The Solution to Fast Fashion Lies In the Ocean - Sustainable Biofabrics from Seaweed Alginate

PART 1: The Misconceptions of Fast Fashion

The fast fashion industry has become synonymous with rapid production cycles, low-cost garments, and a constant demand for the latest trending designs. Retail companies such as H&M and Zara have capitalized on this model, providing millions of their customers with the ability to keep up with fashion at a fraction of the cost, lured into a pattern of quick purchases and rapid disposal. This method creates the illusion of accessibility and affordability, but fails to account for environmental and ethical issues. 

Take-Back Programs:

Studies have continuously shown that individuals think personal actions have the ability to shift current trends. Futerra questioned over 1,000 consumers in the United States and United Kingdom. They concluded that 96% of buyers believed that donating, recycling, or buying clothing ethically, can make a significant difference. Furthermore, a recent survey by Forbes Magazine indicated that there is a strong customer desire for companies to support sustainable lifestyles. 88% of their total respondents expressed they want brands to find solutions that will make their daily lives more sustainable.

Clothing take-back programs are often presented as a positive alternative for reducing textile waste. These initiatives encourage consumers to return their unwanted items with the promise of reuse or recycling purposes. On the surface, these programs appear to be mutually beneficial for both consumers and the environment. However, rather than being a model of sustainability, take-back programs often contribute to further environmental degradation.

The vast majority of collected clothing does not end up being recycled or repurposed in ways that we expect. According to CBC News, many of these donations are actually shipped to developing countries. They are then sold in local markets, or more commonly, dumped. For instance, an investigation by Atmos tracked a single garment returned to an H&M store. It traveled more than 15,000 miles over the course of five months before reaching its final destination, a landfill located in Bamako, Mali. This journey is not unique. Donated clothing is often shipped to multiple stops in various countries, adding to the garments overall carbon footprint before disposal. 

Ethical Viewpoint:

The ethical implications of harmful take-back programs are very significant. Instead of being a charitable act, exporting unwanted clothing to developing countries is a form of waste dumping where wealthier nations offload their excess materials onto poorer ones. This creates an ongoing cycle of dependency and exploitation, where the environmental burden and economic impact is shifted to places least equipped to handle them.

The Reality Overseas - Ghana:

The influx of second-hand garments, specifically in West African countries such as Ghana, has destabilized their economies and threatened cultural identities. 

An estimated 15 million used items are sent to Accra, Ghana each week from just North America, Europe, and Australia alone. The burden first falls on the women and girls who are tasked to carry the heavy bales, called mitumba. From there, the sellers swarm the bundles and compete to find the best garments. Merchants only take the pieces that can be dyed and repaired in a short period of time, about 60% of all imported items. They are then put back on the shelf, sold at a discounted price to anyone willing to purchase them. 

This practice is flooding what was once a sprawling clothing market. Now, local manufacturers cannot compete with the low prices of imported goods, leading to the collapse of domestic production. In addition, even the resellers are working in unstable conditions and losing income as the quality of their bales continues to decline. This has had a ripple effect on the overall economy, changing the demand for skilled workers and resulting in job losses. 

Clothing is also a powerful form of cultural expression, and the dominance of Western styles in African markets has led to a decline of traditional dress and customs. Each region has unique styles and textiles that reflect its history and heritage, but a majority of the donated clothing is culturally inappropriate for the regions it is sent to. Along with their appearance, the clothes are often made from synthetic materials that are not suitable for hot climates. As a result many of these garments are left unsold. Instead, they steadily accumulate, clogging landfills and polluting waterways. This poses serious health risks to local communities and contributes to environmental degradation.

Current Solution:

In East Africa, countries like Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda have implemented bans or heavy restrictions on clothing imports in an effort to protect their economies and preserve cultural identity. These policies are creating space for local industries to grow and thrive with less pressure and more long-term benefits. In Rwanda specifically, the government has provided support to local textile manufacturers, helping them to modernize their operations and improve the quality of their products. This has not only led to job creation but has also spurred economic growth in sectors of agriculture and transportation, which are closely linked to the textile industry.

However, this transition has been met with challenges from other countries that view the ban as a threat to free trade and the global second-hand clothing market. In particular, the United States has been vocal in its opposition, arguing that the ban violates their specific international agreement. In fact, back in 2018, the U.S. government threatened to impose trade sanctions on Rwanda. This move was widely criticized as an attempt to coerce a smaller nation, highlighting the power imbalances that characterize international trade relations. Despite this pressure, Rwanda and the other African nations have committed to keeping their limitations enforced. This reflects the growing need for sustainable trade practices that fit the development goals of multiple countries.

Protecting Exclusivity Through Incineration:

While fast fashion brands dispose of excess and used inventory through their take-back programs, luxury brands have adopted a different, yet equally controversial, approach: incineration. Burberry has made headlines for their practice of burning unsold clothing and accessories to protect their brand's exclusivity and sense of scarcity. By destroying unsold goods, brands prevent these items from being sold at a discount or simply given away, which could dilute the brand value. This approach seriously questions the industry's commitment to sustainability as in 2018 alone, Burberry incinerated over $38 million worth of their own products. While they claim to have since stopped the practice, backed up with broad claims about reducing their carbon footprint and emissions, it is still unclear how exactly they recycle their inventory at the end of the season.

Ethical Viewpoint:

The environmental cost of incinerating unsold products is highly significant. The production of clothing involves the extraction and processing of raw materials, the consumption of vast amounts of water and energy, and the labor of countless workers. By incinerating unsold goods, luxury brands are discarding all of these resources rather than finding ways to repurpose or recycle them. The physical process of burning textiles also releases lots of harmful pollutants into the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, toxic chemicals, and particulate matter. These emissions contribute to air pollution and increase the climate crisis, only adding to the environmental footprint of the fashion industry.

From an ethical standpoint, the practice of incineration is indefensible. In a world where millions suffer from poverty and lack of access to basic needs, the destruction of perfectly usable clothing is an example of the inequities in the global fashion industry. Many of these brands, notably like Zara, Gucci, Louis Vuitton, and Cartier, have made public commitments to sustainability, and yet the practice of incineration contradicts these promises. This disconnect has led to demand for greater transparency for luxury companies to disclose their true waste management practices.

PART 2: Engineering Future Solutions 

One promising solution lies in the development of sustainable biofabrics derived from seaweed, or alginate. Biofabrics have the potential to revolutionize the way clothing is made and consumed. These materials are biodegradable and can be produced in a way that minimizes environmental impact. The creation of alginate fabrics require significantly less water and energy than traditional textiles, and can break down naturally at the end of their lifecycle. This reduces the amount of waste that ends up in landfills. 

Finally, the concept of circular fashion aims to create a closed-loop system from production to disposal. Fashion brands utilize this model with the traditional take-back program method that, as discussed earlier, is often more about brand image than genuine sustainability. To create a truly circular fashion system with widespread adoption, the industry must invest in the development of sustainable biofabrics from seaweed. 

Humanitarian engineers play a crucial role in the development of circular fashion systems by providing the technical expertise needed to design sustainable materials and processes. Through working with fashion brands, NGOs, and governments, they can help to form a more sustainable and equitable fashion industry.