When It Comes To Sustainable Cotton, Fashion Focuses On The 1% For Another Cost 99. Why?

Cotton’s environmental impacts are well publicized (if not well understood), including the widespread use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and flood irrigation. However, cotton is the second most popular fashion fiber after polyester, and finding sustainable solutions to today’s farming methods is an economic and environmental imperative.

But much of the ‘sustainable cotton’ debate focuses on organic, which accounts for around 1% of global production. ‘If only more farmers would go organic’ is a frequently echoed wish, but it ignores a critical cotton metric and is downright impossible. The 99% cotton that is not grown organically is done by conventional methods which dates back to the industrialization of agriculture in the early 1900’s.

The emergence of synthetic fertilizers and chemical pesticides is enabling sustainable growth in global food production and fiber production. At the dawn of the agricultural industry, it fed and clothed the world’s population of less than 2 billion people. Today, this enables the production of more than the caloric food intake required of the 8 billion (and growing) global population. It’s also our clothes with 25% global fiber (a combination of cotton and wool), is now dwarfed by synthetic fibers derived from fossil fuels by 64%.

Current volumes of food production are achievable due to synthetic inputs, which drive the growth process and fortify plants until harvest; this is not to deny the damage done to industrial agriculture but to acknowledge that industrial agriculture supplies global commodity markets, provides nutrition and supports farmers’ livelihoods. In addition, farmers’ incomes depend on their yields, and scientific evidence (along with the dominance of conventional farming) suggests that processes using synthetic inputs tend to increase crop yields.

Organic versus conventional – the results are demystified

International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC) reported in 2016 that the global average yield for organic cotton was low, at 375 kg fibre/ha, compared to the worldwide average of fibre/ha 782 kg. In contrast, evidence from India, the US and Turkey shows that yields of more than 1,000 kg of fiber per hectare can be obtained if backed by good science. However, significant challenges exist in organic cotton farming, including inadequate seed availability, poor quality or inadequate access to organic inputs, weak scientific support, uncertain price premiums and low yields during the 2-3 transition period. year. In addition, the tedious certification process, complicated traceability system, and possible contamination due to the coexistence of genetically engineered crops are also considered problematic.

India is the number one country in the world for land area dedicated to growing cotton – India has four times the number of hectares that China (next largest) has under cotton production. But China is top fiber producer by volume, and India is not in the top 10. India is the world’s largest producer of organic cotton, accounting for more than half of global production, again demonstrating a significant yield difference between organic cotton and conventionally grown cotton.

Thus, organic farming has significant growth limitations, despite being ecologically sound. The same can’t be said for conventional with it costs for sustainability form a long list of environmental degradation that includes groundwater, surface water, soil, and biodiversity. In addition, the social costs include a growing rural-urban divide, a worldwide obesity epidemic, and antibiotic resistance. However, in this ’99 percent conventional’, the opportunities and challenges for sustainability lie in cotton.

Conventional problems, big opportunities

Once the limitations of organic farming and the interrelationships between growing food and fiber were understood, it became clear that alternative farming methods were needed to balance the environmental impact and global demand for fiber. So, are there sustainable cotton farming options, and if so, what are they?

In recent decades, the movement towards ecologically compatible farming methods has increased, including organic and regenerative farming systems. Scientific research shows that this system is very competitive in terms of low environmental impact compared to conventional farming. However, they are considered to be highly dependent on financial incentives and political support, and there is variation in the results.

What is the difference between organic and regenerative farming? Can regenerative cotton solve the environmental problems of conventional cotton while preserving crop yields? Which options are the most ‘sustainable’, and what does this mean for fashion brands?

Organic versus regenerative – what’s the difference?

Organic farming (OA) is a holistic approach that maintains and enhances soil health and includes biological cycles. This is achieved by applying agronomic, biological and mechanical techniques instead of using synthetic inputs to perform specific functions in the agricultural system. Organic farming complies with these rules:

• No chemical pesticides,
• No synthetic fertilizers,
• No plants are genetically modified,
• Responsible use of energy and natural resources.

Regenerative agriculture (RA) is a holistic approach to agriculture that highlights the relationship between agricultural systems and wider ecological system. Regenerative farming is a concept rather than a predefined set of requirements. It involves a practice-based assessment of a farming system that strictly adheres to the five recognized ones principle:

• cover ground,
• avoid ground disturbance,
• increase crop diversification,
• maintains living roots in the earth all year round
• enter cattle.

Regenerative agriculture aims to improve soil quality and biodiversity while profitably producing nutritious agricultural products. This eliminates tillage (digging and turning the soil) and environmental damage associated with bare land. Simultaneously, RA promotes plant diversity and integrate animal and food production on land. RA does critically prevent the use of synthetic and genetically modified inputs. Instead, they use it to simultaneously optimize soil health and crop yields.

Organic and regenerative – pros and cons

With respect to organic, there is insufficient data available on the benefits of regenerative agriculture. However, research has shown that regenerative practices can lead to higher profitability than conventional farming practice. For example, in the case of cotton, farmers have reported higher results by carefully controlling and minimizing synthetic inputs while maximizing crop yields for years in a row.

Organic farming protects the environment, reducing the impact of excessive use of chemicals; but on the other hand, it can cause social and economic hardship due to lower yields. Is organic ‘better’ because it uses no GM inputs, or is it inadequate because of its limited capacity to feed and partially clothe the global population? Furthermore, is it ‘better’ because there is a certification to demonstrate compliance with organic standards, which regenerative agriculture does not have?

Regenerative methods allow farmers to use synthetic chemicals and genetically modified (GM) seeds to better ensure plant characteristics that can survive under certain conditions, depending on the climate of the region and other factors. Is regenerative ‘better’ in that it can respond to ecological challenges through GM and targeted use of synthetic chemicals – as long as ‘net regenerative’ impacts are positive (to be proven through ongoing soil, water and biodiversity analyzes)? Is regenerative ‘better’ due to demonstrable increased carbon sequestration at a time when reducing emissions is critical to stopping climate change? Or, is ‘regenerative’ a crutch to sustain our sustainable consumption, as opposed to ‘organic’ with forced limits on what optimal agriculture in harmony with nature can provide? Today, the reality is that organic influence – and capacity – is negligible.

Organic ‘eco-cred’ versus regenerative carbon capture

Organic farms are certified according to agreed standards, though through manuals and so can go wrong chain of custody process. Regenerative agriculture is not a single, universal set of methods that can be distilled into certification – it must be analyzed case by case, depending on net impact, yields and costs.

Despite no certification, evidence of regenerative agriculture carbon sequestration through data collection and analysis of soil health is a major win, as evidenced in this regard. carbon case study. Famous brand advocates of regenerative cotton farming include The facing north, which recently partnered with Indigo Ag on its carbon cotton farming initiative. Additionally, Pangaia is currently ‘in conversion’ to regenerative cotton, aiming to source all of its pure cotton from regenerative systems by 2026.

Brands pursuing organic cotton are likely to focus more on the consumer confidence provided by non-synthetic chemicals, non-GM narratives, and broader impact reduction claims – including debunked water reduction statistics.

For all its certification faults, organic cotton does have an established and straightforward framework for what it is and how cotton is grown, leading to organic standards dictated by certification. What’s more, communicating the organic cotton story is relatively easy, piggybacking on what consumers already understand about organic foods. In this context, perception may be the determining factor that drives ‘sustainable-minded’ brands to choose organic fiber over other options. But that’s still only 1% of the available cotton. So regenerative, in terms of ecological volume and production, could be the answer for the other 99.