Are Serious Tissues bleached?

The honest, slightly technical, but very thorough answer

TL;DR:  We use no chlorine compounds at any stage. Chlorine bleach is the really harmful stuff both for your skin and the planet. And unfortunately many brands still do. 

We choose to use 100% post-consumer recycled paper, sourced and made in the UK because that’s the greenest fibre choice. And everyone from the Natural Resource Defence Council to Ethical Consumer agrees. Bleaching is only a small part of the picture.

That said we do use a small amount of hydrogen peroxide to even out the colour of recycled fibre to a light grey, not brilliant white. This dissolves into oxygen and water. This is a conscious trade off with 100% recycled, because the numbers massively stack up to show that this is the most sustainable option. 

Bleaching is part of the picture but to judge sustainability on this alone is misleading.

Why we are writing this

We get asked about bleach more than almost anything else. Usually the question is some version of "are you unbleached?", and usually it arrives because a competitor has made unbleached the headline of their brand.

The honest answer takes more than a word, so here it is in full. We will tell you exactly what goes into our process, exactly what does not, and then we will explain why we think the bleached versus unbleached framing is the wrong way to compare two rolls of toilet paper.

We will also give credit where competitors deserve it. Nothing below is an attack on anyone's product. It is an argument about which questions actually matter.

Part one: what we actually do

The feedstock

Serious Tissues is made from 100% recycled paper, specifically post consumer waste. That means paper that has already done a job and been thrown away: office printouts, newspapers, magazines, cardboard. It is a waste stream, not a crop.

Our rolls are made in Blackburn, Lancashire. [1]

Why recycled fibre needs a colour step

Here is the part most brands skip over. Recovered paper is not a uniform raw material. It arrives as a mixture of different papers, printed with different inks, dyed different colours, and aged by different amounts of time. Left alone, the resulting pulp is a blotchy, uneven brown grey with visible ink specks.

So recycled tissue mills run a deinking process. Ink is lifted off the fibre by flotation and washing, using surfactants, sodium silicate and caustic soda, and then a brightening stage evens out what is left. [2]

That brightening stage is where hydrogen peroxide comes in.

What hydrogen peroxide is and what it does

Hydrogen peroxide is H₂O₂. It is water with one extra oxygen atom. In pulp, it works as an oxidising agent: it breaks up the coloured molecules (chromophores) left behind by residual ink and lignin, which evens the shade out. It also prevents the yellowing that alkaline pulp otherwise develops. [2]

When it has done its job, hydrogen peroxide decomposes into water and oxygen. There are no chlorinated organic residues, because there is no chlorine in the molecule to begin with. [3]

In our process it is used at low dose, and for one purpose: normalising colour. We are not chasing high brightness. We stop when the sheet is consistent, which is why a Serious Tissues roll is a light grey rather than the optical white of a supermarket own brand.

The plain answer to the plain question

Is hydrogen peroxide a bleaching agent? Technically yes. In laundry and cleaning it is sold as "oxygen bleach", as distinct from "chlorine bleach", which is sodium hypochlorite. Both are oxidisers. They work by different chemistry and leave behind completely different things. [4]

We are not going to play games with the word. We use an oxygen based brightening step. We do not use chlorine bleach. Those are different claims and the second one is the one that matters.

There is a proper name for what we do: processed chlorine free

This is the bit we should probably have led with years ago. What we do is not an unnamed compromise. It is a recognised category with a defined standard.

Processed Chlorine Free (PCF) is the term for recycled content paper where no chlorine compounds are used in reprocessing the fibre. The Chlorine Free Products Association, which has run the standard since the 1990s, defines it as "a term reserved for recycled content papers. All recycled fibers used, as a feedstock must meet EPA, or regional governing authority, guidelines for post consumer content and have not been re-bleached with chlorine containing compounds." Their threshold is a minimum of 30% post consumer waste fibre. [17]

Ours is 100% post consumer waste, and the brightening is done with hydrogen peroxide. That is PCF by definition.

The reason this matters is that PCF is not a consolation prize for recycled paper. The NRDC, in the seventh edition of its Issue with Tissue scorecard published in November 2025, puts it about as plainly as it can be put:

"recycled paper products generally use bleaching methods, such as processed chlorine free (PCF), that are far less toxic than ECF. PCF totally avoids chlorine, instead using oxygen, ozone, and hydrogen peroxide." [18]

Note the last three words. Hydrogen peroxide is not an awkward exception to chlorine free processing. It is one of the three chemicals that define it.

One point of precision, because we are not going to be sloppy about this in a post complaining about sloppy claims. PCF is both a descriptive term and a certification mark. We are describing our process accurately as processed chlorine free. We are not currently claiming CFPA certification. If that changes we will say so.

Part two: what we do not do

• No elemental chlorine. Chlorine gas bleaching is the process that produced dioxins in mill effluent, and it is the reason "bleached paper" acquired a bad name in the first place.

• No chlorine dioxide. This is the ECF process used by most of the world's bleached pulp industry, including most bleached bamboo. It is a large improvement on chlorine gas, but it is still chlorine chemistry, it still emits chlorinated compounds, and we do not use it. More on this below.

• No chlorine compounds of any kind at any stage of our processing. That is what processed chlorine free means.

• No dyes. Nothing is added to tint the sheet.

• No fragrance or perfume.

• No lotions or print.

• No plastic wrap.

Part three: why "bleached versus unbleached" is the wrong question

The three terms the industry actually uses

If you look at how the pulp and paper sector classifies this, there are three labels, and none of them is "unbleached versus bleached":

• Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF). Chlorine dioxide replaces chlorine gas. This eliminates the dioxin formation pathway associated with elemental chlorine. [5]

• Totally Chlorine Free (TCF). No chlorine compounds at all. Uses oxygen, ozone and hydrogen peroxide instead. This is virgin pulp terminology.

• Processed Chlorine Free (PCF). The recycled fibre equivalent. Recovered paper may originally have been bleached by someone else, but no chlorine compounds are used in reprocessing it.

Our process sits in the chlorine free category, specifically PCF. The colour step is oxygen based.

Chlorine dioxide: the chemical almost every white roll depends on

When a brand tells you its paper is not bleached with chlorine, check whether they mean chlorine gas or all chlorine chemistry. Nearly always they mean the first, and the reason is chlorine dioxide.

What it is. Chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) is a chlorine compound, but it does not behave like chlorine gas. Chlorine gas attacks lignin partly by substitution, bolting chlorine atoms onto organic molecules, and that reaction is what produced dioxins. Chlorine dioxide oxidises lignin more selectively and chlorinates much less of it. That difference is real and it is why the industry switched.

It is manufactured inside the mill. Chlorine dioxide cannot be bought in a tanker. Above roughly 10 kPa partial pressure it decomposes explosively into chlorine and oxygen, set off by light, heat, pressure shock or the wrong contact chemical. In the United States it may not be transported at any concentration. It is handled only as a dilute solution, around 0.5 to 10 g/L, and generated continuously on site. Mills make it by reducing sodium chlorate in acid, usually with methanol or hydrogen peroxide. Over 95% of the world's chlorine dioxide is made this way, and almost all of it goes into pulp bleaching. [19]

The chlorate behind it. Sodium chlorate is made by electrolysing brine. Nouryon, one of the largest suppliers, describes its own production as an "energy-intensive, multistage process." [20] So there is an electricity footprint sitting upstream of every tonne of ECF pulp that rarely appears in anyone's comparison.

How widely it is used. Estimates vary with what is being counted, but they all point the same way. Nouryon put ECF at 93% of the global bleached chemical pulp market. The American Forest & Paper Association says the shift "now represents more than 95 percent of worldwide pulp production" and that "the U.S. pulp and paper industry currently uses chlorine dioxide bleaching." Stora Enso, more conservatively, calls ECF "the world standard for chemical pulp with more than 75% of all chemically produced pulp." [21][22][23]

Which brands use it

This is not a matter of inference. The NRDC's Issue with Tissue scorecard records the bleaching process for every brand it assesses. In the seventh edition, published November 2025, the following are all classified as ECF, meaning chlorine dioxide:

• Charmin (grade F), C by Charmin (F) and Charmin Ultra Bamboo (B), all Procter & Gamble

• Angel Soft (F), Quilted Northern Ultra Plush (F) and Quilted Northern Ultra Soft & Strong (F), all Georgia-Pacific

• Cottonelle Ultra (D), Cottonelle Professional (D), Scott 1000 (D), Scott ComfortPlus (D) and Kleenex Everyday (D), all Kimberly-Clark

• Bounty and Bounty Advanced (F), Brawny (F), Sparkle (F), Viva (D), Puffs (F)

• Supermarket and retailer own brands including Amazon Basics (F), Kirkland (F), Great Value (F), Presto! (F), Up & Up (F), Wegmans (F), Publix (F), Kroger Soft & Strong (F) and Sam's Club Member's Mark (F) [18]

Two honest qualifications. NRDC assesses the North American market, so those grades and classifications are US findings, not UK ones. And the brands named are made by the same global manufacturers that supply the UK, but we are not going to assert that a specific UK product uses a specific process without a source for that specific product. What we can say about the UK market is that almost no mainstream brand discloses its bleaching process at all, which is itself worth noticing.

Note also Charmin Ultra Bamboo on that list. Bamboo does not mean chlorine free. Most bleached bamboo tissue is ECF, and NRDC says so directly: the ECF process is "used for bleaching most wood pulp and bamboo fiber."

Better than elemental chlorine is not the same as good

We want to be careful here, because there is a version of this argument that overreaches.

The case that ECF is fine: Nouryon states "No measureable levels of dioxins are present with either ECF or TCF" and that "several studies have shown no significant difference between the two technologies when best available techniques is used." Södra, which pioneered TCF in the 1980s and was the world's largest TCF producer, moved into ECF in 2017 after its own lifecycle analysis found no environmental advantage between the two, and because "some 95% of our European customers now use ECF pulps." [21][24]

Those are industry sources with a commercial interest in the answer, but they are not nothing, and we are not going to pretend otherwise.

The case that it still matters:

First, ECF still produces chlorinated organic compounds. This is not disputed by anyone, which is why the EU Ecolabel caps AOX, adsorbable organically bound halogens, at 0.17 kg per air dried tonne, and why that cap applies specifically to ECF pulp. [6] Regulators do not write emission limits for emissions that do not exist. PCF and TCF processes do not need that cap because they do not generate the emission.

Second, the NRDC's own assessment, from a body with no commercial stake, is blunt: "The elemental chlorine free (ECF) process used for bleaching most wood pulp and bamboo fiber still emits chlorinated compounds into the environment." [18]

Third, there is the upstream electricity for chlorate production, and the fact that the chemical is hazardous enough that it cannot legally be moved and has to be manufactured inside the plant that uses it.

So our position is not that chlorine dioxide is a scandal. It is a large improvement on what came before, and a mill running it well under best available techniques is not poisoning a river. Our position is narrower and, we think, harder to argue with: it is chlorine chemistry, it produces chlorinated compounds that regulators cap and monitor, and there is a cleaner category available. We are in the cleaner category. We did not have to give up anything to get there, because recycled fibre has almost no lignin left to attack, so peroxide is the right tool anyway.

That last point is worth stating plainly rather than dressing up as virtue. We are not nobly refusing chlorine dioxide. It would be the wrong chemical for our feedstock.

What the regulator actually cares about

The EU Ecolabel criteria for tissue paper are a good proxy for what an evidence based regulator thinks the risk is. The criteria do not ban bleaching. They ban a specific chemistry and cap a specific emission:

"Chlorine gas shall not be used as a bleaching agent. This requirement does not apply to chlorine gas related to the production and use of chlorine dioxide."

and

"The AOX emissions from the production of each pulp used in EU Ecolabel tissue paper shall not exceed 0,17 kg/ADt." [6]

AOX means adsorbable organically bound halogens: the family of chlorinated organic compounds formed when chlorine chemistry meets organic material. That is the actual environmental hazard the rules are written around.

Note what is not in there: any requirement that paper be unbleached, and any restriction on hydrogen peroxide. The line the regulation draws is chlorine versus chlorine free, not bleached versus unbleached.

Where the fear came from, and why it is legitimate

None of this is to say people are being silly. The concern has a real origin.

Until the late 1980s and early 1990s, pulp mills bleached with elemental chlorine gas, and that reaction produced polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans in mill effluent. Dioxins are persistent, bioaccumulative and carcinogenic. It was a genuine scandal and it drove a global transition away from chlorine gas towards chlorine dioxide, oxygen and peroxide. [5]

So when someone reacts to the word "bleach", they are reacting to a real historical harm. The problem is that "unbleached" as a product claim now trades on that memory while describing a process that, for a chlorine free mill, has nothing to do with it.

Part four: what "unbleached" does not tell you

Unbleached is a single attribute of one stage of manufacturing. Here is what it is silent on.

It does not tell you where the fibre came from. Virgin bamboo, virgin wood and recovered paper can all be sold unbleached.

It does not tell you the pulping chemistry. This is the big one. Turning bamboo into pulp is a chemical process regardless of whether the pulp is later bleached. Bamboo is typically cooked in sodium hydroxide, either by the soda process or the kraft process, to dissolve lignin and release the fibres. [7] Unbleached bamboo pulp is not unprocessed bamboo. It has been through a hot caustic digester. Skipping the final brightening stage does not undo that.

It does not tell you the energy source. A mill running on coal fired grid electricity and one running on renewables can both produce unbleached paper.

It does not tell you the freight. Neither does it tell you how far the fibre travelled to reach you.

It does not tell you what else is in the sheet. In 2023, researchers at the University of Florida tested toilet paper from the Americas, Africa and Western Europe and found PFAS, mostly diPAPs, in the samples analysed. They estimated toilet paper's contribution to 6:2 diPAP in sewage at around 4% in the US and Canada, 35% in Sweden and up to 89% in France. [8] Bleaching status had nothing to do with it.

To be fair to the brands making the unbleached claim: skipping a stage does save the chemicals and energy for that stage, and if the alternative was chlorine bleaching then it avoids a real hazard. It is a genuine, if small, positive. It is just not a proxy for the whole footprint, and it should not be sold as one.

Part five: the bamboo comparison, in detail

Since the unbleached claim in our category is most loudly made by bamboo brands, it is worth walking through what a bamboo roll's journey actually involves. We will use published information rather than speculation.

The supply chain, from their own website

Naked Paper publish their supply chain, which is more than most brands do and is to their credit. According to their own page, their bamboo pulp comes from Taison (Guizhou) Bamboo Resource Development Co. and Chengdu Qingya Paper Co., both in Sichuan, China. The bamboo is chopped, pulped and dried on site in China. The pulp then travels by road to Chongqing port or Yantian port, by sea to Barcelona, and by road to their converting factory, LC Paper, in Girona, Spain. [9]

Ethical Consumer puts the general case plainly: "the vast majority of commercial bamboo is grown and converted in China" and it "then needs to be shipped 11,000km to reach the UK." [10]

So the pulping, which is the energy intensive part, happens in China. The converting, which is the part that turns pulp into rolls, happens in Spain. The finished rolls then travel to the UK.

Why the pulping location matters so much

Coal supplied 58% of China's electricity in 2024, against a global average of 34%. [11] For comparison, the UK grid ran at 126 gCO₂/kWh in 2025, with 65% of generation from low carbon sources. [12]

That gap is not a detail. Pulping and drying are heat and electricity intensive, and the emissions attached to a tonne of pulp depend heavily on what is burning at the power station.

What the peer reviewed evidence says

This is no longer a matter of opinion. In September 2025, researchers at NC State published a comparative life cycle assessment of bamboo containing and wood based hygiene tissue in Cleaner Environmental Systems. They found Chinese bamboo tissue produced roughly 2,400 kg CO₂eq per tonne, against 1,824 kg CO₂eq per tonne for US wood based tissue. That is about 31% higher for the bamboo product. Chinese bamboo also underperformed on smog formation, respiratory effects and ecotoxicity. [13]

Lead author Naycari Forfora attributed it directly to energy: "Because the Chinese power grid is so reliant on coal for power, emissions throughout the entire tissue supply chain are higher."

Co-author Ronalds Gonzalez made the broader point we would make too: "the technology used to create hygiene tissue paper is far more important than the type of fiber it's made from." [13]

Two honest caveats. That study compared Chinese bamboo against North American wood based tissue, not against UK recycled tissue, so it is not a like for like verdict on us. And it does not model the specific Spain converting route described above. What it does establish is that the fibre being fashionable does not make the product low carbon, and that where and how you make it dominates the result.

The land use question nobody asks

"Rapidly regenerating" is true of bamboo and it is a real advantage. But bamboo for pulp is a cultivated crop, grown at scale on land, and expanding bamboo cultivation is not free of consequences. Moso bamboo expansion into adjacent forest is a well documented phenomenon in subtropical China with measurable effects on soil processes, microbial communities and plant diversity. [14] Growing something quickly is not the same as growing it without impact.

Recovered paper, by contrast, does not need land. It already exists. It is sitting in a recycling bin.

Where we think Naked Paper are genuinely strong

We would rather make this argument fairly than win it cheaply.

Their Girona factory runs on renewable biomass and biomethane, which is a real and meaningful choice. Their products are REACH compliant, independently tested free of PFAS and BPA, plastic free, and they carry a climate footprint label. They publish their suppliers by name. Their recycled line sources fibre locally in Spain. [9][15]

Those are all things we respect. Our disagreement is narrower than it looks: we think unbleached is the least important of their attributes, and it is the one they lead with.

Part six: why we chose recycled fibre

The waste stream argument

Every tonne of paper that gets recycled is a tonne that does not go to landfill or incineration, and a tonne of pulp that does not need to be grown, cut and cooked from scratch. The fibre has already been made. Using it again is the cheapest carbon saving available in this category.

The numbers

Comparing recycled and virgin chemical pulp production, the Environmental Paper Network's Paper Calculator finds recycled pulp uses about 31% less energy (22 million BTU per tonne against 32 million), produces about 53% less wastewater (10,372 gallons against 22,219) and about 39% less solid waste (1,171 lb against 1,922). Virgin pulping needs about 4.4 tonnes of trees per tonne of pulp, roughly 23% efficient. Recycled pulping needs about 1.4 tonnes of recovered paper per tonne of pulp, roughly 71% efficient. [16]

Those figures are modelled on US mills, so treat them as directional rather than a UK specific audit. The direction is not in dispute.

The independent view

Ethical Consumer's assessment is blunt: "recycled paper is more sustainable than virgin pulp, including bamboo." They also acknowledge, correctly, that "whether bamboo or recycled toilet paper is more sustainable depends on what criteria you use." [10]

We would not pretend otherwise. If your single criterion is softness, virgin fibre wins. If it is a short ingredient list, unbleached bamboo has a case. If your criteria are carbon, land, waste and freight, recycled fibre made close to where it is used is very hard to beat.

Made here

Our rolls are made in Blackburn. The waste paper is collected in the UK, processed in the UK and delivered in the UK. No ocean freight, no pulp crossing two continents before it becomes a product. [1]

Part seven: things we are not going to claim

We are asking you to be sceptical of proxy claims, so it would be poor form not to apply the same standard to ourselves.

• We are not unbleached. We use hydrogen peroxide. We have said so above and we will keep saying so.

• Our rolls are not white, and we are not going to pretend that is a design choice we made for aesthetic reasons. It is what recycled fibre looks like when you stop the brightening step early. We think that is the right trade, but it is a trade off.

• Recycled is not zero impact. It uses energy, water and chemistry. It is the lowest impact than the alternatives we have looked at. Unfortunately low is not zero.

• We are not going to tell you chlorine dioxide is poisoning rivers. It is not the chemistry that caused the dioxin scandal, and a well run modern mill under best available techniques is a long way from where the industry was in 1988. Our argument is that it is still chlorine chemistry, still regulated for chlorinated emissions, and still avoidable. Not that it is a catastrophe.

• We describe ourselves as processed chlorine free. 

• We do not think there is one correct answer for everybody. There is a defensible case for bamboo. We just think it is a weaker one than the case for recycled, and we think it is usually made using the wrong evidence.

Quick answers

Is Serious Tissues bleached? Not with chlorine. We use a small amount of hydrogen peroxide, which is an oxygen based process, to even out the colour of the recycled fibre. It breaks down into water and oxygen.

Why isn't it brown then? Recycled fibre is not naturally brown, it is an uneven grey brown full of ink residue. The peroxide step makes it consistent. We stop at light grey rather than white.

Why isn't it white? Because getting to brilliant white takes far more chemistry and energy than we think a disposable product justifies.

Do you use chlorine? No. Not chlorine gas, not chlorine dioxide, not any chlorine compound at any stage. The technical term for that, on recycled fibre, is processed chlorine free.

What is chlorine dioxide and should I care? It is the chemical behind almost every brilliant white roll on a supermarket shelf. It replaced chlorine gas in the 1990s and it is a genuine improvement, but it is still chlorine chemistry and it still emits chlorinated compounds, which is why the EU Ecolabel caps those emissions specifically for chlorine dioxide bleached pulp. We do not use it.

Is bamboo chlorine free? Not automatically. Most bleached bamboo tissue is bleached with chlorine dioxide, the same as most wood pulp. Unbleached bamboo is a separate thing, and it is genuinely chlorine free, but only because a stage was skipped rather than replaced.

Is hydrogen peroxide safe? It decomposes into water and oxygen and leaves no chlorinated residues. [3]

Isn't unbleached better? It is better than chlorine bleached. It is not automatically better than chlorine free brightened, and it tells you nothing about fibre source, pulping chemistry, energy or freight, which are the things that dominate the footprint.

References

1. Serious Tissues, homepage and About page. https://serioustissues.com/ and https://serioustissues.com/pages/about

2. Evonik Active Oxygens, Paper Recycling. "Hydrogen peroxide is applied during the repulping stage, alongside other de-inking agents such as soap, silicate, and caustic soda... In the subsequent bleaching step, hydrogen peroxide enhances the brightness of the de-inked fibers and prevents alkaline yellowing." https://active-oxygens.evonik.com/en/markets/pulp-production/paper-recycling

3. Evonik Active Oxygens Sustainability, What is Hydrogen Peroxide. "only water and oxygen are produced; there are no environmentally harmful byproducts." https://active-oxygens-sustainability.evonik.com/en/articles/what-is-hydrogen-peroxide/

4. Science Notes, Oxygen Bleach vs Chlorine Bleach. https://sciencenotes.org/oxygen-bleach-vs-chlorine-bleach/

5. Elemental chlorine free, Wikipedia. "It does not use elemental chlorine gas during the bleaching process and prevents the formation of dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, carcinogens." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elemental_chlorine_free

6. Commission Decision (EU) 2019/70 establishing the EU Ecolabel criteria for graphic paper, tissue paper and tissue products, Annex II, criteria 1(b) and 4(c). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019D0070

7. Soda pulping. "Soda pulping is a chemical process for making wood pulp with sodium hydroxide as the cooking chemical," applied to "many grasses, bagasse, bamboo and some tropical hardwoods." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soda_pulping

8. American Chemical Society, "Toilet paper is an unexpected source of PFAS in wastewater," March 2023, reporting Thompson, Townsend et al. in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. https://www.acs.org/pressroom/presspacs/2023/march/toilet-paper-is-an-unexpected-source-of-pfas-in-wastewater.html

9. Naked Paper, Our Supply Chain. https://uk.nakedpaper.com/pages/our-supply-chain

10. Ethical Consumer, Eco friendly Toilet Paper shopping guide. https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/home-garden/shopping-guide/ethical-toilet-paper

11. Ember, Global Electricity Review 2025, major countries and regions. "China's coal share of 58% (5,864 TWh) remains just above the regional average of 54% and significantly above the global average of 34%." https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-review-2025/major-countries-and-regions/

12. Carbon Brief, "Analysis: UK renewables enjoy record year in 2025 but gas power still rises." https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-renewables-enjoy-record-year-in-2025-but-gas-power-still-rises

13. Forfora, N., Gonzalez, R. et al., "Comparative life cycle assessment of bamboo-containing and wood-based hygiene tissue: Implications of fiber sourcing and conversion technologies," Cleaner Environmental Systems, 19 (2025) 100337. DOI: 10.1016/j.cesys.2025.100337. Summary: https://news.ncsu.edu/2025/10/bamboo-tissue-paper-may-not-be-as-eco-friendly-as-you-think/

14. "Rapid bamboo invasion (expansion) and its effects on biodiversity and soil processes," Global Ecology and Conservation, March 2020. https://doaj.org/article/c6341475b2404d668fd96ef751a066d7 See also Bai, S., Wang, Y., Conant, R.T. et al., "Can native clonal moso bamboo encroach on adjacent natural forest without human intervention?", Scientific Reports 6, 31504 (2016), which measured unassisted moso bamboo encroachment into adjacent forest at 1.28 m per year into Chinese fir forest and 1.04 m per year into evergreen broadleaved forest. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31504

15. Naked Paper, Unbleached Bamboo Toilet Paper product page and "Is all eco toilet paper made in China?" https://uk.nakedpaper.com/products/unbleached-bamboo-toilet-paper and https://uk.nakedpaper.com/blogs/news/is-all-eco-toilet-paper-made-in-china

16. Environmental Paper Network, Recycled Fiber Fact Sheet, drawing on the EPN Paper Calculator. https://environmentalpaper.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/EPN-recycled-fiber-fact-sheet.pdf

17. Chlorine Free Products Association, TCF/PCF Mark standards for printing and writing papers, sections 2.1, 2.2 and 4.1.1. https://www.responsiblepurchasing.org/UserFiles/File/Paper/Standards/CFPA-Printing-Writing-Standards.pdf

18. NRDC, The Issue with Tissue scorecard, seventh edition, November 2025. Source for the ECF classifications of the brands named, and for: "The elemental chlorine free (ECF) process used for bleaching most wood pulp and bamboo fiber still emits chlorinated compounds into the environment," and "recycled paper products generally use bleaching methods, such as processed chlorine free (PCF), that are far less toxic than ECF. PCF totally avoids chlorine, instead using oxygen, ozone, and hydrogen peroxide." https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/Issue_with_Tissue_SC_FS_25-12-A_03_locked.pdf

19. Chlorine dioxide: production, on site generation requirement, and decomposition properties. "Over 95% of the chlorine dioxide produced in the world today is made by reduction of sodium chlorate, for use in pulp bleaching." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_dioxide

20. Nouryon, Eka® SC sodium chlorate product page, describing production by brine electrolysis as an "energy-intensive, multistage process." https://www.nouryon.com/products/sodium-chlorate

21. Nouryon, "A comparison of the methods for bleaching chemical pulp: ECF versus TCF." https://www.nouryon.com/globalassets/inriver/resources/production-methods-cellulose-pulp-ecf-versus-tcf-global-en_us.pdf

22. American Forest & Paper Association, "Facts About the Use of Bleaching Agents in Tissue and Paper Towel Manufacturing." https://www.afandpa.org/sites/default/files/2023-02/FactsAboutBleachingAgents.pdf

23. Stora Enso, Pulp Bleaching Fact Sheet, 2017. https://www.storaenso.com/-/media/documents/download-center/documents/sustainability/pulp_bleaching_fact_sheet_2017.pdf

24. Tissue World Magazine, "Investments mean more ECF pulp from Södra," 18 May 2017. https://www.tissueworldmagazine.com/latest-headlines/investments-mean-more-ecf-pulp-from-sodra/