The majority of the clothing we wear has been treated to add or remove color, whether we are aware of it or not. The detrimental effects of such procedures, and particularly dyeing, on people, the environment, and animals are often disregarded; nevertheless, in this article, we’ll discuss them and look at more environmentally friendly options.
A synopsis of textile coloring’s past
Textile dyeing has been documented from the time of Ancient Egypt. Vegetables, flowers, and insects were among the natural materials used to make colors back then. The creation of colors using chemicals didn’t happen until much later—the 19th century, to be exact—but more on that later.
Color has historically been employed in clothes to denote social standing or rank. Because they were more costly, brighter, more vivid colors were often only used by the affluent and aristocracy. Consider Tyrian purple, a dye that was allegedly created as far back as 1200 BCE and was obtained in minute amounts from sea snails. Only kings and emperors were permitted to wear clothing coloured with the highly valued Tyrian purple, since it took tens of thousands of snails to produce enough dye for a robe.
Traditional natural dyes that are well-known include indigofera, madder root, and safflower. The latter produces indigo, as its name implies, and while its history spans thousands of years throughout Asia, South America, and Africa, it is often believed to have started in Japan. Originally produced on a small scale from plants, indigo dye is now often created via labor-intensive chemical processing and labor-intensive labor. The same tale awaits us on the other side of the rainbow.
The current status of textile dyeing
When scientist William Henry Perkin discovered in 1856 that a coal tar experiment had left silk with a vivid purple stain, it was an accident that led to the development of modern chemical textile dyeing. During the Industrial Revolution, this discovery coincided with the mechanization of textile manufacturing. Eventually, the enormous volumes of textiles being produced just proved too much for the labor-intensive and sometimes sluggish natural coloring procedures. Furthermore, synthetic colors become more affordable while natural dyes sometimes fail to provide the appropriate vibrancy.
Up to 90% of clothing made today is synthetically colored, which calls for a lot of water and often harmful chemicals during the dyeing process. Take the artificially produced indigo dye we just discussed. It’s not the only offender; the chemical concoction also contains formaldehyde, aniline, and hydrogen cyanide. There are a lot of potentially hazardous compounds included in the materials we wear and touch on a daily basis, as estimates place the amount of dyes used in textile dyeing at up to two thirds of all produced dyes. As to the UN Environment Program’s assessment, the world’s second biggest water polluter is really the textile dyeing industry.
According to reports, the majority of textile dyes contaminate our rivers.
The amount of water used in the fashion industry is astounding, and most of it occurs during the textile dyeing process. Pre-rinsing procedures, the dye baths needed to completely saturate fabrics with the desired color, and post-dye rinsing are all included in this.
The precise amounts of water used during the dyeing and finishing stages of textile fibers are difficult to ascertain, much as the statistics around water usage in the fashion industry. However, experts have calculated that up to 200 tons of water might be required for every tonne of textiles produced. Furthermore, much of this water returns to the environment contaminated with heavy metals, dangerous chemicals, microfibres, residual dyes, and mordants—chemicals used to bind colors to cloth. As much as 90% of these colors are anticipated to remain chemically unaltered even after effluent treatments, according to a 2019 paper on synthetic dyes in textile effluent published in the European Journal of Microbiology and Immunology.
Wastewater containing colors contains compounds that, when released into the environment, may limit photosynthesis in aquatic plants, deplete oxygen in streams, impair soil fertility, and seriously injure or even kill nearby animals.
Fashion wastewater is frequently thrown into rivers and streams in nations with heavy textile production, so as customers in the Global North pile colorful apparel into their shopping baskets, these waterways become poisonous with colors and pollution. According to a CNN story, adjacent manufacturers have been dumping dye into multiple streams in Bangladesh and China, causing them to become black and red. This problem is made possible by lax enforcement and regulation.
The effects of synthetic textile dyes on humans
Although skin irritation, cancer, neurotoxicity, and other major health risks are well-documented for those working directly with synthetic dyes and other chemicals in the garment supply chain, they are often disregarded in favor of more pressing labor rights problems.
In other parts of Bangladesh, people who live close to a polluted river and whose access to clean water has already been hampered by tainted textile effluent have reported experiencing fevers, gastrointestinal issues, and skin irritation after swimming or bathing in the water.
Furthermore, the issues don’t end with the supply chain; chemicals from textile dyes may also have an impact on the people who wear the garments.
Certain azo dyes and other synthetic textile dyes used today may cause cancer. Despite being outlawed in the EU for being harmful, these dyes are nonetheless widely used worldwide to color fast-fashion apparel. Because azo dyes are soluble in water, your skin may absorb them more easily, which may lead to symptoms including irritation of the skin and eyes. Additionally, there is evidence that some colors, such dispersion dyes, may function as skin sensitizers, resulting in skin irritation and other health problems.
In The Guardian, Alden Wicker, the author of To Dye For: How Toxic Fashion is Making Us Sick—and How We Can Fight Back, stated that although there is an increasing number of cases connecting health issues to what people wear, there is still less scrutiny of the chemicals used in clothing than in other industries, such as the beauty industry. According to Wicker, one explanation for this might be because neither experts nor customers are aware of the precise chemicals used in the production, processing, weaving, dyeing, finishing, and assembly of apparel and accessories, much alone how many of them are utilized.
Large companies with enormous buying power that outsource the majority of their manufacture to nations like Bangladesh and China in order to take advantage of their cheap labor forces play a key part in this pollution, as is the case with most of the creation of current fashion. These businesses put profits ahead of the health and well-being of people, the environment, and animals by continuing a take-make-waste cycle with little consideration for its effects.
Do natural dyes have a longer lifespan?
Does this imply that we should stop using artificial colors and go back to our origins by using only natural dyes made from plants, seeds, and insects? Not exactly. They have their own set of issues, such as water use and possible species extinction due to the sharp increase in raw material demand. And while the dye ingredients themselves may not be poisonous, the chemicals called mordants that are used to attach the dye to the cloth frequently are, which takes us back to the beginning.
Certain manufacturers do color clothes without the need for mordants. However, with time, the color will often fade or alter. While some may treasure this as a special feature of their more environmentally friendly clothing, others may not feel the same way.
Some natural dyes, referred to as substantial dyes, are also naturally rich in tannins. They aren’t used on a commercial scale because they are generally only compatible with natural fibers and cannot be used in conjunction with synthetic fibers, such as polyester, which are frequently used by fast fashion brands. However, they bond well with fibers even without mordants and don’t see as much fading.
Advancements and innovations in the dyeing of textiles
Global change has been pushed in recent years by groups including Greenpeace and its Detox Fashion campaign, Partnership for Cleaner Textile (PaCT), and the ZDHC Roadmap to Zero. There are now certifications that guarantee the safety of products as well; OEKO-TEX’s STeP and STANDARD 100, for instance, check that the parts of a garment and their manufacturing process are safe for humans and the environment. Similar to this, bluesign seeks to identify ways to produce textiles in a more responsible manner by getting rid of dangerous materials at every stage of the supply chain. When rating brands, we take into account both of these certificates.
Numerous entrepreneurs are also making a lot of effort to change the way that we color clothes without using water. One advancement in synthetic dyeing is called DyeCoo, which adheres colors to cloth using CO2 instead of water and extra chemicals. Several businesses, including Inditex and Gap, have pledged to use DyeCoo in 2022.
Wrangler and G-Star Raw have also experimented with foam-dying denim, a novel method that consumes a great deal less water and energy than traditional dyeing. Additionally, a firm called Nature Coatings has developed a substitute for the conventional carbon black pigment made from petroleum by using FSC-certified wood debris as its foundation material.
Kate Hobson-Lloyd, manager of fashion ratings at Good On You, comments on these advancements: While it’s encouraging to see cutting-edge techniques like CO2 and foam dyeing gaining traction, many firms still need to improve their chemical management and disclosure practices. It’s best practice for companies to use certifications like GOTS, Oeko-Tex STeP, and bluesign, and to make it obvious to customers which of their materials and products are compliant.
She goes on: It’s crucial to take into account the chemical management guidelines that companies have established. Specifically, finding out whether a company releases a Restricted Substances List (RSL), which should include information on the dyes and other materials that a brand allows its suppliers to use as well as the allowed levels. Particularly bigger companies must use the ZDHC Manufacturing Restricted Substance List and make explicit how many of their suppliers are compliant. While it’s simple for businesses to claim they don’t use dangerous colors, it’s crucial to examine the supporting documentation.
Creating laws to stop pollution from textile dyes
Even while many nations have laws against chemical pollution and the environment, some of the biggest centers for the production of clothing still have widespread problems with hazardous chemical usage and wastewater disposal. However, something is being done. In 2022, for example, the governments of Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Pakistan collaborated with the UN Environment Program on a five-year initiative to reduce the use and emissions of these chemicals in the textile industry. It will provide assistance to manufacturers and small enterprises in enhancing the way they handle dangerous chemicals, control worker hazards, and eventually get rid of the worst substances from their operations.
The Minister of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change of Bangladesh, Shahab Uddin, told CNN in 2020 that steps were being taken to address the problems of chemical pollution. These included modernizing environmental and conservation laws, fining polluters, keeping an eye on the quality of the water, establishing centralized treatment plants, and collaborating with international development partners to enhance wastewater treatment.
Similar circumstances may be seen in China, which has recently enacted stricter environmental regulations that have improved the cleanliness of inland water surfaces. The nation will, among other things, require environmental reporting from large polluters in 2022. Still, there are many places where contaminated and hazardous water is a concern, and the issue is far from being fixed.
From here, where do we go?
Similar to several other sustainability concerns in the fashion industry, the fashion sector is deeply embedded with the usage of hazardous chemical-containing dyes and inadequate wastewater treatment practices. Rather than supporting an industry that prioritizes workers, longevity, and having the least negative effect on the environment, many of the largest and most powerful businesses in the world drive for profits. Some argue that the only way to address this is for governments to enact laws compelling businesses to improve and holding them responsible when they don’t, while others think the solution is to boycott corporations who are known to be doing badly in these areas.
But given that there is so little openness about what’s in your clothing and what’s in them—as Wicker pointed out—how can you avoid dangerous synthetic dyes? As always, they advise using the facts at hand to the best of your ability and choosing brands based on your beliefs by rating each one on our directory or app before making a purchase. When rating brands, they take into account a number of factors, including whether the company has goals regarding the use of hazardous chemicals, whether it has certification from any organizations that aim to remove dangerous materials from the supply chain, and whether it maintains a list of manufacturing restricted substances that is compliant with the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals program.
And lastly, some wise counsel from Wicker, who clarified that she now stays away from fast-fashion, low-cost, and imitation labels. She selects products from reliable retailers that value their brand, have a chemical management program, or have certifications like GOTS, OEKO-TEX, or bluesign. Whenever feasible, she opts for natural fibers instead of fancy claims like easy-care, anti-wrinkle, stain-repellency, and anti-odor finishes. Before wearing any new clothes, she washes them in non-toxic, odorless laundry detergent. She also believes in her nose, therefore she returns everything that smells bad. They are in complete agreement.
