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.

Organic cotton fraud?

A recent report in The Financial Times of Germany alleged  that a ‘gigantic fraud’ was taking place in the sale of cotton garments marked as organic by leading European retailers like H&M, C&A and Tchibo, because they actually contained genetically modified (GM)  cotton.   GM cotton (often called Bt cotton in India) is prohibited in organic cotton.  The source of fabrics, it said, was India.
Interestingly, the paper quoted Sanjay Dave, director of Apeda (Indian Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority), as saying that the fraud was on a large-scale and that two European certifying agencies had been fined for lax processes.  Lothar Kruse, director of the laboratory which ran the tests, was quoted as saying that around 30% of  organic cotton samples from India  were found to be contaminated with GM cotton.   There were charges and countercharges by all involved – and Indian organic cotton has become suspect.  How did this happen?

In August, 2009, the Indian Ministry of Textiles took several initiatives to strengthen their textiles industry  –  among them was a commitment to “safeguard and promote” organic cotton.  Organic cotton had become an important crop in India:  according to the Organic Exchange, India accounted for about 65% of all the organic cotton produced worldwide in 2008-09, making India the No.1 producer of organic cotton in the world. And since the global market for organic cotton is growing by as much as 150 per cent per year (based on 2008-09 figures) its make sense for India to support organic cotton where it is already a market leader in a product for which an assured market exists and is growing.

And yet at the same time, the Indian government (through the Department of Biotechnology of the Ministry of Science and Technology) is supporting and promoting genetically modified cotton.  India allowed the commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) cotton in 2002, and by 2006, GM cotton accounted for 42% of the total Indian cotton crop. This makes India the country with the largest area of GM cotton in the world, surpassing China.  According to Reuters,  Indian farmers will grow genetically modified cotton on 90 % of the area under cotton cultivation by 2012.  See our blog posts on GMO crops:  Reasons for concern regarding GMOs and GMO Cotton.

Organic cotton  and genetically engineered cotton are mutually self-excluding commodities –  organic cotton prohibits the inclusion of any genetically engineered cotton.  So the Indian government is bumbling in two contradictory directions at the same time.  There have been warnings from opponents of genetically engineered crops that if GM cotton were to contaminate traces of organic cotton, the consignments of organic cotton would lose the certification that gets them a premium price advantage and be rejected by markets interested in buying organic cotton.  Organizations such as Gene Watch (UK) and Greenpeace have warned that it is impossible to keep agricultural produce like cotton or rice or strawberries apart once they are ready for the market.  These organizations also maintain a register of instances where genetically engineered crops have contaminated conventional or organic crops. The contamination cases run into hundreds across the world, often with grave economic consequences. Not so long ago, consignments of US rice exported to several countries had to be recalled because traces of GM rice was found in rice that was declared as conventional, non GM rice. The cost of recall was prohibitive but the greater damage was done to America’s future rice exports. Once countries returned the contaminated US rice, other rice exporting nations like Thailand entered the newly available markets in Europe, Japan and South Korea and established themselves there.

And the warnings by Gene Watch and Greenpeace have just come true in the form of the scandal which broke in January, 2010 based on  the report in the German edition of Financial Times

This casts a cloud over all exports of organic products from India, of which cotton is the leading item.

But in all this uproar, who is losing the most?  Once again it’s the small farmer in India.   The African proverb that when two elephants fight, it’s the grass that suffers, is certainly true in this case.

A bit of history:  The Indian government, in a desperate bid to promote the uptake of GM seeds, banned traditional seed varieties from many government seed banks in 2002  and allowed Monsanto to sell their new seed creations.  In return for this access, India was granted International Monetary Fund loans.

Because the family livelihood of Indian farmers depends entirely on good decisions being made, they often seek advice or take a lead from someone she/he thinks knows best. The average farmer is illiterate and ignorant of the implications of planting a GM crop, but lives in the hope that money borrowed to produce a cash crop will be more than repaid after a good harvest.   Monsanto began advertising the new GM seed heavily;  it was pervasive, with utterly misleading claims,  emanating from  celebrities, government officials, journalists, agricultural and corporate scientists, larger landowners and seed dealers who had either jumped on the media bandwagon or had vested interests in GM cotton sales. Bollywood personalities such as Nana Patekar attributed almost miraculous powers to the product on TV. Punjab Chief Minister Amrinder Singh  personally endorsed the Bollgard brand (one of Monsanto’s GM seed varieties sold in India). Local opinion leaders such as larger landowners received seed and pesticide discounted or free, and ‘poor farmers’ who extolled the virtues of GM cotton locally  turned out not to be farmers at all.

In the past, if a crop failed, the farmer could use his seed from prior years to replant his crop.  But with GM seeds they could not do this, because the seeds contain “terminator technology” meaning that the crops do not produce viable seeds of their own.  So farmers must buy seeds each year – at punitive prices:  GM seed costs about $15 for 4 ounces of seed, compared to $15 for 4,000 ounces of traditional seeds.

Farmers are also desperate to avoid the spiraling cost of pesticides, and were taken in by GM cotton advertising and Monsanto’s extravagant claims. For example, at the point of sale, when farmers are vulnerable, seed dealers  hyped up the yield of a hypothetical farmer’s GM cotton (based on Monsanto claims that yields are 30 – 40% higher than conventional hybrid seed) because the seed dealers profit is four times greater per drum than for non GM seed.  In addition,  Monsanto claims pesticide use will be 70% less because their Bollgard variety is supposed to  kill 90% of bollworms.

This perfect storm led to widespread adoption of GM seeds by Indian farmers.  But the promises made by Monsanto have proven to be false over time: GM cotton required double the amount of water that non GM varieties required (proving to be a matter of life and death for many),  many crops have been devastated by bollworms and there have been widespread crop failures.  (read  more here ).   Farmers, beguiled by  promises, incurred debts that they could not repay.  Thousands of farmers, according to the Mail Online in November, 2008, “are committing suicide”.  The crisis, branded the ‘GM Genocide’ by campaigners, was highlighted recently when Prince Charles claimed that the issue of GM had become a ‘global moral question’ – and condemned ‘the truly appalling and tragic rate of small farmer suicides in India, stemming… from the failure of many GM crop varieties’.
Read more here and here.

Many organizations have been trying to convert Indian farmers to organic practices –  “desperate times call for organic measures”.  The fact that farmers don’t have to spend money on pesticides and fertilizers coupled with the premium of 15 – 20% over conventional cotton that organic cotton commands in the marketplace has helped convince many farmers that organic agriculture is worth a try.   Yet now  organic cotton from India has been reported to be contaminated with GM cotton, leading many to cry fraud.

This was not unforeseen:  drift or contamination of GM with non-GM crops has long been a concern, especially now that 65-75% of total cotton production is made up of  GM cotton.  According to P.  Gouri, adviser on organic products to Apeda,   “measures to prevent contamination through strict implementation of a 50-meter refuge (buffer zones around farms growing GM cotton to prevent the pollens from contaminating neighboring farms) are absolutely essential.  If GM farming practices are regulated strictly, we can keep contamination at manageable-levels, specially if farmers use non-cotton as a buffer.”  Yet,   there have been  many violations of biosafety regulations; in addition there are no standards for the permissible amount of contamination in organic cotton.    Nobody is addressing the problem of gene transfer to conventional plants; and a general disregard of separation distances between the GM and non-GM crop makes contamination a fait acompli . Similarly, there is a general lack of enforcement of 20 percent non-GM refugia, designed to slow the evolution of pest resistance. The several generations of bollworm that live annually on a crop can lead to 60 percent resistance in a single year.

According to the Human Genome Project, the act of genetically modifying something like organic cotton has its own ripple effect from the potential environmental impacts of unintended transfer of trans genes through cross-pollination and unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), to the loss of flora and fauna biodiversity.  With no regulation of GM cotton, GM produce is entering our food and feed chain as cottonseed oil and cake.  (Did you know that we eat more of the cotton crop than we wear?)  Genetically engineered cotton has all kinds of stuff we’ve never eaten before: viral promoters, antibiotic-resistant genes, special bacteria.  Organic food producers are very concerned. This problem will continue to grow as fourteen new GM varieties of India’s staple crops were approved for field trials that began in 2005.

 

 

Currently, India and her customers rely on third party certifying agencies, such as Control Union, to substantiate organic claims.  Certification is being done as per GOTS, or Global Organic Textile Standards, but India is formulating its own standards. The biggest innovation is TraceNet, a web-based traceability system that has been introduced in the country, to trace and track all organic certifications for exports to ensure purity.   Inspectors employed by certification agencies will use GPS devices for capturing data so that wrong certifications are eliminated.

Fingers crossed.

 

What does organic wool mean?

Last week we talked about the importance of livestock management in the battle against climate change.  It came as a real revelation to this city girl that large grazing animals are a vital and necessary part of the solution to climate change.   Sheep can actually help to improve soils, which improves the soil’s ability to absorb water and maintain its original nutrient balance – and most importantly, by increasing the organic matter in the soil, it makes the soil a highly effective carbon bank.

So the management of the livestock can be beneficial – but it’s a long way from a sheep in the pasture to a wool fabric.  So let’s look at the wool produced by these sheep and examine  what “organic wool” means.

In order for wool to be certified organic in the U.S., it must be produced in accordance with federal standards for organic livestock production, which are:

• Feed and forage used for the sheep from the last third of gestation must be certified organic.
• Synthetic hormones and genetic engineering of the sheep is prohibited.
• Use of synthetic pesticides on pastureland is prohibited and the sheep cannot be treated with parasiticides, which can be toxic to both the sheep and the people exposed to them.
• Good cultural and management practices of livestock must be used.

A key point to remember about the USDA and OTA organic wool designations:  the organic certification extends only to livestock – it doesn’t  cover the  further processing of the raw wool. Should that be a concern?

Wool as shorn from the sheep is known as greasy (or raw) wool. Before it is suitable for further processing it must be washed to remove dirt, water soluble contaminants (called suint), and woolgrease – and there are a lot of these contaminants.  On average, each ton of greasy wool contains:

• 150 KG woolgrease (when refined this is known as lanolin)
• 40 KG suint
• 150 KG dirt
• 20 KG vegetable matter
• 640 KG wool fiber

This process of washing the wool is known as scouring.  Scouring uses lots of water and  energy :

• water for washing:  The traditional method of wool scouring uses large amounts of water to wash the wool – the wool is passed through a series of 4 – 8 wash tanks (bowls), each followed by a squeeze to remove excess water.   Typical scouring plants can consume up to half a million litres of water per day.
• pollution: The scouring water uses detergents and other chemicals in order to remove contaminants in the greasy wool,  which creates the problem of disposing of the waste water without contaminating the environment.  In unmodified plants, a single scouring line produces a pollution load equivalent to the pollution produced by 30,000 people.[1]
• energy: to power the scouring line.

What about the chemicals used?

Detergents used in wool scouring include alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEOs) or fatty alcohol ethoxylates (more benign); sodium carbonate (soda ash), sodium chloride and sodium sulphate.  APEOs are among those chemicals known as endocrine disruptors – they interfere with the body’s endocrine system   They’re known to be very toxic for aquatic life – they cause feminization of male fish, for example.  (Click here to see what happened to alligators in Florida’s Lake Apopka as a result of endocrine disruptors traced to effluents from a textile mill. )  More importantly they break down in the environment into other substances which are much more potent than the parent compound.  They’re banned in Europe.

The surface of wool fibers are covered by small barbed scales. These are the reason that untreated wool itches when worn next to skin.  So the next step is to remove the scales, which also shrinkproofs the wool.  Shrinking/descaling is done using a chlorine pretreatment sometimes combined with  a thin polymer coating.  (Fleece is soaked in tertiary amyl or butyl hypochlorite in solution and heated to 104° for one hour.   The wool absorbs 1.5% of the chlorine. [2] )   These treatments make wool fibers smooth and allow them to slide against each other without interlocking. This also makes the wool feel comfortable and not itchy.

Unfortunately, this process results in wastewater with unacceptably high levels of adsorbable organohalogens (AOX) – toxins created when chlorine reacts with available carbon-based compounds. Dioxins, a group of AOX, are one of the most toxic known substances. They can be deadly to humans at levels below 1 part per trillion. Because the wastewater from the wool chlorination process contains chemicals of environmental concern, it is not accepted by water treatment facilities in the United States. Therefore all chlorinated wool is processed in other countries, then imported.[3] (For more about chlorine, go to the nonprofit research group Environmental Working Groups report about chlorine, http://www.ewg.org/reports/considerthesource.)  There are new chlorine free shrink/descaling processes coming on the market, but they’re still rare.

Finally, there is the weaving of the yarn into fabric – and all the environmental problems associated with conventional weaving and finishing.  In addition to the environmental concerns associated with conventional weaving, dyeing, and finishing (see some of our earlier blog posts), wool is often treated for moth and beetle protection, using pyrethroids, chlorinated sulphonamide derivatives, biphenyl ether or urea derivatives, which cause neutrotoxic effects in humans.

In the last 10 years, the textile industry,  along with animal ethics groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,  have lobbied against the wool industry, taking a stand against unethical treatment of sheep. In 2004, U.S. retailer Abercrombie and Fitch became the first to sign on to an animal rights campaign boycott of Australian wool that stood firmly against the typical practices of mulesing (where folds of skin around the sheep’s anus are cut off with shears during the wool shearing) and live export of sheep to halal butchers when their wool production becomes minimal.  Other companies such as H&M,  Marks & Spencer,  Nike, Gap,  Timberland, and Adidas (among others) have since joined, sourcing wool from South Africa or South America (where mulesing is not done).  The result of this outcry has led to the increased production of both organic and ethical wool, though it is still relatively minor when compared to the overall global wool production.

To complicate things a bit more, each country maintains their own standards for “organic wool” – Australia, for instance, has no equivalence or agreement with US organic standards.  The International Wool Textile Organization (IWTO) has adopted a new organic wool standard (closely aligned with GOTS) which they hope will be accepted by its members.  In addition, many companies use the term “eco wool”, which means the wool is sheared from free range roaming sheep that have not been subjected to toxic flea dipping, and the fleece was not treated with chemicals, dyes or bleaches – but this is wide open to interpretation and exploitation.  According to the IWTO, “Eco wool” must meet the standards set by the EU Eco-label.

Wool is a fabulous fiber – in addition to its many other attributes, it smolders rather than burns, and tends to be self-extinguishing.  (Read what The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CISRO), Australia’s national science agency,  has to say about the flame resistance of wool by clicking here:   http://www.csiro.au/files/files/p9z9.pdf )  So if you can find organic wool  – making sure, of course, that the term “organic” covers:

• management of the livestock according to organic or holistic management principles
• processing of the raw wool,  using newer, more benign processes rather than harmful scouring and descaling chemicals; and wastewater  treatment from scouring and processing
• weaving according to Global Organic Textile Standards (GOTS).  Read more about GOTS here.

…then go for it!  Nothing is quite like it in terms of comfort, resilience, versatility and durability.

But first you have to find it.  And that means you’ll have to ask lots of questions because there are lots of certifications to hide behind.

---

[1]The Cleanier Production Case Studies Directory EnviroNET Australia, Environment Protection Group, November 1998

[2] “Textiles: Shrink-proof wool”, Time, October 17, 1938

[3] “Fabric: Chlorine Free Wool”,  Patagonia website, http://www.patagonia.com/web/us/patagonia.go?slc=en_US&sct=US&assetid=8516

What about using organic fabrics in the carbon footprint calculation?

I’m so glad you asked!

From the previous post I hope I made it clear that natural fibers (whether organic or conventionally produced) have a lighter footprint than do synthetics – both in terms of emissions of greenhouse gasses and in terms of energy needed to manufacture the fibers.  And natural fibers have the added benefits of being able to be degraded by microorganisims and composted,  and  also of sequestering carbon.  According to the United Nations, they’re also a responsible choice, because by buying natural fibers you’re supporting the economies of many developing countries and supporting the livelihoods of many low-wage and subsistence workers.  The United Nations has declared 2009 the Year of Natural Fibers and they have a great website if you’re looking for more information:  http://www.naturalfibres2009.org/en/index.html

Substituting ORGANIC fibers for conventionally grown natural fibers is not just a little better but lots better in all respects:  uses less energy for production, emits fewer greenhouse gases, and supports organic farming (which has myriad environmental, social and health benefits).  A study published by Innovations Agronomiques  (http://www.inra.fr/ciag/revue_innovations_agronomiques/volume_4_janvier_2009) found that fully 43% less greenhouse gasses are emitted per unit under organic agriculture than under conventional agriculture.  A study done by Dr. David Pimentel of Cornell University found that organic farming systems used just 63% of the energy required by conventional farming systems, largely because of the massive amounts of energy requirements needed to synthesize nitrogen fertilizers.  Further, it was found in controlled long term trials that organic farming adds between 100-400KG of carbon per hectare to the soil each year, compared to non-organic farming.  When this stored carbon is included in the carbon footprint calculation, it reduces total greenhouse gasses even further. The key lies in the handling of organic matter (OM): because soil organic matter is primarily carbon, increases in soil OM levels will be directly correlated with carbon sequestration. While conventional farming typically depletes soil OM, organic farming builds it through the use of composted animal manures and cover crops.

Taking it one step further beyond the energy inputs we’re looking at, which help to mitigate climate change, organic farming helps to ensure other environmental and social goals:

• eliminates the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified organisims (GMOs) which is not only an improvement in human health and agrobiodiversity but also for the associated off farm biotic communities
• conserves water (making the soil more friable so rainwater is absorbed better – lessening irrigation requirements and erosion)
• ensures sustained biodiversity
• and compared to forests, agricultural soils may be a more secure sink for atmospheric carbon, since they are not vulnerable to logging and wildfire.

Agriculture is an undervalued and underestimated climate change tool that could be one of the most powerful strategies in the fight against global warming, according to Paul Hepperly, Rodale Institute Research Manager. The Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial (FST) soil carbon data (which covers 30 years)  shows conclusively that improved global terrestrial stewardship–specifically including regenerative organic agricultural practices–can be the most effective currently available strategy for mitigating CO2 emissions. (http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/Rodale_Research_Paper-07_30_08.pdf

So just how much CO2 can organic farming take out of the air each year?  According to data from the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial (FST) :

• If only 10,000 medium sized farms in the US converted to organic production, they would store so much carbon in the soil it would be equivalent to taking 1,174,400 cars off the road.
• If we converted the U.S.’s 160 million acres of corn and soybeans to organic, we could sequester enough carbon to satisfy 73% of the Koyoto targets for CO2 reduction in the U.S.
• Converting U.S. agriculture to organic would actually  wipe out the 1.5 trillion pounds of CO2 emitted annually and give us a net increase in soil carbon of 734 billion pounds.

Paul Hepperly says that organic farming is a no brainer:  “Organic farming is not a technological fix, not an untried experiment that could have its own unforeseen consequences.” Instead, it may well be one of the most powerful tools we have in our fight against global warming that brings with it a wealth of other environmental benefits.

Why should I choose an organic fabric when I have to put an FR treatment on it anyway?

The questions is whether it’s a better choice to use inherently flame retardant fabrics such as AvoraFR rather than a natural fiber (like cotton) which has been doused with toxic FR chemicals.  The answer is complicated and like most in this emerging green area, there may be no “best” answer.  We think the answers may lie in the tradeoffs we have to make.  But we’ve got an opinion, and it’s based on the following reasoning:

Fabrics which are inherently flame retardant are synthetics which have been changed at the molecular level to make the fabrics thermally stable and able to pass commercial flame tests.   Some petroleum-based synthetic fibers, such as Avora FR, Trevira CS and Lenzing FR viscose – add a flame retardant to the chemical treatment before polymer extrusion rather than change the molecular structure of the polymer.  This process builds the chemical treatment into the backbone of the polyester rather than adding it later to the finished product.  It is presumed to be less likely to expose the occupants to chemicals.

So how do you compare the two?

When comparing the synthetic with a natural fiber, we think it’s important to look at the carbon footprint of the fibers.  A synthetic like polyester requires much more energy to produce a ton of fiber than does conventional cotton – in megajoules (MJ) of energy the difference is about four times: 126,000 MJ polyester vs. 33,000 MJ for conventional cotton.  Organic cotton is even less:  only 16,000MJ.

It’s important to look at how these fibers are woven into fabric.  (And that’s a different set of carbon calculations).  If the polyester or the cotton is produced conventionally, the finished fabric has residuals of many chemicals which have been proven to harm human health.  The majority of Americans mistakenly believes that the government tests chemicals used in consumer products to ensure safety, accoring to an opinion poll released by the Washington Toxics Coalition.  However, under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), there is no legal requirements to test most chemicals for health effects, including impacts on neurological development, at any stage of production, marketing and use.  An organic fabric is one which has not used any of the many chemicals used in textile production which are known to be toxic.

So looking at two fabrics (even if one polyester fabric is produced using optimized production methods – i.e., avoiding the toxic chemicals) the organic cotton (or better yet, hemp or linen) fabric is one I’d rather live with.  But fire kills many people every year and we have reason to keep fire codes in place in public spaces.  So the issue focuses on the chemistry used to fire retard the fabrics.

Natural fibers must have a topical FR treatment applied after manufacture.  In the past, these treatments were based on halogenated chemistry, like PBDEs.  The industry is moving away from these chemicals and most have been banned, but decaBDE is still allowed in the US.  With careful attention and questioning of your supplier, you can have a natural fiber fabric that has an FR treatment which meets all codes – and which is not persisten, bioaccumulative and compromises your health.

So now the question becomes how dothe two fibers react in actual fires?

An important thing to remember about synthetics is that they do not burn, they melt.  That’s why protective clothing (firemen, police, rescue) is not made of synthetics – even inherently fire retardant synthetics – because the melting fabric would cause severe burns.

Another issue (and one we think is most important) is that the smoke created by burning or melting fabrics.   Conventionally produced fabrics (natural fiber or synthetic) release chemicals which add an extra dimension to the already toxic smoke.

So where do we stand?

• With a carbon footprint of 16,000 MJ vs 126,000 MJ (organic cotton vs. polyester) to make the fiber and
• with organic fabrics having little or none of the chemicals which have been proven to harm human health and
• because of the ability to use a nonhalogenated FR treatment on an organic fabric and
• in the case of a fire, not having to breathe toxic fumes from melting synthetics or conventionally produced fabrics

is there really a choice?