Wear Nothing New

Blood Diamonds and Valentines: Social impacts of gemstones

By Hannah

We're finally done with all those sappy pre-Valentine's Day jewerly store ads, indicating that a woman's happiness can be bought with gold and gemstones.  However, this time of year serves as a good reminder that your jewelry may come with far heavier a price than you suspected.

Blood Diamonds

Last year, Tanya wrote a post about how she exchanged her new diamond engagement ring for a unique setting for some family diamonds.  Besides serious environmental impacts of mining, many diamonds sold around the world finance brutal civil wars and human rights atrocities in countries like Sierra Leone and Angola.  

I found a recent story on the U.N.-backed Kimberly Process--an international watchdog group that certifies "conflict free" diamonds.  In December, Global Witness--one of the group's NGO partners--pulled out, citing a controversial decision to certify diamonds from Zimbabwe's notorious Marange diamond fields. 

In a nutshell, the newly-appointed U.S. chair of the Kimberly Process--Gillian Milovanovic--is pushing to redefine the meaning of the term "conflict diamond."  The complexity of this issue and the incredible extent of corruption and violence in diamond-producing countries makes it very difficult to find untainted diamonds.  So, rather than taking a firm stand, the group is proposing to allow questionable diamonds into the market.  

What to do about blood diamonds?

This is a tough one...diamonds are a rare purchase to begin with, which makes it difficult for the average consumer to effect change through boycotts.  The important thing is to let jewelry retailers know that consumers care.  

Don't let Robert Mugabe be your Valentine. 

Other groups like Amnesty International are working on this issue.  I would also consider giving the White House a call about Ms. Milovanovic's job performance.

Wear Nothing New and Environmental Justice

By Hannah

I just came back to blogging last month, after three months off teaching (on top of my full time job).  It was great to get back into academia, to interact with students, to have time to think deeply about some of the reasons for a year without new clothes.  

What is environmental justice?

To me, environmental justice means ensuring that no one group bears a disproportionate burden in terms of environmental problems.  In fact, the very nature of global environmental issues is that they unfairly impact the poor, non-whites, and children. 

If you look at global patterns of trade, the less developed countries, mainly in the global south, export raw materials and labor-intensive products.  In return, we in the global north export our garbage, our hazardous waste, our highly toxic electronics waste.  

Environmental Justice and Clothing

Clothing fits this same pattern.  Americans buy a lot of clothing that is made by incredibly low wage workers, who bear the burden of terrible working conditions and exposure to all kinds of occupational hazards.  

And what do we do when we've worn our made-in-India t-shirt a few times?  Most of us drop it off at Goodwill.  Goodwill and other thrift stores can only sell about 10% of their total donations in their American stores.  The rest gets shipped overseas, back to the same countries it came from.  Interesting, right?  (See our post on Fast Fashion.)

Solutions

The US Environmental Protection Agency defines environmental justice more narrowly as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, with regard to environmental laws and regulations.  The idea is gaining traction, especially under the current administration.  However, US laws do not necessarily protect the rest of the world.  What can we do? 

1. Shop responsibly - know where your clothing is made and the reputation of the brand; support socially responsible fashion.

2. Educate friends and family - we're hoping this blog will get a few more people thinking about the social and environmental impacts of clothes, but what will make this truly successful is if you can get others to think about their shopping choices.

3. Re-evaluate your needs - we'll write more about this as we reach the end of our year without new clothes, but I have to say this year has made me realize that I don't need new clothes and I don't even need all that many new things, period.  

Chemicals in Clothes: Flame Retardants (Part 2 of 2)

So, with flame retardants in nearly everything, what can you do?  The three manufacturers of PBDEs have voluntarily agreed to phase out the production of some of their products, and in Washington State, use of PBDEs is being phased out, though the products that contain them (cars, furniture, electronics) will be in use for decades.

Even with attention to PBDEs helping to reduce their use in everyday items, the laws that allowed such toxic chemicals to be used in the first place remain in effect, and the replacement products for PBDEs are also of concern.  Required by law to meet strict flammability standards, such as California's TB117, companies are scrambling for available, but not necessarily safer, cost-effective alternatives. 

Some companies, including socially conscious IKEA, are now using tris, a carcinogen that made headlines when it was banned from children's pajamas in the '70s after evidence of its breakdown products were measured in childrens' urine, indicating bodily uptake and therefore, exposure to the chemicals. And IKEA's presently considering an organo-phosphate based flame retardant that was shown to be mutagenic in the 1970s.  While the latest ideas incorporate flame retarding compounds into the foam, rather than simply adding it as a non-bound substance, as has typically been done, the jury on the safety of these alternatives is still out.  

Even with the knowledge of potential for harm, chemicals continue to be used in every-day consumer products at high volumes.  The current US chemical laws were simply not intended to prevent harm, and they require action on a specific chemical or use only after harm has been proven, which, due to the complex nature of toxicology, is nearly impossible to do.  The only way to reduce the amount of these poisons in your home, your body, and that of your family, is to research your products and look for companies actively committed to better practices.

For example, most children's pajamas continue to be treated with toxic flame retardants.  A common practice currently seems to be to mix antimony, a toxic and potentially carcinogenic metal, with lower levels of halogenated compounds (like tris or PBDEs).  I have read that some tight-fitting cotton pajamas may not be treated, but knowing for sure requires a specific guarantee from the manufacturer.  Again, this is a case where buying from companies committed to chemical safety may be the only way to avoid products treated with these chemicals.

I could go on, but for now, I encourage you to stay informed, only bring what you need into your home (used stuff still carries chemical risks, and, in some cases, may be higher risk than new products that have a currently more preferred chemical mix).  Be an informed consumer--research companies' practices and policies.  And, lobby your representatives for chemical policies that protect people, not companies.  You shouldn't need a chemistry degree to shop.

For more on flame retardants Google Arlene Blum, or visit this passionate scientist turned activist, at the Green Science Policy Institute or her Breaking New Trails site.

 

Chemicals in Clothes: Flame Retardants--In my bra and breast milk? (Part 1 of 2)

Flame retardants are used in many of our consumer products, from furniture to electronics to fabrics--and yes, even the padding in your bra. 

Dumping flame retardant chemicals into our everyday products as a precautionary measure might seem to make sense, until you discover that the majority of those chemicals, frequently polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, are highly toxic, similar in structure to PCBs (a family of chemicals--used as flame retardants until banned in the late 1970s because they cause everything from cancer to thyroid and other hormonal disruptions to reduced IQ and developmental disabilities in babies whose mothers have high levels), and readily leach from the products they're in.   To top it off: there's no evidence that they actually prevent fire deaths, in fact, they make the smoke and residue of a fire even more toxic.

Case in point is my own, hand-me-down couch.  Bought by my not-yet-mother-in-law (whom you may remember from my post about my engagement ring as the source of all things good) in 1992, it is a handsome, worn, blue-green leather couch.  I had the opportunity to test the foam, and it is about 2% PBDEs.  The addition of flame retardants to a leather couch foam, along with a bra (I guess that's one way to foil those feminists), seems unnecessary to me, as the leather itself will likely withstand a momentary, discreet flame.  In both cases, if the fire was severe enough to reach the foam, you've probably got bigger issues.  

 

 

Cozy or toxic?

 

Chemicals like PBDEs and PCBs are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (often referred to as PBT chemicals).  PBTs are of high concern, because once they're out in the environment, they stick around.  They build-up in the food chain, remaining in organisms, including humans, that are exposed to them.   We accumulate greater and greater concentrations of them throughout our lives, just going through our daily routines.  Those who actully work with or around them are exposed at mugh higher levels.  Mothers then transfer these chemicals to their babies during gestation and lactation.  Males simply continue to accumulate them.

Animal studies have indicated that up to 80% of a mother's body burden of lipophilic (fat-loving) chemicals, like PCBs and PBDEs, will transfer to their first-born child.  The transfer continues, at reduced levels in subsequent children, as the mother's own body becomes less burdened.  What this means is that the first-born is at the greatest risk for harm from such chemicals. 

Including un-bound toxic chemicals in the percent range in such a wide variety of consumer products guarantees that anyone who's not been living in a hut in the rainforest has routine, on-going, chronic exposure to these chemicals.  North Americans  in particular have much higher levels than those seen in other parts of the world.

Chemicals in Clothes: A review of Our Stolen Future by Theo Colborn

While this is not really about clothes, Our Stolen Future does a phenomonal job discussing endocrine (or hormone) disrupting chemicals.  The book, published in 1996, summarizes scientific discoveries and observations that lead to the discovery of endocrine disruption from chemicals used every day around the globe in easy-to-read, layman's lingo. 

In one section, Colborn and her team of co-authors take the reader into the lab with researchers working with breast cancer tissues as they painstakingly trace an unexpected mid-experiment explosion in the number of breast cancer cells duplicating in their petri dishes to the manufacturer's undisclosed addition of BPA to the chemical formulation of the dishes. 

Though Colborn's topic is anything but fiction, her style, and the captivating story she shares about this still emerging field of science read as easily as a good novel.  The website provides information on research and developments that have occurred in the years after publication. While the references provided may be a few years old, Our Stolen Future  remains an essential resource for anyone that wants to know about the impacts that man-made chemicals can have on nature's balance.

 

Chemicals in Clothes: Why buy organic?

Modern clothes manufacturing is very chemically intensive, but even before the processing into specific clothing begins, the raw materials have their own chemical diet.  While synthetic materials like polyester are petroleum-based, even natural materials like cotton are chemically dependent in the forms of fertilizers and pesticides--many of which come from petroleum feedstock.

Reduce Pollution

According to the Organic Trade Association a pound of raw cotton can require almost a 1/3 pound of synthetic fertilizers to grow one pound of raw cotton.  They estimate the raw material needed to make a single T-shirt can take over a pound of fertilizers to grow. 

Along with fertilizers, cotton growers use harmful chemical pesticides.  The residues of all these chemicals wash into surrounding ground and surface water, further polluting our environment. 

Choosing organic materials supports the shift away from these harmful chemicals.

Grown in the USA

The US is now among the top two growers of organic cotton globally.  This means that organic purchases not only support a healtheir planet, they can directly support healthier American families.

Organic cotton T offered by Organic Apparel.

--Tanya

Fast Fashion: A review of the industry and how the world feeds America's appetite for new clothes

I found this article by Claudio Luz while Googling for information on chemicals in clothing, a series of posts coming soon.  The article highlights the realities of the clothing industry--from child labor to hazardous working conditions--and how Americans, American women in particular, are altering the way the entire globe clothes itself.  Dubbed "fast fashion", our rate of consumption for clothes has increased over the last decade, and the cast-aways are not only changing the way that the rest of the world gets dressed--they're increasing the pace and downward pressure on prices for the industry itself.

Fierce global competition in the garment industry translates into poor working conditions for many laborers in developing nations. (top) A worker in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, rests on the floor of a garment factory. More than 2,000 young women work in this factory, producing clothes for shops in Europe and North America. (bottom) The owner of a textile factory in Dhaka threatens a child laborer, who works for 10 hours a day to earn US$1.

Taken from  Claudio L 2007. Waste Couture: Environmental Impact of the Clothing Industry. Environ Health Perspect 115:A449-A454. doi:10.1289/ehp.115-a449

 

--Tanya

Big retail to bring sustainability to fashion?

A co-worker forwarded me a New York Times article today about the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, a collaboration of bigwig retailers like Walmart and Penney's joining with environmental groups like The Environmental Defense Fund and even the federal Environmental Protection Agency. 

The partnership is working on a sustainability index for clothing.  That's right, your future clothing purchases might reflect the environmental impacts right on the label.  Walmart has made other headway into the sustainability arena, and they've been touted, with their massive purchasing power, as the ultimate powerhouse for setting trends for consumer products. 

Recognising that clothing is a sort of Wild West when it comes to environmental and social responsiblity, the Coalition's efforts may represent the arrival of a sherriff in town.  While the many layers of clothing production have obscured environmental and social atrocities behind an opaque supply chain, focused scrutiny by some of the biggest names in the business, collaborating with groups equipped to make life cycle assessments, should lend clarity to the industry.

The details of what the index will reflect remain to be seen, and while it won't be out for some time, I, for one, am more than eager to see the process unfold.

--Tanya

 

Environmental Impacts of Fabric: Linen

By Hannah

I've never shopped specifically for linen clothing, but if you wanted a lightweight dress or skirt, linen would be the way to go for its coolness.  Unfortunately, it's fibers are really good at holding wrinkles, so I hope you have a good iron.

Going into this blog, I had some rudimentary knowledge of linen, from a childhood tour of some historic location on the East Coast.  A lady in a colonial dress, bonnet, and white apron told the story of linen and apparently it left an impression, for my recent research confirmed what I remembered...

Linen is made from flax through a fairly intensive process:

1. Rippling - The flax plants are rippled to remove their seeds.
2. Retting - Softens and separates out the fibers (traditionally a several week process).
3. Braking - Separates the inner fiber core.
4. Scutching - Scraping remaining unwanted fibers off.
5. Hackling - Separating out the longer fibers.

Then you need to weave your fibers into linen, or spin them into yarn!  Whew, I'm already exhausted.  As you can imagine, this whole process has some significant environmental impacts. 

Environmental Impacts

Conventional flax growing still uses fertilizers and pesticides, although less than crops like cotton.  According to EarthPledge.org, many flax crops meet organic standards, whether they are certified or not.  Retting is now mainly done using mechanical tools, enzymes, and chemicals, so it does take energy and produce waste.

Like cottons, linens also need to be dyed and treated to reduce wrinkling.  At the end of its lifecycle, flax itself is biodegradable, but linen is not widely recycled, from what I can tell.  

What to Do About It

Purchase organic and recycled linen!  Etsy has some interesting items made from recycled linen doilies, etc.  Organic linen items abound online.  To find it in your favorite store might be a stretch.   

From the EQUA Fair Trade Fashion blog

Flax fibers 

Environmental Impacts of Fabric: Bamboo

By Hannah

Bamboo is to yuppies as hemp is to hippies.

Bamboo is the hot new "eco-friendly" fiber.  The bamboo stalk is broken down into soft, rounded fibers by retting, similar to how flax is processed to make linen.  These fibers can be spun into yarn, woven into fabrics, or processed into viscose (or rayon).  

Bamboo rayon must actually be labeled "rayon" or "rayon from bamboo".  In 2009, four companies ran into trouble for improperly marketing it as an eco-friendly "bamboo" product.

Environmental Impacts

Bamboo itself is a pretty good renewable resource because it grows so quickly and requires little-to-no maintenance, pesticides, or fertilizers.  However, it does take some energy, water, and chemicals to turn bamboo into fabric.  Retting can produce polluted wastewater and chemical processing can harm workers.

Manufacturing bamboo viscose or rayon has similar environmental impacts to any other type of rayon manufacture.  One other point is that bamboo fabric doesn't come from local sources.

What to Do About It

For starters, consider "rayon made from bamboo" as just as unsustainable as rayon.  It would be better to buy it used, but good luck since it's a relative new product.  

Ideally, you want to purchase non-viscose bamboo fabrics.  However, this very tough to find!  After about 20 minutes of searching through bamboo clothing companies' inventories, I finally found Shenboo of Suzhou, China, which makes a "natural bamboo fiber" (below) that is not viscose.  

Next, I tried to find an American retailer that sells natural bamboo fiber.  After a few dead ends, I found this admission by the company Natural Bamboo--that they sell bamboo fibers from China, but state "there is no way we can verify 100% exactly how raw bamboo is turned into fiber."  Great.

 My conclusion: When I eventually start buying new clothes, I will skip the bamboo!