Tag: organic

Study Shows Organic Cotton Causes Less Environmental Damage than Conventional Cotton

(Cornucopia – Sourcing Journal – by Tara Donaldson) More than just a “feel-good” fiber, organic cotton has now been proven better for the environment than conventional cotton, according to a new study.

Textile Exchange, a nonprofit dedicated to increasing sustainability in the textile sector, in partnership with sustainability consultancy PE International conducted an 18-month Organic Cotton Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) demonstrating the tangible benefits of organic cotton cultivation.

In short, the organic process showed reduced global warming potential, lower soil erosion, less water use and less energy demand.

La Rhea Pepper, managing director of Textile Exchange said the study’s findings mark a turning point for the organic cotton industry as a whole. “For 12 years, we have been promoting the benefits of organic cotton. This study allows us to show the quantitative data that supports what we already know – that organic cotton is much better for our environment than conventional cotton,” she said.

The LCA study looked at the impact of organic cotton production in five categories, and compared the findings to a separate independent peer-reviewed study of conventional cotton done by Cotton Incorporated.

In the comparison, the LCA uncovered that organic cotton had 46 percent reduced global warming potential, 70 percent less acidification potential (such as acid rain), 26 percent reduced soil erosion potential, 91 percent reduced blue water (water withdrawn via immigration) consumption, and 62 percent reduced energy demand.

“Under current system boundaries, the difference in results can be attributed to the lower agricultural inputs that are required by the principles of organic agriculture, namely of mineral fertilizer, pesticides, as well as the practices related to tractor operations and irrigation,” the report noted.

The lower acidification potential can be attributed to reduced or avoided agricultural inputs like fertilizer and pesticide production, irrigation pumps and tractor operations. The difference in field emissions due to varied amounts of applied nutrients also contributed to the disparity.

In terms of soil erosion, organically cultivated systems can prevent 90 percent of the soil erosion that would otherwise enable washing off of nutrients into nearby water and soil bodies. Cultivation of rotation crops and intercropping also contribute to less loss in nutrients due to leaching.

The LCA found that nearly all (95 percent) of water used to produce organic cotton is green water, or rainwater and moisture stored in soil and used for plant growth. Organically cultivated cotton in the regions surveyed receive relatively little irrigation in addition to rainfall, reducing blue water consumption—the impact category with the highest relevance to the environment.

Avoiding mineral fertilizer, as organic cotton does, reduces the use on non-renewable energy since mineral fertilizers are derived from petroleum and have a high primary energy demand.

“This information is empowering for the people and organizations along the organic cotton supply chain, including farmers, cotton ginners, spinners, brands and retailers and all the way to the consumer level. Making a commitment to plant, grow, cultivate and use organic cotton in our textiles is also making a commitment to improve our water, soil and air,” Pepper said.

In terms of costs, Pepper said there are a few things retailers can do to accommodate the higher costs of organic cotton compared to conventional cotton: Strategically put organic cotton into products in which consumers place high value – for example, baby wear. This is where consumers are willing to invest a little more to have the best possible materials; Work within their supply chain to leverage cost-effective ways to save on shipping and other costs so they can then accommodate the higher price (and value) of organic cotton; Engage their consumer–show them the value of their investment in organic cotton. This can help eliminate the barriers consumers have to face in understanding why costs are higher and they will eventually be willing to pay a little bit more.

Data for the study was culled from the top five countries for organic cotton cultivation, India, China, Turkey, Tanzania and the United States—which combined account for 97 percent of global organic cotton production.

“The brands and retailers that are committed to organic cotton have seen first-hand the positive results that going organic has on communities, soil, water and more. They already understand the value. What this LCA does is give them the numbers and proof to support what they already know. This LCA demonstrates what we have been saying all along. In addition, this LCA can help convince companies that have been on the fence about organic cotton. To see the results in real numbers is what some need to make the commitment to incorporate organic cotton into their long-term plans,” Pepper said.

Yes, Organic Farming Can Feed the World

(Cornucopia – TakePart – by Anna Lappe) A few years ago, I was at a biotechnology trade meeting listening to a panel on GMOs. Throughout the two-hour session, the panelists all sang the praises of the technology—not too surprising at an industry event. (At the time, the GMOs under commercial planting were limited to seeds genetically engineered to produce an insecticide and/or resist a proprietary herbicide.)

What was unexpected was what came next: One of the speakers took the mic to say those opposed to GMOs should be tried for crimes against humanity. Seriously. Sure, the comment may have been a gross misuse of the term, but a similar sentiment runs throughout the messaging from the biotech industry that says we can’t feed the world if we don’t embrace the technology.

If my experience last month in Turkey is any indication, the notion that GMOs are the only way to feed a growing population is way out of step with both the leading thinkers on food and farming and the world’s smallholder farmers—who produce much of what the planet eats and 80 percent of the food in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

These farmers may not have money on their side, but I saw the power of strength in numbers at the Organic World Congress. Held this year in Istanbul, the conference brought together people from 81 countries to discuss the latest research from organic farm fields and to share private and public developments that promote organic agriculture.

What I heard should have biotech execs shaking in their boots, or their penny loafers, as the case may be: Organic agriculture is taking off around the world, especially where it’s needed most. About 80 percent of all organic producers are based in developing countries, with India, Uganda, Mexico, and Tanzania leading the charge. To date, 162 nations are now home to certified organic farms, and in 2012 the 37.5 million hectares of farmland produced a harvest worth $63.8 billion. While that works out to less than 1 percent of global agricultural land, the figure dramatically undercounts the actual amount of land farmed using organic principles, as many farmers are not part of an official certification program. And consider that globally, organic agriculture has received a fraction of the subsidies and 0.4 percent of the research dollars funneled into chemical farming ventures.

One of the themes of the three-day gathering in October was that embracing these practices is increasingly being seen as key to food security, from national departments of agriculture all the way to the halls of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Several speakers quoted José Graziano da Silva, the head of the FAO, who said, “We cannot rely on an input-intensive model to increase production—the solutions of the past have shown their limits,” at a recent international summit.

In Istanbul, former U.S. Department of Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan shared examples of interest in organic agriculture at the USDA: “Times have radically changed,” she said. “Fifty thousand people have taken an organic literacy course as staff of USDA.”

Research, including studies presented at the conference in Istanbul, is showing that organic agriculture can deliver reliably high yields—and that organic fields thrive in the face of disaster and duress, where chemical-reliant crops falter. Organic fields, for example, fare significantly better than chemically managed ones in the face of extreme weather, such as droughts or floods. A 30-year study from the Rodale Institute, for example, found that organic farm fields yielded 33 percent more in drought years compared with chemically managed ones. Organic agriculture can also reduce on-farm energy use and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. One comparative study in Slovakia found that chemical farming systems were more than 50 percent more “energy demanding” than the organic systems.

Pat Mooney, executive director of the ETC Group, a global antipoverty group, had the audience spellbound by his tales of woe: The monoculture design of industrial agriculture has decimated species diversity in our food system.

“In the last half century,” Mooney said, “the industrial food chain has destroyed 75 percent of the genetic diversity of our food chain.” Mooney’s message was that organic agriculture is key to protecting this disappearing biodiversity, which farmers have long known is the heart of food security.

All this interest; all these benefits. So why isn’t organic agriculture a bigger player in the global marketplace? In part, the answer has to do with the power, specifically the consolidation of power, among the agribusiness giants profiting from the chemical agriculture model. Mooney mentioned that in the two weeks prior, the world’s first- and fourth-largest fertilizer companies merged. While we were gathered in Turkey, news came out that several multinational companies, including one largely controlled by Monsanto, had acquired major stakes in SeedCo, the largest seed company in sub-Saharan Africa. As The Ecologist wrote of the deal, “Taken together, this means that three of the world’s largest biotechnology companies, Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta, all now have a significant foothold on the continent in markets for two of the three major global GM crop varieties: [corn] and cotton.”

I would never suggest promoters of industrial agriculture and GMOs have a Machiavellian strategy for global food chain dominance, but the consolidation of the food chain is alarming. Perhaps that was what was most inspiring about soaking in the stories in Istanbul: The 981 attendees of the Organic World Congress were the faces of the counterforce. The farmers, researchers, and advocates at the front lines are pushing back against this corporate consolidation—and speaking up for a truly sustainable system that can feed the world.

Organic Fashion: Should We Worry About Toxins in Our Clothes?

(DrFrankLipman – Mia James) If you eat a mostly organic diet and increasingly use organic skincare and cleaning products, it probably feels like a logical next step to buy organic clothing. But because of the higher prices and limited availability of organic garments, you may wonder if it’s worth it—what’s the real risk of clothing produced the conventional way? Let’s take a look at what “organic” means when it comes to fashion.

Are There Chemicals In Your Shirt?

If you pull on an article of clothing, let’s say a 100% cotton, blue T-shirt with some kind of print on it, are there chemicals lurking in the fabric? Unfortunately, yes, although they might not be what you’d think. Rather than coming from the cotton itself, most of the toxins in the T-shirt come from what happens long after the pesticides have been sprayed on the crops. Ever wonder what the “new” smell is on clothing, a smell that sometimes even sticks around after a washing? Your favorite shirt might contain one or more of the following chemicals:

  • Azo dyes. These synthetic colorants may release carcinogenic amines (ammonia derivatives), and have been recognized as human bladder carcinogens. Azo dyes are also environmental pollutants.
  • Formaldehyde. This known carcinogen is used prevent clothing from wrinkling. Many popular brands of baby clothes are shown to contain formaldehyde in concentrations as high as 18,000 ppm (parts per million). Supposedly, exposure up to 20 ppm is safe for babies, but I’d rather have zero, thank you!
  • Nonylphenol ethoxylates. These cheap, hormone-disrupting surfactants are sometimes used by the textile industry, and wind up in our water supply when we launder clothing that contains them.
  • Perfluorochemicals. PFCs work beautifully to repel water and stains, but they also break down into a toxic blood contaminant that’s linked with tumor growth and reproductive problems. PFCs are found in wrinkle-, stain-, and water-resistant clothing items, including those with Scotchgard and Gore-Tex tags.
  • Phthalates. Yes, these notorious hormone-disruptors are even in our clothing, often found in either in the dyes or in plastisol prints.

What About Pesticides?

Organic growing methods mean a lot to the environment, as well as to all the hands that actually work among the plants. Cotton that is not grown organically is treated with pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers. Harvesting organic cotton is much safer for the workers who pick it, and those living near cotton crops won’t have pesticides in their water sources.

But in terms of the person wearing the clothing? The toxins used to farm the fiber are almost certainly washed out in the processing of the fiber, so you’re unlikely to get much pesticide exposure by wearing those clothes. I still tell my clients to wash clothing before their kids wear it, because young children are especially vulnerable to the harmful effects of pesticides.

What the “Organic” Label on Clothing Means

Frankly, seeing an “organic” tag on clothing used to be all but meaningless, since manufacturers could take organically grown cotton and treat it with all of the chemicals listed above before selling it. Starting in 2011, however, clothing labeled as organic must be certified by the National Organic Program. In particular, you should look for clothing that is certified by GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard)–this means that the fibers are organic, and also that the garment contains no toxic finishes, dyes, chlorine, or formaldehyde, among other restrictions. The GOTS certification also ensures that the clothing you’re purchasing didn’t employ child labor, and all workers were paid a living wage.

The Bottom Line on Organic Clothes

Although pesticide exposure from your T-shirt is probably negligible, there are a host of other noxious chemicals used in the clothing manufacturing process, many of which remain even after repeated washings. Look for GOTS-certified clothing to ensure your purchases are safe for the environment, the workers who made the garment, and the person wearing it. For recommended brands of organic baby clothes, check out this Safe Baby Clothing Guide.