Division of Enforcement 

Bureau of Consumer Protection 

Brett Ian Hanis, Esq. 

Pisani & Roll LLP 

1629 K StreetNW, Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20006 

Dear Mr. Hanis: 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

June 26, 2012 

This is in reply to your letter requesting a Staff Advisory Opinion on behalf of your 

client, Naturally Advanced Technologies US Inc. ("NAT"). NAT seeks approval for use of the 

generic term "flax" for textile products manufactured from CRAiLAR® flax fibers and yarns. 

Your letter states that the CRAiLAR® process uses a decidedly different process to remove flax 

fibers from the flax plant than the process used to produce linen, resulting in a product with 

distinct and different characteristics than traditional linen. Specifically, rather than extracting 

flax fibers from the bast primarily through the physical methods described in your letter (j.e., 

through breaking, scutching, and heckling following a retting process), you state the 

CRAiLAR® process involves the use of an enzymatic treatment to obtain a much finer, shorter 

fiber with performance characteristics more akin to cotton than linen. Because products made 

with CRAiLAR® fibers differ significantly from linen, you assert that describing products made 

from CRAiLAR® fibers as linen rather than flax would mislead and deceive consumers. 

In particular, you state that products made from CRAiLAR® fibers differ from linen 

fabric, which is "smooth yet contains slubs (due to the length and lack of uniformity of the 

fibers), wrinkles easily, requires significaut ironing, and typically must be air-dried after washing 

or dry-cleaned." You also state that textile products manufactured from CRAiLAR® fibers are 

soft and wear and wash like cotton, i.e., they do not need significant ironing and can be washed 

and dried with other laundry. 

In addition, you argue that, while the CRAiLAR® process produces flax fibers with 

attributes that differ significantly from those of linen, the chemical composition of the 

CRAiLAR flax fibers remains readily identifiable as flax. You explain that the CRAiLAR® 

process does not chemically change the flax but instead involves the further separation of the 

individual fibers to a degree not achievable through traditional linen manufacturing methods. 

Because the CRAiLAR® process does not result in chemically "regenerated fibers," you contend 
the fibers are not "manufactured fibers" addressed in Section 303.7 of the Rules and Regnlations 

Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act ("Rules"), 16 C.F.R. § 303.7, and that none 

of the fiber names established in this section (or the fiber names in ISO 2076: 1999(E) which 

Section 303.7 incorporates) describe CRAiLAR® fibers accurately. 

Finally, you note that describing CRAiLAR® fibers as flax rather than linen wonld be 

consistent with international standards and practice. You explain that ISO 6938: 1984, 

"Textiles-Natural fibers-Generic names and Definitions," defines the term "natural fibers" as 

"fibers which occur in nature; they can be categorized according to their origin into animal, 

vegetable and mineral fibers." You add that, according to § 3.2.2.6 of this ISO standard, the 

fiber name "flax" is recognized as a standard name for certain bast fibers - specifically, "[f]iber 

from the stems of flax Linum usitatissimum.,,1 

Section 303.l6(a)(I) of the Rules, 16 C.F.R. § 303 .16(a)(I), requires that textile fiber 

products have labels disclosing the generic names and percentages by weight ofthe constituent 

fibers present in the product. Section 303.7 of the Rules, 16 C.F.R. § 303.7, sets forth the 

official list of generic names for manufactured fibers, such as polyester, nylon, and rayon. The 

Rnles do not provide a comprehensive list of natural fiber names, although 16 C.F.R. § 303.6(a) 

identifies cotton, silk, and linen as acceptable fiber names. 

Based on the information abont the CRAiLAR® process and the attributes of the fibers 

you provide in your letter, we conclude that describing these fibers as flax on labels attached to 

textile fiber products made from the fibers would comply with the Rnles. We also conclude that 

describing these fibers as linen rather than flax conld mislead or deceive consumers. We base 

these conC!usions on your assertions that the CRAiLAR® process involves a manner of 

obtaining flax fibers that does not chemically alter them, that the attributes ofthe fibers differ 

from those of linen, and that international standards and practice as well as the U.S. government 

recognize the use of the term "flax" to describe flax fibers that have not been chemically 

changed. 

In accordance with Section 1.3(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 

16 C.F.R. § 1.3(c), this is a staff opinion only and has not been reviewed or approved by the 

Commission or by any individual Commissioner, and is given without prejudice to the right of 

the Commission later to rescind the advice and, where appropriate, to commence an enforcement 

action. In accordance with Section 1.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 16 

1 You also note that the U.S. government uses "flax fiber" as the generic name for flax 

fibers. E.g., Chapter 62 and Section 53 of the 2010 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States, www.usitc.gov/publications/docs/tata/hts/bychapter/l 000c62.pdf and 

www.usitc.gov/publications/docs/tata/bts/bychapterIl000C53.pdf. In addition, the United States 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service ("USDA-ARS") established a flax 

fiber research facility named the "USDA Flax Fiber Pilot Plant" and in 2005 published an article 

in its monthly magazine, Agricultural Research, that was called, "Flax Fiber Offers Cotton Cool 

Comfort." A copy of the USDA-ARS's 2005 Agricultural Research article can be found here: 

www.ars.usda.gov/is/ARIarchive/nov05/fiber1105.htm. 

-2-
C.F.R. § 1.4, your request for advice, along with this response, will be placed on the public 

record. 

-3-

Ja esA.Kohm 

Associate Director 
 PISANI & ROLL LLP

Robert J. Pisani* Attorneys at Law 

Michael E. Roll ** 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 

Brett Harris*** Washington, DC 20006 Los Angeles, CA 90067 

*Admitted in DC 202.466.0960 (t) 310.826.4410 (t) 

**Admitted in CA 877.674.5789 (f) 877.674.5789 (f) 

***Admitted in DC & NY www.worldtradelawyers.com

 Brett Ian Harris 

 Direct Dial: (845) 255-1850 

 bharris@worldtradelawyers.com

May 10, 2012 

BY E-MAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Attention: Secretary of the Commission 

Re: Use of the Generic Term “Flax” For 

 Textile Products Manufactured From 

 CRAiLAR® Flax Fibers and Yarns 

To Whom It May Concern:

On behalf of our client, Naturally Advanced Technologies US Inc. (“NAT”), 

696 McVey Avenue, Suite 202 Lake Oswego, OR 97034, we hereby request a Staff 

Advisory Opinion pursuant to 16 CFR Part 1 concerning the use of the generic 

term “flax” for textile products manufactured from CRAiLAR® flax fibers and 

yarns. We believe that this matter involves a substantial question of law and 

there is no clear Commission or court precedent to guide decision of this issue, 

which is of significant public interest. Moreover, this is not a hypothetical 

question, as such products will soon be entering the U.S. marketplace (see, for 

example, http://tinyurl.com/dymmezc). Therefore, a Staff Advisory Opinion in 

this matter is warranted under the regulations. 

We note that in an e-mail dated November 9, 2011, Mr. Steve Ecklund, 

Investigator with the Division of Enforcement of the Federal Trade Commission, 

informally agreed that the use of the generic term “flax” for textile products 

manufactured from CRAiLAR® flax fibers and yarns was proper and consistent 

the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (“TFPIA”), 15 USC §§70-70k. A copy 

of this e-mail correspondence is attached for your reference as Exhibit A. 
Use of the Generic Term “Flax” For 

Textile Products Manufactured From 

CRAiLAR® Flax Fibers and Yarns 

May 10, 2012 

Page 2 of 7 

BACKGROUND

 

I. Naturally Advanced Technologies US Inc. 

NAT develops renewable and environmentally sustainable biomass 

resources from flax, hemp and other bast fibers. The company, through its 

wholly owned subsidiary, CRAiLAR® Fiber Technologies Inc., has developed 

proprietary technologies for production of bast fibers, cellulose pulp, and their 

resulting by-products in collaboration with Canada's National Research Council. 

CRAiLAR® technology offers cost-effective and environmentally sustainable 

processing and production of natural, bast fibers resulting in increased 

performance characteristics for use in textile, industrial, energy, medical and 

composite material applications. 

II. Traditional Flax Fiber Processing 

Flax fibers are collected from the phloem (the “inner bark” or the skin) or 

bast surrounding the stem of the flax plant. In the photograph below, bundles of 

these fibers are represented by the green ovals, which are grouped together in the 

bast: 
Use of the Generic Term “Flax” For 

Textile Products Manufactured From 

CRAiLAR® Flax Fibers and Yarns 

May 10, 2012 

Page 3 of 7 

Traditionally, the bundles of flax fibers used in the production of linen 

(represented by the green ovals above) are extracted from the bast using the 

following procedures1: 

 Retting – Retting is the process of rotting away the inner stalk of the 

flax plant, leaving the outer fibers in the bast intact. After this process, 

the straw supported by long, coarse groupings of fiber bundles 

(represented by the red hexagons in the photograph above) remains. 

 Breaking – Next, the straw is broken into short segments in order to 

help ease the removal of the outer straw from the stalk. 

 Scutching – The scutching process is the first attempt to remove the 

straw and woody part of the stem from the flax fibers. Scutching can 

be done either by hand or by machine in a scutching mill. Hand 

scutching is done with a wooden scutching knife and a small iron 

scraper. Machine scutching, on the other hand, usually involves 

crushing the stalks between two metal rollers, which break the stalks so 

that parts of the stalk can be separated from the fibers. The fiber is 

extracted from aligned straw by beaters and combs in the scutching 

machine which removes shive and fiber which is not long enough for 

spinning on the linen system (known as “tow’ fiber). 

 Heckling – In this process, the fiber is pulled through various 

different sized heckling combs or “heckles.” A heckle is a bed of “nails” 

– sharp, long-tapered, tempered, polished steel pins driven into 

wooden blocks at regular spacing. The first few rows of heckles will 

remove the straw as the fiber is pulled through, while the last rows will 

split and polish the fibers. 

The end result of this traditional flax extraction process is flax fibers that 

are relatively long (ranging from about 25 to 150 cm in length) and average 12-16 

micrometers in diameter. These fibers have a relatively coarse texture due to 

their irregular polygonal shapes and the fact that the fiber bundles remain bound 

together with lignin. When spun into yarns for textile manufacture, flax fibers 

extracted using this process yield fabrics with the characteristic properties of 

linen easily recognized by the public: linen fabric is smooth yet contains slubs 

(due to the length and lack of uniformity of the fibers), wrinkles easily, requires 

significant ironing, and typically must be air-dried after washing or dry-cleaned. 

 

1 See, generally, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flax. 
Use of the Generic Term “Flax” For 

Textile Products Manufactured From 

CRAiLAR® Flax Fibers and Yarns 

May 10, 2012 

Page 4 of 7 

III. CRAiLAR® Flax Fiber Processing 

The CRAiLAR® process uses a decidedly different approach to removing 

flax fibers from the flax plant, resulting in an end product with distinct and 

different characteristics than traditional linen. Rather than extracting flax fibers 

from the bast primarily through the physical methods described above (i.e., 

through breaking, scutching and heckling following a retting process), the 

CRAiLAR® process involves enzymatic treatment of the bast to obtain a much 

finer, shorter-length fiber with performance characteristics more akin to cotton 

than linen. 

Specifically, the CRAiLAR® process extracts flax fibers from decorticated 

flax bast skin by pre-treating the decorticated bast skin with an aqueous solution 

containing di-sodium citrate, tri-sodium citrate or a mixture thereof having a pH 

of from about 6-13 at temperature of about 90°C or less. The recovered fiber is 

subsequently treated with an enzyme. By removing the lignin binding the fibers 

together, this process permits the extraction of individual flax fibers (represented 

by the light-blue dots in the photograph below), rather than the bundles of such 

fibers that are the product of the traditional linen-making process described 

above. 
Use of the Generic Term “Flax” For 

Textile Products Manufactured From 

CRAiLAR® Flax Fibers and Yarns 

May 10, 2012 

Page 5 of 7 

Importantly, the chemical structure of the flax plant is not altered through 

the CRAiLAR® process, and these flax fibers are not “regenerated fibers” as that 

term is technically defined.2 The CRAiLAR® process, in other words, does not 

involve a chemical transformation of natural organic polymers (such as that 

involved in the manufacture of rayon), but rather a physical transformation of the 

flax plant – specifically, a physical separation of the individual flax fibers in the 

plant to a degree unattainable through traditional means. 

DISCUSSION

 

I. Textile Fiber Products Identification Act Requirements 

The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (“TFPIA”), 15 USC §§70-70k, 

requires marketers to attach a label to each covered textile product disclosing: (1) 

the generic names and percentages by weight of the constituent fibers in the 

product; (2) the name under which the manufacturer or other responsible 

company does business or, in lieu thereof, the registered identification number 

(“RN number”) of such company; and (3) the name of the country where the 

product was processed or manufactured. 

The TFPIA regulations at 16 CFR §303.6(a) provide that “[e]xcept where 

another name is permitted under the Act and regulations, the respective generic 

names of all fibers present in the amount of 5 per centum or more of the total 

fiber weight of the textile fiber product shall be used when naming fibers in the 

required information; as for example: ‘cotton,’ ‘rayon,’ ‘silk,’ ‘linen,’ ‘nylon,’ etc.” 

Moreover, while 16 CFR §303.7 establishes generic names for certain 

manufactured fibers, and recognizes as acceptable the generic names for 

manufactured fibers, together with their respective definitions, set forth in 

International Organization for Standardization ISO 2076: 1999(E), “Textiles—

Man-made fibers—Generic names,” there is no similar regulatory list or reference 

of acceptable natural fibers under the TFPIA. 

II. CRAiLAR® Flax Fibers Are Not Accurately Described 

 By The Generic Term “Linen” 

As noted earlier, the performance characteristics of flax fibers extracted 

using the CRAiLAR® process are different than those of flax fibers extracted with 

 

2 “A regenerated fiber is one formed when a natural polymer, or its chemical derivative, is dissolved 

and extruded as a continuous filament, and the chemical nature of the natural polymer is either 

retained or regenerated after the fiber formation process.” Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical 

Technology, Volume 10, Fourth Edition (1994), p. 696. 
Use of the Generic Term “Flax” For 

Textile Products Manufactured From 

CRAiLAR® Flax Fibers and Yarns 

May 10, 2012 

Page 6 of 7 

traditional methods and used in the manufacture of linen. CRAiLAR® flax fibers 

have the look and feel of cotton. Unlike linen, due to the finer, shorter-length 

fibers obtainable from the CRAiLAR® process, textile products manufactured 

from CRAiLAR® flax fibers are soft, and wear and wash like cotton3 – in other 

words, CRAiLAR® flax fabrics do not need significant ironing and can be washed 

and dried with other regular laundry. 

 

Thus, we believe that requiring textiles and textile products manufactured 

from CRAiLAR® flax to be labeled as “linen” under the TFPIA would be 

misleading and deceptive to consumers. As recognized by consumers in the 

marketplace, linen products are smooth but wrinkle easily and require significant 

ironing; moreover, linen products must typically be air-dried after washing or 

dry-cleaned. Textile products manufactured from CRAiLAR® flax do not share 

these performance characteristics, and thus it would be inaccurate to label such 

products as “linen”; indeed, to do so would surely constitute the very deceptive 

and unfair business practices that the FTC is charged to prevent. 

III. CRAiLAR® Flax Fibers Are Accurately Described 

 By The Generic Term “Flax” 

As explained above, while the performance characteristics of flax fibers 

extracted using the CRAiLAR® process are different than those of flax fibers used 

in the manufacture of linen, the chemical composition of CRAiLAR® flax fibers 

remains readily identifiable as that of flax. The CRAiLAR® manufacturing 

process does not involve a chemical change to the underlying flax fibers, but 

rather a physical change to the fiber groupings in the bast permitting further 

separation of the individual fibers to a degree not achievable through traditional 

flax manufacturing methods. CRAiLAR® flax fiber manufacturing, in other 

words, does not result in chemically “regenerated fibers,” and does not involve a 

chemical transformation of natural organic polymers. 

Thus, CRAiLAR® flax fibers are not “manufactured fibers” under the 

TFPIA, and none of the generic names set forth in 16 CFR §303.7 or ISO 2076: 

1999(E) accurately describe them. In contrast, the generic term “flax” accurately 

and completely describes the fibers manufactured using the CRAiLAR® process. 

International Organization for Standardization ISO 6938: 1984, “Textiles—

Natural fibers—Generic names and Definitions,” defines the term “natural fibers” 

as “fibers which occur in nature; they can be categorized according to their origin 

 

3 In fact, CRAiLAR® flax’s performance attributes exceed those of cotton. CRAiLAR® flax fiber 

shrinks less than cotton, absorbs moisture better (wicking), and has increased dye uptake, which 

means it requires fewer chemicals to achieve the same depth of color as cotton. 
Use of the Generic Term “Flax” For 

Textile Products Manufactured From 

CRAiLAR® Flax Fibers and Yarns 

May 10, 2012 

Page 7 of 7 

into animal, vegetable and mineral fibers.” According to §3.2.2.6 of this 

standard, the fiber name “flax” is recognized as a standard name for certain bast 

fibers – specifically, “[f]iber from the stems of flax Linum usitatissimum.” 

CRAiLAR® flax fibers are fibers from the flax plant (Linum usitatissimum) that 

have been physically isolated – but not chemically regenerated – using an 

enzymatic process. Thus, they are properly and accurately described as “flax” 

under the accepted meaning of this generic term. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

CRAiLAR® flax fibers are “fibers from the stems of flax (Linum 

usitatissimum).” They are fibers from the flax plant that have been physically 

isolated and refined to a greater degree than previously possible. While there has 

been no chemical restructuring of the original flax fibers, the fine and short fiber 

resulting from CRAiLAR® process yields a product with performance and 

handling characteristics distinctly different than traditional linen products – so 

much so that requiring textile products manufactured from CRAiLAR® flax fibers 

to be labeled as “linen” would be misleading and confusing to consumers of these 

products in the marketplace. Therefore, we believe that the generic term “flax” is 

the most accurate description for textile products manufactured from CRAiLAR®

flax fibers and yarns under the TFPIA. We ask that the Commission staff kindly 

confirm this conclusion. 

 If the Commission staff disagrees with this conclusion, we respectfully 

request the opportunity to meet with the official(s) responsible for making this 

decision before a final determination is rendered. 

 Please do not hesitate to contact Brett Harris at (845) 255-1850 if you have 

any questions or require additional information. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 

 Brett Ian Harris 
EXHIBIT A 
1

Brett Harris

Subject: RE: Response to Your Request for More Information Regarding "Flax Fiber"

From: Ecklund, Stephen C. [mailto:SECKLUND@ftc.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 5:09 AM 

To: Mike Heilbronner 

Subject: RE: Response to Your Request for More Information Regarding "Flax Fiber"

  

Dear Mr. Heilbronner:

Thank you for the information about Crailer® flax fiber. 

Based on the information you provided, it appears that the term “flax fiber” is an appropriate designation for NAT’s 

Crailer® flax fiber. It is also staff’s opinion that it would be inappropriate to refer to Crailar® flax fiber as “linen.”

As always, the views expressed in this email represent my views only and are not considered binding on the 

Commission. I cannot issue a ruling on this because I am not a Judge in Court and I am not the Commission in an official 

law enforcement action. The company remains responsible for compliance with the law regardless of anything stated or 

not stated by Commission staff. My statements and views are not legal advice. The company may wish to discuss the 

matter with a private law firm familiar with FTC labeling laws. Commission staff reserves the right to review this matter at 

a later time.

Sincerely,

Steve Ecklund, Investigator 

Division of Enforcement 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Phone: 202-326-2841 

Fax: 202-326-2558 

Email: secklund@ftc.gov

From: Mike Heilbronner [mailto:mheilbronner@idealegal.com] 

Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:44 PM 

To: Ecklund, Stephen C. 

Subject: Response to Your Request for More Information Regarding "Flax Fiber"

  

Dear Mr. Ecklund:

  

This email is in response to your request of September 26 for additional information regarding the use of “flax fiber” on

content labels for NAT’s Crailar flax fiber.  

  

In your email of September 26, you asked for two types of additional information, namely, (1) information relating to

flax as a natural fiber and the use of “flax fiber” as the appropriate generic designation; and (2) information about the

differences between NAT’s Crailar flax fiber and linen. Independently, you alerted me to the FTC’s rulings and guidance

regarding improper labeling of “bamboo” fiber.

  

The numbered items below respond in turn to these three subjects.

  

1.            Information Relating to Flax as a Natural Fiber and the Use of “Flax Fiber” as the Appropriate Generic

Designation

  
2

As demonstrated in my email of September 22, 2011, the ISO has determined that flax is a natural fiber with the generic

name, “flax fiber.” While the FTC is not bound by the ISO’s determination, the ISO is obviously a trusted, independent

source.

  

More importantly, the U.S. government itself uses “flax fiber” as the generic name for fibers derived from flax. By way of

example, Chapter 62 of the 2010 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States uses the phrase “flax fibers” to

distinguish five separate tariff rates. See http://www.usitc.gov/publications/docs/tata/hts/bychapter/1000c62.pdf.

Independently Heading 5303 of Section 53 of the U.S. 2010 Harmonized Tariff Schedule clearly acknowledges that flax is

a “textile based fiber.” See http://www.usitc.gov/publications/docs/tata/hts/bychapter/1000C53.pdf

  

The USDA Agricultural Research Service (“USDA‐ARS”) also uses “flax fiber” as the generic name for flax. Most notably, in

2004, the USDA‐ARS established a flax fiber research facility in Clemson, SC that was named the “USDA Flax Fiber Pilot

Plant.” Reporting on its own research at the “USDA Flax Fiber Pilot Plant” in 2005, the USDA‐ARS published an article in

its monthly magazine, Agricultural Research, that was called, “Flax Fiber Offers Cotton Cool Comfort.” A copy of the

USDA‐ARS’s 2005 Agricultural Research article can be found here:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov05/fiber1105.htm. Notably, in addition to the title of the article, the article

is replete with other references to “flax fibers.”

  

The 2005 Agricultural Research article is about the USDA‐ARS’s research into the use of flax fibers for flax‐based denim

fabrics that could compete with cotton‐based blends. As detailed in discussion below under heading number 2, this goal

is exactly what NAT has achieved with Crailar.   

  

Next, a 2008 article in the journal, BioResources (published by N.C. State University) discussed the USDA‐ARS’s flax fiber

research at the “USDA Flax Fiber Pilot Plant” and specifically distinguished the USDA‐ARS’s goals for flax from the typical

use of flax for linen, stating:

  

The objective of this work was, therefore, not long line fiber for traditional linen, but instead short staple fibers

for blending with cotton and other fibers. The requirements to maintain long fiber length and other restrictions

necessary for traditional linen could be avoided, and new methods could be explored to produce a total fiber

product from diverse sources of flax.

  

A copy of the 2008 BioResources article can be found here:

http://www.ncsu.edu/bioresources/BioRes_03/BioRes_03_1_0155_Foulk_AD_PectinolyticEnzymes_Retting.pdf. The

flax fiber research conducted by the USDA‐ARS at the USDA Flax Fiber Pilot Plant was also discussed in a research article

called “Pilot plant for processing flax fiber” that was published in the journal, International Crops and Products. A copy of

that article can be found here: http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/4310/1/IND43702115.pdf.

  

As detailed below in section 2, the “short staple fibers” contemplated in the 2008 BioResources article (as distinguished

from the long fibers used for linen) are precisely the raw materials NAT uses for its Crailar flax fiber.

  

Notably, in January 2011, NAT and Hanesbrands (the well‐known global apparel leader) announced a joint research

partnership with the USDA‐ARS to cultivate and evaluate the viability of various flax strains for producing Crailar. The

project is being carried out in South Carolina and has an initial term of one year, with a renewal option of two additional

years. You can read about the joint research of NAT, Hanesbrands, and the USDA‐ARS here:

http://www.textileworld.com/Articles/2011/January/NAT_Hanesbrands_USDA_Team_To_Conduct_Flax_Growing_Trials

.html

  

The U.S. government’s regular use and reference to “flax fiber” as the generic name for a natural fiber is obviously

compelling, but perhaps the most interesting evidence that “flax fiber” is the generic name for a natural fiber comes

from the website for the United Nations’ “International Year of Natural Fibers”:

http://www.naturalfibres2009.org/en/index.html. As shown by that website, the United Nations proactively proposed

and developed the “International Year of Natural Fibers,” which was held in 2009. More information about the history of
3

the “International Year of Natural Fibers” including its origins with the United Nations is discussed here:

http://www.naturalfibres2009.org/en/iynf/background.html.  

  

The website for the “International Year of Natural Fibers” has a dedicated page for flax as a natural fiber, and “flax fiber”

appears several times on the page to generically designate the fiber from flax. Here is that dedicated flax page:

http://www.naturalfibres2009.org/en/fibres/flax.html. As you can see from that page, not all flax textiles are linen. On

the contrary, the flax page notes that some flax is used for linen (specifically, “fine and long flax fibres”), but that page

also notes that “shorter flax fibers” are used for other textiles, including consumer products like towels, tents, canvas,

furniture fabric, and sails.  

  

Again, NAT’s Crailar flax fiber is comprised of these “shorter flax fibres” that are not used for linen. This important

distinction is one of the subjects of the next section.

  

  

2.            Information about the Differences Between NAT’s Crailar Flax Fiber and Linen

  

There are two ways to discuss the differences between NAT’s Crailar flax fiber and linen.

  

First, there are critical technical distinctions between the two materials. Rather than explain these differences in this

email, NAT has prepared the attached document, “NAT – Explanation of Linen v. Crailar Flax  Fiber,” which consists of (i)

a text discussion of pertinent technical distinctions; and (ii) a chart with a point‐by‐point comparison of some of the

distinctions. Among others, the discussion and chart explain that NAT’s Crailar flax fiber is comprised of short bast flax

fibers washed in a natural, enzymatic bath. The basic properties of the original short flax fibers are not altered, and they

are readily distinct from linen derived from long flax fibers.

  

The second way to discuss the differences between NAT’s Crailar flax fiber and linen are the performance, market‐based

differences. Here, the focus is on the differences consumers experience with the two materials. If you’ve ever worn a

linen garment, then you will readily understand these differences.  

  

Linen has a relatively coarse texture. Linen wrinkles easily and requires significant ironing. Linen typically must be

carefully washed and then air‐dried, or it must be dry‐cleaned.  

  

In stark contrast and in the simplest terms, NAT’s Crailar flax fiber has the look, feel, and performance attributes of

cotton. NAT’s Crailar is soft and naturally white, and it wears and washes like cotton. In other words, it is comfortable,

does not need significant ironing, and can be washed and dried with other regular laundry.

  

In short, calling Crailar flax fiber “linen” would mislead and deceive consumers in the same way that labeling a linen

garment as “cotton” would mislead and deceive consumers. By way of example, imagine that you bought a typical

undershirt labeled “cotton” but, when you put on the undershirt, it had the look, feel, and performance traits of linen.

Your expectation of a soft, user‐friendly garment would differ greatly from the uncomfortable and user‐unfriendly

reality. Interestingly, Crailar’s performance attributes actually exceed those of cotton. Crailar flax fiber shrinks less than

cotton, absorbs moisture better (wicking), and has increased dye uptake, which means it more efficiently achieves the

same depth of color as cotton.

  

The cotton‐like performance attributes of Crailar flax fiber have not gone unnoticed in the marketplace, and NAT has

significant purchase, development, and production agreements for Crailar flax fiber with some of the world’s largest and

most well known apparel and textile manufacturers.

  

By way of example, the online magazine Smart Planet (owned by CBS Interactive), recently wrote about NAT’s

agreement with Levi Strauss & Co. (owner of the Levi’s and Dockers brands) for the development of Crailar‐based

denim. Notably, the title of the article is, “Levi’s eyes flax fiber for sustainable denim” (i.e., the title uses the generic “flax
4

fiber” to designate Crailar). A copy of the Smart Planet article can be found here:

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart‐takes/levis‐eyes‐flax‐fiber‐for‐sustainable‐denim/15522

  

Likewise, earlier this year, Hanesbrands and NAT signed a 10‐year purchasing agreement for NAT’s flax fiber. This

agreement is different than the NAT/Hanes/USDA‐ARS research agreement discussed above in section 1. This

purchasing deal was widely reported throughout the apparel industry. Here are just two examples: “Hanes Replaces

Costly Cotton” http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/51218/Hanes+Replaces+Costly+Cotton; and “Flax Fiber Goes

Mainstream through Major American Clothing Brand” http://www.wendmag.com/greenery/2011/03/flax‐fiber‐goes‐

mainstream‐through‐major‐american‐clothing‐brand/. Please note the use of “flax fiber” in the title of the second

article.

  

Most recently, NAT and Georgia‐Pacific Consumer Products entered into a 3‐year Crailar flax fiber supply agreement.

This agreement and a previous agreement with Georgia‐Pacific were also widely reported. Finally, NAT has also signed

agreements involving Crailar flax fiber with several other global companies, including, Cintas Corporation, Ashland Inc.,

Westex Inc., Carhartt, and Hong Kong‐based, Brilliant Global LTD. Details of these agreements can be found here:

http://www.naturallyadvanced.com/s/PressReleases.asp

  

3.            Whether Designating NAT’s Crailar as “Flax Fiber” Would Raise Issues Similar to the Problems with “Bamboo”

Labeling

  

I have reviewed the FTC’s ruling and guidance about the improper use of “bamboo” on labels for Rayon. That situation

involved Rayon produced from reconstituted, pulped bamboo. As I am sure you are aware, Rayon can be produced from

a variety of raw materials, but the comprehensive chemical processing of the raw materials leaves no trace of them in

the final Rayon product. When Rayon is produced from bamboo, the basic properties of bamboo are destroyed, and the

resulting fiber bears no resemblance to bamboo. For that reason, the “bamboo” label for Rayon was misleading.

  

NAT’s situation with Crailar has nothing in common with the reasons the “bamboo” label for Rayon was improper. The

final Crailar product is fundamentally no different than the source raw materials, namely, short flax fiber raw materials.

In short, Crailar is made from flax fiber, and Crailar is flax fiber that has been washed in a natural enzymatic bath.  

  

  

In conclusion, the FTC’s rules require only that NAT use the generic name for a natural fibers. The FTC does not maintain

an exclusive list of generic names for natural fibers. NAT’s Crailar fibers are nothing more than processed short flax

fibers, and flax is obviously a natural crop. Accordingly, NAT is unaware of any FTC rule or regulation indicating that

NAT’s Crailar product should be called anything other than “flax fiber,” and calling it “linen” would mislead and deceive

consumers.

  

I would be happy to discuss this with you and/or other FTC personnel.

  

I realize this is a long email, and I greatly appreciate your consideration.

  

Mike Heilbronner

IdeaLegal, P.C.

www.IdeaLegal.com

MHeilbronner@IdeaLegal.com

Phone: (503) 449‐9084

Fax: (503) 914‐0301

1631 NE Broadway, No. 443

Portland, OR 97232
5

***  This email and any files transmitted with it are only for the intended recipient(s) and may be confidential and legally

privileged.  If you have received this email in error, please notify IdeaLegal, P.C. immediately and delete this e‐mail

without disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents.  ***  

  

  
After printing this label:

1. Use the 'Print' button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer.

2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal line.

3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned.

Warning: Use only the printed original label for shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and could result in

additional billing charges, along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number.

Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the current FedEx Service Guide, available on fedex.com.FedEx will not be responsible

for any claim in excess of $100 per package, whether the result of loss, damage, delay, non-delivery,misdelivery,or misinformation, unless you declare a higher

value, pay an additional charge, document your actual loss and file a timely claim.Limitations found in the current FedEx Service Guide apply. Your right to recover

from FedEx for any loss, including intrinsic value of the package, loss of sales, income interest, profit, attorney's fees, costs, and other forms of damage whether

direct, incidental,consequential, or special is limited to the greater of $100 or the authorized declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual documented

loss.Maximum for items of extraordinary value is $500, e.g. jewelry, precious metals, negotiable instruments and other items listed in our ServiceGuide. Written

claims must be filed within strict time limits, see current FedEx Service Guide.

https://www.fedex.com/shipping/html/en/PrintIFrame.html

1 of 1 5/10/2012 10:59 AM