1

Introduction

Take me to the moon, maybe its made of cotton.

Danielle Testa -- Chemical Catwalk -- Materials ManifestoMA Fashion and the Environment -- London College of Fashion

March 2011

32

Introduction

Danielle TestaChemical Catwalk and Materials ManifestoMA Fashion and the

EnvironmentLondon College of Fashion March 2011

AbstractThis critical analysis of the global cotton industry titled, Take Me to the Moon… ex-plores what is right in front of us, and Maybe Its Made of Cotton… plays the role of devils advocate in looking at both ends of the cotton debate – conventional and organic/fairtrade to say maybe both are wrong. Industry professionals and scientists alike need to step back and look at how we can improve cotton cultivation in devel-oping nations. Rather than taking an ‘organic’ approach and addressing only physi-cal and psychological well-being we can re-evaluate the status quo to also improve their financial well-being. Farmers in developing nations make up 90% of the worlds cotton farmers but produce only 75% of the output, yet we rarely debate increas-ing their yield. What if new methods led to prosperity and health? Through a focus on shared value creation we can move beyond fairtrade, which redistributes 10-20% of profits, and collaborate within the industry to increase profits up to three-hun-dred percent. Attention to efficiency can improve the health of the land and people at the same time as generating economic success. Chemist can play a role in value creation through looking at the systems in which genetically modified (GM) seeds are created and thereby influencing the infrastructure to make innovation available to those who need it most. GM drought tolerant and pest resistant crops can have significant impact by supporting better water distribution systems and less pesticide use. If science is taken a step further to address fertilizer sales, application, and ef-fectiveness, we can re-evaluate what is needed in developing nations and increase efficiency while eliminating toxic effects. The change in the cotton industry away from both conventional and organic methods is a necessary step as top scientific advisors recognizing that scientific exploration may be the only way to feed and cloth the growing world.

Copyright Danielle Sponder Testa, 2011

54

IntroductionLinens Ltd. Egyptian Cotton BathrobeShop Style Cotton Bedding

Cotton Incorporated Advertisement

Cotton Incorporated Advertisement

Material World Corp., Cotton plant

Take Me To The Moon, Maybe It’s Made of Cotton TABLE OF CONTENTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .06 Introduction A letter from the author; it is a charge to challenge and contradict the status quo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 New Systems Fair play may be anti-fair trade. This is why we need to move away from fair trade and embrace shared value.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 New Soil Saying no to organic cotton doesn’t mean we don’t care about the environment, it means we are ready for the next step. This is how we can use science and fertilizer to help the people who need it.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 New Seeds A continuation of New Soil, using genetic modification can be a positive if we look past the debate and consider a different future for those who need it.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 References A variety of sources including books, websites, films, and videos that can be accessed to learn more about the issues relevant to cotton and chemistry.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Copyright Danielle Sponder Testa, 2011

76

Introduction

Imagine a world without cotton. No more cotton t-shirts or bathrobes, no Egyptian cotton sheets, no cotton trousers. Are you imagining a nudist colony? Maybe not, but it cannot be denied that cotton is everywhere, and it isn’t going anywhere.

Recently I purchased an Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) t-shirt designed by Katharine Hamnett as a part of the Spring 2011 collection. It is a statement piece; a remake of her ‘No More Fashion Victims’ one-size-fits-all top. A couple friends noticed it and a few other people made comments, but what they didn’t notice was that I wore it 3 times in the first week I bought it. This left me wondering, why did I want to wear this shirt so many times? True, in some measure it was due to the fact that it cost twice as much as any other t-shirt I have ever bought, but there is more to it than that. A cotton t-shirt is soft, stretchable, forgiving, and durable. It didn’t matter if I was going to a fashion show or lugging rails and boxes of hangers out of the storage room where I work, I felt good in that t-shirt. Part of that was because I knew it was organic and fair trade, we can all admit it feels good to contribute to others well being, but a lot of it was simple pleasure in the tangible comfort of cotton.

Cotton is one of the most common fibres used in fashion. Until recently it accounted for over 60% of all clothing until polyester became more popular (Black, 2008), but it is still the second most common fibre and the most used natural fibre. While only 4-5% of all agricultural land is used for cotton growing, it uses 25% of all insecticides and 10% of pesticides (Black, 2008) making it a significant fibre for chemical impact analysis. Just look at India, they houses 1/3 of the worlds cotton farms but those cotton farms occupy only 5% of their agricultural land (EJF, 2007a). Even so they use 54% of their pesticides on cotton (EJF, 2007a). Cotton is a sensitive, valuable and hugely important global resource. Valued at over 30 billion USD per year it is the most valuable non-food crop (EJF, 2008); it is fair to say that this un-sustainable fibre is in need of a facelift.

Saying cotton is an unsustainable fibre is a big claim. What is sustainability in fashion? There are many issues encompassing ‘sustainable fashion.’ Is it ethical labour? Organic fibres? Energy efficient? Minimized water use? All of these things are aspects of sustainability, but the fact of the matter is that today’s processes for creating apparel, whether ‘sustainably’ or not, use more water, energy, and

A Charge to Challenge and Contradict(Author’s Letter)

Introduction

material than we can justify through the definition of sustainability as ‘capable of being maintained at a steady level without exhausting natural resources or causing severe ecological damage’ (Farlex, 2011). The hope for the textile and apparel industry seems to be, make strides wherever possible. There have been efforts to create waterless washing, new energy-efficient production, fair labour practices and a variety of other things to move forward in each unsustainable aspect independently, but this key crop continues to be un-sustainable in most aspects of its development. Even further, the supply chain as a whole continues to work independently of each other.

Looking at current cotton growth and production it must be considered that current methods will not be the way in a sustainable future. While I believe that the industry is making positive strides towards sustainability, environmental awareness in fashion and eco-clothing are still young. No industry gets it perfect the first time. A sustainable fashion industry – one that combines eclectic fashion, classic modernism, ethics and the environment – is far from here. We are on the yellow brick road, but we can’t see Oz yet. I challenge you to question the status quo, ask what will happen if we contradict the accepted ways.

The fashion industry is changing and so is cotton. I grew up in the Midwest of the USA; my cousins,

uncles, and extended family have farmed for as long as I know. I can’t see what they do as bad, and therefore I can’t believe that the only good way to farm is the same way they did when they settled in Iowa – through backbreaking labour, minimal technology utilization and extra attention that would produce only half the yield needed to support our growing economy. My relationship with farmers in Iowa, professors and researchers at Iowa State University, and friends working for agribusinesses has informed my opinion on the future of agriculture. Iowa is the home of corn not cotton, but fibre follows food, and fashion follows fibres.

I believe that the future of sustainable cotton is not through fair trade or organic cotton. To create a sustainable future for cotton we must look at it early in its life, before it is a fabric, a fibre, before the seed sprouts, before it is even planted in the ground. I believe this leads to a future different than the status quo, one with less organic cotton, attention to genetically modified seeds, and a transition away from fair trade. This is a contradiction to the current parameters, but also the challenge I put forth. These are my challenges for chemists, fashion supply chain professionals, researchers, and farmers involved in the cotton industry. Cotton is here to stay, so we must challenge the industry standards.

The following sections will address these issues and how scientist can play a role in the change.

Introduction

9

New Systems

8

The first section looks at systems, being fair trade versus shared value. Followed by an explanation of how scientists can use new soil (fertilizer) and new genetically modified seeds (and systems related to them) to create shared value and a more sustainable future for cotton.

Enjoy your reading.

Danielle Testa

Introduction

I put forth three

charges to chall

enge

the future of cotton:

1) New Seeds.

2) New Soil.

3) New Systems.

(Not necessarily in

that order)

8

Fairtrade redistributing profit from corporations to farmersShared Value increases profits for both corporations and cotton farmers

99% of the world’s cotton farmers live in developing nations. Due to lack of education, literacy, and technology they produce only 75% of the world’s cotton.

9

10 11

New SystemsNew Systems

“Fairtrade is about better prices, decent working conditions, local sustainability, and fair terms of trade for farmers and workers in the developing world” (Fair Trade Foundation, 2011). Fair trade allows farmers to earn just wages and provide for their families in ways conventional trade does not allow (Fletcher, 2008). This concept focuses on redistribution of wealth through the supply chain to support workers who are often in poverty and powerless. What has become commonly known in bananas, coffee and cocoa production exists in a variety of industries that begin in agriculture; it is an ethical movement aiming to better the lives of marginalized people in developing nations.

Fairtrade has been well received by the public, which is a contributor to the success of the initiative. The large-scale implementation by companies such as Starbucks has further increased awareness and led other consumer goods companies to see the positive response and invest in the fair trade movement. It is an effective way to raise labour standards, at least in the minds of the consumers in developed countries, yet it lacks the ability to influence corrupt governments in developing nations that may withhold payments (Whitman, 2000) and merely maintains (or even reduces) profitability for businesses selling the product since the profit is redistributed. There are two ways that companies switch to fair trade production; through increasing prices of products to pay farmers more, or by giving up some of the profit to the farmers. Both of these methods are in contrast with the desires of the free market. Fair trade also acts as a protection

for both farmers and corporations through, by giving farmers better wages and raising the prices of products from developing nations to give developed nations slightly reduced competition (Porter et al., 2011). This is a political advantage of fair trade that doesn’t increase value in the corporate sense of profit and cost. These factors in the lifespan of fair trade cotton challenge its long-term success because value to a company is typically assessed in terms of increased financial profit, a key gain missing from fair trade (Porter et al., 2011).

On the Fairtrade Foundation website under ‘What is Fairtrade?’ It says, “[Fair trade] enables [farmers] to improve their position and have more control over their lives” (2011). I do not argue with the miraculous changes fair trade has brought about to the lives of farmers, but I wonder, do they really have control over their lives?

The reason fair trade exists is not because the product wouldn’t be available to a company if they didn’t buy it this way; it is successful because it is what consumers want. The consumers are responsible for the success of fair trade, not the farmers, and therefore the farmer isn’t in control. This long-sought achievement could be taken from them as quickly as it was given – unless they prove their value and are able to charge corporations the fair market price for their product. This can be done through a shift away from fair trade and towards shared value creation.

In order for cotton growers to see long-term

Fair play is Anti-Fairtrade?How science, cotton farmers, and industry can work together and move beyond fairtrade to systems of shared value.

I challenge the cotton industry to step beyond fair trade and create shared value. The benefits of shared value for cotton have already been realized in a limited way in the United States cotton belt. Until 2005 the US was the global leader in cotton production (Rivoli, 2009), a strange stance for a developed nation competing with developing nations. Many people argue that the US’s dominance in cotton was due to agricultural subsidies (Rivoli, 2009), and it is clear that this had obvious effects on African and Asian farmers who make up 99% of the worlds cotton farmers but produce only 75% of the worlds cotton (EJF, 2007a), but there was more to it than that. US cotton is grown by scientists. No, the farmers aren’t scientists, but they live with and work with the experts at Texas Tech University and at research institutions around Lubbock Texas who continue to modernize and innovate cotton (Rivoli, 2009). US cotton has overshadowed other cotton because of the clear advantages of research and development. Shared value has been utilized to form networks of researchers and producers and collaboration between the various entities involved in the cotton chain, but this value has yet to be shared on a larger scale limiting its potential for growth within developing societies that need it.

Investment in research institutions in Africa and Asia that work directly with the land and farmers to develop the best strains of seeds or appropriate fertilizer for the area would allow farmers in developing

benefits of a fair trade-like movement it must be seen as a value to business. The ideas of fair trade and ‘best for business’ rarely cross paths because ‘best for business’ has come to mean inherently bad for people. Why is this? Before globalization reached the state it is at today, before the industrial revolution even, business existed to allow people to provide for themselves, and hopefully live a little better (Achbar et al., 2003). The farmer, butcher, shop owner, and seamstress were dependant on each other and worked in a way that created value for everyone involved. This is the concept of shared value, a concept coined by Michael Porter and Mark

Kramer (2006), and a concept that can be applied to business and replace fair trade for the betterment of business, society and the environment. In critical analysis of the fashion industry, individuals typically consider people, planet, or profits and approach improvement to each aspect independently, but we should all know that one cannot succeed without the others. We must stop treating them as individual issues and come up with a solution that addresses each equally to synergize value. This is the opportunity of shared value.

Shared value considers new technologies and operations to form clusters of suppliers and producers in order to increase efficiency, quality, and sustainability on top of making sure fair wages are being paid (Porter et al., 2011). Rather than the business giving up some of their profit to the farmer, both parties increase their efficiency and profitability. Fair trade can increase farmer’s profits 10-20%, but focusing instead on shared value creation and investing in collaboration can increase farmer’s profits three-hundred percent (Porter et al., 2011). Which farmer would you like to be?

“The farmer, butcher,

shop owner, and

seamstress were

dependant on each other

and worked in a way

that created value for

everyone invloved.”

13

New Soil

12

New Systems

“Shared value considers

new technologies and

operations to form clusters

of suppliers and producers

that can work together to

increase efficiency, quality,

and sustainability on top of

making sure fair wages are

being paid.”

countries to use products more suiting to their needs and would decrease expenses wasted on unfit applications. Being local is crucial to such a program because understanding the way seeds are planted and land is farmed has a significant effect on what nutrients and care is needed. Currently there is research being done in Nigeria to better seed breeding (Sams, 2010), but it is an environment completely different than Monsanto and other global seed

producers. Building off of the availability and interest of such an organization can improve the value and quality of African cotton – creating more value and at the same time lowering costs. This sort of collaboration is on the brink of emergence. My undergraduate university, Iowa State University, has worked with the European Union and Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) to direct seed policy in eastern and southern African nation (ISU, 2011). This sort of assistance and collaboration can provide not just better, but appropriate seed for the region.

The cotton industry is global, but creating networks of experts in small regions can utilize the concept of shared value. Developing community weaving cooperatives near cotton farms can improve livelihood of citizens while keeping costs down by cutting out transportation expenses and keeping other expenses level (this is assuming the same sorts of production facilities would be created whether they be cooperatives or factories). Local production for the mass market also allows corporations to take advantage of the knowledge of fibre variations by different regions. Rather than working with cotton from India, China, and Uzbekistan pure fibres

can be processed that come from the same region so the individuals become experts in its traits realizing benefits of an experience curve.

Shared value requires all of us to take a systems focus on what is best for society, the environment, and business. If scientific exploration is shared we can reach a new level of globalization where we have the resources to feed and cloth 9 billion people in 2050 (Loyn et al., 2011). My next charge addresses the details of how scientists can further create shared value.

I know what you are thinking, and no, I am not purposefully

playing devil’s advocate. I simply don’t believe organic cotton is the answer. The role it has played has been crucial and as the Environmental Justice Foundation has stated, there are issues with accountability and transparency that have only been available through investment in organic cotton (2008), but as the Gallup Organization’s Strength Finder will tell you, I am a futurist and that means I am constantly looking for a new way forward, and I don’t believe organic cotton is it. Organic cotton is a milestone in the history of cotton, an over-the-hill birthday marking its turning point and we hope all the most popular brands will attend the party, but at the end of the night we must all move on to the next big thing.

1514

New SoilNew Soil

Chemist Role: New Seeds

and New Soil. New Soil: Focus on FertilizerOrganic cotton cultivation does not use synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, or growth regulators or defoliants (Fletcher, 2008). It instead focuses on local variety adaptation, reduction of nutrient loss through crop rotation, and mechanical and manual weed control (Fletcher, 2008). However, output of organic cotton is up to 50% less than that of conventional cotton (Fletcher, 2008). This means that if we wanted the industry to switch entirely to organic cotton we would not have enough land to support demand even at its current levels and far less considering the anticipation of another 2 billion people on the planet by 2050 (Rockstrom, 2010). One solution to deal with this is to diversify the fibres used in apparel, but given different texture, durability, cost, and a variety of other situational factors, cotton continues to be the only fibre suited for its expansive use. This means that the industry will most likely continue to be dependent on cotton, but organic cotton cannot meet demand, so what is the other option? Rather than stepping back from technology and returning to organic production with unfailing doubts in its ability to meet the already stretched demand, lets take science further so that rather than having organic cotton, we can have healthy cotton. In order to make healthy cotton we must

look at the varieties on the market and determine what makes them unhealthy. A major and recognized cause of unhealthy cotton is the heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides.

Fertilizers of different sorts, whether they are nitrogen, phosphorous or potassium, can have negative health impacts on farmers and the farm communities exposed to the chemicals in water runoff from the cotton fields (IFDC, n.d.). But if Fritz Haber could create artificial nitrogen, the original fertilizer(Pollan, 2006), why can’t wemake better nitrogen?

I have talked to my friends andfamily who work on farms and in agribusiness to get an understanding of natural verse conventional farming. Time and time again I am told the new seeds are great, but expensive, but no matter what seed you use you need to take care of the land as best you can to get the highest possible yield. As Wally Darneille, President of

the Plains Cooperative Cotton Association in Lubbock Texas said, farmers were the first environmentalists (Rivoli, 2009). It is the health of the land that matters most in successful farming (White, 2011). Because of constant

demand, cotton fields don’t have the time to naturally regenerate, but misuse of fertilizer can be worse for the land than nothing at all. Using no fertilizer at all, particularly in developing markets in Asia and Africa, leaves production short of demand and rather than raising the price as it would in a fair market, companies can buy subsidized cotton elsewhere at a low price leaving farmers in developing nations in poverty and unable to feed their families. I believe we need to find a way to use the science without harming the land and the people who need it most. This means developing new fertilizer. New fertilizer doesn’t mean using new elements, as science k n o w s what

different crops need to succeed, but we need to use them better. A common problem with fertilizers is excess chemicals in the water table that flows directly into the drinking water in developing nations (Taylor, 2010). A common element in these chemicals is nitrogen, and while nitrogen can be broken down by adult bodies babies have not developed enough to handle it and can be affected by blue baby syndrome which can lead to death (Pollan, 2006). Developing nations do not have water purification systems or

soil tests to see how much of various chemicals are in the land and water meaning that up to

90% of cotton farmers (all those in developing

nations) could be affected by health

problems related to fertilizer application

(EJF, 2008).

Looking at how fertilizer is sold and

packaged could make a huge difference in its toxicity. When looking at the different nations there are patterns in the land that require similar amounts of nutrients. If a quantity of fertilizer is sold for a particular region of Africa and in the quantity that is the requirement for the typical farm size, it can greatly reduce misuse. Beyond that, if it is known to be over-applied consistently a diluted formula can allow farmers to continue their normal processes without damaging the land and the drinking water. The best way to deal with issues associated with fertilizer though is to build on the use of natural fertilizer – manure (White, 2011). Manure from cattle, chickens, and hogs is a common and healthy way to put the needed nutrients back in the soil where crops are grown (White, 2011). Fertilizers can build on manure to add more of key elements and meet the need of large areas of land that cannot be covered in manure. Understanding the nutrients and micronutrients available in manure can reduce the need for such toxic levels of chemicals in manmade fertilizers (White, 2011). Understanding the use and producing a product meeting these needs

Jared Wilson, a friend and researcher at Monsanto

Bob White, my uncle and an Iowa farmer.

“It is the health of the land that matters most in successful

farming.”

“Farmers were the first

environmentalist.”

New Seeds

1716

New Soil

The use of fertilizer in farming has lead to a rapid increase in the nitrogen flow damaging the eco-system (Rockstrom, 2010).

can improve the health of the land and people in developing nations while increasing yield and creating value for the cotton supply chain. The companies and chemists creating fertilizer can learn a lot if they just look at retail policy; know your customer.

Source: USDA/NASSCotton Yields

(Pounds of Lint per Acre) 1970 -2007

(Rivoli, 2009)

Source: UNCTADWest African vs. US Cotton Yields

(Rivoli, 2009)

NEW SEEDS: WHY WE NEED GM SEEDS BUT HOW WE NEED TO CHANGE THEM

Fertilizers can have toxic health effects, but they are not as damaging as pesticides (Clarke, 2011). Highly and Extremely hazardous pesticides are continually used in countries where the literacy and education is not high enough to expect safe application (EJF, 2007a). The scientists that create pesticides do so in developed western nations where they can expect safe application, but 99% of the world’s cotton farmers are in developing nations (EJF, 2007a). It is obvious that such hazardous chemicals should not be used as much as they are, but since we can’t un-invent them there are two ways forward. Make the chemicals better, or do something else to stop them from being necessary. As I previously stated, I believe that we can look at types of fertilizers and how they are used and sold in order to eliminate health problems associated with its use. The other equally important aspect of transitioning conventional cotton to healthy cotton is investment in genetically modified (GM) innovations.

Misuse and misunderstanding of pesticides and fertilizer in developing nations contributes to high numbers of death and disease (EJF, 2005). Genetically modified seeds can reduce or eliminate the use of pesticides in developing nations and make cotton prosper on farms with

poor irrigation systems (Wilson, 2011), which can drastically improve the health of workers and the land where the cotton is grown and allow them to produce more cotton improving their financial well-being. This is one of the arguments supporting GM seeds, unfortunately this is not how GM is used. GM seeds are typically only available in developed nations, not the developing nations that could benefit most from their traits (Wilson, 2011). The scientists developing such seeds work for companies that focus on financial profit rather than value creation. To most of Africa and Asia where pesticide poisoning is common, GM seeds are not available and to the places where it is, it is too expensive to buy (Anderson, 2011). There is science behind the seeds used in Africa, in February 2010 a partnership between Nigerian institutes released a strain of corn that was tolerant to drought and nitrogen deficiencies improving yield for farmers (Cotthem, 2010), however, there is still a lot of room for development with GM cotton in Africa and Asia and the yield is significantly lower than that of countries such as the USA and Australia (EJF, 2007b). There is opportunity to create available GM seeds through more affordable seeds, removing the policies of no seed re-use put on farmers by Monsanto and other seed suppliers, or through working directly with African and Asian research institutes to develop strains appropriate to the land and needs of developing nations.

Creating GM seeds that are actually available in developing nations can make a significant

improvement in the illnesses of the 2 million people affected by misuse of pesticides by getting rid of the need for pesticides, reducing water need and creating other adaptability traits within the seeds. There are worries that just like a virus, the pests will adapt to the new strains of seeds and this has happened, but due to the experience and expertise in other fields such as medical antibiotics and the long history of people adapting the natural traits of seeds, science has consistently remained one step ahead of the pests making new seeds with up-to-date repellency traits.

NEW SEEDS AND NEW SOIL CAN CREATE A NEW SYSTEM

GM seeds and new fertilizer can both be tools for shared value creation. Although not as toxic as pesticides, fertilizers are also damaging to the land and communities when misused. There are great opportunities in collaborative farming and GM seeds that are overlooked by many scientists and corporations. I put forth the charge to chemists to use science for the benefit of the global society through collaboration and creating value where it is needed most, not just where it is easiest to implement.

We all know cotton has an undeniable presence in fashion. Through cross-communication, value creation, and new exploration of seeds, soils, and systems we can shift the cotton paradigm.

19

Introduction

18

New Seeds

Win

ter

Sprin

g

Sum

mer

Fall

120

90

60

30

0

Lab

or

Ho

urs

per

Acr

e

Stage 1

Win

ter

Sprin

g

Sum

mer

Fall

120

90

60

30

0

Stage 2

Win

ter

Sprin

g

Sum

mer

Fall

120

90

60

30

0

Lab

or

Ho

urs

per

Acr

e Stage 3

Win

ter

Sprin

g

Sum

mer

Fall

120

90

60

30

0

Stage 4

Manual Labor Requirements in Cotton Production

Cotton Labor Cycle:Winter : Land breakingSpring: Planting, cultivation, weedingSummer: WeedingFall: Harvest

Stage 1: Mule-powered land breaking and cultivation. Extensive hand weeding and hand picking.

Stage 2: Tractor land preparation in the winter. Mule-pow-ered cultivation. Some hand weeding. Hand picking.

Stage 3: Tractor-powered land preparation and cultivation. Some hand weeding. Hand picking.

Stage 4: Complete mechanization with a small amount of hand weeding.(Rivoli, 2009)

(EJF, 2007b)

Western cotton farmers like those in the United States have access to irregation systems and up-to-date machinery that can determine the nutrient levels of the soil making GM seeds less beneficial than they could be in African and Asian nations where these devices are typically not available.

New Seeds

New Soil

New Systems

21

Introduction

Reference ListAchbar, M. and Abbott, J., dir. (2003) The corporation, Big Picture Media Corporation, 145 mins. [Video:DVD].

ABC Action News. (2010) ‘A proposed ban on nitrogen based fertilizers fails’, ABC Action News [Video Online], Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-9bN_eJpIM [Accessed: 2 March 2011].

ActionAid (2009) ‘UK HungerFree campaign: Brief on sustainable agriculture’, ActionAid.Org [Online], Available at: http://www.actionaid.org.uk/doc_lib/sustainable_agriculture_aa.pdf [Accessed: 5 March 2011].

Anderson, T. (2011) ‘Patented GM crops: Making seed saving illegal?’, The African Executive [Online], Available at: http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=766 [Accessed: 24 February 2011].

Ayittey, G. (2011) ‘Debt relief is not the answer’, The African Executive [Online], Available at: http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=239 [Accessed: 1 March 2011].

Baehr, B. (2010) ‘Birke Baehr: What’s wrong with our food systems’, Ted Talk [Video Online], Available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/birke_baehr_what_s_wrong_with_our_food_system.html [Accessed: 20 February 2011].

Beal, R. (2008) ‘Global Environment: Eutrophication’ SUNY-ESF TV [Video Online], Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1X7vq8ADCA&feature=related [Accessed: 20 February 2011].

BHIA.org. (N.D.) Blue Baby Syndrome [Online], Available at: http://www.bhia.org/articles/childrens-health/bluebabysyndrome.html [Accessed: 22 February 2011].

Bioneers. (2011) ‘John Warner: Intellectual ecology’ Vimeo [Online], Available at: http://vimeo.com/18305108 [Accessed: 7 March 2011].

Black, S. (2008) Eco-chic: The fashion paradox, London: Black Dog Publishing.

Blackburn, R. (2005) Biodegradable and sustainable fibres, London: Woodhead Publishing.

Blackburn, R. (2011) The Chemical Inheritance [Lecture], London College of Fashion: MA Fashion and the Environment, [16 February 2011].

Clarke, L., (2011) The Environmental Justice Foundation [Lecture], London College of Fashion: MA Fashion and the Environment, [16 March 20110].

Cotthem, W. (2010) ‘Nigeria: New maize varieties to boost output’, Desertification [Online], Available at: http://desertification.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/nigeria-new-maize-varieties-to-boost-output-africafiles/ [Accessed: 20 February 2011].

20

References

Cotton Incorporated. (2011) ‘See our commercials’, Cotton Incorporated [Online Images], Available at: http://www.cottoninc.com/Cotton-Commercials-Flash/ [Accessed: 5 March 2011]. Griffiths, P. (2010) ‘Lack of rigour in defending fairtrade’, Economic Affairs, Vol. 30 (2): 45-49.

Gutierrez, D. (2010) ‘Bill Gates now pushing genetically modified seeds in Africa’, Natural News [Online], Available at: http://www.naturalnews.com/029071_Bill_Gates_GM_seeds.html [Accessed: 2 March 2011].

Environmental Justice Foundation [EJF]. (2005) White gold: The true cost of cotton [Online], Available at: http://www.ejfoundation.org/page93.html [Accessed: 16 February 2011].

Environmental Justice Foundation [EJF]. (2007a) The deadly chemicals in cotton [Online], Available at: http://www.ejfoundation.org/page93.html [Accessed: 15 February 2011].

Environmental Justice Foundation [EJF]. (2007b) White gold: The true cost of cotton [Video Online], Available at: http://www.ejfoundation.org/page325.html [Accessed: 2 March 2011].

Environmental Justice Foundation [EJF]. (2008) Somebody knows where your cotton comes from: Unravelling the cotton supply chain [Online], Available at: http://www.ejfoundation.org/page93.html [Accessed: 13 February 2011].

Environmental Justice Foundation [EJF]. (2010) End of the road for endosulfan: Pushing for a global ban on a deadly pesticide [Online], Available at: http://www.ejfoundation.org/pdf/end_of_the_road_for_endosulfan.pdf [Accessed: 2 February 2011].

Fairtrade Foundation, The. (2011) ‘What is fairtrade?’ The Fairtrade Foundation [Online], Available at: www.¬fairtrade.¬org.¬uk/¬what_is_fairtrad¬e/¬default.¬aspx [Accessed: 5 March 2011].

Farlex, Inc. (2011) ‘Sustainable’, The Free Dictionary [Online], Available at: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sustainable [Accessed: 20 February 2011].

Fletcher, K. (2008) Sustainable fashion and textiles: Design journeys, London: Earthscan.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO]. (2006) Fertilizer use by crop, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Gray, L. (2011) ‘Britons must swallow fear of GM crops to feed world’, The Telegraph [Online], Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/8277851/Britons-must-swallow-fear-of-GM-crops-to-feed-world.html [Accessed: 5 March 2011].

International Fertilzer Development Center [IFDC]. (N.D.) ‘Expertise: Fertilizer’, IFDC [Online], Available at: http://www.ifdc.org/getdoc/9d4cfa62-08a9-4d44-b55a-3a8c03dccec0/Fertilizer [Accessed: 9 February 2011].

Iowa State University [ISU]. (2011) ‘Iowa State University’s seed science center to steer eastern and southern African seed policy’, Iowa State University News Service [Online], Available at: http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2011/mar/SSCComesa [Accessed: 15 March 2011].

Jeyaratnam, J. (1990) ‘Acute pesticide poisoning: A major global health problem’, World Health Statistics Quarterly, Vol. 43 (3): 139-144.

References

23

Introduction

22

KIDK Eyewitness News. (2009) ‘Drummond water has toxic levels of nitrates’, KIDK 3 Eyewitness News [Video Online], Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B46SHauXhQ [Accessed: 20 February 2011].

Kunz, G. and Garner, M. (2007) Going global: The textile and apparel industry, New York: Fairchild Publications.

Linens Ltd. (2011) Egyptian cotton bathrobe, beige, large [Image], Available at: http://www.linenslimited.co.uk/egyptian-cotton-bath-robe-beige-large-2420.html [Accessed: 10 March 2011].

Loyn, D. and Beddington, J. (2011) ‘No easy solution to global hunger’, BBC Radio 4 [Online], Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9371000/9371410.stm [Accessed: 5 March 2011].

Material World Corp. (2011) ‘Research and investigation’, Material World Corp. [Online Image], Available at: http://materialworldcp.wikispaces.com/2.+Research+and+Investigation [Accessed: 5 March 2011].

McKie, R. (2011) ‘Genetically modified crops are the key to human surcical, says UK’s chief scientist: Sir John Deffinton argues that moves to block GM crops on moral grounds are no longer sustainable’, The Guardion [Online], Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/23/gm-foods-world-population-crisis [Accessed: 22 February 2011].

Monsanto Company. (2010) ‘Cotton Seeds’, Monsanto [Online], Available at: http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/cotton-seeds.aspx [Accessed: 2 March 2011].

Morris, M., Kelly, V., Kopicki, R., and Byerlee, D. (2007) Fertilizer use in African agriculture: lessons learned and good practice guidelines, Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Pollan, M. (2006) The omnivore’s dilemma, London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2006) ‘Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility’, Harvard Business Review [Online], Available at: http://www.globalcompactnamibia.org/pdf/CSR%20-%20Porter%20Kramer%20-%20CSR%20along%20the%20value%20chain.pdf [Accessed: 5 February 2011].

Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2011) ‘Creating shared value’, Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 2011: 63-76.

Pusztai, A. (2001) ‘Genetically modified foods: Are they risky to animal/human health?’, Action Bioscience [Online], Available at: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html [Accessed: 2 March 2011].

Rivoli, P. (2009) The travels of a t-shirt in the global economy: An economist examines the markets, power, and politics of world trade, 2nd edition, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Rockstrom, J. (2010) ‘Johan Rockstrom: Let the environment guide our development’, Ted Talk [Video Online], Available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/johan_rockstrom_let_the_environment_guide_our_development.html [Accessed: 20 February 2011].

References

Sams, N. (2010) ‘Nigerian cotton producers ponder shift to biotech varieties’, Next.com [Online], Available at: http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/News/National/5652492-147/nigerian_cotton_producers_ponder_shift_to.csp [Accessed: 22 February 2011].

Shop Style. (2011) White cotton sheets [Image], Available at: http://www.shopstyle.co.uk/browse?fts=white+sheets [Accessed: 5 March 2011].

Simmons, J. (2010) ‘UK report advocate for sustainable agriculture to meet global demands’, Produce More Conserve More [Online], Available at: http://www.producemoreconservemore.com/perspective/detail/uk-report-advocates-for-sustainable-agriculture-to-meet-global-demands/ [Accessed: 25 February 2011].

Taylor, P. (2010) Global nitrogen pollution: nitrate build up from soils to the sea [Video Online], Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPr5GJBvfio&feature=related [Accessed: 2 March 2011].

Jackson, T. (2010) ‘Tim Jackson’s economic reality check’, Ted Talk [Video Online], Available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_jackson_s_economic_reality_check.html [Accessed: 20 February 2011].

White, B. (2011) Interview with author. 4 March 2011 (Approx. 40 minutes).

Whitman, D. (2000) ‘Genetically modified foods: Harmful or helpful?’, ProQuest [Online], Available at: http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php [Accessed: 10 March 2011].

Wilson, J (2011) Interview with author. 5 March 2011 (Approx 40 minutes).

References

25

Introduction

24

Danielle TestaChemical Catwalk and Materials ManifestoMA Fashion and the

EnvironmentLondon College of Fashion March 2011