Organic Cotton

[soultek]

Seen this a a few products, namely from Loomstate, Howies, and even the Nike retro Tshirts and Polos from earlier this year.

Marketing ploy? Or does organic cotton really make a difference for the environment? I also assume that it doesn't make any difference for the quality of the finished product either.

Discuss..

[tangerine]

One important thing is, for everything grown organically, there is that much less pesticides/chemicals going into the soil, and the water table. Generally less poisoning of the entire planet.

from (www.peopletree.com):

*The WHO estimates that as many as 20,000 deaths and 3 million chronic health problems are caused by poisoning related to agricultural pesticides globally each year.

*Worldwide, conventional cotton farming uses only about 3 percent of total farmland but consumes 25 percent of the chemical pesticides and fertilizers used globally. In India, it's as much as 50 percent of pesticides used on as little as 5 percent of the total agricultural land.

*At least three of the chemicals used heavily in cotton production are in the "dirty dozen" - so dangerous that 120 countries agreed at a UNEP conference in 2001 to ban them, but so far this hasn't happened.

*Organic cotton is grown in approximately 15 countries, but still represents only 0.6% of global cotton production. We want to increase this figure to 10% by 2010.

...

(thanks to Melisande at thefashionspot.com)

[darknworn]

if it applies to food, cotton isn't much of a difference...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4312591.stm

give credit to human ingenuity and science...if we grow everything organically, there's no way to feed the world's population as it exists today.

"God is Dead" - Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is Dead" - God

[ringring]

Quote:

Seen this a a few products, namely from Loomstate, Howies, and even the Nike retro Tshirts and Polos from earlier this year.

Marketing ploy? Or does organic cotton really make a difference for the environment? I also assume that it doesn't make any difference for the quality of the finished product either.

Discuss..

--- Original message by soultek on Aug 19, 2005 08:30 PM

Obviously some of it is marketing - otherwise the brands would not be publicising the fact that their particular line was using organic cotton. In a saturated clothing market, being 'organic' gives a product an USP.

If they were purely concerned about the environmental issues regarding non-organic cultivation and not using it as a marketing ploy , then they would silently go about changing all their lines to organic and not market it at all.

[Good]

Well, yes and no... Say that they are purely concerned with the environmental issues surrounding non-organic cotton, how else can you convince people that organic cotton is the way to go without spreading the word and making it something desirable, without marketing it?

[darknworn]

studies have been done on this. economically, growing organic foods does not make sense. environmentally, it does not make a difference. anything with an organic label now is purely marketing. the same stuff is marketed to urban mommies and daddies with 2.14 kids at home, a three thousand square feet home with central heating and air conditioning (which is on 24/7 because the temperature has to be a perfect 71.5 degrees), with an SUV and a car in the garage too boot.

i'm all about eating farm fresh, collectively grown foods once a while, and i do like the texture of coarse, less refined organic cotton...but please, this does not make a diddily squat of environmental difference. there are bigger fishes to fry. try to drive less, walk more, leave your windows open as much as you can...and tell those pansies in washington to find their conscience and make those damn industrial conglomerates pay for their pollutions.

"God is Dead" - Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is Dead" - God

[soultek]

It seems the push for organic cotton is to reduce pesticides, whereas the push for organic food is to not eat genetically altered foods? I don't really subscribe to either I'm afraid. As an engineer, I am all for science improving our farming. I know there are a lot more esoteric issues I have not thought enough about though.

Regarding marketing. I agree with ringring AND with Good. I believe if they truly had altruistic intentions, they wouldn't market them as organic. However, I also agree with Darkworn that one or two companies that do it hardly make a difference. If they are trying to support a movement, then publicity is what it needs at this point. If they spawn public demand (even just among high end lines) for green friendly clothing, it could take the route of the Prius? Because that car has no cost benefit even with gas prices what they are. Because in 7 years you have to replace its very expensive battery. Purchasing a Prius is for people who would like to pollute less. (or maybe for people who would rather pay later than over time)

I also noticed that loomstate's website has an ORG domain. Not too easy to get unless you are a bonafied organization. Maybe they are more altruistic than we think?

[ringring]

Quote:

Well, yes and no... Say that they are purely concerned with the environmental issues surrounding non-organic cotton, how else can you convince people that organic cotton is the way to go without spreading the word and making it something desirable, without marketing it?

--- Original message by Good on Aug 20, 2005 02:00 AM

...like I said above, some of it is marketing. I'm not against marketing at all BTW.

Although environmental values and fashion would tend to have some intrinsically conflicting issues. Fashion being a throw-away culture whereby one is encouraged to changes clothes every season to follow trend whims, whereas it would be environmentally more sound to wear clothes until they were worn out.

[Shorty Long]

Quote:

if it applies to food, cotton isn't much of a difference...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4312591.stm

give credit to human ingenuity and science...if we grow everything organically, there's no way to feed the world's population as it exists today.

--- Original message by darknworn on Aug 19, 2005 11:13 PM

i totally agree with what was said in the bbc article...'organic' is a term that has been watered down...especially with the FDA guidelines that came out a few years ago...in effect, it provided national standards that standardized the definition of 'organic' and allowed the multinationals to more easily tap into the growing market for 'enviro-friendly' foods.

however, from what i understand, our so-called 'ingenuity and science' constantly provides a global surplus of food (have you seen all the overweight people populating the earth?), but that food just isn't distributed very evenly.

i feel that the bottom line is, most companies don't want to invest the time and money into truly using methods of growning and producing environmentally-sound goods because, in the long run, it doesn't matter to most people...which in most ways, i agree...at the end of the day, most people want to have the 'luxury' to spend $0.99 on a burger and $2.00 on a six-pack of undershirts

i, on the other hand, would be all for spending a bit more, having less, and be assured of a certain quality.

[Geowu]

I am totally for spending more... if there was a shirt for a thousand dollars (justified) I'd rather work hard and buy it.

[soultek]

As someone involved in the consumer electronics biz, I've noticed this slow convergence in commerce. I guess it's been happening since the 50's. Product becomes cheaper and more widely available, where now most everyone in the country can afford a cheap version of almost anything available. As a result, there is a general watering down of quality for the mass marketed products. But on there otherhand, that mass market watering down creates a backlash of high end niche lines.

I will also say that while I think most people on this board here will not compromise on quality for their clothings, I'd be willing to bet there is something they buy that they do compromise on. You cannot be a conisseur of everything. But, it's a catch 22. You can get 501's from the outlet for 20$, there's a pretty good 30$ DVD player out there, and grapes are in season year round. I think many of you would rather drop $ on some APCs or Japanese selvedge, but then might eat Jack & the Box every day. I'm no saint either. And saying that you are makes you elitist and blind to your unavoidable participation in today's economy. At the same time we are all guilty and innocent, winners and losers. We reap the benefits and suffer the side effects.

just my 2 cents

[Geowu]

as the watering down in quality exists, will it ever stop or be reversed, or will it continue?

there's some things that just can hardly get worst than they already are.

[soultek]

The watering down in quality will continue. Products will become more disposeable. The push will be for small, faster, and cheaper. Functionality will continue to be emphasized over quality. 'Good enough' for the masses will continue to be the status quo. It will not reverse or stop for a while. I think we are definitely in the thick of it.

It is not necessarily bad, I don't think. Though, it has taken me a long time to come to this conclusion. It is just a change in technology, and a loss of traditions. I guess that is progress, it happens. If you are a denim lover, you lament the loss of traditional methods that yielded the best denim that ever will be made. But in 100 years, people might be wearing something different. And, dare I say, better? Hopefully. I am not a preservationist, so I do not hold the same view as I would imagine others on this board would have regarding things like this.

[Geowu]

I agree in a certain way the progress in technology should be combined with the best quality. One thing does not replace the other. Think, for example, denim . Technology has evolved, but it is still not better than it was 100 years ago. Dare I say, with all technology denim is worst on the overall. Well, maybe there are some denim that are better than 100 years old Levis. 0,0001% of the denim in the world maybe?

The sad thing is... with mass-production, and the watering down in quality, the price remains the same and the quality goes down. The same quality as before, if there is such thing, skyrockets in price.

Edited by Geowu on Aug 20, 2005 at 04:26 PM

[Phrederick]

Quote:

I agree in a certain way the progress in technology should be combined with the best quality. One thing does not replace the other. Think, for example, denim . Technology has evolved, but it is still not better than it was 100 years ago. Dare I say, with all technology denim is worst on the overall. Well, maybe there are some denim that are better than 100 years old Levis. 0,0001% of the denim in the world maybe?

The sad thing is... with mass-production, and the watering down in quality, the price remains the same and the quality goes down. The same quality as before, if there is such thing, skyrockets in price.

Edited by Geowu on Aug 20, 2005 at 04:26 PM

--- Original message by Geowu on Aug 20, 2005 04:21 PM

You say that on a similar quality item, the price skyrockets. Are you sure that it is not just inflation that increases the price? Lets say a pair of Levi's were $3 in 1900. If inflation were 4%, that pair would cost over $150 today. I bet those numbers, which I completely made up, are less dramatic than the actual numbers, and I would be intetested in the actual numbers if anyone could dig them up.

Obviously it is true that some things do have a general decrease in quality as a function of price, but I don't think it is so true for jeans.

[Geowu]

good point.

this graphic shows the buying power of the US Dollar since the 1900.

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/wallenwein/images/032004$power.jpg

I figure the value is approx. 1/25 of what it was on the year 1900.

You need 25 dollars in the present time to buy 1 dollar of the 1900.

[ringring]

Think, for example, denim . Technology has evolved, but it is still not better than it was 100 years ago. Dare I say, with all technology denim is worst on the overall. Well, maybe there are some denim that are better than 100 years old Levis. 0,0001% of the denim in the world maybe?

That's a pretty strong statement. Presumably to come to that conclusion, one would need to be very familiar with denim production techniques from 100 years ago and also have a good knowledge of the technology involved in modern denim mills?

Or failing that, have extensive experience with 100 year old denim and be able to compare it with a broad range of modern denims produced by modern mills worldwide.

By which criteria is 100 year old denim better than modern denim? Or by which criteria is the modern technology inferior?

I believe denim consumers have never had it better. We can buy jeans with huge range of styles, weights, weaves, washes, stretch denims and at all price ranges. We can buy jeans made in all corners of the globe and shop at the click of a button. The choice is wonderful and immense.

[Geowu]

sorry. You are right, I unfortunately tend to exaggerate things a bit.

The criteria is that, modern jeans that try to repro 100 yr old Levis, maybe with better cotton? cost a lot.

[soultek]

I believe denim consumers have never had it better. We can buy jeans with huge range of styles, weights, weaves, washes, stretch denims and at all price ranges. We can buy jeans made in all corners of the globe and shop at the click of a button. The choice is wonderful and immense.

I agree wholeheartedly with ringring. A modern pair of 501 jeans will still last a long time. Jeans were made to be inexpensive workwear: rugged and practical. 100 years ago it was not made for fashion conscious consumers. I didn't touch upon it in my last posts, but the criteria by which quality is judged is important too. Since the quality of jeans was estabilished upon a utilitarian standard, you cannot really fault modern denim too much: it still does what it is supposed to do.

[trinket]

The trouble I have with Loomstate is that their jeans are very distressed.

They've probably halved the life of the jeans by distressing them so much.

... it really confilicts with the idea behind buying organic.

Your impact on the environment will be much less if you buy organic raw denim. Buy items that are durable - that are made to last.

_trinket

[jdavis]

i'm with you trinket.

i must have mentioned it before, but i'm against the idea of loomstate using organic cotton, and then processing the shit out of it with resins and chems. how is that 'loomstate'?

i couldn't care less if the buttons are different colours or if they use polka dot fabric to line pockets.

they should do an organic dry jean. then loomstate might seem like less of a money-grabber

[Geowu]

there's Howies and Kohzo. (*organic denim, don't know how organic though)

[Guest DenimBar1]

Here is what bugs me and no one has brought up. Who cares about organice cotton if the wash process isn't organic as well.

It's like buying an organic chicken and the making a sauce of msg and a whole load of other shit. Yah it will taste good but it defeats the porcess of buying the chicken.

[Geowu]

that's true, but the effort is worth it when it comes to global environment (right?).

the consumer doesn't benefit much from the cotton being organic, although the organic production harms their environment much less. (all other factors aside)

[Guest DenimBar1]

sure. But the rest of the shit in the air is way worse ( in my opinion) but from a retail selling point it's pure marketing unless the whole product is organic.