“Fewer adjectives, more evidence”: Hohenstein Americas MD on the future of clothing tags

Do terms like “performance,” “breathable,” “durable” and others on clothing tags actually mean anything? And how can consumers know from the label itself which claims are fake and which ones are based on scientifically proven facts?

FashionUnited spoke with Ben Mead, managing director at Hohenstein Americas about ‘safe’ claims for brands, red flags for consumers, fibre fragmentation, traceability and more. Hohenstein Americas is a subsidiary of Hohenstein, a founding Oeko-Tex member institute that tests and certifies products to Oeko-Tex standards.

Could you describe your role and what brought you to your current position?

I am the managing director of Hohenstein Americas, so I work with brands, retailers and suppliers to verify what their products are made of and how they perform. I came from the brand side after studying chemistry at North Carolina State University and earning a green chemistry certificate from the University of Washington. Early in my career, I helped build Nike's restricted substances programme and worked with groups like the Textile Exchange and AFIRM (Apparel and Footwear International RSL Management).

“What traceability cannot do is verify itself. The information is only as good as the data and testing behind it.”

The question that followed me everywhere was performance. It is one thing to claim comfort, sustainability or durability, and another to show how it holds up when someone actually wears it, washes it and depends on it. When the chance came to join Hohenstein, it was an easy call. After years of using lab data to make decisions, I knew the difference between a lab that runs tests and one that develops them.

Could you describe what kind of claims are ‘safe’ for brands and retailers to use and which ones are an absolute no-go?

The safest claims are specific, science-based and tied to a defined property that a trusted, independent party tested. They are based on relevant and regularly updated standards and independently verifiable. They consider the user's situation and applicable regulations.

The no-goes are the broad feel-good words with nothing behind them, like eco-friendly, green and conscious. Regulators in Europe have moved to ban that kind of language, and US courts are full of cases about it. If you cannot point to the data and explain the method behind the claim, don’t use it.

What terms should be red flags for consumers when they are making a purchasing decision?

Vague adjectives with no evidence. ‘Sustainable,' ‘responsible' and ‘natural,' on their own, tell you nothing. Performance claims are the same. ‘Cooling,' 'quick-dry' and ‘durable' are relative at best. Watch for self-invented badges, like a little green leaf icon, because those are built to look like certifications without being one.

“When physical testing disagrees with a record, it is not always fraud.”

And be careful with claims about one ingredient doing the work for the whole product, like “made with recycled materials” when it is 5 percent of the garment. If a label makes you feel good but cannot tell you what was tested, by whom and against what standard, that is your flag.

When measuring fibre fragmentation, what specific fabric structures or yarn types consistently perform the worst, regardless of their sustainability claims?

From our research, the worst performers are short staple fibres, low-twist yarns, fleece, brushed fabrics and recycled fibre. Most make sense: Loose fibre ends are more readily released. The one that surprises people is recycled fibre. Recycling weakens the fibre, so a garment with a strong sustainability story can still be one of the heaviest shedders in the wash. The only way to know is to measure it.

Further to claim failures: When testing a brand's performance claims (e.g., ‘cooling,’ ‘stretch-recovery,’ or 'waterproof’), what is the most common reason a garment fails the lab standard on its first run?

Usually one of three things: The claim was tested on the fabric instead of the finished garment, where seams, trims and construction change the result. Or it was tested without considering the user and their environment. Or physics could never support the desired claim, but the material and garment construction got locked in early. In some cases, test methods are reliable, but so simplified that they cannot differentiate truly high performance.

Are there standardised test methods that brands deliberately select because they are easier to pass or yield more flattering scores than real-world wear conditions would suggest?

Yes. Vertical wicking, dry time, spray tests, water column, the cup methods for breathability, air permeability. All of them are legitimate methods, but they test flat fabric under controlled conditions, and that is not the same thing as a garment on a moving, sweating person. Many of these methods, for example, prove wicking performance but what consumers really want is something like cooling or comfort. More complete testing is needed to express a complex performance like that. The honest approach is to pick the method that matches how the product is used.

In terms of data integrity and traceability: What can digital traceability actually tell about where a product comes from and how to make it last?

Done well, it makes the whole supply chain visible and accountable. It records what a product is made of and where, which helps consumers and businesses make informed decisions. A physical tag holds only so much, and it can fall off. A digital record can include full material content, care and repair guidance that extends a garment's life and the detail a recycler needs to recover the material at the end of life. It can also be updated after the product ships, which a printed label cannot. You cannot have real transparency without traceability. What traceability cannot do is verify itself. The information is only as good as the data and testing behind it.

What are the key red flags in testing documentation or transaction certificates that indicate a factory swapped certified raw materials for lower-grade alternatives during production?

This is something you cannot always see, because someone who wants to cheat will put a lot of effort into it. Sometimes it is as simple as something looking strange on the documents - the fonts, the formatting or the dates. Or a company drags its feet producing requested documentation. The way to catch it is a control or spot-check testing program, which can be done cost-effectively and still keeps companies accountable. The best way to prevent it is to build strong, mutually beneficial relationships with factories, so there is never a reason to cut corners in the first place.

In terms of physical vs. digital disconnect, how often does physical forensic testing contradict the digital tracking data provided on a product's QR code or passport?

That depends entirely on how well the data was captured in the first place. A QR code or a digital passport carries whatever is entered upstream. It cannot verify itself. When physical testing disagrees with a record, it is not always fraud. Sometimes it is a substitution that happened somewhere and was never communicated, or contamination that entered during processing. That is why testing and analysis matters. It is the independent check that keeps the digital record honest.

In your opinion, what kind of marketing language will we see on clothing tags five years from now?

Fewer adjectives, more evidence. I think the vague words largely disappear, because regulation and litigation make them too expensive to use. Specific and verifiable claims will replace them, probably a QR code that links to what the product is made of, how it was tested and who verified it. Instead of “breathable,” the actual number. Instead of “durable,” how many washes it survived. Most brands will find that beneficial for sourcing, liability and marketing.

The interview was conducted in written format.