If you look back to our blog on February 16, you will see details from our meeting with Damien Sanfilippo from the Pesticide Action Network. Much of the information he gave us in this meeting made the socially responsible t-shirt viable. Damien took a look at our new 'vote' page, and had a lot to say about it. His thoughts were so informative we've uploaded them word for word for you below:

I have been very enthusiastic about the Perfect Tee Shirt project from the start. I greatly appreciate the democratic approach that has been adopted, and have read all the comments very carefully. I have learned a lot, and I am excited, more than ever, about all the new fibre options being developed. However I have to say that I am very surprised by some of the comments I have read. Many of them show a complete misunderstanding of the issue. While I remain supportive of the democratic process and respect any opinions as long as they are properly argued, I am very upset about some obvious misconceptions. I cannot help but feeling angry on behalf of the tens of thousand organic cotton farmers worldwide, who are true pioneers, and are the most ardent opponent to the unfair and distorted international trade, global environmental degradation, GM, and, in general, the systematic exploitation of the South by the North . Cotton farmers do not have internet access, and cannot vote. I would therefore like to speak on their behalf.

First of all, there are no cons about West African organic cotton. There are limitations which prevent it to reach perfection. Perfection does not exist in the real world. The issues listed as “cons” are only an attempt to describe those limitations.

Con 1 and 2: Organic cotton processing still requires chemicals. This is accurate. The use of some chemicals does not necessarily constitute an obstacle to sustainability. Hydrogen peroxide, sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), and other chemicals used have no effect on the environment, and health of workers and consumers, as long as they are used in a responsible manner. The chemicals which constitute risks are banned by organic standards. Organic standards are extremely stringent. The processing of hemp and bamboo requires a much greater amount of chemicals, which explains why the processing of those fibre cannot, at this time, meet the organic standards.

Con 3: The perfect tee shirt needs to be of high quality. No argument there. West Africa has the capacity to produce the highest quality cotton possible with upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum varieties, 97% of world production). Only Extra Long Staple Cotton (Gossypium barbasense varieties, known as Egyptian cotton in Egypt, PIMA or Sea Island cotton in America, etc…) produces higher quality textile, because of its longer fibres. Upland cotton from West Africa can produce textile of higher quality than many posh and exorbitantly-priced designer clothes. Cotton quality is, on every continent, highly variable. Cotton is a Plant!!! Surely most voters in this project, in their quest for the perfect tee shirt, would not think of blaming West African farmers for the weather.  Please keep in mind that if weather patterns are upset by climate change (and they are), we are responsible for it (We Americans, Japanese, British, French, and the likes), not African farmers. Each one of us, even the most environmental conscious, are responsible for many times more greenhouse gas emission than an African cotton farmers, but THEY will be the ones paying for it. It has been clearly suggested that developing countries will suffer the most from climate change. Cotton quality varies from a valley to another, from one season to another. It is linked to natural parameters such as rain quantity and distribution, pest infestation, etc… Every country on every continent will invariably produce some lower quality cotton. If a perfect tee shirts is produced in West Africa, it will have to use the highest quality cotton available in the harvest.

Regarding the quality of manufacturing, please give them a chance, and refrain from judging the quality before having received a sample. Do not emit any judgment on account of rumours.

Con 4 Child Labour. We European need to refrain from judging how a West African farm family lives. West African Children, especially in organic fairtrade certified projects, go to school, and have a much better life than their conventional neighbours. Yes, children might occasionally help their parents on the farm. Families in Africa lives together. Elders are not sent to retirement homes, and children, when not in school, sometimes help their parents out. Everybody participate to the farm activities. Once again, who are we to judge? We should rather look into state orchestrated child slavery in Uzbekistan. Do you know where your cotton comes from? If you knew, you would be ashamed. Uzbekistan is the third largest cotton exporter in the world.

Con 5 Unsustainable water use is, after pesticide usage, the most important problem associated with cotton. However, 100% of West African Cotton is rain fed. 100%. This is not an issue here. Do not penalise West African farmers because Soviet-ruled Uzbekistan has destroyed the Aral Sea. This makes no sense. This should not be listed as a con. It is true that all cotton in the world cannot be rain-fed. However irrigation can be sustainable. Remember that water is a renewable resource. Sustainability can be achieved through proper water management. This is not the case in many countries, but it could be. 60% of irrigation water in Central and South Asia is lost before reaching the fields because of poor infrastructure. Why? Because they have no money to fix it. Why? Because our wonderful textile industry has worked hard to insure that cotton farmers are paid the lowest price possible, so that companies can make a bigger profit, so that their shareholders can drive their monstrous Range Rovers and Porsches in the streets of the City (thus emitting more CO2.). Because some conventional cotton farmers, while they only get 15p for growing the cotton of our £20 pounds Tee Shirts, have to pay us back 9p for the poisonous chemicals that we sell them. Their meagre income only allow them to survive (not always), and do not provide any hope to invest in infrastructure, education, etc…Do you know where the agrochemical industry is based? Hence more Porsches in the streets of London, New York, Paris and Frankfurt.

I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the cons listed against organic cotton are not significant. I am very concerned that most voters have reached their decision solely based on an over-simplified bullet point list of pros and cons, without understanding the issues fully. Now I would like to address some specific comments.

Mark said: “…surely there isn’t enough rain in Africa for such a thirsty crop”. Do you understand, Mark, what “rain-fed” means? West Africa has been, for decades, the second largest exporter of Cotton in the world. All of this cotton is rain-fed. All of it. On which ground can you assert that there is not enough rain in Africa? Do you know anything about tropical and sub-tropical climates? It rains twice as much in Cotonou (1,350mm) or Bamako (1,018mm) than in London (600mm). I can understand that Mark might not be familiar with world climates. However, I was shocked to notice that 100% of commentators agreed with this false assertion!

Cate is suspicious of private certification schemes, and prefer EU legislations. Many consumers are, and who could blame them? It is indeed confusing. However please note that organic standards for crop production are based on a very good EU regulation from 1991. There are things to be criticised about organic or fairtrade certification: they are not perfect. I work for an independent charity, with no links whatsoever with organic or fairtrade certification bodies. We occasionally challenge them to further refine their standards and operating mechanism. To tell the truth, they usually challenge themselves anyway. I need to acknowledge the fact that organic standards and certification process are extremely stringent. They are much more reliable than any European legislation will ever be. Those certification bodies have a lot of integrity. The Soil Association and Fairtrade Foundation, which operates in the UK, are truly commendable in the sense that the benefits to producers are always considered a priority. Always. Textile standards and labels, because of the nature of textile industry, are even more complicated and confusing than for food products. This is why we are preparing a truly independent and honest consumer guide to organic, “eco” and fair trade standards, so that consumer’s legitimate suspicion will be addressed and, hopefully, dissipated. This guide will soon be available on our website.

There appears to be a misconception about how colourful an organic garment can be. Oganic cotton does not necessarily means beige. Just have a look at Seasalt (www.seasaltorganic.co.uk) or Tatty Bumpkin (www.tattybumpkin.com) organic cotton products, and you will see all the colours of the rainbow. While natural (vegetable) dyes are available, many safe and environmental friendly synthetic dyes can be used.

Tee shirt 3 (disposable): I am honestly having a hard time understanding why so many commentators are so enthusiastic about promoting the most extreme case of disposable and throw-away culture. Ecomonkey is right: “This is a silly idea”. The introduction says that disposal and biodegradation of hundreds of Tee Shirt in our garden “does not cause any harm to the environment”. It may appear so. But what we are effectively creating is a transfer of fertility. You are fertilizing your garden, while depleting nutrients in the area of production. If billions of disposable Tee Shirts are produced in developing countries and disposed-off in our gardens, it creates an obvious misbalance: another threat to North-South equilibrium (Many environmental achievement in the North have been to the detriment of developing countries: delocalised polluting industry, dumping of toxic chemicals, asbestos, etc… in the south). The environmental is Global, we all share the same planet. Those biodegradable Tee Shirts would need to be disposed off on their place of production. Agricultural land and most natural resources are scarce, and should not be wasted to produce the many billions disposable Tee Shirts necessary to dress 6 Billion human beings each year.

It is true that washing a Tee Shirt can account for a lot of its ecological footprint. The solution needs to be found in changing the way we wash cloths: lower temperature, better detergents, etc… I have lived 6 months in Africa, and during this time I have not used a single drop of hot water or phosphorous soap, either for my cloths or for my body. The ecological footprint of people in developing countries is immensely smaller than ours. Let’s learn from them instead of always relying on new fancy and sexy technologies. What about the resources and energy usage necessary to produce this unprecedented amount of disposable material? How many times a quality Tee Shirt can be worn? A thousand times? Does it really make any sense wanting to replace it with 1000 disposable Tee Shirts?

I would like to challenge the assertion made that 85% of a garment’s impact comes from washing. It is difficult to compare one environmental impact with another, and this percentage cannot be considered as a scientific fact. It is an incredibly easy shortcut to an incredibly complex problem. Impacts of washing can be very easily quantified: energy and water usage, water bodies eutrophication through phosphorous detergents, etc…How do you quantify the environmental impact of conventional agriculture? Conventional agriculture devastates biodiversity, through monoculture practices, pesticide usage, etc…We have no ideas how many hundreds of species are wiped out of the Earth each year. Pesticide contamination of rivers in Africa is many thousand times higher than what we tolerate in Europe. Even in the US, amphibians  are growing eggs in their testicle (in case you are wondering, this is NOT normal!). Human spermatozoid counts are dropping, significantly, consistently, from Africa to the Arctic. This is only the tip of the iceberg. The iceberg is too big, and the issues too complex for us to understand fully. How do you quantify the devastation of soil fertility? Soil fertility and structure is being ruined by conventional agriculture, especially in developing countries. Most of Africa’s soil is in danger of becoming sterile. This is a vital capital that we are destroying, a loss that we never quantify, resources which belongs to future generations. Have we forgotten why many ancient civilizations have mysteriously collapsed, from the ancient Mesopotamians to the Mayas? They have used up their natural resources, especially their soil. Most have collapsed suddenly, unexpectedly, usually only decades after their apogees. They had not quantified this loss of natural resource, and we are making the same mistake. We are very good at computing how much energy a laundry uses up. We are very bad at evaluating the impact of conventional agriculture on our natural resources. Textile washing is not a threat to humanity. It can be improved, and putting trucks on trains would probably have a greater impact than stopping our laundry. Loss of biodiversity and soil fertility is a very serious threat. 85% vs. 15%? I do not believe in this. The bottom line: Organic agriculture not only prevents the devastation of biodiversity and soil fertility, it helps rebuilding it. The very survival of future generations depends on it.

The argument in favour of a locally produced textile is undeniable. But what are we trying to achieve? The Perfect Tee shirt for UK or European communities? Or the Perfect Tee Shirt, full stop (“perfect” taken in its universal sense)?. This question needs to be clarified.

If the answer is “perfect for the UK or European communities”, then yes, this might be the best option. If not, organic cotton from West Africa has the potential to have a much greater impact on a much greater number of people. The local option would undoubtedly benefits many European workers. However the African option’s benefits are much further-reaching than most people realise:

A federation of approximately 700 farmers and their families would directly benefit from this single project. However, 20,000 organic cotton farmers worldwide would benefit through this unique opportunity to raise awareness. The lessons from organic cotton offers tremendous hope for 100 million cotton farmers and their families, most of them currently are on the edge of survival. The success of organic cotton will determine, to a great extend, what the world community decides to do to transform cotton production. Cotton is a priority issue at the European Union (EU-Africa Cotton forum), World Trade Organisation, United Nations Environment Programme, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, etc… Organic cotton farmers are demonstrating that cotton can be grown sustainably. Only its success will convince the international community to transform the way agriculture is done. This success depends on consumers in the North. It depends on us. This Perfect tee Shirt offers an opportunity to make a huge difference in this world. Any improvement we make in Europe, either environmental, social, or economic, will be useless unless we restore a fairer North-South Balance. This balance will not be restored though charity and aid, but only through fairer trade. The perfect Tee Shirt can contribute to make the world, not just the UK, a better place. Please vote for West African Organic cotton.

Many commentators are rightfully concerned that West Africa should be better off growing other crops than cotton. It is very legitimate to consider that food crops are the most important.

However I need to point out that organic agriculture is based on agrodiverstity and crop rotation. Organic cotton farmers grow food crops in rotation with organic cotton or as intercrops. Thanks to the demand for organic cotton, those farmers are able to grow food organically, thus insuring food security for their community, and a healthy food supply. This is not the case on conventional farms. Cotton pesticides (sometimes very toxic) are used on food crops, because they are the only one readily available.

West African communities also need currencies. This is essential for the development of their infrastructures, education, etc. This is why they need to grow cash crops. 60% of Benin's export revenues are from cotton. Cotton is one of the most effective cash crop they can produce. On the contrary to other cash crops, Cotton can be easily stored for a long time. This is very important considering the poor road infrastructure. West Africa's climate is also extremely well suited for growing cotton.