|
Why We Use Sustainable Fabrics
What makes an eco-friendly wedding dress worth the time and the effort? Does it really make much difference where the gown comes from? Often, the garments that we choose depend more on fashion or economy than on ethics. But if we want to create a better world for ourselves and for our children, there are other factors to consider: where and how was the fabric produced? Under what conditions was the clothing assembled? What impact does it have on the environment? High fashion has lately come to terms with these questions and eco-chic is now becoming stylish as well as ethical.
The information below is the result of exhaustive and ongoing research and is the reason that we use exclusively sustainable fabrics in our eco-friendly wedding dresses. Once one realizes the enormity of the issues, it’s not difficult to see why our work is so extremely important to us.
In contrast to the typical sweatshop-made acetate polyester wedding dress, our garments are created from sustainable fabrics, sewn by skilled artisans who earn a fair living wage. We treat each client with personal attention, care and respect. For more info about us and our practices, see our About Us page.
Worker's rights and not so ethical treatment
"It’s Sunday, I am visiting Sean, and we drive out to the factory for some last minute outlet shopping. The machinery is quiet today; even in the world of cheap labor, long hours, and 7 day work weeks Sunday is special. We watch young women (girls?) walk by in pairs and groups, some coming from market, some eating ice cream. Factory work is something I’ve read about in history books in the chapter on the industrial revolution. In England they had such a difficult time finding factory workers at first that they offered it as an alternative to prison and still couldn’t staff the damn things. Somehow it doesn’t feel real. With all our preoccupation with work-life balance do we ever wonder about the life of girls who left their families to work 70 hour weeks making our work shirts? I buy an ice cream cone for 5 baht from a woman who seems amused that I would be here, much less be here eating ice cream and drive back to my comfort zone." -- excerpt from 'Thai Moments', by photojournalist Alisa Lemberg (reprinted with the author's permission) The garment industry is well-known for mistreatment of its workers; there have been many high-profile campaigns attempting to persuade companies to take more responsibility for their outsourced overseas labor. The vast majority of clothing is manufactured outside the US, since many companies prefer to import products from countries where labor costs are low. Big names like H&M (a Swedish-based store that sells heavily world-wide), Reebok (owned by German firm Adidas) and Wal-Mart (based in the US) are notorious for multiple ethical-treatment violations. Even within the US itself, sweatshop conditions are still reported to exist. How and why does this happen? Sadly, there is very little corporate accountability for worker's fair treatment; at present, brand-name companies largely ignore sweatshop conditions. For example, in Bangladesh, large companies such as WalMart, Asda and Primark have failed to follow up on guarantees to create decent working conditions in clothing factories and the same Bangladesh factory had devastating fires twice within 3 months1. Large sportswear corporations like Nike and Adidas have been found to have made no improvements since promising to do so in 2008. Workers' rights are eroded when profit margins become more important than people. Many workers are faced with fear and intimidation should they dare to demand better treatment. There have been countless documented cases where workers have been fired, suspended, or verbally abused by their supervisors. Employers often threaten that they will call the immigration authorities to report undocumented immigrant workers. These workers need their jobs to support themselves and their families and are often frightened into silence by such threats. Lastly, the laws that do exist to protect workers are often poorly enforced2. For supporting details, see a report outing sportswear factory worker conditions and a scathing expose on factory conditions in 'Who Pays - the Real Cost of Cheap School Uniforms'.
But there might be hope for change. In 2003, The Gap (which also owns Old Navy and Banana Republic) released its first-ever Social Responsibility report. It found thousands of violations at more than 3,000 of the retailer's factories in roughly 50 countries, including mistreatment of workers. The Gap has vowed to improve employees' situations and factory conditions. Anti-sweatshop activists praised the retailer's candor for publicly acknowledging the conditions that persist in the apparel industry3 [Update: as of Jan 2011, this page was no longer found on Gap's server. Very suspicious.]. Gap's corporate website had been reporting on the issues, but apparently no longer. And still, in 2007, we saw that Gap still has a lot to answer for. Want to learn more? See the watchdog websites that give detailed reports of recent findings, including the Clean Clothes Campaign and its UK-branch, called 'Labour Behind the Label'. Another organization, Behind the Label, endorses anti-sweatshop and fair trade practices with telling stories of workers within the global clothing industry.
For truly helpful guides on the activities of corporate giants, see Green America's individual profiles of major companies which can give some insight as to their policies regarding workers' rights and environmental practices. Want info on a specific company? Green America can help with that too.
And if you're ready to make some changes, there's an info-packed pdf available.
Cotton and poisons: natural fabrics do not always = sustainable fabrics
Cotton is widely known as a natural fabric, yet conventionally-grown cotton is one of the most ecologically damaging crops in the world. It's actually worse for the environment than most synthetic textiles. See the US Organic Trade Association's write-up of the impact of cotton on the environment for numbers and notes. According to Pan-UK, 'cotton uses consistently more hazardous pesticides than any other crop'4. Because it is primarily not a food crop, cotton can be routinely sprayed with an even heavier mixture of pesticide poisons than normal agricultural crops and in some countries may be sprayed up to tens of times a season.
Cotton accounts for around a quarter of the world's insecticide use5. According to the USDA, in 2004 alone over 56.7 million pounds of pesticides were used on U.S. cotton crops6. The poisons are largely used for the control of its two main predators: Spodoptera litura (tobacco cutworm) and Heliothis armigera (American bollworm or boll weevil). Unfortunately, these pesticides often kill off other, sometimes beneficial, insects and animals including natural predators of those insects harmful to cotton. According to the UK Soil Association, the UK has suffered a phenomenal decline in wildlife over the last 50 years.7.
Cultivating conventional cotton uses poisons that come in a range of toxic chemicals, such as Paraquat and Parathion, two of the so-called Dirty Dozen because they have been among the most toxic known for the past 17 years 8. Cotton growers typically use many of the most hazardous pesticides on the market including aldicarb, phorate, methamidophos and endosulfan. In fact, The United States Environment Protection Agency considers 7 of the top 15 pesticides used on cotton as 'probable' or 'known' human carcinogens9. Does GM cotton represent a hope for change? There has been no definitive answer as of this writing. But it was shown as far back as 2004 that GM crops actually increases herbicide use as well as increasing resistant weeds; they are reportedly creating more problems for farmers than solving them. According to Will Allen of the Organic Consumers Association: 'Since the introduction of genetically modified cotton, pesticide and herbicide use has increased, not decreased. Genetically manipulated cotton crops are showing lower yields and a series of problems from premature boll loss to seed fragmentation upon ginning.' 10 GM seeds are also known to be self-limiting in many cases, meaning that crops require re-seeding and farmers who use them must continue to buy seeds to survive. Yet just one company, Monsanto, sells over ninety per cent of all GM seeds, thus effectively creating a monopoly.11 So far, GM crops have been found to increase pesticide use and have not decreased hunger. Is GM cotton thought to be eco-supportive? The watchdog group 'Isis' says no12. And yet, another site reports that a 2006 US study found that 'GM Cotton cuts pesticide use'. But they admit that 'Last year, researchers in India warned that Bt cotton grown there was not effective at killing bollworms, and that farmers had to spray more insecticide as a result.' Elsewhere they state, 'Our findings indicate that Bt crops could be useful to reduce the environmental impacts of agricultural intensification'. But they point out that this depends on whether farmers need to use insecticides to control insects unaffected by the Bt toxin13. These findings were later disproven in reports from China14,15 In fact, a 10-year study in China shows that GM cotton, by suggesting that farmers need fewer methods to control the boll weevil, is causing an explosion of pests and will likely require extra pesticides to control them. And in India, we are told that GM crops are not the answer to pest control; G. V. Ramanjaneyulu, the executive director of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad, India, states, 'The cost is too high. Insect-resistant GM crops have no place in a rational pest management strategy'.16 Sure enough, insects in India are now becoming resistant to GM crops. Besides eco-concerns, there may be human-rights issues: a Sept 2007 report found child labor abuses found on Indian GM cotton farms 17 and 'Isis' published a scathing report 6 years earlier on the failure to apply rigorous scientific research to GM crops18.
UPDATE 2010: 'The Killing Fields of Multi-National Coporations' UPDATE 2011: 'Monsanto Sued for Bio-Piracy by the Country of India' The long-term environmental and social implications of GM crops are still not known. Unfortunately, at the time of this writing, no major clothing company is known to have issued a policy saying that it will use no GM cotton. The only way to be sure to avoid purchasing clothing that has come from a GM crop is to choose organic fabrics whenever possible. Regardless of whether GM foods and cotton are safer and more beneficial to humans, there is one incontrovertible fact: using GM seeds puts the decisions of the world's basic food crops in the hands of large corporations and not the growers themselves. For an apparently balanced and un-biased account of the GM debate, and listing of GM-Food resources as well as watchdog groups, see PBS's 'Seeds of Conflict'.
People, places and pesticides
The World Health Organization estimates that globally, approximately 20,000 people die of pesticide poisoning and 3 million more are sickened with chronic health problems every year. The plight is worse in developing countries, as the pesticides used there are often banned or restricted in richer countries. Pesticide use and poor irrigation is creating infertile land in the amounts of hundreds of acres and contaminating drinking water supplies. The extermination of natural protective animals has led to mass-outbreaks of harmful insects, thus creating need for more and more pesticide applications, which pile crushing debt onto the farmers who must pay for the poisons. An estimated 125,000 farmers have committed suicide as a result of debt caused by pesticide purchase or poor crop yields. In the state of Andhra Pradesh alone, 4,500 farmers committed suicide in the past seven years. This does not include the number of family members of farmers who have also killed themselves19. GM crops have also resulted in reported suicides due to pesticide usage, by farmers who could no longer subsist on failed crops nor repay their debts for the seeds they were forced to buy. Often the farmers kill themselves by ingesting the very pesticides they had been applying to their crops. 20
According to the Soil Association, it is estimated that over 31,000 tonnes of pesticide are now used in the UK annually21. In developing countries, safety precautions are often ignored which can lead to overexposure to pesticides by those using them. And not only in third-world countries: toxic chemicals were found to be used in California, USA despite rulings that such chemicals might even be contributing to the destruction of the ozone layer22. Pesticide exposure can cause a myriad of health problems such as immuno-suppression, which allows cancer rates to rise. According to a recent study by Belgian toxicologist Dr Charles Charlier, women with breast cancer are five to nine times more likely to have pesticide residues in their blood than those who do not. During the study, the doctors found hexachlorobenzene and DDT, banned in Europe for over a decade but still present in the environment23. Even in the USA, cancer rates in cotton producing states were significantly higher than neighboring states 10 years ago24,25. And a more recent agricultural health study found that some forms of cancer occur in higher rates for pesticide-using farmers in North Carolina and Iowa.
Despite their cumulative toxic effects, pesticides have ever-lessening efficiency. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council: 'Increasing evidence suggests that, in addition to causing biological disruption, pesticides no longer work as well as they once did. Numerous insects, weeds, and diseases have now developed a resistance to the effects of many pesticides. Insect resistance to synthetic insecticides was first discovered in the 1940s, and as insecticide use became widespread, the problem grew worse. Insects, weeds, and diseases all have the capacity to develop different mechanisms to resist the effects of pesticides and then to select for these mechanisms during reproduction. Over 500 species of insects and mites and close to 200 different species of plant pathogens and weeds are now resistant to one and sometimes several classes of synthetic pesticides.'26 In order to achieve adequate control of resistant pests, farmers must spray more often, which then exacerbates resistance problems. It is estimated that 10 percent of pesticide use in the United States is applied to combat increased resistance to various pest species27. This information was published in 1992 and one can only imagine the situation now after 19 years of repeated pesticide application. It is a downward spiral with no definite end. Every gardener knows that repeated pesticide application makes soil barren and useless through the extermination of the healthy bacteria and organisms in the soil. For a truly disturbing (and well-annotated) account of the effect of pesticides on the environment, see 'Silent Spring, Revisited', which describes the failure of the US Environmental Protection Agency to fulfill its duty.
If this weren't bad enough, it's been known for years that the pesticides might not even be arriving at their intended destinations. The Natural Resources Defense Council stated back in 1990 that 'Research has shown that less than one percent of the pesticides that are applied to crops actually reach their target organism. The remainder can often, therefore, end up in soil.'28
According to Terramar.co.uk:
Added to this are the effects of bleaching the woven fabric with toxic chemicals, and also spraying it with a fire-retardant, which was found 7 years ago to be an urgent health threat30. Greenpeace warns us that 'Currently, thousands of chemicals are used in consumer products with little or no health or safety assessments, leading to widespread contamination. A baby may have absorbed hundreds of toxic man-made chemicals before it is even born.'31
Wool, though another natural fiber, is not immune to chemical use. Conventionally-reared sheep are usually dipped in chemical solutions containing organophosphates, which have proven health risks32. According to several sources, organophosphates are among the most dangerous chemicals now in use and as early as 16 years ago have been linked with a range of problems including cancer, decreasing male fertility, fetal abnormalities, chronic fatigue syndrome in children and Parkinson's disease33. Their poisonous effects weren't widely known until the 1930s when the German military reportedly developed them for use in World War II as a neurotoxin34. Organic wool carries none of these dangers and is clearly less toxic for the sheep and the farmers who rear them.
What choice do we have?
We can choose well-made clothes for maximum wearing-life and to buy previously-loved clothing to get best use out of our resources. When we desire a new or special garment, we can choose ethically-made clothing, organically-grown fabrics and pesticide-free materials such as hemp and responsibly-harvested silk. Such garments are not only grown without poisons and manufactured without the use of heavy metals, chlorine bleach, chemical finishes or formaldehyde, but they are also kinder to the people who work to create them:
Not only is it viable to grow cotton organically, but it also has been demonstrated that the yield can be up to twice that of conventional, proving organic methods to be sustainable. Moreover, the quality of the cotton grown is often equal to or better than conventionally grown cotton35. Sustainable farming methods support healthy ecosystems and biodiversity. They improve soil quality and often use less water, as mentioned above. As with most crops, organic methods take more time and require more skill. Organic cotton growing, especially in newer farms, can be more labor intensive and newer crop yields may be lower, making organic cotton initially more expensive than the conventional alternative. But even this has an upside: the higher amounts of labor needed can be a boon to farming communities with high unemployment rates. Organic farming benefits growers by offering an alternative to the crippling debt-cycle that conventional farming brings. It improves the soil from every level and maintains biodiversity without adding poisons to the environment.
Hemp is also a good option as it is not GM seeded, nor does it require pesticides. Hemp is excellent for use in natural clothing and is a very environmentally friendly product; it yields more fiber per acre than cotton and can be grown without excess chemicals. According to the North American Industrial Hemp Council: 'Hemp grows well in a variety of climates and soil types. It is naturally resistant to most pests, precluding the need for pesticides. It grows tightly spaced, out-competing any weeds, so herbicides are not necessary. It also leaves a weed-free field for a following crop...At a volume level of 81%, hemp oil is the richest known source of polyunsaturated essential fatty acids (the 'good' fats). It's quite high in some essential amino acids, including gamma linoleic acid (GLA), a very rare nutrient also found in mother's milk...Because of its low lignin content, hemp can be pulped using less chemicals than with wood. Its natural brightness can obviate the need to use chlorine bleach, which means no extremely toxic dioxin being dumped into streams. A kinder and gentler chemistry using hydrogen peroxide rather than chlorine dioxide is possible with hemp fibers and has been around for years.'36.
What's in it for me?
Both ethical garment production and organic/sustainable agriculture prioritize the health and productivity of interdependent communities of soil, plants, animals and people. Buying natural clothing reduces the exposure to the chemical irritants in conventional clothing. Clothing has constant contact with our skin (our largest organ), including the more sensitive regions of our bodies. And we are constantly breathing in whatever our clothes might emit. Buy organic and you’ll be doing your body a favor. Those individuals with sensitive skin and eczema can also benefit from wearing organic cotton and pesticide-free hemp, thereby avoiding harsh chemical treatments. Organic cotton fibers have been found in some cases to be stronger than those grown with pesticides, making it more durable and softer to wear. But most important, buying organic sustainable clothing will help us all live on a kinder, healthier, less toxic planet. It will give you the peace of mind that you are making a real difference to the environment and to the people who create our clothing.
Should you find anything that needs to be added or corrected, please let us know; we want to keep this page current and accurate.
Endnotes:2 http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sweatshops/ftguide.html 3 Gap Social Responsibility Report Page; Includes highlights from their 2005-2006 Social Responsibility Report. Update, Jan 2011: this page was no longer found on Gap's server. Draw your own conclusions. 4 http://www.pan-uk.org/what-does-pan-uk-do 5 The Soil Association, Allen Woodburn Associates, Ltd. see the SA's Organic textiles briefing paper INFORMATION SHEET 12/01/2005 entitled, 'Organic Textiles, some Common Questions Answered.' 6 USDA report, 'Pest Management Practices' table 4.3.1 can be found at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/eib16/chapter4/4.3/ 7 See The Soil Association: 'Wildlife'
8 Source: Pesticide Action Network (PAN). 'Demise of the dirty dozen' chart, 1993. Also see 'The Facts on Pesticides' at http://www.newint.org/features/2000/05/05/facts/. 9 Here and here are more details of known, probable or possible carcinogens and how organic farming is better for all involved. 10 Allen, Will. Speech on King Cotton and U.S. Farm Subsidies. World Social Forum, Mumbai, India January 2004. 11 Organic Consumers Association, Saving the World's Seeds by Vandana Shiva, 17th April 2005 12 GM Cotton Fiascos Around the World - GM Cotton is not environmentally friendly or safe - gives worldwide findings of GM cotton use with descriptions of the widespread damage. 13 Report dated 4 May, 2006 on Study by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: GM Cotton Cuts Pesticide Use 15 'China's GM cotton battles a new bug' 16 GM crops are not the answer to pest control' 17 http://groups.google.com/group/foodpolicy/browse_thread/thread/b945aa4787bf24bf 18 'GM Cotton in India Exposes Rot in Science' - Isis report, July 2001 19 Source: 'Harvesting Death,' by Sarita Tukaram; CIA Factbook; Lonely Planet Guide: India; PBS; BBC. also see'The Facts on Pesticides' at http://www.newint.org/features/2000/05/05/facts/. 20 The Project Syndicate's Report - 'Harvest of Suicide'. 21 The Soil Association's article entitled: 'Pesticide residues are commonly found in our food'. Google the phrase 'it is estimated that over 31,000 tonnes of pesticide are now used in the UK annually' for the exact URL reference (it's too long to list here). 22 Lee, Mike, The San Diego Union Tribune, 14 Dec 2005, Despite global treaty, toxic pesticide still is in widespread use in California'.
23 See the Soil Association's Information Sheet entitled: 'Toxic Shock: the link between pesticides and cancer' 11/15/2005 which references in the footnotes Charlier C et al (2003), 'Breast cancer and serum organo-chlorine residues', Occupational and Environmental Medicine 60(5), p348 –351. 24 Ibid. Schreinemachers DM (2000), 'Cancer mortality in four northern wheat-producing states', Environmental Health Perspectives 108(9), p873 –881. 25 Ibid. Alavanja MCR et al (2003) 'Use of Agricultural Pesticides and Prostate Cancer Risk in the Agricultural Health Study Cohort ', American Journal of Epidemiology 157(9), p800 –814. 26 Found in reference [4] of table entitled: "Pesticides are not a lasting Solution" see http://www.nrdc.org/health/farming/fields/chap2.asp. It references the National Research Council, Ecologically Based Pest Management: New Solutions for a New Century, p. 26. 27 Found in reference [5] of table entitled: "Pesticides are not a lasting Solution" (see note 6 above for URL link). Pimentel, David, et. al., 'Environmental and Economical Costs of Pesticide Use' BioScience, November 1992, vol. 42, no. 10, p. 754. 28 Found in reference [6] of table entitled: 'Pesticides are not a lasting Solution'. The National Resources Defense Council "Fields of Change" http://www.nrdc.org/health/farming/fields/chap2.asp which sources: Office of Technology Assessment, Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches to Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater, U.S. Congress, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., November 1990, p. 104. 29 http://terramar.co.uk/pages/about/organic/some-facts-and-figures-on-cotton/ 30 Santillo and Johnston (2003), 'Playing with Fire: the global threat presented by brominated flame retardants justifies urgent substitution', Environment International 29, p725-734. Google the phrase: "Playing with Fire: the global threat presented by brominated flame retardants justifies urgent substitution" for a URL. 31See the June, 2006 Greenpeace Article: 'Top fashion designers create toxic-free collection to persuade EU to ban dangerous chemicals'. See also the Organic Consumer's Association report from the Environment News Service: http://www.organicconsumers.org/school/newborns071505.cfm. 32 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2860731.stm 33 11 Jul 2004 Medical News Today, UK 'Organic Foods in Relation to Nutrition and Health Key Facts'. It references: BMA (1992) The BMA guide to pesticides, chemicals and health, Report of the Board of Science and Education, British Medical Association, and Robbins C (1991) Poisoned harvest: A consumer’s guide to pesticide use and abuse, Victor Gollancz Ltd, p. 300 – 313. The link can be found at: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=10587 34 Sixwise: Organophosphates: 'What You Don't Know Can Indeed Hurt You' 35 Institute of Science and Society (ISIS) Press Release 04/11/05 see: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BrPaulsOrganicFarm.php 36 North American Industrial Hemp Council statement, October 1997 see: http://www.naihc.org/hemp_information/hemp_facts.html
Generally informative sources:
Want truly disconcerting information on how pesticides affect your life? The Pesticide Action Network is working to replace pesticide use with ecologically sound alternatives. PAN UK is a registered charity which works with many partners in the developing world, mainly in West Africa for cotton. They support poor small scale organic cotton farmers there. For a direct link to their cotton pages, click on www.WearOrganic.org.
http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainability/projects/mass/UK_textiles.pdf (discusses the 'The Present and Future Sustainability of Clothing and Textiles in the UK)
The UK Government's Take on Greener Clothing Choices and how to help the environment
http://www.allorganiclinks.com Further Reading on People and Pesticides Pesticides and the Immune System: The Public Health Risks (available for $14.95 plus $3.50 for shipping and handling from WRI Publications, P.O. Box 4852, Hampden Station, Baltimore, MD 21211, 1-800-822-0504 or 410-516-6963). 
|
