POLITICS: Clothing: a new food group
By: Annika Larson
My friend stops in her tracks, exclaiming we should stop by Zara on Fifth Avenue. I reluctantly go in with her and watch as she selects pieces she will wear at most once.
I attempt to make the case that Zara is just another ‘fast fashion’ store - one that mass-produces cheap fabrics, selling non-durable clothing that breaks down easily, leading to excessive consumption and environmental harms. “Lex,” I say, “you, we, would all be better off buying high quality clothing that would last.”
But my words appear to fall on deaf ears.
No matter what I say, she won't be leaving empty handed. My friend, like so many others - myself included - has fallen victim to the societal ideal of overconsumption and thrill of superficial ‘deals.’
We live on a resource-constrained planet that cannot sustain society’s current consumption levels. Over 17 million tons of clothing are thrown out each year in the United States alone. With cheaply made clothes, like those at Zara, excess waste is not the only threat. The low-cost clothing is made of cheap synthetic fibers that shed substantially more plastic particles than higher quality clothing.
These plastic particles are known as microfibers: man-made fibers that shed from our clothing, especially when we wash them. The average load of clothing sheds 700,000 in a single wash, and poorly-constructed clothing sheds even more.
Yet, we continue to consume, incentivized by low prices and shifting trends. The signs of our failing system are already evident: plastic particles are everywhere.
Because microfibers are invisible, they easily evade consciousness. We don’t think about them because we don’t see them. Yet they pose tremendous vulnerabilities on ecosystems and ultimately public health that must be addressed.
These synthetic fibers travel to water treatment facilities where you would expect them to be filtered out. Instead, over 40 percent of these sneaky particles pass through freely into our waterways where they not only pollute our lakes, oceans, and rivers, but are also mistaken for food by aquatic life.
After fish consume microfibers, their digestion, metabolism, growth and brain function are all harmed. To make matters worse, these toxic particles absorb other toxins in the ocean, exacerbating their damaging impacts. A 2015 study found that 67 percent of sampled edible fish species off the shore of Indonesia and California contained plastic particles.
Freshwater fish see the same fate. A study sampling fish from Lake Ontario found up to 100 microfibers in a single fish.
We certainly are not safe either -- microfibers are in the fish we eat as well as the beers and water we drink. On average, each one of us consumes 5,800 plastic particles a year, or about a credit card’s worth of plastic per week. Microfibers have been found to persist in people’s lung tissues after being ingested. While the health impacts are not fully understood, we know microfibers are toxic and potentially detrimental to our long-term health.
Yet, rather than acting, we keep consuming, contributing to the proliferation of microfibers without any consideration of the birds, aquatic life, and people we poison with each purchase. I think of my friend who may wear her new clothing only a couple times before throwing them out, ready to go back and buy more, without ever acknowledging the microfibers she will generate or their impacts. As Lexi proudly carries her Zara purchase, she embodies our broken system.
The system requires change. As Scott Sowa, the Sustainable Fisheries Director at The Nature Conservancy asserts, “it boils down to people, business, and elected officials. Human well-being and economic security will always be prioritized over the environment.” It’s time we address microfibers for what they are - a public health concern.
Some companies have recognized microfiber pollution as the crisis it is and consequently acted. Guppyfriend is the first to develop a product to capture microfibers during washes. The idea for its product - a mesh laundry bag that traps up to 95 percent of microfibers released during the wash while effectively cleaning clothing - was developed by Alexander Nolte and Olivier Spies, co-owners of Langbrett, a German retailer. They soon caught the attention of Patagonia, forming the partnership that led to the inception of Guppyfriend.
Others, like Filtrol, a Minnesota based company, have created filters that can be installed to home washing machines. Yet, more businesses must act whether by their own choice or by policy pressure.
We, too, must be held accountable. We need to be discussing microfibers in everyday conversations, washing our clothes less, and refusing to shop at stores such as Zara.
By turning public attention to microfiber pollution, we can demand it be placed on the political agenda. We can form groups to push for legislation such as policy requiring appliance manufacturers to include microfiber filters in washing machines or policy mandating retailers to ensure proper end-of-life care for products or be taxed.
Retailers and consumers alike are responsible for this problem and must be more conscious of our choice’s associated consequences on the environment and our wellbeing.
While the health impacts are being researched, we do not have time to wait to learn what we know -these toxic particles are taking over. Given that microfibers are impacting everything- from the food chain to public health - there is no excuse for inaction.
Annika Larson is a Masters Candidate in Climate and Society at Columbia Climate School