I'll just repost my comment from the thread in May, when another child's mother was taking on the role Lush is assuming here (I have edited the comment where necessary to better speak to this particular reckless move by Lush):
Breast binding can and should be compared to other activities where an individual seeks to alleviate psychological pain by seeking physiological change.
As it frequently causes permanent damage to skin, muscles or bone, always causes physical discomfort with physical pain experienced by three quarters who bind, it can legitimately be compared to and arguably be categorised as self-harm.
Like other forms of self-harm, it is not an effective way to deal with the underlying emotional distress and any relief it provides can therefore only ever be temporary.
Although the 97% figure from the survey quoted by the OP [see below for the link] is already bad enough, I should emphasise that 97% experience at least one negative outcome, and more than half of them experienced at least two negative outcomes.
The authors surveyed only on the 28 negative outcomes most commonly reported in the medical literature and information provided by those who bind.
Here they are in full:
rib fractures, back pain, chest pain, rib or spine changes, bad posture, shoulder pain, shoulder joint ‘popping’, muscle wasting, numbness, headache, overheating, fatigue, weakness, lightheadedness or dizziness, cough, respiratory infections, shortness of breath, heartburn, abdominal pain, digestive issues, breast changes, breast tenderness, scarring, swelling, acne, itch, skin changes and skin infections. [my emphasis]
Separately mentioned were spinal misalignment, fluid build-up in the lungs, collapsed lung, sores and permanent skin damage.
Several skin issues, which were experienced by over half of survey respondents, are associated with poorer outcomes if "chest reconstruction surgery" is pursued later. That's one of the reasons why the transmasculine community is so concerned about the safety of breast binding.
The survey also only asked adults about their experiences. In the developing child negative outcomes can be expected to be worse and occur more often.
That's because there are no safe binding methods. There are no clinical guidelines for binding safely. Commercial binders, which are perceived to be safer by the transmasculine community, are in reality associated with more negative outcomes, but even sports bras and minimisers are included in the list of binding methods leading to negative outcomes. This is not because sports bras are inherently unsafe, but because they are designed to be worn for shorter periods and not for the ten hour duration on seven-days-a-week most respondents chose to wear them.
Furthermore, Lush is not only overstepping a boundary in allowing something that the parent of a child has expressly forbidden - something they have no right to do - they are in my view also enabling children to self-harm.
I would advise Lush that they are interfering with parental rights without having the legal right to do so, wholly without having undertaken a risk assessment of the negative outcomes for these girls health and development and that this interferes with their rights under Article 6 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
(This article forms one of the four main principles of the UNCRC and encompasses the right of the child to develop and survive in conditions that do not negatively impact on their physical or mental health.)
Obviously Lush is not a state actor, local authority or a public sector organisation who could be held to account for breaching a child's rights under the UNCRC. But I would not hesitate to point out to them that every child has human rights protected under the UNCRC and that they are not only interfering with one but several of the rights children have with their action.
The other relevant articles are concerned with the rights and responsibilities of parents to look out for the best interests of their child and for all children having a legal guardian as a champion for their wellbeing. No random company can simply assume those rights, however well meaning.
Furthermore Lush should be informed that were any child supplied by Lush to attend PE lessons while wearing a breast binder and collapse as a result of a punctured lung thanks to a rib fractured by the binder (this can and has happened) they would be reported to the police for causing grievous bodily harm to a child. Whatever their liability insurance, I doubt they will be covered or enjoy legal indemnity if a child should be injured as a result of her being supplied a breast binder against her parents' wishes by Lush.
Here is the study mentioned: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13691058.2016.1191675
Of 1800 women surveyed, 50 reported rib fractures caused by binders. That's in adults. In children, who are after all still having to attend mandatory PE lessons, the most severe outcomes like rib fractures would be more likely due to their age, inexperience, developing bodies and higher vulnerability.