Sustainable cotton: myths versus reality - Apparel Insider
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Cotton
Sustainable
cotton: myths
versus reality
In our May 2019 magazine, we looked at the issue of cotton elucidates, a few things are clear:
· At the present time there is no data
cultivation and asked whether there was enough information to to substantiate claims that at a global
justify industry shifts towards identity cottons such as BCI and level, one type of cotton is more
organic. In a follow-up paper, VERONICA BATES KASSATLY sustainable than another. They are all
equally unsustainable, and the only
revisits this issue, arguing that the paucity of credible data means solution is for us all to buy less, buy
claims about fibres are invalid, while also asking why industry better, and wear it more.
· Clothes are consumer durables,
stakeholders have yet to offer any answers to the serious anomalies not paper napkins, so cradle to gate
and data inconsistencies her research has uncovered - as used in current sustainability
measures - is seriously misleading.
· All the sustainability studies
ig brands would have environment than wool, silk, or currently employed have directly or
us believe we can conventional cotton. But is saving indirectly been funded for, and by,
carry on shopping the environment really that simple? the brands who have a vested interest
as before, and that I have worked on evaluating in the outcome.
they can carry on comparative assertions of fibre · The main fibre scoring systems base
producing as before, provided we all sustainability, on a pro bono basis, their values for organic cotton on
shift to organic cotton, BCI cotton, for over 18 months. My research one industry funded LCA, despite
polyester and so on – all of which, has raised far more questions than the fact that the study itself says it
we are told, are less harmful to the it has answered but, as this article can't be used to make comparative
www.apparelinsider.com 13
Cotton
“ “
assertions, or to attribute differences they assured me in April 2019, that is a copy and paste of sections from they measure the impact of a fabric farmers employ organic production This is, of course, required to make
to the respective production systems. all their comparative assertions on pages 10, 55, and 57, of the 2014 TE from its creation as seed/fossil fuel methods, especially in water-stressed comparative sustainability assertions;
The LCA concerned also has notable cotton derived from the Kering LCA. by-product etc, until it leaves the parts of the world? Or are we saying a production system may have a
errors and omissions. EP&L). It is strongly factory gate. No further. that almost all cotton farmers are
Research should lower environmental impact, but if it
So that must be the Higg Index
· Much of the data employed in So how do Kering and the recommended source too. The failure to actually But nobody buys a shirt, coat, and stupid? be evaluated also makes farmers worse off - and in
reports proffered to substantiate Higg evaluate the comparative to consider the name the LCA is particularly pants and throws them away having I have asked the parties involved, based on its the case of cotton, most farmers are
desperately poor small-holders - it is
claims has not been independently sustainability of cotton? Well, when full LCA Report bizarre as, Higg users are instructed: worn them once. The more times how they justify their claims, when inherent merit
collected, so, as I will illustrate, it it comes to concluding that organic you wear a garment, the lower its the study they all refer to does not not sustainable.
probably isn't accurate.
(see LCA “It is strongly recommended to
environmental impact per wear.
alone, not The C&AF LCA was undertaken by
is best - and by a huge margin - both consider the full LCA Report (see substantiate them.
· Manure is a by-product of the use the 2014 Textile Exchange (TE) methodology LCA methodology report/ data If garments made of some fibres are
discarded out Thinkstep - formerly PE - the same
Most have not replied, and none have
livestock industry, just like hides for LCA: ‘Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) report/ data handling (sic) report) when using worn more, cleaned less frequently, given an answer that addresses my of hand because group that produced the 2014, TE
leather. Arguably, organic cotton's of Organic Cotton – A global average’ handling (sic) this dataset.” with less harmful impact (from very simple question: you don’t like LCA.
(citation 1).
most important input is manure. report) when
“ You can’t consider an unnamed, chemicals to microfibre shedding), How can it be asserted that TE’s 2014 the writers’
“ The SEIA was produced by AIR USA.
Therefore, omitting the impact I know this because Kering stated can be recycled, and bio-degrade
of same, means current estimates
using this unreferenced, LCA, so we have to
more readily at the end of their
organic cotton LCA substantiates friends and The interesting thing to note in this
as much on page 36 of its ‘Kering ask: how are all who use the Higg these claims about blue water context is how the data was collected.
of organic cotton emissions are Environmental Profit & Loss (EP&L) dataset organic cotton value - from Boston useful life, then cradle to gate would consumption, when the report itself
relations The AIR SEIA data was collected
seriously understated. Methodology & 2013 Group Results. Consulting Group to H&M - going be a misleading measure. If so, clearly states it does no such thing? by an independent third party. This
· Since, amongst other things, it Here it said: “To help us better about this, when the specific our focus on this measure and this organization was called Outline
So, the TE LCA is being incorrectly
is impossible for 400 more tons of understand the impacts of different instructions for its use are impossible alone is almost certainly leading to India, a data collection firm based in
employed, but what about the
rain to fall on organic cotton fields, agricultural practices in different to follow? a global misallocation of resources, Gurgaon, which was neither part of
actual report? Are the data sources
than fell on neighbouring BCI or countries for cotton production, exacerbating rather than reducing the three cotton production systems
I have asked the SAC whether their unimpeachable - because any and
conventional fields over the same Kering, in collaboration with others, both climate change and global being comparatively evaluated - BCI,
11.2 impact for organic cotton is every study is worth no more than its
period, the fact that an LCA has been supported the development of a poverty. organic and conventional - nor of the
based on any other studies and, if so, raw data?
subject to a Critical Review, doesn't Life Cycle Assessment conducted to forward them. Bearing in mind then that group completing the study - AIR.
No they are not.
mean anything. by PE International and the Textile current measures of comparative
Nothing has come. THE DATA WAS NOT The LCA, on the other hand,
· Organic farmers in India are Exchange. The results from this study sustainability only cover half the describes two entirely different
contributed to our EP&L assessment.” Here, it is pertinent to point out that story, do they at least cover that half INDEPENDENTLY COLLECTED
using Monocrotophos and other methods of data collection on two
TE, is also financed by Aditya, ASOS, accurately? This is not to impugn TE, Kering,
chemicals that are prohibited in Kering’s 2012–2016 Sustainability different pages (10 and 16). How this
C&A, Dupont, H&M, Kering, just or any of the others, in any way, but
organic farming. This has serious Targets Final Report says: “Our Let's take a closer look at cotton and passed the critical review is baffling,
like the SAC. My point being this: all simply to point out a given: data that
implications for the organic system. most significant progress since then you can be the judge and there is more about problems
of these brands are telling us their is not independently collected is
FIBRE SCORING 2012 has been a shift towards an As I wrote in May’s magazine, Textile with critical reviews in the box-out
cotton is more sustainable based on subject to reporting bias.
increased use of organic cotton in Exchange’s 2014 LCA states quite on page 22.
Let’s start, then, with the issue of analysis that they have indirectly
our collections. In 2014, Kering, clearly that it cannot be used to make There is plenty of literature on this.
fibre scoring – and, specifically, the funded. For now though, it appears that the
alongside other key industry comparative assertions under ISO Here, I will simply offer an example
question of how much credence we The fact that a study has been funded LCA data was submitted by “farmer
partners, funded an expert study to standards (page 14). It also states of how far reporting bias can distort
should give to fibre scoring tools. by an interest group - be it Monsanto representatives”. Thus the BCI
evaluate the environmental impacts that the very different blue water findings.
Two of the most widely cited systems or Kering - or that one or more of implementing partners submitted the
of organic cotton production. The (irrigation) values for conventional Agriculture is like gardening: soil,
of measurement for environmental the researchers has had a financial BCI data, the organic partners, the
results clearly showed the dramatic climate, the year’s weather: all matter,
impact are the Sustainable Apparel relationship with same, is certainly and organic cotton reflect the organic parameters and so on.
environmental benefits of organic and all will impact how much of
Coalition's (SAC) Higg Index and something readers need to know fact that the areas studied for Incidentally, the AIR study collected
cotton production, with a reduction everything you have to use - from
Kering's Environmental Profit and about. conventional cotton were irrigated, its data from over 3,600 farmers in
of nearly 80 per cent on the total irrigation to pesticides - as well
Loss (EP&L). while those considered for organic the Khargone area (1,200 of each
environmental impact as compared However, this does not automatically as how big a yield you obtain. So,
cotton were rainfed. So, as the report type), whilst the LCA data was
The SAC is funded by its members with conventional cotton cultivation. mean that the research is worthless.
states, the difference cannot be if you want to make comparative
who include Aditya Birla, ASOS, This ‘Life Cycle Analysis’ was then Research should be evaluated based collected from only 300 farmers (100
attributed to the different methods of environmental claims, you must
C&A, Invista, Dupont, H&M, and integrated into our EP&L.” No other on its inherent merit alone, not of each type). From a statistical point
cultivation (page 54). study the production systems in the
Kering, and its material scoring sources for organic cotton impact are discarded out of hand because you of view then, the SEIA is considerably
same place, at the same time.
tool – the Higg Index - is used to given in any Kering report. I have don’t like the writers’ friends and Yet the Higg, Textile Exchange, more reliable, based not only on its
make assertions of comparative asked them if they have other studies, relations. Kering, and the Soil Association I have only found one cotton LCA method of data collection, but also
sustainability by the likes of H&M, but nothing has come. (SA), all claim that based solely on that attempts to do this: the C&A on its sample size.
FLAWS
Global Fashion Agenda’s Pulse of the this LCA, organic cotton consumes Foundation’s (C&AF), 2018 study Unfortunately for those who promote
As for the Higg Index, this rates the So, are there serious flaws in the
Fashion Industry report, and others. 80-90 per cent less water than Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton BCI cotton as more sustainable
impact per kilo of conventionally studies being submitted for more conventional cotton. Cultivation Systems in Madhya cotton, the C&AF LCA does not
Kering’s EP&L appears to produced cotton fibre at 60.6 units sustainable fibres?
Think about that: here’s a system of Pradesh, India, LCA (Citation 2) substantiate this claim. It asserts
incorporate some data from Higg, and of ‘cotton fibre organic’ at 11.2
Yes there are. cotton cultivation which supposedly C&AF simultaneously commissioned that on average, one tonne of BCI
is financed by Kering, and is used units - so again, an 80 per cent
to make assertions of comparative reduction in environmental impact. Which brings us to the first uses up to 90 per cent less water than a social and economic study: seed cotton consumed 7 per cent
sustainability by both Kering itself, its Rather surprisingly, the source fundamental problem with today's conventional methods. Irrigation Social and Economic Impact more blue water than one tonne of
various brands, and Stella McCartney LCA is not named at all. But the comparative sustainability claims: takes time and costs money; if that Assessment of Cotton Farming conventional seed cotton; it made
Inc (whilst now part of LVMH, ‘Description’ for cotton fibre organic they are all cradle to gate. This means really was the case, wouldn’t all in Madhya Pradesh (Citation 3). a 1 per cent greater contribution to
14 Apparelinsider www.apparelinsider.com 15
Cotton
“
climate change; and a 30 per cent farmers used it during the crop cycle than it is for BCI. The C&AF MP
greater contribution to eco-toxicity. concerned. For the somewhat less LCA found that the organic farmers
toxic pesticides: Imidacloprid and studied used no chemical fertilisers
The one favourable statistic for BCI In Northwest China ... the China Statistical Yearbook reports that about 60 per cent of the total
in the C&AF LCA is that the 100 Acephate on the other hand, 21 per or pesticides whatsoever. The sister
farmland is irrigated. However, considering that relatively high yields are reported for Northwest
BCI farmers made a significantly
lower contribution to human toxicity
than their conventional neighbours.
cent more BCI farmers used the
former, and 13 per cent more the
latter, when compared with their
SEIA on the other hand found that:
“Of the exclusive organic cotton
farmers, 35 per cent self-reported to
China and there is less than 200 mm of rainfall each year, it is reasonable to assume that the irrigated
cotton area approaches 100 per cent
“
Unfortunately, this is not borne out conventional neighbours (page 89) have used a chemical fertilizer and
by the reporting of the 1,200-odd How does this data square with that 33 per cent reported to have used a
exclusive BCI cotton farmers studied of the LCA which reports that, per chemical pesticide in the last year.” used an independent data agency to are applying prohibited fertilisers and 5,000-6,000 tonnes of irrigation per
in the SEIA. Almost all had used hectare: conventional farmers applied Indeed, of the exclusive organic collect information directly, through pesticides, whilst BCI farmers are hectare, with an average lint yield of
chemical pesticides, as had virtually 9 times as much Monocrotophos, 7 cotton farmers, 32 per cent used one on one interviews with farmers. applying more than accepted under 2,300-2,900 kg/ha.
all of their conventional colleagues. times as much Acephate, and 11 per Urea and 29 per cent used DAP as Of course, none of these pesticides the standard, is this because they are Indeed, another Chinese study in
MONOCROTOPHOS cent more Imidacloprid than their fertilisers; for chemical pesticides, 25 - or fertilisers - are supposed to be too poor and desperate to take crop 2018 (Citation 5), shows 15mm or
BCI fellows? Well it doesn’t, and one per cent used Monocrotophos, while employed in organic production at all. risk? Or because they are illiterate/ 150 tonnes/ha is normally a single
Monocrotophos is an insecticide that
possible explanation for the disparity 20 per cent of the organic cotton So the inconsistency between C&AF’s semi-literate and so have not actually water application.
is acutely toxic to birds and humans,
is that the LCA uses data reported by farmers used Acephate (pages 50-52). and BCI’s data, and that collected understood? And either way, when IT IS NOT THE ANNUAL TOTAL.
and so it is banned in the US, the
BCI, and the SEIA does not. from the farmers themselves by AIR, dealing with desperately poor farmers,
EU and many other countries. It is Once again, the most obvious We also note the 2018 report states
Reinforcing this contention is the raises another very serious question of limited literacy and education,
still available and heavily utilized in explanation for this huge disparity is annual rainfall during the growing
fact that consistency between the two for the validity and viability of identity is actual adherence to prescribed
India, indeed roughly 75 per cent of that the LCA used data provided by season averaged 121mm. The TE
studies is no better for organic cotton cottons in general. If organic farmers standards sufficiently high for these
both the BCI and the conventional the implementing agency; the SEIA study claims that rainfall for the
systems to be deemed effective?
growing season - April to September
To return, then, to what we were - averaged 253mm, and that annual
discussing earlier, the 2014 TE LCA rainfall averaged 373 mm (page 70).
“
data appears to use data provided by
The TE report frequently refers to a
TE itself, and we have just established
2012 Cotton Inc LCA of conventional
how unreliable data that has not
cotton production as a benchmark:
been independently collected can
Of the exclusive organic cotton be. The obvious question then, of
‘Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton
Fiber & Fabric’ (Citation 6).
farmers, 35 per cent self-reported to course, is: is there any evidence of
inconsistencies between the TE
I quote from that study: “In
have used a chemical fertilizer and data and that to be found in other
Northwest China ... the China
Statistical Yearbook reports that
33 per cent reported to have used a
chemical pesticide in the last year
“ published sources?
Yes.
HUTUBI XINJIANG STUDY
about 60 per cent of the total
farmland is irrigated. However,
considering that relatively high yields
AREA are reported for Northwest China
I only took a closer look at the TE and there is less than 200 mm of
numbers attributed to Chinese rainfall each year, it is reasonable to
cotton, but there are several things assume that the irrigated cotton area
worthy of note here. The TE LCA approaches 100 per cent” (page 27).”
states quite clearly that these figures PE/Thinkstep wrote that report in
are for Hutubi Xinjiang alone. But 2012.
research from World Agriculture Two years later they wrote the 2014
Journal in 2019 (Citation 4) shows TE LCA, which refers repeatedly
that Xinjiang is a pure irrigation to the 2012 Cotton Inc report. But
area – essentially, no irrigation, no somehow, in the 2014 TE LCA we are
production. told that:
Now, the TE 2014 LCA, claims that Organic cotton received just
organic cotton irrigation for Hutubi three per cent of the irrigation
averages 150 tonnes/ha, for a seed conventional cotton had required
cotton yield of 6,000kg/ha, or a lint two years earlier (150 tonnes/ha for
yield of 2,143 kg/ha (pages 69-73). organic, compared to 5,000 tonnes/
On the other hand, while the ha for conventional)
Chinese experts in the World Xinjiang average annual rainfall was
Agriculture Journal research only over 90 per cent higher than it had
look at conventional cotton, they been two years earlier (373mm for
found that the norm for Xinjiang is organic, instead of less than 200mm
16 Apparelinsider www.apparelinsider.com 17
Cotton
Yet while the toxicity of chemical themselves. This SEIA analysis found that on
C&AF, MP LCAs, means the pesticides is carefully evaluated, not But where are the studies that prove average:
for conventional). both upstream, in its production,
environmental impact of organic only is the toxicity of manure not this? There is a lot of anecdotal · Exclusive organic cotton farmers
In this context it is also worth and downstream, in pollution and
cotton, in terms of both emissions considered in organic LCAs, but the evidence of individuals doing better owed 1.6 times the amount owed
noting the more recent C&AF LCA soil degradation. PE/Thinkstep
and blue water consumption, is possibility that there could be an since they switched to organic, of by the average conventional cotton
of Madhya Pradesh farmers in was certainly aware of its use. The
considerably understated. impact has never been raised. children laughing and going to
India (Citation 1) found that when 2012 Cotton Inc conventional farmer. Moreover, 88 per cent of
LCA says: “In the Northwest the There is another consideration BACK TO BASICS school. But these candidates are that was borrowed to purchase
you standardise for rainfall (more
growing season is short, there is when it comes to manure that Most of the world’s cotton farmers not randomly selected, ‘data’ is not agricultural inputs. Only 79 per cent
on that in the box-out) all three
only one crop per year. The plastic is also ignored by the organic are not plantation owners, they are independently collected, causality of the conventional cotton farmers
production systems - BCI, organic,
mulch protects the seedlings from LCAs: toxicity. The World Health small-holders farming less than is not demonstrated, there is a loans were for this purpose.
and conventional - required 600
the broad swings in temperatures Organisation states that Diarrhoeal two hectares. Many have little or high probability of confounding …
plus tonnes of irrigation water per · Exclusive organic cotton farmers
disease is the second leading cause no education and are desperately generally, we are not even given a
hectare, not 131 m3/ha as stated in during the day and minimises the had material costs that were 20 per
of death in children under five poor. Even small changes in revenue specific date or location, let alone any
the TE LCA. loss of soil moisture.” (page 40) cent higher than material costs per
years old and a major cause of can leave these farmers unable to concrete values.
Unfortunately, irrigation is not the So where is the impact of plastic acre for conventional farmers.
child malnutrition. Given the risks fund schooling/health care for their Consequently, none of this is
only problem. mulch discussed and evaluated for · Organic cotton farmers had
of seepage, run-off, and generally children, or incapable of servicing evidence.
As already discussed, the C&AF Xinjiang cotton in the 2014 TE LCA? expected a higher income (page
poor hygiene associated with the their debt. Before engaging market I have found only one independently
LCA also stated that organic farmers The answer, of course, is it isn’t. And 48). But this expectation was not
use of manure in organic cotton forces to push such farmers into collected and evaluated Social and
used no synthetic inputs whatsoever; that is not the only impact evaluation realised: 17 per cent of the farmers
production, combined with the organic production - by persuading Economic Impact Analysis that
meanwhile, data collected from that is missing stated that they had dis-adopted
lack of access to treated water in consumers and brands that organic attempts to compare organic and
the accompanying SEIA showed organic cotton farming because of
We have all heard about the serious many emerging nations, the toxicity is the only sustainable cotton to buy conventional farmers: the 2018
something entirely different. disappointing results in terms of
environmental impact of leather, associated with manure is surely a - we need to be certain that this is C&AF SEIA already referred to. profits and yields.
Well, the same thing occurs in the TE and of the need to eat less meat - all concern unequivocally best for the farmers
LCA. The latter found that globally, because of cows and their methane,
organic farmers use no synthetic their feed-stuffs, and their water.
inputs - at least no impact for same Well manure is also produced by
“
is evaluated. But some synthetic cows, so if it applies to the upstream
inputs are permitted by most organic impact of beef and hide, it likely
certification standards, so their
complete absence from the study
also applies to manure. In practice, many farmers’ experiences differed from
seems curious, and in the case of
By extension then, it also applies to
organic cotton, for which manure their expectations of organic farming. For example, the
Xinjiang cotton, remarkable.
Xinjiang winters are bitterly cold
is both the main fertiliser and the rates for cotton offered by the implementing partner
most important input (other than
and summers, extremely hot and water). Yet in both the TE and were often lower than they expected, farmers never
arid. The growing season is short, C&AF LCAs, the upstream impact received subsidies on inputs, and many never received
“
and all cotton farming employs a of manure is simply not included; it
drip and film system to improve enters burden free. the bonuses they were promised. Furthermore, for
ground temperature and reduce The two justifications offered for many farmers, the organic crop yield was much lower
surface runoff and evaporation.
Petroleum based films are the norm
and, of course, plastic mulch and
this omission are:
The upstream impact of manure was
not considered in the Cotton Inc
In the
Northwest the
growing season
than anticipated “
covers (petroleum-based other
LCA of conventional production. is short, there
than polyvinyl chloride (PVC)) are
permitted in organic cultivation. The manure is a waste of another is only one
system and therefore without
According to a 2014 study (citation environmental burden. crop per year.
7), the thin (4-8 µm) polyethylene
We would not accept a conventional The plastic
film used in China is slow to degrade,
easily damaged, difficult to reuse
LCA arguing that the impact of mulch protects
for a second season, and difficult to
chemical pesticides and fertilisers the seedlings
need not be evaluated, as they are
remove. Research results showed
not included in organic LCAs; and
from the broad
that plant growth was affected when
we do consider the upstream impact swings in
residual plastic exceeded 37.5 kg/
of cow hides in leather production, temperatures
ha in the soil; in the cotton fields of
Xinjiang, the average residue was 259
despite the fact that hides too, are during the day
“wastes of another system”.
and minimiSes
kg/ha, and the maximum, 381 kg/ha.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Clearly, polyethylene film has
Surely, then, these justifications
are invalid and the exclusion of
manure’s upstream impact from moisture
“
the loss of soil
serious environmental impacts, both the 2014 TE, and the 2018
18 Apparelinsider www.apparelinsider.com 19
Cotton
“
Says the report: "In practice, many recruit new ones - then global research - much as Inditex has
farmers’ experiences differed from organic cotton production is, at the agreed to fund US$4m of research
their expectations of organic farming. most fundamental level, completely at MIT. Albeit, in the interests of
For example, the rates for cotton
offered by the implementing partner
unsustainable.
COSTS VERSUS BENEFITS
There is one
topic missing
both sustainability and Millennium
Development, I would argue
CAN YOU COUNT ON redacted page 48 of the report to read 244 m3/ha. When I contacted them
again in June 2019, and pointed out that the input table on page 79 still
A CRITICAL REVIEW?
showed the same “typo” of 615 m3/ha of irrigation for organic cotton,
were often lower than they expected,
There is one topic missing from all from all current funding J-PAL (and this year’s Nobel
C&AF redacted that page too. For one LCA to list two completely different
farmers never received subsidies prize winners for economics Esther
on inputs, and many never received
current comparative evaluations: comparative Duflo and spouse) would be a better
figures for the same thing - organic cotton irrigation in this case - is
neither consistent, transparent, nor scientifically and technically valid. A
the bonuses they were promised.
these initiatives cost millions of evaluations: place to start. In an attempt to combat the dangers of misleading analysis, the ISO
pounds a year to operate. Even if clear violation of ISO standards occurred - why was this not mentioned in
Furthermore, for many farmers, the
we do eventually find that they have
these initiatives Finally, for those who might want to has settled on the construct of a ‘Critical Review’. The idea here is that
the critical review?
organic crop yield was much lower any LCA completed to ISO standards needs to hire several ‘experts’
an impact at a global level, are they cost millions of suggest the situation is too desperate
than anticipated.” (page 5)
As a result, of the 1,200 conventional
farmers randomly selected for the
cost effective? Or are there simpler,
cheaper ways to obtain the same or
better results?
pounds a year
to operate
“ for us to wait for data, here’s a
very simple solution we could all
implement tomorrow: buy less, buy
in the relevant field to testify that the study has been completed to
accepted standards.
The problem, of course, is that: a) ‘Expert’ is a very loose definition;
5. Under Assumptions, the C&AF MP LCA states: "Regional
average data were considered for the parameters such as rainfall, soil
erosion rate and evapotranspiration rate specific to Madhya Pradesh,
India" (page 74). But no precipitation data is provided anywhere in the
study, every single one was still better, and wear it more. and b) Even if the selected reviewers are indeed expert, this is
By all reports, the boycott of Uzbek report. Instead, we found on pages 28, 33, 39, 44, 50, that rainwater
producing conventional cotton a business transaction. If the budget allocated for the review is
cotton instituted by global brands, consumption was actually estimated at 79 percent of the blue water total
when interviewed. Of the 1,200 insufficient to cover detailed analysis by the reviewers, there will be
in the face of forced and child - this assertion was made even in the table for organic cotton on page
organic farmers on the other hand, no detailed analysis.
Email me at: 50, where that percentage was patently incompatible with the numbers
labour, has been very effective. If, So how do these issues and concerns manifest themselves in the case
303 had ceased to cultivate it; 96 veronica@commundesmortels.com shown. This too has, of course, been redacted by C&AF since I pointed it
as has been claimed, the Indian of both studies carried out by Thinkstep/PE International: the 2014
could not be found. out, but if you wish to see the original December 2018 report, please email
Government refuses to heed local TE LCA, and the 2018 C&AF MP LCA ?
The SEIA concludes: “A potential and I will forward the pdf. How did the Critical Review team not notice
requests to permanently ban
area for future research would be this discrepancy?
Monocrotophos, then surely a
to identify the reasons that farmers ABOUT THE AUTHOR SEVERAL POINTS OF NOTE: 6. When I queried all these numbers with C&AF/Thinkstep, I
boycott of Indian cotton by global
adopt, but then quit organic cotton 1. The 2014 TE LCA, Critical Review team did not notice that was sent a chart revealing the actual methodology employed to calculate
brands would be a much more cost Veronica Bates Kassatly is a former World Bank
farming." the rainfall, irrigation and environmental impact data for Xinjiang rainfall for each of the production systems.The statement on page 74 of
efficient solution than attempting economist/financial analyst and founder of concept
was not compatible with the analysis in the 2012 Cotton Inc LCA. The the LCA notwithstanding, this chart shows that no rainfall data entered
Indeed! to persuade individual farmers to brand, Commun des Mortels
former refers repeatedly to the latter, so the Critical Review team must the calculations. Instead it states: "The crop water requirement (CWR)
Of course, all these issues may be abandon the pesticide through BCI
have read both - or what were they reviewing? for cotton cultivated in Khargone region, Madhya Pradesh, India is 330
India-specific, but we note recent or organic initiatives? Citation 1 mm/year for all the three cultivation systems." ( which is equivalent to
figures from the USDA show that CONCLUSION http://farmhub.textileexchange.org/upload/ 2. The C&AF MP LCA states that two completely different
3,300 tonnes/ha).But the whole purpose of an LCA is to calculate what
library/Farm%20reports/LCA_of_Organic_ methods of data collection were employed and the review team appears
organic cotton production in Turkey Since the values they are claiming each crop requires. So they are not using standard LCA methodology.
Cotton%20Fiber-Full_Report.pdf not to have noticed.
has fallen to 10,000 tonnes pa from are not substantiated by their Who estimated this “water requirement”, where, when and why? And if
30,000 tonnes pa in 2006. Why Citation 2 3. The impact of manure was simply ignored in the C&AF the blue water calculations are based on this single statistic, why is this
sole identifiable source (TE’s
https://www.candafoundation.org/en/our-work/ MP LCA. The TE LCA at least had a partial evaluation of the potential not mentioned in the LCA itself, as ISO transparency standards require?
would that have happened if organic 2014 report) I have asked Higg/ results-and-learning/lca-report.pdf increase in impacts for organic cotton if manure were included, and And that is not the only concern. The report states: "The precipitation
farmers were all earning so much SAC, as well as Kering, and Stella
more money and reaping so many Citation 3 the Critical Review made a point of drawing attention to its omission; was assumed to follow the natural hydrologic cycle regardless of the land
McCartney inc, and the Soil https://www.candafoundation.org/en/ a point apparently forgotten by all who have employed that LCA to use type " (page 74). But this is categorically not the case in the Thinkstep
additional benefits? Association, where they are getting resources/4333socioeconomicstudyweb.pdf make comparative assertions, since. The crucial role that manure plays table. They simply deduct the irrigation water applied, from the crop water
And, if we look at TE’s own 2018 their numbers from. Despite Citation 4 in Madhya Pradesh organic production is even clearer in the C&AF requirement, and the remainder is deemed to be rainfall.
Organic Cotton Market Report, we the fact that ISO regulations http://www.world-agriculture.net/article/ MP LCA. Only irrigation water has a larger input by mass. Yet manure
clearly state that anyone making Since the revised figure for organic irrigation of 244 m3/ha is almost 400
see that by hectares, Australia is the evaluation-of-cotton-production-under-limited- is allowed to enter the system burden free, despite the fact that, at over
comparative sustainability tonnes less than the original 615 m3/ha (and than the 633 m3/ha reported
world's largest organic producer by water-resources-in-the-arid-region-of-xinjiang- 10 tonnes per hectare for cow dung alone, it is certainly does not satisfy
assertions must be able to prove china for conventional cotton, and the 688 m3/ha for BCI), the Thinkstep
a considerable margin. Australia the requirement that impacts of any input making a contribution of
method compensates by simply increasing “estimated rainfall” per hectare
also claims to be the world’s most them, and must make that proof Citation 5 more than 1 per cent of the cumulative mass of the model be included.
for organic cotton by 435 tonnes (they claim 3,060 tonnes of rain fell on
sustainable conventional cotton available to absolutely anyone who https://www.researchgate.net/ ISO requires that any decisions to omit data shall be clearly stated
publication/324142158_Coupling_effects_ organic fields, whilst in the same place and at the same time, only 2,625
producing nation, in terms of water, asks, no studies have arrived. and justified, and the potential impact on the outcome of the study
of_water_and_fertilizer_on_yield_water_and_ tonnes of rain fell on BCI/Conventional fields).
fertiliser, and pesticide use, per kilo Failing any convincing response, I assessed and described. For the omission of manure in the MP LCA,
fertilizer_use_efficiency_of_drip-fertigated_ no reasonable justification is provided, and no such impact assessment The question here of course, is how was I able to identify all these
of fibre. Yet, if the same TE Market repeat what I said at the start of this cotton_in_northern_Xinjiang_China errors and inconsistencies in a report that had already been Critically
Report is correct, Australia grows no article: at the present time there is was made. Yet the Critical Review does not even mention this omission,
Citation 6 the possibility of resultant emission understatement, or the violation of Reviewed? I have, of course, asked, C&AF,/Thinkstep and the Review
organic cotton at all. Why, and why no data to substantiate claims that at
http://resource.cottoninc.com/LCA/LCA-Full- assumptions about mass and value that occur, by allowing manure to team themselves, this very question.
does the Market Report not address a global level, one type of cotton is Report.pdf
this glaring inconsistency? more sustainable than another, and enter burden free. Why not? I have received no answer.
Citation 7
current assertions of comparative 4. When C&AF first published the MP LCA, in December 2018, There are a number of other concerns, including the deliberate
The Cotton Australia website states https://www.researchgate.net/
sustainability are completely it showed two completely different values for organic cotton irrigation: exclusion of chemical fertilisers and pesticides used by organic
organic production was attempted publication/296353247_Plastic-film_mulch_in_
misleading. Chinese_agriculture_Importance_and_problems 615 m3/ha on pages 48 and 79, and (implicitly) 244 m3/ha on page 7. farmers, already mentioned but I think this suffices to illustrate my
but proved “not economically
You can no longer see this because when I contacted C&AF in February point - the fact that an LCA has been Critically Reviewed doesn’t
sustainable.” If all of this data is So, in an industry awash with Additional named sources are available in the 2019 and pointed out the inconsistency between pages 7 and 48, they seem to mean very much.
correct, and existing organic farmers money, shouldn’t the next big online version of this article.
are leaving the sector for economic ‘initiative’ be to fund a leading
reasons - as fast as the initiatives university to undertake independent
20 Apparelinsider www.apparelinsider.com 21
Cotton
Cotton to some of the reporting biases
afflicting their previous studies, as
outlined in our article. Kering also
should be evaluated based on its
inherent merit alone.”
Here, it is not the case that data is
many issues raised in the article, so
we are unclear upon what basis it
refutes this assertion.
special:
appeared to suggest they thought effectively being funded by and for TE did include links to a number
some of the industry data is not up the apparel/textile industries that is of studies covering biodiversity and
to scratch. We’d certainly go along the real problem; but, as our cover such, but while we agree that these
with the call for better data – a story points out, that the studies aspects are important, they are
right to
message we have repeatedly pressed have major errors and omissions. covered neither in the three LCAs
in this publication. But surely the On top of which, the data is then referred to, nor in the article itself, so
real question is how does Kering being marketed, misinterpreted we will not be discussing this here.
propose to adapt its EP&L in the and presented in such a way Whilst none of the studies proffered
light of the findings outlined in our that is both misleading to end
reply
by TE actually cover cotton, for
cover story? consumers and anti-competitive. those who would like to see them
The SAC pointed out a number of The SAC did send the GaBi data nonetheless, we provide links to the
minor factual errors. Specifically, sources for both conventional and articles below.
that Koch Industries is not a organic cotton, which was helpful.
member of SAC, its subsidiary, Interestingly these show that a) The Further Reading:
Invista is. This is correct. sole source for its contention that bit.ly/320CN4W
Indeed, Invista is not just a member. the impact per kilo of ‘cotton fibre bit.ly/2N1JS0z
organic’ is 11.2 units, is indeed the bit.ly/2N1JS0z
It also supplied the Higg evaluation bit.ly/320WXvq
of Elastane as one of the world’s 2014, TE LCA. and b) The source
most sustainable fibres - setting for evaluating conventionally
the impact at 44 (for comparative produced cotton fibre at 60.6
purposes, that of silk is set at 681). units, is not the 2012 LCA used by
Kering, but an update produced
On this note, the SAC also said:
by Thinkstep in 2016. This update
“Without allowing the support and
added environmentally friendly
funding from material production
Australian conventional cotton into
companies and brands, the SAC,
the equation and so has significantly
and the industry, would face
lower impact values.
substantial obstacles to collecting
and providing high-quality life For example, it found that globally,
cycle inventory data. The result on average, total blue water
of that scenario would be a huge consumption was around 1,560 m³
Our cover story for this issue made reference to a number of it would not be answering or
loss of expertise and would require per tonne of cotton fibre, whilst the
commenting on our cover story.
organisations and, in the interests of balance, all were offered the governments to step into this space 2012 study claimed around 2,120
BCI similarly stated they would not to fill the voids that exist. If that m³ of water was used to produce
chance to respond. Here we summarise who said what be submitting a response. We sent is what is really being requested, 1,000 kg of cotton - so an 26 per
the Soil Association the full article. then pressure should be put on cent reduction. Yet both Kering and
They did not respond to our email. the parties that are able to provide Higg claim switching to organic
W e try to be transparent at
Apparel Insider. With this
contradicts/clarifies/modifies [the
assertions in this article], we are Like Stella McCartney, Kering independent data.” cotton generates an 80 per cent
reduction in environmental impact.
“ “
in mind, we’d like to offer a little happy to incorporate these.” instructed us that their comments We agree that governments may
insight into how this issue’s cover were not quotes. They did not explain need to step into this space. Indeed, Textile Exchange told us that it did
We also offered each party the
story was developed. how they justify claiming that if we are serious about halting not agree with our cover story’s
chance to send a free-standing
organic cotton has an 80 per cent statement that there is “no data to
Our writer had been discussing the response piece, provided it was The SAC pointed climate change, we need expert and
No data to
lower impact than conventional, or independent analysis of every aspect substantiate claims that at a global
concerns covered in the article, in purely analytical and data based, out a number indeed, respond to any of the issues level, one type of cotton is more substantiate
emails with the relevant parties, for and stuck to the topics raised in the of our consumption, rather than the
attached article.
of minor actually raised in the article, other muddle of serious scientific analysis sustainable than another. They are claims that at
many months. Some of this contact
also related to the previous article factual errors. than telling us that they plan to and interest group interpretations, all equally unsustainable.”
a global level,
We received a range of responses. analyse usage and end of life impacts,
she wrote for us in May. As a result, Specifically, that that currently prevails. Moreover, However, TE provided no new data.
one type of
The head of sustainability at Stella to give as full a picture over their the article itself clearly states: “The It did not explain how it justifies
most of the interested parties have
McCartney made a few comments Koch Industries products’ entire life cycle as possible cotton is more
had since the summer to address fact that a study has been funded by claiming that based solely on the
but also pointed out that most of is not a member (see story page 8). an interest group - be it Monsanto 2014 LCA, organic cotton consumes sustainable than
the questions raised.
her email was ‘off the record’ and of SAC, its This is, of course, an important step or Kering - or that one or more of 80-90 per cent less water than another. They
After this issue’s cover story article suggested that we told her if we subsidiary,
was completed, we sent a copy
of it to all parties mentioned. We
told each of them: “If you have any
wanted to print any of her response
so her PR team could approve it. We
chose not to pursue that avenue. correct
“
Invista is. This is
in the right direction, but Kering
does not state how or by whom
the data is to be collected and
the researchers has had a financial
relationship with same, is certainly
a conflict of interest. However, this
conventional cotton, when that LCA
itself states it does no such thing.
Nor indeed did it explain how it
“
are all equally
unsustainable
evaluated. There is then, presumably does not automatically mean that justifies allowing manure to enter
independent data/analysis that
The C&A Foundation told us a risk that this study may be subject the research is worthless. Research burden free, or address any of the
22 Apparelinsider www.apparelinsider.com 23
You can also read
