Years ago, vegan or faux leather clothing and accessories were stigmatized as lesser quality products. The cheap and often times tacky looking material was a poor alternative to the real thing, and even ethical vegans found it difficult to give up their leather shoes and accessories for lack of quality, cruelty-free options. Fortunately, the past few years has seen a boom in leather alternative textiles, and companies are really showing off their creativity in terms of materials. The current trend is to not only provide an ethical product, but a sustainable one. So what’s the latest? Pineapple. Yes, we’re talking wearable fruit leather that looks, feels, and endures like its animal-based counterpart. Its called Piñatex™, and it is the latest en vogue material in the sustainable fashion world.

Piñatex™ is created with the long stranded fibers of pineapple leaves. Dr. Carmen Hijosa invented this creative material following her years of work in the leather industry. She took a trip to the Philippines in search of more natural products, and discovered that the pineapple leaf fibers could be made into a non-woven textile (translation: fabric that does not need to be knitted or sewn together). Dr. Hijosa implemented a system where the fibers are extracted by the pineapple farm workers, processed into a non-woven textile, then finished in Spain, ready to supply to responsibly-minded retailers. This practice bolsters the local farming economy and promotes sustainability, as pineapple leaves are considered a byproduct of the pineapple harvest and typically discarded. Dr. Hijosa created her consciously-minded company, Ananas Anam, as a way to distribute Piñatex™ globally.

Hipsters for Sisters (HFS) Collective, a Los Angeles based bag company, is an early adopter of pineapple leather and one of the first American companies to incorporate Piñatex™ into their collections. Dedicated to providing the highest quality products using the most sustainable materials, co-founder Rachel Denniston said they have had their eye on Piñatex™ for the past two years. HFS proudly debuted their pineapple leather bag collection in early Fall 2017. The line includes two belt bags (a chic, modern version of the practical fanny pack), a crossbody tote, and a matching zippered wallet. Denniston raved, “The true beauty of this collection stems from the fact that we are combining the rugged, edgy look of Piñatex™with our soft, elegant, eco-suede. The result is a sophisticated, unique collection that goes with just about anything!”

The price for these items reflects the true cost of operating a sustainable business. Unfortunately, the fast fashion industry has popularized the concept of cheap, disposable faux leather products, which has led to some resistance and even sticker shock when a non-leather good costs the same as its leather counterpart. However, it is essential to disrupt this ideology and make an effort to understand what goes into the pricing of these products. A sweat-shop made handbag is not meant to last over the years, and it can be produced quite cheaply and sold at a socially acceptable price point, no eyebrows raised. However, the same handbag made with durable, sustainable material by a worker earning a living wage will cost significantly more. The Piñatex™products at HFS Collective will set you back from $215 for the pocket belt bag and up to $395 for the large crossbody tote. Its true, there is an expense to responsible business practices, but for Denniston, ethics are non-negotiable.

“Simply stated, sustainable and ethical production means being responsible in one’s manufacturing and sourcing of fabric. Not only is it important to have the lightest impact on the planet with your production and sourcing of material, but its equally important to provide the craftsmen and women that make your products with fair, living wages in safe and pleasant working conditions. We try to do it all.”

In addition to HFS Collective, a few other small businesses are beginning to incorporate Piñatex™into their lines. The material is becoming more prevalent through Etsy retailers, and there is hope for larger distribution with big name brands in the future. 

In essence, fashion is an investment. It is not about how many different outfits you have or never wearing the same thing twice; it is about collecting classic, quality pieces that truly shine and make you feel confident. Fashion is not meant to be disposal, it is meant to be treasured and valued. Thanks to the recent innovations in sustainable material, like Piñatex™, quality fashion can now be ethical and sustainable fashion. We’d rather wear fruit than flesh, any day. 

Find Tanya on Instagram and The Vegan Potluck Podcast. 

Related on EcoSalon

LA’s Fair Trade Fashion Show Models Trends for Every Style, Occasion, and Budget
You Can Make Vegan Leather Out of What?
Malia Designs Fights Human Trafficking One Handbag at a Time

The post Wearable Fruit Leather: Pineapple is the New Leather Alternative appeared first on EcoSalon.

Change, whether good or bad, supported or maligned, always begins the same way: with one person, one idea, and one moment of courage. Many people find change suspect because the outcome is unknown; there are too many unforeseeable consequences. They naysay new ideas about old ways of thinking, not realizing how remiss we’d be without the positive progress in equality, health, and the environment that change makes possible. They forget that just years ago, secondhand smoke in offices, restaurants, and other crowded areas was just an accepted aspect of life. But thanks to one city – San Luis Obispo, California – the majority of indoor public spaces in America are now smoke-free, and we’re much healthier for it.

Cities effect change through bans, setting precedents that are sometimes revolutionary and almost always controversial. Over the past few years, a number of U.S. cities have gone the way of San Luis Obispo: initiating bans that are aren’t always popular with everyone but have the power to change things for the better.

1. Santa Clara, California: No Happy Meal Toys

In April 2010, Santa Clara County’s Board of Supervisors decided to prohibit fast-food restaurants from adding toys or other promotional items to kids’ meals. The ban applies only to eateries in certain areas of the county, and only to kids’ meals that have significantly high levels of calories, sodium, fat, and sugar. Fast-food establishments have ninety days to give up the toys or develop more nutritionally sound menu choices for kids. Those supporting the ban feel that offering toys with fast-food meals rewards kids for eating McDonald’s, Burger King, and so on. It lessens the incentive for the fast food industry to target children, which could help curb the increasingly growing rates of childhood obesity in this country.

2. San Francisco, California: No City Money for Bottled Water, No Plastic Bags

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom declared in 2007 that no more of the city’s money would go toward bottled water (as in buying it for government offices or city functions). Other cities, like Los Angeles, Seattle, and Salt Lake City, followed suit and cut local-government spending on bottled water. Some went further, like Chicago, which tacked on a five-cent tax to every bottle of water sold, and Concord, Massachusetts, which banned the sale of any bottled water from within its borders starting in January 2011. The anti-bottled water legislation in these two cities is much more extreme, and therefore much more disputed. Banning or reducing bottled water at the government level first seems like a more popular, and therefore possibly more effective, first step.

San Francisco put forth another groundbreaking law in 2007, banning plastic bags from all major supermarkets and pharmacies in the area. The government gave businesses (exempting small ones) a year to switch to paper or compostable bags. NPR estimated that this legislation would reduce plastic-bag usage by five million bags each month. The move inspired similar action in Los Angeles, Paris, and London. In Washington, D.C., residents now pay five cents for paper or plastic bags from stores, restaurants, and pharmacies.

3. North Olmsted, Ohio: No Sweatshop Goods

North Olmstead is a suburb in Cleveland that also happens to be the first area in the country to forbid products made in sweatshops. Mayor Ed Boyle came up with the idea in 2007, creating an ordinance that banned city vendors from buying, renting, or selling anything produced in a work environment with sweatshop-like conditions. Another Cleveland-area city, Bedford Heights, adopted the same ban, and other cities have looked into doing something similar.

4. Los Angeles, California: No New Fast-Food Restaurants

Los Angeles’s City Council made this highly controversial ban in 2008, deciding that South Los Angeles had more than enough fast-food establishments (about four hundred at the time), and put a yearlong moratorium on any new ones opening in the thirty-two-square-mile area. The council wanted to use that year to entice healthier restaurants and grocery stores into the neighborhood; the ban specified eateries that have drive-through windows and/or use heat lamps in lieu of freshly prepared meals. The council also enacted the ban to reduce the higher-than-average obesity rates in South L.A., though opponents argue that’s a form of food policing. But residents can still access hundreds of fast-food joints in the area. The problem is that there are very few grocery stores in comparison; the ban is supposed to close the gap a little and give people in the neighborhood more dining options.

5. New York, New York: No Trans Fat in Restaurants

Even more contested than the L.A. fast-food ban was Manhattan’s infamous trans-fat ban in 2006. The Board of Health voted to eliminate the unhealthy ingredient from all city restaurants by July 2008, giving chefs two years to replace it in their recipes. Even though trans fat is linked to heart disease and increases bad-cholesterol levels, many restaurant owners and citizens feared the ban would make food taste worse. Despite their doubts, a 2009 report in the Annals of Internal Medicine by the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene found that the ban-which reduced the amount of trans fat in NYC restaurants from 50 percent to 2 percent-didn’t hurt restaurant business. Plus, the amount of both trans fat and saturated fat was reduced in french fries by 50 percent, suggesting that restaurants offer more-healthful fare postban.

I always feel a little suspicious when something’s completely eliminated from public use because it can be a slippery slope. Even though I’m vehemently against smoking, I do feel that legislation limiting the right to smoke in cars and homes infringes upon people’s rights. That’s why I understand the outcry against fast-food and trans-fat bans, and even plastics and happy meal toys, to an extent-when does external enforcement of citizens’ personal lives and choices stop? Could these decisions, though meant for the greater good, be used to justify others that go too far? But limiting oneself to that mindset also limits anything good that can come from the restrictions, like healthier people and environments. These specific bans have the potential to do just that, which is why I hope they’re successful and influential, and that they’re not taken too far beyond their intentions.

Article by Vicki Santillano for DivineCaroline. First published May 2010.

Related DivineCaroline posts:

• New Plans to Get America Moving
• You Are What you Eat: Inside America’s Refrigerators
• Six Good Deeds That Take Less Than Five Minutes

Image: kla4067

The post Blazing Trails: What 5 Pioneering Cities Have Banned appeared first on EcoSalon.

Not that great, according to everyone. While one of the three holes in the Deepwater Horizon has been plugged, the rate of oil lost was unaffected. Depending on whom you ask, that’s anywhere from 5,000 to upwards of 40,000 barrels a day.

Also, hurricane season is less than a month away. The first storm of the season would not only arrest cleanup crews, but could potentially disperse the oil slick over a greater field. That is, if it doesn’t suck up all the oil and turn into some sort of self-aware, Captain-Planet-style, oil-powered storm beast.

More realistic fears include the possible failure of domed well caps currently being maneuvered into place over the leaks. BP has ordered a 125-ton steel dome to contain and remove the oil gushing from the rig, but even a successful placement won’t contain more than 85 percent of the leak. Oh, and there’s no guarantee of a successful placement.

At this point, more than two weeks out from the explosion/fire/complete destruction of the Deepwater Horizon, eleven workers are dead, fishing bans have been put into effect, and oil has begun to wash up on certain coastal marshes. A relief well, the best method of containing the underwater geyser, will not be ready for months. The Coast Guard has started several controlled burns on different parts of the slick. They’ve even deployed a team of deep-sea robots to attend to the leak. So far the only potential bright spot in this unmitigated disaster is the possibility of a knock-down, drag-out fight between the underwater robots and an oil-fueled hurricane.

While the most media-friendly parts of an oil spill (beached seals and turtles flapping their sludge-covered fins helplessly) haven’t yet occurred, serious damage to the environment is already being done. Plankton and other microscopic forms of marine life at the bottom of the sea are easily damaged by contact with oil particles, which could send a ripple effect throughout the Gulf’s food chain. The fishing industry will almost certainly continue to be negatively affected. The spill could spread to the East Coast via powerful ocean currents and even damage certain ports and shipping lines. The worst is almost certainly yet to come.

Image: NASA Goddard Photo and Video

The post How’s That Oil Cleanup Coming Along? appeared first on EcoSalon.