The Biggest Fake News in Fashion

I have read the McKinsey report you quote, saying that three fifths of all clothing produced is destroyed within a year. McKinsey make this statement without quoting any sources of research. Unwittingly you may be perpetuating another false or misleading statistic, one passed on from article to article without any real basis in fact. Most of us "ordinary folk "in middle class areas are in households that keep clothes for long periods, often handing them down. This would be even more true for poorer communities where older clothing is highly valued for being able to be passed on to other family members. I seriously question the assertion that 60 percent of clothing produced is destroyed within one year. It goes against logic, common sense and economics. Please deal with this before the garment industry is crucified, yet again, for spreading a possible untruth about itself.

Hm. Actually - according to the "facts" you can present; your headline is ALSO "fake news." According to your presentation, the statistics available cannot be made to say "fashion is 2nd". But. They can also not be construed as "fashion is NOT 2nd." Reality? Could be - maybe fashion IS 2nd. Or 3rd. Or 6th. A more truthful headline: "Fashion MAY Be The 2nd Dirtiest Industry. Or, Not. But Really Dirty, Yes."

Three fifths of all clothing ends up incinerated or in landfills?!?!? There is something seriously wrong with the consumer society.

Buying anything degrades the planet in some way. People need to buy as little as possible. Of course our economic systems don't like that. Quite a conundrum.

Well-made durable clothing and shoes of natural fibers are at this point a luxury intended for the wealthy. They're expensive but last years. The masses instead are left with poor quality products that won't survive even a season and are made of plastic-derived fibers that can't be recycled. Do the math

This is tough. As a composting, waste conscious, 24 year vegetarian, I try to make the best choices I can with my family’s consumption regarding our environment. However, we have a one and three year old and since having kids our family has experienced an ever tightening economic vice grip. Purchasing clothes at H&M, Target, Amazon and Old Navy for them, myself, and even my still professional husband is a reality difficult to see around. It’s not where we used to shop, so I cringe a little, but... here we are. I do shop second hand sometimes, and we’re in a circuit of sharing with other families which is helpful, but we absolutely cannot afford the beautiful, hand dyed and sweetly sewn local garments being sold at craft fairs and boutiques near by. I think many many Americans, especially with children, are in the same position. Unfortunately for us, this industry is a compromise for consumables until better options arise.

I agree with the sentiment by others expressed here that it should not matter what "rank" the fashion industry holds on the list of worst polluters. However, I believe the author's essential point that facts matter is an important takeaway from her piece as well. Just because a piece of misinformation helps to advance a cause that we think is important -- in this case, reducing the wastefulness and pollution associated with the fashion industry -- does not mean that we should continue to spread it once we realize it is untrue. Doing so would make us no better than the fossil fuel industry, for example, which has for decades spread misinformation and lies about the association between fossil fuels and climate change in order to advance their own cause. The facts about the fashion industry and the human drivers of climate change more broadly are more than compelling enough, and they should be even more so because they are truths with scientific backing.

It’s a tough issue. People don’t respond to real data and threats, especially when the danger is long-term and the threat is complex in its origin and real solutions are complex and challenge the status quo. Add money and politics - always present - and real solutions become even more challenging to find and implement. We increasingly live in a world of instant outrage and outrage fatigue and numbness. We live in a world where we increasingly consume news and data that only fits our preconceived notions and biases. We vilify those with opposing views and want no engagement with them. They are often viewed as a threat to our country, planet, humanity. So alarmist messages carry the day. As the article correctly points out the Fashion Industry has many serious problems and there are people within the industry that are sincerely and seriously trying to have an impact. Carbon footprints and impact of man made climate change are very complex and extremely challenging problems, yet we need imminent action to avert potentially apocalyptic outcomes - but even that statement is not universally accepted - certainly not by Trump and Republicans. So alarmist statements become the norm and further fodder for outrage.

The fashion industry pollutes and needs to do better. Period. Splitting hairs to worry about being the worst of the worst or not. Spend energy moving toward sustainability. The environmental factor is not the only issue. Garment workers are exploited and abused OFTEN. Chemicals sprayed on clothing hurts retail workers respiratory systems. No new news here. Go to Bangladesh and see if our fashion choices are uplifting people or exploring them. The answer is the latter. We need a global third party certification that can tell consumers, how, where and by whom their garment was produced. We have it with fair trade and organic in food. We can do it in fashion.

Fashion creates millions of jobs but still it is maddening to see the overstuffed clothing racks in stores. Clothing that will never be worn, many made of fabrics that cannot be recycled, composted, etc. However, what is more maddening and shameful is the inability of this nation to have a comprehensive recycling and composting policy.

Twenty years ago, the clothing I bought lasted much longer, that is did not wear out like todays products. I still have shirts and even socks that don't have holes or significant fraying. Clothes that I buy today tend to get holes within a year or two at the most. There's definitely a change in quality between those products of a few years ago, mostly from Europe or the US and those produced today in China and India. I don't know whether it's the materials or the workmanship, but I tend to believe the statistics quoted in the article. While clothing today may be slightly cheaper than it was, the quality has decreased significantly, and there is a cost to society for this.

Climate disaster looms, but more so in kitchens and garages than looms. Instead of arguing about how well-sourced the data on fashion-industry pollution is, can we just agree that Americans not only cause too much planet-harming waste, we generally consume too much *stuff* in the first place? I'm a vintage clothing collector & wearer, and seeing statistics like "3/5 of all clothing ends up in incinerators or landfills within a year" has me shaking my head in dismay & disbelief. Who *are* these irresponsible companies making all that disposable "fashion", and who are the unimaginative people buying it and then, apparently, tossing it? That's an overconsumption problem. And while we're on the topic of overconsumption, can we spare a thought or two for our nation's vast overconsumption of meat--red meat in particular--the production of which uses far more water, land, and resources than any other protein and results in significant amounts of greenhouse gas? Clothes can (and should!) be re-used, repaired, and recycled. The cars we buy and drive should be electric--or as fuel-efficient as humanly possible--and cities should offer excellent public transportation that reduces or eliminates individual car use. Dinner, on the other hand, is a unique purchase (or set of purchases) for everyone, daily, and only by changing what we put on that plate every night will we have any shot at slowing the warming effect. A compassionate, plant-based diet will warm the heart, not the planet.

I don’t really care if the “fashion industry” is first, tenth or one hundred on the list of most polluting industries. They are on the list. And beyond it’s massive international carbon footprint, water consumption and pollution, as well as chemical pollution, is the slave labor wages and conditions imposed on it’s international workforce. #Shame

“Cement and steel have two of the largest industrial carbon footprints, but most people don’t buy steel and cement.” I'd bet that every single reader of this newspaper buys cement and steel, they just don't recognize it. Steel cans, cars, the structural framework of their apartment buildings, the screwdriver in their kitchen junk drawer, the slides for that drawer, etc, etc, etc. And cement is in the concrete foundation of their homes, the sidewalk out the door of that home and is of course ubiquitous in practically every structure they enter and use every day. It's this kind of ignorance that drives people in these foundational industries mad. The general public, and journalists like Ms. Friedman, demonize the steel and cement and energy industries while happily relying on the output of these industries. Own your consumption, people.

"around 20 to 25 percent of globally produced chemical compounds are utilized in the textile-finishing industry" is (deliberately?) ambiguous. Some people may read into it an damning assertion that 20-25% of global chemical production goes into textile finishing. But what it actually says is that 20-25% of all types of compound may be found in textile finishing. So, for instance, a dye used in many other industries is also used in textile finishing, in some unspecified quantity. Meaningless.

Americans love fashion, particularly young Americans. Look around any shopping mall and you will see literally acres of cheap fashion for sale, much of it the stuff that will end up in land fill sites within 12 months. It is crazy, wasteful, harmful to the environment, but it is commerce. Should anyone be blamed for this? If so, who should it be? There are many suspects: the designers, the manufacturers, the brands, the retail industry both online and bricks and mortar, the advertising industry, the entertainment business, and of course there is the general population. The basic demand is in the general population, and it is stimulated by all the players in the supply chain. Meaningful change will come only if the basic demand in the general population is reduced. The answer to that is simple: Tax it.

When I think of the fashion industry, I think of the needless promotion of new stuff every year. Heiresses might spend $5K on a handbag that would last a couple of decades but what they end up with is larger closets. Personally, I don't have the body type capable of being presentable in the latest accoutrements of fashion. I wear the same clothes for years until they wear out. I do see fashion as art and for that I can check out fashion week in the NYT.

In the end I understand that you are saying it's less misinformation, and more a claim that is so broad it can't be quantified neatly. But like you say, the verifiable data –the truth– is frightening enough. The lesson should be to adopt the 5 R's: Reduce, Repair, Reuse, Rot, Recycle.

But doesn't consumption fuel our economy? Buy, baby, buy!

The fashion industry is the leader in consumption for consumption's sake. The whole idea is to get people to buy the "latest" rather than using last year's stuff until it wears out. Time for people to wake up to the fact that they're being played like fish drawn to a bright shiny lure.

Consumption is the backbone of modern society. Consumption for its own sake. Consumption to define status. Consumption for a lot of reasons other than we really shouldn't have to see your overweight naked self in public. Consumption that defines survival. If I don't consume what will you do to survive. As we are all on our own, only responsible for personal survival, isn't it sensible that the only possible guarantee of personal survival is to have as much as it is possible to have. Money, clothes, cars, houses. And not only survival but defining self worth.

ALL major industries pollute. All have a significant carbon footprint. Ascertaining which is “#2”, or “#5”, or whatever,is far less important than devising new methods of supplying resources, new manufacturing processes and better systems for recycling resources.

Ironically, the title of this article and the big blaring bright red X of the photo is misleading if not an attempt at adding another layer of confusion to the overloads of data out there. Is the purpose of this article to confuse conscientious consumers? The habit of overconsumption is a real issue and a major cause of environmental degradation and it's an issue that can individuals can personally take on. I believe this article inadvertently tried to dissuade that.

It's my hope that a responsible, conscientious aesthetic will become desirable beyond the creative class. Reducing consumption--by buying fewer items, mending damaged or worn pieces, swapping items with others, and re-imagining pieces we own--is still the way to go, but this will not catch on, as a fashion choice, until it is viewed as desirable.

The author accepts that the industry is an environmental disaster, but quibbles with (presumably) false outrage about semantics. Meanwhile the planet is suffocating under increasingly huge mountains of garbage, much of which is comprised of yesterday’s clothing. Let’s all get real here: this stuff doesn’t ever go away, not in our lifetimes anyway. Being unconscientously fashionable is an act of anti-environmental aggression. Parse that.

How about some possible solutions, instead of all of this defensiveness?

Wow! Fake news alert. Fashion is NOT the second most polluting industry in the world. We know it's pretty bad, but we don't know how bad. This is scintillating stuff. I wonder where the cosmetic industry lands on the list? How about we just think about consumerism in general and what that does to our world? We don't have a clue how we're going to dismantle that machine because everything runs on it. I've lived my whole life scavenging the leavings of a society that thinks nothing of discarding perfectly good things because they are no longer the 'it' thing. Fashion is so about the 'it' and it plays right into the discard and buy new ethos that keeps the economy humming. But never mind. I look at fashion slaves and realize the sheer magnitude of garbage generated to achieve those looks is the last thing people they want to think about. Who would you wear to the apocalypse? I would wear something from the Mugabe's fabulous show, Derelict. Now there's a fashion statement for the times. Totally it.

What I want to know is why we take Andrew Morgan's documentary as fact. His specialty is cinetmatography and storytelling- not hard core investigations. He has never worked in the fashion industry, yet we believe that it must be true. There was a definite agenda and it has paid off well for him. As someone part of the fashion production ecosystem, who has seen this firsthand, this problem does not have an easy answer. Finger pointing abounds. However, it's the customers that demand cheap and disposable clothing that drive this beast. Specific numbers don't help the problem. Everyone is scrambling to find a solution. There is so much happening for sustainability right now, but it's going to take awhile (probably a long while) to put things to right.

For a start, the single biggest polluter on the planet is actually the US military (and in the US it’s the DoD), so to save the planet nothing less than dismantling the entire US Military apparatus will do. Enjoy your day.

The list at the end of the article of three damning things "we do know"about the apparel industry is an ironic reminder of just how easy it is to create misinformation. Since when do reports issued by major corporations or information from a textbook constitute "fact"? What methodologies were used to collect the information that underlies these claims? Were rigorous peer reviews performed by independent experts in the field? And even if it appears that the reports/textbook pass scientific muster, there's still the problem of "single-article" bias wherein other scholarly reports on the same topics may come to entirely different conclusions. Stop with the detailed statements of "what we know." Isn't it enough to urge the fashion industry - and all other industries - to continually analyze its production methods and always strive to minimize waste, greenhouse emissions, and pollution?

No other textile-related sector is so married to the notion that the perfectly service item one purchased a year ago is now an embarrassment based simply on pronuncements from Madison Avenue and fashion writers.

Global statements like "the second most . . . in the world" have an outsize appeal, don't they? One of the commenters here dismisses the assertion with "So what? 99% of all food ends up . . ." thus countering one global statement with yet another, all with a shrug of the shoulders. But such global views (the world is dying! the sky is falling! it's a deep-state conspiracy!), however satisfying they may feel, overlook the local catastrophe. It means almost nothing to say fashion is the second most polluting industry in the world. It means almost everything, rather, to say, "the fabric manufacturer down the road from me has been leaching chemicals into my town's water supply for decades." One I can't do anything about. The other I can, perhaps.

"Nearly three-fifths of all clothing ends up in incinerators or landfills within a year of being produced" So what? 99% of all food ends up in sewer systems or other waste systems within a year of being produced. Wine and some cheeses are just about the only exceptions.

fashion industry = clothing industry? Already this is misleading. Not all clothing is fashionable. Why the use of "fashion" at all? Isn't the 'fashion' a subset of the clothing industry?

I have never understood people who throw old clothes away. I love fashion -- especially vintage (the original recycling) -- and have lots of clothes. When something no longer fits, I donate it to Ruth's Closet here in Baltimore, a shop whose proceeds go to the domestic violence shelter the House of Ruth. These are beautiful clothes that someone else is happy to have. Or I donate them to Goodwill, where, likewise, people are happy to have them. Or I put them out on the front porch, clean and neatly folded, with a sign that says "Free" (I do this with all sorts of household goods, not just clothes). Again, someone can make use of them. That old saw, "One man's trash is another man's treasure" is, now and forever, true. Why waste things that someone else can use? As for irreparably stained or damaged clothes, I don't try to palm those off on anyone else; I cut them up to use as rags. There's already a lot of sanctimonious tut-tutting in this comments section from people claiming that women like me are slaves to fashion, self-hating, blah blah blah. Sorry, friends, but fashion to me is a form of art. And I'm sure you're polluting out the wazoo with your lifestyle choices, too. Come down off your high horses.

Textiles and dyes are almost as old as humanity itself. Shaping cultures and creating fortunes out of the exploitation of a natural substance. A tiny shellfish produced a purple dye which made the Phoenicians rich and famous but drove the species into extinction. The tanning of leather utilizes nasty substances and slave labor, and the manufacture of cotton has it own sordid history. The desire for silk created a transcontinental trade routes but the study of illness in silk worm larve contributed to the development of cellular pathology in the mid nineteenth century. In the past fabrics deteriorated or were recycled into rags which were then made into paper and paper-machet objects. Making high quality fabrics and high quality garments along with a shift in our relationship and expectations of our apparel will help create less waste. If people invest more of themselves into their garments, like sewing some simple pants or even make your own T-shirts, knitting a sweater, or even taking a class on shoemaking, they will value theses garments and get much better use of them.

You start out investigating the validity of an industry "myth", but in your final paragraphs, you seem a bit overconfident in the truth of "sourced" data. If we're going to be critical consumers of research, we cannot blindly accept data as truth merely because we can point at where the data come from. We need to be able to look independently and critically at the methods used to generate a researcher's claims, arguably the intent of the peer-review process. For example, the McKinsey report you reference does not provide any essential methodological detail or any links to the formal report from which the assertion came, so we cannot reasonably assess the integrity of the claim. Ostensibly, it's their own analysis? If so, how do know that they got it right and its not just weak inference with the illusion of truth because, well, it's McKinsey and, well, it has numbers? Still, it seems obvious that sustainability is a major problem in the fashion industry. We just need more research, data, and independent review to determine better the problem's real extent.

How do we know that 3/5ths of all clothing ends up in incinerators or landfills within a year of being produced? Is that just another one of those "facts" that is not a fact? I'm one of the many American women who have more clothes than I actually need and I enjoy shopping for them. (Cue the music for Cruella deVille.) I have occasionally donated clothing that I have had for less than a year, but that might amount to one or two pieces a year that don't fit right, shrank in the wash or were the result of a fit of madness. Yes, I know that much donated clothing is incinerated but the kind of stuff I donate is definitely the kind of clothing that is being successfully resold. Ditto for my husband. It's true that what is worn out or stained goes into the landfill but frankly that beats turning my house into a landfill. The reality is that there is a point where clothes are no longer wearable in public and landfills are where those things end up in the US. But here's what William Rathje (an archeologist) learned about American landfills that really made me laugh. One of the biggest if not the biggest component was newspapers.

It's worth noting what is number one: Agriculture. The dirty secret of modern food production.

Please stop with the phrase “fake news.” Myth, misinformation, factually incorrect, there are lots of other ways to describe this. I’m sorry if the fashion industry is getting an undeserved bad rap, but just don’t.

Semantics...fast fashion is toxic for the world. Who cares "how" bad- it's bad. Stop buying fast fashion. Buy local buy good quality!!!

Quick, try and blame the women! Fashion did this! It has always worked to blame them! Haha

‘But untruths are not okay’. I have been lamenting this phrase since I first heard it uttered in Ann Arbor in the 90’s. Was this the beginning of soft-peddling facts? If something is ‘not okay’, perhaps it is just wrong.

Who cares if it's 2nd, 3rd, 7th, or 17th? As the article clearly states (in direct opposition to the "catchy title"): "... what we do know should be bad enough on its own." Isn't it more important to figure out ways to do less harm, than it is to decide which direction to point fingers? Or am I just not apathetic enough?