FTC Care Labeling Rule Roundtable

March 28, 2014

Segment 4

Transcript

AMANDA KOSTNER: I'm Amanda Kostner with the Federal Trade Commission. Robert Frisby 

will also be assisting with this panel. And this is the discussion on care symbols. We have six 

issues on the agenda today. We plan to roughly allocate about 10 minutes per issue, and leaving 

Q&A time at the end. 

I'd like to introduce our roundtable participants. We have Marie D'Avignon with American 

Apparel and Footwear, Richard Fitzpatrick with Chrysler Inc, Adam Mansell with the UK 

Fashion and Textile Association, Charles Riggs from Texas Woman's University, Mary Scalco 

with the Dry Cleaning and Laundry Institute, Peters Sinsheimer from UCLA Sustainable 

Technology and Policy Program, Stacy Sopcich from Green Earth Cleaning, and Alan Spielvogel 

from the National Cleaners Association. Thank you all for participating.

Our first topic of discussion today regards the differences between the ASTM and ISO symbols. 

As you know, the prior rule allowed only use of ASTM. The Commission now proposes to use 

both ASTM and ISO care systems. The Commission seeks input on whether consumers will be 

deceived or confused by some of the differences between these two care systems. And we've 

identified a number of different differences.

The first is the maximum treatment. Under ISO, a care symbol designates the maximum 

treatment that can be applied to a textile. This is in contrast to the ASTM system where a care 

symbol does not necessarily indicate the maximum treatment, and I'd like to hear any input on 

what impact this has on consumers and/or impact on manufacturers.

ALAN SPIELVOGEL: My opinion on this is there's really no standard on care labeling because 

each country has-- there's European. There's ISO. There's the ASTM. There's also Asian care 

symbols.

And what happens is there's a lot of confusion on how to process the garment and what the 

consumer could expect out of the garment and how to process it. And I think if there's one set of 

care symbols, and it's a standard, I think it would be a good idea. It would make it easier for the 

consumer and the dry cleaner.

What we've been seeing is that you'll see a lot of care symbols in different languages, different 

symbols, and you end up having a garment that contains five or six care symbols. It's like a little 

book, and what the consumer does is they end up taking out of the garment because they can't 

wear it. So I think if we went to symbols, I think it would be easier for the consumer, and it 

would set a standard throughout the world. I think that's make things easier for everybody 

involved.

AMANDA KOSTNER: Does anyone else on the panel-- Adam?
ADAM MANSELL: On the particular issue of the maximum optimum treatment, that's an issue 

for the manufacture retailer, the person who's putting the garment on the market. What happens, 

they'll have no impact whatsoever on the consumer. The consumer would just follow whatever 

information is on that garment, so if it's been tested to 6330 or whatever the US equivalent is, 

then it would be safe to launder at home or dry clean or whatever else it might be. So I don't 

think that particular issue would have any significant impact.

CHARLES RIGGS: I was on both the ISO committees and the ASTM committees, and the 

difference on the maximum was not in the symbols. It was complying with FTC rule, because the 

FTC rule did not require the maximum. And lo and behold, change and approach and would 

address another issue of low labelling, which has been a common issue following the FTC rules 

because we have manufacturers who will not put the harshest conditions. They will put 

something less than the harshest conditions because, indeed, the garment performs better.

But in terms of getting it clean, the maximum condition would be preferred, but you could do the 

maximum regardless of whether you're using the ISO symbols or the ASTM symbols. I don't 

think-- that's not a difference built into the symbols. The symbols, I think, are the same except 

for the Natural Dry.

ADAM MANSELL: Depending on which version of--

CHARLES RIGGS: Yeah, depending on which version. The last version I saw was a committee 

draft, and I would have to buy a new version. I didn't do that. You can work on the committee, 

and you get drafts, but you don't get the final copy.

AMANDA KOSTNER: Well, natural drying is my next question for the panel, but is there 

anyone else who had a comment on the maximum treatment?

MARY SCALCO: Well, I guess it's not really on the maximum treatment, but you asked if 

having the two symbol systems-- the differences would have an impact on consumers. 

Consumers don't understand either of the systems. So depending on what education FTC was 

going to do to educate consumers on the symbol system, now you have to educate them to two 

symbol systems, not one symbol system, because I would venture to say that most consumers 

don't know care symbols, period. So if you want them to recognize the difference, you would 

have to educate them to both systems.

ADAM MANSELL: If I could-- one more comment. Although the ISO absolutely does talk 

about maximum treatment, it has, in no way, removed the same issue that Charles was talking 

about, about underlabeling. You get underlabeling throughout Europe and the rest of world, 

where the ISO applies. Just because it's got that statement in it doesn't mean that everybody 

absolutely follows it.

AMANDA KOSTNER: Right. Richard?

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: In terms of the care providers, I mean, the world's getting smaller 

and smaller, and more and more of our clients are coming in with textiles that they purchased 
overseas that simply have ISO labels already in them. They still need to be serviced. The cleaner 

needs to be able to process them in their best possible way with some reasonable guideline. I 

think Alan mentioned there's no standards in the industry in terms of what's maximum and what's 

minimum, and it can vary from facility to facility.

So I think that having both sets, or allowing both sets, would allow garment manufacturers in 

Europe to be able to sell in the United States without having to manage two different types of 

care labels. It'll allow the cleaning providers some reliability in terms of how they can process 

the work. In terms of the underlabeling or maximum, things like that, I don't think it's going to 

come into so much play with the care of the garment because the dry cleaner's going to process it 

with whatever standard formulas they have in their machines.

AMANDA KOSTNER: All right.

CHARLES RIGGS: I don't think it's as much an issue with the professional cleaners as it would 

be the consumer. You know, the consumer gets something that says hand wash, cold water. The 

professional might recognize it as a low label, but the consumer thinks that's what they have to 

do with it.

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: Consumers are always going to be confused over these labels. I 

mean, I don't think we can correct that.

CHARLES RIGGS: But I think our intent here-- I mean, this whole labeling requirement is for 

consumer benefit. Right?

AMANDA KOSTNER: Yes.

CHARLES RIGGS: So I think we have to look more in terms of how the consumer views what 

they're seeing then how the professional. You know, the professional's going to be up another 

level of knowledge. But I can tell you consumers, and I'm talking about freshman, sophomore 

college students who are fashion design, fashion merchandising textuals majors so should know 

more, they don't understand them either.

AMANDA KOSTNER: Well, I'd like to move on to the issue of the difference between the 

natural drying symbols with ISO and ASTM. And when the commission proposed changes to the 

care labeling rule, ISO 2005 was in effect, so we are addressing ISO 2005 with these differences. 

Some of the differences are-- there's a Do Not Ring symbol in ASTM, and ISO doesn't have this.

There's a different number of symbols. ASTM has more symbols then ISO, and in ASTM, the 

symbol for medium temperature drying means normal temperature drying in the ISO system. So 

again, what are the impacts on consumers, and what are the impacts on manufacturers with these 

differences?

MARY SCALCO: Well, in terms of the manufacturers-- and if this was me, and I was a clothing 

manufacturer, first problem I would have is that you're referring to a standard that's not the 
current standard. So I would be using the current standard. I would not be going back to 2005. I 

would be doing whatever the 2012 was. So that would be the first problem for a manufacturer.

Consumers, again-- I go back. They don't understand what they mean anyway, so I mean, ring 

you can pretty much figure out. It looks like ring. But the box with the lines on it-- I'm not sure 

anybody's going to understand what that means anyway.

CHARLES RIGGS: And-- excuse me. Mary, I think the new ISO natural dry symbols are quite 

different than the 2005 ones. 2005 is more in a line with ASTM, and this has always been an 

issue if you adopt ASTM or ISO or both because FTC wants to keep control of changes in the 

symbols. And so if you adopt an organization's symbols, and they're going to change them, and 

then FTC loses control of the process. So that's part of the issue.

MARIE D'AVIGNON: I'd agree with Mary, very much so, the fact that we're looking at the 2005 

and not the most recent standard is a big problem. But for manufacturers in today's supply chain, 

they're not making products for just one market. Very, very rarely does that happen, so being 

able to use both sets of standards or some kind of harmonization of the standards, whatever we 

decide might be best, would benefit manufacturers immensely.

ADAM MANSELL: I totally support that comment. Just coming back to the consumer 

comprehension of the symbols, I said it earlier, if we're talking about the consumers, there's 

really only three, possibly four of the symbols that make any difference to them at all. One is the 

washtub, and absolutely everybody knows what the washtub means. Certainly within Europe, 

and I'm sure it's the same in the States. The iron symbol is the only one that actually looks like 

anything that you're going to do, so everyone understands what the iron symbol is.

The dry cleaning, professional cleaning, we talked about this morning, and then the tumble dry 

one. The bleaching one-- frankly, I don't think anybody understand what the bleaching symbol is, 

and they're never going to because it's not a very intuitive process. So I don't think there would 

be a particular issue with consumer comprehension in terms of the washing, the ironing, and the 

professional care symbols. That's my personal view. But coming back to the more general point, 

I think if we can have a system where the two major markets in the world have the same general 

approach to labeling, I think it'll be a huge difference to manufacturers in these areas.

AMANDA KOSTNER: And I wanted to identify one other difference between the two systems, 

and Professor Riggs touched on this earlier. It's an ISO. They use the Saint Andrew's Cross, and 

that does not require a reasonable basis, as opposed to ASTM. If you use a do-not language, you 

do have to have a reasonable basis. Again, input on what impact this has on consumers, what 

impact this has on manufacturers, and does the FTC need to do something to make people 

understand this difference.

STACY SOPCICH: Are you suggesting that the FTC would no longer require a reasonable basis 

with an ISO standard? Is that what you're asking?
AMANDA KOSTNER: No, I'm just asking-- the FTC has proposed the use of the ISO standard, 

so how do we harmonize? If you're using the ISO system, and you want to use a do-not 

construction, but ISO doesn't require the reasonable basis?

ADAM MANSELL: I think you've gone two steps ahead of where you need to be. If the FTC 

rule is that you need to prove reasonable basis, then that's the FTC rule. So it's up to the supplier 

to make sure that they have the Saint Andrew's Cross on it, that they have complied with the 

FTC rule.

Just because-- bear in mind that the ISO 3758 standard is just about the graphical symbols. That's 

all it's about. So if there is a requirement within the US that says you have to provide reasonable 

evidence, then you have to provide reasonable evidence. It makes no difference what it says in 

3758. I don't see the two being contradictory in this instance at all.

AMANDA KOSTNER: Yes?

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: Well, if the rule is changed to allow both ISO and ASTM standards, 

then doesn't that automatically include the fact that, if it's an ISO labeled ISO, that they don't 

need to have reasonable.

ADAM MANSELL: No, because you're selling in to the State-- you're selling into the US, and 

the US requirement is you have to have reasonable proof. That bit doesn't change.

MARIE D'AVIGNON: I agree, actually, with Adam. I would think that the underlying symbol 

would be the thing that would be recognized in both places, but the rules as to whether or not the 

symbol can be cross out is completely separate from the symbol looks like.

CHARLES RIGGS: That's the same logic what the maximum criteria, too. We're using the same 

symbol, but I think the bigger issue is, as these symbols begin to change, either ASTM doing the 

changing or ISO doing the changing, and we're base this on an older version that's no longer 

current, how do we update it to the current versions? FTC loses control of the process if you just 

blindly say most recent standard from ASTM or most recent standard from ISO.

AMANDA KOSTNER: Well, the FTC would have to go through another proposed NPRM to 

incorporate the new ISO standard. That's the processes that the FTC has to follow to keep up 

with the ever-changing standards.

MARY SCALCO: I think-- I mean, I don't mean to criticize the FTC, but I think you just added a 

level of deception to the whole process because now you've got the consumer working off of 

whatever the most current standard is, the manufacturer working off the most current standard, 

but the FTC is on a standard that's five years ago. So I don't know how, as a consumer, what do I 

do?

AMANDA KOSTNER: This is an important topic. Unfortunately, it is not for this panel. We will 

be able to discuss this and ways the FTC can keep up with the different rules in the third panel if 
need be, but I'm going to move on to the next topic at this point, and that is whether to require 

that labels identify the ISO system if used.

So right now, the Commission's proposal is that if you use the ASTM symbols, you do not have 

to say that you are using the ASTM symbols. If you use ISO, the proposal is that you would have 

to say this is the ISO system. My first question to the panel is to what extent do care labels 

currently use ASTM or ISO symbols? Does anyone--

MARY SCALCO: I would have to ask some of the manufacturers in the audience. Maybe they 

have an idea of how many--

AMANDA KOSTNER: Does anyone know percentage of labels that do use symbols?

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: Is your question just how many garments come with symbols as 

opposed to written instructions?

AMANDA KOSTNER: Yes.

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: And whether they're ASTM or ISO?

AMANDA KOSTNER: Yes.

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: I would say the majority of textiles come with symbols of some sort 

as part of the care labeling.

MARIE D'AVIGNON: I would just amend that to say that I believe I wouldn't say the majority 

use symbols instead of, but the majority use symbols either, instead of or in addition to. Most 

companies use the words and the symbols.

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: Yes.

AMANDA KOSTNER: OK. Are they ISO or ASTM?

MARIE D'AVIGNON: Depends on-- I mean, the ones I see the US are usually ASTM because 

it's the US, but--

ALAN SPIELVOGEL: For the most part, the ASTM.

CHARLES RIGGS: I've never seen the symbols identified on the label, whether they're ASTM 

or ISO.

AMANDA KOSTNER: Well, so that was my next question. When symbols are being used, does 

anyone have evidence, anecdotal or otherwise-- do they see that it says ASTM? Does it say ISO?

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: I definitely think if you purchase garments in Europe, the care label 

will state ISO on--
STACY SOPCICH: No.

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: They don't? Well, then I've seen ISO on garments sold in the US 

from European manufacturers with that.

STACY SOPCICH: But if you get back to consumer protection, I think the key issue is whether 

or not the symbol has a different meaning under the two standards, and if it has a different 

meaning, then it makes logical sense that you might need to identify it. But for the most part, 

most of the symbols mean exactly the same thing. It's just very few.

MARIE D'AVIGNON: I agree. I mean, there's slight differences, but it's never a case where a 

square here means one thing, and it's different in a another country. It's still going to be a square. 

And it might have two dots or a 68, but it still means the same thing. And consumers are going to 

understand that square means the same thing wherever it is.

CHARLES RIGGS: I don't think normal versus medium is an issue. I know that's--

AMANDA KOSTNER: OK.

CHARLES RIGGS: There is an issue that-- well, I'm not sure it's ever been openly discussed, so 

maybe I'll throw the gauntlet and ask it be brought to the board and put Adam on the spot. That is 

some of these symbols are copyrighted, and I'm not sure what's involved with the manufacturers 

and costs for use of going to ASTM versus ISO, which has some Genentech's symbols in it. And 

I know Adam has history with Genentech and might address it. In luncheon discussions, we 

would talk about fees to use and the meaning of the copyright and so on, but in the panels, it 

never was discussed, and I think it needs to be.

Are there underlying costs associated if a manufacturer chooses to use ISO symbol sets? I 

believe with ASTM, there's not, but you've got to buy the standard. With ISO, I think depending 

on where you market it, I'll let Adam bring up the response, there may be additional fees 

involved per label. Please, Adam.

AMANDA KOSTNER: Yes, that is my next question. And just remember, the use of symbols is 

always optional. You're not required to use symbols under the FTC rule, but should a 

manufacture decide to use the ISO system, does the manufacturer incur additional costs?

ADAM MANSELL: Depends where they're selling. If they're using them in the US, then 

absolutely not. The only time that anybody is required to pay a license fee is if they are selling a 

garment into a country where the symbols are trademarked, and the symbols are not trademarked 

in the US, so you can use them free of charge. They're not trademarked in the UK either. You 

can use them free of charge in the UK.

They are trademarked in most mainland Europe. I think the trademark covers about 40-odd 

countries in total, but that trademark is only properly policed in mainland Europe. The fees that 

you pay in mainland Europe depend on the particular market you're selling into, and this would 

have-- irrespective of whether the FTC decides to adopt the ISO symbols or not, this situation 
that I'm explaining will still occur. So if you're selling into most of mainland Europe, you have to 

pay a license fee. 

That license fee depends on which country you're selling into. It can either be per garment, or it 

can be an overarching fee. If anybody wants to talk to me about how the UKFT could help them, 

I'd be more than happy to do so, but it's probably inappropriate for this particular panel 

discussion.

CHARLES RIGGS: It is being recorded, Adam. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: So my next question is under the Commission's proposal, using ISO, 

you would have to disclose it as the manufacturer. So my question is should this 

recommendation go forward, that if you decide to use ISO, you must somewhere disclose that 

you're using the ISO system? 

ADAM MANSELL: Can I just-- what benefit would that give the consumer? Because the 

consumer isn't going to know ISO 3758 or ASTM or anything else. 

ROBERT FRISBY: In the Commission, I noticed a proposed rule-making. It indicated that there 

might be a difference because consumers might be more used to ASTM, it having been 

permissible for over 10 years, and that was the reason for proposing it. But we want to hear if it's 

a bad idea. We'd like to hear from you all. 

ADAM MANSELL: Again, my personal view is that it's unnecessary. A washtub-- the ASTM 

and the washtub and the ISO are so similar. I don't think that it would be an issue. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: Anyone else? 

STACY SOPCICH: I agree. I think it's common sense that, if you're protecting the consumer, 

you would only need to identify them if there's a completely different meaning to the symbol. 

Otherwise, I don't see the value for the consumer in that. 

MARIE D'AVIGNON: Agree, as well. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: And if the commission decided that the 10 years of experience with 

ASTM warranted that ISO be disclosed, does the panel have any suggestions for what language 

the Commission could use to disclose use of ISO? 

MARIE D'AVIGNON: Can you say that again? 

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: It's simply stating that these are ISO care instructions, is really all 

that's required. So I don't think you have go into a lot of detail on a care label of what that means. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: OK. Anyone else? 
CHARLES RIGGS: The big difference, probably, is the use of the Saint Andrew's Cross, and 

probably most consumers are going to read that as don't do that. Whether there's a reasonable 

basis or not, they won't know. They'll just not do that. 

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: But again, does that hurt the consumer--

CHARLES RIGGS: No, that's what I mean. I mean, they don't know whether it's a reasonable 

action or not. They just won't do it, which is probably the right action anyway. For example, I 

know in the ISO system, you would routinely x out Do Not Dry Clean for underwear without 

testing it, and who would dry clean their underwear anyway? 

AMANDA KOSTNER: On that note, I will be moving on to the third set of issues, and this is 

some of the differences between the 2005 and 2012 ISO symbols. So there are differences in the 

natural drying symbols, bleaching, and some of the professional textile care. Do Not Professional 

Wet Clean was added in 2012. That was not there in the 2005. 

So as I mentioned, right now, the rule is written to ISO 2005. Mary mentioned that consumers 

and manufacturers and dry cleaners possibly are looking to the 2012 rule. The changes between 

the 2005 and 2012 rule, are these significant enough that they would have an impact on 

consumers, manufacturers, cleaners? 

MARY SCALCO: Well, I mean, and maybe I didn't-- you just said the 2005 does not have a wet 

cleaning symbol, right? 

ADAM MANSELL: A Do Not Wet Clean. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: A Do Not Wet Clean. 

ADAM MANSELL: It has a permissible wet clean, but not a Do Not Wet Clean symbol. 

MARY SCALCO: So you can't put the cross over the--

ADAM MANSELL: If you use the 2005, but you can if you use the 2012. 

CHARLES RIGGS: In the 2005, and I'm not sure it's in the '12 or not, but I remember very 

clearly that the European ISO was a basic five-symbol set. And the professional care was 

mandated to be a dry cleaning instruction, and the wet clean was optional. So it became a sixsymbol or a second line, and so originally, it wasn't necessarily. Now, if we require a wet clean 

label, which I hope we don't, we would have to have the ability to cross it out. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: Would the use of words remedy that issue? 

CHARLES RIGGS: Well, words defeat the purpose of using the symbols. Right? It concerns me, 

and I don't know what happened except that the US delegation wasn't there. The 2005 ISO and 

the ASTM were the most-- were the two that were harmonized the best. That is, most of the 

symbols were identical, if not easily interpreted one to the other. In the 2012, suddenly the 
natural dry symbols, I think, switched from being in harmony with ASTM to, I think, being in 

harmony with the Japanese system. 

ADAM MANSELL: No, no, it being in harmony with absolutely nothing at all with the rest of 

the world. 

CHARLES RIGGS: And it's worried me why they switched because we were in harmony at one 

point, which was our goal, and then for some reason, it intentionally went out of harmony. I 

wasn't there, and as far as I know, the US delegation in general didn't have travel funds and 

wasn't there. 

ADAM MANSELL: The US delegation was there when we voted on the new version and on 

natural drying. There were only two countries that voted against the changes to natural drying, 

and that was the US and the UK. 

[AUDIENCE LAUGHS] 

I will put this on the record because it is actually-- it's a flippant point, but it's quite an important 

point. What happened within the ISO discussions was that, and excuse me for those of you that 

are technical in the room, the technicians in the room took over the debate, so common sense 

was left behind. And I think it's something that you need to be aware of when you have these 

discussions, is that you need to make sure that common sense prevails. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: So is there any reason not to adopt the ISO 2012 rule at some point? I 

see head shakes from my court reporter. Does anyone want to speak up why they think it should 

eventually be adopted, ISO 2012? 

STACY SOPCICH: No, there's no reason why it shouldn't. 

CHARLES RIGGS: Well, isn't the '12 the one that has the different natural dry symbols than the 

ASTM? 

AMANDA KOSTNER: Yes. 

CHARLES RIGGS: Yeah, we go from being in harmony with ASTM, either symbol set could be 

recognized with a consumer, to suddenly something new and different for 2012 that doesn't 

harmonize. So, yeah, I think--

ADAM MANSELL: If I just-- the only thing I just add to that is, although the natural drying 

symbols have been in the ISO since 2012, I have yet to see a single garment in Europe that uses 

them because natural drying, unless you live in a very, very, very hot country and the sun might 

bleach your garments, natural drying, with one or two exceptions, won't damage your garment. 

So there's just not used. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: Any other comments on this issue? All right, I'd next like to get input on 

some of the changes to the ASTM system, specifically the change in the meaning of circle-P. So 
the old circle-P, which is just the circle with a P in it, meant that you could dry clean with any 

solvent except PERC. 

CHARLES RIGGS: No. That's not what it meant. 

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: Any solvent but trichlorethylene. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: OK, any solvent except trichlorethylene. 

CHARLES RIGGS: Which basically no longer exists as a solvent anyway. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: OK. And under the revised standard, the symbol means to dry clean 

with, I believe, PERC or petroleum. Is that correct? 

CHARLES RIGGS: I believe, according to the test method, and I think that's where we've got to 

go back to, ISO 3175 views PERC as being the most aggressive solvent. So to pass the test for 

PERC, any of the less aggressive solvents can also be used, which would include, as far as I 

know, anything out there, including the ones we currently don't recognize like Green Earth, 

dibutoxymethane, K4, on and on and on and on. I believe all of those would be compatible in 

that system with P. 

When you go to the other symbol, the F, that would exclude perchloroethylene because that's a 

milder test method, and PERC will not pass the symbol test where you would use the F. So 

you're basically saying, with the F, don't use PERC. Use anything else. With the P, you're saying 

use anything, or that we know of right now. Alan, is that your understanding? 

ALAN SPIELVOGEL: Yeah. It's also an issue with this P as far as getting solvents that are less 

aggressive than PERC, making PERC the standard. A lot of the solvents out now, alternates to 

PERC, are heating the solvents, which make them aggressive, and sometimes as aggressive as 

PERC between the heating of the solvent. And also the drying temperatures was also aggressive 

as the garments heat up. So I think that's something that has to be looked at, and most of the dry 

cleaning machines now, non-PERC dry cleaning machines, are being sold as solvent heaters, so 

it doesn't necessarily make PERC the benchmark of what's the most aggressive solvent. 

CHARLES RIGGS: I think what you're saying, Alan, is that the ISO 3175 test methods have 

been don't cover the operating procedures. So that's where the issue is. The test method doesn't 

cover the operating procedure. 

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: I think it's going to be a little difficult to modify the test methods 

for any kind of trend that happens to be happening in the industry at that given time. So yes, 

there are machines out there that are heating solvent up. I don't think it's the majority of 

machines being sold, but they are out there. And I think it's not proven how aggressive it actually 

makes the solvent when you heat it up. There seems to be some measurable difference, but as far 

as I know, there's been no independent studies showing that heating hydrocarbon up raises its KP 

value from 25 to 75 or to a 93. 
So yes, I agree with you, Alan, that the drying temperatures and the heating of the solvent all 

play an influence. I'm not exactly certain how we would write a standard to take into account. I 

believe that the ISO standard for solvents requires the temperature of the solvent to be within a 

certain range. 

CHARLES RIGGS: It does. 

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: And so I guess we could mandate the same kind of standard if that 

doesn't currently 

ALAN SPIELVOGEL: Exist-- Well, I'd like to see something where it says like a shortened 

cycle or reduced cycle or mild cycle to also include something as far as heating goes, whether 

you can or can't. 

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: I'd agree with that. 

ALAN SPIELVOGEL: Industry, as far as what I'm seeing, we have a lot of multi colored 

garments, and the majority of the problems have to do with solvent temperature and drying 

temperatures. And it's just what I've been saying. Mary, do you see that with DNO? 

MARY SCALCO: Mm-hmm. 

ALAN SPIELVOGEL: Yeah. Six. 

MARY SCALCO: But again, I think we need to address that at the ASTM/AATCC level and get 

the test method changed. I don't know that the change you're proposing-- I guess, here's what my 

point is. If what Alan brings up, and what we were just discussing, we go and have that changed 

at the ASTM and ISO level, and they change that standard, and they do that in 2013 so it reflects 

what happens in the industry, you're care labeling symbol requirement is now null and void. It's 

behind the times. See what I mean? 

Unless you can react quicker than the industry can react-- I'm really having a problem with 

referring back to 2005 or 2002 or even today, 2012, standard. Why not refer to the most current 

standard of both of these? Because there are people around the room that sit on those committees 

that develop those standards based upon their level of expertise and what's happening in the 

industry. So then, your Federal Trade Commission rule is current with what's going on, and 

there's, I guess--

CHARLES RIGGS: So the answer to the question is that would remove the control out of the 

hands of FTC. If you had to just simply say FTC is going to take the most current standard, then 

FTC no longer controls the process. 

MARY SCALCO: But if dry cleaning in itself changes--

CHARLES RIGGS: I agree with what you're saying. 
MARY SCALCO: --and it refers back to a standard that is no longer typical of what's happening 

in the industry, or if it's a wet cleaning symbol, and it is no longer reflective of what the wet 

cleaning is that's happening in the industry, I don't see how that's beneficial to the consumer. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: Moving back to what brought us to this discussion, is the change in the 

circle-P symbol in ASTM, and kind of give me the bottom line. What is the impact on this 

change-- what is the impact of this change on consumers, if any? Is there any reason why the 

FTC needs to address this specific change with any additional language in our proposed rule? 

STACY SOPCICH: I think it would be a stretch to say consumers know what P means. I think 

the key is what does the professional cleaner think it means, and even there, honestly, our 

affiliates don't know what P means. Some think it means professional clean, P. Some think it 

means PERC. Some think it means no PERC. 

They have no idea. Frequently, they do rely on the fiber label or the words to clarify their 

understanding, but in terms of the question, whether it's changed from its meaning, on the 

positive side, it's now harmonized with the ISO, and that's really critical. So I think the benefits 

outweigh the negatives, very much so. 

CHARLES RIGGS: The logic discussed always at ISO and ASTM was the circle symbol should 

alert the consumer don't do this at home. Take it to the professional, and then the professional 

uses the right procedure based upon their training and knowledge and whatever else they see 

there. There's a modification in the test method for a mild cycle. I can't say it offhand what that 

means. I think it's a shorter cycle. 

But the professional would know, or should have access to the training to know. Whether they 

avail themselves of the training or not, that's another issue, but I think the circle, to the consumer, 

should only mean don't do it at home. And then anything else we had is information for the 

professional. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: All right, the next topic regards solvents and the absence of ASTM and 

ISO symbols for solvents other than PERC and petroleum. The Commission would be curious to 

know how this came about in the two different care labeling systems, if anyone has insight into 

that. Why are there only symbols for PERC and petroleum? 

ADAM MANSELL: From the ISO point of view, there are symbols for those solvents that were 

prevalent on the market at the time. Whether it's any interest or not, ISO 3175, which Charles has 

referenced several times, which is the test method behind it, is being amended as we speak, and 

will almost certainly be broadened to include the new solvents that are on the market now. 

STACY SOPCICH: And also relevant, is that the ASTM is now voting on a change to the 

definition of P and F, keeping the symbols but to change the definition to encompass alternate 

solvents as well. So I think the standards bodies are right where they need to be. 

MARY SCALCO: For garment manufacturers, they have to have a basis to determine what they 

put on the label. If they're going to test, they need a test method, so the test methods all refer to a 
specific solvent. They don't just say dry cleaning. They say dry cleaning in this solvent, you do 

this. Dry cleaning in this solvent, you do this. 

If you don't have a test method, there's nothing for them to test to, so many times, you're 

developing the test method before you develop the symbol. So if they put that symbol, they have 

a basis for it. So that's why. 

STACY SOPCICH: And we're also-- I mean, the AATCC is also going to be undertaking that 

necessary step to support the standard. If that passes, I mean, in order to have the science behind 

the standard. 

CHARLES RIGGS: It was explained to me, I think. The history was the P actually stood for 

perchlorethylene or tetrachlorethylene, and that means that's the solvent you use, which as it 

turns out in the test method, is the most aggressive, and I think still the most aggressive. And if it 

withstands the most aggressive solvent, then it's safe for all others. The F, I was understood, was 

signifying flammable because these other solvent are some degree of flammable, and I think 

that's true even of the newer substitutes, that there's still flammable solvents. 

Question would be could you use, I think it's part thee of 3175, to test the Green Earth solvent, or 

what do you have to modify? So I would think we probably could do with the two solvents, 

flammable and nonflammable, and if it's got a P, you can use anything. It's got an F, you can't 

use P, so that simplifies the process. Then the task for other solvents would be how do you 

modify 3175 for a test method for all of these different alternative solvents? And that's what's 

being worked on currently, and it would still probably carry the F symbol. 

ADAM MANSELL: Probably. 

ROBERT FRISBY: Can I just jump in for a second? I hear you all saying that the Commission 

should incorporate the most recent standard from both ASTM and ISO, notwithstanding the fact 

there's a difference on the drying symbols. Is that what I'm hearing? 

CHARLES RIGGS: That's not what I would suggest. I would suggest you use the two that are 

harmonized. 

ROBERT FRISBY: So you're saying we should use the 2005 ISO and the current ASTM? 

CHARLES RIGGS: Yeah. 

ROBERT FRISBY: And what about the rest of you? 

ADAM MANSELL: I'd use the most current. I'd use 2012 because that's what the industry uses. 

MARIE D'AVIGNON: I think if we're not using the most current, there's not much point in even 

considering it. That's the whole point, is to be able to use the currency, so you can sell a product 

in multiple countries with the same label. And if you can't tell the product in Europe because 

you're using the 2005 standards, there's no point in using them in the US at all. 
CHARLES RIGGS: Well, then you would say don't use the ASTM symbols because they would 

not be current with the current version of ISO, so all the manufactures would have to switch to 

ISO and drop ASTM. 

MARIE D'AVIGNON: Not necessarily because they both have different benefits and different 

challenges. So if a company wants to use ASTM, they're allowed to have just the one symbol if 

they want to do that, and they can stay in the US market. If they want to use ISO, they can use 

the five symbols, but they have to use all five, which is a problem sometimes for US companies. 

They might have to pay the Genentech's fee for the licensing, so they may see more benefit in 

using the ASTM. I think it'll depend on the company's preferences. 

ROBERT FRISBY: If there is a discrepancy in some of the symbols, does anyone have a 

suggestion as to how the Commission should address that in the rule, if at all? If it allows the two 

most recent standards? 

ADAM MANSELL: It may be complicating the rule overly, but if you allow the use of ISO 3758 

2012 excluding the natural drying symbols, then you wouldn't have a problem. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: I wanted to turn back to some of the questions on solvents. We were 

talking about, right now, there are symbols for two different solvents, and I would like to know if 

the panelists have any evidence on what percentage of solvents dry cleaners are currently using. 

And do dry cleaners have multiple solvents in the same shop? Does anyone have any 

understanding of that, any data on that? 

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: Yeah, so I think DLI and NCA probably have numbers to support 

this, but still, about 80% of the industry is using PERC as a solvent. The remaining is primarily a 

synthetic hydrocarbon with about 5% of the market being split up between the alternatives Green 

Earth, our solvent, propylene glycol, and then wet cleaning. So the dominant solvent is still 

PERC in the industry. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: Might bring that PERC number down a little bit. I think it has dropped a 

little bit lower than that, and actually I believe your comment used 60%. 

MARY SCALCO: Right, I think it's a little bit lower than that, but I do think that almost every 

shop has wet cleaning in it, professional wet cleaning in it. And I think nowadays, you might see 

more-- I don't know if it's a huge percentage that has multiple solvents in it, but some of the 

larger ones will have multiple solvents in there as well. 

CHARLES RIGGS: Yeah, probably not more than two. 

MARY SCALCO: Yeah. 

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: Two plus water. 

ALAN SPIELVOGEL: Two plus water, yeah. 
MARY SCALCO: Two plus water. 

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: Two plus water. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: And, Stacy, did you want to add something? 

STACY SOPCICH: I was going to say, our knowledge would say that it's gone down closer to

60 in terms of use of PERC. Even from a few years ago, it's dramatically declined. I think 

California's had a lot to do with that. 

The larger cleaners are the anomaly in the industry. They're the ones that will have multiple 

processes for the most part. You've got one dry cleaning process and one wet cleaning process. 

Whether that's longer, you're a professional wet cleaning. That the reality of the industry. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: OK, so we've heard testimony that both ISO and ASTM are looking at 

adding symbols for other solvents. I think that's what I heard. Is that correct? 

ADAM MANSELL: Not symbols. Just test methods. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: Test methods? 

CHARLES RIGGS: And I don't see the symbols going beyond two, P and F. 

STACY SOPCICH: What the ASTM is looking at doing in gen-- and also speak to this, is just 

keeping the symbols, but changing the definition. So with P, it would go back to what it was 

when there were three symbols, and there was an A for Any. When the solvents more aggressive 

than PERC left the market, they kind of collapsed the symbol system down to two, and so P then 

served the role of A. It still does, but they named PERC and petroleum because they were really, 

at the time, the only two viable commercially proven options. There are more now, so the 

definition of P would be any, which would get it back to, I think, a more useful definition. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: So does the Commission need to do anything in addition to what ISO 

and ASTM are doing with alternative solvents? Is there any language or working that the 

Commission would need to consider in adding to the rule? 

STACY SOPCICH: I see two things. One is I think it's worth discussing whether or not the 

Commission intentionally used the notion of in-use versus commercially available when it was 

naming its solvent examples because, for example, CO2 was named-- I don't know. Rich? Mary? 

How many CO2 cleaners are there left? I think--

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: It's about six. 

STACY SOPCICH: Yeah, so--

MARY SCALCO: You're more generous than me. I'd have said two. 
RICHARD FITZPATRICK: Well, if you include [INAUDIBLE], there's about six. 

STACY SOPCICH: Yeah. And well, [INAUDIBLE], there were only about 13 machines ever 

made, and there might be-- you know, how many are left? But my point is when you say 

alternative solvents, I think there is a distinction that's worthy of discussion about whether or not 

they're commercially available versus in-use. Glycholate, there's another case in point. 

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: You're referring to the definition of dry cleaning, right? 

STACY SOPCICH: Yes, going back to that. And then the-- wow, what was my other point? 

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: Are you saying we should be subtracting some of the ones with 

adding? 

STACY SOPCICH: Well, I think there might have been an unintentional consequence of naming 

some of the solvents that were available but are already off the market. Solvents-- it takes time to 

withstand the test of time to prove operational viability, managing the cost and the labor. There's 

just a lot of factors besides the solvent itself, and so some of these come, and they go, and that's 

the nature of the marketplace. So at the moment, I mean--

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: I think the FTC has to be careful, though, not to use language that 

would prohibit innovation in the industry, and currently, it kind of does. 

CHARLES RIGGS: I think the language choice is pretty clear. If you go through the FTC 

language, and you replace all those solvent examples and just say non-aqueous solvent, that 

would cover everything. So you're down to aqueous and non-aqueous. 

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: It's a non-exhaustive list. It's just examples. 

CHARLES RIGGS: And then you don't restrict new innovations because they're clearly only 

non-aqueous. So I think that one word substituted everywhere you have those listed, just say 

non-aqueous solvent. 

STACY SOPCICH: And they aren't just examples, so I think that's an issue. But the broader 

point that I was going to make is we just heard that both the standards bodies, ASTM and ISO, 

are looking to recognize alternative solvents in their sister of definitions and test methods. It 

seems prudent for the FTC to keep the rule making open long enough for those a lot of some of 

these processes to work their way. If you're going to point to a year-dated standard, and you 

promulgate the new rule and recognize non-organic solvents, for example, it won't do any good 

if the standards aren't also doing that. And so they need, I think, a little bit of time to allow that 

to catch up would be useful. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: Anyone else on this issue? All right, I think we've heard a lot of 

evidence on my last topic. Consumer understanding of care labeling symbols. Is there anything 

that anyone would like to add new? I think we've heard a lot of evidence that consumers do not 

understand care symbols, but do we have anything else to add to this? 
CHARLES RIGGS: In 1999, at the last round table, this was a topic, and we discussed various 

education methods. Clearly none of them worked. The one that I thought had the most promise, 

someone suggested that if you make this part of the kindergarten, first grade curriculum and send 

it home, then the kids could teach their parents, and it would grow by that. But that would take 

some FTC funding, I guess, to do that. But clearly, even my textual students, who clearly are the 

most interested consumers in textiles and apparel, are uninformed at the college level, so we've 

failed. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: All right, we'll now open the floor up to Q&A. We've got a question in 

the front here. Rebecca? Paul would like to address the panel. 

AUDIENCE: This is Paul Matthai, EPA. It is so much more fun to be on this side of the panel 

that it is over there. I just want to point that out. I'm going to throw something out that's really 

out there, just as a consideration in the future because every time something changes, you're 

going to have to go back and change a rule and change a rule, and it becomes catch up, and it's 

hard to do. 

Suppose you would put a bar code on the label, and each dry cleaner, each cleaner, would have a 

bar code reading. You could update it anytime. They put it in there. It tells you how to wash the 

thing, and eventually that would get into the consumer area as well. Just go off the barcode 

under. 

It says put this in this kind of wash. You just put in [INAUDIBLE], and you can always update 

without changing the regulations because you based it on standards. You just say whatever the 

current standards are. Just the thought. I'm sitting here, looking at all these things, all these 

symbols and stuff, and a barcode would just tell you right off. 

CHARLES RIGGS: You're not out there, Paul. It's been done, but not in this market. In the 

industrial market, industry uniforms, bar codes are common. Of course, the barcodes don't 

always withstand the cleaning process, and RF chips seem to be the better option. And I know at 

least one cleaner in Dallas that actually sews in an RF chip in every customer's item, so when 

they bring it back, they know when they cleaned it back and how they cleaned it and what 

problems they encountered. So it's there. 

AUDIENCE: And it just comes up, and you don't have to think. And that would help America. 

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: The use of the heat-sealed bar codes for tracking garments is 

prevalent in the industry. A lot of cleaners use that technology, and they've got pretty good at 

developing bar codes that will hold up fairly well. Your idea about actually using the barcode or 

a QR code or some kind of digital imprint to give the cleaner or the consumer-- the just take a 

picture of it, and all of a sudden, it pops up on their smartphone how do I process this textile. I 

guess that would require the manufacturers to have a database, and that would be tied back to 

that garment in some way. 

AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]. 
AMANDA KOSTNER: I think we're going to move on to our next question from the audience. 

Rebecca, you have someone back there? 

AUDIENCE: Hi, I'm Carl. I'm a garment care professional. And as I understand the discussion 

about the symbols, if the P represents all solvents and the W represents non-aqueous solvents, 

then wouldn't requiring the two symbols on there cover your entire basis of professional 

cleaning? Thus there would not be any discrepancy in the process and deception to the consumer. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: Panelists? 

STACY SOPCICH: It seems like we're going back to writing the law. I mean, the law currently 

says one method, so--

AUDIENCE: Well, the P would represent one method, but if you had both, you wouldn't have 

any-- you would cover all your bases if you had he two symbols because you would cover both 

chemical solvents and water, if you had both symbols on there. In other words, [INAUDIBLE] 

with P would [INAUDIBLE]. 

ROBERT FRISBY: Well, the discrepancy we talked about earlier had to do with the home 

washing issue, not the professional care issue. I think that's right. Natural drying, the drying is 

not a professional care issue. 

CHARLES RIGGS: If you were to require all five symbols, then you could do what you 

described, and I think it would be fair to all markets. But what was suggested earlier, which I 

object to, was requiring only one. I think you either require all five, or you leave it like it is, 

require them to put in a method. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: Next question from the back, please? 

AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]. When they do catch up with the ever-changing safety 

requirements, what Consumer Product--

AMANDA KOSTNER: Can you speak up, please? 

AUDIENCE: To catch up with the changing safety requirements, what Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, CPSC, for toys and some of the product is what they have in the rule is they have a 

set standard that they've agreed upon, and then what they've done is they say any time ASTM 

publishes new standard, they'll evaluate it. They have 90 days, and then if the Commission 

disagrees with the changes, they keep the old standard. If they agree with the changes, we work 

with the new standard. It becomes effective 90 or whatever days we decide upon. So something 

like that might be helpful if you put it in the rule, can give you the flexibility to evaluate the 

changes. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: And that is something-- I'm not sure what our ability is. We would have 

to look into that. Front row here please? 
AUDIENCE: Yes, the ques-- I mean, if we go back to where we had the recommendation is that 

consumers can be educated from in the kindergarten level, so that means it's not going to happen. 

And all that I'm hearing is that you're trying to not educate the other side of the game, which is 

the professionals. So care label will educate the professionals by telling them what symbols and 

what not, and the biggest distinction that I'm seeing is that we're almost saying that ASTM is no 

good. Go with the ISO, and if ISO is the one thing that we need to learn, and if we're vying to get 

the ISO to educate the professionals, might as well just educated the professionals, but through 

their own guidelines. And then leave the ASTM as is. 

All the other ways that if ASTM is all that not good and updated, just take the ISO and get rid of 

the ASTM because if ASTM hasn't learned enough, then just let's go with the ISO. And why 

have this dilemma of educating one side or the other side because consumers is definitely not the 

one to be educated. You cannot. 

So in this case, you're educating only the professionals. Stay with the professional. Just go with 

the one symbol. Don't make this complicated for both sides and putting ISO and ASTM and all 

those things are not needed. And you wouldn't be able to probably keep track of these changes 

going on because it's going to go on and on and on. 

MARIE D'AVIGNON: I'll say I hope that I didn't come across saying the ASTM was no good 

because I don't believe that. I do think that ASTM symbols have their own merit. There are 

certainly reasons why companies are interested in using the ISO symbols because ASTM is not 

allowed in Europe, but in other places. But it doesn't necessarily inherently mean the ASTM isn't 

a good thing already. It just is different, and we need to figure out a way to make it easier for 

companies to be able to use both or to be able to just make some kind of common ruling for it. 

ADAM MANSELL: Like they also wouldn't defend ISO in terms of its education, because the 

lack of education that there may be for ASTM from both consumers and professionals is exactly 

the same for the ISO symbols. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: We've got a question in the back corner here. 

AUDIENCE: I'm Lou Protonentis with AATCC. We've gone over and discussed ASTM versus 

ISO symbols and changing them, adding five of them versus two and crossing them out, and we 

just came back to our central point a little while ago about the final point of this. Both y'all from 

the FTC have been good about pointing us back, focusing us on the final aspect of this is 

protection of the consumer. 

But we just talked about education and kind of just threw it out the window. How can we do any 

of this, whatever decision that comes out of this? The final point should be the education of it, so 

whatever law we change, whatever symbols we choose, I don't see how we can eliminate some 

form of education, whether it starts at kindergarten or there starts at college students. But there 

has to be some form of education. Otherwise, everything we do, we might as well go to the 

definition of insanity. 
AMANDA KOSTNER: And the Commission-- I mean, we would be interested in learning how 

to better educate consumers. When the rule was revised the last time, education-- we did attempt 

to educate consumers, and now we're hearing from various people that it hasn't worked. So are 

there other suggestions beyond starting in kindergarten? What can we do? 

ADAM MANSELL: There's only one part of this industry that has the reach and the resources to 

do that, and they're called retailers. 

AUDIENCE: We're talking. We have the retailers now. We have a greater vested interest in it. 

We've got a panel here that are working out with the dry cleaners and the wet cleaners. We have 

a larger group of people that's willing to help. So somebody goes to a store, they have a captive 

audience being able to educate. So every time they go in, they learn something. 

Next time they come in, they're better educated. They make a more educated decision for that 

purchase, then they make a better educated decision for the other purchases. And then they start 

telling their friends. There's various aspects of it. There's various [INAUDIBLE] educated. I just 

don't want us to throw the baby out with the bath water. 

Even if we haven't done it before, we can't do it again and again. There other options. There's 

other parameters. There's other people that can do it. I just want us to keep focusing on 

[INAUDIBLE]. 

CHARLES RIGGS: The things that have worked-- the retail packaging has certainly helped a 

lot. I think some of the external packaging has a lot of information from some manufacturers 

about the symbols and what they mean, and I think most machine manufacturers for homeowner 

machines now have the symbols in the door, tell you what to do with them. And they may have 

dots on the dial instead of hot, warm, and cold, so you know that they're picking up parts of it. 

But in general, it's very frustrating to be stopped somewhere on the street, or in my case in a 

classroom, how poorly informed they are. 

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: I think companies like Procter and Gamble, too, could play a big 

part in educating consumers. Manufacturers of household cleaning products that are used for the 

care of textiles obviously have a big vested interests that the consumer knows how to use their 

products. While education is a great topic to focus on, I don't see huge crowds of people walking 

down the street with ruined garments. People seem to be managing with their limited knowledge 

of the symbols as they are right now. I think it's important to provide as much education, but I 

think we're not idiots. We seem to be able to wash most of our clothes and get the rest dry 

cleaned adequately. 

CHARLES RIGGS: The usually don't wear their ruined ones. 

RICHARD FITZPATRICK: Well, yeah. 

ALAN SPIELVOGEL: You might want to put some type of tag on the garment with a link to the 

FTC site that explains the whole thing if anybody, consumers interested. 
AMANDA KOSTNER: Yeah. All right, I'll take another question from the audience, please. 

AUDIENCE: I represent a manufacturer, and I wanted to address a-- I have a question. There 

was something that you had said. The proposal said that if we use the ASTM symbols, we don't 

need to identify them, and if we use the ISO, we do need to identify them. So my question to you 

is what is the FTC's objective to offering to use both sets of symbols on the label? What started 

that off? And then I have a suggestion. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: I'm going to defer to Robert on this one. 

ROBERT FRISBY: In reviewing the rule making record, the comments we received earlier in 

the process, a number of the commenters urged the Commission to try to have greater 

harmonization internationally to facilitate trade in textiles. And so a number of the commenters 

urged the Commission to go with ISO, and there were some that urged the Commission to allow 

the use of both systems. And that's what the Commission ultimately decided to propose, was the 

use of both systems, but there was a concern about the fact that consumers, at least in theory, had 

more experience with ASTM symbols given that they were permissible over 10 years ago. And I 

think that led the Commission to propose this additional disclosure requirement for ISO, but we 

want to know. And it sounds like there's not a lot of support for that in the comments we 

received more recently, and so we want to get the views of people here about whether that's 

worth doing or unnecessary or what have you. 

AUDIENCE: So here's my suggestion. So like I said, I work for a major manufacturer. I've 

worked for them for 22 years, and I think they were in existence about 30 years. They've never 

used ASTM symbols ever because the consumer doesn't understand them. But under the FTC 

regulations, we're allowed to either put it in the English language, in words, or use the symbols, 

so we opt to put it in English for the American consumer. 

We recently went into Europe, and I'm right in with Genentech and ISO, and I know them inside 

out at this point. And we got tired making labels for the same style that's going to the US, and 

then a different label for the same style going to Europe, so we decided to invent what we're 

calling our global label. And we are currently putting ISO symbols on it with the English 

language to satisfy the US and to satisfy the European. 

So to answer the question about whether we need to identify if we're allowed to use both sets of 

symbols, do we need to identify them? No, we don't need to identify them. As Americans for the 

American market, we have the option to use ASTM symbols or English words, and I guarantee 

you, I do a lot of benchmarking, and not many US manufacturers are using ASTM symbols. So I 

don't think you need to identify them. 

ROBERT FRISBY: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you last point. 

AUDIENCE: I don't think you need to identify which symbols you're using. 

ROBERT FRISBY: I hear you. OK. 
AMANDA KOSTNER: So I have seven more minutes. How many questions are there in the 

room? All right, I see two hands. 

AUDIENCE: Hi, I'm Jennifer Morgan, and I work for one of those big retailers, JC Penney. And 

we've tried various things over the years to try and educate our customers about care. We don't 

sell outside the United States, So we're limited to what we do here. We did try one brand 

specifically on our Intimates to just use the symbols, and our customers complained so much 

about it. They had no idea. 

So when you talk about education, I think one of the things you need to look at is utilizing social 

media. As a retailer, every penny is huge, and putting a hang tag, putting a bigger label, putting 

everything, costs us, our customers, and our manufactures a lot of money. But what we're finding 

now, and we do a lot with the CPSC, is if we utilize our social media, our Facebook and that, we 

have a huge number of our customers that see that, and I think that would be a great way, going 

forward, to educate. It's the way of the future, is utilize the social media. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: I saw another question over here. 

AUDIENCE: Hi, I'm Peggy Gordon Armstrong from LL Bean, and I'm in support of the FTC 

allowing the ISO symbols to make it easier for us to sell in the US and also have the symbols for 

other countries that would accept those symbols. But if you were to allow either ASTM or ISO, 

then the FTC guidance on the maximum number of symbols allowed would be helpful just as a 

guidance document, is what my suggestion would be. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: Does anyone who sells overseas have an issue with too many symbols 

on their garments? 

AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: I don't know. For a consumer. 

AUDIENCE: ISO you have [INAUDIBLE]. 

STACY SOPCICH: I guess a question I would have is my understanding was that the 

Commission was looking at adopting the symbols, but not the system or the standard. There's a 

big difference, in my mind, between those two, and I feel like we're talking on both sides of it. 

Are we talking about adapting the standard or the symbol? 

ROBERT FRISBY: It's the symbols, but they have to be used in compliance with the rule. So 

reasonable basis would still be required for a Do Not, Do Not whatever, or a maximum. 

STACY SOPCICH: It's a very simple proposition, really. 

ADAM MANSELL: You're adopting the graphics, not the standard . 

ROBERT FRISBY: That's right. 
AMANDA KOSTNER: Any other questions? 

AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]. 

ROBERT FRISBY: No, the rule permits the use of ASTM symbols in lieu of written 

instructions, but it doesn't prohibit extra information. 

AUDIENCE: OK, so I have written instructions in English, and I have [INAUDIBLE]. 

ROBERT FRISBY: That would not violate the rule, as long as you have a reasonable basis for 

all the instructions. 

AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]. 

AUDIENCE: So this question for the panel. I'm [INAUDIBLE]. I think the question was 

whether to adopt the latest standards versus to a specific standard because FTC wants to have 

jurisdiction over the standards. I think the latest standards, whatever is the latest standards, 

because the technology is changing, so the ASTM and the AATCC are the two organized 

governing bodies here, which make the standards which the industry in general, whether it's a 

testing lab or a regular [INAUDIBLE], they keep on changing the standards because the 

technology's changing. So if we just stick ourselves to an old standard, the problem is we're 

going back to the same problem, which we have right now, where we are still using 96C symbols 

as opposed to in the year 2014, so that's one of the aspects of it. 

The other aspect is the care labeling instructions just provide us about the care labeling rule just 

provides us about the rule. It doesn't say when we can accept or reject the product. For accepting 

or rejecting the product, we still rely on the standards set up by the governing bodies like the 

AATCC or the ASTM. So if it's a grade three and banned from a testing lab, for example, I 

would refer back to the AATCC test [INAUDIBLE] grade three or grade 3.5, whichever I have 

based on the industry practice [INAUDIBLE] reject the product for care labeling requirement 

based on those standards, and if those standards change, we'll automatically change our way of 

testing, too, in the way they change. So if we keep ourselves confined to a 2005 standard for our 

ISO or 96C for an ASTM, we are basically reverting back to our outdated style of working in 

this age. 

And the third aspect is we can also look at the FTC textile labeling rules, which really doesn't say 

refer to any ASTM or AATCC standards. It gives us the regulations. It also tells us to accept ISO 

generic names for certain fibers, and it doesn't really tell us whether you should test to ASTM or 

ISO standards. By default, we all go to test to ASTM for the AATCC standards, and as they keep 

on changing, they keep on adding new fibers in the industry. 

AATCC also makes the changes how to identify those fibers. We use that test method, so by 

default, maybe AATCC can think of that this is the standard and that this is the rule. And in case 

of any dispute or questions, you refer back to American standard body ASTM or AATCC 

because the reasonable basis requirement is only for FTC. 
Europe, care instructions is voluntary. Canada, care instructions is voluntary. So the reasonable 

basis requirement, it's a regulatory requirement in the US, so we would have to think of that, 

whether it makes more sense to adopt to the latest standards and not just refer to a particular year 

to that standard. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: I think we have one minute. Does anyone have anything to say? 

MARIE D'AVIGNON: I'll just add real quickly, as you mentioned the new changes to the fiber 

rules say that you can now use the updated ISO generic names. If someone puts on their label a 

Elastane instead of Spandex, which is the ISO name, you don't have to say this is the ISO name 

Elastane. You just say Elastane, and you expect that people in the United States either will 

understand it or not really care enough to have to specify that it's the ISO name and not the name 

by ASTM. So why would we necessarily need to express it this way for care symbols if we don't 

care about the generic names? 

ROBERT FRISBY: It sounds like no one is in favor of that proposal. 

AMANDA KOSTNER: All right. Well, thank you. We have a 15 minute break. We will be 

starting at 2:30 for our final panel. Thank you.