As INDA literature explains, there are all sorts of products
made from nonwovens that shouldn’t be flushed down a toilet, and back when this intra-industry debate began, it was a
question of whether the definition of“flushable” would be decided by INDA/EDANA; INDA and/or EDANA in collaboration
with an independent standard-setting body; or, as last resort,
governmental bodies responding to problems at POTWs due
to clogs.
In developing an industry guidance suitable for labeling prod-
ucts“flushable,” INDA notes: “In 2008, we issued the first Guid-
ance Document to help wipe manufacturers assess whether their
products should be flushed into the wastewater stream.” This is
known in industry as GD 1.”
INDA’s fourth edition of these guidelines on which it is col-
laborating with POTW representatives will include more strin-
gent test methods and labeling practices. The association has also
submitted its guidance documents for consideration as ANSI rec-
ommendations to ISO under the TC224/WG10 project.
Legal Efforts
Stepping away from the complicated process of technical standards and specifications, there is also a real time court case
that’s directly related to this issue.
Last October the Federal Court for the Eastern District
of New York paused a proposed class action lawsuit leveled
against Kimberly-Clark, Procter & Gamble, Costco, CVS and
Wal-Mart for misbranding wipes that meet INDA/EDANA
flushability guidelines. Two plaintiffs—Joseph Kurtz of Brooklyn, NY, and Anthony Belfiore of Great Neck, LI—claim their
plumbing systems were damaged by wipes that were falsely
labeled as“flushable.” Other consumers in the potential class
action are seeking to recoup the extra money they spent for
wipes labeled “flushable” even though the more expensive
wipes performed pretty much the same as ordinary wipes
when flushed.
In issuing the stay, Judge Jack Weinstein determined that the
U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is most capable of developing a definition for flushability that protects consumers. He
paused the case, therefore, until FTC had more time to develop
a definition for the term.
About a month later, plaintiff’s attorneys moved to lift the
stay after a settlement agreement was reached between FTC
and Nice-Pak Products Inc. (see Nonwovens Industry, Capitol
Comments, July 2015). The agreement prevents Nice-Pak from
marketing — or inducing others to market—wipes as flushable
unless there’s proof that the product“disperses in a sufficiently
short amount of time after flushing to avoid clogging, or other
operational problems in household and municipal sewage lines,
septic systems and other standard wastewater equipment.”
This, according to plaintiffs, was the FTC definition that Judge
Weinstein sought.
Not so fast, the Judge ruled last December, “The adoption
of a definition of ‘flushable’ between Nice-Pak and the FTC,”
Weinstein wrote, “does not address the concern with the de-
velopment of a uniform and nationally applicable definition in
related cases.” The Judge went on to explain his view that the
FTC agreement only relates to Nice-Pak and his belief that the
commission was continuing its investigation. Until FTC issues
a more inclusive stance on the issue, therefore, this class action
effort remains stalled.
As part of the Kurtz case, consumers’ attorneys argued that
GD3:“…really takes us to the next step because once the manufacturers took control of INDA, what they have done is – and
this is the scientific aspect of it – they have created their own
testing methodologies that they knew their products would
pass” with little consideration as to what happens after the wipe
passes through the toilet.
Of course, INDA has used third-party testing in developing the current guidelines and the inclusion of members of the
wastewater industry should hopefully put an end to accusations
that these guidelines are self-serving to the nonwovens industry alone.
As INDA’s director of Education and Technical Affairs, Jim
Loftus, writes: “Industry and Wastewater professionals contin-
ue to work through the fourth edition Guidance Document fo-
cusing on the Municipal Pump Test (FG507) and the Slosh Box
(FG502). We believe that if we continue to have good dialog
and continue with both lab and field work, there is no reason
why we can’t reach an agreement by the end of 2016.”
Loftus further explains that INDA sees the GD4 process as a
means of developing“…an overall agreement between waste-
water and industry [which] would be a win. It’s not really ISO
agreeing with anyone – it’s the parties and countries involved
within this ISO workgroup that create all the agreements. As
long as countries and individual wastewater/industry entities
can come to an agreement – this is a win.”
When asked if the North American nonwovens industry
would continue to support efforts to develop a flushability spec-
ification in conjunction with an independent standard-setting
body if the ISO process fails to produce a global specification,
Loftus replied: “Although I haven’t polled industry members,
there really is no reason not to do this. We would have to think
through it however.
“The nice thing about the INDA/EDANA guidance document
is that it is global … so that even if we went through ANSI,
which is more U.S. centric, there would still be a need to deal
with potential global issues and concerns. ANSI may or may not
be willing to do that. In addition, the Guidance Document is
only one part of the overall industry Code of Practice for flushable wipes.
The development and implementation of international standards can only help the industry’s efforts to regulate what goes
down the toilet. Meanwhile, INDA’s and EDANA’s efforts to
work with wastewater treatment organizations, not only on
testing guidelines but labeling practices, and other stakeholders
should help the consumers know the difference. n
