Over the past few years, there has been a growing number of sustainable denim brands on the market, including Levi’s Eco, REUSE, Good Society, Loomstate Organic and the now (sadly) defunct Del Forte Denim.

Traditionally speaking (if you can call it that after only three short years), what makes denim sustainable is the use of 100 percent organic cotton and plant based indigo dyes. Some brands use recycled denim and Del Forte had a great recycling program where they would take your old jeans and recycle them into new ones.

Today however, the eco denim scene is abuzz with Levi’s and H&M’s recent announcement of their plans to globally ban sandblasting by 2011. Together, they are encouraging other brands to follow suit, in the hope that it will become industry practice.

The sandblasting technique involves the “˜blasting’ of an abrasive material in a granular or powder form, at a very high speed and pressure, on specific areas of the garment surface to give it the desired distressed or used look. You know the look some of us achieve more naturally from wearing our favorite pair of jeans for years and years.

Their surprising decision came about from rising concerns over textile workers developing silicosis, a harsh lung disease caused from the airborne particles produced from sandblasting denim.

Turkey imposed a ban on the practice of sandblasting apparel in 2008, following a study conducted by news channel France24 that uncovered numerous denim workers in Istanbul who contracted this incurable disease.

As a result of the ban, some of the large denim companies in Turkey are now subcontracting to Pakistan, Bangladesh, Syria and Egypt, thus proving it may be difficult to monitor.

However, brands that are engaged with their supply chain, such as H&M and Levi’s, are in a better position to police the restriction closely.

But not everyone is convinced that this is a good idea. Monitoring the ban means that someone would have to visit the factories, to which some argue that a more effective solution is to impose a ban on factories that fail to implement good health and safety practices when sandblasting.

And another possible solution could be to provide workers with the appropriate protection, and use dust extraction equipment, making it less of a health risk.

Still, H&M and Levi’s decision to impose the ban is a step in the right direction, toward more responsible production that cares for its workers and their overall health. And because the ban could pose great operational risks for both companies, their actions should be applauded.

While I sit back and watch this play out, I think I’ll stick to buying vintage denim that already comes with that worn out, distressed look.

Image: Vivian Chen

The post Sandblasting Be Gone appeared first on EcoSalon.

You don’t have to be an economist to want to understand the economics of “the fabric of our lives.” Case in point: The recent ban on cotton exports by the Indian government has piqued my curiosity. I wanted to understand whether this ban would have an impact not only on the cotton farmers, particularly those growing organic and fair-trade cotton, but also what impact it might have on us as consumers.

What I learned is that there are no clear answers.

Fact: the price of cotton is at a 15-year high.

Why? According to Eco Textile News, this is the result of Indian authorities lowering cotton export tax rebates. With higher rebates there is more incentive to export raw cotton. Once you lower those tax rebates, you are effectively lowering its export appeal. Supply goes down, but demand is up (marginally), and the price of cotton rises.

So why ban raw cotton export altogether? What does this mean to the farmers? And what will be the impact to consumers?

The reason for the ban is simple, if you are the Indian government and your best interest is to protect the textile industry. A robust export market means a shortfall in the amount of cotton available for India’s own textile manufacturing sector. When you factor in China as a fierce competitor, this makes sense. China is, after all, the world’s largest cotton importer.

When it comes to the impact of the ban on cotton farmers, there are conflicting views.

On the one hand, some experts contend this decision was made in haste, out of panic over the fact that cotton prices have risen by 80%. And, that by restricting exports, cotton farmers (particularly organic and fair-trade growers) are not seeing any of the benefits enjoyed by the cotton traders. The organic and fair-trade cotton growers in India rely heavily on its export, and some believe that when times are good, these communities should be supported rather than punished.

On the other hand, some organizations support the banning of raw cotton export from India.

“I believe the true value of this commodity is long overdue, and has been taken advantage of for so many years,” says UK Pants to Poverty representative Ben Ramsden. “Without any move to keep cotton within India, the booming Indian textile and garmenting industry could be considerably challenged, putting further strain on this very fragile industry.”

Will we feel this impact on our wallets?

In some cases, fabric suppliers could pass their costs up the supply chain. This would result in retailers paying more for basic cotton items such as socks and t-shirts. However, some industry experts claim the ban will have little impact on domestic cotton prices, as most of the exports for the current cotton season have already been committed. So if we do feel any price sting, it will likely be marginal.

To this end, Ramsden says, “If this goes some way to enabling us all to understand more about where our clothes come from, and why our choices can change the world, then the whole exercise will be fantastic.”

Image: Ken Lund

The post The Economics of Cotton appeared first on EcoSalon.

There are two ways to persuade people that fossil-fueled cars are a blight. The popular method is to offer alternatives while suggesting why you “really shouldn’t” . And then there’s the other way.

Last week, TechCrunch ran an article suggesting that California was going to ban black cars because they soak up the most heat. The Washington Post got hold of it, then Rush Limbaugh added fuel to the flames (most unlike him, I know)  by advising listeners to buy up black cars before they became extinct. Happily, it’s now clear that TechCrunch got themselves in a muddle, and everyone’s looking sheepish. Such is the Audience Wave nature of online journalism.

It’s not hard to spot the flashpoint here – it’s the word “ban”. It’s a brave government that tries to deny consumers the right to drive their beloved internal combustion vehicles, even if it’s just the black-painted ones…and the TechCrunch furor nicely illustrates how quickly the American public gets shirty when its wheels are threatened.

So let’s imagine that the U.S. decides to follow the example of Amsterdam, which has just announced that by 2040, no petrol-powered cars will be allowed in the city. It’s electric or nothing. That gives the Netherlands 30 years to get its electric vehicle servicing infrastructure up to scratch, which probably isn’t as long as it sounds – and it leaves the door open for other municipal and national governments to peer through, wondering if that way lies popularity or condemnation.

If internally-combusting automobiles went the way of incandescent lightbulbs and plastic bags, how would America react?

Image: Sammmm

The post Fueling Nobody: Amsterdam Sets a Brave Example appeared first on EcoSalon.