This link has been bookmarked by 1 people . It was first bookmarked on 14 Dec 2007, by Matt Kramer.
-
14 Dec 07
-
A World Consumed by Guilt By ERIC WILSONLET us set aside the clichés about green fashion, ye cynical Kermits, and presume that everyone is now on board with saving the world by doing our holiday shopping at Barneys, where even the window displays promote eco-friendly clothing.
Let us also presume that organic cotton jeans are good for the earth, and soy-based underwear will someday save the polar bears. Let us carry all our purchases of environmentally sensitive clothing made from bamboo, corn, coconuts, hemp and/or pineapples in our reusable designer grocery bags.
If only buying into green fashion was so easy.
No matter how sincere fashion designers may be in their efforts to embrace the green movement this season, consumers may find themselves perplexed by how to gauge the environmental impact of the many products that claim to be eco-friendly.
After factoring in the fabrics used in clothes and how they were produced, the real benefits of soy versus organic cotton versus recycled polyester may be slight, or confusing, or quite possibly misleading.
“When you only look at the raw materials to ask if something is really green, you are like the blind person holding the tail of the elephant,” said Chris Van Dyke, chief executive of Nau, a three-year-old outdoor clothing line founded on the principle of sustainable practices throughout its production cycle, including the ecological costs of shipping and caring for garments. “There’s a whole lot of other factors you need to assess.”
Some clothes, like Loomstate’s $295 organic cotton jeans — sold unwashed and not color-fast, to save energy — require unusual care. A pair of 2(x)ist soy underwear, $24 at Macy’s, include a warning that imperfections are to be expected. “These characteristics should not be considered flaws in the fabric,” the packaging says, “but rather as an intrinsic quality contributing to the uniqueness of the garment.”
Some designs marketed as environment-friendly might include only a fraction of organic cotton, or a tag made of recycled paper. And some so-called green fashion may be downright silly, like the Goyard canvas shopping tote shown in the Barneys “Have a Green Holiday” catalog: the bag is $1,065, plus $310 for painted monogramming of a triangular recycle symbol in gold. The canvas, the catalog says, is “100% recyclable.”
Sorry, does canvas go with paper, plastic or glass?
Almost every industry has felt the explosion of green marketing. Green is the new new and improved.
But the trend has advanced so quickly that it becomes difficult to evaluate the claims of products that say they are biodegradable, carbon neutral or made from sustainable materials. In recognition of rapidly expanding consumer interest, the Federal Trade Commission said on Monday that it will quickly re-evaluate its guides for green designations in marketing, last updated in 1998, to determine whether they need to be expanded.
More than half of the 2,007 respondents in a shopper survey in September by BBMG, a branding agency, said they were looking for certification seals on green claims to feel confident about their purchases.
“It is no longer O.K. to slap a green label on something and think that is acceptable to consumers,” said Raphael Bemporad, a partner in the agency. “If you just put an eco-friendly phrase on something, you are risking a backlash from more savvy consumers.”
For consumers trying to balance their interests between consumption and the environment, the pros and cons of green fashion are complex
-
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.