Organic_Clothing

Bamboo Sprouting Green Myths

"Advertising is the 'wonder' in Wonder Bread." - Jef I. Richards, Professor of Advertising, University of Texas at Austin

Bamboo fabric is becoming the Wonder Bread of sustainable textiles. This isn’t to say that bamboo doesn’t have many exceptional qualities. I’m just saying that the green hype is starting to lead to a loss of credibility. Let’s take a short walk through the bamboo green claims and see what’s real and what’s green spin.

Anti-bacterial & UV Protection. “Bamboo fiber has particular and natural functions of anti-bacteria, bacteriostasis and deodorization” due to a “a unique anti-bacteria and bacteriostasis bio-agent named bamboo kun." The mysterious anti-bacterial component has also been called “bamboo chinone”. This unique claim of bamboo fabric is bolstered by studies performed by the Japan Textile Inspection Association; National Textile Inspection Association in China (NTIA), and the Shanghai Microorganism Research Institute. The theory goes that somehow the bamboo kun is chemically bound closely to the bamboo cellulose fibers and this chemical binding survives the harsh chemicals used to free the bamboo cellulose from the lignin and other components found in bamboo when the bamboo cellulose is regenerated into bamboo fiber.

There are two problems to bamboo’s claim for being a uniquely anti-bacterial fabric. The first is that bamboo fabric’s anti-bacterial claim was recently repudiated by research conducted by Colorado State University chemists Subhash Appidi and Ajoy Sarkar, Ph.D., investigating UV-resistant and anti-bacterial fabrics. They reported at the 235^th national meeting of the American Chemical Society that “bamboo fabric did not live up to antimicrobial expectations.” Their research also indicated that bamboo fabric is low in UV-resistance and that most damaging ultraviolet rays pass through bamboo fabric to the skin. The research at the Colorado State University directly contradicts many claims and research performed in China and Japan. We need more independent and transparent research to ferret out why the differences.

The second problem is that claims for being an anti-bacterial fabric are not unique to bamboo fabric. Other regenerated cellulose fabrics also claim to have anti-bacterial properties. According to the Lenzing AG web site, “Bacterial growth was observed in various fibers, and TENCEL®, with its rapid absorption of moisture and high absorption capacity proved most effective in inhibiting growth” and “The result demonstrates that TENCEL® is the most naturally hygienic fiber. TENCEL® prevents the growth of bacteria naturally without the addition of chemical additives.”

Unique Bamboo Properties? Thermal-regulating, Anti-static, Biodegradable, Natural UV Protection, Super Soft. Regenerated cellulose fabrics share many common properties. “Green & biodegradable, breathable and cool, soft had feeling, luxurious shiny appearance” are properties commonly found in regenerated cellulose fabrics such as Tencel® / lyocell, Modal®, Viscose® … and bamboo. And this shouldn’t be any surprise as they all derive from cellulose that has been extracted from plants using similar chemical processing and then excreted through spinnerets to form fibers for textiles and clothing.

Research by Y. Xu, Z. Lu and R. Tang at the Testing and Analysis Center at Suzhou University in China used scanning electron microscopes (SEM), Infrared Spectroscopy (IR), and thermoanalyzers (TA) to analyze the physical structure and properties of bamboo viscose, Tencel® and viscose fibers. Their results, which are reported in the Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, Vol. 89 (2007), found that all three fibers belong to the cellulose II category and that, while there are variations in the regenerated cellulose fibers that affect fiber properties, the similarities in structural properties are striking. Among their findings was that Tencel® consists of longer molecules and has a greater degree of crystallinity, while bamboo viscose fiber has a lower degree of crystallinity. Differences in fabrics from regenerated cellulose are a combination of factors – some differences in the cellulose cellular structure between the different sources, differences in the mechanical spinning processes when the fibers are formed and the specific chemicals used, and the finishing processes and the enzymes and chemicals used.

Grown on Environmentally Friendly Bamboo Plantations. Bamboo fabric is spun from bamboo pulp manufactured from bamboo grown on bamboo plantations primarily in China. Because bamboo has so many uses and derived products, growing bamboo has become a significant industry in China. The book Rehabilitation of Degraded Forests to Improve Livelihoods of Poor Farmers in South China by Liu Dachang published in 2003 by the Center International Forestry Research researches in depth the environmental and social damage that have been created by poor and over-harvested forests of all kinds, not just bamboo, in China. Chinese government forest policy reforms within the last twenty years have transferred ownership of most forests to private citizens and businesses. The result has been a lack of government regulations for controlling forest land use and many forests were clear-cut to plant money-making mono-cultures such as bamboo plantations.

The adverse environmental impact associated with bamboo plantations replacing natural forests was also documented in a paper by Dr. Jim Bowyer titled “Bamboo Flooring – Environmental Silver Bullet or Faux Savior?”. Because of the severity of the problems, there are now broad initiatives underway in China to rehabilitate degraded forest lands by restoring biodiversity and improving soil and forest conditions. Because bamboo has so many different economics uses such as food products, paper, furniture and housing materials, and textiles, the opportunity and temptation for exploitation of land and resources is great and it is difficult to determine where and under what conditions the bamboo was grown. This is especially a problem for bamboo textiles which are made from regenerated cellulose bamboo pulp because bamboo fiber manufacturers buy their bamboo pulp from suppliers. They don’t manufacture it themselves and there is little transparency in the supply chain.

Here is one example. On their web site, BambroTex proclaims “Bamboo Fibre is a kind of regenerated cellulose fiber, which is produced from raw materials of bamboo pulp by our sole patented technology. Firstly, bamboo pulp is refined from bamboo through a process of hydrolysis-alkalization and multi-phase bleaching. We then process Bamboo pulp into bamboo fiber.” At the same time, Tenbro is declaring “Shanghai Tenbro is the earliest and most specialized bamboo fiber manufacturer in China, and the only patent holder of both material and products of bamboo fiber accredited by State Intellectual Property Bureau.” Both the claims of BambroTex and Tenbro to being the sole patent holders of bamboo fiber are misleading. It seems that Jigao Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. of China is the actual holder of the patent for manufacturing bamboo fiber in China and the Jigao Chemical Fiber Company produces all the bamboo fiber which Shanghai Tenbro Bamboo Textile Company, China BambroTextile Company, Hebei Jigao Import & Export Company, Jilin Chemical Fiber Import & Export Company, Shanghai Worldbest Company and Minmetals Shanghai Pudong Trading Company export bamboo fiber globally according to the Jigao Chemical Fiber Company.

Things with bamboo fiber are seldom what they seem at first blush. The tens of thousands of tons of bamboo fiber produced by Jigao Chemical Fiber Company for export by its licensed agents such as the Shanghai Tenbro Bamboo Textile Company and the China Bambro Textile Company are manufactured from hundreds of thousands of tons of bamboo plants raised on many thousands of bamboo plantations across China under a wide variety of environmental farming conditions. How can any manufacturer claim that their bamboo fabric is only produced from bamboo grown on environmentally sustainable farms? How do they know where their bamboo was grown and under what conditions? Given the intense emphasis on profits and the lack of transparency in Chinese business and that one company manufacturers the bamboo fibers used in the majority of exported bamboo fabric, claims that only environmentally sustainable bamboo plants are used ring as hollow as a bamboo flute.

The processing of bamboo plants into textile fibers is relatively harmless because caustic soda is the “main chemical used.” Caustic soda, aka sodium hydroxide - NaOH, is one of the ingredients used to reduce bamboo plants to pulpy goo in a process known as hydrolysis alkalization. Caustic soda is a harsh alkaline chemical that must be handled carefully, especially at high levels and under the high temperature and pressure needed for hydrolysis alkalization. As the old saying goes “The poison is in the size of the dose.”

Another toxic chemical in the processing of bamboo rayon is carbon disulfide which has been linked to serious health problems. Breathing low levels of carbon disulfide can cause tiredness, headache and nerve damage. Carbon disulfide has been shown to cause neural disorders in workers at rayon manufacturers.

In Summary. Bamboo fabric has much to offer but much remains to be done before the growing of bamboo can have significant environmentally positive impacts. Here are some steps to produce a more sustainable bamboo fabric:

• The Chinese Government must strengthen their forest reform policies.
• Organic bamboo certifications must be enacted to insure that bamboo plantations are sustainably managed.
• Bamboo rayon fiber manufacturing must be transformed into a closed-loop process to reduce the escape of harsh and toxic chemicals into waste waters, the air and the textile workers environment.
• Commercialize natural bamboo bast fiber processing such as that promised by Litrax so that we can get away from chemically regenerated bamboo viscose rayon.
• And please, make sure that marketing claims match the facts and don’t mislead the consumer.

Enjoy.

-Michael

Regenerated Cellulose Fabrics: Facts Behind the Fibers

 This is the first in a series of posts on regenerated fibers and their fabrics. Many of the sustainably fashionable new fabrics that are giving eco-designers and even conventional runway designers hot eco-flashes are from the family of regenerated fibers – corn fibers such as Ingeo and Sorona, soy fabrics such as SoySilk® from Soy Protein Fiber (SPF – a byproduct of soybean manufacturing), bamboo, rayon, lyocell / Tencel®, Modal®, and Viscose®. 

A Short Overview of Textile Fibers.Fibers are the basic component of fabrics. Fibers from natural or manufactured sources are twisted together to form yarn and threads that are then woven or knit into fabrics and garments. Natural fibers come from plants (such as cotton, hemp, kenaf and flax), or from animals (such as wool, hair and fur), or insects (such as silk).

Manufactured fibers come in two flavors: synthetic fibers and regenerated fibers. Synthetic fibers are cooked up in large vats and are made entirely from chemicals. Some of the most common synthetic fibers are the thermoplastic, petroleum-based synthetic fibers such as polyester and nylon. Synthetic fibers also include the “green” PET fabrics (PolyEthylene Terephthalate) such as EcoSpun from Wellman Inc. which is made from recycled plastic soda bottles. EcoSpun lined coats and jackets are sold by several environmentally credentialed companies such as Sierra Club and Patagonia.

Manufactured regenerated fibers are made from the chemical-induced transformation of natural polymers and basically fall into two categories: protein origin and cellulose origin. Regenerated fibers of protein origin come from plant protein (such as corn, soy, alginate, and peanut), or from animal protein (such as casein from milk). Many of the new, hot eco-friendly fabrics – like Ingeo from corn and soy from soybeans – are manufactured from proteins found in plants.

Regenerated fibers of cellulose origin – bamboo, rayon, lyocell / TENCEL®, Modal® and Viscose® – are made of cellulose from tree wood and inner pith and leaves from bamboo plants using differing fiber manufacturing processes with common roots going back to France in the 1890s to produce a textile that was then called “artificial silk” or “art silk”. The textile industry adopted the term “rayon” in 1924. This family of regenerated cellulose fibers for textiles and fabrics has also been called reconstructed fibers or natural synthetic fibers. This post will be an overview of regenerated cellulose fibers and fabrics.

A Bit of Botany and Chemistry. Cellulose has been used to make fabric and clothing for millennium. Cellulose, the structural component of cell walls in green plants, is the most common organic compound on earth. Cotton is 90% cellulose and measurements of bamboo vary from 50% to 60% cellulose. Wood is composed of fibers that are 40% to 50% cellulose, 15% to 25% hemicellulose and fortified with 15% to 30% lignin. The most common organic compound on Earth, cellulose is the structural component of cell walls in all green plants. Like cellulose, hemicellulose is also a polysaccharide but hemicellulose is composed of short, weak sugar chains that can be easily hydrolyzed and decomposed by dilute acids or alkalis in water and by some enzymes. Lignin is the glue which fills the spaces in plant cell walls between the cellulose, hemicellulose and other compounds found in the cell walls. Lignin locks and sequesters atmospheric carbon into green plants and the decomposition of lignin in plants releases the trapped carbon back into the atmosphere. Generally, the higher the lignin content the harder the wood. The essential production processes for chemically manufacturing regenerated cellulose from bamboo and wood are:

1. Preprocessing of Wood Chips and Bamboo Pith. Imagine just for a moment about what kinds of processes and chemicals it must take to “cook” hard wood chips into a soft, pliable cellulose pulp that can be transformed into a softly, flowing dress.
   
   To transform hard wood into silky fabric, the cellulose must be separated from the hemicellulose, lignin, and all the other sugars, starches and other compounds found in plant cells and then formed into a cellulose wood pulp. Trees from tree farms are logged, debarked, and hacked into one-inch square wood chips. Strong bases such as sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) and sodium sulfide - called white liquor - are commonly used in a process called the kraft/soda process to digest the wood chips and produce cellulose wood pulp. The resulting waste products containing the chemical wastes, lignins, hemicellulose, and other non-cellulose compounds are called the black liquor. If the color of the wood pulp requires lightening, the wood pulp can be bleached using enzymes such as xylanase enzymes from bacterial isolates or ligninolytic enzymes, or with a hydrogen peroxide solution or sodium hydrosulfate solution, or with a dilute acids such as trifluoroacetic acid, or with elemental chlorine or other chlorinated substances.
   
   The cellulose wood pulp is dried to produce hard sheets of purified cellulose, also known as “dissolving pulp” or “dissolving cellulose” from selected wood chips or bamboo stalks. The purified cellulose sheets are sometimes bleached with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) to remove remaining color. The preprocessing removes most of the lignin, hemicelluloses, free sugars, mineral salts, and starches found in plant cell walls along with cellulose. The resulting purified cellulose sheets contain 87% to 98% long-chain cellulose molecules. Wood chips that are commonly used include spruce, pine, hemlock, beech, and the leaves and inner pith of bamboo. The preprocessing chemicals and amounts used will vary according to the different types of wood.


2. Processing of Purified Cellulose. The dissolving cellulose pulp sheets are soaked in a caustic alkali solution of 15% to 20% sodium hydroxide, also known as caustic soda, to produce sheets of alkali cellulose. The alkali cellulose sheets are shredded, aged for a few days under closely controlled temperature and humidity, and then bathed in liquid carbon disulfide which transforms the cellulose into cellulose xanthate. Excess carbon disulfide is removed to produce cellulose sodium xanthogenate which is then dissolved in a solution of sodium hydroxide creating a viscous solution.
3. Regenerating Cellulose into Fibers. The viscose cellulose solution is aged to allow xanthate groups to revert back to cellulosic hydroxyls and free carbon disulfide, filtered to remove undissolved materials, vacuum treated to remove tiny air bubbles which could weaken the fiber strands, and then forced through spinneret heads (similar to a shower head) to create fine streams of viscose threads in a sulfuric acid bath. The sulfuric acid causes the cellulose xanthogenate to coagulate and bond into filaments of pure regenerated cellulose fibers.


4. Drawing, Bonding, and Cleaning. The newly regenerated fibers are washed in a weak solution of sodium sulfide to remove sulfur impurities and sometimes bleached again to remove discolorations. The fibers are stretched which causes the cellulose chains to reorient along the fiber axis and allows the cellulose chains to also cross-bond as they become parallel to each other. The cellulose fibers are given a final bath to wash away lingering chemicals from the manufacturing process. The fibers are dried, and rolled onto spools for new yarn and threads.

Environmental Hazards & Health Problems. The preprocessing of wood chips into a cellulose wood pulp for conventional rayon fibers can be environmentally messy. Factories for manufacturing wood pulp are often not located at the same facility which later takes the dissolving cellulose pulp sheets and transforms them into rayon fibers for textile. Because the pulp manufacturing process requires large amounts of water, they are often located near large rivers. The inorganic chemicals are recovered for reuse in other pulping processes.  For more about about the recover process for pulp manufacturing, check this out.  Removing the lignins and other contaminants from wood releases large amounts of organic materials, high biological orxygen demand (BOD), dissolved organic carbon, and a variety of alcohols and heavy metals into the waste waters and into rivers if they are not properly treated.

The early manufacturing of regenerated cellulose into rayon created worker safety hazards from chemical fumes escaping during the processing and environmental hazards from harsh and toxic chemicals escaping in wash waters and waste byproducts. Strengthened environmental protection standards and worker health regulations have lead to improved manufacturing processes but most pulp producing and rayon fiber manufacturing factories are still a long way from being sustainable.

Sodium hydroxide in strong solutions used during the pulping process can be very caustic and can burn skin. Sodium sulfide can react to produce hydrogen sulfide which is a toxic gas. The bleaching process to lighten pulp color is generally the most environmentally problematic, especially if it uses elemental chlorine, chlorine dioxide, or hypochlorous acid in aqueous solution. The use of chlorine in bleaching wood pulp can result in chlorinated byproducts that are toxic and difficult to eliminate with conventional waste treatment. Bleaching processes that use hydrogen peroxide are safer for the environment and for human health.

Toxic chemicals used to manufacture cellulose wood pulp into rayon fibers must also be reclaimed or neutralized from all waste waters and a considerable amount of solid waste byproducts from the non-cellulose components in the wood. Carbon disulfide, lignin and xanthates in the waste solutions are environmental hazards and must be removed from the waste waters. Depending upon the pulping and bleaching processes, contaminants from the pulping process can span a wide range of toxicity from suspended waste solids to carcinogens like dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

The great unknown is how willing and capable is each individual fiber manufacturing facility at removing the toxicity of waste products before discharging them into community rivers and streams or dumping them into landfills. It all depends upon the host countries environmental protection laws, worker safety laws and the willingness of local government to enforce any laws that might exist.

Improved Rayon Processing. Technical advancements in rayon processing have lead to improved rayon fabrics such as high wet modulus (HWM) rayon, also known as polynosic rayon and better known by its trade name of MODAL®. Another advanced rayon is lyocel, which is better known by the Lenzing Group trade name for their highly popular TENCEL®. These technical advancements have created a rayon that is not only less prone to stretching when wet but, more importantly, they have also created a closed-loop processing that allows 99.5% of the chemical solvents to be recycled and reused and any remaining emissions and pollutants can be decomposed in waste treatment plants.

The manufacturing processes for lyocell and modal differ significantly from those commonly used to manufacture other varieties of rayon. An informed article by Angela Woodward outlines the generic lyocell / TENCEL® processes for closed-loop manufacturing as follows:

1. Preprocessing of Wood Chips. Select hardwood logs are chipped into small pieces and feed into large metal digester tanks to be cooked at high temperatures under steam in a strong alkali chemical solution which reduces the wood chips to a pulp. The pulp is washed with water to remove the chemicals and then bleached to lighten and create a uniform color. The wood pulp is dried into sheets that are rolled into large spools which are functionally similar to the purified cellulose sheets in the generic rayon process.
2. Processing of Purified Cellulose. The cellulose sheets are crumbled into small pieces, and cooked again in large, enclosed tanks under high pressure and temperatures in a solution of N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide or some other member of the amine oxide family to dissolve the crumbed cellulose pulp sheets into a liquid solution. The liquid solution is then filtered to remove any undissolved pulp chips.
3. Regenerating Cellulose into Fibers. The filtered cellulose solution is forced through spinneret heads into a diluted amine oxide solution to cause the cellulose strands to set and align. The cellulose fibers are then washed in a de-mineralized water solution.
4. Finishing. The filaments are dried and then coated with a lubricant, such as soap or silicone, so that their filaments untangle easily. This is something like applying conditioner to hair after washing. The filaments are carded so they all lay in the same direction, crimped to give the fibers body (again, think of crimping hair), the crimped and carded filaments are cut to a uniform length and baled together. The baled filaments can then be sent to fiber mills where they can be twisted into yarns and woven or knit into fabric. The whole process from processing the purified cellulose sheets to baling the regenerated cellulose fibers is supposed to take only 2 hours.
5. Recovery of Solvents. The amine oxide is recovered from the processing solutions and reused. The recovery process is supposed to reclaim more than 99% of the amine oxide and any unrecovered amine oxide is decomposed in the waste treatment processing.

The basic manufacturing process for regenerating bamboo leaves and pith into bamboo fibers for clothing is covered in our post “Bamboo: Facts Behind the Fiber”.

The preprocessing of wood chips into pulp for the advanced cellulose fibers of lyocell, Modal and Viscose is essentially the same as for conventional rayon. The processing of the wood cellulose pulp into fiber is more sustainable than the processing used for conventional rayon because the closed-loop process is supposed to capture and reclaim almost all the chemical solvents used in the manufacturing. Also, the solvents such as N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide (NMMO) used to dissolve the bamboo or wood chip cellulose into a viscose solution are from the chemical family of amine oxides which are supposed to be environmentally less harmful.

The important point in understanding the nature of regenerated cellulose fibers is that the underlying process of extracting and purifying the cellulose cells, reducing them to a viscose solution, and then regenerating them into manufactured fibers is essentially the same regardless of whether the source is wood from trees or from bamboo. The differences in fabric properties such as texture, hand, pilling, fibrillation, and dye acceptance generally result from different chemicals and enzymes and their dilution strengths and from processing techniques used during the fiber and finishing.

To be an environmentally and socially ethical fashionista, know how your fabrics are made and then make responsible decisions.

Enjoy.

-Michael

The New Cotton Debate: What is sustainable cotton?

While rummaging through the Cotton, Inc. web site (which is a fascinating and well done site), I quickly realized that the Great Cotton Debate is being recast. During the early growth of organic clothing in the late 1990s and early 2000s, organic cotton was recognized as the healthy choice – healthy for the individual, healthy for the environment, and healthy for workers growing and harvesting cotton. Conventional cotton relied upon heavy doses of toxic chemical herbicides and pesticides. We’ve all seen the statistics:

• Conventionally grown cotton accounts for 25% of all agricultural pesticides used in the U.S.
• 1/3 of a pound of chemical fertilizers and pesticides is used to grow each pound of cotton harvested which is the amount of cotton needed to manufacture one cotton t-shirt;

Unfortunately, the statistics often cited about chemical pesticide usage for conventionally grown cotton are now incorrect.  They were derived from studies conducted in the 1990s such as the report from Allen Woodburn Associates, Ltd titled “Cotton: The Crop and its Agrochemicals Market” published in 1995. Since then, there has been a change in the playing field … or perhaps we should say in the cotton field.

Conventional cotton is being recast as the sustainable savior and organic cotton is being portrayed as the tiny niche bungler, the old and inadequate solution that is as out-dated as last year’s fashions. The organic cotton vs. conventional cotton debate is being reshaped by the conventional cotton industry through a series of Cotton Incorporated sponsored conferences on sustainable cotton and web articles trumpeting conventionally grown as “sustainable cotton”, “an important eco-fiber”, and a fiber that is “making the eco-movement matter” while promoting claims such as:

• Sustainability is defined “as balance between growing profitability, protecting the environment and promoting social responsibility”;
• “Technology is the driver behind more eco-friendly agriculture and manufacturing, finding alternative fuel sources and reducing the environmental footprint”;
• Biotechnology and the resulting genetically modified varieties of cotton are helping drive environmental improvements;
• Recent advances in cotton manufacturing have helped the “global textile industry be more cost-efficient and environmentally-friendly”;
• According to their three requirements for sustainability, conventional cotton production has become sustainable and conventional cotton now qualifies as sustainable cotton;
• Cotton grown by conventional agricultural methods is renewable, biodegradable and environmentally-friendly – all adding to their claims for sustainability;
• Conventionally grown cotton has become more drought- and heat-tolerant and requires less chemicals and pesticides;
• Environmentally-concerned consumers are more apt to buy conventionally-grown, sustainable cotton textiles over organic cotton because of the greater selections in styles and designs;
• Organic cotton will never be a viable option for large retailers such as the British department store chain Marks & Spenser because it “costs upwards of 100 percent more than conventionally grown cotton due to lower yields, a segregated supply chain and reliance on manual labor …”;
• "Organic" is a limited term that doesn't adequately address spent energy and resources across all phases of cotton growing, ginning, spinning and fabric manufacturing.

Conventionally grown cotton has undergone an amazing PR transformation from being the most heavily poisoned crop on the face of the earth to being proclaimed the new sustainable eco-fiber. There are several factors that have contributed to this astounding morphing:

1. Improvements in general agricultural practices such as integrated pest management practices, no-till farming (reduced soil erosion and lower carbon emissions from farm tractors) and lateral move irrigation (improved irrigation efficiency resulting in lower water consumption). The integrated pest management practices are teaming up with improvements in pesticides (comprised of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides) that allow for lower application levels and more targeted application. The improved pesticides are not necessarily less toxic or harmful to workers or the environment;
2. Improvements in textile manufacturing facilities and processes to reduce toxic chemicals lost in waste waters and released into the environment;
3. And the most important and ubiquitous factor is the rapidly increasing use of GMO cotton seed stock in U.S., Australia, India and China. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) estimates that in 2005 about 28% of the global cotton field acres were planted in transgenic GM cotton, according to “Cotton Outlook to 2010-11” by Drum, Roberts and Smirl. The USDA reports that 87% of the U.S. cotton crop was genetically engineered in 2007.

All three of these factors apply to other major conventionally grown crops such as corn and soybeans. But the self-proclaimed advances toward sustainability and environmental friendship in conventionally grown cotton are largely founded upon the conversion of conventional cotton to GMO cotton fields. We have reviewed the GMO cotton issues in our post Perspectives on GM Cotton.

Claims for conventional GMO cotton sustainability are based upon the generic three-cornered definition of sustainability: growing profitability, environmental protection, and social responsibility. Let’s look at these three self-proclaimed sustainability factors.

Growing profitability – the promise.  Cotton yields – and therefore farmers’ income and profitability – are threatened by three major forces: insects, weeds, and weather. Bio-engineering companies, such as U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, have invested heavily in developing Bt cotton seeds, which have been genetically modified to contain a slice from the insecticidal gene Bacillius thuringiensis (Bt) to make it resistant to insect pests such as the bollworm. The theory being that when insect pests eat and digest the Bt cotton plant the Bacillius thurengiensis bacteria spliced into the genetically modified Bt cotton will cause a lethal paralysis in the digestive tract of the devouring insect.

Competition in weed-infested fields can reduce cotton yields by 50% or more. The biotechnology solution has been to genetically modify cotton to become resistant to herbicides so that weed killers can be liberally applied to cotton fields to kill the weeds without doing in the cotton. Monsanto developed herbicide-tolerant (HT) cotton plants that would be tolerant to Monsanto’s widely used Roundup herbicide. Roundup contains the active ingredient glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide in the U.S. and widely used globally. The isopropylamine salt in glyphosate kills actively growing plants by inhibiting an enzyme involved in the synthesis of selected amino acids needed for plants to grow. Monsanto has genetically engineered genes into cotton seeds that allow the growing GMO cotton to be resistant to the Roundup that is applied to fields of cotton. The Roundup kills growing weeds but doesn’t affect the “Roundup Ready” GMO cotton.

While improvements in agricultural practices are helpful, a report by the Foreign Agricultural Service of the USDA reveals that many conventional cotton farmers in Brazil believe that the key to increased yields and therefore increased profitability is in large-scale plantings of GMO cotton. This promise has been sold to cotton farmers and producers across the globe. In Brazil where GMO cotton was recently legalized, cotton farmers converting to GMO Bt cotton seed and Roundup-ready cotton varieties are lead to expect cost savings of 15-30% due to reductions in manual labor costs and herbicide usage needed to control weeds.

Burkina Faso, the largest cotton producing country in Africa, has been conducting studies supported by the U.S. biotech giant Monsanto on GMO cotton since 2003 and plan to begin large scale commercial cotton growing in 2009. GMO cotton has already been introduced into South Africa and Egypt. Government leaders in Burkina Faso believe that they must use GMO cotton to achieve higher production efficiencies that will allow their poor cotton farmers to compete more effectively with developed countries such as the U.S. where cotton is subsidized by the U.S. government. This is the promise.

Growing profitability – the results.  The economic benefits to cotton farmers of GMO cotton have been hotly debated.  India passed legislation in 2002 opening the door for GMO cotton into India’s quickly blooming cotton agriculture. In 2007 an estimated 19% of the global cotton production came from India with per acre cotton yields and total number of acres in planted in GM cotton steadily increasing. Most cotton in India iis grown on small farms. A survey funded by Monsanto reported that Indian GMO Bt cotton farmers in 2004 harvested 58% more cotton per acre with net profits 163% greater than non-GMO conventionally grown cotton. Other biotech-industry funded studies proclaimed similar results in South Africa and the U.S.

A comprehensive study by Friends of the Earth International titled “Who Benefits from GM Crops?” attempts to examine the complex issues surrounding genetically modified crops and sort out cause and effect, fact and fiction, hype and actuality. Their primary findings were that the positive results from the studies most often cited by Monsanto funded studies were largely due to favorable weather and rain during the study period and improvements in irrigation. The Friends of the Earth study reported that GMO cotton farmers’ costs actually increased over time rather than decreased because GM seeds are more expensive than conventional cotton seeds and farmers actually used more expensive herbicides than they did previously while still requiring significant levels of insecticide spraying.

An extensive and independent survey, “Economic Impact of Genetically Modified Cotton in India” by Bennett, Ismael, Kambhampati and Morse of the University of Reading in the UK, compared Bt and non-Bt cotton production in the Indian state of Maharashtra across 7,751 cotton plots in 2002 and 1,580 cotton plots in 2003. The results indicated:

1. Bt cotton yields were at least 45% higher than for non-Bt cotton;

2. The amount and costs of insecticides needed to control aphids and other sap sucking insects pests were the same for Bt and non-Bt cotton fields;

3. The amount and costs of insecticides needed to control bollworms were 70% to 80% lower for Bt cotton fields than for non-Bt cotton fields;

4. The costs for conventional non-BT cotton seeds are only one third the price of Bt cotton seeds for planting and farmers are prohibited by the large chemical seeds companies such as Monsanto from saving seeds from their harvest for planning next year. Every year, cotton farmers must buy new, expensive Bt seeds from the GM seed companies;

5. The costs of seeds plus the cost of insecticides is slightly higher for Bt cotton crops compared with non-Bt cotton crops. Higher yields for Bt cotton enable Bt cotton to be more profitable.

While the Bennett, et al. study is comprehensive with a well designed methodology and lacking any apparent bias, it is also significant in what isn’t in the study. The study did not compare Bt cotton costs with organically grown cotton nor did it consider the costs of conventional non-Bt cotton when the farmers use their own seed harvested from their previous crop. The study also did not address environmental costs or field worker health costs from herbicide and insecticide toxic chemical sprays. Issues of GMO safety and long-term considerations were also not part of the study. The study examined only economic effects of Bt cotton and did not examine issues of herbicide-tolerant (HT) generically modified cotton. Herbicide-tolerant cotton has been genetically modified to resist weed sprays, specifically Monsanto’s costly Roundup weed killer. Herbicide-tolerant (HT) cotton plants allow farmers to liberally use Monsanto’s popular Roundup weed spray to kill weeds sprouting up in cotton fields. Strains of weeds are developing which are resistant to Roundup. Also, the study only looks are results for the first two years of commercial planting of Bt cotton in one state in India. A longer, multi-year study is necessary to evaluate longer term effects.

As a note concerning insecticide usage on Bt cotton, three different categories of insects plague cotton – chewing caterpillars and cutworms which eat leaves and stems of the cotton plant; insects such as bollworms and boll weevils which attack and feed on the fluffy white cotton bolls; and sucking aphids and mites which pierce the cotton plant leaves and stems to suck the sap from the plant. The types and severity of cotton insect pests varies from local to global regions. Bt cotton with its genetically implanted soil bacterium gene is resistant to bollworms, a major cotton pest in the U.S., but not to the other insects which feast upon cotton plants and cotton bolls. Depending upon the region, Bt cotton must still be sprayed with insecticides to control for the other categories of insects.  The resistance of Bt cotton to bollworms is not total, however, and Bt cotton still requires spraying with insecticides but at a much lower level of application to control for bollworms.

Another evolving concern affecting long-term profitability of GM cotton is that Nature is adaptive and over time bollworms and other insects will develop insect strains that are resistant to the toxins in Bt cotton. An extensive study by Gould, et al. of the Department of Entomology at North Carolina State University, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science reported that within a few years varieties of bollworms were being naturally selected that have a resistance to the Bt toxins. With farmers exercising careful pest management techniques, the period of naturally selective resistance could be delayed for a few more years but insects developing Bt resistant strains are inevitable. The more effective pest management techniques involved planting 4% of their cotton crop in non-Bt refuge zones to harbor susceptible insects and slow down the evolution of pests resistant to the Bt gene.

Protecting the environment – the promise. The second pillar of the conventionally grown cotton industry’s claim to sustainability is in their assertion to protecting environmental quality. The premise of the promise for improved environmental stewardship by the conventional cotton industry is in attempting to transform their image from being a toxic chemical polluter to sustainability by reducing and improving their environmental impact in the cotton field and in the manufacturing factory.

In the cotton field, growers are encouraged to implement soil conservation techniques such as no-till farming and improved irrigation to reduce soil erosion and integrated pest management techniques to better control insect pest. Most of these farming techniques are also practiced by organic cotton farmers. Cotton farmers in the U.S. and globally are being heavily pressured to plant GM cotton seeds from the large chemical biotech companies such as Monsanto. The promise is that Bt cotton will require lower levels of costly and environmentally harmful insecticides.

Protecting the environment – the results.  A short history of the genealogy of pesticide families will help to understand the issues of sustainability swirling around cotton. Pesticides refer collectively to chemical herbicides used against herbs or plants considered weed pests, insecticides used against insect pests, and fungicides used against fungi which can grow on cotton plants reducing their vitality and yield. Pesticides are a cornerstone of conventional cotton agriculture which credits pesticides with reducing cotton pests and increasing cotton yields, but the damage to the health of the environment, wildlife, field workers, and nearby communities has been considerable and well documented. In a report “Problems with Conventional Cotton Production” the Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA) warns that “these pesticides can poison farm workers, drift into neighboring communities, contaminate ground and surface water and kill beneficial insects and soil micro-organisms.”

Because of environmental protection regulations in the U.S. and countries around the world, new classes of chemical pesticides are continually being developed which are applied at lower rates of active ingredients per acre of cotton grown. These newer classes of chemical pesticides still contain toxic and hazardous chemicals but the environmental and health impacts have been reduced. A meaningful interpretation of any global reductions in pesticide usage over time is difficult because of vast differences in geographies, climates, agricultural practices, cultures, the changing active ingredients in pesticides, and the ever-changing nature of threats from local pest. A study title “Global Impact of Biotech Crops: Socio-Economic and Environmental Effects in the First Ten Years of Commercial Use” by Brookes and Barfoot of PG Economics Ltd (a private consultancy largely funded by the biotech industry) estimated that GM insect-resistant cotton has reduced insecticide usage by 19.4% with a corresponding Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) reduction of 24.3% during the period of 1996 to 2005. The Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) was developed by Kovach, Petzoldt, Degni and Tette of the Integrated Pest Management Program at Cornell University. The EIQ provides a standardized method for calculating the environmental impact for various agricultural pesticides and pest management systems.

A study title “Do GM Crops Mean Less Pesticide Use?” by Charles Benbrook of the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center analyzed official U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data on GM crops grown in the U.S. from 1995 through 2000 and concluded that “Bt cotton has reduced insecticide use in several states.” Benbrook points out the difficulties in identifying cause-effect relationships in multi-year multi-state cotton insecticide use trends. Bollworm-budworm complex insecticide usage in some states went down and in other states went up. The data suggests that Bt cotton was a significant factor in declines in some states but not in others. In some states with high Bt cotton adoption, insecticide usage actually increased, and some low-adoption Bt cotton states saw a marked reduction in bollworm-budworm insecticide treatments.

Benbrook states that the data overall indicates that GM cotton reduces insecticide applications but that bio-engineering is only one factor and that sustainable pest management requires a total system approach. An important consideration in a sustainable pest management system is in ways to reduce the concentration and use of pesticides – applied externally in sprays and also bio-engineered into the genes of cotton plants – to delay the rise of pesticide resistance in insects and weeds.

Besides environmental protection regulations from governments, another motivating factor for chemical pesticide manufacturers to develop new classes of pesticides is because natural selection begins to develop strains of insects and weeds resistant to the popular pesticides du jour. Resistance to specific pesticides is governed by many factors but typically tends to develop within four to ten years depending upon the degree to which the pesticide is used. Generally, the more a pesticide is used in an area, the more quickly resistant strains of insects will begin developing. A central focus of integrated pest management systems is to delay the rise of pesticide resistant insects and weeds.

The study by Brookes and Barfoot also suggests that GM cotton reduces the level of green house gas (GHG) emissions by requiring fewer pesticide sprayings by crop dusting spray airplanes or tractors and soil tillage that use fuel guzzling farm tractors with their supporting fleet of trucks to deliver pesticides and operators to the fields. They also report that “no-till and reduced-till farming systems that utilize less plowing increase the amount of organic carbon (in the form of crop residue) that is stored or sequestered in the soil. This carbon sequestration reduces carbon dioxide emissions to the environment.” Of course, no-till farming practices are not unique to GM crops and havelong been a component of organic farming.

Conventional cotton (including GM cotton) plants are sprayed with a variety of harvest-aid chemicals to help improve cotton harvesting yields, preserve high fiber quality before cotton bolls can become ruined by late-season insect damage, and to improve cotton harvest efficiencies. Conventional cotton harvest-aid chemicals include chemical defoliants which cause the cotton plants to shed their foliage allowing the cotton bolls to be more effectively machine harvested. Chemical defoliants are composed of reactive organic compounds and volatiles which lead to increased air pollution and have an adverse environmental impact. The organic cotton and the conventional cotton industries are researching environmentally healthy defoliation methods such as thermal defoliation which “eliminates water and air pollution caused by harvest-aid chemicals, reduces the need for insecticides, protects the crop from insect sugar deposits and is independent of the weather.”  A hot blast of typically propane-fired air in what is essentially a moving furnace wilts tender leaves on cotton plants and also kills insects, parasites and possibly some plant diseases.

Depending upon weather, time-of-year, and cotton plant condition, the conventional cotton industry uses a variety of harvest-aid chemicals to prepare cotton for harvesting. The University of California Integrated Pest Management Program has categorized and detailed the wide range of harvest-aid chemicals that are sprayed on cotton fields to:

1. Defoliate cotton plants by using chemicals that disrupt plant growth hormones causing leaves to die and drop so that automated machines can pick the cotton bolls more easily;
2. More quickly strip leaves from plants by using chemical desiccants which are more severe than defoliants and cause leaf dehydration and death within a couple days. Desiccants are often applied as a follow-up after application of defoliants;
3. Encourage late blooming cotton bolls to open earlier so that cotton harvesters can make only one pass over cotton fields. It has also been found that these chemicals can also reduce vegetative re-growth;
4. Inhibit new growth on cotton plants nearing harvest or to help enhance the effects of defoliants

Many of the harvest-aid chemicals are listed in the Pesticide Action Network as being possible carcinogens, ground water contaminants, cholinesterase inhibitors, and moderately to highly toxic. Harvest-aid chemicals are included in computations of conventional cotton pesticide usage.

Does GM and conventionally grown cotton improve the environment? The studies indicate that it hurts the environment less than it did a decade ago but to what degree is difficult to quantify. The Institute of Science in Society published a press release in 2007 “Picking Cotton Carefully” which declared that “conventional and GM cotton accounts for 16 percent of global chemical pesticide use, more than any other single crop.” Considering the rising degree to which rivers, streams and ground water systems are testing positive for toxic chemicals used in cotton pesticides, it is very difficult to justify how conventional cotton agriculture could be considered sustainable. Improved farming techniques – many of which have also been incorporated in organic agriculture – have also reduced farming’s environmental impact. And then there is the unknown impact of biotechnology and genetic modification on the environment and the health and safety of people.

Promoting Social Responsibility – the promise. The textile and garment industries have long been plagued by unethical labor practices from child labor in fields and factories and sweatshop factories to unfair and exploitive purchasing of clothing and textiles produced by native and indigenous peoples. Change will only occur when consumers, manufacturers, retailers and governments demand fair and healthy labor practices.

Another aspect of social responsibility is in maintaining community welfare and health by respecting the environment and not polluting the air, water and land that communities depend upon, and also by insuring the health of the community members who work the fields and factories.

Promoting Social Responsibility – the results. When these abuses are exposed in the media, the garment industry in general and specifically the large retailers buying from sweatshop-tainted manufacturers are displayed in a very bad light. In an attempt to convince consumers and shareholders that they are really good global citizens, most large clothing manufacturers and retailers have adopted Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) statements to explain how they will monitor for and avoid abusive labor practices among their suppliers and manufacturers … while still maintaining high investor returns. Our post “The Fog of CSR” has gone into these issues.

The result has been that clothing manufacturers and large chain retailers have become much for sensitive and responsive to charges of sweatshops and child labor. Many have teamed with independent and ethical organizations to help monitor and reduce abuses and there have been improvements. Large retailers, such as Wal-Mart in the U.S. and Marks & Spencer in the U.K., are encouraging farmers in developing countries to adopt restrictions in child-labor and reduce pesticide usage. Large corporations are beginning to realize that greening their product lines and reducing their corporate environmental footprint is good business and helps to reduce their costs and improve operating efficiencies.

Fair trade is another concern of the ethical shopper (see our post “Ethical Shopping and Fair Trade”). Independent non-profit organizations such as the Fairtrade Foundation offer fair trade certification so shoppers can have confidence that marginalized producers and workers in developing countries received a fair and sustainable wage for their products and labors.

Marks & Spencer offers a number of Fairtrade certified cotton clothes.

Almost all organic clothing standards such as Control Union’s Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) identify minimum social criteria that a textile must meet as part of the overall requirements to achieve organic textile certification. These include freely chosen employment, collective bargaining, safe and healthy working conditions, no child labor, a fair wage, reasonable working hours, and a non-discriminatory and non-abusive work environment. Note that these ethical social standards apply to textile manufacturing and processing and not to the fields that grow the natural fibers.

The Better Cotton Initiative was founded to take it to the field and “promote measurable improvements in the key environmental and social impacts of cotton cultivation worldwide to make it more sustainable (economically, environmentally, and socially).” Social responsibility must also include safeguarding the community welfare from toxic pesticides that threaten community water supplies and the health of workers and families that live near sprayed crop lands. Reducing and eliminating pesticides on crops is an important component of a social responsibility agenda.

So how does conventional cotton shape up to the social responsibility factor in their sustainability equation? Improving but still a long way to go. Textile manufacturers and retailers seem to be trying to improve working conditions in manufacturing and garment factories but they face an inherent conflict of interest between the increased costs necessary to improve social responsibility and the need to improve profits by lowering costs. Consumer pressure will be key in the future.

Considering community welfare, as long as toxic pesticides are sprayed on cotton fields there will be community health problems which detract from any claims of sustainability.

Final score on conventional cotton sustainability. With improved soil and pest management agricultural practices and some improvements in reducing the chemical toxicity of pesticides, conventionally grown cotton has improved but still hasn’t achieved any common definition of sustainability addressing trade, good environmental stewardship, and social responsibility.

A thorough and comprehensive study in 2006 by Kooistra, Termorshuizen and Pyburn of Wageningen University titled “The Sustainability of Cotton” reported that cotton is grown globally on about 2.4% of the world’s farm lands but consumes an estimated 11% of the agricultural chemical pesticides. Cotton plants are more sensitive to insects than most other crops and tend to be more heavily sprayed. Many developing countries which grow cotton do not monitor or poorly regulate pesticide use and many of their pesticides are stronger and more toxic than pesticides approved for use in the U.S.

Kooistra et al. report that “worldwide 15% of cotton yield loss is due to insect damage”. Integrated Pest Management programs can contribute to significant reductions and perhaps elimination of hazardous chemical pesticides. Pressure will also increase on cotton farmers to fight the insect and weed threats by planting GM cotton.

Conventionally grown cotton is still one of the most chemically sprayed crops in the U.S.  In May 2006, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released a report “Agricultural Chemical Usage 2005 Field Crops Summary” for the major U.S. crops. For all U.S. corn crops, 2.124 pounds of pesticides were used per acre; for all oats, 0.166 pounds pesticides per acre; for all soybeans, 1.23 pounds of pesticides per acre; for cotton (upland), 4.486 pounds of pesticides per acre of cotton. An acre of conventionally grown cotton requires more than twice the dosage of chemical pesticides as corn, the next highest consumer of chemical pesticides. It’s interesting to note that in 2005, almost 80% of the U.S. cotton crop was from genetically engineered cotton seeds. In 2007, the USDA estimated that 87% of the U.S. cotton crop was genetically modified. In some locals, herbicide-resistant GM cotton actually increased herbicide usage. Where previously, cotton farmers used spot spraying to attack localized outbreaks of weeds, they now sprayed the entire field because there wasn’t the concern about affecting the cotton plants with the herbicide and it was more cost-effective.

Using the USDA statistics from 2005, we calculate that 0.0947 oz of pesticides is used to grow one pound of conventionally grown U.S. cotton. When 2005 synthetic fertilizer usage (nitrogen, phosphate, potash and sulfur) is included in the calculation then the combined synthetic fertilizer and pesticide usage is 2.85 ounces per pound of conventionally grown cotton, and is considerably less than the 5 ounces reported in the late 1990s.  This is in keeping with the 0.08637 ounces calculated by Coral Rose of Eco-Innovations and published in her Sustainable Action Leadership blog and the pesticide usage per pound of cotton reported in the Cotton Incorporated site.

Conventionally grown cotton will need to improve its environmental impact through improved pest management and will need to reduce and eventually eliminate hazardous chemical pesticide usage before it can approach sustainability. Hazardous chemical pesticide usage is not sustainable.

And then there is also the little issue of bio-engineered, genetically modified cotton. The Global Organic Textiles Standard prohibits “genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) and their derivatives (including enzymes derived from genetically modified micro-organisms).” The SKAL International Standards for Sustainable Textile Production states that all agricultural fibers have to “originate from an organic production method that is recognized by Control Union Certifications” and all organic production methods exclude genetically modified plants.

When you hear claims of "sustainable" always look upon the cotton kimono to see what it really means.

Dreaming of a Green Wedding

We have a growing national problem that is only slightly behind Global Warming, the Bush Administration’s attacks on science and our national parks, and exploding healthcare costs. That problem is exploding wedding costs. Remember the Liza Minnelli / David Gest Spectacular Spectacular Wedding in 2002 where the bridal party had more in common with the Addams Family than the Brady Family? Their wedding knot cost an estimated $3.5 million and family and guests were searched and frisked before entering the church to prevent unauthorized cameras because picture and movie rights had already been sold to OK! Magazine. The happy pair was divorced the next year.

The national average cost of a wedding in the U.S. is now $28,800 and rising rapidly. The most concerning cost of a wedding is not financial, emotional or cultural but the environmental cost. Were you invited to the Liz Hurley / Arun Nayar Really Really Spectacular Spectacular Wedding of 2007? Neither were we but almost everyone else on this planet participated in some way. The two-week celebration bash covered two continents, four cities and the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean. While the financial cost was undoubtedly atmospherical, the cost to the atmosphere was vastly greater. The environmental footprint impact consulting company Best Foot Forward estimated that the sacred Hurley / Nayar celebration released more than 207,000 kg of carbon into the struggling atmosphere. That’s more than 228 tons of carbon for those of us who are metrically impaired.

Face the facts: even if it’s hearts and flowers and little cupids until death do you part, most weddings are an environmental disaster. Typically, two hundred people traveling for a one hour ceremony, many flying hundreds or even thousands of miles in high altitude, carbon-spewing jets. And what about all those hats, shoes, gloves, wedding dresses and bride’s maid dresses that are only worn once? Not to mention the barrels of finishing fabric chemicals in which they are drenched. At least guys typically rent their tuxes.

So what to do? Fortunately, there are a number of eco-friendly wedding planning web sites that will help you plan and enjoy a more sustainable and positive wedding. To understand the carbon impact of your Big Event, plug your wedding numbers into the wedding carbon footprint calculator at TerraPass or at NativeEnergy (in partnership with Portovert Magazine) for an estimate of your wedding’s expected carbon footprint. After calculating your carbon hit, both sites also allow you to purchase carbon offsets to lessen the guilt and to help you regain some “feel good” about your Big Event. These wedding carbon impact calculators could also be used for family reunions, conventions, conferences or sporting events.

Portovert.com is a self-proclaimed “gateway to a greener wedding” and has been crowned the “#1 Green Wedding Site” by no less a formidable force of nature than Martha Stewart. The Hamptons crowd will feel comfortable planning their stylish eco-friendly wedding here.  While Portovert.com is a classy portal into the pricey world of wedding gown eco-couture, founder Meghan Meyers is quick to point out that Portovert.com is also loaded with green wedding do-it-yourself ideas and tips, a blog, and articles for how to create a stylish and sustainable green wedding that doesn't "break the bank".  This month Portovert.com is celebrating DIY Wedding Month. 

One of the wedding haute couture designers featured in Portovert.com is the outstanding Olivia Luca.   Besides having a gallery of stunning wedding gowns, Olivia Luca also has a Design Studio that helps you  design your own wedding gown by interactively selecting your own bodice style, skirt  shape, fabrics, colors, sizes, lengths and finishing details.  It's easy, fun and will help you crystallize your gown design decisions.  One of the very encouraging trends from Olivia Luca is that they started with conventional fabrics and have been adding sustainable, Fair Trade and organic fabrics to their fabric lists.  This demonstrates the growing appeal and demand for healthier and more eco-friendly wedding gowns.

For those planning an eco-friendly wedding on a budget, visit Great Green Wedding which has ideas, tips and suggestions for doing a joyous and sustainable wedding. Great Green Wedding also is a cornucopia of useful links and articles. If possible, find a copy of Green Weddings That Don’t Cost the Earth by Carol Reed-Jones or Eco-Chic Weddings by Emily Elizabeth Anderson.

As you are searching for environmental harmony and balance in your sustainable wedding plans, keep silently repeating the eco-mantra “organic – reduce – recycle – reuse – local”. This mantra can be used for everything from announcements to flowers to reception dinner to gowns and tuxedos for the wedding party. As with green eco-friendly jewelry, the great diversity of sustainable approaches for ways to green a wedding reflects the dynamic diversity in green interests … and budgets. This green diversity is especially evident when it comes to selecting green and sustainable wedding clothing. Let’s take a short stroll through some of the options for green, sustainable and organic wedding gowns, dresses and suits.

Reuse. Almost always, the greenest and most sustainable action is to reuse a product, even a very un-green product, as long as its use doesn’t cause environmental, social or personal harm … such as buying a used Hummer (environmental harm) or a thrift store leisure suit (social harm). The simplest and perhaps greenest wedding dress is one that is borrowed, usually from a mother, grandmother or friend. The dress can be altered, lace can be added or changed, a bow here and a tuck there.

If borrowing a wedding gown isn’t possible or desirable – perhaps their wedding didn’t work out so well – there is also the possibility or renting or buying a previously-worn wedding dress. Co-founded by the mother & daughter team of Fran Hansen and Anna Nelson in 1998, Brides Against Breast Cancer has collected more than 40,000 wedding gowns donated by bridal boutiques, dress manufacturers and brides. These once-worn and designer sample gowns are sold at auctions held in more than 30 cities around the country at huge savings. The money raised is used to help women with breast cancer and their families. Brides Against Breast Cancer is an amazing story of helping women in the most difficult of situations. Their auctions offer eco-conscious brides-to-be an opportunity for a new or once-worn wedding dress at great savings and reuse is the strongest pillar of sustainability.

And of course, there is always eBay and a handful of sites specializing in previously worn wedding dresses such as SellYourWeddingDress.com, Wore It Once, Encore Bridal and PreOwnedWeddingDresses.com.

Another option becoming increasingly popular is to rent a wedding dress.  Men have been renting tuxedos for ages and, while the situation is more complicated, it is possible for ladies. Most wedding gown rental stores also have rentals for bride’s maid dresses and even flower girl dresses. Some stores allow alterations. Bridal gown rental stores might advertise online but all that we are familiar with require the prospective bride to come into their store to make arrangements. We do not know of any totally online wedding gown rental stores. Your Yellow Pages are probably the best place to begin searching for a rental store.

Recycle. A recycled wedding dress is typically a custom dress that has been created from one or more gowns, dresses or other sources of inspiration. A designer or seamstress might take a bodice from one dress, match it with sleeves from a different dress, add Irish lace from antique curtains and … viola! … a unique wedding gown that has been deconstructed and reconstructed from reclaimed textiles to reflect your individuality.

By reshuffling bits and pieces of existing garments into new wedding garments, you are reducing the demand for new manufacturing which reduces energy consumption from growing to manufacturing to shipping, and also reduces any pollution and environmental damage caused by the production of those fabrics being reused and recycled. Reusing and recycling also delay the day of reckoning when those materials are carted to the landfill where they become ripe for breaking down into global warming gases to be released into the environment or into toxins that might seep into community ground water systems.

On the other hand, some point out that reusing and recycling of garments do nothing to discourage the manufacture and production of unsustainable conventional fabrics and clothing and that what we should be doing is focusing our resources on encouraging the manufacturing of green, sustainable clothing. The only way to reduce the environmental and personal health problems caused and complicated by conventional clothing is by supporting and furthering the market for environmentally sustainable, healthy and organic clothing. Which leads us to …

New Sustainable or Organic. Green, sustainable, organic and healthy wedding dresses are made by the local seamstress for a few hundred dollars all the way to the high priced eco-haute couture designer for thousands of greenbacks. Here is an organic linen and vintage lace dress with a bodice embellished with semi-precious beads from eco designer extraordinaire Deborah Lindquist that tips the scales at $3000. The Green Wedding Collection from Deborah Lindquist also has some beautiful hemp/silk organza dresses that flutter around $875.

If you don’t mind spending green to be green, there are some outstanding sustainable young designers specializing in eco-friendly wedding gowns. One of our favorites is the Natural Bridal Collection by Morgan Boszilkov. “Kayla” from Ms Boazilkov’s collection is a “wrap around convertible gown of diamond jacquard, with asymmetrical hand gathered skirt, empire waist sash and bow, detachable bottom skirt” and is made with Peace Silk, Silk and Hemp.  After the vows when you are ready to rock at the reception, just drop the long bottom.  How cool is that!  Based in Georgia, Morgan works with a team of local artistic women to bring her sustainable wedding gown designs to life. The Natural Bridal Collection team is open to working with the eco-bride-to-be to create bridesmaid dresses that harmonize with the wedding gown. Not only does Natural Bridal create green wedding dresses but they also have adopted green business practices and donate 5% of profits to organizations which support the environment.

Conscious Clothing offers a rather large collection of hemp / silk blends in brides, bridesmaids and flower girl dresses plus a hemp / lyocell (Tencel) blend for the vegan bride and others who do not want to wear a fabric that cost the lives of tens of thousands of silk worms. Peace silk is also a fabric that spares the lives of the silk worm. Prices generally track for $600 to $2200. Conscious Clothing also offers a white hemp suit for men.

Best known for their corsets under the name of Faernyn’s Grove, Rene Geneva Designs declares that their green wedding dresses are 100% sustainable hemp / silk blends and formaldehyde-free silk. Amino-formaldehyde (N-methanol) resins are commonly used in fabric finishes for conventional cotton and silk clothing to resist wrinkling and to resist staining.  Formaldehyde fabric finishes are nasty stuff and we are pleased that many eco-wedding dresses are avoiding it.

The business policies of Rene Geneva Designs strongly support Fair Trade and ethical garment worker practices. Rene Geneva Designs also has established a carbon neutral program which assigns a carbon footprint value to each garment to indicate the amount of carbon invested to grow, manufacture and ship each different garment and they will donate specific dollar amounts to carbon reduction organizations depending upon a garment's carbon footprint value.

Check out Threadhead Creations and their three venues for achieving that perfect, green wedding ensemble: Off the Rack, Design Your Own Online, Totally Custom from Rai-Lynne. The “Design Your Dress” option allows you to interactively chose a basic design and then select size, length, fabric (typically hemp / silk in charmeuse, floral and raw, hemp / Tencel, organic cotton sateen, or peace silk), lining (silk or cotton), and train and automatically see how your choices affect price.

For you in the U.K., visit Wholly Jo’s repertoire of organic, fair trade and ethically green wedding dresses. Based in West London, Wholly Jo’s Threads of Life are supported by strong ethics policies and constructed from organic, sustainable materials. Plus, the designs from Joanne Mackins are gorgeous. Unfortunately, the carbon impact of shipping Wholly Jo’s Threads of Life to the U.S. is prohibitive.

Then there is Annatarian in L.A. which is self-labeled as an eco-effective design company. Annatarian’s lofty mission is “to unite the global community through fashion” through their eco-couture dresses which “serve as an example of a perfect world, where different colors, textures, cultures, and patterns are blissfully intertwined”. The eco-effective design at Annatarian comes from a cradle-to-cradle approach to sustainable design. Annatarian is an up-and-coming eco-couture force in the City of the Sustainable Angels.

To show you how diverse are your options for an eco-friendly wedding dress, consider the possibilities offered by CheapChicWeddings.com and their annual Toilet Paper Wedding Dress Contest. The contest – and this is a serious contest as evidenced by the magnificence of the wedding dresses entered into the contest – is to design, make and use a wedding gown made entirely from toilet tissue, tape and glue. The green and sustainable bride-to-be who wants to be chic but cheap could use epoxy resin organic glue to hold together eco-friendly toilet tissue from environmental companies such as Seventh Generation Bathroom Tissues made from 100% recycled paper or Purely Cotton Bathroom Tissue from tree-free 100% recycled cotton.

Seriously, for most brides-to-be, their conventional wedding day is probably the second most toxic day that they will experience. Think about all those carcinogenic parabens and phthalates-harmful chemicals: globs of body lotions and facial creams, dust storms of powders, smears of toxic lipsticks, nail paints, clouds of hair sprays, generous douses of perfumes – a national superfund health hazard and all of this is before even getting dressed.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has published a brochure “10 Ugly Truths Behind the Myth of Cosmetic Safety” outlining the health dangers lurking in conventional beauty aids as the bride-to-be prepares to look her most ravishing. Among the most common health dangers in conventional cosmetics which they expose are “mercury, (often listed as thimerosal on ingredient labels) found in some eye drops, ointment and deodorants; lead acetate, found in some hair dyes and cleanser; formaldehyde and toluene, found in nail products; petrochemicals, found in some hair relaxers, shampoos, mascara, perfume, foundation, lipstick and lip balm; coal tar, found in dandruff shampoos, anti-itch creams and hair dyes; placenta, found in some hair relaxers, moisturizers and toners,;and phthalates, found in some nail polish, fragrances and hair spray.”

And then comes a toxic bomb of lacy undergarments, slips and topped off with an enormous wedding dress with gloves, lace, veils and sashes, all heavily treated with wrinkle resistant, crease resistant, and stain resistant chemical fabric finishes many containing amino-formaldehyde resins. Then the bridal party is surrounded with chemically drenched pesticide-herbicide infested flowers sometimes jetted in from far corners of the global. What a way to celebrate the formal union of two souls in love!

What is the eco-bride to do? Explore carefully and ask questions when designing a green, organic and sustainable wedding. Always probe the wedding clothing supplier and retailer about what how their fabrics are finished as this is where most toxic chemicals are added. Just because a store claims that their gowns are sustainable, doesn’t necessarily mean that they are free of potentially harmful chemicals. Even if a retailer declares their wedding dresses to be “100% formaldehyde-free”, ask if they do have a crease-resistant, wrinkle-resistant or stain-resistant finish and, if they do, what is it? This is especially true for people with chemical sensitivities or people who wish to avoid developing chemical sensitivities.

A little research can help you create a truly special and environmentally responsible day.

Enjoy.

-Michael

The Diversity of Green Jewelry

And now for the fun part. After dredging through the misery, social and ecological damage of conventional precious and semi-precious stones and metals in Jewelry: the Trouble with Baubles and then exploring the improvements of Green Sustainable Gold & Ethical Diamonds, we can now luxuriate in the huge universe of sustainable, eco-friendly, green jewelry is out there waiting to be discovered by you. Green, eco-jewelry has a vast array of faces to match the diverse green interests for recycling, environmental sustainability, organic clothing, Fair Trade and ethical manufacturing. Here are some of our favorites.

Reciclarte. Reciclarte is tagged as being a “socio environmental project” in the ecologically gorgeous land of Costa Rica. Reciclarte is attempting to transform attitudes towards common toss-out trash by transforming it into delightfully colorful works of jewelry. Local Costa Rican women artisans design and manufacture their recycled jewelry to support local environmental education and recycling projects. Their green eco-jewelry seems imbibed with a glow of the lush vibrancy that reflects the spirit and warmth of Costa Rica.

Finding their eco-jewelry outside of Costa Rica is tricky, though. You can contact Reciclarte directly through the Asociacion Terra Nosta web site or you can visit the gift shop at Finca Rosa Blanca Country Inn a wee bit north of San Jose in Costa Rica.  Their gift shop is stuffed with eco-friendly jewelry and art by local eco-artists.  As a side note, the Finca Rosa Blanca Country Inn in Costa Rica is one of the very best of the growing eco-hotels. Teresa and Glen Jampol have created a sincerely and wonderfully green home for the eco-tourist while visiting the unbelievable diversity of Costa Rica’s rainforests, volcanoes and rich coffee lands of the Central Valley. If you are in the neighborhood, it is definitely worth a visit. And the warmth of the people is like visiting a loving, functional family.

Zulugrass Jewelry. Following the theme of communities of women artisans improving the life of their communities through their green jewelry, let’s move from the lush rainforests of Costa Rica to the dusty grass plains of Kenya and Tanzania that are home to the Maasai tribes. The nomadic Maasai peoples have depended upon their cattle for generations but droughts in recent years have decimated their herds. To provide food and medical care, the women of the Maasai with the help of social sustainability foundations, such as the Leakey Collection, have been using their traditional skills in weaving and beading jewelry from Zulugrass to bring additional income.

The Zulugrass beaded and braided jewelry woven by the Maasai women seems imbibed with the vibrancy and life of the grass lands of Kenya and Tanzania. The online gift shop at the DailyOM and the ZuluGrass Leakey Collection are two sources that you can browse through. While the Zulugrass for their jewelry is sustainably hand-gathered, the primary emphasis is on the social sustainability of the Maasai communities with a secondary emphasis on environmental sustainability. Also, in the spirit of disclosure, we must mention that many families in the Maasai communities still cling to the brutal practice of female genital mutilation even though the practice is illegal in Tanzania and Kenya.

Carbon Offset Jewelry. For those whose passion is in promoting environmental sustainability, check out the Wind Turbine Jewelry Pin ($325) or the Be Carbon Neutral fine jewelry of reclaimed silver hand-designed by Anthony Aletto. Proceeds from this beautiful … but pricey … jewelry are used to purchase carbon offsets in the purchaser’s name. No less an eco-personage than The ECOnorable Al Gore has been pinned with the reclaimed silver Wind Turbine Jewelry Pin which is sourced, manufactured and shipped as being carbon neutral, probably using carbon offsets.

Natural Jewelry. And there are many more examples of green jewelry in the hotsey-totsey world of haute eco jewelry. The Palma Collection features “exotic, exciting, and original jewelry inspired by nature’s beauty” made from the tagua nut. Sustainably collected from a rare species of palm tree found only along the Pacific rainforest coast line of South America, the tagua nut has also been called “vegetable ivory” because its hardness, cellulose grain, and look and feel are very similar to ivory from elephant tusks. The Tagua nut has been a favorite of natural material jewelry artisans worldwide for many decades.  Here is Summer Rayne Oakes in a Palma Collection tagua nut necklace.

Recycled Jewelry. Looking for something a little more fun? How about recycled jewelry made from the funny pages? Great Green Goods has a flippery necklace made from recycled paper mache Archie comics (and its only $21.00). 

Or if you are really into the funky junky look, check out Debris where they have a totally playful collection of necklaces made from junk – old jam jar lids, rusty bottle caps, recycled fishing tackle, and whatever old recycled bits from the dustbins catch the artist’s fancy.

And then Etsy, an online artists community of the handmade, offers wrist cuffs and armlets made from recycled vinyl records complete with the groovey music grooves still in the vinyl ($24.00ish). Hmmm … anyone still remember vinyl records?

Fair Trade. Going from fun to fair – as in Fair Trade – many stores offer Fair Trade and ethically produced jewelry. Companies such as Rainforest Native work with indigenous peoples and native artisans and apply Fair Trade policies to help market their environmentally sensitive jewelry and art. Here is their multi-strand black waxed cord necklace with dangling black saboneteira seeds and pupunheira palm wood for a fair price of $85.00.

And finally, one of our favorites for Fair Trade ethically manufactured jewelry is the Ananya Studio / Ridhi combo. Ananya Studio is a web-based ethical jewelry marketing organization that has partnered with the ethical jewelry manufacturer Ridhi from gem-rich Sri Lanka. Ananya Studio was started by three remarkable women. Here's their story as they tell it:

“The founders of Ananya Studio, Faye, Teri, and Zainab, all have a history of giving back to the community. Faye has been involved in health care and global youth enablement programs for many years. Teri spent over a decade as a therapist for emotionally disturbed pre-schoolers and their families. Zainab has worked with refugees from the long running civil war in Sri Lanka, developmentally challenged children, and community/cottage industry projects in Sri Lanka. Our experiences in these endeavors sparked an interested in forming a company that brought responsibly produced, organic and/or fair trade products to the market. It is our hope that by giving artisans and craftspeople from around the world a market place for their goods, that we can help them make positive changes for themselves and their families.”

Ananya Studio co-founder Zainab and her mother started Ridhi in Sri Lanka to employ local jewelry artisans. A fair wage is only one component of their strategy of giving and caring for their employees and artisans. For their employees, they also provide loan assistance to improve their homes, books and educational assistance for employees’ children, lunch and travel allowances, substance abuse treatment, career development and training. Taking care of their employees is truly a passion for them.

The jewelry at Ananya Studios is gorgeous and reasonably priced with prices from below $25 to slightly above $100. Take a few minutes to visit Ananya Studio and do some good.

Green jewelry, earth friendly jewelry, recycled jewelry, reclaimed jewelry, sustainable jewelry, Fair Trade jewelry, ethical jewelry, whatever your green passion, there is a treasure house of truly beautiful pieces out there that will go great with whatever you are wearing from Linda Loudermilk natural fiber originals to thrift store recycled.

Enjoy.

Michael

Eco-Jewelry: Green Sustainable Gold & Ethical Diamonds

In our last post, Jewelry: the Troubles with Baubles, we explored the ocean of ethical, social and environmental troubles that are swamping conventional gold and diamond jewelry. In this post we turn our attention to the more sustainable solutions and alternatives that eco-jewelry offers for gold and diamond jewelry. In our next post, we will preview some of the other wonderfully beautiful options for eco-jewelry.

Sometimes, new “eco” and “green” terms seem to sprout faster than bamboo. So, what really is “eco-jewelry”? Simply defined, eco-jewelry is ornamental art that is made from natural or recycled non-toxic materials that have been manufactured without creating a damaging impact on the environment and habitat, on the miners who extracted the metals, gems and stones from the earth, on the artisans who created the jewelry, and on the wearer.

To help you locate that perfect piece of jewelry that not only captures your heart with its beauty but also doesn’t offend your consciousness or harm the earth and its inhabitants, we have compiled a list of questions to sort out the good, the bad, and the harmful.

“Diamonds Are Forever” so be careful to not start with a blood diamond. For those who adore diamonds search for conflict-free diamonds to avoid the blood diamond curse. Conflict diamonds are also known as blood diamonds because of the blood of innocents that was spilled in conflicts financed by illicit rough diamond trade in Angola, Ivory Coast, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Republic of Congo. Roughly 65% of all diamonds come from Africa.

The United Nations, seventy-one countries, and most relevant NGOs have adopted the Kimberley Process Certification System to certify that each diamond exported by signatory countries is from a conflict-free source. Amnesty International USA and Global Witness have published the Diamond Buyers Guide listing four questions that every diamond shopper should ask the sales person before buying:

1. How can I be sure that none of your jewelry contains conflict diamonds?

2. Do you know where your diamonds come from?

3. Can I see your company’s policy on conflict diamonds?

4. Can you show me a written guarantee from your diamond suppliers that your diamonds are conflict-free?

A survey by Global Witness / Amnesty International (GW/AI) in 2007 was sent to the 37 largest U.S. retail diamond sellers such as Helzberg Diamond Shops, Sterling, and Tiffany & Co. about their policies to combat blood diamonds in accord with the Kimberley Process Certification System. About half of the largest U.S. diamond retailers refused to participate in the survey about their conflict diamond policies. Of the half that did respond, 56% reported that they do not have corporate procedures to insure that the diamonds that they sell to customers are not blood diamonds. To insure that you are not buying a blood diamond, always start by asking the four questions above.

Sustainable Diamond Mining. Finding a certified conflict-free diamond is just the first obstacle to overcome when shopping for that special gift.  The next question for your jeweler or retailer:

5. Have the semi-precious and precious stones and metals been sustainably mined?

Mining is too often an ecologically dirty and unsustainable operation. A new breed of mine operator is emerging that tries to practice sustainable mining – mining that attempts to reduce the environmental impact, improve working conditions and safety for miners, fairly compensate displaced farmers and indigenous peoples for their lands and return the land to its natural condition after the mine ceases operations … while still providing adequate shareholder profits and economic returns.

Diavik Diamond Mines, located in Canada’s remote Northwest Territories, is a subsidiary of Rio Tinto plc from London. Diavik Diamond Mines has a very aggressive sustainable development policy. The Diavik Diamond Mines sustainable development policy is comprehensive and thoroughly covers issues such as the protection and monitoring of wildlife including the migration of caribou and marine and fish habitat; development of extensive water systems to protect natural lakes, rivers and waterways; progressive reclamation of mining waste rocks and continual environmental preparation for mine closure; active development of community commitment and improvement especially with the large Aboriginal communities; improving the social well-being of workers and local communities including training programs for workers and scholarships for community school children; aggressive mining safety programs; employee and family assistant programs; worker and community economic development programs; and Aboriginal business support.

One of the more commendable features of the Diavik Diamond Mines sustainable development policy is that the plan was established before mining construction began and isn’t a retro fit to try to fix damage already done. Over and over in all industries we see that sustainability must be designed in and can not effectively be an afterthought.

A growing number of jewelry retailers, such as Brilliant Earth, are offering Canadian diamonds from more sustainable mining operations such as Diavik Diamond Mines. Brilliant Earth guarantees that all their diamonds are tracked from Canadian mines, through cutting and polishing, to final transport to their retailers. I've noticed that the web site for Brilliant Earth has recently disappeared and I would appreciate it anyone could tell me if they are still in business.  They were a great site.

Canada is the third largest producer of diamonds globally with annual production of 12.6 million carats and growing. Unfortunately, Canada has antiquated mine staking laws that echo back to some of the worst practices of the Wild West mining boom days that encourage displacing native populations and rushing ahead on mine development without environmental planning. If you are considering purchasing a Canadian diamond, make sure that the mine it came from practices ethical and sustainable mining operations.

The Canadian diamond mining industry has been strongly criticized by organizations such as Mining Watch Canada. In a very thoughtful critique, “There Are No Clean Diamonds: What You Need To Know About Canadian Diamonds”, Mining Watch Canada outlines the actual environmental, wildlife and Aboriginal community impacts caused by the mining in Canada’s ecologically fragile and remote northern boreal regions. Their message is simple … avoid “Polar Bear Diamonds” that come from the frozen ecosystems of Canada.

Sustainable Green Gold. Currently the supply of renewed and recycled gold isn’t sufficient to meet demands for gold jewelry. To insure an adequate supply of gold for jewelry, a small but growing number of retail jewelers are also sourcing gold from sustainable artisanal mining coops such as Oro Verde (literally “green gold”) in South America.

6. Does your jeweler use sustainably mined “green” gold?

Small-scale, artisanal miners using simple mining tools such as the mining pan and sluices scratch through the mud and rocks of streams, rivers and dry waterways to collect the metal flakes or small precious stones. These alluvial deposits of gold, silver and diamonds have been broken free of larger veins of precious metals or stones forged deep in the earth and washed downstream by rains, streams and rivers. Today’s small-scale artisanal mining operations – which consists of an estimated 20 to 30 million artisanal miners in 55 countries – are marked by low productivity, poverty, lack of safety procedures, child labor, and high environmental impact as artisanal small-scale mining operations make streams and rivers unable to support human, aquatic and wildlife because of excessive sediment, mercury and cyanide poisoning, harm to pristine rainforests and remote mountain regions,

A report, “All that Glitters: Gold Mining in Guyana,” by the International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC) of Harvard Law School’s Human Rights Program documents that “Medium and small scale gold mining as currently practiced and regulated inflict severe environmental, health, and social damage on the areas and people near mining operations.” In many regions around the world, small and medium scale mining inflicts disproportionately more damage and harm than large scale corporate mining.

The Green Gold Initiative, founded by Catalina Cock Duque, is attempting to create environmentally sustainable mining cooperatives that work with local artisanal miners to ensure the use of sustainable environmental practices, restore ecosystems damaged by previous mining operations, and improve the health and well being of the local communities.

Other organizations such as the Association for Responsible Mining are working “towards the transformation of artisanal and small scale mining into a socially and environmentally responsible activity, facilitate an economically just supply chain and educate the consumers as to their power to directly improve the quality of life of artisanal miners by purchasing fair trade jewellery and minerals.”

The movement for more socially and environmentally responsible mining is gaining momentum. The No Dirty Gold campaign has established the Golden Rules for jewelry retailers to support ethical and ecological mining. Jewelry retailers who support the No Dirty Gold campaign include Ben Bridge Jeweler, Birks & Mayors, Boscov’s, Brilliant Earth, Cartier, Commemorative Brands, Cred Jewellery, Fortunoff, Fred Meyer and Littman Jewelers, Helzberg Diamonds, Intergold, Jostens, Leber Jeweler, Michaels Jewelers, Piaget, QVC, Security Jewelers, Signet Group, Stephen Fortner, Tiffany & Co., TurningPoint, Van Cleef & Arpels, Van Gundy, Victoria Casual USA, Wal-Mart, Whitehall Jewellers, and Zale Corp. An interesting note is that Wal-Mart has become the largest U.S. retail jeweler and QVC is in fourth place.

Renewed and Recycled Jewelry. Small-scale, artisanal mining offers the greatest opportunities for socially, ethically and environmentally responsible sustainable mining and a source for green gold. But unless we find a way to perfect alchemy and make gold from lead, gold like oil in the ground is a non-renewable resource.

Another important eco-jewelry trend is the use of renewed and recycled gold, platinum, silver, diamonds and colored gems in new jewelry. Gold is renewed from recycled gold jewelry or industrial products by melting and refining the used gold and then recasting it to produce new gold settings and jewelry. There should be no degradation of quality in the recycled and renewed gold.

7. Does your jeweler use recycled and renewed gold, platinum or stones?

More and more companies such as GreenKarat are beginning to offer jewelry made from recycled and renewed gold, silver, diamonds, emeralds, and other precious and semi-precious stones. GreenKarat makes the point that destructive mining operations continue to rip 2,500 tons of gold from the earth each year even though there is enough gold sitting in bank vaults and old, unused jewelry to satisfy the demands of the jewelry industry for the next 20 to 50 years depending upon how you estimate the amount of old jewelry available for recycling. The proponents of recycled and renewed gold, silver and diamond jewelry remind us that mining is an industry that is ecologically deeply flawed and that the earth – and social justice – can no longer support the unsustainable activities of mining.  Like petroleum, the earth is not making any more precious metals and gem stones.

Because jewelry can have several components – such as one or more metals and different types of stones – GreenKarat has a feature that they call Green Assay to rate the specific ecological characteristics of the different components of the jewelry that they sell.

Consumers can also mine the corners of their own dressers, attics and jewelry boxes for unused jewelry to be recycled. Many jewelers, metal smiths and jewelry artisans are able to recycle and renew your old pieces into new settings and new castings.

Laboratory-created diamonds. While the alchemist’s dream of making gold from lead still isn’t possible, it is possible to make diamonds, both gem quality diamonds and industrial quality diamonds like those used in large drill bits to cut through rock when drilling for gas and oil.

8. Have you considered a more sustainable diamond alternative?

In the diamond world, there are basically four categories of diamonds:

§ Natural diamonds

§ Diamond simulants

§ Synthetic diamonds

§ Diamond like carbon (DLC)

Natural diamonds are made by Mother Nature deep within the earth’s crust of carbon deposits under great pressure and heat

Diamond simulants are imitation diamonds that have gemological properties similar to diamonds such as its color, refractive index, general appearance and even hardness. A diamond stimulant can be artificially manufactured (like rhinestones and cubic zirconia) or a naturally occurring material (like zircon which has been mined in Sri Lanka for more than 2,000 years and was originally thought to be an inferior diamond). A trained gemologist can tell the difference between a real diamond and a diamond simulant but because of technological advances it is becoming more difficult.

Synthetic diamonds are cultured diamonds that have been grown in a lab by a technological process rather than by a geological process like a natural diamond. The properties of a synthetic diamond depend upon the manufacturing process used to create the synthetic diamond and in some ways might be inferior, the same as, or even superior to a natural diamond. The most common process for manufacturing synthetic diamonds is High Pressure, High Temperature (HPHT) which uses enormous presses to create a very high pressure at a very high temperature, typically more than 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit. A tiny sliver of natural diamond is used as a seed that is bathed in molten carbon and placed under high pressure and high temperatures. The HPHT process attempts to recreate the environment that naturally occurred deep within the earth’s crust to produce natural diamonds.

Apollo Diamonds manufactures cultured synthetic diamonds using a different process called Chemical Vapor Decomposition (CVD). Visit the Apollo Diamond web site for a visual overview of how the Chemical Vapor Decomposition process grows diamonds.

Gem quality cultured synthetic diamonds can be manufactured to be chemically, physically and visually identical to natural diamonds but a spectroscope can still be used to distinguish the difference.

Many people who really want that diamond engagement ring but without the heavy environmental and ethical baggage commonly attached to natural mined diamonds are opting for synthetic diamonds. Adia Diamonds, a Co-op America member, manufactures cultured synthetic diamonds by the HPHT process and retails through Pearlman’s.

Diamond-like carbon is composed amorphous carbon which means that it lacks the rigid crystalline structure of natural diamonds but still exhibits many of the properties of diamonds for industrial uses. Created in an industrial lab, diamond-like carbon is typically grown as a thin film coating to reduce friction and extend the product lifespan for moving components such as high performance engine parts, ball bearings, implanted human heart pumps, and even multi-blade shaving razors to reduce friction on sensitive skin. Depending upon which of several fabrication techniques is used, diamond-like carbon can be up to 50% harder than natural diamonds as measured by nanoindentation methods. Environmental proponents claim that significantly increasing the lifespan of moving metal components reduces the load on manufacturing and ultimately on landfills and many think of diamond-like carbon as a sustainability enhancer. We will leave it to you to decide if you agree with this perspective.

Unusual facts about diamonds. Diamonds have some fascinating properties that might not be commonly known but might be useful at a Holiday Party.

§ Diamonds are the hardest naturally occurring material but they are not very tough. Hardness is measured by the ability of a material to resist scratching but toughness is related to a material’s ability to resist impacts. A diamond will probably shatter if hit by an ordinary hammer. You might not want to try this at home … or at the party.

§ Even though diamonds are the hardest naturally occurring material, they can still be cut because their hardness is directional owing to various 3-dimensional planes that are formed by the way in which the carbon atoms bond together. The octahedral plane is very strong and hard and the dodecahedral plane is weaker. Diamond are cut for jewelry along dodecahedral planes.

§ Diamonds burn. If a diamond is placed in an intense flame in an oxygen-rich environment, it can ignite because diamonds are a carbon compound, like coal and charcoal. Because of their crystalline structure, though, diamonds have a much higher combustion temperature than coal.

§ Pure natural diamonds will conduct heat but not electrical current – except for natural blue diamonds found in the Argyle diamond mine in Australia which will conduct electricity.

Our next journey into eco-jewelry will focus on the fantastic adornments that are fashioned from natural and recycled materials other than precious and semi-precious metals and stones with an emphasis on Fair Trade and sustainability.

Until then, enjoy.

Michael

 

Resources for additional reading:

Framework for Responsible Mining – a guide to the evolving standards for ethical and environmentally responsible mining practices and how to create transparency and accountability for mining operations and mining corporations.

Ethical Metalsmiths – providing a resource for encouraging responsible sourcing of jewelry metals and manufacturing.

Jewelry: Troubles with Baubles

When we finished our posting on Global Warming and Organic & Recycled Clothing, we thought that we had touched on much of what needed to be said about the fashion industry’s relationship to global warming. How wrong we were.

A major component of fashion is jewelry. Diamonds, emeralds, rubies, precious and semi-precious gem stones, gold, silver, platinum, and even more common metals such as copper have been a cornerstone of jewelry for millennium. The mining industry delivers these elementals to jewelry artisans, but the mining industry is also the second largest contributing industry to greenhouse gases and global warming. To fully appreciate the world of eco-fashion and eco-awareness, it is helpful to understand the consequences of conventional jewelry and the promise of eco-jewelry that is more socially, ethically and environmentally responsible.

We will journey together in a two-part series into the world of jewelry from a socially and environmentally responsible perspective. This first part will explore conventional jewelry, and part two will dive into eco-jewelry in our next post. Here we go.

The Trouble with Conventional Jewelry. Even when dripping with elegance, conventional jewelry made from gold, silver or platinum and studded with precious and semi-precious gemstones such as diamonds, emeralds, rubies and sapphires is often forged in the fires of human rights abuses and environmental destruction.  It is not that these precious metals and stones are inherently nasty. Far from it. When gained and used properly, their purity and clarity are reputed to have beneficial effects for mind, body and soul. It is just that mining and processing these precious metals and stones can be very dirty – ethically and ecologically.

The international diamond industry is notoriously secretive and until it becomes more transparent and accountable, tales and stories of human rights abuses will haunt all diamonds.

Because of their large size and high visibility, mining industry spokespeople and company representatives for mega-corporations such as De Beers, the South African diamond giant, have spent huge amounts to publicize their efforts and successes in sourcing conflict-free diamonds and improving the lives of miners and their communities. In recent years, De Beers has bowed to South African government pressure to allow more benefits of the diamond industry to trickle down to local black-owned business such as local diamond cutters and polishers and even to provide more South African government ownership to selected mines of the DeBeers dynasty in South Africa. The intent of the South African government is to pressure the large diamond mining companies to share the country’s mineral resources through broad-based black economic empowerment.

On a global level, organizations such as Global Witness have been working tirelessly at demanding and shaming the diamond industry into actively working to resolve the problems of human rights and environmental abuses caused by the diamond trade. Global Witness is now striving to improve transparency and accountability from diamond mines to diamond retailers globally. De Beers, though, dominates the world diamond trade and controls the Central Selling Organization which handles more than 70% of the global rough diamond sales. Given the size, power and lack of transparency with the De Beers diamond cartel, no organization and no government – including the U.S. – can effectively monitor or even influence De Beers’ corporate policies and practices.

Conventional Jewelry Trouble #1 – Blood Diamonds and Conflict Diamonds. In our culture, diamonds have become the cool stone, the ice that sizzles. Marilyn Monroe singing “Diamonds Are a Girl’s Best Friend” in the 1953 film Gentlemen Prefer Blondes secured Marilyn Monroe and diamond jewelry as cultural icons of desire. Diamonds are hidden in the earth’s crust on every continent except Europe and Antarctica and are actively mined in about 25 countries with most diamonds mined in Australia, Russia, Canada and Africa. But, diamond mining is a very dirty business – ethically and environmentally.

The 2006 movie Blood Diamonds with a strong cast including Djimon Hounsou, Jennifer Connelly and Leonardo DiCaprio gives a voice to the forced labor, mutilations, killings, and human rights abuses in some diamond mines of the West African nation of Sierra Leone. These are diamonds that were mined and sold with the blood of miners and local villagers in the African countries of Liberia, Ivory Coast, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly known as Zaire), the Republic of Congo, and Sierra Leone during the 1990’s to finance weapons for rebel groups, criminal warlords, brutal government regimes, and international and regional terrorists organizations. Because diamonds are an easy currency for fueling insurgencies and wars, blood diamonds are also called “conflict diamonds”. 

During the peak of conflict and war in Africa during the 1990’s, an estimated 10% of all gem-grade diamonds mined worldwide were believed to be illicit conflict diamonds smuggled from Africa and quietly merged into the international diamond trade industry. To choke the global market in illicit conflict diamonds, the United Nations, most countries, and relevant non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) adopted the Kimberley Process Certification System to certify that each diamond exported by member countries is a conflict-free diamond. While a significant improvement in removing conflict and blood diamonds from the international diamond market, the Kimberley Process is not independently monitored and opportunities arise for conflict diamonds to be smuggled into certification centers where they are certified as conflict-free and allowed to enter the global diamond trade. Diamond industry cheerleaders such as Eli Izakoff, chairman of the World Diamond Council, claim that more than 99.8% of today’s $13 billion rough uncut diamond industry is conflict-free diamonds. Diamond industry skeptics including Amnesty International suspect that it is somewhat lower and that more effective monitoring is necessary.

Troubles with Conventional Jewelry #2 – Diamond Processing Human Rights Abuses. Labor abuses always victimize the most vulnerable – the children and the poor. Diamond cutting and most stone polishing is still done by hand. In India, where more than half the world’s supply of diamonds are cut and polished, children are commonly used with little pay for the grueling, demanding cutting and polishing of the smaller stones which require far less training and specialized skill than a larger diamond with few flaws. When the young eyesight fails from the tedious strain and long hours, the child worker is simply replaced by another child, often a younger brother or sister.

The world’s major diamond cutting and polishing center flourishes in the northwest state of Gujarat in India where more than 800,000 workers cut and polish 80% or more of the world’s diamonds. These workers are scattered across a handful of Indian cities in this cottage industry where most of them work from sweatshops and small cutting houses for wages as low as $0.60 to $1.00 per stone. India cuts, polishes and exports an estimated one billion dollars of gems each year and in April 2006 the Gujarat state government decided to exempt the diamond-cutting industry from the state’s Value Added Tax (VAT). A few gain vast wealth; many remain in desperate poverty.

An interesting point of fact is that when you mention the diamond industry, most people will think of DeBeers and Africa, or the diamond bourse houses in Antwerp, or New York City’s diamond district but seldom do people think of dusty India, the land of swamis and sadhus. And yet, the first recorded discovery of diamonds anywhere in the world was around 800 BC in what is now India, and India remained the only know source for diamonds until 1844 when diamonds were discovered in Brazil. In the 1620’s when the Pilgrims were struggling to raise corn and carrots in the New World, the rich diamond mines of India were producing 50,000 to 100,000 carats annually. The rise of diamond mines in Africa in the late 19^th century marked the decline of diamond production in India. In the 1980’s, the growth of economic globalization due to low wages in developing countries triggered India’s reemergence in the diamond industry as a major diamond cutting and polishing center.

Troubles with Conventional Jewelry #3 – Mining Human Rights Abuses. But conflict and blood diamonds are not the only diamonds clawed from the earth on the backs of human rights abuses.  Miners, especially miners in remote and conflict-free locations working in small to medium sized mines, can also be subjected to brutal and dangerous working conditions, poor safety, sub-poverty living standards, harassment, child labor, and inadequate health care.

Global Witness, the NGO that first brought conflict diamond issues to light, estimates that there are about one million diggers in Africa who earn less than a dollar a day from mining diamonds. Much of the mining is carried out by illegal miners in very poor and dangerous conditions. A recent study found 46% of miners in Angola are under the age of 16, with many of the children working because of war, poverty, and the absence of education.  And it’s not just miners of diamonds but also gold, silver, copper and other precious stones such as emeralds. And the problems are found not just in Africa but in countries all across the globe.

Mine safety for employees is too often weak resulting in needless worker deaths and making mining one of the most hazardous occupations. Fueled by recently escalating prices of precious metals, mining is becoming even more dangerous as open pit mines become larger and shaft mines push deeper into the earth seeking richer gold veins.

Michelle Faul, in an outstanding Associated Press article carried by the International Herald Tribune, voiced the growing concern over mining safety in South African gold mines. While mining operations in most of the world are moving towards open pit mines, South African shaft mines are boring ever deeper into the earth – to depths of almost 2.5 miles below the surface of the earth – to tap the richer gold veins.

According to May Hermanus, director of the Centre for Sustainability in Mining at the University of the Witwatersrand and a former South African government chief inspector of mines deep shaft mining requires "very, very special oversight and supervision and methodology" that often is absent. Miners are among the lowest paid industrial workers in South Africa and their jobs are among the most dangerous and becoming more dangerous as mines go ever deeper.

In 2006, South African mines produced 275 tons of gold at a cost of 113 mining deaths – one miner’s life for each 2.4 tons of gold. South Africa is the world’s largest gold producer. If you don’t know where the gold in your jewelry came from, it’s a good bet that it came from one of South Africa’s deep shaft mines.

Troubles with Conventional Jewelry #4 – Displaced Indigenous Peoples. In their quest for new sources of precious metals and gems, mining companies are expanding into more and more remote locations, often in third world and developing countries where government regulations and oversight is frequently non-existent. Local populations and indigenous communities are displaced to make way for large mining operations and from resulting ecological and environmental damage from mining operations. Worldwide today, more than half of all the gold mined comes from the tribal and ancestral lands of indigenous peoples which are often displaced without compensation to buy other lands.

A short article by Robert Nick in The Mining News about the effects of gold mining on the environment reported that 30,000 local and native people were displaced in the 1990’s by mining operations in the Tarkwa district of Ghana.  An excellent report titled “Dirty Metals: Mining, Community and the Environment” published by Earthworks and Oxfam is a very careful and thorough examination of the global consequences of mining metals from aluminum to gold from several perspectives. A Wikipedia article outlines the displacement of 30,000 to 50,000 people in 120 downstream villages from their ancestral lands without compensation due to environmental devastation resulting from the Ok Tedi Mine in western Papua New Guinea – a trend that has been labeled “ecocide” indicating the mass destruction of the environment and the peoples who depend upon that environment for their livelihood.

This ecocide is occurring globally in countries as disparate as Peru, Romania, New Guinea, Indonesia, Philippines, Kyrgyzstan, Bolivia, Canada, Argentina and the United States according to NoDirtyGold.org, an organization designed to awaken public awareness to the socially and environmentally disastrous business of mining. Native and indigenous peoples have faced the brunt of this assault on the land. They have been forced from their lands, jailed and beaten if they refused to move, have seen their farm lands and native rivers and waterways poisoned and devastated, and their traditional lifestyles and cultures destroyed … and for what? For every once of gold mined, 79 tons of “mine waste” are ripped from the earth and laced with toxic cyanide to leach the gold flakes from the rock and ore.

Even when local and native people are not displaced from their homes, their traditional livelihoods of farming, hunting and fishing are often lost due to the disruption and pollution surrounding the mines for tens of miles or for hundreds of miles for downstream rivers.

Troubles with Conventional Jewelry #5 – Environmental Destruction. Mining is not only a dirty business; it also has a big environmental boot print. Two-thirds of all active mines worldwide are open pit mines. The largest mines, such as the Bingham Canyon mine in Utah, can easily measure 1 mile deep and 2 miles from end-to-end and can employ hundreds or thousands of workers. Most mining is done in open pit mines simply because it is less expensive than shaft mines but the environmental destruction is vastly greater.

Open pit gold mines create about 10 times as much waste rubble as a shaft mine. After a mining company’s geological team has identified a potentially rich site, explosives and heavy earth moving equipment are used to remove mountains of rock and earth. Two primary methods are used to extract gold hiding in the ore and rocks: cyanide leaching and smelting.

In cyanide leaching, the high grade ore is crushed and heaped in large mounds. A highly toxic and deadly cyanide solution is poured over the mound of crushed ore and rocks. The cyanide solution leaches the gold from the ore and it collects in a pool at the bottom of the pile. This process of dissolving the gold to separate it from the rock is called heap leaching.  An electro-chemical process then extracts the gold from the cyanide solution and the waste solution is then stored in “tailings dams” – large, often unstable dams that can burst and flood downhill lands, streams and rivers with sludge contaminated with cyanide and toxic heavy metals such as mercury, lead and cadmium. The lands and mountainsides surrounding gold mines are marred with large, toxic mounds of cyanide-laced rubble which will continue to bleed cyanide and sulfuric acid into the earth and ground waters for decades.

The other major method of separating gold embedded in rock and ore is smelting. The rubble rock and ore is transported to nearby smelters where it is heated in large furnaces to very high temperatures to melt the gold and separate it from other compounds. Besides using enormous amounts of energy, most smelters and especially those in developing countries release huge amounts of air pollution in the form of nitrogen and sulfur oxides, lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, zinc, and persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Persistent organic pollutants are carbon-based pollutants that do no easily decompose and they tend to bio-accumulate in fatty tissues. Smelters also release significant amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) which can be carried for hundreds of miles by wind and water.

Acid mine drainage (AMD) is another common and insidious environmental problem. Acid mine drainage results from oxygen and rain water running over crushed waste rock and reacting with naturally occurring sulfides that have been freshly exposed to form sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid is a constituent of acid rain and implicated in the destruction of aquatic life in streams and rivers polluted by acid mine drainage.

The production of one gold ring generates 20 to 60 tons of toxic waste and the fugitive dust raised by the massive blasting, earth moving equipment and swarming trucks operating in enormous open pit mines blankets surrounding areas destroying native vegetation, wildlife habitat, and farmers’ crops.

Studies estimate that the mining industry uses approximately 10% of the world’s energy outputs every year and is the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases.

Troubles with Conventional Jewelry #6 – Public Health Failings. NoDirtyGold.org poignantly stated the public health failing of the mining industry in one community:

“In the Peruvian town of La Oroya, site of a smelter operated by the US-based Doe Run Corporation, a study by the Peruvian Ministry of Health revealed that 99 percent of the children have severe lead poisoning, and 20 percent of these children needed urgent hospitalization.  The smelter produces gold bullion bars, silver, lead, cadmium, zinc, and copper.”

“Mining is usually considered a big economic opportunity for any community, but the reality is that local communities usually bear the costs of mining in the form of environmental damage and pollution, loss of traditional livelihoods, long term economic problems and deteriorating public health.  The benefits of the mine usually go to investors overseas and the central government, with little of the profit passed back to the community.” 

“Water and air pollution create long-term public health problems for some mining communities, sometimes forcing families to spend significant amounts of their income treating chronic asthma, skin diseases, lead poisoning, and other ailments related to the mine's impacts.  Industrial accidents involving spilled chemicals near towns can be devastating for communities.”

The story of the public health of mining communities and especially the young being put to risk by mining operations is a story with chapters all across the global and not just in developing countries. For example, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a public health agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, classified two mining sites as public health hazards due to heavy metal contaminants permeating the waste rock and mill tailings throughout the mine sites. These heavy metal discharges of arsenic, cadmium, manganese, zinc and iron have adversely impacted wildlife and fish in nearby streams and jeopardized the health of local young children (less than two years old) through increased levels of lead and arsenic in surface soils and to adults through an increased risk of cancer due to elevated levels of arsenic.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 40% of the headwaters of the western U.S. watersheds are contaminated by pollutants from hard rock open pit mines. These polluted headwaters contribute to the rivers and streams that are used by downstream cities for drinking water and by farmers for irrigating their crops and watering livestock. In the West, these waters flow a considerable distance. The Colorado River, with its headwaters in northern Colorado, provides water to cities as far away as Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, Tucson and Phoenix. A 10 million ton radioactive pile of mine tailing from a uranium mine in Moab, Utah sits just 700 feet from the Colorado River. No radioactive seepage has yet been detected but the possibilities are significant.

After the rich veins of precious metals or stones have been stripped from the earth and the mine abandoned, the public health risks due to the polluted environs surrounding mining operations last for generations and can only be cleaned and removed at huge expense. Few mining companies are willing or capable to bear this expense. Also, there are no national standards requiring mining operations to clean mining sites after the mine is closed. Cleansing the earth often falls to governments, Mother Nature and time.

Troubles with Conventional Jewelry #7 – Social Failings. The social exuberance of mining boom towns in the Wild West were immortalized in the western novels of Louis L’Amour and sanitized Hollywood movies such as Paint Your Wagon … although listening to Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood lurch into song is its own special form of social ills. As mines ramp up production, a large influx of miners and their families moving into nearby towns increases the burden on the communities’ social structures with new demands on housing, classrooms and health care. Farmers and indigenous peoples displaced by the mine also flow into the towns seeking jobs.

The effects of pollution from mines and the higher accident rates among miners place greater burdens upon the communities’ health care and social support systems.  Studies have also exposed increased rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling and prostitution in mining communities around the world. A report “Social Effects of Mining and the CMC Mine Problem” by Leonard A. Stone, European University of Lefke, examines the negative environmental and social effects of mining in a small mountain village in Cyprus.  A YouTube video, while not strong science, gives a window into drinking among Russian miners.

Troubles with Conventional Jewelry #8 – Endangered Resources. The troubles with conventional jewelry are not limited to precious stones and metals. The Syrian and North African elephant population were reduced to extinction from the demand for their ivory tusks to be used for art and jewelry. Ivory comes from the teeth and tusks of elephants, hippopotamus, walrus, mammoth and narwhal. Beginning in 1989, governments began restricting the importation and sale of ivory and ivory jewelry from many countries due to the serious declines in animals which bear ivory.

Coral necklaces and rings, especially in pure whites and blood reds, have been prized for more than a thousand years. Coral jewelry comes from coral reefs found in most oceans around the world but usually within 30 degrees latitude of the equator.

Coral reefs are not rocks or plants but large colonies of very small organisms, polyps, which are only a few millimeters in diameter and grow a calcium carbonate (limestone) exoskeleton that over decades become coral reefs. Coral reefs are complex living ecosystems that are very sensitive to ocean changes in temperature, pollution and divers collecting coral from coral reefs for jewelry, art objects and what-nots. Unfortunately, rising ocean temperatures due to Global Warming and ever-increasing ocean pollution are ravaging coral reefs. Coral reefs are a very important ecosystem to the health of our oceans and many countries are banning coral harvesting and enacting laws prohibiting damaging coral reefs. Coral reefs shelter some of the most biologically diverse habitats on the planet.

Learn more. We hope that this gives you a slight feel for the scope of consequences for some conventional jewelry. To discover more, check out these sources:

•  “Hard Rock Mining: Risks to Community Health” a report by Aimee Boulanger and Alexandra Gorman on the social health risks created by mining in North America.
• Global Witness. “Global Witness exposes the corrupt exploitation of natural resources and international trade systems, to drive campaigns that end impunity, resource-linked conflict, and human rights and environmental abuses.”
• Read The Curse of Gold, a detailed report by Human Rights Watch that “documents how local armed groups fighting for the control of gold mines and trading routes (in Africa) have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity using the profits from gold to fund their activities and buy weapons”.
• No dirty gold. The No Dirty Gold campaign is a joint effort by EARTHWORKS/Oxfam America to support the efforts of groups around the world to end socially and environmentally devastating gold mining practices.
• An insightful examination by Ed Kwick, the director and producer of Blood Diamonds, on his experiences, fears and hopes while directing the movie. This is from a speech given by Ed Kwick to the Rapaport International Diamond Conference.
• “Mining and Critical EcoSystems” a study to develop a qualitative framework for identifying communities and ecosystems vulnerable to the social and environmental impacts of mining.  Published by the World Resources Institute.
• Amnesty International and Global Witness have combined forces and resources to combat the terror of blood diamonds.
• A United Nations paper on the issues of conflict diamonds.

Eco-Jewelry. In our next post, we will examine the world of eco-jewelry. You do not have to go cold turkey on jewelry. There are socially and environmentally sustainable solutions and alternatives. You can still adorn yourself, even with glittering gold and snazzy diamonds. Just do it responsibly.

Until then.

Enjoy

Michael

Chopper Eco Couture … and Screen Printing

After the rather serious and lengthy previous two posts on bamboo and cotton, we thought we should do something a little lighter … and shorter … so we browsed through our Who-Woulda-Thunk-It file and found this eco-fashion news release for Fall 2007.

When you think of the latest and hottest eco-fashion, what comes to mind? Linda Loudermilk, Amanda Shi, Summer Rayne Oakes, and … Hell’s Angels motorcycle choppers and chicks? Yeh, right! Really! But, if you can control your raging cognitive dissonance for a moment, that is exactly what is happening at Chopper Couture just to show you how far this eco-fashion thing has seeped into all nooks and crannies of our society.

Eco-designer Irene Zingenberg of Chopper Couture is hoping to demonstrate that beneath the rough chopper chick exterior and beneath the black leather and chains is a luxuriously soft eco-friendly lyocell wrap top in Royal Purple with black and silver graphics and studded designs crystallized with Swarovski. Or a “Boho Rock!” tank dress of 40% bamboo and 60% organic cotton fully loaded with copper or silver graphics. Or maybe a “Rock De Lis” 100% lyocell long sleeve cowl hoodie in black, lipstick or cream with silver/black/gold graphics and crystallized with black swarovski.

Chopper Couture has a “Fashion forward” “Pure Rock & Roll” theme that is twisted around an edgy, tattoo-laced, chopper babe motif for wanna-be motorcycle bad girls that strive to be sophisticated and environmentally sensitive as they drive their SUVs to Nia dance class (“Through Movement We Find Health”).

Chopper Couture is based in Toronto, Canada and has distribution across the U.S., Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the U.K., Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and even Iceland.  More than 100 stores retail Chopper Couture across Canada and the U.S.  To give some indication of their clientele, 19 stores carrying Chopper Couture fashions had “boutique” in their store name, a couple had “spa” or “golf” while only 2 had “choppers” or “cycles” in their name.

Chopper Couture’s designs and fashions are fun and have a refreshing confidence. Irene Zingenberg’s eco-fashions are made from bamboo, organic cotton, bamboo / cotton blends and lyocell so they are eco-friendly besides being chopper-friendly. They are screen-printed by hand with inks totally free of harmful PVC (polyvinyl chloride) and phthalate.

In days before history, nomadic tribes probably started drawing designs on their clothing to immortalize a hunt or their favorite baseball team. The roots of screen printing designs on textiles can be found in Japan during the age when North America was first being colonized by European countries. The story goes that Japanese artisans cut designs into banana leaves and ink was applied through the cut-out designs in the leaves onto cloth beneath the banana leaves, effectively using the banana leaves at a stencil. Yes, bananas do grow in Japan and they are called musa japonica or “Japanese Bananas”. It took an Englishman, Samuel Simon, in 1907 to patent the more modern printing technique of screen printing to print stencil images on a variety of media – cloth, paper, ceramics, glass, wood and many others.

Screen printing, also called silk screening and serigraphy, is a fascinating and highly versatile printing technique that can be applied in many forms of arts and fashions. SilkScreeningSupplies.com has an excellent 10-minute overview video on silk screen / screen printing and a series of instructional how-to videos on screen printing. SilkScreeningSupplies.com, the Web sales engine for Ryonet Corporation, does sell some environmentally friendly soy-based cleanup products along with many not-so-environmentally-friendly inks and screen printing chemicals.

Unfortunately, conventional screen printing can be damaging to the environment, health of printers and wearers of silk screened fashions because of the toxicity of many of the chemical inks, cleaners, preparation products and waste products from the silk screening process.

Basically, there are two main categories of screen printing inks: plastisol and water-based. Each has their technical printing advantages and disadvantages. Water-based inks are less toxic with fewer health and environmental hazards, but they are more difficult to use and offer less creative freedom. Plastisol inks do not soak into the fibers of the cloth like a dye or water-based ink; they wrap around and coat the fibers with a mechanical bond rather and a chemical bond.

Plastisol inks, commonly used for textile printing and especially for tee shirts, are a thermoplastic PVC-based ink composed of a clear, thick plasticizer fluid and PVC resin.  The full name for PVC is “polyvinyl chloride”. According to Union Inks, “Plastisol inks are innocuous when used with reasonable care. A true plastisol ink contains no air-polluting solvents or volatile organic compounds. The manufacture, transportation, storage, use, and disposal of plastisol inks do not cause injury, illness, or environmental contamination as long as the appropriate safety and environmental protection procedures are followed. Most plastisol inks have a Health Rating of 1 (hazard - slight), a Flammability Rating of 1 (hazard - slight), a Reactivity Rating of 0 (hazard - minimal) and a Personal Protection Rating of B (wear safety glasses and gloves).”

The major health concern about plastisol inks is not that they are PVC-based but that they contain phthalates. Phthalates are added to PVC plastics to transform a hard plastic into a soft, rubbery plastic by allowing the long polyvinyl molecules to slide against each other instead of rigidly binding together. Phthalates are more ubiquitous than lobbyists in Washington, DC. About 800 million pounds of phthalates are produced each year globally and they are used everywhere in a wide array of products such as cosmetics, perfumes, paint pigments, hair sprays, wood finishes, plastics used in making medical devices, automotive interiors, toys, soft rubber handles of kitchen utensils and workshop tools, and many, many other products … including textile screen printing inks.

Medical research has linked high doses of phthalates to damage of the liver, kidneys, lungs and testes in rats. Another medical study suggest that phthalates contributes to allergies in children. Recent research at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency strongly suggest that low levels of in utero exposure in rats to some classes of phthalates cause abnormalities in reproductive system development of male rat newborns. And there are a host of other studies casting concern about the health consequences of different classes of phthalates.

Even California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has jumped on the issues of phthalate safety and health concerns when he signed legislation on 7 October 2007 banning phthalates in toys and other product intended for children 3 years old and younger. Arnold decreed that “These chemicals threaten the health and safety of our children at critical stages of their development.”

But, the phthalates industry has been pushing back hard and don’t forget that phthalates are a huge global industry that touches countless products around the world. Phthalates.org presents a strong defense for the safety of phthalates. They cite that a number of studies have found some classes and dosage levels to be safe or failed to support health concerns. They state that “No governmental review has found any phthalate unsafe as used in products for the general public.” Depending upon how you parse that statement from Phthalates.org that might … or might not … be factual. Levels of exposure also affect results and phthalates are a large class of chemicals with varying affects on the human and animal physiologies.

Exposure to one product containing phthalates might not cause reproductive organ abnormalities, cancer or asthma in children but when a small exposure comes from hundreds of sources everyday then the effects are uncertain but probably accumulative. Multiple chemical sensitivities are the result of a thousand chemical straws gradually wearing down the body’s natural immunities breaking the back of the body’s resistance to environmental impurities. According to the Phthalates Ester Panel of the American Chemicals Council, the EPA under the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative has classified phthalates as non-bioaccumulating meaning that the body will not retain phthalates in tissues or organs. We will leave it to you to review the literature to decide to what degree you wish to expose your body and health to phthalates.

If you wish not to invite phthalates into every nook and cranny of your life, you might want to exclude them from your clothing which comes into close, personal and extended contact with your absorptive skin. And one way to do this is by requiring that your printed and silk screened clothing be printed only with inks free of phthalates and PVC's such as those from Chopper Couture.

To meet the growing demand for healthier clothes, more and more textile ink manufactures and suppliers and commercial silk screen printing shops are offering garment inks free of phthalates.

One of the more interesting commercial screen printing companies is T.S. Designs and their REHANCE screen printing process which avoids using plastisol inks. TS Designs trumpets their new REHANCE printing process, which they developed in conjunction with Burlington Chemicals, as using a new technology of water-based chemistry for printing and dyeing fabric where the print chemically bonds with the cellulose fiber of the fabric. This bonding makes the screen printed fabric more breathable and softer to the touch. It also means that clothing printed with REHANCE can be ironed without worry of the plastisol inks melting.

In addition to having significant personal health and environmental safety benefits by being free of PVC’s and phthalates, REHANCE also offers design and quality improvements. Another interesting feature of the REHANCE technology is that the design is printed on the fabric first and then the garment is dyed in whatever color the designer wishes. Conventional screen printing requires that the clothing be dyed first as that effects the types of inks that can be used in the screen printing. Designs printed with REHANCE will not flake or chip away after repeated use and washings like designs done with conventional screen printing using plastisol inks.

The Lancer Group International, a leading manufacturer and supplier of plastisol inks and screen printing equipment, is also greening their silk screening inks with their new Evolution® PVC Free Inks that print like conventional plastisol but do not contain PVC or phthalates. Instead, Evolution® PVC Free Inks are made with non-PVC resins and non-phthalate plasticizers.

Most non-PVC and non-phthalate inks are acrylic-based. An acrylic resin replaces the PVC resin in typical plastisol inks and the plasticizers used do not contain phthalates. Acrylic inks have many of the same favorable printing characteristics of plastisol inks but can be a little trickier to use in printing.

QuantumOne from Wilflex is another non-PVC and non-phthalate plastisol screen printing ink that has similar look, feel and characteristics of conventional plastisol screen printing systems.

The hazards of conventional textile printing inks are not just to personal health but also to environmental health. Garments coated with plastisol inks do not decompose and they are difficult to recycle. The result is that you may soon grow tired of your Rolling Stones concert tee shirt and trash it, but it will live on in immortality in the local landfill.

Screen printing is a messy business surrounded by solvents, cleaners, inks and other chemical compounds, many of which are environmentally hazardous, that are used heavily in the preparation, printing and cleanup. Regardless of the type of ink used, the waste waters from cleaning screens, squeegees, tools and the work area will contain pigments, binders, thickeners and solvents – most of which are probably hazardous, non-biodegradable, and must be properly and environmentally disposed. Screen printing waste products can not just be dumped down the drain.

Michael Beckman has written an excellent article, “Green Printing Uses Sustainable Methods and Materials”, giving specific steps on how screen printers can improve the sustainability of the screen printing process. Michael Beckman, a highly innovative and respected authority on screen printing, is also the R&D manager in Portland, Oregon, of the European T-Shirt Factory, based in stanbul, Turkey.

The European T-Shirt Factory is an interesting green printing story with a strong … and sincere … sustainability focus supported by ethical workplace policies for their employees. For their large commercial clients like Nike, Adidas, Polo and Wal-Mart (of course), the European T-Shirt Factor does everything from the knitting of tee shirts using certified organic cotton on tubular knitting machines, to eco-friendly screen printing on the finest commercial screen print equipment, to packaging (including bar coding, tagging and bagging), to distribution directly to their retail stores. Besides screen printing, the European T-shirt Factory also does apparel embroidery in its Egyptian facility.

The environmental impact of screen printing is not just confined to the silk screening process and cleanup but also to the manufacturing of many of the chemicals used during the screen printing process. According to the textile printing experts at TS Designs, nasty dioxins are created during the production of PVC’s. If clothing designed with PVC plastisol ink is incinerated, the trapped dioxins plus hydrochloric acid (a primary component of acid rain) are released into the atmosphere.

So what is the environmentally conscious consumer to do? If you have a Harley parked in your garage or have aspirations to cultivate a motorcycle biker chick mystique, check out the eco-fashions at Chopper Couture. If you are looking at screen printed clothing, ask the retailer if it is PVC-free and phthalate-free. Also ask if the textile was printed at a green eco-printing shop. Let retailers and manufacturers know that you are concerned about the environment and that you are an eco-conscious shopper.

Enjoy.

Michael

Bamboo: Facts behind the Fiber

What do conventional fashion designers Diane vonFurstenberg, Oscar de la Renta, Kate O’Connor, Agnes B and eco-fashion designers Amanda Shi of Avita, Linda Loudermilk, Katherine Hamnett, Miho Aoki and Thuy Pham at United Bamboo, Sara Kirsner at Doie Designs, and clothing manufacturers Bamboosa, Shirts Of Bamboo, Jonano, HTnaturals in Canada and Panda Snack, and fabric manufacturers Table Bay Spinners of South Africa, Richfield Tang Knits Ltd. in Mauritius have in common? Bamboo.

In part because of its luxurious softness, smooth hand, flowing and gentle drape, and easy price – at least compared with silk and cashmere – and eco friendly cachet, bamboo has gained entry throughout the fashion industry. But it has been the trumpets heralding bamboo as the latest and hottest sustainable eco-fabric that have been the most strident. And some of the hoopla is justified. Growing bamboo is a wonderfully beneficial plant for the planet and most is naturally organic bamboo. The manufacturing processes where bamboo the plant is transformed into bamboo the fabric are where the sustainability and eco-friendly luster of bamboo is tarnished because of the heavy chemicals, some of which are toxic, that are often required.  Very, very little bamboo clothing would qualify as sustainable or organic clothes.  Here’s the scoop.

Botanically categorized as a grass and not a tree, bamboo just might be the world’s most sustainable resource. It is the fastest growing grass and can shoot up a yard or more a day. Bamboo reaches maturity quickly and is ready for harvesting in about 4 years. Bamboo does not require replanting after harvesting because its vast root network continually sprouts new shoots which almost zoom up while you watch them, pulling in sunlight and greenhouse gases and converting them to new green growth. And bamboo does this the natural way without the need for petroleum-guzzling tractors and poisonous pesticides and fertilizers.

Bamboo the plant is wonderfully sustainable; bamboo the fabric isn’t so easy to categorize. There are two ways to process bamboo to make the plant into a fabric: mechanically or chemically. The mechanical way is by crushing the woody parts of the bamboo plant and then use natural enzymes to break the bamboo walls into a mushy mass so that the natural fibers can be mechanically combed out and spun into yarn. This is essentially the same eco-friendly manufacturing process used to produce linen fabric from flax or hemp. Bamboo fabric made from this process is sometimes called bamboo linen. Very little bamboo linen is manufactured for clothing because it is more labor intensive and costly.

Chemically manufactured bamboo fiber is a regenerated cellulose fiber similar to rayon or modal. Chemically manufactured bamboo is sometimes called bamboo rayon because of the many similarities in the way it is chemically manufactured and similarities in its feel and hand.

Most bamboo fabric that is the current eco-fashion rage is chemically manufactured by “cooking” the bamboo leaves and woody shoots in strong chemical solvents such as sodium hydroxide (NaOH – also known as caustic soda or lye) and carbon disulfide in a process also known as hydrolysis alkalization combined with multi-phase bleaching. Both sodium hydroxide and carbon disulfide have been linked to serious health problems. Breathing low levels of carbon disulfide can cause tiredness, headache and nerve damage. Carbon disulfide has been shown to cause neural disorders in workers at rayon manufacturers. Low levels of exposure to sodium hydroxide can cause irritation of the skin and eyes. Sodium hydroxide is a strong alkaline base also known as caustic soda or lye. In its dry crystalline form, caustic soda is one of the major ingredients of Drano. This is basically the same process used to make rayon from wood or cotton waste byproducts. Because of the potential health risks and damage to the environment surrounding the manufacturing facilities, textile manufacturing processes for bamboo or other regenerated fibers using hydrolysis alkalization with multi-phase bleaching are not considered sustainable or environmentally supportable.

While specifics can vary, the general process for chemically manufacturing bamboo fiber using hydrolysis alkalization with multi-phase bleaching technology – which is the dominate technology for producing regenerated bamboo fiber – goes like this:

1. Bamboo leaves and the soft, inner pith from the hard bamboo trunk are extracted and crushed;
2. The crushed bamboo cellulose is soaked in a solution of 15% to 20% sodium hydroxide at a temperature between 20 degrees C to 25 degrees C for one to three hours to form alkali cellulose;
3. The bamboo alkali cellulose is then pressed to remove any excess sodium hydroxide solution. The alkali cellulose is crashed by a grinder and left to dry for 24 hours;
4. Roughly a third as much carbon disulfide is added to the bamboo alkali cellulose to sulfurize the compound causing it to jell;
5. Any remaining carbon disulfide is removed by evaporation due to decompression and cellulose sodium xanthogenate is the result;
6. A diluted solution of sodium hydroxide is added to the cellulose sodium xanthogenate dissolving it to create a viscose solution consisting of about 5% sodium hydroxide and 7% to 15% bamboo fiber cellulose.
7. The viscose bamboo cellulose is forced through spinneret nozzles into a large container of a diluted sulfuric acid solution which hardens the viscose bamboo cellulose sodium xanthogenate and reconverts it to cellulose bamboo fiber threads which are spun into bamboo fiber yarns to be woven into reconstructed and regenerated bamboo fabric.

This gives some feel for how chemically intensive the hydrolysis-alkalization and multiphase bleaching manufacturing processes are for most bamboo fabrics that are promoted as being sustainable and eco-friendly.

Newer manufacturing facilities have begun using other technologies to chemically manufacture bamboo fiber that are more benign and eco-friendly. The chemical manufacturing process used to produce lyocell from wood cellulose can be modified to use bamboo cellulose. The lyocell process, also used to manufacture TENCEL®, uses N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide to dissolve the bamboo cellulose into a viscose solution.  N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide is a member of the amine oxide family.  Amine oxides are weak alkalines that act as surfactants and help break down the cellulose structure.  Hydrogen peroxide is added as a stabilizer and the solution is forced through spinnerets into a hardening bath which causes the thin streams of viscose bamboo solution to harden into bamboo cellulose fiber threads. The hardening bath is usually a solution of water and methanol, ethanol or a similar alcohol.  The regenerated bamboo fiber threads can be spun into bamboo yarn for weaving into fabric. This lyocell processing is substantially healthier and more eco-friendly because N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide is supposedly non-toxic to humans and the chemical manufacturing processes are closed-loop so 99.5% of the chemicals used during the processing are captured and recycled to be used again. Only trace amounts escape into the atmosphere or into waste waters and waste products.

Other chemical manufacturing processes for bamboo fabric are appearing such as using acetic anhydride and acetic acid with sulfuric acid as a catalyst to form acetate fiber which is then spun into a yarn.

New nano-technologies are also being introduced into the bamboo clothing industry. GreenYarn, a new startup located in Boston, is developing a bamboo clothing line made from nano-particles of bamboo charcoal. GreenYarn’s “Eco-fabric” is manufactured from 4 to 5 year old Taiwanese-grown bamboo that has been dried and burned in 800 degree C ovens until it is reduced to charcoal. The bamboo is processed – we don’t know how – into fine nano particles which are then embedded into cotton, polyester or nylon fibers. This conventional fiber yarn that contains trapped bamboo charcoal nano particles is then woven into fabrics … mostly socks and blankets now.

Greenyarn’s Eco-fabric is promoted as being anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, anti-static, de-odorizing, breathable, thermal regulating (cool in hot weather and warm in cool weather), and environmentally friendly. Obviously, a significant part of Eco-fabric’s claims to sustainability depend upon the sustainability of the original cotton, polyester or nylon fibers that have been impregnated with the bamboo charcoal nano particles. In a footnote, Greenyarn mentions that the active bamboo charcoal ingredients will only remain active in the clothing for about six months of active use.

Chemically-manufactured bamboo rayon has some wonderful properties which are adored by conventional and eco-aware designers and consumers:

• Bamboo fabric has a natural sheen and softness that feels and drapes like silk but is less expensive and more durable.
• Bamboo clothing is easy to launder in a clothes washer and dryer.
• Because of the smooth and round structure of its fibers, bamboo clothing is soft and non-irritating, even to sensitive skin. Some people with chemical sensitivities can not tolerate bamboo clothing. We are not sure if this intolerance is due to the intrinsic nature of bamboo but it more likely because of other chemicals added or used during the manufacturing and finishing processes of the clothing.
• Bamboo is naturally anti-bacterial and anti-fungal supposedly because of a bacteriostatis agent unique to bamboo plants called “bamboo kun” which also helps bamboo resist harboring odors. “Kun” is also sometimes spelled “kunh”. The bamboo kun in bamboo fabric stops odor-producing bacteria from growing and spreading in the bamboo cloth allowing bamboo clothing to be more hygienic and to remain fresher smelling.
• Bamboo clothing is hypoallergenic.
• Bamboo is highly absorbent and wicks water away from the body 3 to 4 times faster than cotton. In warm, humid and sweaty weather, bamboo clothing helps keep the wearer drier, cooler and more comfortable and doesn’t stick to the skin.
• The structure of bamboo fibers make bamboo fabrics more breathable and thermal regulating than cotton, hemp, wool or synthetic fabrics.
• Bamboo clothing is naturally more wrinkle-resistant than cotton, and while it might still require ironing after washing, bamboo fabric can be ironed at a lower temperature than cotton. Shrinkage during washing and drying is minimal at warm temperatures.
• Bamboo fibers and fabrics absorb dyes faster and more thoroughly than cotton, modal and viscose with better color clarity. Bamboo fabrics do not need to be mercerized to improve their luster and dye-ability like cotton requires.
• Designers such as Kate O’Connor use bamboo fabric as an eco-friendly replacement for silk. Speaking of bamboo eco-fashion, Kate O’Connor calls bamboo fashion “so much cheaper [than silk] and it’s really good for the environment.” “It is the perfect summer fabric” according to Kate O’Connor. Linda Loudermilk, another savvy eco-fashion designer, frequently incorporates bamboo into her eco-fashions.  Amanda Shi of Avita has some of the most exciting and originally beautiful eco-fashion in bamboo.
  

Bamboo the plant and also bamboo the fabric can rate high as an environmentally friendly and renewable resource:

• Bamboo grows rapidly and naturally without any pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers.
• Bamboo clothing (both mechanically and chemically manufactured) is 100% biodegradable and can be completely decomposed in the soil by micro-organisms and sunlight without decomposing into any pollutants such as methane gas which is commonly produced as a by-product of decomposition in landfills and dumps.
• Growing bamboo improves soil quality and helps rebuild eroded soil. The extensive root system of bamboo holds soil together, prevents soil erosion, and retains water in the watershed.
• Bamboo grows naturally without the need for agricultural tending and large diesel exhaust-spewing tractors to plant seeds and cultivate the soil.
• Bamboo plantations are large factories for photosynthesis which reduces greenhouse gases. Bamboo plants absorb about 5 times the amount of carbon dioxide (a primary greenhouse gas) and produces about 35% more oxygen than an equivalent stand of trees.
• Bamboo fabrics and clothing can be manufactured and produced without any chemical additives although eco-certification such as Oeko-Tex is necessary to insure that the manufacturing and finishing processes are healthy.
• Currently, there are no known genetically modified organisms (GMO) variants of bamboo. Let’s hope it stays that way.

The bottom line on bamboo. The growing of bamboo is environmentally friendly but the manufacturing of bamboo into fabric raises environmental and health concerns because of the strong chemical solvents used to cook the bamboo plant into a viscose solution that is then reconstructed into cellulose fiber for weaving into yarn for fabric.

Bamboo clothing marketers have found a variety of ways to put the most eco-friendly and sustainable face on the manufacturing of bamboo fabric. The dominant manufacturing process of hydrolysis alkalization and multi-phase bleaching is generally referred to as a rather benign process utilizing caustic soda and bleach. The chemicals used are known to create a variety of health problems and neural disorders which can be hazardous to the health of fiber manufacturing workers. If the manufacturing facility lacks adequate pollution control systems – all too common in developing countries where regulations and enforcement are nearly non-existent – then these toxic chemicals can escape into the atmosphere through air vents and smokestacks and into waterways through inadequately treated waste water disposal systems.

Some bamboo fiber manufacturing facilities trumpet their sustainability and green credentials by establishing ISO 9000 Quality Management policies and ISO 14000 Environmental Management policies. This is largely a PR red herring tossed by the manufacturing facilities and marketers because these ISO standards do not mean that the facilities, their manufacturing processes or their fabrics have been certified by any of the international certification bodies such as SKAL, Soil Association, Demeter, KRAV, or OKO-tex.

The International Organization for Standardization, ISO, is an international NGO that defines industrial and commercial standards. ISO 14000 gives the requirements for an Environmental Management System. This means that ISO 14000 “…is a tool for helping organizations to implement good environmental practice and to aim for continual improvement of their environmental performance” according to an ISO press release.

ISO 14000 does not certify that a company’s manufacturing processes are sustainable or environmentally friendly. ISO 14000 is simply a generic set of standards and tools to help businesses – any kind of business such as financial services or media companies and not just manufacturing companies – define their environmental concerns and how to meet them. ISO 14000 does not guarantee that once a company has defined their Environmental Management System that they will meet their goals. There is also no guarantee that a company’s implementation of their Environmental Management System using ISO 14000 will meet the criteria for sustainability. ISO has posted an interesting introduction to ISO 14000 on YouTube. Because ISO 14000 is a very “flexible” standard, it is impossible to know what and how a company is actually implementing their ISO 14000 Environmental Management System.

Some manufacturers also boast that they have implemented ISO 9000 as if this improves their “green” credentials. ISO 9000 is another set of generic standards and tools for defining and implementing a company’s quality management system. The domain of ISO 9000 is quality management and has nothing to do with environmental issues.

ISO 14000 and ISO 9000 are important and useful tools and standards but, without knowing the specifics of a company’s ISO 14000 implementation, it is impossible to know if their manufacturing processes are actually sustainable and conform to environmental regulations. Also, environmental regulations, controls, enforcement and attitudes vary greatly from country to country as does transparency into what really happens within a country’s manufacturing facilities. For example, getting reliable data and information from garment manufacturers in China, where most clothing is now manufactured, is very difficult.

What to do? If you are thinking of purchasing bamboo clothing or any clothing that has been made outside the U.S., look for certification from an independent and reliable certification company such as Oeko-Tex, Soil Association, SKAL, KRAV or similar organic or sustainable certification body. Currently, the Oeko-Tex label is the most comprehensive label for insuring that the garment is healthy for consumers but it does not certify the manufacturing processes that produced the garment as being environmentally friendly and sustainable.

Some people many find our critique of the environmental and human health impact of bamboo clothing to be harsh but we based our statements on the best research that we could find from medical research journals, trade information, patent applications and consumers’ experiences. We tried contacting a number of bamboo fiber manufacturers for additional information on their manufacturing processes but we received only bland statements about how they satisfied all governmental environment regulations or just radio silence. We would be highly appreciative of any documented facts from bamboo fiber and fabric manufacturers that correct any of our findings and we promise to publish your corrections. Bamboo fabric and clothing has wonderful potential as a sustainable and environmentally friendly product if it can demonstrate that it is sustainable and friendly to the health of the planet, manufacturing and garment workers, and consumers.

Enjoy.

Michael

Global Warming and Organic & Recycled Clothing

Buy organic clothing for the health of our planet; wear organic clothing for your health. The reality and perils of global warming have finally broken through the walls surrounding mainstream collective consciousness and have become hot news. Recently, we were contacted by a journalist working on an article for Time magazine about Global Warming wanting to know if organic clothing could help reduce global warming. Conventional news stories about global warming generally fail to recognize that global warming is just one of several serious symptoms of a dangerously dysfunctional family relationship between industrialized and industrializing peoples and their Mother Earth. Global warming is caused by pollution of the Earth’s air. Other symptoms of this dysfunctional relationship include pollution of the Earth’s waters in our oceans, rivers and ground waters; pollution of the Earth’s agricultural lands with toxic pesticides, herbicides and insecticides; and destruction by clear cutting of life-giving ecosystems such as rainforests and old growth forests.

So, what would be the impact on Global Warming if everyone stopped buying conventional chemical clothing and gradually replaced their worn out conventional clothing with pure organic clothing? Minor. The raising and production of organic natural fibers and their manufacturing into fabric and apparel would have a small impact on improving Global Warming. All the hazardous and toxic chemicals involved in conventional cotton clothing contributes hugely to poisoning our planet’s agricultural lands, turning ground water and rivers into potentially carcinogenic waste waters, causing the deaths of tens of thousands of agricultural workers worldwide, encouraging the social pollution of sweatshops, and aggravating chemical sensitivities and health problems in a growing number of people wearing conventional chemical clothing.

Causes of global warming: Global warming is generally defined as the gradual increase in average temperatures of the earth’s land, oceans and air near the surface of the earth. While the global average temperature increase during the last 50 years might seem small – only about one degree Fahrenheit – the rate of increase is accelerating and the consequences have already been significant and alarming. Melting glaciers and polar ice caps, changes in the ocean’s ecosystems, emerging changes to global precipitation patterns, growth of more extreme weather patterns including hurricanes, tornados and droughts are all harbingers of changes to our earth due to global warming.

The vast majority of scientists now agree that this accelerating trend toward global warming is largely caused by a rise in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gases (GHG), most notably carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and from methane (CH₄). Other major greenhouse gases are nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆). Methane is a primary component of natural gas and often found in natural gas fields associated with oil fields and other hydrocarbon fuels. Significant quantities of methane are also produced as a biogas resulting from the fermentation of organic matter in wastewater sludge, municipal garbage dumps and livestock operations. Livestock – cattle, sheep, pigs and chickens – produce an estimated 37% of all “human-induced” anthropogenic methane. Carbon dioxide and methane are called greenhouse gases because they act like a blanket and help trap heat in the near-earth atmosphere thus causing air temperatures to rise and create an effect like the cover of a greenhouse. All plants and especially rainforests convert carbon dioxide to oxygen and are part of Nature’s delicate eco-balance that has been disrupted by deforestation from clear cutting forests for agriculture and to produce lumber for building supplies.

The Garment Industry and Global Warming: The textile and garment industries share in contributing to Global Warming from the growing of fibers through manufacturing through distribution and transportation of clothing to stores and customers through energy guzzling Laundromats and conventional dry cleaners and finally ending in mountains of discarded clothes and last year’s fashions rotting in landfills. Here is a partial list of the ways that the clothing, garment and textile industries contribute to global warming and environmentally-friendly green steps that can be taken to reduce the impact to global warming. We’ll work our way through the clothing product lifecycle from beginning to end.

• Animal flatulence and belching. Sheep, alpaca, llamas and other wool-bearing animals contribute to the production of methane gas, a major greenhouse gas, although the largest agricultural methane contributor is beef cattle. Carbon dioxide contributes to an estimated 9% – 26% of the global greenhouse gas effect and methane contributes to approximately 4% – 9% but the rate of concentration of methane gas is growing about four times as fast as carbon dioxide and livestock – primarily cattle, sheep and pigs – are major contributors to the rate of growth of methane in the earth’s atmosphere. Bovine biologists report that the average cow belches and passes about 600 liters of methane gas each day. Farm animals produce about 20% of the methane greenhouse gas that is released each year into the atmosphere.
  Green Steps: New Zealand tried but abandoned a “flatulence tax” on livestock.  Livestock scientists are working on dietary supplements, vaccines and genetic changes that could reduce the amount of methane produced by microbes in livestock digestive tracts. The single, most effective step that people can take to reduce animal-produced methane gas would be to stop eating meat – beef, lamb and pigs. If you can’t go cold turkey, go meatless in your diet just one or two days a week.
  We are not advocating that you avoid natural fiber wool clothing. Naturally produced wool fabrics from organically and lovingly raised sheep and alpaca have a smaller carbon footprint than conventional cotton apparel. A growing number of natural wool co-ops such as Prairie Wools in Kansas and Cornish Organic Wool in the UK are offering exquisite wool garments and actively working to be part of the green solution by promoting eco-friendly grassland management and humane treatment of all wool-bearing creatures.
  
• Agricultural tractors and trucks. The growing and harvesting of natural fibers such as cotton and hemp generally use farm tractors and trucks which run on non-renewable fossil fuels of diesel and gasoline that pour black smoke and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
  Green Steps: Support legislation and policies to encourage the agricultural use of bio-fuels and the creation of fuel efficiency and emissions standards for farm tractors and trucks.
  
• Processing and manufacturing of fibers. The manufacturing of some fibers into fabric is more energy intensive than other fibers. Petroleum-derived synthetic fibers like polyester and nylon and the “natural” man-made fibers such as lyocell and rayon generally require additional energy to cook and reduce wood pulp into the liquid solution that is forced through spinnerets to become a fiber for fabrics.
  Green Steps: All manufacturing processes and the manufacturing facilities must be designed from the ground up to meet sustainability requirements. Issues of sustainability, global warming and environmental protection and stewardship can not be adequately retrofitted to old, antiquated manufacturing plants.
  
• Pesky plastic packages. Clothing – including organic and sustainable clothing – is often packaged for shipping and sale in individual plastic bags which are made from non-renewable petrochemicals. Annually in the United States, we convert about one billion barrels of oil into plastic. This converts to about 200 pounds of plastic for every person in the U.S. each year and roughly 60% of this plastic is used for packaging – a significant percent is used to package clothing. Most of this non-renewable resource is trucked to local landfills after one use.
  Green Steps: If your clothing retailer packages their clothing in plastic, suggest that they use recycled tissue to wrap their clothing. With care, there really isn’t any reason to individually package clothing in plastic.
• Bad Shipping News. The transportation of clothing from manufacturers to distributors to retail stores to customers depends upon a global fleet of trucks, planes and ships. Much of the cotton produced in the U.S. is shipped to garment factories in China where it is manufactured into clothing that is then shipped back to the U.S. Just think of all the carbon emissions created for that cheap tee shirt.
  Green Steps: Just as the mantra for organic food shopping is “Grow Locally”, you should seek out organic and sustainable clothing that is manufactured in the U.S.
• The high cost of clean. Growing, manufacturing and shipping are only the beginning of the effects that clothing has on Global Warming. The consequences of laundering and maintaining your wardrobe are significant. A study titled “Well Dressed?” by the Institute For Manufacturing at Cambridge University on sustainable clothing discovered that 60% of the greenhouse gases generated over the life of a simple tee shirt come from the typical 25 washings and machine dryings. The carbon emissions created to generate the electricity used to wash clothing in warm temperature water and warm temperature tumble dryers exceeds the carbon emissions created during the growing, manufacturing and shipping of clothing. And this doesn’t include the electricity needed to iron clothing … especially cotton clothing which wrinkles simply by looking at it cross-eyed.
  Green Steps: Set washing machine temps on warm or cold with a cold rinse and then hang on a line to dry. Reducing the temperature wash setting from hot to warm and from warm to cold reduces the amount of energy hugely. If you absolutely can not live without a clothes tumble dryer (and we all know who we are), then set the temperature at a lower setting and remove clothes from the dryer while they are still slightly damp. Using energy is not a bad thing; using energy that is generated from coal burning carbon emitting generators is a problem. As much as possible, use and support renewable energy sources.
  
• To the dump. Millions of tons of clothing are tossed each year into garbage landfills where they rot and produce methane gas which is one of the by-products from the decomposition of organic materials. A major driving force to stuff landfills with used clothes is the “fast fashion” industry. Fast fashion is the trend to produce low cost, low quality, quickly changing fashion trends that can change several times in a single season. Low cost, mass market companies such as Old Navy, Target and Wal-Mart carefully target young, budget-conscious clothes hogs who load their shopping carts with the latest cheap clothing in the very latest colors and styles. When the next latest new trend appears in a couple months or, Heaven forbid!, a small hole appears in that too cute Smocked Babydoll Tank Top in Spunk Yellow from Mossimo Supply Co. at Target’s for $8.99 just chuck it out. I mean, it costs less than a movie ticket. Of course, at this price it probably was made in a sweatshop.
  Green Steps: Consumers of all ages must become aware that cheap, fast fashion comes at a very high cost to the environment and to exploited garment workers around the world. Recycling must become a pillar of our consumer culture … especially in the U.S. where the recycling rate of household waste is less than 5%. In England, families recycle about 9% of their household garbage (including discarded clothing), in Holland it is 30%, and in Switzerland it is 57%. Recycling is a critical component of sustainability. All product designers, including fashion designers, must design sustainability and recyclability into all products beginning with the selection of materials and manufacturing processes. Think green clothing, sustainable clothing, recycled clothing.

Commercializing global warming in the fashion and clothing industry.  The popularity of global warming as a news topic has put marketing and advertising brain stems into hyper drive. Diesel, the hip and provocative Italian clothing design and manufacturing company, has launched their Global Warming Ready collection. Diesel ads show lightly clothed young models frolicking in easily recognizable tourists locations that have succumbed to global warming – three chic hipsters lounging on a park bench surrounded by tropical vegetation and palm trees with the Eiffel Tower in the background; a shirtless young man wearing Diesel jeans laying on a beach reading with the Mt. Rushmore presidents in the background with ocean waters up to their nostrils; a skimpy bikini and swimsuit couple making friendly on a rocky, iceless Antarctic beach with penguins all around. To deflect some of the exploitation criticism, Diesel is one of many companies partnering with StopGlobalWarming.org to get people involved in fighting global warming.

Not all fashion marketing campaigns touching on global warming are targeted at the edgy selfishness of affluent young shoppers. For each product purchased at their store, Tropic Joe’s Store offers to plant one tree in a Costa Rica reforestation project. According to the Carbonfund.org, “the typical American is responsible for 10 tons of CO2 emissions annually through their direct energy use of home, cars and air travel, and about 24 tons of CO2 including their purchases, activities and the other services we all share throughout the economy.” To offset this and make each person carbon neutral would require the planting of 27 trees each year according to the Tropical Sierra Foundation, the nonprofit environmental side of Tropic Joe’s Stores.

Trees are hugely beneficial in absorbing and reducing CO₂ from the atmosphere. The ravaging of forests, especially tropical and rainforests, for grasslands to raise beef cattle and raise crops has contributed heavily to global warming. Unfortunately, rainforests typically have very shallow top soil which quickly erodes during heavy rains leaving the once-lush forest lands barren and useless. This is an unfathomable waste driven by shortsighted greed and ignorance. Congrats to Tropic Joe’s Store for their efforts. I would love to hear how many trees they have helped plant and the effectiveness of their reforestation program.

Organic clothing and eco-fashion have also been used as enticements to join organizations. The mission of the One Ton CO2 Project is to educate everyone on how to “conserve the natural resources you use, reduce your environmental impact, and then offset your remaining carbon dioxide footprint.” Rather than planting trees like Tropic Joe, the One Ton CO2 Project takes the angle of purchasing carbon dioxide credits from the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). According to a spokesperson at LiveItGreen.com which runs the One Ton CO₂ Project, they purchase 100 tons of credits at a time. The current price for a ton of CO2-equivalent credits is about $3.65 but the price fluctuates so roughly $3.65 of the $28 purchase price of the organic cotton tee shirts sold for the One Ton CO2 Project goes to purchase the credit for one ton of CO2.

Carbon dioxide offsets are an interesting green shell game. Individuals and companies can “offset” or trade the carbon emissions that they produce by driving their SUVs or by generating electrical power from dirty coal with credits that other companies have received from reducing their carbon emissions or by undertaking projects such as reforestation projects or renewable energy projects. This allows people to become carbon neutral by purchasing someone else’s reduced greenhouse gas good karma … kinda like paying monks to say prayers for you while you continue with your good living lifestyle.

A handful of for-profit and non-profit companies and organizations such as Climate Trust, Sustainable Travel International, and NativeEnergy, deal in carbon dioxide offsets, but the largest is the Chicago Climate Exchange. Carbon dioxide offsets basically work like this: a company registers their company with the Chicago Climate Exchange and commits to reducing their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions below their baseline by 6% by the year 2010.  The Chicago Climate Exchange sends an independent auditor to establish a baseline of the company’s current greenhouse gas emissions of:

• Carbon dioxide (CO₂),
• Methane (CH₄),
• Nitrous oxide (N₂O – used as an aerosol spray propellant and produced by bacteria in livestock operations),
• Sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆ – produced for use in some electrical and manufacturing processes),
• Perfluorocarbons (PFC – used in refrigeration units and fire extinguishers),
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC – a fluorocarbon emitted as a by-product during industrial manufacturing)

The CCX-registered company is then issued Carbon Financial Instrument (CFI) contracts equal to the company’s targeted reduced GHG emissions. The company is issued one Carbon Financial Instrument contract for each 100 metric tons of CO₂ or carbon dioxide-equivalent in the case of the other five greenhouse gases. These CFIs can then be traded, bought and sold on the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Another variant on the theme to link global warming and carbon offsets with organic and natural clothing is the Carbon Neutral Certification ^tm program from Live It Green which certifies that selected clothing of participating clothing manufacturers and retailers have “been rendered carbon neutral by planting trees to counteract the calculated environmental impact of its manufacture.” This program from Live It Green recognizes that almost all clothing creates an adverse ecological footprint and that we must find ways to offset the inevitable greenhouse gas emissions caused by the growing of fibers, manufacturing of fabrics, and their transport and distribution to consumers.

And finally, apparel manufacturers and retailers are beginning to suspect that changing weather patterns will affect consumer buying. Recent warmer winters have reduced consumer demand for heavy winter coats and shortened the cold weather apparel buying season. Layering has moved from being a fashion trend to becoming a sensible strategy for dealing with more changeable and extreme weather. Average temperatures on the East Coast during the 2006 holiday season were 15 degrees warmer than the previous holiday season which cut deeply into sales of winter coats, hats and gloves. Manufacturers and retailers are starting to obsess over long trend weather reports and how to respond to a “Global Warming Christmas.”

This isn’t all that we have to say about global warming, organic and recycled clothing, and the apparel industry but it’s enough for now. Please let us know of your thoughts and insights.

Enjoy.

Michael