Course:EOSC270/2023/The impact of the fast-fashion industry on the marine environment

From UBC Wiki

The global influence of the fast fashion industry

Figure 1: Global oceanic distribution of microplastics. Surface currents are depicted by blue arrows, while dotted lines enclose areas where microplastic input may be due to fishing activities (red) or land-based activities (green). Microplastic concentration is placed on a scale from 0–10 kg/m^2. Note the higher microplastic concentration on the coast of Asia, as well as within the North Pacific and Atlantic gyres, due to the net transport of water towards the center of the gyre.[1]

Fast fashion is the term used to describe the unsustainable, as well as unethical, proportion of the fashion industry that is dominated by massive conglomerate companies. These companies focus on the replication of high designer trends at a fraction of the cost of their competitors, appealing especially to the younger generations of today’s consumer driven economy. This is highly profitable for companies such as the Chinese e-commerce platform SHEIN, which is worth an estimated $100 billion, and continues to grow exponentially, leading the global fashion market[2]. They are able to profit immensely due to the severe decrease in material quality as well as production quality. Uploading over 6,000 new items every day to their website, SHEIN demands a breakneck pace of fabrication from their suppliers, which greatly reduces the lifespan of every individual garment. Textile production factories, mainly centered in Asia, also require a massive volume of water; an average of 200 tonnes of water usage is necessary for the production of only 1 ton of textile[3]. Many of these factories are also sites of unregulated working conditions, causing many ethical and health concerns[4], as well as environmental issues, such as the unmonitored discharge of toxic industrial wastewater possessing the ability to contaminate local marine ecosystems[5] .

Many fast fashion companies including SHEIN distribute worldwide. Unfortunately, very commonly used synthetic fabrics such as nylon and polyester are essentially made out of plastic, and involve toxic, non biodegradable chemicals in their production and dyeing process[5]. When these clothes are sent worldwide, so are these chemicals and plastics. When fabrics break down, they release microfibres into their environment. The heat, movement, and detergents of a laundry cycle all contribute to the weakening of textiles – a single load of laundry has the potential to discharge hundreds of thousands of microfibres into the local sewage network which is eventually flushed out into the ocean. Researchers have also found that one major secondary wastewater treatment plant can deliver up to 21 billion microfibres into the receiving environment annually[6]. Since synthetic fabrics like polyester are plastic based, their microfibres are essentially microplastics, and are likely most damaging to natural environments due to their toxic chemical content. Once in the ocean, these microplastics are capable of traveling thousands of kilometers away from their input location, just by riding surface currents. In Figure 1, the distribution of microplastic samples in the main global oceans was analyzed and mapped. In a separate study, the Arctic Ocean was sampled for microplastics, and it was discovered that the inflow from the Atlantic ocean contained the highest concentration of microplastics, with almost three times more particles found in the east Arctic versus the west Arctic. The rapid flux of microplastic to Earth's oceans is largely due to the breakdown of polyester, with a majority 73.3% of microplastic samples in the Arctic region found to be of polyester composition[7]. Looking at this worldwide distribution, it is easy to see that microplastics will only continue to circulate our oceans, while accumulating in coastal input areas and within convergent gyres.

How does this problem impact marine ecosystems?

Water Usage

The fashion industry uses a substantial amount of water during the production of textiles. It is estimated that approximately 93 billion cubic meters of water per year are used in the industry which is believed to double by 2030[8]. Extensive water usage in the fashion industry is primarily linked to cotton cultivation and wet processing of textiles, which includes processes such as bleaching, dyeing, printing, and finishing[3]. Cotton is responsible for 1,559 litres of freshwater consumption per kilogram of cotton which makes it the leading fibre in depleting local freshwater[3]. Although synthetic fibres, such as polyester and polyamide, do not consume as much freshwater as cotton does[3], the manufacturing of synthetic fibres uses 70 million barrels of oil each year that release lead, arsenic, benzene, and other pollutants from wastewater and into marine systems[9] It is evident that the fashion industry heavily relies on water throughout the production stages of apparel as processing a kilogram of fibre takes 100 to 150 litres of water[8].

Figure 2: Pathway of microfibres released from laundry processes and into water sources where the health of marine life is imperiled. Diagram created by Venus van Hoof

Textile Dyes

Textile dyes contain several hazardous chemicals and toxic substances that are disposed of in wastewater and into marine systems[10]. Not only do the dyes cause excess turbidity that produces poor water clarity and a foul smell to the water, but the increased turbidity levels also prevent sunlight from penetrating through the waters[10]. When sunlight availability is low, marine primary producers, such as phytoplankton, are unable to support the deep ocean food web as they use energy from the sun to convert carbon dioxide and nutrients into organic matter through photosynthesis. Hence, the entire marine ecosystem is threatened due to decreased photosynthetic activity and loss of primary production.

Microfibres

Synthetic apparels are unable to fully break down and instead, shed into tiny plastic fibres that persist in the ocean and ultimately harm marine ecosystems[11]. When clothes are washed through washing machines, friction from the laundry process causes fibres to detach from the garments and end up mixing with the water[6]. From the washing machines, these fibres get released and flow into sewage systems where they build up in bodies of water[6]. As a result, microfibres move downstream through rivers and make their way into the deep ocean where they are ingested by marine organisms[11]. Small animals in the aquatic environment consume these fibre particles and taint higher trophic levels of the food chain[11]. In particular, the uptake of microfibres is common in plankton, which serves as a fundamental base for the marine food web[12]. Coral, fish, crabs, mussels, and whales are among numerous marine species that also feed on microfibres[12].

In addition to microfibres being non-biodegradable, they also absorb previously disposed chemical pollutants and oil within marine systems[11]. By ingesting these microfibres, marine species damage their metabolism and overall health[13]. The consumption of microfibres by the organisms is unintentional due to their inability to distinguish the fibre fragments apart from real food sources[14]. In effect, their physiological conditions are negatively affected in which development, maturation, and reproduction are hindered[11]. Microfibres consumed by aquatic animals can clog respiratory organs and cause issues with digestion[14]. This may reduce their feeding potential, hunting skills, and mobility performance[11]. Eventually, such adverse effects can lead to the death of marine life owing to the lack of proper nutrition and not eating enough natural food[11].

What is the magnitude of the problem?

The Scale of Fashion

Due to the increased prevalence of fast-fashion, the number of textiles produced in recent decades has risen dramatically.  Compared to before 2000, approximately twice as many garments are produced today[3] with the fashion industry manufacturing roughly 80 billion pieces of clothing and generating $1.2 trillion in 2018[5] .

The quick turnover associated with fast-fashion creates large amounts of waste as a low proportion of clothing gets passed on for second-hand use because of the inferior nature of garments. In the US, for example, 85% of garments end up on landfills[15], contributing to the 92 million tons of waste produced by the fashion industry each year[3].

Microplastic Contribution

According to one study, it is estimated that the production and degradation of fast-fashion products through use and disposal accounts for up to 35% of microplastics added to the marine environment each year[16]. This positions the fast-fashion industry as a significant contributor to marine degradation.  Data from Europe and central Asia shows that per person the equivalent of 7.7 plastic bags per day is added to the ocean due to textile production and washing[17].  In addition to this, packaging used in the industry often consists of single use plastics which can cause strangulation of marine organisms and eventually break down into microplastics if they end up in the ocean.

Figure 3: An infographic showing the amount of carbon dioxide released in the production of a cotton and a polyester t-shirt. Fast-fashion's trend towards using synthetic materials such as polyester is making the fashion industry much more carbon intensive[18].

Climate Change Contribution

The fashion industry contributes significantly to climate change, accounting for 8 to 10% of global greenhouse emissions[18].  This in turn accelerates processes such as ocean acidification and numerous other marine impacts associated with global warming.  The high carbon emissions of the fashion industry can be traced back to fast-fashion and the trend to create garments out of synthetic materials instead of natural ones.  While a cotton t-shirt only emits 2.1 kg CO2 during its production, a polyester t-shirt, for example, emits 5.5 kg CO2 – more than double[18].

Impacts on Human Health

Figure 4: Possible entry of microfibres into the human body and their potential impacts on the human health.

Humans are exposed to microfibres through the consumption of sea foods such as shellfish and crustaceans[19]. Microfibres from synthetic fabrics have the potential to cause harm to the human body as they expose humans to plastic as well as chemical particles. Very small particles (1-100nm) can leave the gastrointestinal tract and can be translocated to other organs [20]. Their exact effect is not clear yet, however experiments with human cell lines have shown that these small particles could lead to oxidative stress, where the body is unable to detoxify an increase of unstable, reactive molecules  which could result in cell damage and inflammation[21].

Chemical additives such as Phthalates, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and Bisphenol A (BPA), that are contained in microfibres, could cause an imbalance of female reproductive hormones, injuries of the intestines, liver and kidneys and show carcinogenic properties [22]. However, other studies argue that with the current uptake rate, serious toxicity of microfibres is not very likely [23]. Therefore it is unclear what effects microfibres have with the current evidence [24]. Overall more research is necessary to evaluate potential risks of microfibres on the human health.

Given the impact, what are the solutions?

Individual Initiatives

The fast-fashion industry created an environment of low-quality mass-production and a continuous consumer demand for new clothes, which have detrimental effects on the environment. However, small lifestyle change could mitigate these problems and generate a more sustainable shopping-culture.

For one, the fabric material can already make a big difference. Clothing produced from organic or recycled cotton, hemp or linen are not only biodegradable but also require less water for production[25]. Tencel lyocell is another example of a sustainable fabric and is made from the wood pulp of sustainably harvested trees[26]. Recently, thrift stores have become increasingly more popular due to a renewed interest in vintage or retro style[27]. Donating clothes minimizes the amount of trash that would end up in a landfill and buying second-hand clothes avoids the costly production of a new garment.

Figure 5: Components of a washing machine filter [28].

Futhermore, there are several products available that aim to reduce the release of microfibres during washing. Guppyfriend is a washing bag that minimizes fibre-shedding and contains microfibres within the washing bag[29]. Another in-drum device is the Cora ball, which can be added to the washing cycle and like Guppyfriend, collects microfibres and reduces microfibre-shedding[30]. Installing washing machine filters have also proven to be successful. These filters are installed externally and collect microfibres before the release of wastewater. Out of all of these products, washing machine filters have proven to be the most effective, reducing microfibre emissions by 78%[31].

The biggest problem lies in translating these intentions into actions. A survey has shown that while 50% of the consumers want more sustainable clothes, only 29% is actually willing to pay more for the sustainably sourced version of the same clothing item [32]. As the manufacturing of sustainable clothes is more expensive, it is less affordable for those who are financially constraint [33]. While thrift stores might seem to be an eco-friendly alternative for the latter, it does not solve the problem of overconsumption of clothes and still indirectly supports fast-fashion.

To minimize the impact on the environment, the most responsible consumer behaviour would be to purchase clothes made from sustainable materials and to use of washing products that limit microfibre emissions.

Figure 6: Infographic of microfibre degradation by nanorobots, from ACS Publications

Global Initiatives

As the prevalence of microfibres in marine systems increases, countries around the world and international organizations have begun developing their own practices and policies to counter microfibre pollution. These changes can range from implementing preventative measures to advancing cleaning technologies to resolve current problems.

The United Nations (UN) has several branches that focus on reducing plastic pollution. Namely, the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) launched their Clean Seas Campaign in 2017, which aims to enact changes to standardized practices and policies around marine litter on individual, local, industry and governmental levels[34]. Although this organization is more focused on the elimination of single-use plastics, their recent report "From Pollution to Solution" (2021)[35] acknowledges the dangers of microplastics in cigarette filters, textiles and cosmetic products. In partnership with UNEP, the UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion places equal emphasis on both the social and environmental issues surrounding fast fashion and the unethical production of textiles[36]. Using this large platform, other UN agencies are able to join and work towards minimizing wasteful fashion practices. For example, The Food and Agricultural Organization have promoted Blue Fashion, a project aimed at using sustainable marine materials for textiles. Similarly, the Ethical Fashion Initiative was set up by the International Trade Centre with support of the UNEP to update national manufacturing policies[37].

While the involvement of large international organizations is significant to successfully apply new policies, many of their initiatives are more driven towards reducing plastic consumption, rather than the elimination of microfibres.

Several European countries are actively working on solutions for the growing microfibre issue. The Plastic Soup Foundation, founded in the Netherlands in February 2011, aims to educate the public on the impact of plastics on human health, as well as developing solutions for preventing, cleaning up and processing plastic waste. One current concept under development in the Czech Republic is the use of nanorobots to clean marine microplastics[38]. These solar-powered robots will collect microfibres as they move around the surface ocean and help to speed up microplastic degradation that occurs naturally with sun exposure. This project is working to ensure the materials using to construct the robots does not degrade sooner than the microplastics, and potentially contribute further to environmental problems. In England and Wales, the Microfibre Consortium has set up The Microfibre Roadmap, which is working towards zero impact from fibre fragmentation[39]. This roadmap aims to collaborate with up to 250 existing textiles and clothing companies by 2030, offering best practice manufacturing guidelines, networking with stakeholders and other benefits to their signatories in an effort to promote sustainable clothing sourcing and production.

References

  1. ↑ van Sebille, Erik (2015). "A global inventory of small floating plastic debris". Environmental Research Letters. 10.
  2. ↑ Al Mallees, Nojoud (May 9, 2022). "Ultra-fast fashion site Shein has captured the wallets of young shoppers. but at what cost?". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved January 29, 2023.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Niinimäki, Kirsi; Peters, Greg; Dahlbo, Hannah; Perry, Patsy; Rissanen, Timo; Gwilt, Alison (April 7, 2020). "The environmental price of fast fashion". Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 1: 189–200 – via https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0039-9.
  4. ↑ Hobson, John (July 2, 2013). "To die for? The health and safety of fast fashion". Occupational Medicine. 63: 317–319 – via https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqt079.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Rosa, Jorge Marcos; Garcia, Vanessa; Boiani, Nathalia; Melo, Camila; Pereira, Maria; Borrely, Sueli (April 2019). "Toxicity and environmental impacts approached in the dyeing of polyamide, polyester and cotton knits". Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. 7 (2) – via https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2019.102973.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Brooks, Andrew; Fletcher, Kate; Francis, Robert A.; Rigby, Emma Dulcie; Roberts, Thomas (2017). "Fashion, Sustainability, and the Anthropocene". Utopian Studies. 28 (3): 482–504. doi:https://doi.org/10.5325/utopianstudies.28.3.0482 Check |doi= value (help).
  7. ↑ Ross, Peter S.; Chastain, Stephen; Vassilenko, Ekaterina; Etemadifar, Anahita; Zimmermann, Sarah; Quesnel, Sarah-Ann; Eert, Jane; Solomon, Eric; Patankar, Shreyas (January 12, 2021). "Pervasive distribution of polyester fibres in the Arctic Ocean is driven by Atlantic inputs". Nature Communications. 12 – via https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20347-1.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 "The Issues: Water". Common Objective. November 23, 2021. Retrieved March 7, 2023.
  9. ↑ Bandera, Gerardo (March 31, 2022). "How the Fast Fashion Industry Pollutes our Water". Fair Planet. Retrieved March 7, 2023.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Khattab, Tawfik A.; Abdelrahman, Meram S.; Rehan, Mohamed (2019). "Textile dyeing industry: environmental impacts and remediation". Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 27 (4): 3803–3818. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07137-z Check |doi= value (help).
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 Singh, Rojalin Priyadarshini; Mishra, Sunanda; Das, Alok Prasad (2020). "Synthetic microfibers: Pollution toxicity and remediation". Chemosphere. 257. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127199 Check |doi= value (help) – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Mishra, Sunanda; Rath, Chandi charan; Das, Alok Prasad (2019). "Marine microfiber pollution: A review on present status and future challenges". Marine Pollution Bulletin. 140: 188–197. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.01.039 Check |doi= value (help) – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  13. ↑ Periyasamy, Aravin Prince; Tehrani-Bagha, Ali (2022). "A review on microplastic emission from textile materials and its reduction techniques". Polymer Degradation and Stability. 199. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2022.109901 Check |doi= value (help) – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Acharya, Sanjit; Rumi, Shaida S; Hu, Yang; Abidi, Noureddine (2021). "Microfibers from synthetic textiles as a major source of microplastics in the environment: A review". Textile Research Journal. 91 (17–18). doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0040517521991244 Check |doi= value (help).
  15. ↑ Bick, Rachel; Halsey, Erika; Ekenga, Christine C. (27 December 2018). "The global environmental injustice of fast fashion". Environmental Health. 17.
  16. ↑ Boucher, Julien; Friot, Damien (2017). Primary microplastics in the oceans: A global evaluation of sources. IUCN.
  17. ↑ Mishra, Sunanda; Rath, Chandi charan; Das, Alok Prasad (March 2019). "Marine microfiber pollution: A review on present status and future challenges". Marine Pollution Bulletin. 140: 188–197.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Leal Filho, Walter; Perry, Patsy; Heim, Hilde; Dinis, Maria Alzira Pimenta; Moda, Haruna; Ebhuoma, Eromose; Paço, Arminda (5 September 2022). "An overview of the contribution of the textiles sector to climate change". Frontiers in Environmental Science. 10.
  19. ↑ Van Cauwenberghe, Lisbeth; Janssen, Colin R. (2014). "Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption". Environmental Pollution. 193: 65–70. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2014.06.010 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  20. ↑ Rist, Sinja; Almroth, Bethanie Carney; Hartmann, Nanna B.; Karlsson, Therese M. (June 2018). "A critical perspective on early communications concerning human health aspects of microplastics". Science of the Total Environment. 626: 720–726. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.092 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  21. ↑ Pizzino, Gabriele; Irrera, Natasha; Cucinotta, Mariapaola; Pallio, Giovanni; Mannino, Federica; Arcoraci, Vincenzo; Squadrito, Francesco; Altavilla, Domenica; Bitto, Alessandra (2017). "Oxidative Stress: Harms and Benefits for Human Health". Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity. doi:10.1155/2017/8416763 – via National Library of Medicine.
  22. ↑ Mishra, Sunanda; Rath, Chandi charan; Das, Alok Prasad (2019). "Marine microfiber pollution: A review on present status and future challenges". Marine Pollution Bulletin. 140: 188–197. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.01.039 – via Elsevier Science Direct. line feed character in |title= at position 67 (help)
  23. ↑ Waring, R.H; Harris, R.M.; Mitchell, S.C. (2018). "Plastic contamination of the food chain: A threat to human health?". Maturitas. 115: 64–68. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.06.010 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  24. ↑ Henry, Beverley; Laitala, Kirsi; Klepp, Ingun Grimstad (2019). "Microfibres from apparel and home textiles: Prospects for including microplastics in environmental sustainability assessment". Science of the Total Environment. 652: 483–494. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.166 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  25. ↑ Rana, Sohel; Pichandi, Subramani; Parveen, Shama; Fangueiro, Raul (2014). "Natural Plant Fibers: Production, Processing, Properties and Their Sustainability Parameters". In Muthu, S. (ed.). Roadmap to Sustainable Textiles and Clothing Technology. Singapore: Springer. pp. 1–35. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-065-0_1.
  26. ↑ "TENCEL™ fibers help maintain environmental balance by being integrated into nature´s cycle". Tencel. Retrieved 04-02-2023. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  27. ↑ Park, Hyun Jung; Lin, Li Min (2020). "Exploring attitude–behavior gap in sustainable consumption: comparison of recycled and upcycled fashion products". Journal of Business Research. 117: 623–628. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.025 – via Elsevier ScienceDirect. line feed character in |title= at position 74 (help)
  28. ↑ Browne, Mark Anthony; Ros, Macarena; Johnston, Emma L. (2020). "Pore-size and polymer affect the ability of filters for washing-machines to reduce domestic emissions of fibres to sewage". PLOS ONE. 15 (6). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0234248.
  29. ↑ "Guppyfriend". Retrieved 04-02-2023. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  30. ↑ "The Microfiber Pollution Primer". cora ball. 26-5-2021. Retrieved 8-3-2023. Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  31. ↑ Napper, Imogen E.; Barrett, Aaron C.; Thompson, Richard C. (October 2017). "The efficiency of devices intended to reduce microfibre release during clothes washing". Science of the Total Environment. 738. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140412 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  32. ↑ "Sustainability in Fashion Retail" (PDF). Retrieved 8-3-2023. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  33. ↑ Connell, Kim Y. Hiller (April 2010). "Internal and external barriers to eco-conscious apparel acquisition". International Journal of Consumer Studies. 34: 279–286. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00865.x – via Wiley Online Library.
  34. ↑ "Clean Seas". Retrieved 05-02-2023. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  35. ↑ "From Pollution to Solution". unep.org. Retrieved 05-02-2023. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  36. ↑ "UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion". Retrieved 05-02-2023. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  37. ↑ "UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion addresses damage of 'fast fashion'". Check date values in: |archive-date= (help)
  38. ↑ Hermanová, Soňa (February 2022). "Micromachines for Microplastics Treatment". ACS Nanoscience AU.
  39. ↑ "The Microfibre Roadmap". Retrieved 05-02-2023. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:EOSC270/2023/The_impact_of_the_fast-fashion_industry_on_the_marine_environment&oldid=745098"