Thursday, October 15, 2015

The Denim Industry Needs To Make This Big Change Now

One of the ironies of our industry – the denim industry – is that we use a lot of water but manufacture our products in places we know don’t have water. If you don’t believe me, check out this unbiased report from the World Bank.
It identifies which countries have the most freshwater and if water was a primary concern, we’d be making jeans in my home Canadian province of Ontario where there are 400,000 lakes.
Instead, jean factories are in:
1. Los Angeles, where there is drought and recycling water laws are restrictively bizarre.
2. Bangladesh, where the EU provided duty-free trade status.
3. Pakistan, where there is .0003% of the water in Canada.
Truth be told, the brands and retailers know there is no water where they make their jeans. They appear not to care because the price of the jean forces them to manufacture in countries with low labour costs regardless of the water supplier. Canadians labourers need too much money per hour to be on anyone’s radar. But what happens when water runs out?
I’m not sure how many people know indigo used to come only in powder form. Denim Mills using powder (70% still do) mix their powder up themselves which is messy, irregular (as in shading) and may I say old fashioned as well as water intensive?
water distribution diagram
Today less than 20% of the denim mills in the world use pre-reduced liquid indigo which is a massively more sustainable way to use indigo. I wonder, who checks if their denim fabric supplier uses powder or indigo? From what I know, not a single mill in Japan has ever used liquid. EVER USED IT! But the question is, does anyone care?
People in our industry seem more keen on talking about organic cotton – which accounts for 1% of the world cotton market – than on the filthy way indigo yarn is dyed and amount of water wasted for no reason.
Advance Denim by Archroma is another dye option that cuts down the use of water enormously. Do any of the mills in countries with no water run only on this dye? No. You’d think if your nation has no long-term water capacity your government might insist (for the benefits of their citizens) on preemptive measures to avoid running out. But nope. Not in Pakistan, not in India, not in Bangladesh, not China etc, etc, etc. The majority of denim mills use powered indigo and not Advanced Denim.
Credit: Greenpeace
Credit: Greenpeace
Why is this? Why are countries and cities without water making denim and jeans?
The reason – generally provided by the brands and retailers – is you are the cause. Apparently you, the consumer won’t pay for jeans if they are made somewhere that actually has water or you insist on getting jeans from Los Angeles. It seems consumers set high value for Japanese denim made from powdered indigo. It’s the consumers that demand everything to be done the way they are being done.
I don’t think that’s true. I don’t think consumers have a clue what’s going on with their jeans and were they aware, they would not accept the today’s global sourcing and production patterns.
This article was originally published by WGSN under its Denim Insider column.

Monday, September 14, 2015

Does it Ever, Ever Biodegrade?

Picture this: a future time, perhaps 10 years from today.  It’s Christmas morning and a young kid opens the Christmas gift his grandparents gave him.  He unpacks it quickly hoping he likes whatever is being given because he needs to look happy and the best way to do that is to actually be happy.  Unpacked, the gift he finds is a 100% polyester team jersey from his favourite professional basketball player. Perhaps it's the jersey Lebron James’ son wears for the Boston Celtics.  He holds it up to show the family and says, “Do you guys realize this is made from polyester and which will never biodegrade? I mean never EVER, EVER BIODEGRADE?”

“Oh?” his grandmother says, “The store said it was recycled polyester.”
The kid rolls his eyes.  “So?  It lasts forever too.”

In February 2015, CNN wrote, “Nearly every piece of plastic still exists on Earth, regardless of whether it's been recycled, broken down into microscopic bits or discarded in the ocean.
And the world keeps producing more of the material -- creating 288 million metric tons of it in 2012. About 4.8 to 12.7 million metric tons of it end up in the oceans in 2010, according to a new estimate published in the journal Science.


The word, “plastic” is an umbrella term used to describe a variety of molecules, including polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or polyester, the same polyester that competes with cotton in world fiber markets or is used in NBA, NHL, NFL, College sports uniforms. There are about 45 different types of “plastic,” but six types account for the bulk of plastic production. Many containers are numbered on the bottom to indicate their molecular structure:

Plastic #1 is PET, used in soda and water bottles and clothing. This is the most common form of polyester used in textile fibers.
Plastic #2 is High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), used in soap bottles and milk jugs.
Plastic #3 is Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) (often known as vinyl), used in outdoor furniture, shrink wrap and water bottles.
Plastic #4 is Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE), used in produce bags and food containers. The little plastic bags used in markets are made from LDPE, and these bags often become contaminants in seed cotton.
Plastic #5 is Polypropylene (PP), used in bottle caps and food containers. PP competes directly with many natural fibers, including jute, sisal, hemp and coir in rope and bagging applications, and PP is a major source of contamination in cotton because of its use in fertilizer and food bags that are often used by farmers in developing countries as seed cotton sacks.
Plastic #6 is Polystyrene (PS), used in packaging and foam cups.
Plastic #7 is all other types of plastic polymers with a variety of uses.

My question is what is going on in the clothing industry?  We all know plastics, and polyesters are all petroleum based.  We all know where much of our petroleum comes from and what’s involved in getting it to our gas pumps.  Iraq?  Saudi Arabia?

Why are so many companies willing and overtly proud to us a single fiber exclusively when it is so obviously environmentally jeopardous to our environment and economic stability? Reclycling something that is threatening and politically dubious to begin with does not make it right.
  
What seems right is to substitute natural fibers for unnatural fibers wherever possible.   Let us blend more wool, cotton, linen and reduce our use of polyester and other synthetics.  Let us support humans that grow natural fibers; people who live off the fibers rather than support factories that guzzle and don't’ replenish limited energy resources our grandchildren will likely need.

Is it not clear to everyone by now that there is a limited amount of petroleum?

Do we really need a college football teams like Texas Tech wearing 100% polyester uniforms when cotton is grown all around Lubbock?  Do sports teams at USC and UCLA really need to play games in synthetic uniforms when they are two hours from Bakersfield farm country? Seventeen states grow cotton but every sports team in each state wears polyester.

What is it I am missing?






Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Neil Young’s Cotton Crusade Has Incorrect Data

When I was in grade 2, I had nothing to share with my class during “show and tell.” To make my time in front of the class interesting I informed everyone that my mum delivered twin girls the day before - which was a complete fabrication.

My little “story” lit up the entire class the way Thomas Edison’s light bulb lit the world. Everyone listened to me for a brief period and asked me questions. I was temporarily the center of attention. The only problem from that little episode was my teacher, Ms. Cloth (no kidding, that was her name) called my mum to congratulate her. Boy did I get into trouble! I learned then and there about fibbing – especially public fibbing. Ever since, I kind of get upset when I see adults fudge the truth or condone it.

So that brings me to the Internet, where fibs often are never really addressed. In fact they multiply and no one seems to care or do anything about it. I can’t decide what is worse: the actual untruth that is spread like a disease, or the amount of human beings that print and state untruths without compunction. Anyway, it’s all making me want to share what I know because I think the truth is important.

In August 2014, Neil Young, the musician and my fellow Canadian, stated on his website that cotton farming takes up 5% of the world’s arable land. Rolling Stone Magazine pounced on the story (a kind of ratification) as did Stereogum, a music site that really should not be spreading fibs. Check it out.


My friend, a cotton expert, disagreed with the 5% number and wrote Neil Young the following:

Based on the latest information from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC), world cotton production accounted for 2.6% of world arable land in 2011, the latest data available. Your assertion that cotton accounts for almost 5% of earth’s arable land is in error by a factor of two”.

Neither Mr. Young nor any of the other websites reporting the 5% fibbie changed their position. Why would that be? I mean 200% off is a not a little fib – it is like saying I am 12 feet tall.

And it gets worse.

Neil Young’s website also proclaimed that cotton accounts for 25% of all pesticides used in agriculture. My friend addressed this untruth in the same letter saying:

Sales worldwide in 2012 of plant protection chemicals (pesticides) totaled US$51.2 billion (Cropnosis, a UK based chemical consulting firm). Pesticide use on cotton was US$3.2 billion, or 6.2% of the world total, down from 11% of all pesticides used worldwide in 1986. Plant protection chemicals include herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, seed care chemicals, professional products and others.

The assertion on your web site that cotton uses 25% of all of the petrochemical based pesticides, fungicides and herbicides globally is in error by a factor of approximately four.”

Mr. Young did not change anything in his website nor reply to my friend. And the little fib Mr. Young stated now resides not only on the three websites above but nine additional sites that I have listed below. I could have found more sites but I ran out of patience after looking for fifteen minutes.


As I was scouring for the 400% error on insecticides I found countless non-Neil Young reports stating cotton uses 16% of all pesticides. All of them are right almost, since cotton used 11% of all pesticides -- but in 1986. Too bad it’s not 30 years ago.

Here’s a few of those sites... again I ran out of patience finding sites spreading untruths.



So there you have it, one man on a crusade against conventional cotton with a large sphere of influence and followers but incorrect data unleashes an avalanche of incorrect data. The tally stands as follows:

Young’s “Data”
Actual / Factual Data
The Difference
5% - percentage of the planet’s arable land he says cotton farming occupies

2.6% - the actual percentage of the planet occupied by cotton farming
200%
25% - the percentage of all agricultural pesticides used worldwide that are used on cotton
6.2% - the actual percentage of all agricultural pesticides used worldwide that are used on cotton
400%

I suppose I should be grateful that I am allowed to set thing straight to those that care. 

It is vitally important we transform ourselves into a sustainable industry. In order to do that, we need to be on the same page, and deal in “The Truth” - whether we like what we hear or not. If the starting point of improvement is deceptive we’ll never get going.

The hunt for the truth is not complicated. How much pesticides are used in the world and where they are used are objective pieces of data and fully available from industry experts. The information on what is growing on arable land is also fully available. There is no need to obfuscate the truth.

Cotton has lots of history and lots of problems, but Mr. Young and others are spreading fibs, for no reason.