Fashion Footprint

Fast Fashion: The Fast Path of Corruption

In today’s world, we like everything fast—from our food to our cars to our fashion. Fast fashion is a new business model retailers have adopted in order to cash in on the consumer’s constant demand for new products at a low price, but this business model is as bad for the planet as fast food is for our health.

Big retailers, such as Zara and H&M, are well-known for implementing the fast fashion business plan. A fast fashion system combines short production and distribution timeframes with trendy styles. Fast fashion is lucrative because consumers demand a constant flow of new items on the selling floors, but don’t want to pay top-dollar for trendy items.

Since consumers know that the products are stocked in limited quantities, a “buy-it-now” frenzy occurs, where the consumer impulsively buys the item before it runs out. This enables retailers to profit off the consumer’s spontaneous buying decisions. It also allows retailers to sacrifice the quality of the merchandise because, by the time the consumer gets the item home, he or she is unlikely to return it due to the constraints of the company’s return policy.

Photo Credit: HelloBeautiful

The environmental impact of the fast fashion business plan is serious. The quick production and turnover that the system demands means that retailers will overlook both the quality of the merchandise and will forego using lengthier processes that may be more eco-friendly.

The use of water is one of the biggest threats fast fashion presents to the environment. Huge quantities of water are used to produce clothing. According to the Protected Water Fund, the production of one pair of jeans requires 11,000 liters of water and a single t-shirt uses 400 liters. This is a huge amount of water waste on clothing considering the United Nations recommends individuals need a minimum of 50 liters of water per day for drinking, washing, cooking and sanitation.

Photo Credit:The Huffington Post

The excessive use of water, combined with the retailers’ need to use the cheapest materials available prevents retailers from using eco-friendly fabrics, like organic cotton. The price of organic cotton is too high for fast fashion retailers to consider using. Organic cotton is 10 to 45% higher than regular cotton, because what the consumer is paying for is the guarantee that it was produced with clean water, fresh air, fair wages, sweatshop-free production and with a minimal environmental footprint (Everman, 2007).

Not only does the fast fashion industry negatively impact the environment, it also puts the workers who produce the clothing in the factories at risk. The human impact of the fast fashion business is alarming and unethical. In order to keep the cost of the merchandise down, retailers outsource the production jobs to other countries, where workers will work for less wages. According to the U.S. National Labor Committee, some Chinese factory workers make as little as 12 to 18 cents per hour (Cladio, 2007).

Photo Credit: Environmental Health Perspective

Not only are workers subjected to unfair wages, they are also exposed to unsafe working environments.  A report in the Environmental Health Perspective states: 

A textile worker takes a break at dawn after sanding jeans all night at a clothing factory in Guangdong Province, China. The blue dust from the jeans is a heavy irritant to the lungs. The factory where this worker is employed uses a wear-and-tear process to achieve the fashionable distressed look for the approximately 10,000 pairs of jeans it produces every day. Thousands of workers labor around the clock scrubbing, spraying, and tearing jeans in order to meet the production demand. China is one of the world’s largest producers of jeans (Claudio, 2007).

The wildly popular fast fashion business model meets the demands of consumers for fashionable items at an affordable price and retailers strive to profit by supplying this demand. But, between its environmental and human impacts, fast fashion comes at a steep price—the cost of the earth and humanity.

Works Cited:

Claudio, L. (2007). Waste couture: Environmental impact of the clothing industry. Environmental Health Perspective, 115(9), A449-A454.

Everman, V. (2007). How eco is organic cotton? Gaiam Life. Retrieved from: http://life.gaiam.com/article/how-eco-organic-cotton-facts-7-questions

Protected Water Fund. (2007). Water shortage facts. Retrieved from: http://www.pwf.co.im/watershortage.htm

Water Neutral. Q&A. Retrieved from: http://www.waterneutral.org/faq.asp

(Source: fashionfootprint)

India’s Environmental Footprint: A Story of Sustainable Development

(Source: fashionfootprint.tumblr.ocm)

Designer of the Week: Ambika Boutique

Those fur-loving fashionistas who were disappointed to hear about the harmful impact fur farming has on the environment can rest easy knowing that other options are available.

Our designer of the week, Ambika Conroy, is an excellent example of how, with a little creativity and a working knowledge of sustainable agriculture, the fashion industry can evolve to become more environmentally friendly.

“I just couldn’t understand why we had to torture and kill all these sweet animals, when we could make an equally warm and luxurious product humanely,” Conroy said on her website.

Designer Ambika Conroy with one of her Angora rabbits. Photo Courtesy of Ambika

Ambika Boutique offers a Friendlyfur line of accessories and attire that is made out of Angora rabbit fiber. The Angora rabbits are raised on Conroy’s farm in Upstate New York where they are loved, cared for and humanely shorn and sheared.

“My first two [Angora rabbits] lived with me in Brooklyn and would hang out on the couch and watch movies,” Conroy said on her website. “I sought out spinning classes after their fiber started piling up, and my obsession continued from there.”

Photo Courtesy of Ambika

The bunnies have a natural molting cycle of three months, and when the fiber length reaches a minimum of three inches, Conroy shears the animals and spins the fiber into yarn. After shearing, the raw material is washed with a natural detergent to ensure that it is clean. This step will also remove most of the fur’s allergenic properties. Next, the fur is carded, or brushed, to align the fibers and is then spun into a single strand. Finally, two of the single strands are spun together to form a durable 2-ply yarn that is ready to be crocheted!

Ambika Boutique offers a wide-variety of products—from furry mittens to a luxurious fur jacket. Prices range from $145 for some of the accessories up to $1,800 for the jacket. 

Photo Courtesy of Ambika

Consumers can customize their order by choosing from an array of pewter closures that are hand cast by a company in the United States of America. Ambika also gives customers a choice of color. Ambika offers a variety of of natural colors like white, oatmeal, caramel, chocolate and grey. 

Photo Courtesy of Ambika

Each garment is handmade by a group of women in the Catskill Mountains of New York, who Conroy employs to help her crochet the garments. Since all orders are custom-made, the company asks customers to please allow anywhere from two to eight weeks for delivery, depending on the size of the order.

Ambika also offers a collection of crochet swimwear that takes on a completely different aesthetic, proving the versatility of the Angora yarn.

Photos Courtesy of Ambika

Prices for the bikinis range from $125 to $325 and come in a variety of styles, colors and prints. The beautiful swimwear is a must-have for the upcoming summer season. To order, please visit www.AmbikaBoutique.com!

Pelt Propaganda: Why “Eco-Friendly Fur” is a Fur-ocious Lie

The fashion industry’s use of fur has been a contentious topic for decades, but the introduction of fur as an eco-friendly material may be the biggest piece of fiction conjured up by the fur industry to date. 

Furriers are trying to “greenwash” the industry by using deceptive marketing to convince consumers that fur is natural, and therefore, environmentally friendly. While animal fibers do occur naturally and are a renewable resource, the environmental impact of harvesting the material is considerable due to the amount of pesticides and chemicals used to produce the fur and the by-products of the animals themselves—all of which contribute to water and air pollution, as well as global warming [1].

An advertisement run by the European Fur Breeders’ Association that was banned in March 2012 for claiming fur is eco-friendly. Photo Courtesy of Guardian Sustainable Business

According to the International Trade Fur Federation, eighty-five percent of the animal skins come from fur farms [2]. These animals produce waste that can lead to pollution and disrupt nearby water supplies. For example, Bursjian (2003) said that each mink produces 44 pounds of feces during the span of its life on the farm [3]. According to a USDA report, in 2010 there were 2,822,200 minks killed for their fur in the United States [4]. This means that 124,176,800 pounds of waste containing phosphorus, a harmful by-product found in the urine and feces of animals, was released into the environment. This results in abnormally high levels of phosphorous in the soil. Subsequently, the erosion of the farmland can lead to water pollution, as well as eutrophication—the excessive richness of nutrients in a body of water, which causes algae to thrive and animals to die from a lack of oxygen [5].

A lake that has been affected by eutrophication, seen in the overgrowth of algae. Photo Courtesy of Soil Net

Not only does raising livestock contribute to water pollution, it also affects air quality. The animals on the farm release ammonia into the air through the by-products of their waste [6]. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (2004), ammonia emissions contribute to the formation of smog in the air. In the United States, smog has decreased natural visibility from 90 miles to between 15 and 20 miles in the East and from 140 miles to between 35 and 90 miles in the West [6]. The ammonia emissions pose a threat to the air quality of our planet by acidifying the soil, exacerbating the problem of eutrophication and increasing the amount of smog.

Smog over Los Angeles, California. Photo Courtesy of Steven Buss (via Flickr)

Ammonia emissions can also have a negative impact on human health. The exposure to the chemical may result in irritation of the eyes and lungs. Currently, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has established that an employee may be exposed to ammonia of 50 ppm over an eight-hour period, while the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists only recommends that a worker be exposed to 35 ppm of for 15 minutes [6]. These regulations may protect people when the ammonia levels are being regulated indoors, but if the levels of ammonia continue to rise, the outdoor pollution may result in widespread health issues. The chemical is dangerous because ammonia compounds to form very small particulate matter, which is especially dangerous because its small size allows it to penetrate deep into the lungs. Several community health studies reported a spike in respiratory and cardiovascular issues associated with particulate matter with 2.5 microns or less [6]. Particulate matter with this diameter will put children, the elderly and individuals who suffer from cardiovascular or lung disease at the most risk [6].

Photo Courtesy of Cobalt123 (via Flickr)

For years the fashion industry has debated over the ethical issue of wearing fur, but now the fur industry has used words like “natural” to indicate that fur is eco-friendly. This is pelt propaganda—lies created to greenwash the fur industry and reposition it as an environmentally friendly material. The truth about fur is that the farms where the animals are harvested are harming human health and having a devastating impact on the earth.

References:

[1] Hethorn, J. & Ulasewicz, C. (2008). Sustainable fashion: Why now?: A conversation bout issues, practices, and possibilities (p. 330). New York, NY: Fairchild Books, Inc.

[2] International Trade Fur Federation. (2009). Fast Facts. Retrieved from: http://www.iftf.com/#/facts-sheets/2/

[3] PETA. Wool, fur, and leather: Hazardous to the environment. Retrieved from: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-clothing/wool-fur-and-leather-hazardous-to-the-environment.aspx

[4] United States Department of Agriculture. (2011, July 8). Minks. Retrieved from http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Mink/Mink-07-08-2011.txt

[5] Net Industries. Phosphorus. JRank Science Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: http://science.jrank.org/pages/5141/Phosphorus.html

[6] Gay, G.W. & Knowlton, K.F. (2009). Ammonia emission and animal agriculture. Virginia Cooperative Extension. Retrieved from: http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/442/442-110/442-110_pdf.pdf

(Source: fashionfootprint)