Home Sustainability thoughts
Category:

Sustainability thoughts

Fashion Revolution Week 2021 & sustainable sewing
Buying behaviourOpinion piecesSustainability thoughts

Fashion Revolution Week 2021 & sustainable sewing

written by Kate

Fashion Revolution Week 2021 is here again. It is something I’ve been following for some years now and I like everything that it stands for. In particular, it is the one time of year that there are a lot of interesting talks about new developments in sustainable fashion that are accessible to the public. But as the years pass by, I find my enthusiasm waning a bit … in some ways, these kinds of spotlight weeks have started to feel a bit like birthdays. A lot of build-ups, a big hoo-ha, and then we kind of “forget” about it during the year. However, Fashion Revolution Week 2021 did trigger me to write this so I guess that can only be a good thing to serve as a reminder to me too!

Do I forget about sustainable fashion when it’s not Fashion Revolution week? 

Well, a mininalistic wardrobe is not something I own so I’ve already failed if “own only what you need” is the aim. My tally says I made 63 things in 2020. That’s >1 new item of clothing a week. A lot of it was work-related sewalong sewing, and I gave away a load too. If my H1-20 (first half of 2020) was anything to go by, about ⅓ of it was leisure sewing. In 2021 I have more sewalongs for a new client so I think the makes will continue – you’ll hear more about that soon!

Whether or not my sewing volume is justified in the name of work is irrelevant if I still choose to do it. However, it may have had an influence on my views on the matter of sustainable sewing. But over time I have tweaked my approach a little and now I’m firmly of the opinion: 

Sew because you love to sew.

More than because you want to live a more eco friendly (sustainable?) life.

When I first started banging on about sustainable sewing some years ago, it was very much along the same lines promoted by sustainable fashion line – buy less, choose well, make it last kind of vibe.

But there are a few issues with this that I’ve come to see over time when trying to apply this to sewing and I wanted to talk about that today. The issue of sustainability is extremely nuanced, whether it’s fashion, food or anything else. So here are my sustainable sewing considerations. Note that I write these from an environmental perspective. It might appear that I am ignoring the human angle – that is because it is far too big to cram into this post as well.

Note! The points below are just my opinion. I would always encourage you to do your own reading and research from the websites of reputable organisations or speaking to people in the know where you can (i.e. not only looking at random posts on Facebook) so you can have a good base from which to form your own opinions.

1) Sewing is my hobby.

If I didn’t sew, I might choose to collect china, throw pottery, garden, run, race cars, go scuba diving… you get the gist. You don’t need me to tell you about the mental health benefits of hobbies. It just so happens that I really like clothes (and I started learning to knit). So maybe it was unrealistic for me to ever think that I could have a minimalistic wardrobe.

2) Sewing only removes the garment worker from the fashion supply chain.

The rest stays the same. Sewing has the benefit of attempting to opt-out of the fast fashion cycle, but you could argue the impact is less than we’d like it to be because of this.

Fashion Revolution has historically concentrated a lot of Who Made My Clothes? but this year they have moved past that and I see a new campaign #WhoMadeMyFabric. This is to look beyond the garment worker and consider who else is working in the supply chain. From the looks of things it is the same kind of campaign as the garment worker one – write to brands and ask for transparency. 

A lot of fashion people I have spoken to across the years had this belief that sewing is inherently sustainable because you build a connection with your clothes. Whilst this can be the case, I’d wager that most sewists also have a number of sewing fails. And some of us a stash. For me a lot of the time, sewing doesn’t always feel better than buying fast fashion.

3) Nuances and contradictions are everywhere

  • Polyester is plastic, but it will probably last longer than cotton (see here).
  • Organic cotton is not necessarily the answer (see here).
  • Do smaller sustainable fashion brands really have the bargaining power to effect wholesale change? What about sewists whose niche is tiny compared to fashion?

… just a few examples that come to mind. Basically, there’s no easy right or wrong on a sustainability scale, particularly when it comes to choosing fibre types.

4) Greenwashing galore

There is little that makes me madder than greenwashing. Terms like “sustainable”, or “eco” are meaningless. Or slapping on labels like OEKO-TEX100 and including it in an “eco range”, that really irritates me no end.

Let me rant about this for a moment…  OEKO-TEX has a number of certification types. OEKO-TEX100 which you commonly see in fabrics is about testing for harmful substances of the END product. In fabric terms, this means the finished fabric (read it on their website here). It does not include the substances that are used in the production of the fabric. So that means you can have an OEKO-TEX100 for viscose. If you ever looked at the production process of bog-standard viscose (or bamboo for that matter) you will know there’s nothing eco about it. But as far as I understand it, the certification doesn’t take this into account.

5) Overall impact of a reduction in textiles is low 

… compared to other personal measures when it comes to climate change.

I’d encourage you to read this article by Dr Grace Peng, who is actually qualified to comment on such scientific matters. Bottom line is this: fewer textiles is pretty low on the list on an impact scale compared to cars and planes. Does that mean we shouldn’t bother doing anything about it? No, but we should also keep our eyes open on the big picture. For example we could try switching our homes to green energy and ditching the car more often if it is economically feasible.

—

Where to after all of that? 

When it comes to approaching fashion and sewing, I still really like this diagram by Sarah Lazarovic on the hierarchy of needs, I’ve posted it before on all my social channels!

Buyerarchy of needs diagram by Sarah Lazarovic

Buying less stuff is the most direct and simple way of engaging with sustainability issue. For the rest, I’d say, buy the fabric that works for the garment you want to make. Feel guilty about making it? Ditch the guilt and just make it, it’ll be good for your mental health. Feeling bad about buying? Shop second hand if it’s possible for you, whether it’s clothing or bed sheets for toiles etc. Or just wait it out before you buy … who knows, in a few days/weeks/months you may not be interested in it anymore anyway.

If you want to hear me natter on more about sustainability, then head over to the podcast episode I did with un:CUT here.

What I’m doing during Fashion Revolution Week 2021

Well, there’s the #WhoMadeMyFabric campaign, which I think is really important from the human angle.

Also due to COVID, there are many events that have moved online. So I don’t have to miss out just because I don’t live in a big city anymore (although there is always the possibility that the kids don’t allow me to watch/listen and the timings don’t work out). But for the rest, I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing – write and talk about sustainability occasionally because it’s a topic I’m interested in. And maybe some of you want to read it!

Will you be doing anything for Fashion Revolution week 2021?

Till next time,

Kate

April 19, 2021 2 comments
1 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
Challenges with fibre blends and recycling
Fabric infoOpinion piecesRecycling and wasteSustainability thoughts

Challenges with fibre blends and recycling

written by Kate

Late last year I heard Dutch sustainable fashion consultant Roosmarie Ruigrok speak about fibre blends and textile recycling. The context: the talk was at Impact Hub Amsterdam and mostly about fabrics. It was geared towards a group of sustainable fashion entrepreneurs who were on a start-up course for social impact and sustainability based businesses. As alumni (I did the same course in 2019) I was invited to attend.

One interesting topic of conversation was fibre blends and the end of life / recycling challenges that they pose. 

Fibre blend: fabric that is not 100% of any type of fibre. E.g. 95% organic cotton / 5% elastane – a fairly typical cotton jersey – is a blend. Or 50% linen / 50% cotton. Or polycotton (=polyester + cotton)

Recap: how are fabrics and clothes recycled?

First, a quick reminder. Recycling can be done in two ways: mechanical (i.e. shredding) or chemical (“dissolving”). The most common method is mechanical and has been going on for many many years. This is literally shredding clothes for things like car insulation or mattress stuffing. Other times fibres are respun into yarns and then rewoven into cloth. Recycled cotton is becoming more common; you might have seen this in some RTW jeans. I interviewed Annemieke of Enschede Textielstad about this, read that here.

The clothing that gets recycled is typically things that are unlikely to be resold second hand. Using the UK as an example, you can give your clothes to a charity store or put it in a textile bank. If it’s not good enough quality to sell in stores locally, and not good enough to be exported to other countries for resale in the second-hand market, then it gets recycled. My blog post here discussed the afterlife of textiles once you chuck them out. 

Image from Unsplash. The image owner captioned this "Sorting through hundreds of tons of clothing in an abandoned factory for a social mission called Clothing the Loop" (Cambodia)
Image from Unsplash. The image owner captioned this “Sorting through hundreds of tons of clothing in an abandoned factory for a social mission called Clothing the Loop” (Cambodia)

What’s the problem with fibre blends?

The chances of clothes made from fibre blends having a second life as fabric/clothing are more limited than if the clothing is 100% of one fibre. From what I heard, if you shred fabric that is of unknown or variable composition, it’s hard to get the “settings” right when you spin and weave. On an industrial scale, this is not ok (I’m sure this is not the only issue by the way). There is a project called Fibresort which does what it says on the tin. It is a technology that sorts textile waste based on fibre – clothes are put on a conveyor belt, scanned, and sorted into different piles based on composition. More on that another day once I’ve done the reading.

What about chemical recycling? 

Roosmarie didn’t seem too keen on chemical recycling, because it requires additional chemical processing to separate the fibres and dissolve them into a pulp. The industry news that I’ve read over the last few years is that chemical recycling is promising, but not widely used on a commercial scale. Because of this, at this moment, Roosmarie encouraged the businesses in the room to choose unblended fibres if at all possible.

But is all chemical really bad? Compared to the benefit of using recycled material? I don’t know enough about it to give an informed view. But Tencel™ for example is produced with chemicals but in a mostly closed-loop process – that’s generally accepted as a “good” fabric. And none of the fabric you buy goes from e.g. cotton on a plant to the fabric for your shirt without chemical help.

Does that mean I should stop buying fibre blends?

If you’re looking only from the perspective of the afterlife of clothing, fibre blends probably are not the best way to go for reasons outlined above.

But not using or wearing blends also sounds utterly impractical to me. I’m not a purist that wants to compost my clothes after I’ve worn them out and then used them as cleaning rags. I mean, I don’t know about you but I quite like cotton jersey (what you buy in fabric stores is typically 95% cotton and 5% elastane), especially in underwear and for kids clothes. And anything with stretch really. And what about sweatshirts?! And leggings!

Fibre Mood Frikka in blue and orange sweatshirt fleece with a fibre blend of polyester and cotton made by Time to Sew
My Fibre Mood Frikka (affiliate link) is made from sweatshirting from a local fabric shop – it contains a large proportion of polyester, as with many fleeces

But organic cotton jersey or french terry is sustainable, right?

Well, organic cotton jerseys are blends, typically with 5% elastane (synthetic). From a fibre / recycling perspective it’s probably not ideal. And in fact, you could say it seems counterintuitive to blend synthetics with something like organic cotton. There was some interesting debate about this at the talk. But I think ultimately: why bother creating fabric that no one wants to use or wear?!

The addition of synthetics is performance-related.

Synthetics can lend certain stability to fabric. Elastane in jersey is needed for recovery, so it doesn’t bag out after 1 wear and go saggy. As well as elastane, you’ll sometimes see polyester or rPET (recycled polyester from plastic bottles) in sweatshirting or interlock.

The sustainability “benefit” is the organic part, so there is a component that was ethically farmed and processed. The bad is the afterlife and the microfibre pollution during washing. It’s not just synthetic fibres that cause this, there are studies that show linen and cotton fibres in the oceans as well. Read my blog post here.

—

So once again I’m going to end by saying that choice you make is always going to have both pros and cons when it comes to sustainability (yup, I’ve said it before and I’ve said it again!) I like to think about these things purely from an intellectual viewpoint because I find it an interesting topic. But when it comes to buying choices, I buy what I think I will make a successful garment. And you decide what’s right for you!

January 27, 2021 4 comments
2 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
A conscious consumer still consumes
Buying behaviourOpinion piecesSustainability thoughts

A conscious consumer still consumes

written by Kate

The conscious consumer – a sustainability buzzword that many of us have probably heard by now. In the aftermath of the end of year Black Friday / Cyber Monday shopping period, Christmas gift-buying period, Boxing Day sales, I’ve been thinking about this a lot. What is conscious consumption? Google it and you’ll see different articles with different definitions. The general gist seems to be thinking meaningfully about what you buy from a sustainability angle. e.g. do you need it? Will you use it? Do you love it? Does the company align with my values?

I’d like to think I am “conscious” to some degree and historically the sustainability thing has given me a lot of stress. In my fashion/sewing life there are multiple worry beads about WHAT I’m buying. Which kinds of fibres, laments about the affordability of such fabrics blah blah blah.

But the reality? It’s still BUYING.

A conscious consumer is still buying stuff and still consuming. 

I still consume a lot. When it comes to sewing, I can do things like switching to Tencel™ over viscose (read my article here), or choosing organic over conventional cotton (although that comes with its own problems – read about that here). But if I’m still buying all the fabric and sewing all the clothes, that does not help the environmental cause.

PS. I once wrote a post on fabric shopping and buying culture, read that here.

Resources and energy are required to produce goods. When it comes to fabric, it’s fossil fuels or growing stuff on farmland. Then it needs to be put through a manufacturing process before it looks like the fabric in my hand. Finish with delivery to the local shop or to my house. (note – fabric with recycled fibre content is not exempt from requiring energy to be produced).

A stash of cotton lawn I acquired last spring
A stash of cotton lawn I acquired last spring

Businesses that emphasise sustainability still encourage you to buy (their) stuff 

Whilst sustainability focussed businesses may start up and run with all good intentions, they still need customers (the conscious consumers) to buy products. Many of these businesses are selling products you don’t need. I don’t know about you but I’ve sewn many a frivolous garment and justified it by buying a more “eco-friendly” produced fabric to make it. It is very easy to get sucked into marketing … after all, the job of marketing is to get you to buy stuff!

Sewing is not always an automatic out from fast fashion 

Here’s a quote from when I interviewed Clare Farrell (London based academic, fashion professional and environmental activist): the craft industry is also booming and it can be very wasteful if people don’t think about what they are using. Also, it takes time to be skilled at sewing – which can create a lot of waste. The first thing you try and make something from scratch or upcycle something might be a car crash. But there’s no getting around that you have to start somewhere.

The amount of stuff I sew is not conducive to having a minimalist capsule wardrobe. In 2020 I sewed way more than what my wardrobe needed or what I would have bought RTW (see the round-up of my 63 makes here). And I bought a lot of fabric to do it! The justification was that only about half of it was leisure sewing, but I’m not sure I would even buy 30 things in a store in a year if I wasn’t sewing.

Buying nothing is a better way to be a conscious consumer

Basically, I think it’s silly for me to be having any kind of virtuous feeling about buying stuff that is meant to be better for the planet, if I am buying frivolous things I really don’t need. Brianna @astitchacrossthesea commented once on my IG about the ridiculousness of marketing deadstock as something that needs to be saved from landfill, and how “we need to ditch the savior attitude”. This resonates so much with me with the whole conscious consumer movement.

At the end of the day, we are all consumers. Buying less stuff is the only debate-free way to engage in sustainability that I know of. And, it costs nothing! I’m going to leave you with this illustration by Sarah Lazarovic in case you haven’t seen it before.

The buyerarchy of needs by Sara Lazarovic

Are you a “conscious consumer”? how do you feel about it?

Till next time 

Kate xx

January 6, 2021 2 comments
1 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
Sewing and fashion marketing – transparency in ads, gifts and sponsored posts
Opinion piecesSewingSustainability thoughts

Sewing and fashion marketing – transparency in ads, gifts and sponsored posts

written by Kate

Do you have a blog or Instagram account that includes ads, gift and sponsored posts? For example, did the owner of a sewing or fashion business give you something for marketing purposes? In my sustainability writing I’m forever talking about transparency and greenwashing, and after seeing some chat online I was thinking this also links to the way we do sewing business marketing on social media.

What’s the problem with ads?

There is a lot of “gifted” stuff going around with almost always positive reviews. But the amount of sponsored / gifted posts and ads is only a problem if it annoys you personally. However, I suspect there is often an accuracy problem in the language being used. Gifted usually implies an ad (more on that later) – and knowing if something is an ad might affect how you view a brand or the person posting the ad.

Can we really be unbiased if we did not pay for items?

Instagram captions or blog posts of gifted/sponsored items can feel rather disingenuous, if the language is always positive. Knowing something is an ad might lead you to subconsciously (or consciously) thinking – is the person really unbiased? Do I really trust this? I’ve often written “all views are my own … “ but is this really possible if I’ve been given the item and didn’t pay for it? Even if I’m conscious of it there might be some kind of subconscious bias going on.

Person with red nails holds a gift wrapped box with a red ribbob
Image credit: unsplash

Part of this might be due to the party that has given the item. There are a LOT of solo and small sewing businesses that rely on Instagram land for traffic, and if you’ve been given something you probably feel bad about giving bad press. Better to say nothing at all right? Someone asked me recently if I’d ever seen a negative review of a gifted/sponsored item and my answer was … actually, no (but maybe I’m not spending enough time on social media or reading captions closely enough). 

There are rules around social media advertising

Given the rise of social media advertising in recent years, the relevant bodies in each country make rules for bloggers and instagrammers. These relate to different ways that you should be labelling your posts (depending on what you’ve agreed to do and how much the brand can influence what you post). Here are some useful links:

  • UK: Read the blog post by Alex (Sewrendipity) – she went as far as to email the Competition and Markets Authority specifically about sewing and what to write
  • US: see the FTC page here (scroll halfway down the page for examples of specific situations which can apply to sewing)
  • Netherlands: The Dutch Advertising Code (in English) specifies what to do with social media – see page 61. Spoiler: they want you to use hashtags.

Terminology and language

From my reading of the UK, US and Dutch rules, what they do have in common is that you have to disclose when items have been given to you for promotional purposes.

Time to Sew graphic showing the definition of commonly used terms in social media ads: gifted, ambassador, sponsor

The most common terms I see being used on Instagram (and I’ve used them myself) are terms like “gifted” or “for free in exchange for a post” or “gifted for review”. But…

A gift does not require you to give anything back.

So unless you’ve been given something with no expectation to talk about it unless you want to, then it’s not really a gift … is it? 

Thanks to Jay Jay @thecamdenstitch for highlighting this to me in an earlier conversation.

Now I’ve thought about that I’m going to stop using the word “gifted” on my posts. A friend giving me a fabric gift is different from a sewing business giving me fabric or patterns and wanting me to post about it – what I’m receiving from a sewing business is not a present.

“Gifted” is a term that sounds nicer than “ad”

Similarly, “ambassador” sounds better than “promotor” or “representative”. I wonder if the term “gifted” makes us feel validated in some way. I guess it depends on your definition of success as an influencer. For the ones that make an actual living from being an influencer, I would imagine that it largely relates to the ability to make money from your blogging or socials. From my limited understanding of the influencer sphere, the relationship between influencers and brands is not yet seamless, and there is room for improvement on both sides.

Brand/blogger relationships need to be shaped to be valued and viewed as a positive opportunity to grow your business, instead of being seen as a necessary evil.

Be More Hive, a London based brand consulting agency 

Psychology of social media ads

What do you think of social media ads? A quick survey of my sewing buddies ranged from not caring, to glossing over them, liking the picture, ignoring the picture, to downright annoyance.

Then I came across some (obviously non sewing) academic research from The International Journal of Advertising. This paper looked at consumer reaction of IG sponsored posts on snack bars and how it differed depending on disclosures and wording (e.g. positive view / balanced view / clearly stated that it was an ad etc). Of course there were limitations, e.g. the participant population was small (c400). But there were some interesting high level outcomes:

  • If it was clearly stated that a post was an ad and people recognised it was an ad, people switched off from the brand and it negatively impacted the credibility of the influencer.
  • If the caption stated that the post was not an ad, consumers generally had a more positive reaction.

To advertise or not to advertise?

That almost suggests that it’s not good for anyone to be doing any advertising. But I and others I know have definitely bought things or at least increased brand awareness by seeing people advertise things on socials. Now that my own IG is at around 8.7k and day job is freelancing for pattern brands (rather than banking), it is sometimes nice to be able to sew with fabric and patterns I like and don’t always have to buy myself … because I do a lot of sewing!

Also, if you like the products that are being offered to you, you have control over what to make and when to make it, and it was something on your wish list anyway, then why not? Here’s one of my ads (I’ve recently updated the terminology).

What to write if you do advertise?

As well as following the Dutch guidelines and stating when things are ads, I think in future I’m also going to give context for the reason for the post. Something along these lines:

  • “Pattern/fabric was provided in exchange for a blog/Instagram post/review”
  • “Pattern/fabric was provided for review with no obligation to post”
  • “This was made as a design test using a rough draft of a pattern as part of the pattern development process.” 
  • “Item X was made during a sewalong as part of my work for @fibremood”

Pattern testing is not the kind of work I do for free, but if I do see others post it online I’d love to see a delineation between pattern testing vs promotion. If it’s promotion, just say it’s an ad! Also I think it’s important in general to be balanced in the caption or post or keep it factual (e.g. modifications I made). Chances are, there are things you liked and things you didn’t like in a project.

And whilst I don’t know of anyone in sewing who is as big as Michael Jordan advertising Nike (am I showing my age here?) I reckon many of us have friends and/or followers that are genuinely interested in our opinions on something. So why wouldn’t you want to be as transparent as possible?

Finally, I haven’t worked out what to say if I made something using a pattern/fabric that was provided to me, and then I decide to post the garment again later (no request from the brand). Is this a case of once an ad, always an ad? Or is it only the first time when I’m actually obliged to post? If you have any ideas on this please let me know!

Till next time (I’m off to edit some of my old posts now and mark them as ads….)

Kate x

October 14, 2020 15 comments
3 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
Organic cotton: mythbusting
Fabric infoInterviewsSustainability thoughts

Organic cotton: mythbusting

written by Kate

Of all the sustainability topics out there, the issue of greenwashing is pretty problematic. Organic textiles – especially organic cotton – if certified GOTS, is one of those textiles widely accepted as being “sustainable”. Does that mean it’s better? For me, the social issue around labour is the most important and undoubtedly there are good things about GOTS (for an intro into organic, see my blog post here). When it comes to the environmental angle, there is more than one side of the story. I collated a list of myths I’ve read recently in marketing and Dr Grace Peng did the mythbusting for me.

Scroll to the bottom to read about Grace and why it’s worth listening to her. In this world that is littered with misinformation, I hope it gets you thinking twice about the marketing that you read. The interview is long but I promise it’s a good one!

Image courtesy of Unsplash

1. Organic cotton is softer

Cotton is made up of sugars linked together into polymer chains, cellulose. Link the sugars one way, and they are carbohydrates, that we can eat for sustenance. Link them another way, and they become cellulose, which is indigestible to humans.

Longer chains of cellulose are softer. How do you get longer chains? More sunlight and cool nights. This is why cotton is largely grown in arid climates, with predictably hot days and cool nights. Nothing to do with organic.

2. Organic cotton is more eco friendly because it’s 80% rainfed

Rain, at the wrong part of the growing/harvest cycle, is bad for cotton. So cotton is often grown in places where you can count on no rain. It is a crop that takes lots of water which needs to be applied just at the right time, with no rain at random times to mess up your planting and harvest. This is a recipe for water scarcity.

The places where organic cotton’s water needs can be met by rainfall alone is minuscule compared to the places where drought-tolerant GMO cotton can be grown. (GMO cotton is engineered to use less water).

3. Organic contains no nasty chemicals and is pesticide free

Organics use pesticides. Sometimes really nasty ones. But, they are “natural pesticides”. When most organizations test for pesticides, they test only for the ones forbidden by organic standards, the newer synthetic ones.

As an aside, this is also the case in food … I read a paper involving testing for both organic and conventional pesticides. The conclusion was that organic kale had the highest pesticide residue! Kale is a brassica, which means cabbage worms love it. Bt kale resists cabbage worm, but organic kale does not. (see Grace’s blog post on it here)

It’s absolutely crazy that one copper salt is “organic” while another one is “synthetic”, and therefore, not organic. However, they both poison the soil with heavy metals.

Also, growing organic pesticides in another field, grinding it up and applying it is a lot of work… the only difference between the organic and manufactured version of the same pesticide is more land, water and labour. Read here about neem oil which is an allowable plant based pesticide.

Cotton is prettier in vases than the fabric production method. Image courtesy of unsplash.

4. GMO is not “natural”

Organic was a good-hearted effort begun in the 1970s. But technology has changed so much, and organic is not the best land stewardship anymore. GMOs are not allowed in organic agriculture. Organic gives up all the gains in water savings, innate pest resistance, longer staple length to meet an ideal from 50 years ago.

Organic cotton is sprayed with Bt, which is derived from a bacteria that lives in soil. Instead of spraying the bacterium on the crop, as they do in organic agriculture, the gene is spliced into the crop. The GMO bit is adding the Bt to it. Read more here.

Yes, bollworm is just one pest and should be used in conjunction with crop rotation and other IPM, (integrated pest management techniques). With GMO Bt cotton, you really can produce cotton with less water, land and pesticides. 97% fewer pesticides is the norm in both the US and Australia.

But Grace, what about the True Cost documentary highlighting the plight of farmers in India?

Monsanto’s business practices is a different issue from Bt or GMOs in general. I will not defend Monsanto’s business practices, but I will defend science and evidence. The good news is that gene splicing does not have to be done by for-profit companies. 

Brazilian scientists produced Bt cotton independently, which they will presumably allow their own farmers to use without charge.  Farmers will then be able to save seeds and use it without paying patent royalties. The Gates Foundation is doing something similar but will release it to farmers all over the world.

Bt provides resistance from the most common pests. Farmers don’t want to spray pesticides.  It’s bad for the land, bad for themselves, and costs money.

Notes on herbicides and GMO

Monsanto sells Bt cotton with or without Round-up (glyphosate) resistance. So Monsanto makes money selling you the seed and the Round-up. Over-use of glyphosate is creating super-weeds.  It’s like over-use of antibiotics breeding super-germs. Monsanto says that they sell Bt cotton with our without the gene for glyphosate resistance. 85% with, 15% without. Farmers can buy the resistant seeds and hope that weeds are not enough of a problem in that field, in that year, that they need to use it. It’s an insurance policy.

The US cotton industry says that it’s 1% organic, 15-16% cleaner cotton, and the rest conventional. Worldwide, the cleaner cotton portion keeps growing, which I suspect is why the Australian numbers look so good compared to 30 years ago.

Spraying so much glyphosate is really bad. But, I have a friend who is a farmer, who says that one application per year, applied at just the time when weeds are taking off, makes a big difference in his yield. Super-weeds are not a problem for him because the glyphosate cuts down the weeds just enough to reduce the work required to deal with the remaining weeds using mechanical means (hoeing or pulling). Weeds compete with the crops for water, nitrogen, etc.  So they really do reduce crop yield.

Weeds weeds weeds …image courtesy of Unsplash

5. Organic cotton is biodegradable, conventional cotton is not.

Any cotton, along with linen, hemp, and some rayons, is just cellulose. You can compost it. But, landfill is problematic. Landfills have been excavated and found banana peels that haven’t degraded!

Also, the dyes and finishes and synthetic thread are contaminants. Microfibers in sewage is a whole other subject. In southern California, SoCal, we recycle our water as much as possible.  So our water treatment will remove suspended microfibers. In northern California, where water is more abundant, they just minimally treat the water for disinfection and dump that into the bay.  They have microfibers in their bay, which eventually flush into the ocean. But, that’s a sewage treatment problem that is easily fixable. Just add money and infrastructure. SoCal had to do it because water is so scarce here. Other places can do it if they want to.

Note from Kate: blogpost here on how landfills work, and this one here on microfibres. Bear in mind there are also cotton and linen microfibres the ocean that haven’t degraded.

—

OK, so that’s some pretty good myth-busting and logical arguments there… bottom line is that you need to do your own reading and form an opinion. PS. if you need an intro into organic, check out my blog post here. It’s from 2017, but still relevant.

Kate xx

—

Grace Peng …scientist, mom, sewist, lifelong slayer of BS. Her background is in mathematics, chemistry and she holds a PhD in Chemical Physics from the U of Colorado at Boulder and the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics. Since then, she has been paid to work at the intersection of environmental science, environmental policy, data analysis, data management and software engineering. She has not been paid to be a mother, daughter, wife, and community volunteer, but she works plenty hard at those jobs, too.

PIN FOR LATER:

July 6, 2020 5 comments
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
Newer Posts
Older Posts