Leather furniture – what are you buying?

People like to buy leather furniture because of leather’s durability (it’s advertised to last a lifetime) – even though it demands a bit of attention to keep it looking its best.   Manufacturers also like to portray leather (perhaps because of its high price) as conveying luxury and sophistication.

Leather has been used practically forever –  ancient peoples used materials that were available, like bark and plant tannins, alum, earth minerals, fish oils, animal brains, lime and smoke to preserve animal skins.  The natural tanning process takes a long time – from 1 to 12 months.  It often also relies on physical manipulation.

Today’s leather is a far cry from  early leathers because horribly toxic synthetic chemicals have replaced the older tanning chemicals (usually in the interest of time – chrome tanning takes only a fraction of the time as does “natural” tanning); modern leather tanneries are frighteningly toxic and the animal husbandry aspect is sad and sickening. There are a very few ethical tanneries, but so far I can count them on one hand.  [1]

Let’s take a look at what that leather on your sofa means to us today.

Many people think that leather is a by-product of the meat industry, and that buying leather does not increase the number of animals slaughtered.  But in the case of some animals, the meat is the by product – on ostrich farms, the leather account for 80% of the dead animal’s value.[2]  Some leather – made from more exotic animals like kangaroos, zebras, seals, snakes, lizards and even sharks – are either raised or hunted specifically for their skins. [3] Regardless of how you define it, the skin is not a “leftover” since processing it as leather accounts for about 10% of the slaughtered animal’s overall value,[4] generating significant profits for both factory farms and the leather trade itself.  In fact, without the lucrative sale of animal skins for leather, factory farms would not even be able to turn a profit by selling meat alone. Ultimately, buying leather products subsidizes factory farms while providing financial incentive for them to produce more leather.

Most leather comes from cattle who are slaughtered for meat, worn-out dairy cows who no longer produce enough milk to be profitable, and veal calves whose soft skin is particularly valuable.  These animals often suffer in many ways that are detailed on various websites (such as Liberation BC: Speaking out for Animals and PETA) – it is such a gut wrenching, gruesome story that I can’t even bring myself to talk specifics.

Let’s face it – leather is the skin of a dead animal.  It is, by nature, meant to decompose.  What do you think has to be done to that skin so it doesn’t decompose?

After 75 years at the bottom of the Atlantic, few items aboard the R.M.S. Titanic had survived the ravages of saltwater.  But leather items hadn’t rotted away because their chrome tanning prevented their decay.[5]

The global leather industry is composed of three sectors of activity: animal husbandry and slaughter, tanning, and product manufacturing. Tanning is the stage in which raw leather is processed and made more durable so that it doesn’t decompose in your living room. Tanning consists of two major processes:

1. Wet blue production (so called because the semi-finished hide is given a chrome bath which imparts a blusih tint).  This process involves removing unwanted substances (salt, flesh, hair, and grease) from a rawhide (by soaking in a bath of lime and sodium sulfide to dissolve hair and flesh), trimming it, treating it to impart the desired grain and stretch, and finally soaking it in a chrome bath to prevent decomposition.  This step is far more polluting than finishing, generating 90% of the water pollution associated with leather tanning.[6]
2. Finishing – Finishing involves splitting, shaving, re-tanning, and dying the wet blue.

Often leather is advertised as being “aniline dyed”.  That means the leather is dyed for color without any pigments applied.  These dyes enhance the subtle variations of each hide and the leather does not lose any structure or grain pattern.  It is often considered to be of a higher quality than other types of dyed leather because aniline dyed leathers develop a  distinctive patina over time. Only premium hides with the most pleasing color and texture are selected for this category, less than 5% of all upholstery hides in the world.

Semi-aniline, also referred to as “Aniline Plus”,  is also advertised.  These leathers are first dyed in the penetrating aniline dyes. Then a topcoat is applied to even out the color of the hide surface. The topcoat also serves to create fading- and soil-resistant pieces.  They retain a great amount of the softness of aniline dyed hides because the natural top grain is left intact. A much larger proportion of the worldwide hide supply is suitable for this class of leather and as a result they are more moderately priced than pure aniline dyed hides.

So now we come to the part about the problems with using leather – you knew it was coming.

According to the results of a three year study to address health impacts of pollution from the Blacksmith Institute, which works to solve pollution problems in the developing world,  the tanning of leather is in the top 10 of the world’s worst pollution threats,  at #5, directly affecting more than 1.8 milllion people.[7]

Blacksmith’s Bret Ericson, who managed the three-year project, says:  ”These are not large-scale, multinational corporations that are responsible for this pollution. Typically, it’s low income, small-scale industries who have no emissions controls,” often because these outdated industries remain unregulated.

Because of the acknowledged hazards of leather production, the process is being discontinued in most European countries and the U.S., and operations are moving overseas.   Because of the relatively inexpensive cost of labor and materials, over half the world’s tanning activity occurs in low- and middle-income countries.  Leather tanneries are highly concentrated in Nepal, Bangladesh and India.  Bangladesh Tanners Association President M. Harun Chowdhury said, “Most of the European countries and USA are discontinuing leather processing, as [the] leather industry is an environmentally hazardous one.”[8]

Spurred by retailer demand in the West, leather buyers in Asia have been welcomed with open arms by governments all-too-eager for a slice of the global market, and happy to turn a blind eye to non-existent safety regulations in return. Regulations governing tannery pollution have been on the books for decades in countries such as Mexico. Among other things, they require tanneries to register with environmental authorities, install sedimentation tanks and water gauges, handle most solid wastes as hazardous materials, and— most important—pretreat wastewater so that daily concentrations of various pollutants do not exceed set standards. For the most part, however, these regulations are simply not enforced.[9]  One of the reasons mentioned for this, cited by Allen Blackman,  is that tanneries are often a mainstay of the local economy and therefore enjoy considerable political power.

So today Hazaribag, Dhaka, home to many leather tanneries,  the  once  pleasant, semi-rural district in the Bangladeshi capital, is now a wasteland of toxic swamps, garbage landfills and mountains of decomposing leather scraps, surrounded by slums where tannery workers live.  Piles of smouldering trash line the banks of the nearby Buriganga, which is classified as a “dead” river after it hits Hazaribag as pollution from the tanneries has made it impossible for any fish or plantlife to survive.

Every day, the tanneries collectively dump 22,000 cubic litres of toxic waste, including cancer-causing chromium, into the Buriganga — Dhaka’s main river and a key water supply — according to the ministry of environment.

More than 90 percent of the tannery workers suffer from some kind of disease — from asthma to cancer — due to chemical exposure, according to a 2008 survey by SEHD, a local charity, with local residents being almost as badly affected.[10]

This is The Ecologist Film Unit’s Jim Wickens take on what the situation is in Dhaka:

What chemicals are used to create such terrible pollution?

In all, around 250 chemicals are used in tanning. Skins are transferred from vat to vat, soaked and treated and dyed.   Chemicals include alcohol, coal tar , sodium sulfate, sulfuric acid, chlorinated phenols (e.g. 3,5-dichlorophenol), chromium (trivalent and hexavalent), azo dyes, cadmium, cobalt, copper, antimony, cyanide, barium, lead, selenium, mercury, zinc,  polychlorinated biphenyels (PCBs), nickel, formaldehyde and pesticide residues.[11]  At the same time, toxic gases like ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and carcinogenic arylamines are emitted into the air. The smell of a tannery is the most horrifyingly putrid smell on earth.

Groundwater near tanneries has been found with highly elevated levels of a variety of toxic substances. The Regis Tanning Co., Inc., operated a tanning facility from the early 1950s until 1972 in New Hampshire. But more than 20 years after it closed down, groundwater samples collected in the area revealed that arsenic, chromium, lead, and zinc were all still present—likely because of wastes disposed of on the property—while samples taken from nearby Lamprey River and its wetlands indicated the presence of cyanide, chromium, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).[12]

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that the incidence of leukemia among residents near one tannery in Kentucky was five times the national average.[13]

Arsenic, a common tannery chemical, has long been associated with lung cancer in workers who are exposed to it on a regular basis. Several studies have established links between sinus and lung cancer and the chromium used in tanning. [14] Studies of leather-tannery workers in Sweden and Italy found cancer risks “between 20% and 50% above [those] expected.” [15]

And that aniline dye that is often advertised as non toxic:  not according to these sources:  Aniline is toxic by inhalation of the vapour.   ^[16] The International Agency for Research on Cancer(IARC) lists it in Group 3  (not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans) due to the limited and contradictory data available.  It is linked to bladder cancer.[17]

What about vegetable-tanning, which is sometimes touted as an environmentally-friendly alternative to chrome-tanning? Vegetable-tanning is actually only different from chrome-based in one way: it uses vegetable dyes rather than, perhaps, aniline dyes, to give the leather a “more subtle, muted colour.”[18]The preparation of the skin for tanning is the same, and though vegetable-tanning eliminates the toxins produced during the process of chrome-tanning, it also has its limits: being stiffer and firmer than chrome-tanned leather, it can be used for saddles, belts,  and leather carving, but often not for shoes, coats, or anything that requires much flexibility. Additionally, when exposed to water and allowed to dry, it can discolour and shrink, becoming brittle.

As mentioned in the first footnote above, there are a few companies that are trying to transform the industry and to educate consumers about leather, such as Organic Leather in California.  They seek to “return reverence to the practice of working with leather…to pay homage to the tribal peoples of our world and to encourage respect for the quality of the animals’ lives, from the way they are raised to the way they die…(and) to make sure that no part of the animal already being harvested goes to waste.  Moreover, we are strongly concerned with the chemicals used in the tanning and dyeing process and their effects on the natural environment and the health of both workers and customers.”

---

[1] Organic Leather, in California,  is trying to create high-quality and stylish leather while working to transform the industry and educate consumers.  See their white paper: http://www.organicleather.com/organic_leather_white_paper.pdf

[2] Kate Carter, Don’t Hide from the Truth, Guardian.co.uk, 27 Aug. 2008

[3] Leather Made From different animals, Leather Supreme, May 13, 2008 AND “Animals Abused and Killed for their Skins”, PETA media center, 2010.

[4]  http://liberationbc.org/issues/leather

[5] Davis, John, “Method for safer leather tanning published by Texas Tech researchers”, Texas Tech Today, November 2007.

[6] Blackman, Allen, “Adoption of Clean Leather-Tanning Technologies in Mexico”, discussion paper, Resources for the Future, August 2005

[7] http://www.globe-net.com/articles/2011/november/11/world’s-10-worst-toxic-pollution-problems/

[8] Jasim Uddin Khan, “Local Tanners Eye Bright Prospect as US, EU Quit Leather Processing,” The Daily Star 20 Dec 2007.

[9] Blackman, Allen, “Adoption of Clean Leather-Tanning Technologies in Mexico”, discussion paper, Resrouces for the Future, August 2005

[10] Barton, Cat, “Workers pay high price at Bangladesh tanneries”, AFP, Feb. 2011

[11] Ibid.

[12] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Regis Tannery,” Waste Site Cleanup and Reuse in New England 9 Aug. 2006.

[13] Richard E. Sclove et al., Community-Based Research in the United States (Amherst: The Loka Institute, 1998) 52.

[14] Richard B. Hayes, “The Carcinogenicity of Metals in Humans,” Cancer Causes and Control 8 (1997): 371-85.

[15] France Labrèche, Occupations and Breast Cancer: Evaluation of Associations Between Breast Cancer and Workplace Exposures (Montréal: McGill University, 1997).

[16] Muir, GD (ed.) 1971, Hazards in the Chemical Laboratory, The Royal Institute of Chemistry, London.

[17] http://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/bladderurothelialinvasivegen.html  AND Carreon, Tania, et al, “Increased bladder cancer risk among workers exposed to o-toluidine and aniline: a reanalysis”, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2010; 67:348-350

[18] Elizabeth Olsen, Can Leather Be Eco-Friendly…Ever?, Ecouterre, 19 Oct. 2009

---

Real life examples of the effects of our textile choices

We’ve been told that using greener, healthier products of all kinds is a key way to avoid sickness and even serious diseases. Small children, being particularly vulnerable, undoubtedly need their parent’s help in this respect, so parents are urged to protect their children from exposure to the huge amount of additives, colors, toxins and chemicals which find their way into our food, products and houses.

But come on, seriously?  We’re all busy people and who has the time  – let alone the money – to make sure every product is safe.

That’s a good argument and one I work hard to dispute.  Which is why I like to find real life examples of what our textile choices (since this is a blog about fabrics) are really doing to us in the real world.

The first example you may have read about:  According to a study just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association,  the more exposure children have to chemicals called perfluorinated compounds, the less likely they are to have a good immune response to vaccinations (click here to read the study).  “Routine childhood immunizations are a mainstay of modern disease prevention. The negative impact on childhood vaccinations from PFCs should be viewed as a potential threat to public health,” said Dr. Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health and the report’s lead author.

Perfluorinated compounds (PFC’s) have been used for decades  in many products, including stain resistant fabrics. In our blog post two years ago about PFC’s, we said: The multi-billion dollar “perfluorocarbon” (PFC) industry has emerged as a regulatory priority for scientists and officials at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because of  a flood of disturbing scientific findings which have been  published  since the late 1990s.  These findings have elevated PFCs to the rogues gallery of highly toxic, extraordinarily persistent chemicals that pervasively contaminate human blood and wildlife the world over. Government scientists are especially concerned because unlike any other toxic chemicals, the most pervasive and toxic members of the PFC family never degrade in the environment. (Click here to read that blog post about these chemicals in fabrics.)

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PFC’s:

• Are very persistent in the environment.
• Are found at very low levels both in the environment and in the blood of the U.S. population.
• Remain in people for a very long time.
• Cause developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory animals.

Studies in animals have shown that PFCs can weaken their immune systems,  but the effects in people have been poorly documented.  Dr.  Grandjean wanted to know if the same weakened immune system response seen in animals was happening in children.   So he led a team that studied nearly 600 kids in the remote  Faroe Islands, which lie about halfway between Scotland and Iceland.

The Faroese have levels of PFCs similar to those of U.S. residents. Grandjean figured if the chemicals were having an effect, it would show up in the way kids’ bodies responded to vaccinations.

Normally, a vaccine causes the production of lots of antibodies to a specific germ. But Grandjean says the response to tetanus and diphtheria vaccines was much weaker in 5-year-olds whose blood contained relatively high levels of PFCs.  “We were surprised by the steep negative associations, which suggest that PFCs may be more toxic to the immune system than current dioxin exposures,” said Grandjean. (1)

And how do fabrics contribue to exposure to PFC’s?  There are many finishes on the market that claim to provide soil and stain repellants for fabrics – all of which contain some form of PFC’s.  The only difference among them are they way they use the chemistry to achieve their results.   Among the more well known are:

• Scotchguard
• GoreTex
• Teflon
• Zepel
• NanoTex
• GreenShield
• Crypton Green

So think about this the next time you’re about to buy children’s clothing that is stain resistant – or really any fabric in your house that claims stain resistance, since the fabric will expose you and your children to PFC’s.

This is not a frivolous concern, because the levels of PFC’s globally are not going down – and in fact there are places (such as China) where the PFC level is going up.  And as there is not a “no peeing” part of the pool, the exposure problem deserves international attention.

The second example involves yet another chemical which is used in textile processing which I had not known about.  But because the textile industry has one of the longest and most complicated industrial chains in the manufacturing industry that shouldn’t surprise me.

It seems that Alaska Airlines flight attendants were given new uniforms early last year.  Shortly after the attendants put on these new uniforms, many reported “dermal symptoms” (e.g., hives, rash, blisters, skin irritation), while some also referenced respiratory symptoms and eye irritation; some have more recently been diagnosed with abnormal thyroid function. The symptoms apparently occurred only while wearing the new uniforms.  (To read the report filed with the Consumer Product Safety Commission by the Association of Flight Attendants, click here. )

And now there is a lot of name calling between the uniform manufacturers and the union representing the flight attendants, but a few things are certain:

1. Some unknown percent of the fabric used to make the uniforms was “contaminated” with TBP, tributylphosphate, as reported by the manufacturer  – but since not all the fabric was tested, it is unknown the final percentage of contaminated fabric.  Later testing of individual uniforms also indicated the presence of TBP, according to the report filed by the Association of Flight Attendants.
2. Alaska Airlines and the manufacturer tells the flight attendants that these chemicals can be removed by washing or dry cleaning.

So.  But first, what is this substance?

Tributylphosphate – or TBP – is used in the production of synthetic resins and as a flame-retarding plasticizer.  It is also used as a primary plasticizer in the manufacture of plastics and as a pasting agent for pigment pastes used in printing.  Because it is a strong wetting agent, it is used often in the textile industry.

Many fabrics have resins applied as a functional finish – from crease and stain resistance to antibacterial resistance.   Often these resins have that other notorious skin sensitizer as a component – formaldehyde.   These finishes are designed to bind with the fabric and not wash or wear out – after all, how happy would you be with your new crease resistant pants if they wrinkled after one or two washes?  Or even 20?

In addition to being a known skin irritant (click here to see the MSDS with a warning that it causes eye and skin irritation), TBP also causes bladder cancer in rats. (2)

So we have a chemical which is often used in the textile industry in a number of different ways, which is known to cause skin and eye irritation in humans – and flight attendants are complaining of skin irritation after wearing uniforms that have been tested and are found to contain TBP (3).

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck:  seems a pretty good hypothesis that something in the fabric is causing the distress – and since tests found both TBP as well as formaldehyde in the fabrics, it seems logical to conclude that one or both might be the culprit.    I would also argue that wearing this fabric puts these flight attendants at risk of cancer – not something that they will get tomorrow, like the skin irritation – more like 20 years from now.

The flight attendants are between a rock and a hard place, because they must wear these uniforms in order to perform their jobs.  But what about the rest of us?  Why are we still supporting the production of fabrics which contain these chemicals which are doing us harm?  Why are we not acting to protect our children, these children who are suffering from what is being called an epidemic of chronic illness?(4) .  Asthma, autism, ADHD, allergies, juvenile diabetes, celiac disease, obesity and many other illness are growing at astounding rates – and even “healthy” children are showing signs of chronic immunological impairment and unhealthy physiological imbalances.  And we do not know why – though every scholar explaining the problem refers at some point to the chemical toxicity surrounding us.

I’m just mystified by the reasoning behind our choices.  I know a woman who is very well off (thereby negating the argument that cost might be a factor) who just had a baby – and though the products  that are both easily found and discussed in the media (like a cute, safe crib) were vetted for safety, harder-to-find products were just ignored.  “Cute” triumphed.  So the child wears darling dresses and sleeps on sheets and with blankets that are made of conventionally produced fabric.   Her skin is slowly absorbing the many processing chemicals used to make the fabric.  But she doesn’t have skin sensitivity to any of the processing chemicals, so there is no immediate effect and no effort to change buying habits.   But even though they can’t be seen, the changes are going on slowly, at the cellular level.    And some of the changes won’t be apparent right away  -  mom may not even be alive when the effect of this exposure becomes known -  while others might, such as those in the long sad list of neurological problems.  But because there is no outcry in the media, and we’re not paying attention,  who would link behavior problems with the fabric choices being made by mom every day?

(1) http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/01/pfcs-may-hinder-vaccine response/

(2) http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/2/247.short

(3) http://www.alaskamec.org/.pdf/Complaint%20from%20AFA%20to%20CPSC%2024%20Oct%202011.pdf

(4) Lambert, Beth, “A Compromised Generation“, Sentient Publications, 2010.

Bisphenol A in textile processing?

If you’ve bought baby bottles or water bottles recently, I’m sure you’ve seen a prominent “BPA Free” sign on the container.

BPA stands for Bisphenol A, a chemical often used to make clear, polycarbonate plastics (like water and baby bottles and also eyeglass lenses, medical devices, CDs and DVDs, cell phones and computers).  And though it has been formally declared a hazard to human health in Canada and banned in baby bottles in both Canada as well as the EU,  U.S. watchdog agencies have wildly differing views of BPA:  The National Toxicology Program (NTP) reported “some concern” that BPA harms the brain and reproductive system, especially in babies and fetuses.  The Food and Drug Administration declared that “at current levels of exposure” BPA is safe.

But consider this:  Of  the more than 100 independently funded experiments on BPA, about 90% have found evidence of adverse health effects at levels similar to human exposure. On the other hand, every single industry-funded study ever conducted — 14 in all — has found no such effects.  David Case made the argument in the February 1, 2009 issue of Fast Company that this is a story about protecting a multibillion-dollar market from deregulation.  But that’s beside the point  which is:    nobody disputes the fact that people are constantly exposed to BPAs and babies are most at risk.  It’s also undisputed that BPA mimics the female sex hormone estrogen, and that some synthetic estrogens can cause infertility and cancer.  If you’d like to read more about this click here.

Bisphenol A is now deeply imbedded in the products of modern consumer society.  This is important because it’s used in so many modern products (making it pretty much ubiquitous), and because it is extremely potent in disrupting fetal development. BPA contamination is also widespread in the environment. For example, BPA can be measured in rivers and estuaries at concentrations that range from under 5 to over 1900 nanograms/liter.(1)

What this all means is that most of  us live our lives in close proximity to bisphenol A.

Because it’s used to make plastic hard, I never thought it would have a place in the textile industry.  So it was with some concern that I came across articles which explain the use of bisphenol A in the manufacturing of synthetic fibers.

Producing synthetic fibers and yarns is almost impossible without applying a processing aid to the fibers during the extrusion and spinning processes.   The fibers and yarns are frequently in contact with hot surfaces, or they pass through hot ovens.  In order to withstand these extreme conditions, the yarns and fibers have processing aids or finishes applied.    This applied processing aid or ‘finish’, in addition to helping the yarns withstand extreme temperatures, also  reduces static electricity, fiber-fiber and metal-fiber friction, provides integrity to the filaments,  and altogether eases the manufacturing processes.

But because modern manufacturing equipment runs at higher speeds and subsequently at higher temperatures, the finish degrades in the high temperatures – yielding lower quality fibers -  and generates unwanted decomposition products.  These byproducts can be in the form of:

1. Toxic and nontoxic gases which have environmental and safety issues;
2. Liquids, which leave a sticky residue on the yarns,
3. Or they may form a solid varnish on hot surfaces that is very difficult to remove; the presence of the varnish interferes with continuous, efficient production leading to economic losses due to equipment shutdown and product failure.

To overcome the problems caused by the degradation of finishes, several additives are introduced to prevent or delay the reactions of oxidation and degradation.  Several classes of antioxidants are typically used as these additives in these finishes.

In a study sponsored by the National Textile Center, a research consortium of eight universities, three North Carolina State University professors investigated the thermal stability of textiles, specifically with respect to the antioxidants used in the finishes.  They investigated four different antioxidants – one of which is based on Bisphenol A. (2)

So I got interested, and began a bit of poking around for other mentions of Bisphenol A in the textile industry. I found two scientific references to use of bisphenol A in the production of  polyester fabrics.  Both reported similar use of Bisphenol A as this quote,  which states:  “ a woven polyester fabric was … finished with an aqueous compound  containing 5% polyethylene glycol bisphenol A ether diacrylate for 30 min at 60° to give a hygroscopic, antistatic fabric with good washfastness.” (3)

I found that Bisphenol A is used  in the production of flame retardants, and as an intermediate in the manufacture of polymers, fungicides, antioxidants (mentioned above), and dyes.   Because it is often used as an intermediate it’s hard to pin down, and manufacturers keep their ingredients trade secrets so we often will not know – unless somebody funds a study which is published.

I have not seen any studies which report finding Bisphenol A in a finished fabric, so this may be a tempest in a teacup.  But isn’t it worth noting that this chemical, which has been found in the blood of 95% of all Americans, and which some say may be the “new lead”, can exist in products in which we previously never would have thought to look?

(1)  http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newscience/oncompounds/bisphenola/bpauses.htm

(2) Grant, Christine; Hauser, Peter; Oxenham, William, “Improving the Thermal Stability of Textile Processing Aids”,  www.ntcresearch.org/pdf-rpts/AnRp04/C01-NS08-A4.pdf

(3)  http://www.lookchem.com/cas-644/64401-02-1.html?countryid=0

Green backlash?

I just read an article about “green marketing” and how the manufacturer should downplay the green aspects of a product because “very few Americans have ever bought stuff because they want to
save the planet.”[1]

And I agree that most people just want their stuff, not a sermon.

But when I hear something along the lines of “we love your fabrics, but we’re looking for a particular shade of …” my heart drops – because I realize the speaker does not really believe that his
fabric choices are making a direct impact on him or his clients.   He does not believe that buying a product that pollutes our groundwater, contributes to global warming, contains chemicals which are known to be harmful to humans (and which might well have long term impacts on him), and all too often employs children who should be in school helping us fight the enormous problems we face – well, he doesn’t believe each purchase simply ensures that the same products will continue to be made!

Because what you buy is what gets produced.   It may be a long, circuitous way of making a
personal impact on you, but it happens nevertheless.

Why don’t people recognize this?

Green lifestyle expert Danny Seo says the main reason people choose not to buy green is:  they’re selfish.[2]  If there is not a tangible benefit to wearing organic cotton, or changing to organic bedding, Seo says people literally will not buy into it.  “All you know is that you have done something better for the planet. We are selfish, and want to know what we are getting out of it. That is why something like organic cotton will never work, because there is no direct link to why people should want to do this.”  And unlike a Prius, organic clothing or bedding isn’t something one can point to and use to improve their status – or promote their “greener than thou” lifestyle.

But Danny Seo doesn’t know about textile processing – because that organic cotton, if processed conventionally, contains chemicals – 27% by weight of the fabric to be exact -  which most definitely will allow you to make a direct link to what people are getting out of it – from asthma and allergies to cancers and worse.

To cite just a few examples:

• The American Contact Dermatitis Society has an interesting web
  site for people suffering from formaldehyde resins in fabrics[3],
• studies have found dioxin which leached from clothing – a potent
  carcinogen – on the skin of participants [4]
• and women working in textile factories which produce acrylic
  fibers have seven times the rate of breast cancer as the normal population[5].

Textile processing uses some of the most potent and dangerous chemicals known – and they remain in the fabrics we live with.  This becomes part of the chemical soup we’re all exposed to each day, and which we believe is changing us in many ways, not all for the better.  We don’t just absorb synthetic chemicals one at a time during the day.  We’re exposed to hundreds of chemicals as a result of using a wide array of consumer products, many of which contain the same chemicals as are found in fabrics.  We are exposed to a variety of stressors – and textiles are one of the stressors, among others such as:

• Automotive exhaust
• Cleaning products
• Chemicals in treated water
• Cosmetics
• Environmental pollution
• Food
• Insect repellents
•  Prescription drugs
• solvents
• Ultraviolet radiation

As we absorb tiny amounts of chemicals repeatedly from  multiple sources, they might add up until they reach a tipping point.  Add to this what Drs. Anita and Paul Clement call the “black hole” of ignorance about a key fact in toxicology:  that toxins make each other worse.  “A small dose of mercury that kills 1 in 100 rats and a dose of aluminum that kills 1 in 100 rats, when combined, have a striking effect: all the rats die.“

So how can you, as an individual, change it – how can one person do anything to change the world? Margaret Meade says that committed people, banding together, is the only thing that really
ever has.

The writer Fritjof Capra says that we need to be governed “by a metaphor that says we are part of a continuously evolving and interrelated system”.  We need to start thinking of the world as a system, a cyclical system of interconnections, a web of connections— literally “the web of life.”

And it must be understood that this is a long-term project, not to be mistaken for a marketing trend like one furnishings manufacturer told us. (“Green?” he said. “Yes, well, we did that last year, but we’re doing something really exciting this year!”) In fact, green is only a part of it, a central part that must deal with environmentally benign materials and processes, restoration, recycling, reclaiming:  all those things we have to do to remedy the damage we’ve done to the natural environment and to ourselves in it.

Hope for the future springs from witnessing small reversals of the damage we have caused,  as Victor Papanek says in The Green Imperative.    These times, he says,  also call for a sense of optimism and a willingness to act without full understanding but with a faith in the effect of small individual actions on the global picture.

Remember that each time you purchase something,  you’re ensuring that the product you bought will keep being produced, in the same  way.  If you support new ideas, find creative ways to use something or insist that what you buy meets certain parameters, then new research will be done to
meet consumer demand and new processes will be developed that don’t leave a legacy of destruction.

Lots of people, individually and together, made a difference in the way our foods are grown and processed.  Organic foods went from gnarly to beautiful, and now we’re becoming healthier and our land is being replenished.  It can be done if the individual believes in his own importance, and believes that each purchasing decision is a vote – for clean air and water and safe products – a vote literally for our future.  Or not.

---

[1]
Shelton, Suzanne, “Green Marketing and the Death of Curmudgeonly Contrariness”,
GreenBiz, May 19, 2011.

[2]
Kate Rogers, “Why People Opt Against Going Green”, FOXBusiness, November 4,
2011; http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/11/04/why-people-opt-against-going-green/

[3] http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/497713_Tables

[4] “Dioxins and Dioxin-like Persistent Organic Pollutants in Textiles and Chemicals in the
Textile Sector”  Bostjan Krizanec and Alenka Majcen Le Marechal,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Smetanova 17, SI-2000
Maribor, Slovenia; January 24, 2006

[5]  Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2010,
67:263-269 doi: 10.1136/oem.2009.049817
SEE ALSO:  http://www.breastcancer.org/risk/new_research/20100401b.jsp
AND http://www.medpagetoday.com/Oncology/BreastCancer/19321

Polyester and our health

Polyester is a very popular fabric choice – it is, in fact, the most popular of all the synthetics.  Because it can often have a synthetic feel, it is often blended with natural fibers, to get the benefit of natural fibers which breathe and feel good next to the skin, coupled with polyester’s durability, water repellence and wrinkle resistance.  Most sheets sold in the United States, for instance, are cotton/poly blends.

It is also used in the manufacture of all kinds of clothing and sportswear – not to mention diapers, sanitary pads, mattresses, upholstery, curtains  and carpet. If you look at labels, you might be surprised just how many products in your life are made from polyester fibers.

So what is this polyester that we live intimately with each day?

At this point, I think it would be good to have a basic primer on polyester production, and I’ve unabashedly lifted a great discussion from Marc Pehkonen and Lori Taylor, writing in their website diaperpin.com:

Basic polymer chemistry isn’t too complicated, but for most people the manufacture of the plastics that surround us is a mystery, which no doubt suits the chemical producers very well. A working knowledge of the principles involved here will
make us more informed users.

Polyester is only one compound in a class of petroleum-derived substances known as polymers. Thus, polyester (in common with most polymers) begins its life in our time as crude oil. Crude oil is a cocktail of components that can be separated by industrial distillation. Gasoline is one of these components, and the precursors of polymers such as polyethylene are also present.

Polymers are made by chemically reacting a lot of little molecules together to make one long molecule, like a string of beads. The little molecules are called monomers and the long molecules are called polymers.

Like this:

O + O + O + . . . makes OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Depending on which polymer is required, different monomers are chosen. Ethylene, the monomer for polyethylene, is obtained directly from the distillation of crude oil; other monomers have to be synthesized from more complex petroleum derivatives, and the path to these monomers can be several steps long. The path for polyester, which is made by reacting ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid, is shown below. Key properties of the intermediate materials are also shown.

The polymers themselves are theoretically quite unreactive and therefore not particularly harmful, but this is most certainly not true of the monomers. Chemical companies usually make a big deal of how stable and unreactive the polymers are, but that’s not what we should be interested in. We need to ask, what about the monomers? How unreactive are they?

We need to ask these questions because a small proportion of the monomer will never be converted into polymer. It just gets trapped in between the polymer chains, like peas in spaghetti. Over time this unreacted monomer can escape, either by off-gassing into the atmosphere if the initial monomers were volatile, or by dissolving into water if the monomers were soluble. Because these monomers are so toxic, it takes very small quantities to be harmful to humans, so it is important to know about the monomers before you put the polymers next to your skin or in your home. Since your skin is usually moist,
any water-borne monomers will find an easy route into your body.

Polyester is the terminal product in a chain of very reactive and toxic precursors. Most are carcinogens; all are poisonous. And even if none of these chemicals remain entrapped in the final polyester structure (which they most likely do), the manufacturing process requires workers and our environment to be exposed to some or all of the chemicals shown in the flowchart above. There is no doubt that the manufacture of polyester is an environmental and public health burden
that we would be better off without.

What does all of that mean in terms of our health?  Just by looking at one type of cancer, we can see how our lives are being changed by plastic use:

• The connection between plastic and breast cancer was first discovered in 1987 at Tufts Medical School in Boston by
  research scientists Dr. Ana Soto and Dr. Carlos Sonnenschein. In the midst of their experiments on cancer cell growth, endocrine-disrupting chemicals leached from plastic test tubes into the researcher’s laboratory experiment, causing a rampant proliferation of breast cancer cells. Their findings were published in Environmental Health Perspectives (1991)[1].
• Spanish researchers, Fatima and Nicolas Olea, tested metal food cans that were lined with plastic. The cans were also found to be leaching hormone disrupting chemicals in 50% of the cans tested. The levels of contamination were twenty-seven times more than the amount a Stanford team reported was enough to make breast cancer cells proliferate. Reportedly, 85% of the food cans in the United States are lined with plastic. The Oleas reported their findings in Environmental Health Perspectives (1995).[2]
• Commentary published in Environmental Health Perspectives in April 2010 suggested that PET might yield endocrine disruptors under conditions of common use and recommended research on this topic. [3]

These studies support claims that plastics are simply not good for us – prior to 1940, breast cancer was relatively rare; today it affects 1 in 11 women.  We’re not saying that plastics alone are responsible for this increase, but to think that they don’t contribute to it is, we think, willful denial.  After all, gravity existed before Newton’s father planted the apple tree and the world was just as round before Columbus was born.

Polyester fabric is soft, smooth, supple – yet still a plastic.  It contributes to our body burden in ways that we are just beginning to understand.  And because polyester is highly flammable, it is often treated with a flame retardant, increasing the toxic load.  So if you think that you’ve lived this long being exposed to these chemicals and haven’t had a problem, remember that the human body can only withstand so much toxic load - and that the endocrine disrupting chemicals which don’t seem to bother you may be affecting generations to come.

Agin, this is a blog which is supposed to cover topics in textiles:   polyester is by far the most popular fabric in the United States.  Even if made of recycled yarns, the toxic monomers are still the building blocks of the fibers.  And no mention is ever made of the processing chemicals used to dye and finish the polyester fabrics, which as we know contain some of the chemicals which are most damaging to human health.

Why does a specifier make the decision to use polyester – or another synthetic –  when all the data points to this fiber as being detrimental to the health and well being of the occupants?  Why is there not a concerted cry for safe processing chemicals at the very least?

---

[1] http://www.bu-eh.org/uploads/Main/Soto%20EDs%20as%20Carcinogens.pdf

[2] http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.95103608

[3]  Sax, Leonard, “Polyethylene Terephthalate may Yield Endocrine Disruptors”,
Environmental Health Perspectives, April 2010, 118 (4): 445-448

Why use organic fabrics for your new baby?

Illnesses — including remarkable combinations of symptoms — are on the rise.

• Over the past 50 years, there has been a steady increase in the incidence of children developing cancer[1], asthma[2], attention deficit disorders[3], allergies[4], autoimmune disorders[5],  and others.

So too are the numbers of chemicals getting mixed inside us (studies have shown that babies are born pre-polluted)[6].   Chemicals accumulate, interact within the body, cause illness.

• This is due to industrial chemicals being used in products that weren’t even formulated prior to about 1950.  Our children are subjected to an endless barrage of artificial pathogens that tax their systems to the max.

Is there a connection between the rise in illnesses and products you use in your home?

Yes.

• But inadequate data exists regarding the chronic (long term, low level) health risks of most chemicals, and proving an absolute link between chemicals and these disorders isn’t easy, because in most cases it’s a slow-brewing condition that can smolder for decades before symptoms appear.  Furthermore, the timing of toxic exposure plays a much more significant role than previously recognized – babies exposed during critical periods of development often have a more severe reaction than those exposed at other times.

The chemicals used in textile processing are among the most toxic known, yet the fabrics themselves are often overlooked as a source of pollution.

Using organic products (like fabrics) is especially important for children, because children tend to be more influenced by their environment than adults.  Children are still developing, and many of these developmental processes are very sensitive to environmental contaminants, which can easily disrupt development.  Also, children take in much more of their environment relative to their body weight.   This amount, called the dose, has a much greater effect on children than on the adults around them, because children’s bodies are much smaller.  And finally, children tend to come in contact with environmental contaminants more often than adults do, simply because of their habits – like the two year olds who put everything in their mouths, or toddlers who spend a lot of time in the dust on the floor, where contaminants collect.

In outfitting your nursery, you see lots of information about baby products – lotions, powders, foods.  But please remember that there are other products that impact your child’s health, such as mattresses and fabrics.  You almost never hear somebody mention fabrics as a source of pollution – are they really so important?  Remembering that new studies are demonstrating that even nano doses of chemicals can contribute to disease over time, there are also many studies which specifically linked diseases to chemicals found in textiles:

• In 2007, The National Institutes of health and the University of Washington released the findings of a 14 year study that demonstrates those who work with textiles were significantly more likely to die from an autoimmune disease than people who didn’t.[7]
• A study by The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health found a link in textile workers between length of exposure to formaldehyde and leukemia deaths.[8]
• Women who work in textile factories with acrylic fibers have seven times the risk of developing breast cancer than does the normal population.[9]
• Studies have shown that if children are exposed to lead, either in the womb or in early childhood, their brains are likely to be smaller.[10] Note:  lead is a common component in textile dyestuffs.
• Many of the chemicals found in fabrics (which are, after all, about 27% synthetic chemicals, by weight) are known to have negative health effects, such as:
  • Disruptions during development (including autism, which now occurs in 1 of every 110 births in the US); attention deficit disorders (ADD) and hyperactivity (ADHD).   Chemicals commonly used in textiles which contribute:
    • Bisphenol A
    • Brominated flame retardants
    • Heavy metals – lead, cadmium, mercury,
      antimony and others
    • Phthalates
• Breathing difficulties, including asthma ( in children under 5 asthma has increased 160%  between 1980-1994[11])  and allergies. Chemicals used in textiles which contribute:
  • Formaldehyde, other aldehydes
  • Benzene, toluene
  • phthalates
• Cancer  –  all childhood cancers have grown at about 1% per year for the past two decades[12]; the environmental attributable fraction of childhood cancer can be between 5% and 90%, depending on the type of cancer[13].  Chemicals linked to cancers, all of which are used in textile processing:
• Formaldehyde
• Lead, cadmium
• Pesticides
• Benzene
• Vinyl chloride

So how do you try to limit your child’s exposure to this chemical contamination?

• Our #1 recommendation is to use only natural fiber fabrics, rather than synthetics (including those ubiquitous cotton/poly blends), which are petroleum based and made entirely of toxic chemicals.   On top of that, synthetics are highly flammable.  So ditch the synthetics.
• And don’t think that a fabric made of “organic cotton” is safe, because that doesn’t address the question of processing, where all the chemical contamination occurs.  If you use natural fibers, try to find GOTS  or Oeko Tex certified fabrics.
• Don’t buy clothing or bedding (or anything made of fabric) that has a stain resistant or wrinkle resistant finish on it:  stain resistant finishes contain perfluorochemicals (Teflon, Scotchguard, Stainmaster, Crypton, Nanotex, Gore-Tex) and wrinkle resistant finishes use formaldehyde.
• Crib mattresses are often made of polyurethane foam enclosed in vinyl covers.  These plastic products are made by combining highly toxic chemicals together to form the final material. When your child is asleep, every breath pulls in air that is literally inches away from the petroleum chemical materials used in the manufacturing of the bed itself.  With each breath, these chemical molecules are pulled across the child’s airways and then transferred to the blood from deep within the lungs. This process is repeated with each breath 365 nights a year.[14]
  Best choice:  Buy a natural latex core covered in organic GOTS or Oeko Tex certified fabric.
• Sleepwear, bedding, even curtains and upholstery fabric – because they’re  made of fabric!  Why should you use organic fabrics – not just fabrics made with organic fibers –  for your baby?  The skin is the largest organ of the body and the skin allows many chemicals to pass into your baby through absorption.  Also, a baby’s skin is thinner and more permeable than an adult’s skin.  Not to mention the fact that many chemicals evaporate, to be breathed in.   Best choice:  GOTS or Oeko Tex certified fabrics.
• Diapers – first choice would be organic diapers made of natural fibers (GOTS or Oeko Tex certified) – even though it probably means you’ll have to do the diaper laundering.   Hey, there are worse things.

---

[1] Reinberg,
“US Cancer Rates Continue to Fall”, Business Week, March 31, 2011; all
childhood cancers have grown at about 1% per year for the past two decades[1]

[2] http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=8&sub=16&cont=44

[3] http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/

[4] http://www.mydaily.com/2011/06/21/allergies-on-the-rise-in-u-s-kids/

[5]
Type 1 diabetes has increased fivefold in past 40 years, in children 4 and
under, it’s increasing 6% per year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031403386.html

[6]
Goodman, Sarah,  “Tests Find More than
200 Chemicals in Newborn Umbilical Cord Blood”, Scientific American, December,
2009.

[7]
Nakazawa, Donna Jackson, “Diseases Like Mine Are a Growing Hazard”, Washington
Post, March 16, 2008.

[8]
Pinkerton, LE, Hein, MJ and Stayner, LT, “Mortality among a cohort of garment
workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update”, Occupational Environmental
Medicine, 2004 March, 61(3): 193-200.

[9]
Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2010, 67:263-269 doi:
10.1136/oem.2009.049817  SEE ALSO:  http://www.breastcancer.org/risk/new_research/20100401b.jsp  AND http://www.medpagetoday.com/Oncology/BreastCancer/19321

[10]
Dietrich, KN et al, “Decreased Brain Volume in Adults with Childhood Lead
Exposure”, PLoS Med 2008 5(5): e112.

[11] http://www.aaaai.org/about-the-aaaai/newsroom/asthma-statistics.aspx

[12] http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/26/chemicals-rise-child-cancers/

[13] Gouveia-Vigeant,
Tami and Tickner, Joel,  “Toxic Chemicals
and Childhood Cancer:  a review of the
evidence”, U of Massachusetts, May 2003

[14] http://www.chem-tox.com/beds/frame-beds.htm.  See also “Respiratory Toxicity of mattress
emissions in mice”, Archives of Environmental health, 55 (1): 38-43, 2000.

Why choose an organic fabric?

We posted this blog about a year ago, but it’s so important that we have to repeat ourselves.  That was brought home to me the other day when a good friend  told me she got headaches when she went shopping for clothes.  Of course, I  answered, and then patiently explained yet again  (because of all the newly woven fabrics  evaporating – offgassing if you will –  in a closed space).    I was beside myself because if she had not been listening over the years, then we have a bigger mountain to climb that we thought.

Let’s look at just three areas in which your fabric choice impacts you directly:

1.      What are residual chemicals in the fabrics doing to you and the planet?

2.      What are the process chemicals expelled in treatment water  doing to us?

3.      Why do certain fiber choices accelerate climate change?

RESIDUAL CHEMICALS IN THE FABRICS:

• It takes between 10% and 100% of the weight of the fabric in chemicals to produce that fabric.[1] Producing enough fabric to cover ONE sofa uses 4 to 20 lbs. of chemicals – and the final fabric is about 27%  synthetic chemicals by weight.[2]
• In the mills, textile clippings must be handled like toxic waste, according to OSHA regulations (see Note below).  The fabrics we bring into our homes contain chemicals which are outlawed in other products.   Many fabrics sold in the USA are outlawed in China, Japan and the EU – because of the chemicals found in the fabrics.
• Chemicals which remain in the fabric are absorbed by our bodies: some chemicals outgas into the air; some are absorbed through our skin.  Another way our bodies absorb these chemicals:   over time, microscopic particles are abraded and fall into the dust in our homes where pets and crawling children breathe them in.
• Chemicals used routinely in textile processing – and found in the fabrics we live with – include those that bioaccumulate, persist in our environment and contribute to a host of human diseases.  They include, but are not limited to,  formaldehyde, benzene, lead, cadmium, mercury and chlorine, which are all used a lot.[3]
• Why do we continue to allow fabrics into our lives that contain chemicals which have been demonstrated to affect us in many ways, from subtle to profound?  Chemicals used in textile processing are contributing to the chemical onslaught which many feel has led to increases in a host of health issues:  infertility, asthma, nervous disorders from depression and anxiety to brain tumors, immune system suppression and genetic alterations.  Why are we taking a chance?

PROCESS CHEMICALS EXPELLED IN TREATMENT WATER:

• The textile industry is the #1 industrial polluter of water in the world.[4]
• Vast quantities of water are returned to our ecosystem, untreated, filled with process chemicals – chemicals which circulate in the groundwater of our planet.
• Because these chemicals are released into the environment, they become available to living organisms (like us).  That’s why PBDE’s (a fire retardant chemical widely used in the textile and electronics industries) are found in the blood of every animal in the world, from the Artic to the Amazon –  in the most remote parts of the world, far from any industry.[5] And the rate of increase for PBDE’s is rising exponentially.
• Disease rates correlated with chemical exposure are on the rise – You can send your children to private schools and provide the best medical care in the world, but you can’t protect them from chemical pollution.

CLIMATE CHANGE:

• The U.S. textile industry is the 5^th largest contributor to CO2 emissions, by industry, in the United States.[6] (The production of the U.S. textile industry is mostly synthetics, and these egregious GHG emissions are largely from the production of synthetics.)  Given the size of the U.S. textile industry, it seems a disproportionatly high percentage.  Image what the textile industry contributes globally.

• Not only is the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions of concern regarding synthetics, but so is the quality:  Nylon, for example, creates emissions of NO2, which is 300 times more damaging than CO2 [7] and which, because of its long life (120 years) can reach the upper atmosphere and deplete the layer of stratospheric ozone, which is an important filter of UV radiation.  Polyester production generates particulates, CO2, N2O, hydrocarbons, sulphur oxides and carbon monoxide,[8] acetaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane (also potentially carcinogenic).[9]
• The production of synthetics is heavily dependent on oil – it’s made from oil and it takes a lot to produce the fibers.  The embodied energy in 1 KG of polyester is much greater than the embodied energy in 1 KG of many common building products, including steel, as shown in the chart here:

Data compiled from “LCA: New Zealand Merino Wool Total Energy Use” by Barber and Pellow; EMBODIED ENERGY AND CO2 COEFFICIENTS FOR NZ BUILDING MATERIALS by A Alcorn, 2003

You, as a consumer, are very powerful. You have the power to change harmful production practices. Eco textiles exist and they give you a greener, healthier, fairtrade alternative.  What will an eco textile do for you? You and the frogs and the world’s flora and fauna could live longer, and be healthier – and in a more just, sufficiently diversified, more beautiful world.

---

[1] Working Report No. 10,2002 from the Danish EPA.  Danish experience: Best Available Techniques (BAT) in the clothing and textile industry, document prepared for the European IPPC Bureau and the TWG Textile.  See also  Voncina, B and Pintar, M, “Textile Waste Recycling”,  University of Maribor, Slovenia, from the proceedings of the 10^th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, September 2007

[2] Lacasse and Baumann, Textile Chemicals:,  Environmental Data and Facts, Springer, New York, 2004, page 609.

NOTE: From: http://www.fibre2fashion.com/industry-article/3/297/safety-and-health-issues-in-the-textile-industry2.asp: OSHA requirements based on such studies as these:

A study conducted in USA revealed a correlation between the presence of cancer of the buccal cavity and pharynx and occupation in the textile industry. Another study revealed that textile workers were at high risk for developing cancer of the stomach while another study indicated a low degree of correlation between oesophageal cancer and working in the textile industry. Moreover, a high degree of colorectal cancer, thyroid cancer, testicular cancer and nasal cancer was observed among textile workers. Also, a relationship between the presence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and working in the textile industry was observed.

[3] See, for example:

• “Killer Couches”, Sara Schedler,  Friends of the Earth, www.foe.org
• “Dioxins and Dioxin-like Persistent Organic Pollutants in Textiles and Chemicals in the Textile Sector”, Bostjan Krizanec and Alenka Majcen Le Marechal, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Smetanova 17, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia; January 24, 2006
• “Potentials for exposure to industrial chemicals suspected of causing developmental neurotoxicity”, Philippe Grandjean, MD, PhD, Adjunct Professor and Marian Perez, MPH, Project Coordinator,
• “The Chemicals Within” , Anne Underwood, Newsweek, January 26, 2008
• Williams, Florence, “Toxic Breast Milk”, New York Times Magazine, January 9, 2005

[4] Cooper, Peter, “Clearer Communication”, Ecotextile News, May 2007

[5] http://depts.washington.edu/sfund/forthepublic/pdf/D_Rice_Agency_Seminar_SBRP_3-08.pdf

[6] Energy Information Administration, Form EIA:848, “2002 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey,” Form EIA-810, “Monthly Refinery Report” (for 2002) and Documentatioin for Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2003 (May 2005). http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1204.html

[7] “Tesco carbon footprint study confirms organic farming is energy efficient, but excludes key climate benefit of organic farming, soil carbon”, Prism Webcast News, April 30, 2008, http://prismwebcastnews.com/2008/04/30/tesco-carbon-footprint-study-confirms-organic-farming%E2%80%99s-energy-efficiency-but-excludes-key-climate-benefit-of-organic-farming-%E2%80%93-soil-carbon/

[8] “Ecological Footprint and Water Analysis of Cotton, Hemp and Polyester”, by Cherrett et al, Stockholm Environment Institute

[9] Gruttner, Henrik, Handbook of Sustainable Textile Purchasing, EcoForum, Denmark, August 2006.

Something YOU can do!

We’ve pointed out in several blog postings the names of various chemicals that are used in textile processing which are known to cause cancer.   These include (but aren’t limited to) antimony, pentachlorophenol, methylene chloride, arsenic, formaldehyde, phthalates, benzenes, PVC, sulfuric acid, acrylonitrile.  The fabrics we live with are full of chemicals that are known to cause cancer.  But so are lots of other products on the shelves of stores across America. And as Greenpeace reminds us, one American will die from cancer every minute during 2011.

Many Americans assume that their government protects them from exposure to chemicals that might harm them.  But according to GreenAnswers.org, it does not:

“Here’s a disturbing fact: The 33 year-old law that is supposed to protect Americans from exposure to toxic chemicals is so outdated that China legally exports toxic materials into the U.S. that are not only banned in Japan and Europe, but can’t even be used domestically in China.

Here’s another: Of the 82,000 chemicals available for use in the U.S., only about 200 have been required to be tested for safety.

Thousands of chemicals that have not been tested for safety are used in common items found in homes across America: in children’s toys and bottles, in food cans and soda can linings, in our mattresses, computers, shampoos, lotions and more.

Due to this unchecked exposure, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found toxic chemicals in the bodies of virtually all Americans. Some of these are linked to increases in prostate and breast cancers, diabetes, heart disease, lowered sperm counts, early puberty and other diseases and disorders.

Unlike every other major environmental law, the nation’s main chemical safety law, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), has never been significantly amended since it was adopted in 1976. TSCA has serious flaws that prevent it from ensuring chemical safety in the U.S. It needs to be reformed and strengthened for our safety.

About one year ago, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) presented the President’s Cancer Panel report, in which they said that environmentally caused cancers are “grossly underestimated” and “needlessly devastate American lives.”

The report blames weak laws, lax enforcement and fragmented authority, as well as the fact that in the U.S., chemicals are assumed to be safe unless strong evidence proves otherwise.

Also about one year ago, in April, 2010, U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) announced legislation to overhaul TSCA.  It was called the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010”. 
But one year, six congressional hearings and 10 “stakeholder sessions” later, the bill was killed, a testament to the combined clout of the $674 billion chemical industry, the companies that use those chemicals in their products,  and the stores that sell them.(1)

But Greenpeace thinks the issue is too important to let die.  It is joining up with 200 coalition groups to deliver a petition to President Obama in early May, asking him to make it a top priority to stop the use of cancer-causing chemicals in American products. (PLEASE join us, and sign the petition!  Click here).

Here’s the letter from Greenpeace:

One American will die from cancer every minute this year.

We all know someone impacted by cancer.   Yet despite the devastation it causes to our friends and families, it’s perfectly legal for companies to add known cancer-causing chemicals to products we use every day in our homes, schools and workplaces. That can change.

President Obama has the ability to reverse decades of failed policies and set the course for a national cancer prevention strategy that includes eliminating the use of cancer-causing chemicals in everyday products. But he’s not going to do it if people everywhere don’t speak out.

The NCI report’s final recommendation was for the President to “most strongly use the power” of his office to eliminate human exposure to cancer-causing chemical. We couldn’t agree more. Show him that you agree as well by signing the petition.

Cancer is a horrible disease but it can be prevented. It’s high time we made cancer prevention one of our highest national priorities.

For a safer and healthier future,

Rick Hind
Greenpeace Toxics Campaigner

All I can say is: amen.

REFERENCES:

(1) http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/13/reform-of-toxic-chemicals-law-collapses-as-industry-flexes-its-m/

What effects do fabric choices have on you?

 

 

 

Let’s look at just three areas in which your fabric choice impacts you directly:

1.      What are residual chemicals in the fabrics doing to you and the planet?

2.      What are the process chemicals expelled in treatment water  doing to us?

3.      Why do certain fiber choices accelerate climate change?

RESIDUAL CHEMICALS IN THE FABRICS:

• It takes between 10% and 100% of the weight of the fabric in chemicals to produce that fabric.[1] Producing enough fabric to cover ONE sofa uses 4 to 20 lbs. of chemicals – and the final fabric is about 27%  synthetic chemicals by weight.[2]
• In the mills, textile clippings must be handled like toxic waste, according to OSHA regulations (see Note below).  The fabrics we bring into our homes contain chemicals which are outlawed in other products.   Many fabrics sold in the USA are outlawed in China, Japan and the EU – because of the chemicals found in the fabrics.
• Chemicals which remain in the fabric are absorbed by our bodies: some chemicals outgas into the air; some are absorbed through our skin.  Another way our bodies absorb these chemicals:   over time, microscopic particles are abraded and fall into the dust in our homes where pets and crawling children breathe them in.
• Chemicals used routinely in textile processing – and found in the fabrics we live with – include those that bioaccumulate, persist in our environment and contribute to a host of human diseases.  They include, but are not limited to,  formaldehyde, benzene, lead, cadmium, mercury and chlorine, which are all used a lot.[3]
• Why do we continue to allow fabrics into our lives that contain chemicals which have been demonstrated to affect us in many ways, from subtle to profound?  Chemicals used in textile processing are contributing to the chemical onslaught which many feel has led to increases in a host of health issues:  infertility, asthma, nervous disorders from depression and anxiety to brain tumors, immune system suppression and genetic alterations.  Why are we taking a chance?

PROCESS CHEMICALS EXPELLED IN TREATMENT WATER:

• The textile industry is the #1 industrial polluter of water in the world.[4]
• Vast quantities of water are returned to our ecosystem, untreated, filled with process chemicals – chemicals which circulate in the groundwater of our planet.
• Because these chemicals are released into the environment, they become available to living organisms (like us).  That’s why PBDE’s (a fire retardant chemical widely used in the textile and electronics industries) are found in the blood of every animal in the world, from the Artic to the Amazon –  in the most remote parts of the world, far from any industry.[5] And the rate of increase for PBDE’s is rising exponentially.
• Disease rates correlated with chemical exposure are on the rise – You can send your children to private schools and provide the best medical care in the world, but you can’t protect them from chemical pollution.

 

CLIMATE CHANGE:

• The U.S. textile industry is the 5^th largest contributor to CO2 emissions, by industry, in the United States.[6] (The production of the U.S. textile industry is mostly synthetics, and these egregious GHG emissions are largely from the production of synthetics.)  Given the size of the U.S. textile industry, it seems a disproportionatly high percentage.  Image what the textile industry contributes globally.

• Not only is the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions of concern regarding synthetics, but so is the quality:  Nylon, for example, creates emissions of NO2, which is 300 times more damaging than CO2 [7] and which, because of its long life (120 years) can reach the upper atmosphere and deplete the layer of stratospheric ozone, which is an important filter of UV radiation.  Polyester production generates particulates, CO2, N2O, hydrocarbons, sulphur oxides and carbon monoxide,[8] acetaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane (also potentially carcinogenic).[9]
• The production of synthetics is heavily dependent on oil – it’s made from oil and it takes a lot to produce the fibers.  The embodied energy in 1 KG of polyester is much greater than the embodied energy in 1 KG of many common building products, including steel, as shown in the chart here:

Data compiled from "LCA: New Zealand Merino Wool Total Energy Use" by Barber and Pellow; EMBODIED ENERGY AND CO2 COEFFICIENTS FOR NZ BUILDING MATERIALS by A Alcorn, 2003

 

 

You, as a consumer, are very powerful. You have the power to change harmful production practices. Eco textiles exist and they give you a greener, healthier, fairtrade alternative.  What will an eco textile do for you? You and the frogs and the world’s flora and fauna could live longer, and be healthier – and in a more just, sufficiently diversified, more beautiful world.

 

---

[1] Working Report No. 10,2002 from the Danish EPA.  Danish experience: Best Available Techniques (BAT) in the clothing and textile industry, document prepared for the European IPPC Bureau and the TWG Textile.  See also  Voncina, B and Pintar, M, “Textile Waste Recycling”,  University of Maribor, Slovenia, from the proceedings of the 10^th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, September 2007

[2] Lacasse and Baumann, Textile Chemicals:,  Environmental Data and Facts, Springer, New York, 2004, page 609.

NOTE: From: http://www.fibre2fashion.com/industry-article/3/297/safety-and-health-issues-in-the-textile-industry2.asp: OSHA requirements based on such studies as these:

A study conducted in USA revealed a correlation between the presence of cancer of the buccal cavity and pharynx and occupation in the textile industry. Another study revealed that textile workers were at high risk for developing cancer of the stomach while another study indicated a low degree of correlation between oesophageal cancer and working in the textile industry. Moreover, a high degree of colorectal cancer, thyroid cancer, testicular cancer and nasal cancer was observed among textile workers. Also, a relationship between the presence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and working in the textile industry was observed.

[3] See, for example:

• “Killer Couches”, Sara Schedler,  Friends of the Earth, www.foe.org
• “Dioxins and Dioxin-like Persistent Organic Pollutants in Textiles and Chemicals in the Textile Sector”, Bostjan Krizanec and Alenka Majcen Le Marechal, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Smetanova 17, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia; January 24, 2006
• “Potentials for exposure to industrial chemicals suspected of causing developmental neurotoxicity”, Philippe Grandjean, MD, PhD, Adjunct Professor and Marian Perez, MPH, Project Coordinator,
• “The Chemicals Within” , Anne Underwood, Newsweek, January 26, 2008
• Williams, Florence, “Toxic Breast Milk”, New York Times Magazine, January 9, 2005

[4] Cooper, Peter, “Clearer Communication”, Ecotextile News, May 2007

[5] http://depts.washington.edu/sfund/forthepublic/pdf/D_Rice_Agency_Seminar_SBRP_3-08.pdf

[6] Energy Information Administration, Form EIA:848, “2002 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey,” Form EIA-810, “Monthly Refinery Report” (for 2002) and Documentatioin for Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2003 (May 2005). http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1204.html

[7] “Tesco carbon footprint study confirms organic farming is energy efficient, but excludes key climate benefit of organic farming, soil carbon”, Prism Webcast News, April 30, 2008, http://prismwebcastnews.com/2008/04/30/tesco-carbon-footprint-study-confirms-organic-farming%E2%80%99s-energy-efficiency-but-excludes-key-climate-benefit-of-organic-farming-%E2%80%93-soil-carbon/

[8] “Ecological Footprint and Water Analysis of Cotton, Hemp and Polyester”, by Cherrett et al, Stockholm Environment Institute

[9] Gruttner, Henrik, Handbook of Sustainable Textile Purchasing, EcoForum, Denmark, August 2006.

Toxic textiles by Walt Disney

The Walt Disney Corporation,  in a letter to Greenpeace in 2003, said that “the Walt Disney Company is always concerned with quality and safety”.

Greenpeace decided to test that statement, so – as part of their campaign to show how dangerous chemicals are out of control, turning up in house dust, in household products, food, rain water, in our clothes……and ultimately in our bodies – they decided to test Disney’s childrenswear for the presence of toxic chemicals.

Disney garments, including T-shirts, pajamas and underwear, were bought in retail outlets in 19 different countries around the world and  analyzed  by the independent laboratory Eurofins, an international group of companies which provides testing, certification and consulting on the quality and safety of products and one of the largest scientific testing laboratories in the world. 

Greenpeace asked Eurofins to test the Disney childrenswear for:

1.      Phthalates

2.      Alkylphenol ethoxylates

3.      Organotins

4.      Lead

5.      Cadmium

6.      Formaldehyde

We don’t have the space to fill you in on why each of these six chemicals is of grave concern, but please believe us – they’re not good.  Any one of these chemicals can interfere with a child’s neurological development, for example, or can set the path for a cascade of health problems as they age.   

This is what they found:

1.      Phthalates:  Found in all the garments tested, from 1.4 mg/kg to 200,000 mg/kg – or more than 20% of the weight of the sample.

2.      Alkylphenol ethoxylates: Found in all the garments tested, in levels ranging from 34.1 mg/kg to 1,700 mg/kg

3.      Organotins:  found in 9 of the 16 products tested; the Donald Duck T shirt from The Netherlands had 474 micrograms/kg

4.      Lead:  Found in all the products tested, ranging from 0.14 mg/kg to 2,600 mg/kg for a Princess T shirt from Canada.  With Denmark’s new laws on the use, marketing and manufacture of lead   and products containing lead, the Princess T shirt from Canada would be illegal on the Danish market.  Canada has set a limit of 600 mg/kg for children’s jewelry containing lead – why not Disney T shirts?

5.      Cadmiun:  Identified in 14 of the 18 products tested, ranging from 0.0069 mg/kg in the Finding Nemo T shirt bought in the UK to 38 mg/kg in the Belgian Mickey Mouse T shirt.

6.      Formaldehyde:  Found in 8 of the 15 products tested for this chemical in levels ranging from 23 mg/kg to 1,100 mg/kg.

One sample stands out: a German Winnie the Pooh PVC raincoat.  This contained an astounding 320,000 mg/kg of total phthalates, or 32% by weight of the raincoat!  This raincoat also contained 1,129 micrograms/kg organotins.

Greenpeace urged Disney to take responsibility for avoiding or substituting harmful chemicals in their products and to demand that their licensees implement a chemical policy that protects children’s heath.  Disney reacted by stating that their products are in line with the law.    The only action taken was to put labels on some products with a warning that those clothes contain toxic chemicals – but  only in the UK (which has more stringent laws regarding chemical use than does the US), and only on a few items.  Greenpeace Toxics Campaigner Oliver Knowles said, “”Their complete disregard for children’s health smacks of a Mickey Mouse company, and it’s now down to us to let the public know that these pyjamas contain dangerous chemicals.

“Perhaps it would be more apt if Buzz Lightyear’s catchphrase became   “To infertility and beyond!”

SAFbaby.com has asked a variety of children’s clothing companies whether their clothing contained formaldehyde.  Disney responded that they comply with all Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulations.   But (as SAFbaby commented): CPSC has NO regulations set for formaldehyde levels, so that reply was not helpful to us in the slightest.  We are not impressed with their follow up response to us.

Disney’s refusal to be pro active in insisting their suppliers phase out hazardous substances demonstrates why voluntary initiatives don’t work.  We support Greenpeace in asking that legislation  to require mandatory substitution of hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives be put in place.

Read the Greenpeace report on Disney’s childrenswear here.