Alisa Kanganis
AP Biology
Current Event 3
September 22, 2018
Cirino, Erica. “The Environment's New Clothes: Biodegradable Textiles Grown from Live
Organisms.” Scientific American, 14 Sept. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-environments-new-clothes-biodegradable-textiles-grown-from-live-organisms/.
This article by Erica Cirino touches upon one of the most wasteful and environmentally damaging industries in the United States - fashion. In 2014 alone, discarded clothing made up about 9% of all municipal solid waste in the U.S., and not only does clothing create immense amounts of waste, but it also contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution. However, as we become more environmentally aware researchers are trying to combat this issue, and the solution could be live organisms. Today, most fast-produced clothing is woven with plastic-based acrylic, polyester, and nylon, which are chemically produced and nonbiodegradable. Using living organisms, however, we can produce clothing that is biodegradable and consequently, can greatly reduce pollution. Regarding production, Theanne Schiros, assistant professor in the math and science department at the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City, says, “First, a sugar called alginate is derived from kelp—a multicellular algal seaweed—and powdered. Next, the alginate powder is turned into a water-based gel, to which plant-based color (such as carrot juice) is added. Finally, the gel is extruded into long strands of fiber that can be woven into a fabric.”
While it may be years before these bioengineered textiles are produced for consumer markets, the benefits greatly outweigh the challenge. As of now, it is very expensive to create these clothes. For instance, a bioengineered scarf costs $139 dollars while a conventionally produced scarf costs only $10. Making the textiles durable and long-lasting is also another challenge researchers face. Despite that, if we do accomplish affordable and durable bioengineered clothing, waste can be cut down enormously as the organisms can be fit into molds so only the precise amount of textiles is produced. It would also aid the elimination of the 2,400 chemicals found in finished conventional clothing, according to the Swedish Chemicals Agency. While this would not solve all our problems, it is one way that we can push our Earth towards a healthier future.
I thought this article was very well written and informative. I appreciated how the author made it concise while still including enough detail to leave the reader with a good understanding of bioengineered clothing. I do, however, wish the author wrote more about how exactly this method of production will eventually make it to consumer markets and the impact it would have on factories and their workers. It would have also been helpful if the author included more statistics to support her claims. Other than that I thoroughly enjoyed this article.
Cirino, Erica. “The Environment's New Clothes: Biodegradable Textiles Grown from Live
ReplyDeleteOrganisms.” Scientific American, 14 Sept. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-environments-new-clothes-biodegradable-textiles-grown-from-live-organisms/.
This is a very interesting article, along with a well-written analysis of the article. I particularly liked how you established the environmental damage caused by textiles. Many people are not aware of how mush clothing contributes to pollution and climate change, so establishing this fact helps the reader understand its importance. I also like how you transition your statement about the negative effects of textiles into an explanation of how we can help fix this problem. This smoothly introduces the idea of sustainability to the reader. Lastly, I like how you noted that the author should have focused more on the accessibility of bioengineered clothing. Though the idea of bioengineered clothing is a good one, there can be some problems with introducing it into the market.
There are a few areas where you could improve your review. For example, when you state "It would have also been helpful if the author included more statistics to support her claims", it would be helpful to the reader if you included a surprising or important statistic that the author left out. This would give the reader more insight to the problems facing textile production. Additionally, when you say "It would also aid the elimination of the 2,400 chemicals found in finished conventional clothing", you could give more information about the dangers and effects of these chemicals. This would, again, help the reader understand the dangers of textiles. Overall, the review could use more statistical support to have more grounding.
This article definitely helped me see the dangers of modern production, climate change, and pollution. The most shocking statement in the article for me was "In 2014 alone, discarded clothing made up about 9% of all municipal solid waste in the U.S., and not only does clothing create immense amounts of waste, but it also contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution." I didn't fully realize the environmental impact of clothing production and waste. Thinking about this fact in the future, I feel I will be more environmentally cautious and opt to recycle old clothing rather than discard it.