Bamboozling a Hempster in Sheep's Clothing

Pro-Life or Pro-choice?

Pro-Death Penalty or Anti Death Penalty?

Pro-Gay Marriage or Anti-Gay Marriage?

I’m an individual that tries to steer clear of issues that involve politics, religion, or any other topic that’s morally fueled.  However, the focus of my blog this week aims to further examine and critique the arguments associated with the supposed "miracle fibers." 

The idiomatic expression “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” can be used to describe the sequence of events prompting the textile industry to reexamine the model of the certification systems utilized by the clothing and textile supply chains. The supposed ‘wolf’ in the Controversy Broiling; GM Cotton Against Organic is genetically modified cotton and the disguise that’s being worn resembles organic cotton.  In 2010 the Financial Times Deutschland reported, “large amounts of genetically modified cotton from India had been put on the German market as organic cotton.”  This led many consumers to question the authenticity of organic cotton.  Determined to win back their customers trust the organic textile industry sought a solution that would ultimately guarantee uncontaminated production. The author argues that organic integrity can only be achieved through the reform of current certification systems.  The model that shapes the Third Party Certification system fails to ensure the equal distribution of trade-offs among various contributors.  For example, “the inherent expense and paperwork required in a multilevel system discourages most small organic producers from being certified at all.”  To revamp certification systems the author suggests that we must “seek a model where certification transcends its generic limits and becomes a conscious effort from all the players in the chain, right from producers to the brands.” (Controversy Broiling; GM Cotton Against Organic)  Chetna Organic in India, is an example the author uses to strengthen his argument and to convey the substantial benefits of a certification system largely focused on mutual trust and commitment.  “Chetna Organic is an Organic and Fair-trade supply chain initiative to support small and marginal farmers to adapt sustainable agricultural practices.” (Controversy Broiling; GM Cotton Against Organic)  The certification model of Chetna Organic places a huge emphasis on long term commitment, social development, transparency through Internal Control Systems, and communication.  Evaluating the certification model utilized by  Chetna Organic from a farmers point of view, it would prove to be quite effective considering “Chetna farmers have a shareholding in the garmenting factory of Rajilakshimi Cotton Mills Limited to ensure that they have stakes in the supply chain.”  In addition, the suppliers investment in social development would significantly  benefit farmers, consumers, and the community as a whole.  The author has a very persuasive argument and I agree with all of the measures proposed by the author.  The argument presented by the author adequately took into account the different perspectives of stakeholders.   The author accomplished this by conveying the potential benefits that each stakeholder stands to gain through a reformed certification system that’s internalized. 

The article Are you Being Bamboozled: How to Avoid Mislabeling, argues that more combative measures must be taken to ensure clothing products containing bamboo fibers are accurately labeled.  The first paragraph of the article contains the most compelling arguments made by the author.  The following statement is featured in the opening sentence, “the truth is, most “bamboo” textile products, if not all are really rayon.”  The author then goes on to say “rayon is a manufactured polymer typically made using environmentally toxic chemicals in a process that emits hazardous pollutants into the air.”  It’s likely the arguments in the first paragraph would have the greatest impact on consumers.  Many consumers do not have the slightest idea regarding the similar properties in fiber that bamboo and rayon posses.  I’m almost certain that the author presenting this argument is a disgruntled consumer.  The clothing and textile industry are largely relied upon to increase the awareness and education of consumers. Consumers will feel instantly deceived that more preventative measures were not taken to increase their awareness.  Retailers and manufacturers may find the authors argument to be irrational and irrelevant, thus assuming no responsibility pertaining to deceptively labeling products.  The author addresses the argument that describes that “no one would dream of labeling a product as “spruce” or “pine”, but because it seems vaguely credible that bamboo plants could be made into fiber with minimal processing, the process is never discussed.”  I find this argument confusing and I’m certain consumers would also agree.  Overall, the arguments presented in this article were lackluster in nature and not highly convincing.  

The article Hemp: Historic Fiber Remains Controversial and the film Hempsters: Plant the Seed are arguments in favor of legalizing industrial hemp in the United States.  The article and the film view hemp as a sustainable alternative that can serve as a substitute form of cotton. Fundamentally one of the most compelling arguments presented in the article Hemp: Historic Fiber Remains Controversial includes the following quotation, “currently, it is legal to import hemp fibers and processed seeds into the U.S., but it is illegal to grow the plant here.”  It’s very hypocritical that the government will allow hemp to be imported into our country, but if an American dares to cultivate the crop it’s against the law.  It is this very issue that radically reduces the validity of the arguments made by politicians and government institutions in opposition of legalizing industrial hemp.  The article and film both point out that the strongest advocates in opposition of legalizing industrial hemp fail to acknowledge the multitude of environmental benefits that the cultivation of industrial hemp would provide.  Those in opposition of legalizing industrial hemp completely alter this issue by creating a fictitious facade that all morality will be lost  if industrial hemp is legalized.  Law enforcement and the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) are advocates strongly opposing the legalization of industrial hemp because they think it will be far too difficult to distinguish between hemp and marijuana crops.  The article argues that the growing methods for hemp and marijuana are significantly and noticeably different.  The film reinforces this argument by presenting pictures that accurately showcase the noticeable differences concerning the growing methods.  An advocate for legalizing industrial hemp suggests that the reservations of our government are merely a power struggle between the government and its citizens.  The advocate goes on to question if the government will also ban powder sugar because of its close resemblance to cocaine.  Those in opposition of legalizing industrial hemp argue that hemp is just a cuter name for marijuana.  They also argue that hemp contains THC, one of the main ingredients found in marijuana.  However, the article Hemp: Historical Fiber Remains Controversial disagrees and states that, “the subspecies used for making fiber, colloquially known as “industrial hemp:, reportedly contains too little of the hallucinogenic substance tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), between 0.1 and 0.4% to have an effect when smoked and, according to a number of sources, would make one quite ill.”  The article goes on to state that the “marijuana plant contains as much as 20% of THC.” A statement in the film that I found very compelling was “a person would have to smoke the quantity of hemp the size of a telephone poll in order to feel a slight buzz.”   The author in the article Hemp: Historical Fiber Remains Controversial suggests that certain measures must be taken in order to legalize industrial hemp in the United States. Increasing the awareness and providing the public with the adequate education will aid in diminishing the negative stigma that’s associated with hemp.  Additional research and as well as the commitment to improve specific areas concerning the processing and production of hemp are necessary solutions that if taken will detract from the negative stereotypes and attitudes that are often associated with hemp.

Without a doubt I consider hemp to be the miracle fiber of the future.  Organic cotton has the potential to become a miracle fiber in the future, but many measure must be taken to refine the systems of production and certification.  I do not consider bamboo as a miracle fiber of the future.  Bamboo has far to many similarities to rayon most of which are unsustainable and negatively impact the environment.  The barriers that impact the success of miracle fibers are consumers lack of education and awareness. Knowledge and communication are intertwined and one without the other cannot fully serve the purpose that it’s intended for.  Consumers, politicians, business owners, and government institutions can integrate these component into society to ensure a sustainable future.