HOW MUCH?
-
“It takes about 1/3 of a pound of chemicals (pesticides and fertilizers) to grow enough conventional cotton for one T-shirt! ” http://www.naturesbabyblankets.com/page/1228817
-
“Every T-shirt made of conventional cotton requires 1/4 pound of harmful chemicals.” http://eartheasy.com/wear_orgcot_clo.htm
- “It takes about 1/3 pound of artificial fertilizer to make one pound of cotton. 1 pound of cotton is a little more than enough to make one t-shirt.” http://t-shirtmagazineonline.com/the-cost-of-cotton
- “Also, consider that it takes about one-third of a pound of pesticides and fertilizers to grow enough conventional cotton for just one T-shirt.” http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_10830.cfm
There are a lot of ‘facts’ on the internet. I tend to be sceptical, especially when there is nothing to back them up. One fact that keeps popping up is the above. As you can see, the figures vary. When I was in school, way back when, a fact like that would require a footnote, but in today’s internet world it shows up on website after website with no explanation of how these figures came about.
I decided to do some research on my own. I found a very useful research paper “EDIPTEX – Environmental assessment of textiles” compiled by the Danish Ministry of the Environment It is a comprehensive look at the life cycle of textiles and of their effect on the environment. In studying their report I realized just how many variables there are calculating something like this. It takes a lot of estimating, averaging, and thought to figure out how many pounds of chemicals go into an ‘average’ cotton T-shirt. There is no easy answer (as usual). Here are some of the challenges:
Crop yields vary from country to country and region to region within a country. According to the EDIPTEX study, the ICAC (that’s the International Cotton Advisory Committee) in 1993 the best yield was in Brazil where they were able to harvest 2,154 kg/ha. The worst was poor Uganda with a meagre yield of 133 kg/ha. Collecting reliable data to use a world average for crop yield proved to be impossible, so for the Danish study they chose the average crop yield of the United States, a major cotton producing country. In 1993 the average crop yield in the U.S. was 785 kg of raw cotton per hectare.
There are a lot of fertilizers and chemicals used to grow conventional cotton and again the amount used depends on local conditions. For the U.S. in 1993 the study estimated the fertilizer usage per hectare and from there calculated the usage per kg of raw cotton at 300 grams of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium combined.
Fertilizer isn’t all you need though, conventional cotton is treated with insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, growth enhancers and defoliation agents (something you might want to think about the next time you’re munching on a snack made with cotton seed oil). To calculate all the various chemicals that might be applied the EDIPTEX made some educated assumptions and came up with 18 grams of pesticides per kg of raw cotton.
T-shirts come in all shapes, sizes and thicknesses. For this study the EDIPTEX used a T-shirt of medium thickness that weighed 250 grams. For the 250 gram T-shirt, however, we need approximately 342 grams of raw cotton. This includes the wastage in spinning; calculated at 30% for combed cotton (carded cotton would be less) and 5% wastage for the fabric lost in the cut & sew stage.
So what’s the final number? Drumroll please….. 0.24 lbs. of chemicals and fertilizers, just shy of that ubiquitous ¼ of a pound of chemicals we read about so often. How accurate is this figure? Not very, but as a general guideline it serves a purpose. Consumers can’t be expected to have the time or the interest to investigate every purchase so thoroughly. But consumers need to be made aware of the true cost of the products they buy. For conventional cotton, some of the highest costs are the fertilizers and chemicals that go into our soil and end up in our water. While every batch of T-shirts made with conventional cotton will be different, maybe significantly, a quarter of a pound is close enough. But I still want a foot note.
There is a lot of good information in the EPIDTEX. If you would like to read the full text you can download it here: http://bit.ly/oxuiop
For anyone interested in textiles and the environment it is worth reading.
As I mentioned in my post of June 15th the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) released a memo regarding the labeling of textile products made with organic fibres. Though the memo was welcomed for officially recognizing the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS), it was ambiguous regarding the labeling of textiles that contain or are made with organic fibres. Several groups sought clarification from the NOP.
Recently I received information from Karlin Warner, a Textile Certification Specialist with One Cert Inc., that the NOP has clarified the ruling as follows:
Companies may label their products “contains organic (specify fibre)” as long as the raw material is certified to the NOP Standard. No processing standards are mentioned. Companies may label their products “Made with organic (specify fibre)” if a product is certified to the NOP or GOTS standards.
There is a world of difference between a product manufactured to the GOTS standard and product that is certified only to the fibre level. The table below shows a comparison between the two.
Scope of Standard GOTS OE 100
Fibre must be organically produced to NOP Standard Yes Yes
Genetic modification prohibited Yes Yes
Chemicals and dyes used in bleaching and dyeing restricted Yes No
Effluent from bleaching and dyeing factories restricted Yes No
Requirements for treatment of workers included Yes No
Consumer safety standards included Yes No
Standards for quality of final product included Yes No
By not requiring labels to identify the certification standard, consumers are left in the dark. My admittedly small survey of both brick & mortar and online stores revealed that brands and retailers who state their certification standard are the exception. Does the NOP really expect consumers to differentiate between such nebulous terms as ‘Contains’ and ‘Made with’?
The recognition of GOTS by the NOP is a good thing, but it is not enough. The NOP should require labeling that will truly inform consumers so they in turn can demand better textiles. The labeling requirements as they now stand only serve to confuse consumers.
Summer is here and my summer clothes from years past are looking rather worn and faded. I made a decision that from now on I would do my best to buy only organic clothing; GOTS certified if possible. It is part of my mission to ‘pay more and buy less.’
Pay more for cotton grown without the pesticides that pollute our environment and sicken our farmers, pay more to have the cotton bleached and dyed in a factory that uses low impact dyes and treats its waste water, pay more because the companies I buy from will be those that pay their workers a fair wage and provide a safe working environment.
That was my plan. I searched the internet. I searched for hours using every combination of key words I could think of. I found T-shirts, but a woven cotton shirt (tailored, in autumn colors, no ruffles please). Nada.
I emailed my friend Harmony Susalla founder of Harmony Art. Harmony is a textile designer who creates wonderful textile designs all of which are GOTS certified. Surely she would know of an online shop that had what I wanted. No luck; T-shirts, yes, woven cotton, no. Harmony suggested I search the GOTS website. The site lists 12 companies under ‘ladies wear retail’ I checked all that had a website, nothing.
I know from reading the reports put out by Textile Exchanges that the organic cotton market is growing by leaps and bounds, so where are the basic clothes I can wear to work? Nothing fancy mind you, but not stretch knit, or yoga clothes. If organic cotton clothing is going to go mainstream, then we need more than T-shirts, yoga wear, and cargo pants to choose from.
Harmony pointed me in the direction of some online fabric stores that sell organic fabric. For now I’ll buy the fabric and have my clothes made. I look forward to the day when I can try on my shirts before I buy them.
Retailers, are you listening?
On May 20, 2011 the USDA National Organic Program released a memo regarding the labelling of textile products made with organic fibres. The memo was welcomed by the industry because for the first time the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) was explicitly recognized by the USDA as an acceptable organic standard.
The memo is a good start, but it is ambiguous. For example, it states that “The NOP does not restrict the use of the term “organic” in the labelling of textile products certified under third-party certification bodies…. “. The memo does not elaborate on the ‘third party’ (does Cousin Joe count as a 3rd party?) or specify the standard used for certification, other than to say GOTS is acceptable. Is the OE standard still valid? The Organic Trade Association, Textile Exchange and many certifiers are seeking to clarify these points so watch this space.
If the memo does require the product to be certified, this is a new requirement. Up to now, it was only the cotton or other fibre that had to be certified. As long as a manufacturer could prove the cotton was certified organic the product could be labelled organic.
I hope the USDA does require product certification but even that does not go far enough. Without getting into a debate about too much or too little government regulation, the USDA should require organic products to be labelled with the organic standard used in production. Most consumers have no idea what is behind the organic label on a textile product.
In this era when brands are eager to show their social responsibility one way would be to educate the public about what their organic label means. There is a big difference between a product that is certified under the Global Organic Textile Standard and one that is certified to the OE 100 Standard or not certified at all. On the one hand, GOTS is a comprehensive standard that covers every step of production from post-harvest processing to spinning, knitting, weaving, dyeing and manufacturing. It has requirements for fair treatment of workers, restricts chemicals used in processing, requires treatment of waste water (a major pollutant in the textile supply chain) and includes quality standards for the finished products. On the other hand, OE 100 only verifies the fibre was organically produced and is tracked and through the supply chain. There are no requirements for processing.
I haven’t seen any of the well-known brands include the organic standard they use in their product information. Even Patagonia – a company that is truly passionate about the environment and the sustainability of their products – does not mention on their website the organic standard they use. This is surprising since their website with their ‘Footprint Chronicles’ is an education in itself.
Unfortunately not every company shares the ethics of Patagonia. There is an abundance of ‘green-washing’ and misleading labels. This hurts the industry. It is time for the USDA to tighten the labelling laws for organic textile products to include the certification standard for the product, and it is time for brands to educate consumers about what that standard means.
As Sy Syms said, “An educated consumer is our best customer.”
Pay More Buy Less
“Pay More & Buy Less” – It is a credo that I have been trying to live by, ever since I first watched “The Story of Stuff.” It may seem like a contrary idea for someone whose livelihood depends on people buying their products, but everyday it becomes more and more apparent that it is our best chance of saving our environment and ourselves.
Pay more for products that are sustainably manufactured and made to last. Pay more for organically produced goods, knowing that while their production isn’t without a carbon footprint, the footprint is significantly reduced. Pay more for well made appliances that will last and can be repaired rather than replaced. Pay more for goods made in factories where workers receive a fair wage, and work in a clean, safe and welcoming environment.
Buy less stuff that you don’t need or even really want. Buy less stuff that is so poorly made it will end up in a landfill in 6 months or a year. Buy less packaging that is thrown away immediately. Buy less so that our landfill sites are not overflowing. Buy less pollution.
It isn’t easy. Many times I am stymied by not knowing if a product costs more because it is actually better quality or because more money is put into advertising dollars, and the lure of the cheap is always there. But it’s a goal I continue to strive for because, in the end, it is the cheap stuff that costs us all dearly.
Sapphire International Limited
Welcome to Sapphire’s first blog. I hope I am not aging myself too much by saying I can remember when the fax machine was the next big thing. When we finally got one we thought we were so modern. How times have changed! With all the ways to communicate we are truly in the age of information or as one Social Media guru put it ‘it’s the age of radical transparency.’
In our little part of the Social Media Circus we are aiming to help you get to know us better: our thoughts on sustainability and organic production, the people behind the curtain and the part they play in getting your goods to you on time. You will also get a look inside our factories and find out about the people who make them tick.
We hope you will take part in the conversation (as the mother of a teenager I get very excited when someone actually listens to me) and send us your feedback or questions. Links to our blogs can be found through our Twitter posts and our new Facebook Page. James Kwan our youngish and most definitely savvy Sales Manager is our new ‘Director of Tweets’. Look for his tweets at @sapphireOEM.
