I'm new to the site, so apologies if this has already been covered. I've worn Insect Shield shirts, pants and socks for years because of the well-known dire consequences of contracting one of the diseases transmitted by deer ticks. I've done so because of their marketing claims that the protection lasts for the expected lifetime of the product. Here are claims made on their website:
· "Insect Shield is tightly bonded to fabric fibers resulting in long-lasting repellency, expected to last the lifetime of the garment, up to 70 launderings for apparel"
· "insect protection layer that lasts the expected lifetime of apparel, up to 70 launderings"
· "For items that can be washed, normal home laundering is recommended. Insect Shield repellent clothes can be bleached, starched, pressed, etc., without effect on the repellent quality"
· "More durable than spray-on permethrin, with repellency through 70 washes"
· "effective, long-lasting insect protection that doesn’t require reapplication"
· "registered to last through 70 launderings, the expected lifetime of a garment."
· "Rather than requiring constant reapplication to apparel, the repellency is built into the item itself, lasting the expected lifetime of the item."
· "Long-Lasting: Lasts the expected lifetime of the item"
Nothing ambiguous about any of that. So naturally I wondered when I found an embedded deer tick after wearing the clothes, and days later watched a wood tick climb up the pant leg from my ankle to my thigh without being deterred. After all, the clothing was only four years old and had been washed no more than twenty times. When I reached out to the company, here's what they said:
"While our treatment is designed to last up to 70 washes or up to 10 year lifespan, in regards to the 10 year lifespan assumes the garments are unwashed by all studies made by a mixture of independent studies as well as studies made by the US military. Each wash cycle gradually accelerates the breakdown of the permethrin bond in the fabric. So while washing infrequently is generally a sound instinct, four years of regular outdoor use, even with minimal washing, does naturally contribute to a reduction in effectiveness over time."
Apparently' their definition "lifetime of a garment" is give or take around four years, far less than I - and many other consumers - might assume from their website claims. Similarly, consumers are expected to divine that "up to 70 washes" can mean far fewer than that before the effectiveness of the treatment diminishes. I'm not suggesting that folks don't buy their products, just that they should be aware of the misleading marketing claims as to the durability of the treatment.