Should the textile “plastification” be reversed?
The production of polyester is increasing rapidly, and so is the disagreement about whether this is a problem. A new article and policy brief summarise the perspectives of textile companies that have taken a clear stand against “plastification”, offering recommendations to policymakers and businesses on how to halt this trend.
Authors: Irene Maldini, Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Kate Fletcher
With funding from the Norwegian Retailers’ Environment Fund, 15 textile companies that are actively trying to phase out synthetic textile fibres, or that do not use these types of fibres, have been interviewed. What do they consider essential for stopping plastification? We summarise their views in a new article and in a policy brief that can be downloaded here.
At the same time the article was published, the EU’s crucial Eco-design Directive was being hotly debated. Should the directive discourage the use of plastics in textiles? Or conversely, could it indirectly support plastification because synthetic fibres are favoured based on robustness and recycled content, and the environmental assessment methods chosen?
The most recent meeting organised by the EU’s Joint Research Centre brought together over 400 participants from industry, NGOs, and research. While some refer to the latest shocking articles regarding new findings on the correlation between plastic in the body and poor health, highlighting the urgent need to reduce plastic usage, others point out that all fibres can be dangerous and may contain undesirable chemicals. Natural fibres are not necessarily biodegradable when treated with synthetic chemicals such as dyes.
A glaring step back is the JRC’s proposal that “recycled” should also include rPET (recycled PET packaging) used in textiles, rather than just fibre-to-fibre recycling, which is clearly a better solution. This proposal seems particularly paradoxical, as it does not address textile waste problems and additionally leads to increased microplastic shedding, as demonstrated by the Changing Markets Foundation.
In other words, there is a compelling reason to respond to the JRC’s consultation regarding this directive, protesting that plastic as an issue is not taken seriously in the development of environmental policy. We have in a previous report shown how both businesses and authorities lack strategies to limit plastic use in textiles. Since that publication, we have learned much more about the harmful effects of plastic on the health of animals and humans, and recent findings have also raised concerns regarding plant health. We understand better how plastic leaks from the textile industry into nature, where landfills – not washing machines—are the major culprits.
On the political front, however, progress has stalled. There are several valid reasons for stopping plastification: 1. It drives the growth in quantity and decline in prices; 2. Plastic pollution of the sea, air, and soil is escalating, affecting all living organisms, with the consequences being partially alarming and largely unknown; and 3. Plastification continues to support China’s dominance in textile production and Russian oil. But how can plastification be stopped? You can read more about that here.