However, Specsavers believes it has found a model that can scale. The optical retailer has expanded its recycling scheme to all UK stores, adding around 300 locations to an initiative first introduced in 2022.

The move means customers can now drop off unwanted glasses, cases, cleaning cloths, contact lenses and contact lens packaging at every Specsavers branch, regardless of where the products were originally purchased.

In 2025, the scheme collected and recycled 72 tonnes of material from 659 stores and laboratories, almost five tonnes more than the previous year.

For Specsavers’ head of sustainability for the UK and Ireland Helen Curran, the scheme grew out of a gap in the market rather than a regulatory requirement.

“Products like glasses and contact lenses do not really fit into standard recycling schemes,” she said. While donation schemes for reusable spectacles have existed for years, there was no straightforward route for glasses, cases, cloths, contact lenses and blister packs to be handled together.

“We saw an opportunity to make it easier for customers and operationally easier for ourselves.”

Turning optical waste into raw materials

One question facing many retailer recycling schemes is what actually happens to the waste once it disappears into a collection box.

Specsavers’ programme is run with recycling specialist MYGroup, which separates and processes the material at its UK operation in Hull. According to Curran, the scheme captures a broad mix of products, from old spectacles and cases to contact lens packaging and worn lenses.

The retailer operates two collection streams: customer-facing recycling boxes in stores and separate collection points within its laboratories. The lab stream is designed to capture higher-value materials such as dummy lenses used in the manufacturing process.

Specsavers does not currently separate its reporting between customer returns and internally generated waste, nor does it break down the 72 tonnes by material type. Likewise, the company was unable to provide a figure for what proportion of its total UK waste footprint the scheme represents.

What it can say is that much of this material would previously have entered general waste streams.

“If a company was using a different partner that only took glasses and reused them in a developing country, you would only really use around 20 to 30 per cent of those frames,” Curran said. Cases, cloths, contact lenses and blister packs would typically have been discarded through conventional waste routes.

The collected material is ground down and repurposed into products including joinery boards and furniture. While the recycled content is not currently being incorporated back into Specsavers products, the company has worked with MYGroup to produce Specsavers-branded pens made from material recovered through the scheme.

“It is important for people to be able to say, ‘Wait, waste made this?'” Curran said.

The commercial case for sustainability

While sustainability projects are often presented as purely environmental initiatives, Curran argues that waste reduction and commercial efficiency increasingly go hand in hand.

“If we look at general waste for a commercial business, it costs more to have more general waste bins,” she said. “Recycling costs less.”

That thinking appears to be informing a wider sustainability programme across the business. Earlier this year, Specsavers won Retail Week’s Green Initiative of the Year award for changes to its ophthalmic lens manufacturing process. The project reduced hard-to-recycle plastic waste by 107 tonnes a year and cut annual carbon emissions by 230 tonnes through changes to lens production and stock management.

The retailer is also pursuing broader environmental targets. According to its sustainability commitments, Specsavers is targeting net-zero emissions across scopes 1, 2 and 3 by 2050, with interim goals to reduce operational emissions by 50% and supply-chain emissions by 25% by 2030.

Curran said the company is increasingly focused on reducing waste before it is created, particularly through packaging changes and material efficiency.

“This programme is just one area where we are looking to reduce waste overall, both by improving our recycling rates and looking at waste at source.”

The growing regulatory burden is also shaping decision-making. With measures such as digital product passports and wider sustainability reporting requirements moving up the agenda across Europe, Curran said the priority is understanding what data businesses need and ensuring suppliers are part of the process.

“Any big business will have the majority of its emissions sitting in scope three,” she said. “It is about working with suppliers.”

For Specsavers, the challenge appears less about persuading customers to participate than making participation simple. The company says customer feedback has been positive, although it has not published formal participation figures.

“I think everybody wants to do the right thing,” Curran said. “You just have to make it easy and accessible for them.”

As retailers face growing scrutiny over waste, packaging and supply-chain transparency, Specsavers shows the test lies in whether businesses can make these initiatives easy enough to become routine.

Click here to sign up to Retail Gazette‘s free daily email newsletter

The company will now give shoppers the option to claim up to 50 per cent of the original purchase price back in cash, depending on the condition of the tent when it is returned.

The scheme previously allowed customers to buy a Decathlon tent before a festival, use it across the weekend and return it to a participating store in exchange for the value back as a gift card.

The offer will run until 6 September, with returned tents in good condition assessed, cleaned and resold through Decathlon’s Second Life programme.

Decathlon launched the initiative to tackle the growing problem of festivalgoers treating tents as single-use items and leaving them behind to end up in landfill.

Decathlon UK sustainability leader Chris Allen said: “Our No Tent Left Behind scheme goes from strength to strength each year.

“What started as a small-scale initiative has become an important part of how we approach camping and festivals more broadly, encouraging customers to return used equipment, keep valuable materials in circulation, and give more products a second chapter through our Second Life programme.

“This year, we’re helping customers’ pockets as well as our planet. With our new one-hour bank transfer service, we’re providing the flexibility and value needed to turn unused gear into new adventures.”

The campaign is being backed by radio broadcaster Edith Bowman, whose work includes covering Glastonbury.

Bowman said: “From festival fields to family camping trips, great gear should be used and enjoyed again and again.

“Decathlon’s Tent Pledge makes it easy for people to pass tents on, give them a second life, and help keep the spirit of adventure going long after the weekend ends.”

Decathlon is continuing to build out its circular retail offer across multiple categories.

Earlier this year, the retailer expanded its BuyBack service by allowing customers to trade in unwanted or outgrown bikes for instant money back for the first time.

Customers can bring bikes from any brand into a UK Decathlon store, where staff assess the condition and offer a quote. The retailer has also launched an online quick quote tool, giving shoppers an estimated value before completing the full trade-in process.

For 2026, Decathlon has introduced a one-hour bank transfer payment option across BuyBack, giving customers cash for their unwanted gear. Shoppers can also choose a gift card to spend in store or online.

The BuyBack scheme, which launched in 2023, now covers products across up to 15 sports, including fitness equipment, racquet sports, golf, horse riding, GPS watches, camping gear, kayaks and paddleboards.

More than 10,000 items have been returned since the scheme launched, with Decathlon refurbishing products before reselling them through its Second Life range at a reduced price.

Allen previously said the service was designed to help customers’ “pockets as well as our planet”, while making it easier to turn unused sports equipment into “new adventures”.

Click here to sign up to Retail Gazette‘s free daily email newsletter

Following consultation with industry stakeholders, manual return points will receive a handling fee of 3p per container returned.

For automated return points using reverse vending machines (RVMs), a tiered payment structure has been agreed. Operators will receive 5p per container for up to 225,000 eligible containers returned annually, with returns above that threshold attracting a fee of 1.3p per container.

EcoVend, part of Reconomy, managing director Tarvis Way said the confirmation represented an important milestone for businesses preparing for DRS.

“For retailers, having greater clarity on the financial framework now will help support investment decisions and operational planning ahead of the scheme’s launch in 2027,” Way said.

“It is encouraging to see a tiered approach that recognises the different realities facing retailers of varying sizes and return volumes.

“Reflecting the distinction between manual return points and reverse vending machine operators should help ensure the scheme remains practical and accessible across a diverse retail landscape.

“The commitment to review fees before launch and on an ongoing basis will also be important.

Way added: “As businesses gain experience of operating within the scheme, it is vital that the fee structure continues to reflect real-world costs and supports high levels of participation, helping to deliver the strong return rates needed to create a more circular economy.”

The announcement comes as the latest update to the scheme, scheduled to launch across England, Scotland and Northern Ireland in October 2027, with retailers and operators continuing preparations for its rollout.

In April, Exchange for Change confirmed that a flat 20p deposit will apply to all in-scope drinks containers, after research conducted by the not-for-profit scheme administrator found deposit levels below 15p were unlikely to provide a strong enough incentive to meet the target of returning 90% of containers within three years

Click here to sign up to Retail Gazette‘s free daily email newsletter

The judicial review was brought by the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers and the British Meat Processors Association, which challenged the basis on which the regulator calculates and recovers charges for food hygiene and safety controls.

Presiding over the case, Mrs Justice Dias found that the FSA had been levying charges unlawfully.

The agency accepted that the court must quash the hourly rates applied to official controls and enforcement activities, as well as the supporting cost data used to calculate those rates.

Industry groups argued that businesses had been required to fund inefficiencies within the inspection system, including costs linked to contractor management arrangements.

It is understood further arguments about the ruling, which focuses on what activities and personnel can lawfully be included within the charges paid by slaughterhouses, will now be heard on the precise terms of the court order.

The case comes against the backdrop of rising regulatory costs for the sector. According to the claimants, annual charges for official controls currently total around £64m, with fees increasing by 24% this year, a sharp rise in an industry operating on low profit margins.

FSA chief executive Katie Pettifer said: “We have carefully considered the court’s judgment in the judicial review brought by AIMS regarding our meat inspection charges. 

“While the ruling does not challenge the principle that we can charge for meat inspection, we are disappointed with its conclusions about how charges are calculated. We acted in good faith in calculating our charge rates and in presenting the information we publish about them and are seeking leave to appeal the judgment.

“While the majority of our charges will not be in dispute, the ruling does create some uncertainty over some elements. We know businesses will want clarity on what this will ultimately mean in practice, and we will provide further information as quickly as the legal process allows.

“Food safety is non-negotiable. Our Official Vets and Meat Hygiene Inspectors carry out essential work every day that protects public health, upholds animal welfare, and underpins the £11.3 billion meat industry. That will not change.”

Among other risks, the industry warned such soaring costs will add to cost of living obstacles, food inflation and the fear it will endanger the viability of many slaughterhouses.

AIMS executive direcor Jason Aldiss said: “The judgment must now mark the beginning of a complete reset in the relationship between the regulator and the meat industry, founded upon legality, proportionality, transparency and scientific risk-based regulation.”

Meanwhile, John Powell, chief executive of BMPA, welcomed the ruling and said it exposed weaknesses in the FSA’s charging policy. He said the association would work with the regulator to establish a fairer and more transparent approach to delivering official controls.

NFU President Tom Bradshaw added: “Today’s ruling is a hugely significant outcome for the livestock sector and is a brilliant result for the meat industry, the NFU and our members. This has been a key issue we’ve consistently raised with government over many months due to the pressure these charges put on abattoirs.”

“The NFU has long‑held the view that these charges on abattoirs risk seriously impacting the wider livestock sector. It has consistently urged government to carry out a full review of the FSA’s charging regime to ensure that charges are fair and equitable and do not disadvantage UK businesses.

“Since the outbreak of the war in the Middle East the NFU has also asked government to postpone these charges and adopt a different approach to help ease cost pressures on livestock farmers.”

Click here to sign up to Retail Gazette‘s free daily email newsletter

The resale app has benefited from the growing popularity of second-hand shopping during the cost of living crisis, with YouGov Profiles data showing that a third of Britons buy used items at least once every three months.

Vinted has become one of the biggest winners from this shift, particularly in fashion, where it has built strong consumer recognition and appeal.

According to YouGov BrandIndex, Vinted recorded an Impression score of 27.3, more than double the average UK clothing and apparel brand score of 12.3.

The platform also significantly outperformed fashion retailers on Value, scoring 21.3 compared with an industry average of 3.5, while its Quality score of 13.7 was slightly ahead of the fashion sector average of 13.0.

Customer sentiment towards the marketplace was also strong, with Vinted registering a Satisfaction score of 24.3, compared with an average of 10.4 across clothing and apparel brands.

However, YouGov said fashion is only one of the categories Vinted is targeting as it looks to support the “normalisation of second-hand” shopping.

The company has already moved into areas such as technology and books, and YouGov data suggests its brand appeal could translate beyond clothing.

Vinted’s Impression score of 27.3 was ahead of both high street retailers, at 16.4, and general retailers, at 12.5.

The marketplace also performed strongly on Value, scoring 21.3 compared with 6.4 for both high street and general retailers.

Its Satisfaction score of 24.3 was also ahead of high street retailers at 15.2 and general retailers at 12.0.

Vinted underperformed high street retailers on Quality, with a score of 13.7 compared with 15.1, although YouGov noted that the platform is competing with new products while selling second-hand goods. It still scored higher than general retailers, which recorded 10.8.

The research also found that Vinted is more than twice as likely to be considered by consumers than brands across the clothing, high street and general retail sectors.

Vinted’s Consideration score stood at 33.9, compared with 9.4 for clothing and apparel brands, 15.3 for high street retailers and 12.5 for general retailers.

YouGov said the platform’s combination of low prices, broad product range and sustainability-led positioning could give it appeal well beyond fashion as demand for second-hand shopping continues to grow.

Click here to sign up to Retail Gazette‘s free daily email newsletter

Click here to sign up to Retail Gazette‘s free daily email newsletter

A new cold-brew tea bag from Lipton Teas & Infusions suggests how far that change could go. Designed to be dropped into a refillable water bottle, it turns plain tap water into flavoured iced tea, aimed at consumers who already carry reusable bottles and rarely think twice about filling up from the tap.

The product also comes amid the rise of Gen Z becoming a core drinking cohort, growing scrutiny over single-use plastic and a drive from retailers and suppliers to reduce cost and made the supply chain more efficient.

And for Lipton, it is also a bet that tea can move beyond its traditional hot-drink identity without losing what made it a staple in the first place.

Retail Gazette sat down with at Lipton Teas & Infusions UK&I CMO Elle Barker, who explains how the brand is thinking about demand, regulation and the future shape of the category.

1. Your new cold-brew tea bag range targets what you call the “tap water occasion”. How significant is this shift away from ready-to-drink beverages for your overall supply chain and distribution strategy?

We see this less as a shift away from ready-to-drink and more as the opening up of a new and fast-growing occasion.

Hydration is one of the biggest drivers in the beverage space today, with consumers increasingly looking for products that fit seamlessly into their everyday routines while still delivering on taste and wellness. Within that, what we’re calling the “tap water occasion” is particularly interesting — it’s about enhancing something people are already doing multiple times a day, rather than asking them to adopt a completely new behaviour

Younger consumers are a big part of this. They are typically heavier water drinkers and are also more engaged with trends around customisation, function and flavour. At the same time, they’re leading the shift towards sustainability, with growing adoption of refillable bottles and a desire to reduce reliance on single-use plastic. That combination creates a clear opportunity to rethink how we deliver refreshment

Cold-brew tea bags are a very natural fit for that space. They allow consumers to transform tap water into something more interesting and enjoyable, without needing refrigeration, additional packaging or a ready-made beverage. In contrast to traditional ready-to-drink formats, this approach can significantly reduce packaging intensity and associated environmental impact, which is an increasingly important consideration across the beverage industry.

Ultimately, the goal is to make hydration more enjoyable while aligning with how people want to live today. If we can help consumers drink more water, enjoy it more, and do so with less reliance on plastic packaging, that’s a win both for the category and for the environment.

2. Gen Z is driving demand for cold tea and healthier options. How is this influencing your long-term product development?

Gen Z is definitely accelerating change in the category, but we see it as an opportunity rather than a challenge for tea.

Tea is uniquely well positioned to meet a lot of the needs we’re seeing from younger consumers. At its core, it’s naturally low-calorie, often zero-calorie, and free from artificial ingredients, which aligns very well with the shift towards cleaner, more functional drinks and everyday wellness.

What’s also interesting is that Gen Z are much more open to exploring new flavours, formats and rituals. They’re not necessarily tied to traditional hot tea occasions in the same way previous generations were, which gives us a real opportunity to reframe tea in a way that fits more seamlessly into modern lifestyles — whether that’s cold formats, hydration-led occasions or more customisable drinks.

That’s directly shaping our long-term product development. We have a strong pipeline of innovation focused on recruiting the next generation of tea drinkers by leaning into both format

and function. A good example of that is our work in areas like matcha, where products such as the Lipton Matcha Latte bring together taste, energy and a more contemporary usage occasion.

Overall, the focus is on evolving tea without losing what makes it special — delivering great taste and natural credentials, but in formats and experiences that feel relevant for how younger consumers live today.

3. Tea consumption has traditionally been seasonal. Do you expect cold-brew formats to stabilise demand throughout the year, and what would that mean for forecasting and inventory management?

F&H Tea consumption drops -17% in Summer vs Winter (Source: Nielsen F&H Cups sold, Total Market – Quarterly to w/e 4/10/25) Tea has traditionally been a more seasonal category, with a clear drop in consumption as the weather warms — for example, fruit and herbal tea consumption declines by around 17% in summer versus winter. That’s been a structural challenge for the category for years.

What cold-brew formats do is open up a much more natural role for tea in warmer months. Rather than asking consumers to change behaviours, we’re simply better meeting a need that already exists — hydration and refreshment when temperatures rise — but doing it in a way that feels lighter, more convenient and more relevant to summer occasions.

Products like Lipton Ice Tea tea bags are a great example of that. They allow consumers to enjoy tea as a cold, refreshing drink, directly from water, without needing to switch into a completely different beverage category. That helps keep tea relevant year-round rather than being overly concentrated in colder months.

From a commercial perspective, if we can smooth some of that seasonality, it has real benefits. It allows for more consistent demand across the year, which in turn supports better forecasting and more stable production planning. Instead of peaking heavily in winter and softening in summer, you start to build a more balanced demand profile.

It also makes inventory management more efficient. With less extreme swings, there’s reduced risk of both overstocking and stock-outs, and it enables a more even flow through the supply chain.

Ultimately, the opportunity is to evolve tea from being perceived as a more “winter-led” category into one that has relevance across a broader range of occasions. Cold-brew formats are an important step in that direction, helping the category stay visible and competitive when consumers are naturally shifting towards colder, more refreshing drinks.

Click here to sign up to Retail Gazette‘s free daily email newsletter

The agreement will fund continued conservation work at the 51-acre ancient woodland site near Shaftesbury, helping restore native habitats, improve biodiversity and strengthen the woodland’s long-term resilience.

Ancient woodland covers just 2.5% of the UK and is considered one of the country’s most threatened habitats, playing a key role in carbon storage, flood mitigation and supporting wildlife.

Screwfix has supported the Woodland Trust since 2022, funding woodland management work including the thinning of dense beech stands to encourage natural regeneration and improve conditions for native species.

Materials from restoration work, including felled beech trunks, have also been reused to create wildlife habitats elsewhere.

Screwfix said the partnership forms part of its wider sustainability commitments, with the retailer also providing tools and practical support for restoration activity.

Screwfix UK and ROI managing director Max Britten said: “We’re proud to be continuing that support through an exciting new three-year partnership.”

The woodland remains open to the public and offers walking routes and views across the surrounding Dorset countryside.

Click here to sign up to Retail Gazette‘s free daily email newsletter

Riverford founder Guy Singh Watson’s new campaign says the herbicide, best known under the Roundup brand originally developed by and now owned by, was being used in ways that created a “direct route from field to plate”.

However, speaking to Retail Gazette, Singh-Watson stopped short of calling for a total ban. Instead, he is targeting one specific practice: the act of spraying glyphosate onto crops shortly before harvest to dry them out and make combining easier.

“What we are calling for is a ban on its use as a pre-harvest desiccant,” he says. “You are spraying it onto wheat, barley and oats a few days before harvest in full knowledge that people are going to eat that wheat.”

We caught up with Singh-Watson to speak about the human and environmental dangers of using glyphosate, organic farming and whether the UK has become too dependant on chemicals in farming.

The dangers of glyphosate

Glyphosate remains one of the world’s most widely used herbicides. In the UK, analysis of government data by Pesticide Action Network UK found glyphosate use had risen from around 200 metric tonnes in 1990 to more than 2,200 tonnes in 2024, with treated farmland increasing to more than 2.6 million hectares.

The debate around the chemical has intensified globally since the World Health Organization’s cancer agency classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015. Bayer has consistently maintained glyphosate is safe when used correctly and regulators in both Europe and the United States have repeatedly said current evidence does not justify a full ban.

Even so, the company has spent billions settling lawsuits in the United States brought by users who claimed exposure to Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Reuters reported this year that Bayer had already paid around $10bn in settlements, while tens of thousands of cases remain ongoing.

When speaking about the potential dangers to human health, Singh-Watson points repeatedly to the US litigation.

“There have been thousands of cases in the US over Hodgkin’s lymphoma,” he says. “The courts defended that very vigorously, and they lost.”

And many people are inadvertently consuming glyphosate, with Singh-Watson quoting 30% of people in the UK have glyphosate in their urine, and 50% in the states, with some studies reported by The Guardian placing this figure even higher at 80%.

“It just seems an egregious,” Singh-Watson says. “This is grievous biological harm. This is intentional, we are poisoning people intentionally in the full knowledge of the dangers of glyphosate”.

He also questions whether existing safety testing goes far enough. Regulators typically assess glyphosate as an active ingredient, but Singh-Watson argues that commercial formulations also contain additional chemicals designed to help absorption.

“The regulatory regime is inadequate,” he adds. “You only test the active ingredient, whereas it is invariably applied with adjuvants that help the plant absorb the toxin.”

These fears have been supported by recent research, including King’s College molecular geneticist and toxicologist Professor Michael Antoniou who has become a leading scientific voice warning about the health risks of glyphosate-based herbicides.

His research challenges the regulatory consensus by demonstrating that even “safe” levels of exposure can cause DNA damage, liver disease, and cancer.

As the sole UK-based contributor to this landmark international research, Antoniou helped demonstrate that long-term exposure to glyphosate can cause multiple types of tumours and cancers in rats, even at levels deemed safe by EU and global regulators, with data from his lab showing that low doses of glyphosate-based weedkillers alter the healthy bacteria in the human gut, which can lead to chronic inflammation and metabolic issues.

Could the UK drop the use of glyphosate?

The European Union renewed glyphosate approval in 2023 until 2033, but introduced tighter conditions around its use. EU rules now prohibit its use for pre-harvest desiccation designed to optimise harvesting. However, Britain has not followed suit.

Campaigners backing Riverford’s latest initiative argue the economic benefits of pre-harvest spraying are marginal.

In the UK, wholesale wheat prices are currently hovering around £188 to £192 per tonne for feed wheat. Singh-Watson estimates that even if the practice reduced wheat costs by £5 per tonne, the impact on a loaf of bread, which often has less than 10 pence worth of wheat per loaf, would amount to fractions of a penny.

“You are talking about something absolutely trivial and irrelevant to the cost of food,” he says.

Yet he acknowledges many farmers feel trapped between rising costs and relentless retail pressure.

“Farmers are being squeezed and squeezed,” he says. “If we want cheap food, let’s not look to farming to reduce costs anymore. Better to look to the supply chain, particularly retailers and processors.”

The comments come during another volatile period for British agriculture. Fertiliser and fuel prices have risen sharply following geopolitical disruption and instability in global commodity markets, most recently due to thee US-Iran war.

Nitrogen fertiliser markets in particular have faced repeated shocks linked to energy costs, Russian exports and fears over disruption in the Strait of Hormuz.

“What farmers want is stability,” Singh-Watson says. “Most farmers just want to get on with farming. They don’t want to be worrying about these global impacts.”

When asked whether the UK has become too reliant on chemicals, he argues conventional farming had become too dependent on chemical inputs, although rejected suggestions that Britain could switch overnight to entirely organic production.

“I’m not advocating that we all go organic tomorrow,” he says. “With grain, it would be difficult.”

“I think we’d really struggle to feed ourselves, but actually, I don’t think we would have any trouble with dairy, beef, lamb, and so on. I think we should be putting more effort into, into investigating the alternatives.”

The alternatives being, he says, towards regenerative and agroecological farming systems, including improving soil health and reducing synthetic fertiliser dependence. And these alternatives could be more advanced if more investment and research went into the sector.

“If you look at the amount of money that’s gone into supporting the agrochemical industry, the life sciences, such GM crops,” says Singh-Watson. “If some of that money had gone into looking at more agroecological farming techniques, I think we would have moved a lot way forward further forward.”

Riverford itself has operated organically for four decades. Singh-Watson says the company does not use synthetic herbicides such as glyphosate on its crops, relying instead on crop rotation, cultivation, soil management and manual weed control.

He also warns that fertilisers themselves carried environmental costs often overlooked in the pesticides debate.

“We should be mindful that their impact is every bit as high as pesticides in terms of damage to the soil and waterways,” he says.

For all the controversy around glyphosate, Singh-Watson accepts the chemical remains highly effective for farmers, particularly against difficult perennial weeds such as blackgrass.

“It’s a brilliant chemical,” he admits. “That’s why it has become so widespread.”

“But we should be leaning towards safety. I think it always comes down to a balance of the risks against the benefits. When you know the dangers of glyphosate for this pre-harvest desiccation, there’s just no way anyone can argue for it.”

“When I hear farmers claiming that they won’t be able to farm without it,” Singh-Watson adds.” That’s just a bare face lie.”

The question facing policymakers is whether the convenience it offers the food system still outweighs the growing political, environmental and public health concerns surrounding it.

For all the dispute over glyphosate, looking ahead, Singh-Watson says the system will keep “squeezed and squeezed” until farming is given space to change how it produces food.

Click here to sign up to Retail Gazette‘s free daily email newsletter

A rise in prohibited cotton entering Western supply chains has been linked to growing trade disruption, shifting manufacturing routes and what one industry executive describes as a widening “gap between documentation and truth” in global sourcing.

New data from Oritain’s 2026 Global Supply Chain Intelligence Report suggests exposure to cotton linked to restricted or prohibited regions rose in 2025 for the first time in four years. The company’s forensic sampling programme, which analyses around 1,000 garments annually across 40 brands, found that 13 per cent of tested items contained raw materials sourced from such regions, up from 6 per cent the previous year.

The report also found that 90 per cent of brands tested showed exposure in at least one item of clothing, up from 64 per cent in 2024. While nearly all UK firms surveyed say they now trace most of their cotton supply chains, most still rely heavily on supplier declarations and paperwork.

Retail Gazette caught up with Oritain chief commercial officer Rupert Hodges who says the shift reflects pressure building across global trade rather than a single compliance failure.

---

Why visibility is no longer enough

“It’s a little bit of all of those things,” Hodges says, pointing to tariffs, geopolitical tension and changing sourcing patterns. He highlighted China’s role in global cotton flows, noting that its share of production increased to 27 per cent over the period, according to the report.

But he argues that the more important issue is how cotton moves through fragmented supply chains.

“Just resourcing to a new country doesn’t necessarily mean you’re not going to be caught up in the supply chain,” he says. Cotton, he explains, often enters markets early in the chain and then moves through yarn and fabric production before reaching final manufacturing hubs such as Vietnam or Bangladesh.

That dynamic, he says, creates a “perfect storm” in which prohibited cotton can reappear in finished goods even when brands believe they have shifted sourcing away from higher-risk regions.

The report suggests the issue is now systemic rather than confined to individual firms. Hodges says similar levels of exposure were seen in 2021 and 2022, before falling and then rising again, pointing to structural rather than temporary drivers.

He adds that increased trade flows and sourcing adjustments had “caught up” with existing control systems, leaving brands exposed to risks they cannot see through documentation alone.

Across the industry, traceability systems have expanded rapidly. But Hodges questions whether visibility has translated into assurance.

“When people do a supply chain mapping exercise, their suppliers will declare their known suppliers or their biggest suppliers, but that changes on an ongoing basis,” he says. “When you run out of stock, you buy from anyone.”

As a result, he argues that mapping and digital tracking tools are not sufficient on their own.

“What we’re seeing is that just mapping a supply chain and hoping that gives you the right information is not enough,” he says. “You need a programmatic approach to testing.”

He describes this as a shift from static visibility to continuous verification, including testing across different tiers of the supply chain over time rather than relying on snapshot audits.

The stakes, he says, are rising as regulation tightens and consumer trust erodes. The report cites research showing 60 per cent of consumers actively avoid products linked to untrusted origins, while only 3 per cent trust marketing claims. It also notes that government regulation and scientific traceability rank highest in consumer trust.

Policy changes are expects to add further pressure. The EU Deforestation Regulation, which begins phased application from late 2026 for large operators, will require companies placing certain commodities on the EU market to prove they are not linked to deforestation.

Digital Product Passports, part of wider EU sustainability reforms, are expected to be rolled out from 2026 onwards, with timelines still evolving. However, Hodges says such measures will not reduce the need for testing, but increase it.

“A digital product passport will carry a claim on it,” he says. “If you are making a claim and don’t know the origin, you could be in significant issues.”

He cites potential penalties under EU regimes, including fines of up to 4 per cent of global turnover for certain sustainability misstatements, arguing that regulatory pressure will make verified origin data more important, not less.

The US Section 301 tariff regime, which continues to apply additional duties on a wide range of Chinese imports, was also cites as a factor reshaping sourcing decisions and accelerating shifts across manufacturing regions.

Who is most exposed as enforcement tightens?

Asked which parts of the industry are most exposed, Hodges rejects the idea that risk is confined to fast fashion or any single segment.

“I don’t think there’s one particular group,” he says. “The individuals at risk are those that don’t understand their supply chain and don’t have verification.”

He adds that reliance on paper-based systems leaves companies particularly vulnerable as supply chains become more fluid and harder to track.

Looking ahead, he warns that cotton is only the beginning. Timber, leather and other commodities are already coming under similar scrutiny as regulations expand, including under the EU’s deforestation rules and wider forced labour discussions.

“Cotton is probably two years ahead,” he says. “But the same risks are coming across all commodity raw materials.”

As enforcement tightens, he says, the central challenge remains unchanged: knowing the true origin of materials before they enter complex global systems.

Without that, he warns, companies risk being caught by rules they believe they are already complying with.

Click here to sign up to Retail Gazette‘s free daily email newsletter