As spring approaches, the days get longer, the air warms up, and students are more tired than ever. Luckily, spring break is just around the corner, which means many of us will be partying on the beach, visiting beautiful destinations around the world, or just taking a much-needed break from school. 

But before you hop on a plane, think about the ways that climate change is altering our world and the way we travel. If we continue to produce more greenhouse gas emissions, more plastic pollution, and toxic waste, we won’t be able to visit these destinations anymore. But the consequences for some people are far more profound — extreme weather events are already causing millions to flee affected regions. 

For many, it’s just not possible to rebuild homes and recover after natural disasters. Those affected by climate change often relocate their entire families when their homes become uninhabitable and their crops fail. Mexico, for example, is a popular spring break destination for vacationing students. But the country’s geography, as well as its position between two oceans, makes it vulnerable to tropical storms and sea level rise. 

Flooding has already decimated the small town of El Bosque and forced its residents to relocate, but if these worrying weather trends continue, it won’t be the last community to disappear. A staggering 10.5 million people from Mexico and Central America are expected to relocate by 2050 to flee the effects of climate change. 

These “climate refugees” represent a global trend of displacement — since 2008, about 21 million people have been displaced each year as a result of weather-related events. For Kathleen Rogers, the President of EARTHDAY.ORG, it is important to remember that behind every number are real people. “Can you imagine if that was your family, your community, your town?” Rogers questions. “The data is very clear — mass migration driven by climate change is no longer a problem we will face in the distant future, but something we must address right now.”

How do rising temperatures impact people?

When the global temperature increases, it contributes to drought because water evaporates faster at higher temperatures, resulting in dryer soil and wilting plants. Warmer temperatures make already naturally dry conditions even more severe. Droughts often cause famines as crops die off and farmers cannot feed their families nor sell produce. 

Somalia and other countries in East Africa are particularly vulnerable to drought, and as these conditions persist, we are seeing the migration of people out of the region to avoid further famines and disease. As of 2023, drought has displaced an estimated 2.5 million people from Ethiopia and Somalia. 

The lack of moisture in vegetation and the air also creates another issue, as these are the ideal conditions for larger and more intense wildfires that are nearly impossible to put out before they decimate acres of land cover and human settlements. Nepal has recently experienced intense fires that tore through forests and coalesced with existing industrial air pollution to wreak havoc on the health of millions. This small, mostly rural country is expecting 1.3 million people to be forced from their homes by 2050.

Climate change also increases the potential for extremely destructive storms. More evaporation from higher temperatures results in more moisture in the atmosphere, which fuels intense rainfall and stronger storms. Areas like the Caribbean and Southeast Asia are some of the areas most impacted by storms — the Philippines, Indonesia, and India were the top three countries identified by the World Risk Index as most affected by these disasters. 

Sea level rise is threatening coastal settlements across the world. Asian megacities like Bangkok, Manila, and Ho Chi Minh City could be underwater by the end of the century. Coral atolls with very low elevations like the Maldives, Kiribati, and the Marshall Islands are suffering from problems associated with seawater encroachment, like freshwater contamination. A third of the population of the Marshall Islands is estimated to have already migrated, many to the U.S. 

Tens of millions of people displaced by climate change move to other areas within their home country, a process called internal displacement. By the end of 2022, 8.7 million people had been internally displaced as a result of natural disasters. Droughts, famines, wildfires, and storms often exacerbate political, economic and social problems in affected countries, making it even more attractive to move away for those who can afford to do so. 

But what about those who do cross borders? Currently, climate migrants have a difficult time claiming status as refugees under formal international classifications. The UN Refugee Agency has stated that climate refugees may have valid claims for refugee status in the future. Rogers believes “Governments cannot put it off any longer, because this problem is only going to get worse. They must recognize these millions of refugees and grant them protection under international law.”

Climate refugees deserve better global protocol, and far more compassion, to support them when they are forced to relocate. This phenomenon is not going away and will only become more intense if governments around the world continue to collectively ignore the importance of climate change; the world will become increasingly uninhabitable for all of us if we do not take significant steps to curb our emissions to mitigate future climate disasters.

The post The Rising Tide of Climate Migration appeared first on Earth Day.

Obesity is a sensitive subject that has dominated headlines in the last decade, and much attention has been given to the known contributing factors associated with it: diet, genetic disposition, exercise, and other health conditions. March 4 marks World Obesity Day, an international event to draw attention to the causes of and solutions to the issue. But a less understood factor that scientists are continuing to study is exposure to plastics and the chemicals within them.   

Any kind of judgment based on weight or body size is inappropriate, but education on the things we are exposed to every day, and how they affect our health, is crucial. People in the U.S. use around 0.75 pounds of plastic each day, making us the second-highest consumers of plastic in the world. This volume of plastic comes with a whole array of issues including one that relates directly to our health. 

We are inhaling and ingesting tiny microscopic fragments of plastics, known as microplastics, and a range of toxic plastic additive chemicals as the plastic packaging and products degrade over time. It is hard to imagine that these products could be harmful to us, but research into the endocrine-disrupting chemicals in plastic additives reveals that plastic can have startling health impacts.  

What are EDCs?

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals, or EDCs, are natural or man-made chemicals that can block or interfere with the body’s hormones and alter the functions of the endocrine and metabolic systems. Over 350,000 synthetic chemicals have been produced and used over the past 40 years, and industry creates hundreds more each year. The Endocrine Society estimates that at least 1,000 of these man-made chemicals may be EDCs. 

A recent study of over thirty common plastic objects found that over 98% of the 55,000 chemicals in these items were not even identifiable, meaning that scientists have no idea what plastic additive chemicals we are being exposed to, let alone what they might be doing to us.

Eleven of the identifiable chemicals were known metabolic disruptors. Scientists believe that many more of these unidentifiable chemicals could be EDCs with significant health impacts, but our knowledge of these “mystery chemicals” is appallingly limited.  

Shockingly, there are several known EDCs in everyday objects. Bisphenol A (BPA) is found in plastic containers and can leach into the beverages we drink and the food we eat. Manufacturers add phthalates, also called plasticizers, to countless household objects like hygiene products and vinyl flooring. Since the 2000s, these chemical additives have become increasingly prevalent in plastic products, namely food and beverage packaging.

How do these chemicals contribute to obesity?

The connection between EDCs and human obesity is still under investigation by scientists, but animal studies suggest that EDCs can influence the regulation of body weight by altering appetite, aiding in fat cell creation, and increasing fat retention. These chemicals bioaccumulate in our tissue and remain in our bodies for years, resulting in continuous exposure.  

Other studies show that these chemicals can alter glucose metabolism and stimulate fat storage. The chemicals block the connections between hormones produced by the endocrine system and their receptors, effectively disrupting the normal functions of metabolism and appetite. EDCs have also been linked to disorders associated with obesity, including insulin resistance, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. 

Thus, even individuals who exercise and consume a consistently healthy diet could experience adverse health impacts if exposed to enough EDCs over their lifetimes. While scientists continue to study the various ways that EDCs can interfere with our health and uncover new chemicals that play a role in obesity, we know enough about several of these disruptors to take action. 

So what can we do?

One way to curb the effects of EDCs on human health is to alter our behavior as consumers. It may seem like the only safe option is cutting out plastic completely, but in a world dominated by synthetic materials, this is nearly impossible. We can buy fewer products with known EDCs, such as BPA and phthalates, and we can use less plastic overall to reduce our exposure to potentially risky chemicals. 

An easy fix is to drink less bottled water. A recent study found that a single bottle of water contains thousands of nanoplastics, much more than previously estimated. Consider purchasing fewer items and beverages with plastic packaging and buy fresh or unpackaged food instead.  

Another simple solution is to vacuum your living space frequently — we ingest microplastics and microfibers in the air we breathe, and vacuuming can help reduce the amount of tiny synthetic particles that we ingest. 

Education and awareness of EDCs is also crucial. EDCs are especially harmful to children because they come into contact with more of these substances as they crawl and teethe. Aidan Charron with the End Plastics Initiatives feels especially strongly about this: “When I wrote EDO’s report, Babies vs. Plastics, I was shocked to discover just how uniquely at risk babies are when it comes to inhaling and ingesting microplastics. Parents need to know what they are giving to their kids.” In 2012, the FDA banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and cups, but items created before this ban could still contain harmful additives. 

Most importantly, we need substantial regulation to address known EDCs and increase research into potentially harmful chemicals. The BPA ban was necessary, but it only addressed the tip of the iceberg. The EU is currently preparing an initiative to ban BPA in food packaging, a move that the FDA continues to shy away from, claiming that the levels of BPA in packaging are safe. We must expand the small field of research and ask the FDA to constantly assess the risks of these chemicals. 

We must reinforce the responsibility of the government to put pressure on the producers of plastics with increased regulation — simply asking companies to stop using these cheap chemicals is not going to fix the problem. Implementing something similar to the EU’s REACH program, which requires manufacturers to record each chemical substance they use into a central database, can at the very least make this information accessible to consumers. 

Some even argue that the entire process for chemical approval is ineffective because it allows substances to enter the market before they have been adequately tested, and that the precautionary approach used by other countries like the UK allows for better protection of consumers. 

Plastic remains a constant environmental and human health concern. EARTHDAY.ORG’s theme for Earth Day 2024 is Planet vs. Plastics — we are dedicated to campaigning for an end to plastic pollution for our planet and for its people. Learn more about why we wish to End Plastics, and sign the Global Plastics Treaty today.

The post Is Plastic Making Us Obese? appeared first on Earth Day.

Plastic is piling up around us. We keep creating more and more single-use plastics each day and sending them directly to landfills. By making this non-biodegradable waste for so many years, we’ve created a global problem that we can’t seem to escape. We try to give plastics a second life with recycling, but so few recyclables are actually sent to the correct facilities and reused. The writing seems to be on the wall: the plastics crisis is too complex for one simple solution.

But where conventional recycling has failed in dealing with excessive plastic waste, a different sort of recycling promises to excel. Proponents of chemical recycling claim that this process is the future of plastic waste, but others are quick to point out its harmful effects. Policymakers, scientists, and environmentalists continue to debate the question: is chemical recycling going to save us, or only plunge us deeper into an environmental crisis?

What is chemical recycling?

Chemical recycling is an umbrella term encompassing several different technologies designed to extract base chemicals and polymers from plastic. It can be used as a complement to mechanical recycling by breaking down difficult products, such as films and laminated plastics, thus creating a recycling system that is able to process a wider variety of plastic items. By reducing polymers to their “building blocks,” chemical recycling can also produce recycled material with the integrity of virgin plastics. 

The complicated and technical methods of chemical recycling include gasification, hydro-cracking, and most importantly, pyrolysis. This last process holds great potential because it can convert plastic waste into oil that can be used for furnaces, boilers, turbines, and diesel engines, thereby keeping plastics out of landfills while simultaneously reducing our reliance on extracting additional fossil fuels for plastic production. 

In addition to plastic and energy outputs, pyrolysis results in byproducts such as char, a carbon-rich material that can be sold off and used for cookstoves, road surfacing, and improving soil quality. From start to finish, chemical recycling has the potential to be incredibly profitable — one estimate places revenue opportunities in the U.S. and Canada at $120 billion over the next few years. 

Adopting this technology appears to be an obvious fix for our plastics crisis, and the plastics industry would seem to agree, as there are already 11 facilities currently operating across the U.S. alone. But scientists and environmentalists claim that the process is rife with significant environmental and health downsides that only exacerbate existing concerns. 

The bigger (and darker) picture 

The primary concern with chemical recycling is the output and byproducts. Pyrolysis produces gasses in addition to the aforementioned char, which are all highly contaminated from the chemical additives used in the recycling process. Benzene, lead, cadmium, and chromium are just a few of the chemicals involved in chemical recycling that are known to have adverse health effects. Not only can they enter local air and water around these facilities, but thousands of pounds of hazardous waste each year is generated from recycling plants, shipped across the country, and burned miles away from their point of origin. 

These industry practices are especially concerning because studies have shown that these facilities and disposal sites are located in low-income areas and communities of color. Environmental justice advocates say that these communities already suffer health outcomes from other industries that release toxic chemicals into the environment, and these chemical recycling facilities will only make the problem worse. It also requires a significant amount of energy, producing more greenhouse gas emissions and negating the supposed benefits from producing alternative fuel. 

Putting environmental and health concerns aside, opponents say the process requires significant improvements before it can be widely adopted. Even those who support chemical recycling claim that scalability is a sizable obstacle, one that cannot be easily overcome without substantial infrastructure improvements and government investment. But is this the most promising solution that the government should be funding? 

The major problem with chemical recycling is that it absolves the plastic industry of responsibility. By offering this “perfect” solution, companies can continue to produce just as much plastic as ever or even scale up their operations. It does not change the bigger picture, which is that plastic is created from our highly pollutive dependence on fossil fuels. Continuing plastic production with a “business as usual” mindset will only result in more emissions and more overflowing landfills. 

Chemical recycling may seem promising in a vacuum, but the history of conventional recycling reminds us that extending the life cycle of plastic is not sufficient. We need to deal with the issue at the source and demand a reduction in plastic production now. If you agree, sign our Global Plastics Treaty petition to show your support for decisive action to combat plastics. 

The post Chemical Recycling: Savior or Saboteur? appeared first on Earth Day.

This month, designers and models will gather in New York, London, Milan, and Paris for fashion week and show off intricately crafted clothing. Although these high-fashion garments are beautiful, worsening climate conditions and environmental degradation have made it more crucial than ever for us to cut back on clothing production and consumption. 

But what about the average consumer, or even those who rely mainly on thrifting for their clothes? Many resourceful people have been scouring through used clothing racks and bins for years to find stunning vintage garments and outfit staples, but the process of thrifting has become even more popular in the past five years. We tend to think of thrifting as a promising possibility to give unwanted clothes a second life, but the reality is less rosy.  

The rise of thrifting 

From 2021 to 2023, the value of the global secondhand apparel market rose from $138 to $211 billion, and is expected to reach $351 billion by 2027. The online resale market has also exploded, enabling resellers to quickly scoop up the best pieces in brick and mortar stores and put them up for sale on virtual marketplaces, often for inflated prices. In 2023 alone, online resales accounted for $20 billion.  

We consider thrifting a sustainable alternative to purchasing new fast fashion clothes as it keeps clothing in circulation, but the landscape of thrifting is changing as more and more clothes are flowing into donation bins. The sheer quantity of donated clothing is astounding — Goodwill receives almost 6 billion pounds of donations a year. Purchasing used clothes does not fix the problem of fast fashion, which is rife with health and environmental harms. 

Is thrifting really sustainable? 

During the production of new clothing, harmful dyes and toxic substances are used and greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere. Polyester and other synthetic fibers derived from fossil fuels make up nearly 70% of our clothing. When they are washed and dried, they also shed thousands of tiny particles called microfibers into freshwater, oceans, and the air.

While cleaning out our closets, we make piles of clothes that we donate indiscriminately to these stores. Once we drop these donations off, we adopt the “out of sight, out of mind” perspective. But these clothes have to end up somewhere. Thrifting and reusing clothes for other purposes may extend the life cycle of clothing, but it does not change the fact that many garments end up in landfills at the end of the day, especially those not designed for resale and use by multiple people over time. 

Even if you buy a cheaply made shirt at the thrift store to give it a second life, the reality is that the garment will likely not last long. Many fast fashion sellers do make clothing with durability in mind — they are concerned with keeping up with the latest trends and rely on poor quality materials and underpaid labor.

If you go to thrift stores now, you may see racks stuffed with products from SHEIN, Fashion Nova, or other fast fashion brands. The popularity of fast fashion brands coupled with changing trends fueled by social media means that many lower quality fast fashion items are donated to thrift stores, making durable vintage items harder to find. And those are just the pieces the store decides to put on the floor for sale. 

The fate of unwanted donations 

Thrift stores receive such a large volume of donations that they simply cannot sell it all on the floor. For example, Goodwill only puts around half of their donations out for sale at brick and mortar stores; the other half  is sent to wholesale outlet stores or salvage dealers. Pieces that are stained or noticeably torn or broken are usually not put out for sale. 

Thus, only 10-30% of donated clothes are actually purchased from thrift stores by consumers. The excess usually ends up on the salvage market. For-profit recyclers buy up the unsold merchandise and sell it in the U.S. for industrial wipes, carpeting, mattress padding, insulation, and even paper. 

But many of these salvage companies look to foreign markets for profit. Large bundles of clothing are packaged up and sent overseas to developing countries like Kenya, Ghana, and Pakistan. Importers often receive these secondhand goods at a rate higher than they can feasibly sell. But this export system supports an economy that many local people in these countries depend on — the garments are often sold at much more affordable prices by street side vendors than domestically produced clothing. 

However, textile importation stunts the success of domestic clothing manufacturers, which led East African leaders to initiate a ban on the practice. This ban later failed as the U.S. put pressure on these countries to continue accepting clothing exports. Textile exportation also essentially shifts the responsibility for clothing waste from developed countries onto less developed ones. This “solution” ensures that we can keep producing an exorbitant amount of clothing, because we have a “safe place” to dump our unwanted garments to keep them out of our own landfills.

So, what can we do?

The only logical solution is to deal with the problem at the source and put an end to the overproduction of garments to keep them out of landfills. The fast fashion industry makes around 100 billion garments each year, the majority of which are fossil-fuel heavy synthetic garments that pollute from cradle to grave.

As a society, we must reckon with the effects of our consumption. Fast fashion cannot exist with buyers who continue to support the industry. For whatever reason, whether it be impulse buying, shopping with friends for fun, or purchasing hundreds of pieces for social media “hauls,” consumers continue to buy clothes they do not really need. 

Most people use only 20% of their wardrobes most of the time. Instead of opening that fast fashion brand’s app, consider opening your closet and “shopping” for pieces you haven’t worn in a while. Shifting your mindset away from consumption takes time and effort, but if we all bought a little less, reused a little more, and purchased higher-quality goods, we could reduce textile waste and make thrifting fun again. To learn more about sustainable fashion and work with us to demand change from the fashion industry, visit EARTHDAY.ORG’s Fashion for the Earth campaign page and join our mission for a sustainable future.

The post Unraveling the Impact of Thrifting appeared first on Earth Day.

With only 109 days until Earth Day 2024, EARTHDAY.ORG wants to empower ordinary people to make more eco-friendly choices, combating the plastic crisis plaguing our world and championing our theme, Planet vs. Plastics. 

The National Campaign as well as our other campaigns collaborate with green cities, environmental justice groups, federal agencies, colleges and universities, and nonprofits year round to build worldwide support and awareness for a healthier planet. We believe these groups hold the power to educate, mobilize, and empower individuals in the environmental movement. 

In 2024 we are focusing on green muscle memory — a subconscious inclination towards making environmentally friendly choices through education and repetition — to achieve our environmental goals. People make small choices everyday for their own convenience, like grabbing a single-use cup from the coffee shop, but we need to take a critical look at the consequences of our decisions. 

How can we use green muscle memory as a tool to fight against plastic use and waste? Education on the reality of plastics is crucial. People must understand the extent of plastic waste on our planet, its effects on wildlife and the environment, and the undeniable toll microplastics have on human health. EARTHDAY.ORG’s campaigns are designed to educate the public and provide you with the tools to develop your own green muscle memory. 

Education 

One of EARTHDAY.ORG’s biggest priorities is educating the public on the environmental issues our planet is facing — including the plastic crisis — through our Climate and Environmental Literacy campaign. Understanding the effects of plastic waste is the foundation for further action. That is why we have numerous toolkits available on our website that explain the problem with plastics and how we can solve it. We also have guidelines, such as the End Plastics Campaign Lesson, for teachers looking to implement this crucial information in classrooms. Education is the key to helping younger generations develop instinctive eco-friendly behaviors and developing green muscle memory. 

Fashion for the Earth

One of our goals is to promote more eco-friendly fashion. Our Fashion For the Earth campaign has created toolkits to help you shop more sustainably and care for your clothing. Simple changes like buying less clothes, swapping garments with friends instead of purchasing new items, and choosing natural materials like organic cotton over polyester play a significant role in reducing synthetic fiber production. With this campaign we aim to educate consumers and supply them with the knowledge they need to adopt better fashion practices.  

Green cities

EARTHDAY.ORG has worked with local governments to develop our Green Cities campaign. We believe designing more eco-friendly communities and green cities is both a cause and result of better environmental education and awareness. Bans and taxes on single-use plastics have already been implemented in many municipalities around the world. But even smaller changes to a city’s design and policies can promote better choices — making plastic less convenient and green alternatives more attractive will allow citizens to develop instinctive practices. 

The Great Global Cleanup 

Join The Great Global Cleanup with an action as simple as picking up trash and properly disposing of it. Some people like to “plog,” or pick up trash while they run, jog, or walk. This is easy to integrate into your everyday life, but more dedicated plastic cleanup efforts make an even bigger impact. The Great Global Cleanup campaign is focused on organizing events to combat plastic pollution in local communities. EARTHDAY.ORG’s Global Map of Events allows you to browse both private and public cleanups in your area, and even register your own to attract more participants. We also have tips for organizing a cleanup event to mobilize your community and inspire further action against plastic waste. 

College campuses 

We believe that students are a crucial part of environmental education, and we are committed to helping the next generation of leaders on college campuses with our MobilizeU campaign. Student organizers can bring environmental activism to your campus and inspire your community to build its green muscle memory. MobilizeU’s online resources can help you plan plastic cleanups, sustainability meetings, and waste reduction initiatives on your campus. 

Not only should we as individuals understand what we are doing wrong now, but what we can all do to be better. We must reinforce the importance of cleaning up our plastic waste, learn how to shop for food and clothes more sustainably, and most importantly, educate young people and students so they can develop these instinctive behaviors. Join 1 billion others in the Planet vs. Plastics fight for a better future for generations to come.

The post How Green Muscle Memory Can Help Us Fight Plastic Waste   appeared first on Earth Day.

Take a look in your closet. Chances are, most of your clothing is composed partially or even entirely of polyester. This synthetic fiber is the world’s most widely used material in clothing. 

Research on polyester began in the 1920s. Its main ingredient, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), was patented in 1941 and the legal rights to produce polyester were bought by the DuPont Chemicals company. The synthetic material was an attractive product because it was durable, lightweight, and water- and fire-resistant. It was also incredibly cheap. Blending polyester with natural fibers like cotton became the norm for garment production. 

Now, polyester and other synthetic fibers make up almost 70% of our clothing. But while this strong and versatile material has fostered new developments in fashion and made clothes more affordable for many people, there are plentiful downsides to polyester. 

The most obvious issue is polyester is directly derived from oil, a fossil fuel. But the fabric is also responsible for leaching toxic dyes and microfibers into the environment. Additionally, emissions from clothing factories contribute significant amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Polyester production has also resulted in human rights concerns for workers in developing nations, where most garment factories tend to be built. Let’s take a closer look at how polyester impacts the environment. 

The Devil is in the Details

Polyester is a fabric composed of various chemicals derived from petroleum. Ethylene and p-xylene are extracted from petroleum and mixed with dimethyl terephthalate to create the polymer polyethylene terephthalate, or PET. It is estimated 342 million barrels of oil are used for producing plastic-based fibers each year. At its core, polyester is a material derived from fossil fuels, making it incredibly unsustainable and harmful. 

Not only does polyester require fossil fuels in its direct production, but the factories where it is made contaminate the local air with pollutants and emit greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. It is estimated the fashion industry accounts for over 700 million tons of CO2 emissions each year. 

The Chinese textile industry, which exports the most textiles each year, released an estimated 18.5 billion tons of greenhouse gasses in 2020 primarily due to the fact their energy generation still relies primarily on fossil fuels like coal. The soot produced by coal lingers in the communities surrounding the plants and has been linked to cardiac and respiratory diseases in workers and residents alike. 

The process of dyeing polyester is just as detrimental to human health and the environment. 90% of clothes today are dyed synthetically. During this phase of production, an immense amount of water and chemicals are used to dye the clothes, and most factories have no way to properly dispose of this toxic concoction — it is simply discharged from the plant back into local waterways. Citizens living near these polluted bodies of water have reported higher rates of cancer. The health of workers is also at risk, as they are exposed to these dyes, chemicals, and heavy metals every day. 

At every stage in the process, from production to consumption to disposal, polyester clothing releases microfibers. When you wash polyester, thousands of tiny pieces of plastic are released, and without an adequate filter, these synthetic fibers enter laundry wastewater. From there they enter waterways, wreak havoc on aquatic organisms, and contaminate the environment with toxic chemicals. Polyester does not biodegrade, meaning it will stick around for hundreds of years and continue to shed microfibers. These microscope particles are also present in our bodies — studies have found PET in human blood, lungs, and hearts, as well as in umbilical cords, placentas, and breast milk. 

Who is buying polyester? 

The fashion industry is growing by 8.67% each year. China, the US, and the UK are the world’s biggest markets for fashion. Most of the garments are produced in China. In 2020, for example, over 43% of the world’s clothing exports came from China. By contrast, the US exported just over 3%. But the European Union, the UK, and the US imported almost 40% of clothing produced worldwide. 

Polyester is the most cost-effective fabric for fashion brands to use. It costs half as much per kilo as cotton. The cheap material along with the low wages of garment industry workers means companies continue to produce polyester clothing because it is most profitable to do so. 

One factor contributing to the growth of the fashion industry is the overall rise of the global middle class population with the disposable income to buy more clothing. Currently, lower and upper middle class individuals account for around 45% of the global population. This percentage is projected to jump to 57% by 2030. While the wealthy elite spend more per capita, the middle class spends the most overall, and spending on clothing in particular is projected to increase by 595.3 billion dollars by 2028 as more people have the funds to access the fashion market. 

Additionally, more people than ever are shopping online. The advent of fast fashion websites and apps promising quality garments at scandalously low prices are pushing the trend of clothing overconsumption. E-commerce exploded in 2020 and has continued to pull in around 20% of clothing sales per year. The allure of variety -– Shein alone boasts 300,000 new items each year — along with cheap prices makes online shopping attractive for the burgeoning middle class. 

Is polyester worse than other fabrics? 

Polyester is often portrayed as a more sustainable alternative to fabrics like cotton because it takes less water to produce and does not require pesticides. Global cotton production requires over 250 billion tons of water per year. Cotton can grow in arid climates, but is often planted in dry countries with scarce amounts of water where irrigating and diverting water for agriculture leads to excessive water use and drought. 

However, pointing just to water use ignores the pernicious implications of polyester — the leaching of chemicals and microfibers into water, the discharging of greenhouse gasses from factories, and the fact the material does not biodegrade which all combine to make polyester less sustainable overall than natural fibers like cotton. 

Even recycled polyester, which transforms plastic bottles into fabric, is not without its downsides. The fabric is still made from oil-based plastics capable of  releasing microfibers. And, the plastic bottles used to make polyester can also only be recycled one time; after that, the clothing still ends up in a landfill where it will sit for years. 

Without a doubt, polyester production is on the rise. In the next ten years, an estimated 92 million tons of polyester are going to be produced. The sheer volume of garments created by companies like Shein is simply unsustainable. The success of fast fashion brands in the internet age will only prompt more companies to enter the sector and contribute to this wasteful industry. 

We need to take a serious look at our consumption habits and question if we really need all of these clothes, especially those poor quality items which will be out of style before the current fashion season comes to an end. Our clothing conundrum is absurd — we are causing irreparable damage to our planet just to have a new garment to wear and throw away each week. We must pressure the fashion industry to make more sustainable choices. If you agree, take a look at our Fashion for the Earth campaign and sign the petition to force the industry to change their wasteful practices. 

The post The Devil Wears Polyester  appeared first on Earth Day.

Plastic is everywhere. It seems impossible to estimate how much we depend on this popular material. Plastics have only been around for a fraction of the planet’s history — since the early 20th century — but while they may give us short term convenience they are causing irreparable environmental damage that will impact our world for hundreds of years. They also pose considerable risks for wildlife and human health, and they are a unique hazard because it is virtually impossible to avoid plastics.  Nobody can completely opt out of exposure to them. 

Fifty years ago, our reliance on plastic would have seemed absurd in a world where most everyday items were made from glass, clay, wood, metal, or paper. Clay, for example, was used to make pots. Tin and paper were used for food packaging. Many times, fresh produce from local grocers came in no packaging at all, while drinks came in reusable glass bottles. 

In the early 1900s, initial research into naturally plastic materials began for specific industrial applications such as car manufacturing. Later, chemical modification of these materials, synthetic plastics, began production on a much larger scale. Plastic research and development truly began taking off during WWII when other natural materials became more scarce or expensive.

In the 1950s, plastic production exploded, and companies such as Dow and DuPont patented new plastics for public use. The burgeoning plastics industry allowed companies to increase their profits exponentially, as there were seemingly endless uses for plastics and they were cheap to produce.

Marketing was crucial. Anything and everything could be replaced with colorful, shiny plastics. Plastics promised to make our lives easier. They were cheaper than natural alternatives, could be mass produced, and were less liable to break. 

Early Plastic Research 

Before the 21st century, research into the health impacts of plastic was almost nonexistent. Consumers adopted these materials without questioning if they were good for us or not. According to the Plastic Health Map created by the Minderoo Foundation, from 1961 to 1980 only 47 studies were conducted to assess the human health effects of plastics. Most of these studies examined synthetic polymers which had become inescapable in the average household. Brand name polymers such as Nylon, Teflon, and Mylar were virtually everywhere. The limited research focused on the impact polymers have on the skin as well as the digestive and immune systems. 

From 1981 to 1990, scientists began looking into the effects of plastic on the endocrine, metabolic, and nutritional systems. Notably, research into PCBs examined the health of workers with occupational exposure to these highly carcinogenic chemical compounds.

The EPA has determined that PCBs are a probable human carcinogen. Epidemiological studies found that rare liver cancers and malignant melanoma were more common among workers with daily exposure to PCBs. These compounds have also been found to have a toxic effect in animals that can wreak havoc on their immune, reproductive, nervous, and endocrine systems. 

Companies such as Monsanto knew of the danger of PCBs as early as the 1960s. An internal study found that they caused tumors in rats, but these corporations enjoyed  decades of PCB production without regulation. The 1979 Toxic Substances Control Act finally banned PCB production in the United States.       

Even then, PCBs were not entirely eliminated. They are still present in materials produced before the ban, such as colorful plastics that use PCB pigment, and it’s estimated that 83% of total PCBs produced still persist in plastic objects, the environment, and our bodies. 

Scientists Find Dangerous Effects 

From 1991 to the turn of the 21st century, the diversity of plastic research expanded. Phthalates became a topic of scrutiny for scientists. These additive chemicals which make plastics more durable are used in cosmetics, toys, and vinyl flooring — and these are just a few examples of the everyday objects that utilize PVC, a high-strength plastic that contains phthalates.

Infants in particular are exposed to high levels of phthalates via teething products and toys. By their very nature children chew on inanimate objects for the first couple of years of their lives  – but during this development phase, they are ingesting microplastics and the phthalates that leach from them. Microplastics are tiny slivers of plastics that break off from larger plastic items and they are typically no bigger than a grain of sand. In 2008, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act limited the level of phthalates that were acceptable in children’s toys but they are still used in the production of many plastic toys, just at low levels. 

Microplastic and phthalate exposure has been linked to adverse effects on the reproductive system in animals. Studies also detail the impacts on the endocrine system of children. They have also discovered phthalate exposure can cause higher systolic blood pressure, earlier menopause, low birth weight, pregnancy loss, and preterm birth in women. Researchers believe this is because women tend to be more exposed to phthalates than men via cosmetic products.

In the 2000s, the prevalence of the chemical additives known as bisphenols, PFAS, and PBDEs exploded. PFAS are toxic fluorine compounds also known as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down in the environment. PBDEs are added to reduce flammability of objects. Bisphenols such as BPA are used to make epoxy resin and plastics that are present in commonplace objects like water bottles and food storage containers. Bisphenols have been observed to interfere with various cell functions which can lead to cardiovascular diseases, neurological disorders, reproductive abnormalities, and diabetes. 

PFAS have been used since the 1940s, but as plastic food packaging became more common, our exposure to PFAS in plastic increased. A significant amount of research on PFAS is ongoing. But we do know that exposure may lead to reproductive and developmental effects, increased cancer risk, and interference with hormones and the immune system. 

There are thousands of PFAS that have yet to be studied, but they continue to be used in plastic products. Per the FDA’s advice, manufacturers have voluntarily agreed to phase some PFAS out of food packaging. While this step is a good start, it minimizes only one pathway for contact with PFAS. 

What We Don’t Know About Plastics

From 2011 to 2022, the number of studies on plastics more than quadrupled. Specific health outcomes and the variety of health impacts between demographics received more attention. But what is most striking about the current body of research is what we still do not know. Of over 10,500 chemicals used in plastic production, we have only researched 1,557 of them. The health impacts of thousands of chemicals already being used in plastics remain unknown. 

Additionally, from 1961 to 2022, no human exposure studies examined the effects of microplastics or nanoplastics. Most studies were conducted in the United States, Europe, China, and Japan, meaning that the effects on industrializing nations (which often suffer more acutely from plastic pollution) were barely investigated. 

In order to address today’s plastic crisis, we need to expand the narrow body of research and invest in a huge array of scientific research dedicated to examining the health impacts of plastic, microplastics and their additive chemicals. But most importantly of all we need to limit our exposure to plastics which means drastically reducing our plastic production, so that by 2040, we have reduced it by 60%. 

For more information on plastics and human health, view the Plastic Research Health Module and for more background on plastics view our Plastic Tool Kit. We need to take action immediately to limit plastic production and prevent pollution for ourselves and the planet — so we invite you to sign the Global Plastic Treaty Petition to make your voice heard.

The post Plastics: The Deadly Epidemic appeared first on Earth Day.

Do you have a little furry, scaly, or feathery friend at home? If so, you are one of the more than 86 million households in the United States that own a pet. In 2022, Americans spent $136.8 billion on pet foods, toys, bedding, and now even clothing. 

We consider our pets as part of our family, but what we don’t realize is that we are exposing them to harmful substances every single day. There is a plastic component to nearly everything we buy for them, and most pet owners are completely unaware. Their plush toys, water bowls, and even the food they eat comes with the added ingredient of microplastics, known as primary microplastics, or little fragments of plastic material that shear off from larger products, known as secondary microplastics. 

Microplastics in food and water

While the danger of microplastics for human health is gaining more attention globally, there is still little awareness of the threat they pose to our beloved pets’ wellbeing.  So, it may be shocking to learn that plastic is sometimes even present in the food we give them. Sheep heads with plastic tags on their ears, for example, come to pet food processing plants to be ground up as a component of pet food. 

However, the plastic tags on their ears can be difficult to remove so are often just left on the carcass and processed directly into the pet food meal. These tiny fragments of plastic pieces may be small — plastics can break down to a fraction of a micrometer in size — but your pet is still consuming them. And some plastic pieces are not always ground down either, which is why in 2015, one company received 295 complaints from customers who had found large and visible foreign plastic materials in their pet food. Either way, it means our cats and dogs are potentially eating plastics. 

Other materials are similarly turned into ingredients for pet food, including wasted human food that is still wrapped in plastic. Yes, you heard that right, still wrapped in plastic! When animal owners noticed that food pellets they had purchased for their pets contained large pieces of plastic, they not surprisingly reached out to the suppliers to complain, only to be told that using plastic packaged food is a legal part of the recycling process! Why? Because the machinery that is meant to remove the plastic is not perfect and sometimes the plastic makes its way into the mix.

In the UK, plastic is actually legally allowed to be used in animal feed up to 0.15%.  In the U.S., the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which is supposedly enforced by the FDA, ideally addresses pet food safety.  But the FDA, which is already largely ineffective at regulating human food, let alone pet food, essentially allows the pet food industry to regulate itself. 

The chemicals used in food packaging can also pose a threat to pets. Most pet food cans are lined with an epoxy resin made from Bisphenol A — BPA — which can leach into the pet food directly. Long-term exposure to BPA, which will occur if your pet eats canned food every day, is thought to have negative effects on their health. Studies in rodents found that BPA can interfere with hormones, specifically the thyroid, which in turn can potentially lead to an array of health issues. 

Even the water that we put in our pets’ bowls contain microplastics and plastic fibers. Just like us, pets need to stay hydrated, but by giving them tap water we could be jeopardizing their health. Giving them bottle water too doesn’t negate the problem, as single use bottled water also contains microplastics. 

Accidental exposure to microplastics 

As if that were not dangerous enough, we also indirectly expose pets to microplastics in our home environment as well. Microplastics in our homes can come from a variety of sources, from clothing to carpets. Researchers found that children come into contact with more microplastics in the home than adults, but little to no research has been done on the effects of this exposure in pets. Given the amount of time our pets spend indoors, it seems completely likely that they too are being exposed to high levels of microplastics. 

Plastic exposure for our pets does not end here: pet toys, pet clothes, and pet food containers pose another threat. The overall lack of chemical-specific regulations for pet products means that microplastics that leach from these objects can be potentially harmful. BPA, the same chemical used to make the resin in pet food containers, has also been found in other items like food bowls and food storage containers. 

Many dog toys also contain chemicals known as phthalates — more commonly called plasticizers — that make these toys more durable. But as your dog chews on these toys, they are exposed to these chemicals. Phthalates have been shown to have impacts on the reproductive systems of animals and disrupt endocrine function. We recognize the threat these plastic toys pose to human children; phthalates are regulated in childrens’ toys, and young children exhibit similar chewing behaviors to pets but the pet toy market remains unchecked. 

The threat to pet health

Specific chemicals within microplastics can have varying health impacts on the endocrine and reproductive systems, but microplastics as a whole pose a threat to pet health no matter what toxins they contain. It has been proven that pets ingest these particles — they have been found in the internal tissue of pets and their feces. 

Microparticles can absorb other contaminants such as metals and organic substances that can make our pets ill, and we also know that microplastics carry bacteria and potentially even viruses. These can cause disease and illness in humans and animals alike. Exposing pets to bacteria via plastics can cause a variety of health problems or exacerbate existing conditions. Intestinal toxicants in particular have been linked to microplastics, which interfere with gut microbiota and critical intestinal functions. 

There is a need for more data on how microplastics adversely impact human health, but the evidence that microplastic ingestion and inhalation is harmful for human beings is growing. There is much work to be done on the effect of microplastics on animals; we assume pet food and goods are safe, but we do not know the long-term effects of these products or of the chemicals used in the plastics they are made from. We know that microplastics, like other materials, can bioaccumulate in humans over time. This is likely the case for pets as well. 

How can we limit our pets’ exposure to microplastics?

Plastic products are so ubiquitous that it is hard to find pet products free from all plastic components, but there are toys, collars, and leashes made from natural materials like hemp. Additionally, you can avoid pet shampoos and other grooming products that contain microbeads, those tiny pieces of plastic found in many beauty products. When you pick out treats for your furry friend, look for packaging that is eco-friendly or BPA-free. Finally, using less plastic in the household overall reduces the amount of microplastics in the indoor environment and will hopefully lead to healthier humans and pets. 

To learn more about plastic’s impact on our planet and EARTHDAY.ORG’s goals for plastic reduction, take a look at our Planet vs. Plastics page. If you want a healthier future for yourself, your pets, and the whole planet, sign our Global Plastics Treaty today and commit to ending plastic pollution.

The post Pets and Plastics: The Hidden Danger appeared first on Earth Day.

Red Dye No. 3 was banned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from being used in cosmetics, namely red lipstick, back in 1990 due to concerns about it being carcinogenic. Remarkably, it wasn’t banned from our food. California’s finally taken action, ahead of the FDA, and has banned it from all food in their state too. But the vast majority of Americans are still consuming it, along with a host of other chemicals banned in Europe.

As Halloween fast approaches and we eagerly await the opportunity to eat a lot of highly dyed candy, this is cause for concern. Most Americans will go about their holiday happily consuming items we assume are safe. After all, if they contained any harmful ingredients, they wouldn’t get approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), would they? Unfortunately, the FDA is not quite as rigorous or as effective as you might think.

The FDA is a federal agency responsible for protecting the public health of Americans by regulating drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, food, and other products. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the FDA has the power to regulate food, and later amendments extended their authority over chemicals and additives. In theory, this means the agency makes sure all our food, whether it is freshly grown produce or processed, contains nothing that can harm our health.  

However, the FDA is not doing enough to adequately oversee food regulation. Their control over food additives — of which there are over 10,000 on the market today — is insufficient. Food is not the main priority of the FDA — given the size of the drug and medical supply industry, it is easy to see why food gets less of the spotlight. But this lack of attention allows the food industry to fill in regulatory gaps with their own data. 

Of the 10,000 substances currently permitted in the food supply, only 66% were actually approved by the FDA. The remaining ingredients were concluded to be “generally recognized as safe” by the food manufacturers themselves. This casual self-regulation appears to have gone unchecked at the FDA, who allow these additives to be used in our food, essentially on the manufacturers’ word.   

In other countries, such as those within the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Australia, food regulation is much more strict. These countries tend to take a precautionary approach to food safety, meaning additives must be proven safe before they are approved and sold. The FDA has even stated U.S. food exports to places like Japan are made more difficult by their stricter regulations regarding additives.

In the United States, the approach is more reactive — the FDA takes a hands-off approach to testing and inspections, and allows additives to go on the market until they are proven harmful. The U.S.’ food safety protocol is leagues behind that of other countries — for example, the EU has even banned food products deemed safe, but are linked to deforestation. 

These disparate levels of regulation mean some food items that are ubiquitous in the United States are actually banned in other countries. Take a look at a few examples of these controversial foods below. 

Candy and Desserts 

As Halloween approaches, Americans look forward to eating our favorite candies and sweet treats. But candy contains some contentious ingredients. Skittles contain Yellow 5, Yellow 6, and Red 40. These dyes are linked to hyperactivity in children, migraines, and hives. The supposed effects have led to products containing the dyes to have warning labels. The dyes are outright banned in Austria and Norway; Skittles themselves are banned in the EU. In 2022, the EU also banned titanium dioxide as a food additive. Common Halloween candies like Sour Patch Kids, Starburst, Swedish Fish, and Trolli gummies all contain this ingredient that is linked to intestinal inflammation, immune system damage, and cancer. 

Drumstick frozen desserts are also controversial. They contain carrageenan, an ingredient derived from red seaweed, for their texture. Carrageenan has been linked to gastrointestinal inflammation, irritable bowel syndrome, and diabetes. The use of the ingredient for infant formula has been banned in the EU. 

Cereals

The little marshmallows in Lucky Charms look harmless, but they get their coloring from Yellow 5, Yellow 6, and Red 40, the same dyes found in Skittles. 

Frosted Flakes are banned in the United Kingdom, Japan, and a few other European countries because they contain BHT, which helps maintain the properties of the food when it’s exposed to air. BHT is not banned in the EU and other countries, but its concentrations are highly limited in products. There is controversy around whether or not BHT is linked to cancer or blood clotting, but more cautionary countries have tried to limit it in their food supply. 

Drinks 

Mountain Dew is an American favorite that is banned in Japan and the EU. The soda uses bromine vegetable oil (BVO) for its flavoring. Studies in animals have linked excessive BVO consumption to increased buildup of bromine in tissue, which is thought to result in health issues. The FDA is currently working on a rule to remove authorization for BVO, but for now the ingredient remains happily available in the popular soft drink. Fresca, a sparkling flavored soda, is also banned in Europe because it contains BVO. California has led the way again by banning BVO, ahead of any potential action by the FDA. 

Other Foods 

Stove Top stuffing contains the flavor enhancers and preservatives BHA and BHT, which are subject to restrictions in Europe and Japan. BHA has been used in American foods since 1947, but has been listed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as “reasonably anticipated” to be a carcinogen. Other studies have claimed these additives are harmful to the circulatory system. 

The fluffy, buttery Pillsbury biscuits enjoyed by many Americans are outright banned in several European countries like Austria, Norway, and Denmark. The biscuits contain trans fats in the form of hydrogenated soybean and cottonseed oils. In 2015, the FDA deemed that these oils, which are the main source of trans fats in manufactured food, are not regarded as safe and required the industry to phase them out of food by 2020. But foods can still be sold with half a gram of trans fat or less per serving. Trans fats are linked to unhealthy cholesterol levels and heart disease. 

The scariest thing about this holiday season isn’t ghosts, vampires, or zombies — it is the food we eat. The FDA is clearly lagging behind the standards of other countries when it comes to food safety. Processed foods contain many potentially dangerous substances, not to mention the often non-recyclable plastic packaging these foods are sold in. 

Allowing us all to make greener food choices is crucial — human health and the health of the planet are inextricably connected but to do it we need an FDA that puts people first. We need to be mindful of the chemicals we are often unwittingly exposing ourselves to just as much as the ones we emit into the environment. 

The post Scariest Thing This Halloween? The Food in Your Pantry appeared first on Earth Day.

SKIMS is a shapewear juggernaut. The brand was co-founded by Kim Kardashian in 2019 and like other celebrity led clothing brands has been incredibly successful, especially in the influencer age where creators are dedicated to buying the newest fashion and promoting them for their audience. 

As of 2023, the company is valued at $4 billion and projected to reach $750 million in annual sales. SKIMS has been praised for their body positive and inclusive products which come in a wide range of sizes. But her brand has also drawn the ire of those opposed to fast fashion for its lackluster commitment to sustainability. 

In recent years, as the average consumer becomes increasingly aware of the harms associated with poorly made and unethically sourced products, SKIMS, like many others in the fashion industry, has come under heightened scrutiny. And, in particular, the fashion industry is a significant contributor to plastic waste.

Most clothing items are made from petrochemical-based synthetic fabrics — in 2021 alone, 54% of fiber was made from polyester, and only 14.8% was recycled. The popularity of polyester and other petroleum-based fibers is a result of their inexpensive production costs, which ensures clothing companies can turn a considerable profit.

But these crude oil derivatives are a nonrenewable resource, and the production of plastics contributes to 4.5% of annual greenhouse gas emissions. These materials are also responsible for microplastics, which are stripped from the clothing in the washing machine and end up in water sources.

Textiles are responsible for 35% of microplastic pollution in the ocean. California has taken steps to limit microplastic pollution by introducing a bill that would require microfiber filtration systems in new washing machines. Consumption of synthetic fabrics does not exist without environmental consequences, even if the clothes claim to be sustainable or recyclable. 

SKIMS currently has 9 fabrics available in their line. Four of these are made mainly from cotton, but the remaining fabrics contain materials like spandex and nylon. For example, products made from the Cozy fabric are 21% nylon, and the Essential Bodysuit fabric contains 95% nylon. These synthetic materials are cheap and useful for their elasticity in shapewear garments. But they are also responsible for releasing tons of microfibers — which are known to have adverse environmental and human health impacts — throughout their lifecycle. 

Upon reaching out to the company, SKIMS stated that their products were sourced in Thailand, China, and Turkey, and produced in Thailand and China. Fast fashion companies have been accused of abusing garment workers in these countries by overworking and underpaying them. SKIMS’ website states that their workers are “ensured fair wages, safe environments and healthy working conditions.” 

Many garment factories are located in less developed countries where underpaid workers feel the most direct effects of fashion pollution. Chemical dyes contaminate groundwater, unsold clothes are piled up in landfills, and the industry as a whole threatens biodiversity. 

SKIMS uses misleading marketing to present the company as sustainable. Their claims in regards to packaging is an example of greenwashing. On the official SKIMS website, the company claims that they’ve “removed all plastic and non-recyclable materials” from the packaging and replaced them with biodegradable bags. The packaging itself reads “I am not plastic” and touts itself as “compostable,” promising that it will biodegrade at an industrial compost facility. 

However, closer inspection of these bags reveals a number 4 icon, which indicates that it is made from low-density polyethylene (LDPE). LDPE is a synthetic plastic that is very difficult to recycle. The company’s claim that the bags are not made of any plastic is misleading. 

SKIMS made $500 million in 2022 alone, so the company is more than able to invest in eco-friendly practices. The founders of SKIMS are incredibly wealthy — Kim Kardashian’s net worth is $1.7 billion, and co-founding couple Jens and Emma Grede are estimated to be worth at least $360 million — and have the resources to commit to sustainability. 

With their prominent presence and considerable influence in the fashion industry, SKIMS is uniquely positioned to spearhead the transition towards sustainable fashion practices. While this body-positive brand has already empowered individuals, its potential to inspire consumers towards a more sustainable future is immense.

Kim Kardashian has a hugely influential platform that she can use to call for the protection of our planet. Prioritizing sustainability is not just a financial consideration, but a moral necessity in an increasingly environmentally-conscious world. At EARTHDAY.ORG we are fighting for a more sustainable fashion industry. We believe that success in today’s fashion industry should focus on both creating beautiful clothing and fostering a beautiful world for future generations.

The post Exposing a Fast Fashion Wolf in Shapewear’s Clothing appeared first on Earth Day.