Campbell’s is one of America’s most iconic brands. The company famous for soups also produces thousands of other food items. Famous brands under the Campbell’s umbrella include Pepperidge Farm, Bolthouse Farms, and Prego.
Like most major food companies, Campbell’s had not kept up with the changing tide of consumer preferences for healthy and sustainable foods. While the company bought farm fresh and organic companies like Plum Organics and Bolthouse Farms, many of their main products are still made with artificial ingredients, high fructose corn syrup, and GMOs.
Over the past year Green America staff has been meeting with Campbell’s about a transition to non-GMO and organics across their main product lines. We highlighted the growing concerns around GMOs and pesticides, and the need to include healthy ingredients in all Campbell’s products. We talked with Campbell’s at a time when they were looking to innovate and the company was very open to hearing from stakeholders.
This week, Campbell’s made several major announcements about improving the sustainability of their foods, including significant steps forward on going non-GMO and organic:
- Campbell’s will be launching several lines of organic kid’s soups, and removing MSG from all their kid’s soups. In August 2015, the company will introduce Campbell’s Organic soup for kids in three chicken noodle varieties. The soups will be non-GMO and certified Organic.
- Pepperidge Farm will be launching several organic wheat versions of their popular Goldfish Crackers. Look for organic wheat versions of regular, cheddar, and parmesan in the coming year. They still need to remove GMOs and go completely organic with the rest of their ingredients.
- Increasing organics across other food lines, and increasing the number of organic products offered by Plum.
Campbell’s announcements on organics were accompanied by statements that the company will be:
- Removing artificial colors and flavors from nearly all of its North American products in the next three years.
- Removing high fructose corn syrup from Pepperidge Farm fresh breads over the next two years.
- Increasing the transparency of its ingredients, including a new website, What’s in My Food (http://www.whatsinmyfood.com) that tells consumers the ingredients in their foods, starting with several major products.
Like all major food companies in the US, Campbell’s has a long way to go to be truly sustainable. This week’s announcements are an important step forward.
Green America will continue to engage with Campbell’s with a goal of more products that are non-GMO and organic in the months to come.
By Kegan Gerard
- Emails: Tiny Climate Bombs
Email may have done a great job improving productivity and reducing the amount of paper we waste, but those little messages can pack a carbon punch. An average email accounts for 4 grams CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent)—the result of the many servers, computers, and routers that enable you to hit send. For comparison’s sake, a plastic shopping bag is responsible for about 10 gCO2e. Considering an average worker sends between 121 and 140 emails per day, your daily footprint from these emails can quickly add up to over 484 g CO2e—the equivalent of nearly five and a half hours of TV watching.
Next time you want to send your coworker that “thanks!” email, consider walking there and saying it in person. Unsubscribing from all of those listservs you never read anyway is another great way to declutter your inbox and cut the carbon.
- Netflix Streaming: Equal to Powering Your Fridge
Everyone loves watching movies online. It’s cheap, it’s easy, and you don’t have to put on real clothes to leave the house. Even though you may not put much energy into your movie selections, there’s a great deal of it required to power that 13-hour Orange Is The New Black binge. Streaming just one hour of video per week for a year requires more energy than two new refrigerators, according to a 2013 report by the Digital Power Group. Considering that Netflix at times accounts for nearly half of Internet traffic in North America, all that streaming can equate to the energy usage—and resulting climate emissions—of hundreds of thousands of “extra refrigerators” worldwide. Oddly enough, the 2013 report was funded by members of the coal industry and argued for the need for more dirty coal to power the cloud.
Because Netflix is hosted on Amazon Web Services (AWS), much of the energy used to power the site comes from dirty sources of power like coal. Until AWS starts obtaining more of its energy from renewables, streaming from Netflix has the potential to impact more than just your social life. Even for those who like their movies a tad on the dirty side, the power that goes into streaming those films should come from clean sources. Visit buildacleanercloud.com to find out how to make this happen.
- Turn Off the Lights
While we’re on the topic of Netflix, your viewing habits may lead to other energy usage that you’ve never thought of. Leaving the lights on while you watch movies at night may be leading to higher energy bills for you, and more CO2 for our atmosphere. Nielsen reported that the average American watches television (on a TV) for 34 hours a week. For those who prefer to watch online, Business Wire estimates that the average Netflix user alone spends about 8 hours per week watching that service alone. Either way, that’s a lot of time for the lights to be left on.
Flicking that light switch not only helps you to reduce your energy usage, it’s also a better viewing experience—images appear brighter and sharper when viewed in a darker room. Next time you’re watching House Hunters to see if they go with house number one, two, or three, try turning out the lights in yours.
- Online Shopping: What’s in Your Cart?
Those four hours you spent online shopping at work, while not so great for your productivity, may have been pretty good for the environment. Scientists from MIT looked at a number of shopping scenarios—whether you bought online or in store, how many visits to the store you made, whether or not you returned the product, etc.—and found that online shopping is often a more environmentally friendly way to buy. For those who completed every step of buying an item online, their carbon footprint was almost two times smaller than traditional shoppers, who often make several trips to a store before buying.
Green America has also compiled a list of some environmentally and socially responsible alternatives to purchasing from Internet shopping giants like Amazon, so you can feel even better about that pair of shoes you need to order online.
- Let the Music Play
Just as those Netflix movies have to be streamed from somewhere, so too does your music. Spotify, one of the most widely used streaming services, is hosted by AWS, which uses non-renewable sources like coal to power a majority of its operations.
Streaming the music online does cut down on the physical waste associated with CD production, but it’s often hard to conceptualize the energy mix behind your playlists. Streaming music is also much easier than obtaining physical copies of music, leading to increased consumption levels.
Fortunately for music lovers out there, there are some great services that give you all the freedom of streaming and less of the ecological footprint. Apple’s new streaming service, Apple Music, is run out of the company’s own data centers, which are entirely powered by renewable energy sources. Subscribers to the service have the ability to save songs for offline listening (a function also offered by Spotify), which further reduces the amount of streaming data required.
Bonus: Tweet Flatulation Tweetfarts.com claims that each tweet produces the same amount of CO2 as a human wind. Click through to their website to have them explain that one…
When it comes to clean, renewable energy, the language can get confusing. In the tradition of Salt-N-Pepa, here I will attempt to break things down. Without further ado, let’s talk about RECs, baby!
By Kegan Gerard
Investing in renewables makes sense. From an economic standpoint, Bloomberg is now forecasting that wind energy will become the cheapest new energy globally by 2026, before passing that title to solar production in 2030. This is great news, considering that poor air quality associated with traditional energy sources like coal will lead to an estimated increase of 57,000 premature deaths annually by 2100, according to a new report from the Obama administration. Not to mention all the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels.
Businesses, then, have any number of incentives to fuel their operations with renewable energy, with companies like Tesla leading the way to net-zero energy consumption.
Not everyone, however, has the resources to complete a solar installation comparable to Tesla’s “Gigafactory.” Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) can offer these organizations a way to commit to a renewable energy future.
What’s a REC and what can it do?
A Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) is a tradable tool used by organizations to represent the environmental, non-power qualities of a unit of energy. Think of it as a permit to claim the “green-ness” of a given energy source, with each REC certifying the generation of one megawatt-hour (MWh) of renewable energy.
This “greenness” claim can then be useful for a company, either to meet its own sustainability goals, or to meet the terms of federal Renewable Electricity Standards (RES).
Not All RECs are Created Equal
With a REC essentially representing the green aspect of renewable power, it can either be sold in a “bundle” with the power itself, or “unbundled” and sold independently. This, for many, is a hard distinction to understand, so I’ll break it down.
When 1 MWh of energy is created from a renewable source, like a solar array or wind turbine, there are two components to this: the actual electricity itself, and the claim of being produced in a “green” way. As the electricity generated from renewable sources is physically indistinguishable to electricity generated from dirtier coal and natural gas, the electrons themselves aren’t inherently green.
With “bundled” electricity, energy is sold to the customer along with the claim, the REC, that the energy was produced in a renewable fashion. In this setup, the power provider and buyer are located in the same power grid, so that produced green electricity can be delivered to the REC buyer.
Conversely, the REC and electricity generated can be sold separate from one another, with one business buying the use of that electricity and another buying the REC. To avoid “double-counting,” only the owner of the REC can claim the greenness of their energy.
Why does this matter?
Outside of reducing carbon emissions to curb climate change, one of the biggest advantages of renewable energy is its potential to grow local industries and improve regional air quality. This is key, because new investment in solar, wind, and other clean-energy technologies can both stimulate new jobs as well as decrease a region’s healthcare costs. Unbundled RECs, however, take away much of this opportunity. Here’s how:
As bundled green energy requires the power to be sourced within the same power grid, demand for the green alternatives increases. More businesses buying bundled green energy sends a message to local power providers that the community is invested in renewable energy. To meet this demand, local utilities increase the share of their energy sourced from renewables in order to supply more bundled RECs.
Conversely, unbundled RECs can often be purchased from states on the other side of the country. While this may still sound okay—”A REC is better than no REC, right?”—it fails to incentivize local power providers to provide green energy at a level comparable to bundled RECs. Think of it this way: if power providers can continue to generate high profits from coal or natural-gas sources, they may believe they have little economic incentive to spend additional funds to incorporate renewable technologies in their regions. High local demand for green, bundled RECs shifts this slope in favor of renewables.
Understanding Renewable Energy Claims
Many companies may claim to be “carbon-neutral,” or committed to investing in renewables. However, this may mean that they are simply buying unbundled RECs to meet arbitrary standards.
As consumers, it’s important that we stay informed and know how to read a company’s marketing claims about its renewable-energy commitments. Take Amazon for instance. It claims that its GovCloud web hosting service is carbon neutral, all the while sourcing much of the power for its data centers from dirtier coal-based utilities and buying unbundled RECs to make up its green “cred.” In doing so, it deprives the region’s communities many of the jobs and environmental benefits that new renewable investments have the potential to bring.
It’s important for consumers to continue to call for renewable-energy creation to replace dirty energies like coal, natural gas, and nuclear. At the same time, we need companies to demand renewable energy as well so that utilities will transition to cleaner sources of power like wind and solar. Bundled RECs, in the short term, can help quantify demand for renewable energy. In the long term, as more and more companies shift to sourcing 100% renewable energy directly, the RECs will no longer be needed.
By Kegan Gerard
Since we launched our Amazon: Build A Cleaner Cloud campaign on June 9th, the company has made some progress on the renewable energy front—announcing plans for an 80 MW solar farm in Virginia. This development proves that consumer pressure on Amazon works! And while Amazon’s cloud-computing arm, Amazon Web Services (AWS), still has a long way to go to become a truly green hosting option, Green America welcomes this step in the right direction.
Over 23,000 Green Americans have joined us in calling on AWS to keep pace with other industry leaders and power its operations with the renewable energy sources of the future, but, together, we still have a ways to go.
As it stands, AWS is one of the few Fortune 500 companies that has failed to publish a sustainability report, which would allow customers to track the company’s progress on climate change and other key metrics, as well as hold the company accountable to meeting its announced goal of using 100% renewable power. (The company has not yet set a date by which it intends to reach that goal.)
With clients ranging from Netflix to the CIA hosting their information on its servers, AWS’s reach extends deep into each of our lives. As the single largest provider of cloud-computing services, AWS is in a position to drive renewable development forward and reduce many of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with data center operation.
AWS’ east coast operation, US East, only acquires six percent of its energy from renewable sources—even accounting for its new Virginia solar plant—according to recent Greenpeace estimates. The rapid growth of cloud computing is only expected to continue, and companies like Amazon must switch to renewable energy sources to curb rising temperatures that threaten communities and ecosystems worldwide.
On June 25th, Green America teamed up with representatives from Greenpeace to speak directly with AWS customers at the company’s GovCloud conference in Washington, DC. GovCloud customers, including government agencies, educational institutions, and nonprofits, are in a perfect position to use their buying power to pressure on Amazon to make changes that influence us all. Green America will continue our work to educate and mobilize communities about AWS until it accomplishes these three, crucial steps:
- Commit to increasing the share of renewable energy powering data centers to 100% by 2020, and cease the construction of new data centers that rely on coal-fired power.
- Submit complete and accurate data to the Carbon Disclosure Project.
- Issue an annual sustainability report following Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines.
Consumer pressure on Amazon works. In the last year, the company has committed to clean energy sources, including wind and now solar. To continue pushing Amazon to achieve the three recommended steps, Green America needs your support. If you haven’t yet, join us in calling on Amazon to build a cleaner cloud—one that is powered by renewable energy. We’ll keep you updated on our progress, so stay tuned for any new developments!
By Anna Meyer
Yesterday Center for Food Safety hosted a congressional briefing on the impact of neonicotinoid pesticides on pollinators. Neonicotinoids (neonics for short) are a class of pesticide developed from nicotine that pose numerous risks to pollinators and our environment. It is pretty likely that you have heard of this pesticide before. In recent years this class of pesticides was linked to major declines in both bee and monarch populations.
Why does this matter? Bees alone are responsible for pollinating one in three bites of our food and well biodiversity is important and keeping species alive is a key part to keeping our environment functioning. But it turns out that neonics have a much greater impact than just to the pollinator populations; in fact, they impact soil health, insect species, bird populations, and bodies of water. Neonics are unique in the sense that they are most used not as an aerial spray but rather as a pretreatment to seeds. Companies coat seeds in the pesticides so it can ultimately be taken up through the plant.
Just how pervasive are neonics in our agricultural system? Disappointingly, that is actually quite a bit challenging to answer because the government does not have any central information that tracks the use of neonics. Researchers out of Pennsylvania State University have delved into this issue and found that despite the fact that these pesticides were
introduced in 2004, recent data shows that between 79 and 100% of corn and 34-44% of soybeans are pre-treated with neonics. These two crops along with cotton and wheat make up cropland with pre-treated seeds the size of California.
What makes them so harmful? Neonics present a triple threat with characteristics as neurotoxic, systemic, and long-lasting chemicals. What this means is that neonics move through the plant system, while they are only applied to the seed the
pesticide is taken up through the roots into the entire plant. Due to the quality of being long-lasting they have the ability to accumulate in our soils and waters. Particularly at risk are habitats surrounding fields planted with neonic coated seeds multiple seasons in a row. Most disturbingly, neonics are a neurotoxin that can move up the food chain through bio-accumulation (sort of like mercury in fish). Smaller creatures such as slugs snack on the toxin coated seeds; and while they fair okay, their natural predators beetles suffer the effects. Doesn’t sound to good now does it? To make things even worse 94% of neonics applied to seeds seep into the environment.
So why use them? A very legitimate question and there really isn’t a logical answer. It turns out that prior to the introduction of neonics there was very little use of insecticides in corn and soy. In 1996, biotech companies introduced Bt varieties.to self-produce an insecticide protein within the plant, theoretically removing the need for insecticides; but the use of neonics continues to rise. Yet, there is very little evidence that the neonic seed coatings provide any benefits to farmers. The problem is that farmers don’t have much choice in the matter as seed companies control the use of this pesticide as a seed treatment and offer farmers little in the way of neonic-free alternatives. More often than not neonics serve as a sort of insurance policy for farmers, a backup plan if you will, in case of the failure of Bt and other insecticides.
Well then how do we make it all better? Interestingly enough, pollinator health tends to be a subject matter that crosses party lines and one on which both sides can find common ground. Representative John Conyers (D-MI) has introduced a bill to address pollinator health, H.R. 1284 Saving America’s Pollinators Act of 2015, calling on the EPA to take direct action to address the impact of pesticides on pollinator health. Other policy solutions involve greater support for integrated pest management (IPM), which encourages farmers to use a variety of methods to control pests better protecting human and environmental health. IPM can be promoted through government incentives and regulatory procedures through existing programs. It is key that the proper education and research is provided in order to encourage best practices and put an end to existing inefficient and destructive pesticide practices. As Rep. Coyners put it, we must act now to protect our flying friends who play an enormous role in our global food system, bees cannot wait.
Chocolate Too Cheap to Be Sustainable. Farmers Making as Little as 50 Cents Per Day. Inadequate Responses Mounted So Far to Address Very Serious Problems.These are the findings of our new report: The Cocoa Barometer
Our new report, available online at www.cocoabarometer.org, is being released as cocoa industry representatives gather in Washington at the World Cocoa Foundation conference to discuss ongoing sustainability projects. I will be in attendance as well, calling on companies to do more.
The Cocoa Barometer found that unsustainably low cocoa prices – made possible by extreme poverty among West African cocoa producers, with farmers in Ghana earning as little as 84 cents per day, and Ivorian farmers earning only 50 cents per day – could jeopardize the future of chocolate, since young farmers are not replacing the current aging generation. Together, Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire produce more than 50% of the world’s cocoa supply.
Additional key findings in the 2015 U.S. edition of the report include:
- Low incomes. West African cocoa farmers live well below globally defined poverty level of $2 per day. The lack of a decent livelihood for cocoa farmers leads to bad labor circumstances, human rights violations, and many other problems in the cocoa supply chain, including child labor.
- Cocoa no longer offers an attractive future. Increasingly, younger generations of cocoa farmers are leaving cocoa, and older farmers are nearing the age of life expectancy.
- High market concentration leads to greater farmer exploitation. Mergers and takeovers have resulted in just a few companies dominating up to 80 percent of the whole value chain, while farmers lack a sufficiently organized voice to be strong actors.
- Certified chocolate production continues to increase globally, from just 2 percent reported in the first Barometer in 2009, to almost 16 percent of global chocolate sales in the 2015 “Cocoa Barometer.” The Barometer also indicates that there is far more certified cocoa available at the moment, than is being purchased on certified term. However, with the mainstreaming of certification, the challenges of certification are also increasing. Improvements in certification are needed, especially concerning impact on the ground, the quality of auditing, and unrest among farmers about low payments of premiums.
- Current approaches won’t solve the problem. Most corporate sustainability efforts focus on increasing a farmer’s productivity. However, increasing yields must be coupled with an increased cocoa price for farmers. This means that chocolate needs to become more expensive. Crop diversification, tenure security, better infrastructure and access to information for farmers are also needed.
The report contains the following recommendations for action:
- Develop a living income model for smallholder cocoa farming.
- Address the price-setting mechanisms in order to increase prices at farm-gate level.
- Move from voluntary to mandatory sector-wide solutions.
Around the world, child labor is a symptom of extreme poverty and limited opportunity. In order to prevent children from working in dangerous settings, we must ensure that farmers, including women, sharecroppers and tenant farmers, are earning enough to harvest cocoa sustainably. All players in the cocoa value chain need to step up to the plate. Companies, governments, retailers, as well as consumers should take their shared responsibility, and truly start looking for new approaches to some of these longstanding problems.
Read the full report at www.cocoabarometer.org.
The Cocoa Barometer, produced by a network of European nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) is a semi-annual report that reviews the state of sustainability in the cocoa sector. This latest edition was written in partnership with Green America, International Labor Rights Forum, and Oxfam America.
Amazon’s web services hold the company back, despite its attempts to promote the innovations of others.
By Kegan Gerard
Amazon Web Services (AWS) announced its second City on a Cloud Innovation Challenge today, but key changes must be made within the company before it can truly lead the innovation charge.
The City on a Cloud program, designed to recognize local and regional governments for technological developments that greatly contributed to their communities, comes at a time when its influential business clients are pressuring the tech giant to be more transparent in its energy portfolio.
“The cloud can be a powerful force to help our companies and our customers reach their greatest potential,” noted AWS clients, including The Huffington Post and tumblr in a letter to Amazon’s Senior VP of Web Services, Andrew Jassy. “But given the threat of climate change and the significant amount of electricity needed to power the cloud, we are increasingly concerned about our responsibility as companies who value sustainability and share concerns about climate change.”
By powering its data centers with unsustainable fuel sources, Amazon is missing out on key innovations in the field of renewable energy–innovations that have the potential to create thousands of new jobs, reduce healthcare costs, and improve the health of our environment.
Representing governmental, educational, and nonprofit fields, these GovCloud clients have the perfect opportunity to demand greater transparency in Amazon’s renewable commitment. In refusing to be transparent about its energy usage and plans, AWS deprives these influential groups of the ability to make responsible, informed decisions about where to invest public money.
Merely committing to using 100% renewable energy, as AWS has done, is meaningless without a clear plan to achieve this goal. We’re calling on AWS customers to reach out to their AWS representatives to demand greater transparency in Amazon’s energy future and cease the construction of new data centers that rely on non-renewable energy.
Companies like Google and Apple, whose data centers are powered by renewables, have demonstrated that such a business model is profitable, and Amazon must keep up in order to remain competitive.
Help encourage AWS to deliver on its responsibility to build a cloud that works for both our communities and our environment. Take action with us by signing our petition at buildacleanercloud.com.
While no court ruling or monetary sum could undo the hardships faced by thousands of garment workers and their families after the 2013 building collapse in Dhaka, Bangladesh, two recent events help to bring some justice to victims.
First, on June 1, 2015, Police in Bangladesh charged 41 people with murder over the collapse of the Rana Plaza garment factory complex, including several owners of the factories inside. The trial is set to begin June 28.
Then, on June 10, the Rana Plaza Trust Fund reached its goal of $30 million to compensate injured workers and the children of workers who died in the garment factory collapse more than two years ago. In all, 1,138 people lost their lives, and more than 2,500 were injured.
The Rana Plaza Trust Fund was established by the International Labor Organization (ILO) to collect money to cover loss of income and medical expenses for Rana Plaza victims and their families, some 5,000 claimants.
Brands who manufactured in Rana Plaza, as well as brands who manufactured elsewhere in Bangladesh, were asked to contribute to the fund, based on their size, and involvement in Bangladesh. This was not the first building catastrophe in the Bangladeshi garment sector, and Rana Plaza was far from unique in the way that it was run.
As the two year anniversary of the collapse—and fund deadline—approached, consumer pressure on brands that were slow to contribute mounted.
Green America worked with allies like the International Labor Rights Forum and The Clean Clothes Campaign to pressure Walmart ($482 billion in annual sales), Inditex (owner of Zara) ($18.9 billion), JCPenney ($11.9 billion), Mango ($4.5 billion), The Children’s Place ($1.8 billion), and United Colors of Benetton ($1.6 billion) to contribute, or increase their contribution, to the fund.
In response to pressure, both The Children’s Place and Inditex increased their contributions to compensate victims. The Clean Clothes Campaign maintains a list of which brands contributed what.
After reaching this goal, Kalpona Akter, executive director of the Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity, shared with The Guardian, “In comparison to the loss of families and victims, compensation doesn’t really alter anything,” Akter says. “But it will still help at least to send these kids to school and to put food on the table for these families. I want to thank every single person who was involved in this campaign, everyone who sent even one sentence to a brand and asked for compensation for these families.”
Thank you to all Green Americans who joined us in putting pressure on clothing brands.
Last year, National Geographic Society (NGS) made news when it started incorporating recycled fiber paper into its flagship publication, National Geographic Magazine. The move was big news because National Geographic is a major publisher of high quality magazines. National Geographic’s inclusion of recycled fiber proves that a premier publisher can use recycled fiber in its paper without compromising quality.
Since then, National Geographic has increased its use of recycled fiber, and there is now 10% post-consumer waste (PCW) content in National Geographic Kids, National Geographic Little Kids, and National Geographic Traveler. The increase in recycled fiber content sends a clear message to the magazine industry that other publishers can follow in the footsteps of National Geographic while pleasing their readers and advertisers.
Green America and Natural Resources Defense Council worked closely with National Geographic to assess the impacts of NGS’ paper use and identify opportunities to reduce its environmental footprint. In 2013, Green America and NRDC joined with NGS on the most rigorous study to date of the benefits of using recycled fiber versus virgin fiber in magazine publications. Conducted by an independent third-party for NGS, the study found that recycled fiber is superior to virgin fiber in 14 out of 14 environmental categories, such as energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
That’s why all publishers should adopt as high a percentage of recycled fiber as possible for their publications. As Stephen Hughes, National Geographic’s Vice President for Global Sourcing states, “For National Geographic, our goal – and our challenge – is to balance our desires to utilize as high a percentage of recycled fiber as possible, maintain the highest quality and aesthetic standards, produce affordable products and minimize our impact on the environment.”
Green America congratulates National Geographic on its progress. If you are a subscriber to NGS publications, please let them know that you support their environmental commitment.
Will 2015 be the year when we say enough is enough? The year we hit the tipping point and start to see change in the global garment industry?
The makers of the film The True Cost certainly hopes so. And so do I.
The film, screening in cities around the world starting May 29, exposes the problems that exist, and still too often remain hidden, in the world of fast fashion.
2014, the year after Rana Plaza collapsed taking the lives of 1,134 garment workers, was the most profitable year on record for the fashion industry, estimated at roughly $3 trillion USD.
And why is this so? Consumers around the world are fed messages that if only they purchase a certain garment to look a certain way, their lives will be better. And why not? It’s so cheap. If your life isn’t remarkably better after you buy said-garment, you can just buy another one. This trend is confirmed by the fact that we are consuming 500% more clothing than we were 2 decades ago. (Two decades ago was only 1995!) And we are throwing out more clothing too—on average 68 pounds of clothes per US consumer per year. This vicious cycle needs to stop, because it is workers and communities at the start of the supply chain that are paying the price for ever-more and ever-cheaper clothing.
The price on the hangtag of a Zara blazer or Gap dress is not at all indicative of the true cost of that garment. It does not reflect all the corners that are cut to get the garment on the shelf: the brand squeezing the factory to make the garment for less and less. The factory in turn squeezing workers, asking them to work long hours to meet quotas, for very little pay, often in unsafe conditions. Nor does it include the environmental costs—clothing factories require massive amounts of energy and water to operate and then discharge chemicals into the air and water surrounding the factory. These chemicals end up in the drinking water of the surrounding communities causing life-threatening diseases like cancer or serious mental and physical disabilities.
The True Cost is not just gloom and doom though. It follows fair trade companies like People Tree, which maintains direct and long-term relationships with producers all around the world. People Tree is no small operation, it works with more than 4,000 artisans and produces garments as beautiful as anything you see in the windows of 5th avenue. People Tree is a model for other brands, proving a better way is possible.
The film is powerful and empowering. It asks us to question our consumption habits and to think about the people involved in making all the clothing we wear. It acknowledges that we live on a planet overwhelmed by problems that sometimes feel totally depressing and paralyzing.
But it also invites us to tackle these problems one at a time. What if we started with a problem we are all involved with—the clothes we choose to wear—and started to choose differently. These choices collectively will make a huge impact on the clothing sector. We can come together now and say enough is enough.