental regulations and other ISO and restricted lists.  

    • The ILFI screens the product’s self-disclosed ingredients directly against the Living Building Challenge (LBC) Red List. There is no testing component. A product’s compliance with the LBC Red List is represented on the Declare label by the product’s declaration status:

      • LBC RED LIST FREE products disclose 100% of intentionally added ingredients present at or above 100 ppm (0.01%) in the final product and do not contain any Red List chemicals.

      • LBC RED LIST APPROVED products disclose a minimum of 99% of ingredients present in the final product and meet the LBC Red List Imperative requirements through one or more approved exceptions.

      • DECLARED products disclose 100% of ingredients present in the final product, but contain one or more Red List chemicals that are not covered by an approved exception.

    • The purpose of this label is transparency, with a longer-term goal of helping to shift the building products’ industry towards using healthier ingredients and manufacturing processes. With this being the goal, the number of participating companies (currently around 800, with 10k or so Declared products) is a solid indicator that they are making positive headway. 

    • As there are no requirements for ingredient lists through any governmental regulation or legislation anywhere in the world for any commercial or residential building products or home furnishings – this is a great step in the right direction.

    • The Red List is continuously updated, with input from various sources and taking note of evolving governmental regulations. For example, the LBC/Declare team has an entire team dedicated to evaluating ongoing and evolving European regulations and legislation. 

    • While this is a paper label, and thus there can be concerns over companies trying to “game” the system due to products not being tested for compliance – when we expressed this concern to the ILFI team, we appreciated their answer that manufacturers put themselves at risk for litigation if they publicly disclose that they have no Red List ingredients but they actually do. In addition to this, there is a compliance department where companies can be reported for suspected breaches, which will trigger an investigation where the company must prove they are compliant.

    • We added a category with Declare because there are several significant nuances with both how the scope of the Red List is continuously updated, and some disclosure components.

    • There are 3 separate lists that inform the Red List and accompanying Declare labels: the Watch List, the Priority List, and the Red List. 

      • When a chemical first gets flagged as a potential concern, it is added to the Watch List, where it is evaluated over a two-year period. 

      • If it is deemed concerning enough, it moves to the Priority List, where it is further evaluated for another year.

      • After these 3 years, if it is decided to pose a serious risk to human health and the environment, it will be added to the Red List. 

      • For instance, antimicrobial compounds in building materials are just now being added to the Watch List, and will undergo this process prior to potentially being added to the Red List in a few years. 

      • The purpose of this approach, as mentioned by the representative committee we spoke with, is to avoid forcing companies to reformulate their products before knowing with a degree of certainty that the chemicals do pose a threat to health and need to be avoided. 

    • The other primary nuance is that the self-disclosed ingredient lists are only required to detail all intentionally added ingredients over 100ppm. Anything less than this level, roughly 0.01% by weight, or not intentionally added, does not have to be disclosed. 

      • The 100ppm intentionally added threshold takes into account that there is the possibility for cross-contamination – for example, a facility that produces Declared products and non-Declared products; there is a possibility that Red List ingredients will end up in the Declared product but will not be intentionally added. The purpose of the label is to encourage healthier approaches to manufacturing – not seeking to penalize for situations that are not intentional. 

      • There are several exceptions to the disclosed ingredients that do exist, including when an ingredient must be used for some reason or another and there is no safer alternative. 

      • Another exception is for disclosure itself – when it comes to proprietary ingredients, market realities are considered and manufacturers are allowed to withhold one or more ingredients if they add up to less than or equal to 1% of the product by both weight and volume. Though the manufacturer must confirm that the proprietary ingredients do not contain any Red List chemicals.

    • We would hesitate to indicate that the Declare labels fail in this sense – because its purpose is not to say that this item is free of toxic materials, but rather to increase transparency with ingredients and encourage a healthier approach – and within their stated goal, we would argue they succeed. 

    • Yet the reality is that, as with many other certifications, we see examples often of companies either implying or outright stating that because this product carries this label, it means it’s Non-Toxic, or Safe. There is nuance here, but that’s not actually what it means. 

    • Within our primary focus of home furnishings – Leather upholstery is where you are most likely to see Declare labels. A Red List free label on the upholstery does not mean that it is Chrome free (a common heavy-metal based tanning method, often considered the most toxic leather tanning application) – it just means that it is free of intentionally added Chrome compounds over 100ppm that are contained in the Red List. For clarification – the Red List does not contain all chrome compounds, only those deemed most toxic. 

    • Which brings us to the possibility for regrettable substitutions. ILFI does not take a class-based approach for inclusion in the Red List, but instead looks at individual chemical compounds, which does leave the door open for regrettable substitutions. 

      • There are exceptions to this, with the entire PFAS class (currently around 15k individual chemicals) being included in the Red List.

  • See above

  • See above

  • A VOC emissions focused test that has potential for both positive application and, whether intentional or unintentional, misuse or misleading claims. 

    • A specifically VOC Emission focused certification, Greenguard and Greenguard Gold certify that Total VOC emissions within certain product classes fall under specified limits. Greenguard Gold is the more stringent of the two certifications, and the one that we would more highly recommend. 

    • UL Greenguard measures only emitted VOCs – and while this is a useful partial barometer for indoor air quality, something being Greenguard/Gold certified does not necessarily mean it’s Non-Toxic. More below.

    • Primary product classes within home furnishings include Baby Car Seats, Carpets/Rugs, Chairs, Cribs, Flooring, Mattresses, Office Furniture, Paints, Playhouses, Strollers, Toddler Beds, and Wallpaper.

    • Outside of this, UL Greenguard works extensively with building and construction products.

    • Both Greenguard and Greenguard Gold are subject to the same testing methodology. The difference between the two standards is the allowable VOC emission levels, both TVOCs and specific requirements for Formaldehyde and Total Aldehydes. 

    • To be tested for certification, a product is placed within an air chamber, within which VOC emissions are measured for 24 hours, with 7- and 14-day performance predicted from screening test results using proprietary decay models. 

      • To be certified as Greenguard or Greenguard Gold, VOC emissions need to be under prescribed limit values by the 14-day mark. 

    • UL Greenguard screens for 35 primary toxic VOCs, as defined by the California Department of Public Health. This includes formaldehyde and other aldehydes of concern – benzene, ethylene glycol, toluene, etc. In addition to the primary VOC concerns, UL Greenguard measures Total VOC emissions, evaluating within a proprietary list of 12,000 VOCs as relates to TVOC content. 

      • Formaldehyde is the primary reason for failed product tests. Limits are as follows:

        • Greenguard: <50ppb Formaldehyde (=.05ppm, equivalent with plywood restrictions within CARB 2, and the new REACH Annex VII regulations), and <100ppb Total Aldehydes

        • Greenguard Gold: <7.3ppb Formaldehyde, <43ppb Total Aldehydes. This is a very low formaldehyde level, closest we know of to the .0057 IRIS’s reference concentration, which serves as a conservative end point designed to protect sensitive populations and those who are chronically exposed.

    • UL Greenguard is one of, if not the most, comprehensive VOC emissions oriented certifications. Within Greenguard and Greenguard Gold, it does succeed in minimizing specific and total VOC emissions within the covered product classes, and providing transparency through certification. 

    • Testing is required annually for re-certification, which serves to both keep companies honest but also as a check against formulary changes. The representative we spoke with referenced several situations where products had been certified for years, only for one of their manufacturing ingredients to change formulation leading to a failed test four or five years in – which necessitates addressing the ingredient change and returning to a cleaner approach to achieve recertification.

    • UL Greenguard measures emitted VOCs – which carries some nuance. This means that Greenguard certification does not certify that no harmful ingredients have been used in the material composition – only that the offgassing of VOCs are within prescribed limits. 

      • For example, a mattress evaluation will be conducted by placing the entire mattress within the air chamber, and measuring the emissions over 24 hours. In this example, the mattress can have a polyurethane foam core that has a high chemical load and potentially has been treated with flame retardants – but as long as the foam is not exposed to air and is fully encapsulated during the test, the test may not register any offgassing from these ingredients. 

      • Similarly, for engineered wood products – Greenguard/Gold certification does not necessarily mean that there is a very low formaldehyde level in this product, only that there are low formaldehyde emissions – which could potentially be achieved by encapsulating plywood or MDF through a sealant, as just one example. How long the sealant will keep the formaldehyde from offgassing is another question. 

    • Separately, UL Greenguard only evaluates VOC emissions, and does not consider SVOCs (semi-volatile organic compounds). True to their name, SVOCs have intermediate volatility – while VOCs readily transform into vapor/gas at room temperatures, SVOCs often require higher temperatures for phase transition – though they can readily adhere to surfaces within an environment. Compared to VOCs, this makes it more challenging to measure within an environment – though they can be just as harmful, if not more so. Examples of SVOCs include biocides, flame retardants, and phthalates. 

    • The focus on VOCs to the exclusion of SVOCs has the potential to lead to regrettable substitutions – if a company is claiming Zero VOCs or Low-VOCs and using a certification like Greenguard Gold as proof, this does not necessarily mean they are completely Non-Toxic, if they have just reformulated to remove VOCs while substituting SVOCs.  

    • Within our evaluation – we are highly focused on the home furnishings side of things, and readily accept our perspective may be quite different when considering home building products.

    • The best context for Greenguard certification, in our opinion, is articles and products where airborne emissions are the largest concern, and direct skin contact is a minimal component – paint, wallpaper, etc.

    • We would still ask further questions – for instance with paint, are there phthalates or other plasticizers included? Same question for flooring. Does the wallpaper contain PVC?

    • When applied to articles like textiles, it gets a bit muddy – good that there are ostensibly no harmful airborne emissions, but for articles with high direct skin contact, arguably a larger area of concern is dermal absorption of SVOCs or other chemicals, and Greenguard Gold can in this example provide a false sense of security.

    • Flooring is a bit tricky with this as well – see more information on Floorscore, but with phthalates (a plasticizer) being an SVOC, having Greenguard Gold certified vinyl or laminate flooring doesn’t mean it’s necessarily safe – if phthalates or other regrettable substitutions have been used. 

    • Similarly, Greenguard when applied to mattresses has the potential to be misleading – if the mattress is GOLS Dunlop latex with GOTS certified cotton, for instance, Greenguard is a somewhat superfluous certification as this article shouldn’t emit any VOCs of concern (unless of course there are formaldehyde containing glues used in its construction, which can happen). 

    • Equally, if a polyurethane foam core mattress is boasting Greenguard Gold certification, our thought is that either the VOCs are adequately encapsulated during screening, or there’s a chance that there have been regrettable substitutions to achieve this VOC-focused certification – which again, could be a situation of a certification used more for marketing than actually indicating the product is Non-Toxic, and whether intentionally or not, providing a false sense of safety.

  • Formaldehyde standards for engineered wood that restrict allowable limits.

  • Created by the California Air Resources Board, Carb 2 is a formaldehyde emitting regulation specific to composite wood products.

    • To measure, a wood panel is placed in a large chamber that uses heat and humidity inputs to stimulate real-world conditions. After 16-20 hours, formaldehyde is collected from the air and measured. 

    • It covers Plywood, MDF & Particleboard. Maximum Emission Limits are as follows:

      • Plywood – Veneer Core: 0.05ppm

      • Plywood – Composite Core: 0.05ppm

      • Medium-Density Fiberboard (MDF): 0.11ppm

      • Thin MDF: 0.13ppm

      • Particleboard: 0.09ppm

    • To be sold in California, a product must be compliant with regulations such as Carb 2, which due to the size of the California market makes these regulations the de facto national and international industry standard. In fact, this was codified to be the nationwide standard through TSCA Title VI in 2018. 

    • The formaldehyde emissions limits imposed are amongst the strictest globally. The most successful outcome of Carb 2 is that it drove the shift away from Urea-Formaldehyde Resins, which emit the highest levels of Formaldehyde over time and are overall the most toxic, to lower emitting Phenol-Formaldehyde Resins. It also helped create more of a market for Ultra-Low-Emitting-Formaldehyde systems and No-Added-Formaldehyde Resins.

    • An important nuance here is that all wood naturally contains formaldehyde, and all hardwoods will emit a very low level of this over time – generally 0.01-0.1ppm. However, naturally occurring formaldehyde is not the same as formaldehyde resin, which is a synthetic polymer and contains a higher overall chemical load, and is much more problematic from a toxicology standpoint.

    • Formaldehyde is a mutagenic, reprotoxic carcinogen that will offgas for potentially years. It’s a great chemical to avoid altogether.  

    • The emission limits for MDF & Particleboard, while lower than non-CARB 2 compliant engineered wood, are still higher than the WHO’s maximum recommended exposure limit of 0.08ppm measured over a 30-minute period. 

    • This itself is more than 50x higher than the IRIS’s reference concentration of approximately 0.0057 ppm, which serves as a conservative end point designed to protect sensitive populations and those who are chronically exposed.

    • For additional context, the European Union’s REACH Regulations added Entry 77 to Annex XVII this summer – which will limit total formaldehyde emissions in all furniture & wood-based articles sold in the EU to <0.062mg/m3, which is the equivalent of 0.05ppm, the lowest end of CARB 2, applicable only to plywood, with MDF & OSB allowable limits being around twice this amount. 

    • 16-20 hours is not an overly long time for a chamber analysis, and evaluation depends on exponential decay analysis (which is a different approach than actually measuring emissions at 7- and 14-day marks).

  • Specific to Engineered and Composite Wood (which is all wood products outside of 100% hardwood).

  • An important nuance – read the details carefully. Companies are allowed to say hardwood, when in fact they are using hardwood plywood. Make sure you know which one it actually is.

High Misleading Potential 

  • A great idea, with great intent, that has almost completely failed in execution and is on its way to becoming, at best, meaningless, and at worst, incredibly misleading.

  • Introduced by California in 1987, Prop 65 requires businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. As this is applicable for every product sold in California, and due to the size of the California market, this makes it a de facto natural regulation

  • Pretty much any product sold in California – for home furnishings, this means pretty much any and all products.

  • •   Prop 65 requires California to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. This list, which must be updated at least once a year, has grown to include approximately 900 chemicals.

    •   The list contains a wide range of naturally occurring and synthetic chemicals that include additives or ingredients in pesticides, common household products, food, drugs, dyes, or solvents. Listed chemicals may also be used in manufacturing and construction, or they may be byproducts of chemical processes.

    •   If a warning is placed on a product label, the business issuing the warning is aware or believes that it is exposing individuals to one or more listed chemicals.

    •   The California Attorney General’s Office enforces Proposition 65. Any district attorney or city attorney (for cities whose population exceeds 750,000) may also enforce Proposition 65. In addition, any individual acting in the public interest may enforce Proposition 65 by filing a lawsuit against a business alleged to be in violation of this law. Lawsuits are often filed by private citizens and law firms, and this has become somewhat of a weaponized piece of legislation, due to the inherently litigious nature of American society, and the commensurate potential rewards.

    • In its way, it’s a bit of a transparency label – but we would argue, not a full transparency label, as it doesn’t state what chemical compounds are motivating a company’s self-declaration. If something has a Prop 65 warning – why, and for what compound? We would argue much greater transparency is needed in this respect.  

    • Limiting carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic ingredients is a fantastic goal, and one that we wholeheartedly support. Only somewhat ironic that some of these compounds, at least in home furnishings, were initially introduced due to earlier California regulations on flame retardancy requirements (but this is a whole other topic, we’ll write a blog post on this soon enough).

    • Prop 65 in many ways acts as a meat cleaver, where a scalpel would be better utilized. There is virtually no room for nuance – as just one example, there is some debate on whether all furniture containing hardwood must declare Prop 65, as wood naturally contains formaldehyde, and wood dust is labeled carcinogenic due in part to this. Never mind that in finished furniture, you’re not cutting wood and creating dust, but it was cut at some part during its manufacturing and therefore must be labeled with Prop 65, or maybe there’s a tiny bit of wood dust in the box when the item is delivered, which is technically a carcinogen exposure…

    • And this is a big part of the problem with Prop 65 – there’s a fair amount of room for interpretation, and no room for nuance. Couple this with anyone being able to sue any company for non-compliance – and there are law firms in California whose sole focus is on suing companies for Prop 65 infringement – and the recipe is there for overcaution. This results in many companies slapping Prop 65 labels on products out of an overabundance of caution – not because they know their products contain any of the 900 banned chemicals, but because they might, or may be interpreted to contain a banned compound, and they would be open to litigation if they did not label with Prop 65 and were caught out for this. Even if they don’t lose the lawsuit, lawyers ain’t cheap.

    • This has, in our view, worked so far against the actual goals of the law to render it virtually meaningless. Of course, if you see a Prop 65 label on a product, it’s a good idea to investigate why that may be – but at the end of the day, it may mean something, or it may mean nothing at all. Which is incredibly frustrating, to say the least, as we don’t want to purchase anything containing any of those banned carcinogenic, reprotoxic or mutagenic compounds…but does it actually contain any of these???

  • See above.

  • See above.

  • Great certification for Food and CPG, but potentially highly misleading for Textiles and Latex. Organic ≠ Non-Toxic. Jump ahead to Where it Fails and Wrong Context for details.

  • Overseen by the USDA, Organic is a growing & harvesting certification that confirms an article, farm or business complies with specific standards. The USDA has regulatory oversight through the subdivision National Organic Program (NOP), which issues organic certifications and can take enforcement action when required.

    • Primarily food and CPG (consumer packaged goods) focused, USDA Organic extends to anything grown and/or harvested – which for home furnishings is primarily Textiles (cotton/linen/wool/hemp/etc) and some additional natural materials – latex, occasionally wood.

    • Organic focuses on the growing/harvesting method and helps to ensure that no synthetic biocides (pesticides/fungicides/herbicides/etc) or fertilizers are used, in addition to no sewage sludge as a fertilizer. Certain heavy metals are banned, and Organic products must be kept separate from Non-Organic ones.

    • Post-harvest handling is also evaluated, including processing facilities, storage areas, and packaging, to ensure ongoing compliance with Organic standards – though these steps pertain specifically to food & CPG and do not extend to Textiles or Latex (as processing for both is far more complex comparatively).

    • Accredited certifying agents review applications and processing standards and inputs on behalf of the NOP, and conduct on-site visits to ensure compliance. A three-year transition period is required, with no banned substances in active use, prior to certification eligibility.  

    A company found using the Organic label without proper accreditation will face a review period and then potential censure and penalties.

    • Organic growing methods are a great first step for textile or latex production, as it will eliminate biocides, sewage sludge, synthetic fertilizers, and a whole host of other harmful inputs. This significantly helps the environment and farmworkers, and is the more sustainable approach.

    • Some pesticides are superficial, and will wash out with wet-processing, but others are systemic and will remain present in the textile after processing. A category best avoided from the start.

    • It’s not that the certification itself fails – but how it’s used. With Textiles and Latex, Organic only certifies the growing/harvesting method. Everything that comes after is immaterial. Yet this is only the first step – after which are numerous processing stages, finishing, dyeing, etc. There are around 8,000 chemical inputs commonly used in textile manufacturing alone, and post-harvesting steps are where the vast majority of problematic/toxic chemicals are introduced for both Textiles and Latex.

    •  Therein lies the problem – while it’s technically accurate that a Textile grown Organically can be labeled as such, as these textiles can still be processed, finished and dyed using conventional (often toxic) inputs, the Organic label is highly misleading when it comes to material safety.

    • This is where advanced Organic certifications like GOTS and GOLS are far better signifiers for material safety – as they track the entire lifecycle of the article, to ensure Organic compliance at every step of the way. 

  • Food and CPG. We wouldn’t recommend putting stock in the Organic certification (from a material safety standpoint) for anything beyond this.

    • Part of the nuance here is that many consumers are more familiar with Organic as a certification than more niche ones like GOTS or GOLS – and in certain situations companies will use Organic as shorthand, even though they hold advanced certifications. This exists alongside a higher number of companies using Organic for marketing, branding, etc., that don’t have the more advanced certifications – which serves to create a bit of a mess when it comes to decoding this information. If these sheets are labeled Organic – are they fully GOTS certified, or just Organically grown and conventionally processed/dyed? Luckily, we’ve reached out to all the companies in our recommendations to confirm and parse through the overlapping/conflicting vernacular used – and for the most part, we only recommend fully GOTS & GOLS certified.

    •  Even though Organic is overseen by the USDA, compliance enforcement isn’t the most severe, and we’ve seen companies use this term somewhat recklessly as marketing without any actual verifiable certifications to back this up.

    • All to say – when something is labeled Organic, it should prompt further research and should absolutely not be taken at face value.

Avoid

  • A certification that results in somewhat (as far we can tell) less toxic flexible polyurethane foam, which is inherently a product with a high, often toxic, chemical load. A less charitable take would be this is a spurious certification that is marketing to sell you something toxic to human health.

    • Created by the Alliance for Flexible Polyurethane Foam, a trade organization that represents the financial interests of the flexible polyurethane foam industry. Right away, this is highly suspect – virtually all other certifications are third-party certifications, with a complete separation between certifying bodies and the industries/products they certify. This is the only certification we know of with this degree of direct financial entanglement and potential for benefit.

    • CertiPUR is a challenging certification to get a read on, with specifically what is banned/limited/allowed hard to verify. The following evaluation is based on all the information we were able to find through extensive research – but at the end of the day, everything within this overview is our opinion only.

    • CertiPUR is a material certification solely, specific to flexible polyurethane foam, and does not extend certification to final products. With PU Foam being a primary component in articles like mattresses, sofas, pillows – virtually everything that has cushioning being currently made with PU Foam – this is an important distinction.

    • Flexible PU Foam can contain an extremely high list of additives – see our materials section for additional information on the material fabrication and potential composition. The following compounds are commonly added to PU Foam: Flame Retardants, Softening Agents, Antimicrobial Treatments, Colorants and Dyes, Density Modifiers, Biocides, Blowing Agents, Catalysts, Curatives, and other Proprietary Ingredients. (Memory Foam often contains the highest chemical load due to the sheer number of additives required for the required resulting physical properties).

    • CertiPUR requires independent lab testing to verify residual chemical levels. Certain chemical compounds are banned, including: The flame retardants banned by the State of California – those that have been proven carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic – but not all flame retardants, some Blowing Agents, and Chlorinated Phenols.

    • CertiPUR states that foam should be made without formaldehyde, ozone depleters, certain regulated phthalates and heavy metals – but as far as we can tell, does not require this to be verified.  

    • Carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxins are screened for and restricted within the foam. The following are still allowed in varying levels: Formaldehyde, Aromatic Hydrocarbons Benzene, Styrene, Toluene, Other VOCs & SVOCs, Stannous Octoate, Heavy Metals, 13 Kinds of Phthalates, and Flame Retardants.

    •  CertiPUR Program Guidelines state that companies using CertiPUR foam cannot claim the foam is: Made without Chemicals/Chemical-free, Eco-Friendly, Made without Flame Retardants/Free of FRs, Carcinogen Free, Non-Toxic, or Safe.

    • From what we can tell – and this is hard to ascertain with any kind of certainty – CertiPUR foam is marginally less toxic than standard PU Foam.

    • This makes it a better choice when there is no choice – if the only two options are conventional PU Foam or CertiPUR foam, it should be the better choice.

    • Permitting all the above toxic compounds to be present in CertiPUR certified PU Foam, enough of which are bioaccumulative to be a significant cause for concern (and with children and pets being at higher risk due to higher ingestion rates and developing bodies).

    • Outside of this, CertiPUR as a certification is solely focused on the PU Foam component within finished products. Any flame barrier systems or chemical treatments applied to non-foam components are not evaluated, nor are all other ingredients outside the foam itself.  As such, CertiPUR can easily be misrepresented and misleadingly used to support cleanwashing claims. We see this often in articles like Mattresses & Sofas, even with accompanying language prohibited by the program guidelines above, and it’s incredibly frustrating.

  • Flexible Polyurethane Foam, solely and nothing else.  

  • Anything other than Flexible PU Foam. Implying an entire product is CertiPUR certified. Indicating a product is Non-Toxic because it contains CertiPUR Foam.

Not Applicable to Health or Material Safety

Coming Soon