29 October 2024
Is your website accessible? Soon it will become mandatory!
- Diversity
In a seismic policy shift reverberating across industries and communities, the U.S. government recently designated the production of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic as posing an “unreasonable risk” to the well-being of factory workers and nearby residents. This declaration has thrown the American polyester business into disarray, spotlighting the perils of 1,4‑dioxane — a harmful chemical released during PET production. (Source: Apparel Insider)
A Chemical Reckoning
Before the ink dried on last month’s alarming headlines about “forever chemicals” contaminating the drinking water of up to 26 million Americans, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a scathing risk assessment on 1,4‑dioxane. Declared an environmental and human health hazard, this toxic by-product of PET primarily originates from a dozen production facilities in the Southeast and Gulf Coast regions.
As an independent scientific panel begins its review of EPA’s findings, the federal agency is fast approaching a pivotal crossroads. Under the Toxics Substances Control Act of 2016, the EPA has a limited two-year period to enact regulations that could limit or even abolish exposure to this hazardous chemical.
The United States: A PET Nation
According to Defend Our Health, a U.S. non-profit committed to environmental justice, America produces an astounding 16.9% of the world’s plastic. Out of this, a staggering 4.1 million metric tons consist of PET. Valued at $48.43 billion in 2023, the global polyethylene terephthalate (PET) market is on track for a staggering rise to $91.37 billion by 2030. The new ruling may put a considerable damper on the industry’s race to the top. (Source: Fortune Business Insights)
Remarkably, two-thirds of global PET production is funnelled into making polyester — a ubiquitous textile in fashion and consumer goods accounting for more than half of clothing worldwide.
"Synthetic fibres, such as polyester and nylon, make up about 60% of clothing and 70 % of household textiles." Source: European Environment Agency
Chris Chavis, Vice President of Programs and Policy at Defend Our Health, extolled the EPA’s decision, stating, “The unvarnished science shows that producing petrochemical plastics is inherently dangerous. Neither the beverage industry’s preference for disposable bottles nor the fashion sector’s penchant for polyester can justify this level of public health risk.” (Source: Apparel Insider)
The Apparel Industry: A Threadbare Commitment to Sustainability
Meanwhile, the Changing Markets Foundation’s “Synthetics Anonymous 2.0” investigation has spotlighted fashion brands’ continued dependence on synthetic fibres, revealing a discord between their sustainability claims and actual practices. Only one brand — Reformation — earned a position in the laudable “Frontrunners” category for its commitment to phasing out virgin synthetics by 2030. In stark contrast, 22 companies remain in the problematic “Red Zone,” mainly due to their lack of transparency and failure to adopt greener practices.
Brands such as Boohoo, Nike, and Inditex show alarmingly high usage of synthetic materials, including polyester. Against the backdrop of escalating climate emergencies, the fashion industry’s reluctance to veer away from synthetic fibres appears tragically incongruous.
PET and Polyester: A Tangled Web of Environmental Perils
A surge in global textile production over the last two decades has accompanied a rise in fast fashion, increasing consumption rates, and declining garment lifespans. Textile production, particularly polyester, has wreaked havoc on ecosystems, contributing to 92 million tons of waste, 1.7 billion tons of CO2 emissions, and 79 billion cubic meters of water consumption annually. (Source: “Analysis of the polyester clothing value chain to identify key intervention points for sustainability”)
Toxic chemicals used in textile manufacturing pose a monumental risk to workers and neighbouring communities. The production phase’s dependency on fossil fuels and dyeing processes, contributing to 20% of global water pollution, further compromises the environment, creating a literal aquatic apocalypse.
COSH!‘s Niki de Schryver comments, “The fast fashion industry, including H&M and C&A, amongst other brands, initially tried to make industry professionals believe polyester was a sustainable option, financially backing the SAC to create the Higg Index database. Yet, fibre data was only traced and available for undyed yarns.” A coincidence or calculated greenwashing?
In addition, because PET production requires enormous amounts of water during processing, heightened global water scarcity and insecurity will bring us to a crossroads sooner rather than later, where priorities must be made.
An Uncertain Future, A Clear Imperative
The EPA’s recent pronouncement on PET production is expected to have far-reaching implications for the polyester and fashion sectors. While this might signal the beginning of the end for America’s polyester industry, it undoubtedly marks an urgent call for sweeping reform. It underscores the dire need for a collective industry shift toward sustainable alternatives before the fabric of our society and the planet come apart at the seams. As Canadian Indigenous water activist Autumn Peltier summarised in 2019, “I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again: we can’t eat money or drink oil.”
As the fashion world grapples with its addiction to synthetics, the broader textile industry faces a moment of truth. Now, more than ever, it is time for an industry-wide detox. If an intervention aims to help those suffering from addiction and dependence, what kind of intervention will the industry require to break free from its plastic addiction?
