Greenwashing

16 11 2015

Please take a look at our new retail website, Two Sisters Ecotextiles (www.twosistersecotextiles.com).  We launched a few weeks ago and we’d love to know what you think!

As one pundit said, “our product is green” is joining “the check’s in the mail” as one of the most frequent fibs in our modern times.   And as David Gelles noted in the New York Times on October 18, 2015, Volkswagen’s campaign to promote diesel fuel as a low-emissions alternative to gasoline has become one of the most egregious examples of greenwashing to date – now that we’ve found out that they rigged their diesel cars with software that tricked emissions tests to get better results.

Greenwashing (when a company tries to portray itself as more environmentally minded than it actually is) has become the order of the day because consumers have (finally) warmed to sustainable and organic products and services.  This year, Cone Inc.’s Trend Tracker found that nearly three-quarters of consumers (71%) will stop buying a product if they feel misled by environmental claims – and more than a third will go so far as to boycott a company’s products.

One corporation after another has jumped on the “green-your-corporation-for-a-better-public-image” bandwagon.     This is so ubiquitous that Steven Colbert, for one, couldn’t resist:  he said that they now have a “Green Colbert Report”  –  they’re reducing their emissions by jumping on the bandwagon.  In this rush to be seen as green, companies often exaggerate claims, or simply make them up.   Magali Delmas, a professor of management at the University of California, Los Angeles, has said that “more and more firms have been combining poor environmental performance with positive communication about environmental performance.”

So why is this necessarily a bad thing?  Doesn’t really hurt anybody does it?

Actually, it does hurt us all.  As advertising giant Ogilvy & Mather puts it in a new report, greenwash is actually “an extremely serious matter…it is insidious, eroding consumer trust, contaminating the credibility of all sustainability-related marketing and hence inhibiting progress toward a sustainable economy.” In other words, it’s very hard for customers to know what choices make a difference when some marketers are muddying the waters for all. When buyers throw up their hands in confusion, we all lose.  And it results in consumer and regulator complacency – if one corporation in a particular industry gets away with greenwashing, then other corporations will follow suit, leading to an industry-wide illusion of sustainability, rather than sustainability itself.

With textiles specifically, we see environmental claims that are just as outrageous as the new “Natural Energy Snack on the Go” from Del Monte – individually wrapped bananas.

Packaged bananas from Del Monte.

Packaged bananas from Del Monte.

The problem is that the issues involved in evaluating a claim are often complex, and they vary greatly by product.   In addition, there is a raging debate about what constitutes green practices – for example, recycled polyester is considered a “green” choice in textiles, yet what yardstick is being used to make that claim?  We have done numerous blog posts on why any kind of synthetic has a much greater environmental impact  than any naturally raised fiber.  If we compare synthetics to organically raised fibers, do we also include the benefits of supporting organic agriculture, or is that a benefit that gets lost in the equation?

Even though the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has established guidelines for environmental claims (called the Green Guides), these guidelines are not law, and are only enforceable if a complaint is lodged to the FTC and there is enough evidence to get a court order forcing the company to remove the claim.  But what if people simply don’t have enough knowledge to lodge a complaint?

I’ve spent years reading about the issues involved in textile production (one of the most complex supply systems in all manufacturing) but don’t feel capable of evaluating other products.   That’s where transparency on the part of manufacturers comes in:  Consumers have to understand that there are no green products – every product uses resources and creates waste.  And there are tradeoffs.  But beyond that understanding, third party certifications give us all certain measurable standards by which we can compare products, and are a useful tool.

But even certifications need some kind of knowledge base on the part of the consumer in order to be valuable.  (What’s being measured?  Who’s doing the measuring? Which environmental claims are relevant, and what are subterfuge?)

Certifications  (not to be confused with labels and standards) fall into three categories:  first, second and third party certifications:

  • In first party certifications, a person or an organization says it meets certain claims; there is not usually an independent test to verify those claims.  These are usually a fairly simple claim, such as that the product will last for at least a year.  An example of this type of certification is that of  Kravet’s “Kravet Green” collection,  because Kravet itself is telling us that their fabrics are green.   There is no mention of any other certification bodies corroborating their statements.
  • In second party certification, an association or group provides the assurance that a product meets certain criteria.  This type of certification offers little assurance against conflicts of interest.   Under new FTC guidelines, companies that are members of the trade organization or group that certifies their product must disclose that relationship to the consumer.  An example of second party certification can be considered that of the American Textile Manufacturers Institute’s Encouraging Environmental Excellence (E3) program, which has developed a set of standards and which awards use of their logo if companies comply with these standards.
  • Third party certifications are issued by independent testing companies based on impartial evaluation of a claim by expert unbiased sources with reference to a publicly available set of standards.  Third party certification is considered the highest level of assurance you can achieve.  A third party certification is represented by the Global Organic Textile Standard, which has a public set of standards and which is administered by independent testing labs around the world.  In other words, you can’t pay these labs to misrepresent their findings, since their business is testing and certification only.

Like green claims, there is also an abundance of seals and labels that assure environmental worthiness, experts say.

“About once a week, I have a client that will bring up a new certification I’ve never even heard of –  and I’m in this industry,” said Kevin Wilhelm, chief executive officer of Sustainable Business Consulting, a Washington-based company that helps businesses plan green marketing strategies. “It’s kind of a Wild West, anybody can claim themselves to be green.”

Mr. Wilhelm said the plethora of labels made it difficult for businesses and consumers to know which labels they should pay attention to. “There’s no way for the average consumer or even for a C.E.O. to know which ones to go for or what they should get,” he said.

Okay, which certifications apply to textiles and what do they tell us?  Tune in next week.

Advertisements




How do I know a fabric is “green”?

13 07 2011

copyright Scott Adams, Inc. / Dist. by USF, Inc.

It’s been almost two years since we talked about certifications (click here to read our earlier post), so I think it’s time for a refresher, because, as one pundit said, “our product is green” is joining “the check’s in the mail”  as one of the most frequent fibs in our modern times.  According to TerraChoice, there were 73% more  “green” products on the market in 2010 than in 2009 – and over 95% of those claims are false or misleading.[1]  Greenwashing – the deceptive use of green PR or green marketing in order to promote a misleading perception that a company’s policies or products (such as goods or services) are environmentally friendly – is the order of the day.  One corporation after another has jumped on the “green-your-corporation-for-a-better-public-image” bandwagon,  doing things such as starting partnerships with legitimate green groups, which is good, while continuing business as usual, which is bad.   Manipulating public perception is the name of the game.   This is so ubiquitous that Steven Colbert, for one, can’t resist:  he says that they now have a “Green Colbert Report”  –  they’re reducing their emissions by jumping on the bandwagon.

So why is this necessarily a bad thing?  Doesn’t really hurt anybody does it?

Actually, it does hurt us all.  As advertising giant Ogilvy & Mather puts it in a new report, greenwash is actually “an extremely serious matter…it is insidious, eroding consumer trust, contaminating the credibility of all sustainability-related marketing and hence inhibiting progress toward a sustainable economy.” In other words, it’s very hard for customers to know what choices make a difference when some marketers are muddying the waters for all. When buyers throw up their hands in confusion, we all lose.[2]  And it results in consumer and regulator complacency – if one corporation in a particular industry gets away with greenwashing, then other corporations will follow suit, leading to an industry-wide illusion of sustainability, rather than sustainability itself.

This year, Cone Inc.’s Trend Tracker found that nearly three-quarters of consumers (71%) will stop buying a product if they feel misled by environmental claims – and more than a third will go so far as to boycott a company’s products.[3]

With textiles specifically, we see environmental claims that are just as outrageous as the new “Natural Energy Snack on the Go” from Del Monte – individually wrapped bananas. [4]

Packaged bananas from Del Monte

The problem is that the issues involved in evaluating a claim are often complex, and they vary greatly by product.   In addition, there is a raging debate about what constitutes green practices – for example, recycled polyester is considered a “green” choice in textiles,  yet what yardstick is being used to make that claim?  We have done numerous blog posts on why any kind of synthetic has a much greater environmental impact  than any naturally raised fiber (click here to read the first of these posts).  If we compare synthetics to organically raised fibers, do we also include the benefits of supporting organic agriculture, or is that a benefit that gets lost in the equation?

Even though the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has established guidelines for environmental claims, these guidelines are not law, and are only enforceable if a complaint is lodged to the FTC and there is enough evidence to get a court order forcing the company to remove the claim.  But what if people simply don’t have enough knowledge to lodge a complaint?

I’ve spent years reading about the issues involved in textile production (one of the most complex supply systems in all manufacturing) but don’t feel capable of evaluating other products.   That’s where transparency on the part of manufacturers comes in:  Consumers have to understand that there are no green products – every product uses resources and creates waste.  And there are tradeoffs.  But beyond that understanding, third party certifications give us all certain measurable standards by which we can compare products, and are a useful tool.

But even certifications need some kind of knowledge base on the part of the consumer in order to be valuable.  (What’s being measured?  Who’s doing the measuring? Which environmental claims are relevant, and what are subterfuge?)

Certifications  (not to be confused with labels and standards) fall into three categories:  first, second and third party certifications:

  1. In first party certifications, a person or an organization says it meets certain claims; there is not usually an independent test to verify those claims.  These are usually a fairly simple claim, such as that the product will last for at least a year.  An example of this type of certification is that of  Kravet’s “Kravet Green” collection,  because Kravet itself is telling us that their fabrics are green.   There is no mention of any other certification bodies corroborating their statements.
  2.  In second party certification, an association or group provides the assurance that a product meets certain criteria.  This type of certification offers little assurance against conflicts of interest.   Under new FTC guidelines, companies that are members of the trade organization or group that certifies their product must disclose that relationship to the consumer.  An example of second party certification can be considered that of the American Textile Manufacturers Institute’s Encouraging Environmental Excellence (E3) program, which has developed a set of standards and which awards use of their logo if companies comply with these standards.
  3. Third party certifications are issued by independent testing companies based on impartial evaluation of a claim by expert unbiased sources with reference to a publicly available set of standards.  Third party certification is considered the highest level of assurance you can achieve.  A third party certification is represented by the Global Organic Textile Standard,  which has a public set of standards and which is administered by independent testing labs around the world.  In other words, you can’t pay these labs to misrepresent their findings, since their business is testing and certification only (such as Peterson Control Union or Oeko Tex).

Like green claims, there is also an abundance of seals and labels that assure environmental worthiness, experts say.

“About once a week, I have a client that will bring up a new certification I’ve never even heard of and I’m in this industry,” said Kevin Wilhelm, chief executive officer of Sustainable Business Consulting, a Washington-based company that helps businesses plan green marketing strategies. “It’s kind of a Wild West, anybody can claim themselves to be green.”

Mr. Wilhelm said the plethora of labels made it difficult for businesses and consumers to know which labels they should pay attention to. “There’s no way for the average consumer or even for a C.E.O. to know which ones to go for or what they should get,” he said. [5]

Okay, which certifications apply to textiles and what do they tell us?  Tune in next week.


[1] “The Sins of Greenwashing”, Terra Choice, October 26, 2010, http://blog.terrachoice.com/2010/11/08/the-2010-sins-of-greenwashing-study-is-here/

[2] Winston, Andrew, “Avoiding Greenwash and Its Dangers”, Harvard Business Review, April 15, 2010. http://blogs.hbr.org/winston/2010/04/avoiding-greenwash-and-its-dan.html

[4] According to James Harvey, Del Monte’s UK managing director, “Del Monte’s new CRT packaging is designed to provide significant carbon footprint savings by reducing the frequency of deliveries and the amount of waste going to landfill. The packaging is also recyclable.”

[5] Vega, Tanzina, “Agency Seeks to Tighten Rules for ‘Green’ Labeling”, New York Times, October 6, 2010.





Biodegradeable or compostable?

1 12 2010

There is no legal definition of “biodegradable,” so the term has been used loosely by some manufacturers.  The American Society for Testing and Materials defines the term as “a degradation caused by biological activity, especially by enzymatic action, leading to a significant change in the chemical structure of the material.”

The Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) cites a 2006 American Chemistry Council study showing that most consumers believe a product labeled “biodegradable” will go away completely and on its own in a year or less. The BPI says many consumers also believe that these products will “biodegrade” in landfills.

Because it seems a desirable product attribute, the term “biodegradable” has been applied to a wide range of products—even those that might take centuries to decompose, or those that break down into harmful environmental toxins.   Biodegradability is definitely perceived as  a positive trait, yet it could be applied to virtually anything because anything is biodegradable, given enough time.  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the U.S., however, has issued some general guidelines on what types of products qualify as legitimately biodegradable, and has even sued companies for unsubstantiated, misleading and/or deceptive use of the term on product labels.

According to the FTC, only products that contain materials that “break down and decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonably short amount of time after customary disposal” should be marketed as “biodegradable.”

But the FTC acknowledges that even products appropriately labeled as biodegradable may not break down easily if they are buried under a landfill or are otherwise not exposed to sunlight, air and moisture, the key agents of biodegradation. In fact, in landfills materials degrade very, very slowly – if at all!  This is because modern landfills are designed, according to law, to keep out sunlight, air and moisture – the very ingredients needed for materials to biodegrade. This helps prevent pollutants from the garbage from getting into the air and drinking water, and slows the decomposition of the trash. In Dr. William Rathje’s book entitled “Rubbish,” he sites that “The truth is, however, that the dynamics of a modern landfill are very nearly the opposite of what most people think…Well designed and managed landfills seem to be far more apt to preserve their contents for posterity than transform them into humus or mulch. They are not vast composters: rather they are vast mummifiers.” In his book, Dr. Rathje talks about doing excavations on 15 landfills throughout North America. From those digs, they found 40 year old newspapers that were still legible, 5 year old lettuce and a 15 year old hot dog. From these studies it seems fairly clear that even organic materials take a very long time to break down in landfills let alone plastic or other items.  The reality is if any product ends up in a landfill, it will not degrade.

But the fact that a product breaks down – if it does indeed break down – may not be as important as what the product breaks down into. In a perfect would all products would break down to CO2 and H2O. But it gets more complicated as we increase the number and kinds of chemicals. The banned pesticide DDT is hazardous and toxic in its own right. And it does biodegrade, though rather slowly. The problem is that its breakdown products of DDD and DDE are even more toxic and dangerous than the original DDT.
So just because a product or ingredient is biodegradable does not mean it is healthy or safe for people or the environment – especially if it leaches harmful chemicals into the ecosystem. Under this definition, even regular oil based plastic can be advertised as “biodegradable” because at some point, sooner or later, it is going to break down into small pieces.

“Compostable”, on the other hand, has a definition that is rigorously governed by the standards ASTM D-6400, ASTM D6868, and EN13432.   The term “compostable” covers four areas:

1.      Biodegradable – i.e.,  60 – 90% of the product will break down into CO2 within 180 days in a commercial composting facility.

2.      Disintegration – this requires that 90% of the product will break down into pieces that are 2mm or smaller

3.      Eco-toxicity – the product will not deposit heavy metals that are toxic to the soil beyond that found in typical compost.

4.      Compostable products have the added implication that when they break down they turn into humus, which provides valuable nutrients to the soil.

So, while some products are considered biodegradable, they may not be considered compostable because they either don’t meet the heavy metal requirements,  don’t break down in a timely fashion or don’t contribute valuable nutrients which improves the soil.

Composting of organic waste makes sense, but compostable plastic for shopping bags, food packaging, fabric, etc. does not, because:

1.      It is up to 400% more expensive than ordinary plastic;

2.      it is thicker and heavier and requires more trucks to transport it;

3.      recycling with oil-based plastics is impossible;

4.      it uses scarce land and water resources to produce the raw material, and substantial amounts of non-renewable hydro-carbons are burned and CO2 emitted, by the tractors and other machines employed.

5.      If buried in landfill, compostable plastic can emit methane (a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than CO2) in anaerobic conditions.

Many industrial composters of organic waste around the world do not want plastic of any kind in their feedstock, because it is difficult to separate biodegradable plastic from ordinary plastic. Home composting of plastic is not encouraged, as it will often be contaminated with food residues, and temperatures may not rise high enough to kill the pathogens. Compostable plastic is useless in compost because 90% of it has to convert to CO2 gas in order to comply with ASTM D6400 and the other composting Standards. It therefore contributes to greenhouse gases but not to the improvement of the soil.

Meanwhile, you can follow Dave, who  buried an advertised Paper Mate  biodegradable pencil in his backyard last summer and says he will report on it’s degradation over time.  Click here to read more and follow the story!

So how does this apply to fabrics?  Well, for starters the companies that make PLA (polylactic acid) based polymers – those corn based bio plastics – advertise that their products are biodegradable.   PLA is said by the manufacturer  to decompose into carbon dioxide and water in a “controlled composting environment” in fewer than 90 days. What’s a controlled composting environment? It’s not exactly your average backyard bin, pit or tumbling barrel. It’s a large facility where compost—essentially, plant scraps being digested by microbes into fertilizer—reaches 140 degrees for ten consecutive days. So, yes, as PLA advocates say, corn plastic is “biodegradable.” But in reality very few consumers have access to the sort of composting facilities that can make that happen. NatureWorks (the largest manufacturer of PLA, owned by Cargill Dow)  has identified only  113 such facilities nationwide.

Moreover, PLA by the truckload may potentially pose a problem for some large-scale composters.  And there is no evidence that  PLA breaks down any faster than PET or other plastics in a normal landfill environment.  (Read more about PLA and biodegradability here.)

And unless the chemicals used during processing of your fabric are such that there are no chemicals which would combine with other chemicals to form molecules of anything other than water, carbon dioxide and safe organic material – then it cannot be called compostable.  If the chemicals used during processing contain, for example, heavy metals in the dyestuffs – then those metals become available to your plants in the garden – and that again knocks it out of the “compostable” set of products.  That might be o.k. if you’re growing roses rather than radishes, but if you plan to eat those plants I’d look elsewhere as a way to dispose of your fabric.  Certified fabrics  made of natural fibers which look at the chemical inputs of processing (such as GOTS and Oeko Tex) would be o.k. for use in a vegetable garden – because they have been tested to be free of toxic inputs – and they could be called “compostable”.

Resources:

The Biodegradable Products Institute, www.bpiworld.org

US Composting Council  http://www.compostingcouncil.org





Bamboo and the FTC

19 08 2009

Bamboo-background

“Bamboo” fabric has taken the world by storm – people love its luxurious softness, smooth hand and gentle drape,  and they also seem to love its eco credentials (as touted by those selling the fabric).

It’s easy to tout bamboo (the plant) as eco friendly, because it is a wonderfully beneficial plant and just might be the world’s most sustainable resource: It’s the fastest growing grass and can grow up to a yard or more per day.  Growing bamboo improves soil quality and helps rebuild eroded soil. The extensive root system of bamboo holds soil together, prevents soil erosion, and retains water in the watershed. It doesn’t require replanting after harvest because its vast root network continually sprouts new shoots, all the while pulling in sunlight and greenhouse gases while converting them to new growth.  All this without the use of tractors or other machinery using petroleum, and without pesticides or fertilizers.

Bamboo (the plant) produces a huge biomass, both above and below ground.  One study found bamboo produces 14 tons of wood per acre, as against 8 for loblolly pine[1]; planted in large groves, it can store four times the CO2 as a stand of trees of similar size, and it releases 35% more oxygen.[2] Currently there are no known genetically modified organism (GMO) variants of bamboo.

But though bamboo the plant can be terrifically sustainable and beneficial, bamboo the fabric can raise environmental and health concerns – but like many issues on the green front, the answer is not black and white.  Some bamboo fiber can be green and some is not – and some green bamboo fiber can be woven conventionally and dyed with dyestuffs that contain lead, mercury, or other heavy metals, mutagenic chemicals that change our DNA or endocrine disruptors which affect our hormone balance.  And the factory using these chemicals probably did not treat their effluent before returning it to our waterways.

The Federal Trade Commission has finally acted to restrict some of the more outrageous claims being made about textiles, bamboo fabric specifically:  they have charged four sellers of clothing and other textile products with deceptive labeling and advertising.  Their intention is to demonstrate that unsubstantiated green claims in the clothing and other textile related product categories will not be tolerated.  And believe me, that’s a GREAT thing, because claims are being made for “green” textiles of every stripe – often stretching the “green” issue to the limit.   But to categorically say bamboo fabric is NOT green is to overstep in the opposite direction.   There is some naturally retted bamboo (processed like flax or hemp) on the market though it’s still hard to find.  The process used to turn bamboo into a fiber which is used almost exclusively today, the viscose process, can also be eco friendly if the manufacturer makes the effort to capture emissions and treat effluent.   We have to stop and take the time to evaluate claims.

Let’s give it a go.

“Rayon” is the generic name for any man-made fiber made from cellulose  – man in this case applies a chemical process to transform the cellulose.  It’s usually used with cellulose found in very hard and woody plants, such as wood or bamboo, although it can also be made from algae or other types of cellulose.   Cellulose is a carbohydrate and the chief component in the walls of plants.  There are several chemical and manufacturing techniques to make rayon, but the most common method is the viscose process.  In the viscose process, cellulose is treated with caustic soda (aka: sodium hydroxide) and carbon disulfide, converting it into a gold liquid about the color and consistency of honey, called viscose.  Viscose is forced through fine holes, called a spinerette, directly into a chemical bath where it hardens into fine strands.  When washed and bleached these strands become rayon yarn.  Most rayon made today uses this viscose process, which dates to the early 1900s.


RayonDiagram

Viscose is known as a “regenerated cellulose” fiber – in other words, it is reconstituted from cellulose.  Other regenerated cellulosic fibers include lyocell, Tencel®, modal and MicroModal – these are all made from wood.  Although the viscose process of making rayon from wood or cotton has been around for a long time, it wasn’t until 2003 that a method was devised for using bamboo for this process.(3)

The reason the viscose process is thought to be detrimental to the environment is based on the process chemicals used.  Though sodium hydroxide is routinely used in the processing of organic cotton, and is approved by the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS), carbon disulfide can cause nervous system damage with chronic exposure.  And that “chemical bath” to harden the threads?  Sulfuric acid.  These chemicals do not remain as a residue on the fibers – the proof of this is that almost all of the viscose produced can be (and often is) Oeko Tex certified (which certifies that the finished fiber has been tested for any chemicals which may be harmful to a person’s health and contains no trace of these chemicals.)

The problem comes in disposing of these process chemicals:  the sodium hydroxide (though not harmful to humans) is nevertheless harmful to the environment if dumped into our rivers as untreated effluent.  Same with carbon disulfide and, certainly, sulfuric acid.  Oeko Tex certifies only the final product, i.e.,the fibers or the fabric.  They do not look at the production process, which can be devastating.  The production could be done in a closed loop process, capturing and reclaiming all the chemicals used during manufacture, but this is seldom done.

And then of course there is the weaving of these viscose fibers into fabric – if done conventionally, the environmental burden is devastating (in terms of chemical and water use) and the fabric itself probably contains many chemicals known to be harmful to our health.

What is the FTC saying in their charge of deceptive advertising?  The unsubstantiated green claims they take issue with are:

  • The claim that the products are manufactured using an environmentally friendly process.
    • As I explained above, the claims may or may not be true.  Certainly the standard viscose production process is definitely NOT environmentally friendly, but some manufacturers use new closed loop systems, treat and/or recycle wastewater and capture emissions.  Tencel® certainly advertises its environmentally friendly production processes, based on closed loop systems, and a new non-toxic solvent (amine oxide) which, they say,  is 99.9% recycled.  Tencel® brand takes great pains to differentiate itself from viscose (saying that it is different because it’s based on solvents, but  I cannot find what they really mean by this as it seems to me they’re just using different chemicals.)  In the lyocell/Tencel process, the wood pulp is dissolved in N-Methylmorpholine N-oxide, then pushed thru spinneets to form individual fibers.  Although there is little by-product, the process uses a lot of energy and the solvent used is a by-product of gasoline production.
  • The claim that these products retain natural antimicrobial properties of the bamboo plant.
    • There has been little research done on viscose made from bamboo.  However, many studies have been done by Lenzing Group, which produces Tencel®.  One study sponsored by Lenzing found that “bacterial growth on textiles made from cellulosic fibers as compared to synthetic fibers showed lower bacterial growth”.[4] Of course, many claims assert that bamboo’s “natural antimicrobial properties” are retained by the viscose fibers.  However, could  it be possible that the exceptional water absorption ability of cellulosic fibers retards bacterial growth, as Tencel® claims?
  • The claim that they are biodegradable.
    • Ohio State University’s Consumer and Textile Sciences fact sheet on lyocell says it is “biodegradeable and recyclable”[5] and Tencel® also makes that claim – as seen in many advertisements about products made from this fiber. Is the bamboo viscose not as biodegradeable and/or recyclable as lyocell and Tencel®, both very similar fibers to bamboo viscose?  What is the inherent difference that would preclude the degredation of one and not the other?

The FTC says that “bamboo is not a generic fiber”.  Their reasoning is that the products are advertised as being made of “bamboo” when they should be saying the products are made of “rayon” or “rayon from bamboo”:

  • The differences between lyocell, Tencel, modal and viscose gets WAY technical; I think it’s sufficient here to note that they are all known by their fiber or brand names, rather than the cellulose source used in production.  For example, rayon is derived from wood pulp – and the kind of wood used can vary from beech, pine, spruce and hemlock to Eucalyptus – it’s not known as “lyocell rayon from beech” or “Tencel rayon from beech trees” as the FTC is requiring for “rayon from bamboo”. MicroModal, another regenerated cellulosic fiber, is even classified as “cotton” for importation by U.S. Customs.(6)

I guess I’m glad they’ve finally drawn a line in the sand.  Something is always better than nothing.  But I’m disappointed that they’re focusing on the fiber and ignoring the processing, because the processing is both a huge environmental burden (if done conventionally) and potentially very harmful to us and our kids.  So why stop with the fiber?  The Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) addresses these issues.  If manufacturers were forced (by the market or by federal regulations) to have third party certifications in place, we’d all be healthier and the ecosystem would have a better chance.  Perhaps the FTC could spend some effort spreading the word about GOTS and what exactly a GOTS certified fabric is  and why it’s better than a fabric (non certified) made with a GOTS certified – or organic – fiber.


[1]Raver, Ann, “A Cane the World Can Lean On”, New York Times, July 5, 2007

[2] Janssen, Jules A., Technical University Eindhoven, 2000

[3] US patent 7313906 by Xiangqi Zhou, Zheng Liu, Liming Liu and Hao Geng

[4] http://www.lenzing.com/fe/media/I_22-30_FIRGO_The_Functional_Properties_of_TENCEL.pdf

[5] http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/5000/5572.html

[6] http://www.askandyaboutclothes.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-49815.html