Month: February 2022

Organic food is seen as the protagonist at the grocery stores, free of synthetic chemicals and genetic modification. Consumers are willing to pay more for this so called clean food that also seems to come from ethical farms that treat plants, animals, and the planet with care. However, organic foods have a darker side that is not widely known.

It is important to first debunk the myth of organic foods being free of fertilizers and chemicals. While organic farmers do not use synthetic chemicals, they still use organic pesticides and fertilizers which experts have warned are not necessarily any less toxic than synthetic ones. An even larger issue is that the organic chemicals have to be used in greater amounts, and thus their environmental impact is much heavier.  This article goes more into comparing synthetic versus organic fertilizers: https://www.fixr.com/comparisons/organic-vs-synthetic-fertilizer

This segues to another issue – the use of space. As a result of lower fertilizing power, more land is needed to produce the  organic food compared to the same quantity of conventional food. This leads to more problems such as greater rates of deforestation. This also reduces the soil’s capacity to store carbon. Finally, it contributes to more greenhouse gas emissions. The Conversation Global contributor on the Huffington Post backs this: “Organic farming typically yields less product – about 19-25% less. Once we account for that efficiency difference and examine environmental performance per amount of food produced, the organic advantage becomes less certain (few studies have examined this question). Indeed, on some variables, such as water quality and greenhouse gas emissions, organic farms may perform worse than conventional farms, because lower yields per hectare can translate into more land-clearing.”

Consumers are also misled by companies that put on a show of being ethical and treating their animals with care. For example, brands put images of happy cows on milk products as a marketing gimmick. However, large organic farms treat animals with around the same as non-organic farms. Most cows on organic farms also live short, stressful lives with unhealthy milking schedules and limited grazing space. In addition, a lot of larger farms with these unsustainable practices are able to overshadow smaller businesses with lower prices, leaving potentially ethical products unable to compete.

There is also an issue of accountability and oversight when it comes to the organic farm industry. Farms are able to hire “accountability” firms to check their operations, but since these are private organizations, whose interest do they have in mind? This article goes more into holding the organic food industry https://ensia.com/voices/whos-keeping-organic-food-honest/.

As consumers, we can do research and find out what products are really worth buying organic. Certain foods are better to consume organic, but others can be purchased normally, saving both money on the consumer’s end and saving their money from going to unethical companies. Here is a cheat sheet for popular produce: https://www.onhealth.com/content/1/organic_food_nutrition.

 

Upwards of 20 billion pairs of shoes are manufactured each year as shoes are a product demanded by almost every person in the world. The global footwear market is valued at $365.5 billion as of 2020 and has demonstrated a steep growth each year. While it is an industry that benefits all consumers and in turn the revenue it generates boosts the economy worldwide, the unfortunate truth is that this industry has a heavy weight impact on the planet. 

Shoe manufacturing as a whole poses various threats to the wellbeing of the earth. Buzz words such as toxins and chemicals can be found in the process of making footwear. These substances leak into natural entities like waterways and soil. In addition, the large amount of machinery and factories needed is dependent on nonrenewable resources such as fossil fuels which are being depleted at alarming rates overall and cannot be restored once they are gone.  The cherry on top is that the shoe manufacturing process collaterally creates large quantities of carbon dioxide which contributes climate change, a problem that is affecting and will continue to affect every living organism. Because the demand for shoes is so high, the production process is amplified and as a result these harmful practices are carried out in large scale manufacturing globally.

The ‘Shoe Cycle’ is helpful in understanding the problem and iterating through it can reveal some prospective solutions. More information about the Shoe Cycle can be found at https://www.worldfootwear.com/news/how-is-the-footwear-industry-in-europe-working-towards-a-circular-economy/6057.html.

 A majority of people surveyed believe that shoes only have an environmental impact after being thrown out, but the bigger issue lies in the manufacturing stages. Education on the matter and bringing awareness to consumers is key in managing the damage. 

Coal is a primary resource used to power the capital within the industry, but why is it used so heavily in manufacturing? It turns out, it is cheaper than oil or other sources of energy. The production of one shoe produces 30 pounds of carbon dioxide, so multiply that by the billions produced each year – Therefore, an alternative and cleaner energy source would do wonders in mitigating the damage done by using fossil fuels.

The transportation involved in shoe making is also neglected even though most companies choose to build factories in far-away developing regions for cheap labour, thus airplanes, ships, and trucks are necessary. Bringing some of these factories closer to base would reduce the need for heaps of transportation pollution. This would also increase job opportunities domestically.

Finally, there are miscellaneous spots within the design process that can reduce the carbon footprint of shoes. A research article by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology says that most “manufacturing facilities tend to throw out unused material” and should turn to more sustainable options such as “recycling these scraps, as well as combining certain parts of the shoe to eliminate cutting and welding steps. Printing certain features onto a shoe, instead of affixing them as separate fabrics, would also streamline the assembly process.” More information on this research study can be found at https://news.mit.edu/2013/footwear-carbon-footprint-0522.

           The most commonly blamed culprit within the Shoe Cycle is disposal, the final stage. Shoes that are thrown out end up in landfills and furthermore soil and even drinking water as they continually decompose under the principles of biomagnification and bioaccumulation, which both negatively impact humans and wildlife. Shoes decompose slowly, and some materials can sit in the landfills for hundreds of years. The American Textile Recycling Service says that the recycling rate for footwear is a mere 13%, while they make up a large portion of landfill junk.

      Businesses tend to focus on profit, so a lot of the responsibility for change depends on consumers. Education for consumers on how harmful the shoe industry can be for the planet is key to help prevent these problems. An Op-Ed commentary post by Simian Sethi on the Huffington Post gestures to the impulsive purchases surrounding the hyper inflated consumer culture and suggests that “…emotional shoe-shopping is a habit worth kicking” (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/life-cycle-green-shoe-fet_b_119569).

There are two major steps consumers can take to keep shoes out of landfills: 1) recycle old shoes so the materials in them can be dismantled and reused and 2) donate used shoes to lengthen their life cycle and give them a new home. Self educating through research and spreading awareness is also an easy and important step. 

Here is a fun video with DIY’s to repurpose your own shoes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vylTQL8OsVo