University of Rhode Island  
Textiles, Fashion Merchandising and Design

TMD 402N  Seminar: Sustainability

Martin Bide, University of Rhode Island 

Is Any Fiber Not Sustainable?

Summary by Ryan Hagaman 

                        Dr. Bide began his lecture by stating that nothing is totally good and nothing is totally bad. To emphasize his point we learned that resources like energy, water and chemicals are consumed when making, using or disposing textile products. In contrast, anything that is clearly harmful has been, or is in the process of, being eliminated as a result of common sense, public pressure and laws. The most important element in this equation is that everything could be better.

Sustainable practices within the textile and apparel industry are faced with numerous contradictions and obstacles. Many companies advocate that their products follow all environmental regulations to make them more marketable to consumers but what this really means is that they are behaving as bad as the laws will allow them to. The emphasis placed on the environment is much stronger when companies are selling "green" products while the other two key elements of the economy and society are overlooked. Simple solutions that proponents of sustainability have suggested, like recycling garments and consuming less, also have a down side because they effect the local industry’s profit and job market. The fashion industry is not as established as architecture and interior design when it comes to sustainable alternatives.

The next topic Dr. Bide presented dealt with natural and synthetic fibers and their ability to be considered sustainable. Natural fibers are considered the better alternative in consumers’ minds because of the word “natural,” but these fibers can have drawbacks not easily recognized. Cotton, wool, linen and bamboo sound great and when the word organic is used they sell themselves. A closer inspection reveals the use of agrochemicals and high energy consumption when cultivating and preparing the non organic versions of these fibers for the market. The end uses of some natural fibers combine them with toxic resins and synthetics that are harmful to the environment and recycling becomes almost impossible because the separation of the fibers and resins is so difficult. Sheep are fed drugs sometimes to have the wool fall off and treated with chemicals to kill ticks, flies and maggots. Organic wool and cotton use more land for production leaving parts unproductive. Additionally organic wool still has to use the dry cleaning process, which consumes harmful chemicals.

Regenerated fibers like rayon, lyocell and acetate come from cellulose, one of the most abundant resources, but the process to create them uses chemicals and produces pollution. The viscose process to produce rayon was so harmful that all plants manufacturing rayon in the United States were closed by 1990. Rayon-bamboo fibers on the market sound ecologically friendly to the average consumer but the viscose process is still used to create the rayon fiber. The GAMA website showcases acetate as the green fiber and boasts its sustainable characteristics. The production does use cellulose but it has to be treated with chemicals in order to create the fiber. GAMA claims that the acetone used in the process is biodegradable and recovered heavily. Acetate is also a mostly dry clean only fiber.

Synthetic fibers are produced with an oil based (petroleum) chemical that is not organic or renewable so automatically we think they are the worst fibers. Polyester does require acids in production but the monomers are cheap and it is highly recycled. Nylon is chemically complex but it has great performance and longevity, the need for replacements and substitutes is not as frequent. Olefin is cheap, recyclable and is undyeable, so fewer chemicals are used when making olefin because it does not have to be dyed. Does the process of production alone make these fibers completely bad?

Dr. Bide posed the question, "Are we shuffling chairs on the Titanic?" I think we are scrambling for answers on a ship that poses the threat of capsizing. When companies push the minuscule environmental property or angle of their product to promote its "green" aspect, it might meet government regulation by a footstep or full stride. Unfortunately the meaning and practices of sustainability vary from country to country, culture to culture and person to person. Individuals need to figure out what they do or can do to be sustainable which truly depends on who we are. As Dr. Bide suggested, are we the tree hugger, marketer, middle ground, realist or realist with concerns for the future?