Fur Production is Cruel to People, Too October 27, 2009

Flipping through the new VegNews yesterday, I came across Rory Freedman’s brief retelling of a confrontation with a callous, nasty fur-wearer. In typical fashion, the perpetrator made it exceptionally clear that she didn’t give a flying fudge about the living beings who suffered brutish lives and extremely painful deaths to become part of a coat.

This was, of course, hardly surprising to me. In a previous job, I routinely had to interact with a large number of fur-loving women. All but one of them* were appallingly rude, whiny, self-entitled, and extremely spoiled. Their unpleasant behavior included, but most certainly was not limited to:

*Shoving AmEx cards in our faces (they all knew the establishment had never accepted them – and I’m not exaggerating; they were unusually aggressive)

*Throwing tantrums when there was a wait for a fitting room

*Verbally abusing staff (one was also prone to uttering ethnic slurs – go figure why someone like that was patronizing a business with a predominantly Asian staff, but she was such a bully that even the business owner was afraid to give her the boot)

*Coming in ten minutes to closing time and demanding same-day turnaround (my boss was quite adamant that she didn’t want to run her business like a sweatshop, so fulfilling such a demand was impossible)

*Coming by after closing time and banging – HARD – on the glass door (as if we were going to wait on anyone after hours – the older employees all had to relieve their babysitters and we younger ones all would have been late for our second jobs)

Do I have to go on, or do you get the idea?

I strongly suspect that someone who doesn’t give a damn about animal rights isn’t going to care all that much about human rights, either. However, the fur industry can in fact be cruel to people, too; and some image-conscious fur-wearers might stop wearing fur if they had any idea how horrible it makes them look. Only someone who truly doesn’t care if everyone knows they lack empathy (think Anna Wintour) can afford to act like they don’t care about the exploitation of the working class.

If you still haven’t picked up a copy of Ellen Ruppel Shell’s book Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture, it’s worth investing in a copy for the following passage alone:

So Deng, a migrant to Guangdong from a mountainous region of central China, told a Washington Post reporter in January 2009 how he had stood knee-deep in vats of hot toxic dye, seven days a week, twelve hours a day, at his job in the Overseas Fur Factory for a salary of $15 a month. Deng said many workers lost their footing or passed out in the fumes…

I was able to locate the article in the Washington Post’s online archives; a free preview can be viewed here (alas, the Post charges for viewing or printing archived articles in their entirety). However, do note that fur production is not the focus of the article.

That passage is also of use when dealing with anyone who falsely claims fur production can be eco-friendly (as mentioned, by yours truly, in several previous entries, faux fur is far more energy-efficient and much less toxic). Would a respected newspaper like the Washington Post make up a story mentioning toxic fur dye when the fur industry and its environmental effects were not the subject of the article in the first place? I don’t think so.

*ONE fur-wearer was polite and well-behaved…which may or may not have had something to do with the fact that her teenage son hated to come in for fittings until I started working there. He had a bit of a crush on me, so she shrewdly inquired about my work schedule. I have to admit it was clever of her.

The Trouble with Greening Your Furniture October 23, 2009

Even if you aren’t planning to re-decorate your home anytime soon, do take a minute to read The Truth About Green Upholstery, an Apartment Therapy Re-Nest guest post by furniture maker Matthew Haly. Frankly, it’s a rather depressing article, but a very honest look at an industry that isn’t exactly motivated to green its products (and, of course, there are plenty of companies that aren’t above greenwashing).

I am not a furniture maker, but I can confirm that Mr. Haly speaks the truth. My mom is an interior designer by training, so I spent my childhood surrounded by carpet samples, paint swatches, and piles of upholstery fabric. Of course, Mom re-upholstered many pieces of furniture over the years, and I myself have done the same thing with some of my own furniture.

Mom believes it’s better to restore and re-upholster an old, ripped chair than it is to wastefully throw the whole thing out, and I agree with her. But what about when one wants to do so as eco-consciously as possible?

Mr. Haly’s article consists largely of breaking down the materials and labor costs of producing green-as-possible furniture versus conventionally produced furniture. He does an excellent job of explaining what is and isn’t green, and why what is greenest is apt to be shockingly expensive.

I had a taste of this myself very recently – the seating in the store is finally starting to fade, and a few of the seams are starting to look strained. It’s time to re-upholster.

The logical thing to do was head to Michael Levine in LA. I flipped through several books of eco-friendly fabric swatches, looking for the right shade of blue or green, or maybe animal print. I knew eco-friendly fabrics tend to cost more, but when I asked the sales associate for pricing…holy crap.

Upholstery-grade polyester faux suede runs around $18 per yard. Sensuede, a faux suede which is made from recycled and recyclable plastic, can top $80 per yard. Ouch!

And that was one of the LESS costly materials. Some of the printed fabrics I considered topped $124 per yard (of course, they were made from post-industrial waste).

Granted, I’ll save some money by re-upholstering the seats myself (and I’m not opposed to hand-stitching), but still…

Oh, by the way, when you are in LA, do check out Michael Levine’s apparel-fabric store across Maple Avenue (gross-out alert: both stores sell cow hides). Their selection of eco-friendly fabric has expanded considerably in the past year. It started with maybe a dozen bolts of organic cotton in boring, sludgy colors, but now they have cotton, bamboo, Tencel, etc. in a variety of colors and prints. I snatched up some gorgeous purple tartan that I’m making into a dress. (I suspect some of the fabrics might be more greenwashed than green, but considering that the fabric you’ll see in chain fabric stores sure as hell isn’t green at all, this is still progress.) Best of all, eco-friendly apparel fabrics don’t always have the sticker-shock effect that eco-friendly upholstery fabrics do (pricing varied from $8-24 per yard; higher than conventional, but still not too bad).

P.S. If you can afford Sensuede when you are ready to re-upholster that old armchair, it is SO soft, and the colors are absolutely gorgeous.

Emma Watson: The Newest Face of Ethical Fashion September 18, 2009

I make no secret of my exasperation with certain celebrities who have no talent, no taste, and zero design skills, yet are inexplicably taken seriously as fashion designers when they decide being rich and famous isn’t enough. I’ve gone over the subject enough times that I really, really don’t feel like rehashing it all again (when I read about the unholy Lohan-Ungaro alliance in the New York Times recently, I struggled to keep from vomiting) so read the archives if you don’t already understand.

The Guardian reports that Harry Potter star Emma Watson is now launching her own line.  Am I mad? Not at all. Actually (even though I’m not about to forget she’s the face of fur-heavy label Burberry), I’d like to shake her hand.

Unlike some celebs I can think of, Emma isn’t doing the line for purely selfish reasons:

“I was excited by the idea of using fashion as a tool to alleviate poverty and knew it was something I could help make a difference with,” she said.

“I think young people like me are becoming increasingly aware of the humanitarian and environmental issues surrounding fast fashion and want to make good choices but there aren’t many options out there.”

A celebrity using her influence and popularity to encourage ethical dressing? I, for one, can get behind that.

Emma’s collection for People Tree (which is fair-trade, largely organic, and creates fair-wage jobs in Nepal, Bangladesh, and India) is expected to be released next February. (Heads-up to my fellow strict vegans: when buying from People Tree, watch out for wool, silk, and seashells. Fortunately, much of the line is organic cotton. And the Jessica dress is too cute.)

Footwear Smackdown: Leather vs. Synthetics September 16, 2009

This article originally appeared in the August 2007 online edition of now-defunct Herbivore Magazine. Thanks to Josh and Michelle for kindly granting their permission to re-publish it here.

If in-depth research concerning environmental effects of leather vs. synthetic materials interests you, consider contacting Olsen Haus. My research has been primarily performance-oriented, whereas Elizabeth Olsen’s has focused more on environmental impact.

Footwear Smackdown: Leather vs. Synthetics

I went vegetarian when I was in college. I majored in fashion design, so I was learning about textiles (including animal skins and their alternatives) while I was in search of animal-free shoes that a) looked good and b) wouldn’t fall apart.

If you’re reading this, you’ve probably conducted the same search at least once. Like me, you’ve probably heard every story in the book about vegan footwear. But, how to separate fact from fiction?

I have put in well over 100 hours of my own research on the subject – poring over boring textiles textbooks, ruthlessly attacking samples of faux leather and (pregan) real leather with everything from boiling water to razor blades, and subjecting one pair of vegan Doc Martens to five solid years of rough wear. Like most people who grew up wearing animal skins, I wasn’t sure it was even possible for the perfect faux leather (comfortable, durable, nice-looking, more Earth-friendly than animal skin) to exist. I must admit my findings, which I will now present without further ado, surprised me at first.

Round 1: Durability

Leather and suede can scratch and scuff with relative ease. They are also prone to splitting, cracking, and tearing (on a personal note, the leather interior in my old car was torn in about 10 places and badly cracked almost everywhere by the time it was traded in, despite preventive care). Leather and suede can also be damaged by mildew.

Good-quality faux leather does not share these problems (I have tested every variety I can find), and lasts as long as leather (sometimes longer). Caveat: Watch out for the cheap stuff; like cheap pantyhose, most of it is meant to fall apart so you’ll buy more in the long run.

Synthetics 1, Leather 0.

Round 2: “Breathability” and Waterproofing

Many leather fanatics claim synthetics do not breathe or aren’t waterproof. Not only are leather and suede not inherently water-resistant, they lose some to all of their “breathability” when waterproofed or given a patent finish (by the way, “patent leather” does not refer to shiny faux leather but to animal skin with a shiny patent finish).

Some of the better faux leathers (i.e. the ‘Vegetan Microfiber’ used by Vegetarian Shoes) are both waterproof and breathable (bonus: unlike the cheap vinyls of yesteryear, they are flexible enough to let the wearer move comfortably).

Synthetics 1, Leather 0.

Round 3: Cleaning and Care

Leather and suede generally require expensive cleaning performed by an expert dry cleaner. I have yet to find a faux leather that couldn’t be cleaned with a damp rag (if absolutely filthy, break out the Simple Green or Dr. Bronner’s), and some (i.e. Lorica) can even be machine-washed. (Side note: my uncle accidentally ran his PVC wallet through a hot washing machine cycle. Unlike its leather predecessor, it’s still in near-mint condition.)

Keeping leather items soft and supple generally requires periodic treatments with oils, creams, and polishes (skin needs moisture). Not only are many of these products totally not vegan (mink oil, eeew!), this is not necessarily a necessary step with faux skins (though Vegetarian Shoes does make nice vegan shoe polish if you like your boots to shine).

Synthetics 1, Leather 0.

Rounds 4-7: Environmental Effects and Consumption of Resources

We all know that raising a large farmed animal to slaughtering size uses a surprising amount of resources – animal feed, thousands of gallons of water, medications/hormones/other drugs, and all the petroleum used in getting the drugs and feed to the farm, getting the animals to the slaughterhouse, and then moving the skins to the tannery (see next point re: chemicals used in the leather trade). If more of the human population switched to synthetic materials rather than further subsidizing the meat and dairy industries (do I really need to remind anyone that a cow’s hide accounts for half of its post-mortem value?), fewer raw materials would be used in the long run.

Synthetics 1, Leather 0.

Leather requires more energy, much more space, and a great deal more labor than synthetic fabrics. For example, the staking process. Staking machines stretch and flex tanned leather – put simply, “chewing” the skin – to make it soft enough to wear. This is unnecessary with synthetics.

Even thick fake leather can be machine-sewn in most cases; many leather garments must be partially or entirely sewn by hand (I seem to recall reading about a mitered leather coat costing $9,000 because it required 120 hours of hand stitching; at the risk of stating the obvious it is more efficient to run a sewing machine and light a workroom for a few hours than to just light the workroom for 15 8-hour days).

Synthetics 1, Leather 0.

Leather must be treated with chemicals to keep it from rotting and, if desired, to give it certain finishes or colors. The skin goes through multiple cleanings, including removing the hair, which requires the use of alkaline chemicals or enzymes. Chrome tanning has been the norm for decades because it can be accomplished in mere hours (vegetable tanning takes several weeks; many tanneries won’t do it). The preserving chemicals, often called “mordants,” are better known for their association with the funeral industry. In fact, that “new leather” smell isn’t a leather smell at all. The distinctive odor is produced by the chemical reaction of the animal’s skin with formaldehyde and chromium salts (which is why the odor tends to fade over time). Chlorine use in materials like PVC (polyvinyl chloride) can be reduced by adding more hydrogen to the compounds. Synthetic fiber manufacturing accounts for only 1% of petroleum used (and only half of that is the actual raw material); 95% of the world’s petroleum is used for fuel (as previously noted, the leather industry directly and indirectly uses large quantities of petrochemicals). It’s likely that more chemicals are used to make one pair of leather shoes than would be used in one pair of synthetic shoes.

Synthetics 1, Leather 0.

The aforementioned vegetable-tanned leather, out of favor for so long, has had a slight resurgence in popularity lately because of the belief that it is less harmful to the environment. However, those in attendance at the first-ever World Shoes Accessories ecoEthics Conference, held this February in Las Vegas, heard Bill Bartholomew, a representative for The Leather Group, admit that “eco-friendly” vegetable tanning is actually just as polluting as chrome tint! (Case in point: long before chrome tint existed, tanners on Florence, Italy’s Ponte Vecchio are said to have turned the Arno River into a stinky mess.)

Synthetics 1, “Vegetable Tanned” Leather 0.

Round 8: Biodegradability

Leather does not biodegrade (see previous point re: chemical use). Very old leather can crack, chip, and otherwise appear to start decomposing, which is not quite the same as rotting.

Some faux leathers are at least partly biodegradable. The faux leather that Blackspot (Adbusters Media Foundation’s indie shoe label) uses for its V1 sneaker and V2 boot is 70% biodegradable. Some faux leathers are cotton with a vinyl or polyurethane coating. Although not ideal, at least the cotton can still decompose.

There reportedly is a 100% biodegradable vegan leather in existence (which I understand Adbusters considered using), but vegan shoe manufacturers have not been quick to embrace this material because the only factory that currently makes it is located in Vietnam (factories in Southeast Asia are still notoriously hard to monitor for fair labor practices).

Synthetics 1, Leather 0.

Round 9: Effects upon Human Health

There has been some debate about PVC and polyurethane manufacturing causing an increased risk of cancer. Even if this is so, tannery employees and men living near tanneries still have a higher risk of testicular cancer than men working or living elsewhere.

Both leather and synthetics can cause allergic reactions in very sensitive people. Interestingly, some of said sufferers are allergic to both materials.

While synthetics are not necessarily better in this area, they are certainly no worse.

Synthetics 0, Leather 0.

Round 10: What the Hell Is This Stuff, Anyway?

As a vegan retailer, I hear this question almost every day. No, it’s not necessarily plastic (if you have been referring to faux leather with the “p” word, PLEASE stop). Faux leather is commonly made of a carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen compound. (The next time someone derisively refers to your shoes as “plastic”, you can now scoff, sneer, and truthfully inform them that they’re carbon-based…kind of like dumb humans. Ha!)

By contrast, leather is made from pretty much any living being that ever had skin. I have personally seen shoes and purses made from alligators, kangaroos, snakes, pigs, emus, horses, fish skin, fetal lamb…the list goes on. While most leather is cow or pig skin, some leather suppliers in China have stooped to skinning stray dogs to meet quotas. As last winter’s Sean John dog fur fiasco proved, labels can lie. Leather wearers like to think they know the species of the animal who died for their shoes, but unless they have had a DNA test performed on the skin, this is not necessarily the case.

Synthetics 0.5, Leather 0.

Bonus Round: Appearance

Even with careful wear and lots of conditioning, most old leather does eventually start to show its age (experience taught me long ago that even buttery designer leather shoes can only take so much). Dark leather (aka the ubiquitous black and brown) shows scuffing, scratching, and aging to a greater extent than light-colored leather.

While cheap fake leather can start to look worn out pretty fast (though on occasion the cheap stuff just might shock you by lasting a while), decent fakes look pretty much the same for years (I have found this to be especially true with PVC). Good faux leather so successfully mimicks animal skin that most people cannot distinguish it from “the real thing” without reading the label (in Italy’s street markets, Lorica and other fakes are routinely passed off as genuine leather), and now, in 2007, we can even – gasp! – CHOOSE between textures and finishes. Antiqued, patent, pebble, fake snake, basic matte, faux pony, mock croc – it’s all out there (anyone doubting this is welcome to tour my closet – by appointment, of course).

Synthetics 1, Leather 0.

Final Score:

Synthetics 9.5, Leather 0.

I did not learn any of this from the animal rights movement. I learned it in fashion school – a strange world where silk scarf painting was a required assignment and my Tailoring instructor gave me the weirdest look for using linen instead of wool to make a jacket.

Most of my information on the production and impact of faux leather came from class lectures and from one particular textbook, Fabric Reference. The book’s author, Mary Humphries, included a somewhat dismissive remark about animal rights activists in the introduction to the extensive fur chapter (feel your skin crawl here), so I am quite convinced she was in no way biased in favor of living beings when she included the good points of synthetics!

Bamboozled? June 23, 2009

A few months after the store opened, a representative from a self-described eco-friendly clothing line dropped by with a few line sheets. I wasn’t busy at the time, so I met with him then and there. He prattled on for several minutes about what a great fiber it is before I asked a few questions.

Where is the bamboo grown? He named a few Southern states.

And where are the clothes made? China.

It seemed to me that it would make far more sense to either make the clothes in the US, or to source bamboo grown closer to the Chinese factory, since the line was only sold in the US. It would certainly use less fuel and result in a smaller carbon footprint for the clothes. But, I decided not to go there – he was just a sales rep; it’s not like he had any say in the manufacturing process.

I also asked about the process used to soften the bamboo, and couldn’t get a straightforward answer out of the guy. I decided not to risk an order.

We’ve all heard what a great eco-friendly material bamboo is, and that it even makes great fabric.

Bamboo is the fastest-growing plant on Earth, tough and durable, and even has antibacterial properties. Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Well, it is amazing stuff. I’m actually wearing a bamboo dress right now, and I swear it’s better than cotton. But, when purchasing bamboo, there are things that conscious consumers must keep in mind.

• Bamboo, in its natural state, is hard and stiff. Bamboo fabric is wonderfully soft and drapes beautifully. How is this possible? To put it bluntly, chemicals. Bamboo has to be treated to soften it enough to spin and weave/knit into fabric. Some manufacturers of bamboo fabric save and re-use their chemicals, but I have it on good authority that a few dump them, so always ask. Costly pollutants suck, and defeat the purpose of purchasing bamboo fabric in the first place. Oh, and it also has to be pulped (like rayon) to be made into fabric, which uses water and energy. Just FYI.
• Giant pandas’ primary food source is bamboo – but they only consume 25 varieties (which can be scarce in some of the areas they now inhabit), and every time a variety they eat dies en masse (it always dies en masse), there are more than a few hungry (if not starving) pandas out there until the variety regenerates. Logically, human harvesting of bamboo should not include the varieties consumed by pandas. Some companies that use Chinese-grown bamboo consciously avoid these varieties for that reason, but there are a select few (naming no names, of course) that clam up and won’t give a clear answer if you ask.
• As mentioned above, always ask where it’s grown and where it’s made – and under what conditions it’s made. While most eco-friendly companies are also labor-friendly, it’s still important to ask (and because bamboo fabric isn’t exactly cheap, if you are going to invest in a bamboo garment, why not spend your money on a fair-trade one where it will do even more good?).

Now that you know the potential pitfalls of bamboo, PLEASE shop carefully.

“Privilege” Is Relative May 19, 2009

Yesterday’s Daily Mail featured this article on Eco Age, or rather, on its founder Livia Firth, a former film producer who is married to film star Colin Firth.

First off, I don’t care for any implication that Ms. Firth just might be a bored, pampered woman bankrolled by her husband. Ms. Firth does, in fact, have her own work history; who’s to say she doesn’t have her own savings, income from investments, etc.? She’s not Marie Antoinette at the Petit Hameau, for crying out loud. For the record, independent retail store owners work their arses off, sometimes to the tune of 14-hour days.

With that out of the way, this excerpt sums up the collision of two issues in fashion:

Livia’s response when I dare to venture that her new shop is an indulgence, merely a way for the middle-classes to assuage guilt while the planet burns, is surprisingly heartfelt and blunt.

‘I think if you are privileged, you have to be responsible. Shopping ethically is not a luxury. If you are a mother, why would you want to buy something that exploits children?’

I tell her that I have stood in Primark challenging mums about the ethics of what they are buying, pointing out that if a pair of jeans cost £1.50, someone somewhere is getting screwed, yet very few of these shoppers seem to care.

While it’s true that many, many people have to pinch their pennies so hard they squeak (especially now), crying poor is a pathetic excuse for buying crap that exploits the hell out of both Third World workers and Primark’s employees (to cut a long story short, Primark is the British equivalent of Wal-Mart, especially where labor standards are concerned).

I know firsthand what it is like to be flat broke (or, as they say in London, skint). Did I support unethical brands or unethical stores to stretch my limited funds as far as they could go? HELL NO. I bought only what I absolutely needed, bought used whenever possible, and stayed far away from stores that I knew were engaging in such unsavory behavior as locking workers inside overnight. (Sure, I may not have to raise three kids on one income like some families must, but at the time I was also buying MOST of the food, veterinary care, and litter for seven cats – only one of whom was mine – which was VERY difficult to work into my tiny budget. My then-roommate was the world’s worst animal guardian.)

Here in Orange County, we have a green store in a similar vein, The Road Less Traveled. I have yet to hear of anyone nastily attacking Delilah, the store owner, for carrying eco-friendly, ethical goods that in some cases happen to cost more than their sweatshop-made, pollution-belching alternatives. (I’m on friendly terms with Delilah – she’s a client – so if it was the case, there’s a reasonable chance I’d have heard about it.) I suspect Ms. Firth is an easier target for hecklers just because she’s richer than they are. (Delilah, by contrast, is the girl-next-door who waited tables at a nearby restaurant and saved her pennies for years.)

Commenter “Somayya” from Middlesborough, UK, who arrogantly derides eco-friendly products as “daylight robbery”, snottily asserts that she will continue to support vile stores like Primark because they sell “affordable fashion for people who aren’t so fortunate in the financial department.” Uh, no, they do not. They sell flimsy garbage made by exploited workers because there will always be people who, even if they can afford the best of everything, insist on paying as little as possible, ethics be damned.

What “Somayya” really wants is to shipped off to a Third World sweatshop for a couple of years, making so little money she cannot afford two, let alone three, square meals a day, forced to live in an overcrowded firetrap dormitory with little to no ventilation and maybe a roach problem, fed amphetamines to keep her awake for up to 72 hours when there’s a rush order, denied loo breaks, and groped or beaten by her supervisors. Maybe then she will realize that, while she may not be rich by British standards, she is still extremely spoiled compared to a huge chunk of the world’s population.

Western consumers hold the majority of the world’s purchasing power. We have a moral obligation to only buy ethically-produced, environmentally-responsible goods.

Five hundred years ago, all fabric was organic, since chemical pesticides, potentially toxic dyes, etc. had not yet been invented. All shoes were made by cobblers and their apprentices, and all clothes were made either at home or by tailors, dressmakers, and their apprentices.

Because it took more time and effort to make apparel back then, only very rich people had extensive wardrobes. Per my fashion history books, it was common for the average woman (i.e. a farmer’s wife) to have a few everyday dresses and one nicer dress to wear to church on Sundays. Usually, that one good dress would also be her wedding dress, and it wasn’t uncommon for the dress to be passed down for several generations.

Life was far from perfect back then, but clothes were built to last, and there was no question as to where they were made or by whom.

Until mass manufacturing caught on, it was the norm for clothes and shoes to be carefully made by hand. When shoe soles wore out, they were repaired or replaced with new soles. When young girls grew too tall for their dresses, an extra strip of fabric, or “growth stripe”, was added to the hem. Holes were patched. Socks were darned. Clothes with hopelessly worn-out seams would have any usable scraps salvaged and made into quilts along with small fabric scraps left over from making clothes at home. Even some rich children wore their siblings’ hand-me-downs.

There was very, very little waste related to clothing production – at least until it shifted to smoke-spewing factories. When some unethical industrialists realized they could make a fortune by cutting every single corner – especially workers’ pay – it was the beginning of the end.

I do believe we’d ALL be better off if we’d stuck to having fewer, but better made, clothes.

As of this writing, my closet is about 60% empty. In the past year, I’ve been gradually cleaning it out, donating everything that no longer fits, was never quite right in the first place, was cute on my 22-year-old self but is pushing it now that I’m 27, etc., to charity. I’m not replacing those clothes at anywhere near the rate I’m giving them away because I’m looking specifically for clothes that hit the trifecta: flattering, perfect fit, ethically produced. It’s especially difficult for me to do this because my body type is perhaps best described by a “Dangerous Curves” road sign and most of the brands I’ve found tend to cater to rail-thin females, but I’m still doing what I can, damn it. When you know what is right and what is wrong, how can you support something you know is wrong?

Say what you will about Livia Firth, but the next time I’m in London, I’m visiting her shop. (Did anyone else notice she’s wearing Beyond Skin shoes in the picture? Beyond Skin doesn’t list Eco Age as a stockist, but maybe the site just needs updating.)

Elizabeth Olsen Rocks! March 17, 2009

I periodically stop by Huntington Central Library, take the elevator up to the periodicals floor, and spend an hour or two there reading all the fashion magazines to stay on top of current trends. This past Saturday, I was disgusted to see an article in Lucky Magazine falsely claim that “eco friendly” leather exists. It doesn’t. Anyone with a basic understanding of textile science would know that…but most people who consider themselves veg*n or eco-conscious don’t study textile production (these days, most people, veg or not, don’t), and some are duped into buying “vegetable dyed” or “vegetable tanned” leather, mistakenly believing it to be a greener choice than all synthetics.

I’ve been on the Girlie Girl Army mailing list for a while (and highly recommend it). I was glad to see the latest newsletter link back to a GGA blog entry from five days ago, guest-written by Elizabeth Olsen, who designs the Olsen Haus vegan shoe line.

For years, I have been trying to use my knowledge and background for the better, especially as it relates to animal-friendly shopping. I answer a dozen questions a day about vegan footwear, including plenty about its environmental effects. I even penned an article for (now-defunct) Herbivore Magazine including the subject, though as the online format proved unpopular with many readers, very few people actually got around to reading it. (I’d link to the article, but the website seems to have vanished. Perhaps when ex-editor Josh Hooten is back in town I’ll seek permission to post it here, as it’s still saved on my hard drive. He’s on a 600-mile bike ride to raise money for Farm Sanctuary and I hate to bother people when they’re on the road.)

In addition to my schooling and personal experience, I put in over 100 hours of my own research for the article. Yet, it’s appalling how many people don’t want to accept the facts (or don’t want to believe me for some reason…for the record, I did NOT profit from that article in any way; it was written strictly as a public service). Elizabeth has been vegan for much, much longer than I have, and has done more research than I have, so hopefully the eco/veggie community will listen to her.

In the comments, one ill-informed reader actually had the nerve to inquire (rather rudely, I thought) whether Elizabeth had actually researched labor issues and the chemicals/byproducts involved in synthetic vs. leather manufacturing. Obviously, she did. One cannot possibly hope to have a serious discussion about the environmental effects of leather or synthetics without researching any chemicals or byproducts involved, and no true vegan would knowingly support child labor. A socially conscious vegan designer would, of course, do her own research concerning the precise origins of the materials available to her (assuming she knew what she was doing, and it’s clear Ms. Olsen does). Of course, Elizabeth is smart enough not to take such a ridiculous inquiry lying down, and replies:

Because this is a blog, I don’t have the space to go into depth with your issues , but… there is skirting around the real issue of the tremendous harm leather causes, obviously to the animals, but also the environment,….Yes, I have done extensive research over the last 20 years, have you?

Thank you, Elizabeth Olsen (and GGA founder Chloé Jo Berman) for bringing the truth to light. Keep it up – stylish people who love animals, the planet, or both need you.

Why Fur is NEVER Eco-Friendly February 3, 2009

Because I happen to know quite a bit more about textiles than the average person on the street, I don’t at all mind sharing my knowledge with those who are uninformed or curious.

Pet peeve:  uneducated dimwits who think they can successfully argue with me about whether animal-derived materials used in clothing are eco-friendly or not.

I have done the reading and research. They have not. None of them have ever even looked at a textile book in their lives (let alone studied the subject), and are merely content to regurgitate whatever garbage some money-grubbing greenwasher has tricked them into believing.

On some level, most of them know it’s ALL crap. They buy into the belief that something immoral is “okay” because they WANT to believe they can have their cake and eat it too. They buy the idea that an ostrich handbag is “okay” because it’s “just byproduct” from production of ostrich meat, when in fact ostrich skin accounts for a whopping 80% of the bird’s post-mortem value (source: The Guardian, as referenced in an earlier post), therefore making the meat the “byproduct”, just because they want that bag and won’t let a little thing like the truth stand in their way.

Similarly, they buy into the ludicrous notion that fur is an “eco-friendly” resource. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fur, like leather, requires IMMENSE amounts of space, energy, and chemicals to produce. In fact, a study conducted by Ford Motor Company in the 1930s concluded that a farmed fur coat consumed many times more energy to produce than a trapped fur coat – and a trapped fur coat required at least four times the energy of a faux fur coat. (Keep in mind that in the 1930s, fur was extremely popular among women of all social classes, and was no doubt worn night and day by the wives of Ford execs. Ford had no reason to doctor its own results in favor of faux fur.)

This excellent factsheet from the Humane Society details the ugly truth about fur’s actual environmental impact. While the HSUS did a pretty good job, they did leave out one fact: animals aren’t shaped like coats. Pelts have to be cut into strips and pieced together, which leaves behind many, many small oddly-shaped scraps of fur (and consumes a hell of a lot of energy!). Not only do some of these go to waste (some are made into gross, creepy cat toys and the like), the need for piecing accounts for the sheer number of animals that have to be slaughtered to produce even a moderately-sized garment.

A few fur producers claim to be using “green” preservation methods. Yeah, right. Fur has to be preserved a certain way (formaldehyde, anyone?) or it will start to decompose, and quickly. Any idiot who read the fur chapter in Textiles 101 knows that. A person would have to be extremely gullible to buy into such a ridiculous idea.

As for “vintage” fur: don’t kid yourself. I practically grew up in antique and vintage stores. Old fur starts to look mangy and gross when it’s been around a certain number of years (usually because it hasn’t been kept in cold storage, but even that’s no guarantee). Sometimes, it smells (still off-gassing, maybe?). If you really want to look like an antique taxidermed animal, I can’t stop you, but I can guarantee that it will not flatter you.

Another Infrequent Internet Roundup January 14, 2009

I don’t know which is scarier, the fact that humans are forcing animals to evolve much faster than they normally would, or the fact that I’m not the least bit surprised by it.

Forward this article to every deluded fruitcake you know who tries to justify hunting (especially trophy hunting) as a form of “preservation.” Who do they think they are kidding?

Don’t know what to do when you catch someone violating an environmental-protection law? Click here.

Shashi Abraham, mother of fashion designer-turned-convicted rapist Anand Jon, is reportedly in India approaching wealthy-looking hotel guests and asking for money to pay for her darling demon spawn’s appeal. Let’s hope the crappy economy thwarts her little fund-raising effort.

And on a lighter note, here’s another great “Letter from the Editor” courtesy of Wilhelmina Slater. This one makes me wish I could afford Stella McCartney’s fabulous shoes, but for now NeuAura does a damn good job of meeting my shoe needs.

The Importance of Cold Water December 17, 2008

Not that any of you noticed (ha), but I’ve been posting less due to this being the busiest time of year and having no money for extra help. Well, it’s been semi-quiet this evening, so for tonight I’m back.

For years I’ve been trying to stress the importance of washing clothes in COLD water – never, ever hot! It’s one thing to wash dirty kitchen towels in hot water if they truly need it, but I try to balance that out by hanging them up to dry. Your clothes should NEVER be washed in hot water.

This must-read article on Treehugger explains the environmental benefits of cold vs. hot, even crunching the numbers – and believe me, all those loads of laundry add up fast, even if you already strive to only wash large loads.

But, there is more to the environmental impact of cold-water washing than just the amount of energy saved. Cold water is easier on clothes, pure and simple (ask anyone who’s spent a few years studying fashion and textiles). Hot water can shrink some materials (especially cotton), cold water won’t (thus reducing the number of too-small Ramones t-shirts you wind up giving your four-year-old niece). Hot water will crack the screenprinting ink on your printed tees faster than cold (the cracking instantly makes them look several years old – cool if it’s a vintage-style shirt, not so cool if it’s brand new). Your clothes are likely to wear out faster if they are washed in hot water. Also, just FYI – using the hot (or “regular”) setting on a dryer is at least as bad for your clothes (personal experience has led me to strongly suspect it’s much, much worse), not to mention less than ideal for your energy bill. I only use the “regular” setting to dry bedding (I’ve actually tried drying it on “delicate” but it takes hours to dry that way). If you don’t believe me, dry the same load of laundry on “regular” one week and do the same load on “delicate” the next week. Compare the lint on the lint trap – which load had more lint? Probably regular. Now consider the fact that dryer lint is a byproduct of your clothes’ gradual wearing away.

Want your clothes to last longer? Hand-wash them whenever possible. I’ve been doing just that for years. I’m always busy, so I typically fill the bathtub in my apartment with about 2 inches of cold water with a little detergent (FYI: I’ve found eco-friendly laundry detergents somewhat easier on my clothes than the scary chemical ones), and just leave a few things soaking while I’m at work, then rinse them and hang them from the shower head to drip-dry after I get home. (If you don’t have an old-fashioned laundry rack or a clothesline, use plastic hangers for drip-drying. Hardly ideal, but metal ones will rust, which will stain your clothes, and wooden ones could get mildewy. Besides, if you don’t have any plastic hangers, odds are someone, somewhere is giving some away.)

The less often you have to replace your clothes, the less impact your wardrobe will have on the planet. Oh, BTW, if you own anything that requires dry cleaning, look for eco-friendly dry cleaners in your area (they DO exist!). I live near one, and I wouldn’t entrust my vintage velvet garb to anyone else. Once, I even had them steam-clean stale, spilled beer out of one of my favorite hats (I just HAD to wear it to a music club in Newport Beach…). It cost more than I paid for the hat, but I can wear it again, the velvet is more plush than ever, and I probably won’t have to have it cleaned for many years. Worth every penny. If you’re like me, you probably prefer fabrics you can wash at home, but realistically, how many people only wear cotton and linen for their entire lives?

One last tip: You don’t HAVE to wash something you’ve only worn once. If an item is visibly dirty or starting to smell, it’s definitely time to wash it (I don’t know about you, but the “stinky hippie” stereotype really annoys me). Items that qualify as “underwear” should be washed after each and every wearing, for obvious sanitary reasons (same goes for socks – bras can usually go a couple days if they aren’t sweaty or smelly). I haven’t washed my jeans since August (when the hems got really sandy at a beach show).

To your washers, eco-warriors!