There’s no question about it. Lululemon Athletica is known all over the yoga community as being one of the primary sources of yoga clothing and accessories. Pricey, yes. But very comfy and dries up almost immediately, if I go by the satisfied comments of friends who have bought Lululemon yoga attire during trips abroad.

So it was quite a shocker for me to come across a New York Times article that disputes the claim of Lululemon that its VitaSea fabric line contained seaweed.

NYT claims it commissioned a lab test of a VitaSea shirt, and reviewed the lab results of another similar test. Both tests allegedly show that “there was no significant difference in mineral levels between the VitaSea fabric and cotton T-shirts.” NYT said that the shirt it tested had a label claiming it was made of 70 percent cotton, 6 percent spandex and 24 percent of the seaweed fiber. Seaweed fiber in clothing is touted to reduce stress and provide anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, hydrating and detoxifying benefits.

The article goes on to state “Seaweeds have known vitamins and minerals, and we searched specifically for those vitamins, and we didn’t see them,” said Carolyn J. Otten, director for specialized services at Chemir Analytical Services, a lab in Maryland Heights, Mo. that tested a sample of VitaSea.

A second lab test commissioned by NYT and done by “the McCrone Group, to test a blue racer-back tank top made with Lululemon’s VitaSea against a gray J. Crew T-shirt. McCrone, which is based in Westmont, Ill., likewise could not detect any seaweed-specific components. Though the labs could not absolutely rule out a trace of seaweed, they could not, using sensitive testing methods, substantiate Lululemon’s claims.”

So, is this a question of seemingly false advertising? Was Lululemon a little remiss in substantiating the claims of its suppliers of such organic materials which result in the heftier-than-normal price tags of their products? Or were the lab tests inconclusive?

The article goes on to say that Lululemon executives stated that they had not independently tested the VitaSea material. My reaction: This is a lesson learned (if Lululemon’s claim is true). If Lululemon, a public company, expects to be upheld by the yoga community as one that is honest, straightforward and intent on providing the best organic materials to its consumers, it better conduct random tests of each product line to ensure that the materials it claims are present are indeed, present.

Lululemon’s CEO, Bob Meers, issued a statement last Nov. 16, 2007 in their website stating:

“We are altering the labels on our VitaSea products in our Canadian stores, in cooperation with The Competition Bureau of Canada, to remove references to the therapeutic and performance attributes of the VitaSea technology. It is important to note that the Bureau takes no issue with the material content as described on our care and content labels. Independent testing has confirmed the presence of vitamins, minerals, and amino acids in the VitaSea fabric. Separately, in order to ensure complete transparency and accuracy, we are voluntarily altering the references to the therapeutic and performance attributes on VitaSea hang tags in all markets globally. In order to ensure the integrity of our product labelling, we are conducting a review of the therapeutic attributes described on all product hang tags. We take pride in our quality, technical apparel and will continue to deliver innovative fabrics and garments to our guests.”

There is just one thing I am not comfortable with in this NYT article and that is its one-line sentence that goes: “The Times commissioned its test after an investor who is shorting Lululemon’s stock — betting that its price will fall — provided Chemir’s test results to The Times”. This shareholder’s motives, in my mind, beg the question: Was it ethical for NYT to use Chemir’s test results, provided by a shareholder who was obviously banking on Lululemon’s stock prices to fall, to be its springboard for another lab test to confirm the first test?

I guess as consumers we need to be extra careful about immediately going for products that make claims like ‘natural’, ‘organic’, ‘mineral’, ‘eco-friendly’ and the like as these terms are oftentimes used without solid proof backing up such claims. But companies like Lululemon, who have big names to protect, need to go that extra mile to ensure that all its product claims are certified, tested and 100% accurate.

What are your own thoughts on the matter?

Update (Nov. 19, 2007): In the Women’s Wear Daily site, an update article states that “The yogawear company has commissioned its own test confirming that its VitaSea product does in fact contain seaweed — contradicting tests conducted by the Times and an investor shorting Lululemon stock who tipped the paper off, which alleged that the product’s labeling falsely advertised its fabric contents.” The New York Times, however, continues to stand by its article.