One in four baby garments gets the label wrong

In June 2026, an EU market-surveillance campaign called JACOP published results that deserve more attention than they got. Inspectors across eight countries tested 132 garments against their own labels. Overall, 37% were mislabelled. For baby clothing specifically, the figure was 25%. One in four.

Sit with that number the way a parent would. You stood in the shop, read the label, chose the 100% cotton sleeper over the cheaper blend, maybe paid more for it. There's a one-in-four chance the label was wrong. The decision you made deliberately, for your child's skin, may not be the decision you actually got.

A few details from the campaign sharpen the picture. Blends of natural and man-made fibres failed 64% of the time, so the more complicated the stated composition, the less you should trust it. Items bought online failed at 46%, against 36% in physical stores. And the findings weren't filed away as paperwork; 18 products were ordered withdrawn from the market.

Baby clothing's 25% was, strangely, one of the better results. Tops failed at 54% and scarves at 80%. But beating scarves is cold comfort when the wearer is seven weeks old, spends 16 to 20 hours a day in fabric, and absorbs substances through skin at up to three times the adult rate.

What can a parent do with this? Prefer simple, single-fibre garments, since blends are where labels fail hardest. Buy baby clothes in person when you can. Favour brands with third-party certification, because a checkable certificate raises the cost of lying. Above all, treat the label as a claim to verify rather than a fact to trust; that gap between claim and fact is the reason Lynen exists.

Regulation is slowly catching up. The EU's Digital Product Passport rules are expected to require scannable material disclosure on garments around 2027 or 2028. Until then, the label runs on an honour system, and the honour is evidently optional.