NYTimes on Lululemon's "Seaweed" Clothing: Lousy Chemistry, Lousy Journalism
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto 
on 11.15.07
Some suggest that the professional journalists in the Main Stream Media are responsible and carefully edited while bloggers have no principles, checks or balances, but if a short seller came to our editor with a tip, with the intention of driving down the price of a stock, he would either tell her to take a hike or look at her claim awfully carefully. The New York Times appears to have done neither in their "investigation" of Lululemon, which has been picked up around the world.
They took a Lululemon shirt purporting to have seaweed in it to labs, which found none. They say the fabric contains fiber from Seacell, and call it a "seaweed fiber." I googled it and found that what should come up first but a 2-1/2 year old TreeHugger post that says Seacell fabric "incorporates 5% seaweed content", the balance being "wood pulp fiber made by a unique Lyocell process."
"In the "Lyocell process“, which is named after the fibre itself, pure wood pulp is physically dissolved for the first time and directly returned to fibre form using a simple method. The auxiliary substance used for this can be removed from the fibre with ease due to its good water mixing capacity, it is environmentally-friendly, bio-degradable and can be recovered by more than 99.6%. "
It has been around for a number of years and "The European Union awarded this process the Environmental Award 2000 in the category "technology for sustainable developments". It is "an environmentally compatible and thus interesting alternative for the future. Moreover the Lyocell fibre is considered to be the cleanest cellulose fibre. More information on Lyocell here.
Lyocell is purported to feel different from cotton: "One associates optimum moisture and heat management with the Lyocell fibre, i.e. one does not perspire with covers of Lyocell and although one perceives a pleasant coolness, one does not freeze at the same time. The fibre breathes with the body, absorbs a lot of moisture very quickly and then releases this to the outside thus preserving the warmth level." which is pretty much what Lululemon says about its product.
Seacell is a variant on Lyocell: "a special fiber manufactured according to the Lyocell process using cellulose combined with seaweed. What’s amazing about this development is how the seaweed has been permanently incorporated into the fiber, locking the effects of the marine substances into the fiber for good."
Seacell suggests all kinds of wonderful properties for its fibre, and provides third party certification for it: "On the basis of the DE/016/0003 contract for label usage, SeaCell GmbH is entitled to use the ecological symbol of the European Union (Eco-label) for its SeaCell® pure product as evidence of its exceptional environmental friendliness.SeaCell® pure also meets the requirements of ÖKO-TEX Standard 100 and may therefore be sold as an ÖKO-TEX-certified fiber. ::Seacell
Now this TreeHugger is no chemist, and passes no judgement on whether SeaCell is as wonderful as it is supposed to be, but it does not surprise me that it is hard to find elements of seaweed in a fabric that is 24 % seacell, which is 95% wood pulp, where the stuff is all thrown into solvents, physically dissolved, and then reformed into a cellulose fiber.
Our resident expert says, "at the chemistry level, sampling a final product for proteins and minerals (which are almost certain to be water soluble) that had been subjected to a chemical hot water pulping process, assuming that they are viable indicators or the raw material origins, is pretty dumb as far as lab method selection goes."
Lululemon buys a product that has been sold in Europe for years, and is third party certified to contain 5% seaweed. The Times should have looked at the fiber manufacturer's spec sheet and bothered to note these facts instead of just "looking for seaweed" and implying that Lululemon is trying to pull a fast one- there is a chain of trademarks and certifications right back to the source. The short seller may be very happy today, but Times readers should not be. ::New York Times
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
I don't understand how bamboo and now "seaweed" fiber is considered eco. Has anyone cared to do the research into the chemicals required to turn these resources into clothing?
The viscose process to make bamboo fabric requires caustic solutions, solvents, and a sulphuric bath. The only defense that i have heard from manufacuturers of bamboo is that they use a "closed loop system" so that none of the chemicals are released back into the environment. What about into your body when you sweat?
http://organicclothing.blogs.com/my_weblog/2007/09/index.html
Now this lyocell process?
No thank you.
The Green movement is gaining traction. Companies with energy intensive, climate destroying, water polluting processes are losing market value. Time to fire up the Mighty Wurlitzer and attack the green movement at it's design roots.
As simple as that.
I really don't know what to think. After reading the Times article, I'll have to admit that Lululemon's claims--or what the Times article claims Lululemon claims--that VitaSea clothing "reduces stress and provides anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, hydrating and detoxifying benefits," sounds pretty gimmicky to me.
Might be worth noting though that this Times reporter drew flack from Slate in 2005 for her methodology in another one of her pieces. I assume she's grown as a reporter since then, but I also wonder if the science behind this fabric hasn't eluded everyone's understanding--not just the reporter's, but Lululemon's. I expected a more forceful response from them in the Times article.
I don't know anything about seaweed, but I learned a lot about being a green fashionista here...
http://greenpieceblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/green-fashionistas.html
I'll be checking in to this and will report back on Dot Earth. (Was so busy with coal and IPCC and other stuff yesterday never had a chance to read the article by my colleague.)
I will check out both ends of the story of course, including:
- What exactly are said to be the environmental benefits of this non-seaweed fabric?
- Where does the wood pulp come from?
- How much of its cachet has been built around its connection with seaweed?
- Those with background should feel free to get in touch via dotearth@nytimes.com
- Andy
She's hot.
I am a chemist and have some experience with the paper making industry, which is what Lyocell is really, its a paper making process used to make a textile fabric.
The "green-ness" really depends on what you are looking at. Sure paper making is energy intensive and uses a lot of chemicals, but the processes are very closed loop, little chlorine is used anymore, and the raw material is a renewable resource.
Compared with polyester or other petroleum based textiles, it might be considered more sustainable, and maybe less energy embodiment.
Compared with cotton, I'm not sure, but you do get different qualities.
But the seaweed stuff, sounds like it might be part gimmick, part wanting to use a cheaper feedstock for making textile fibers. 5% seaweed sure sounds low too, its not like 50% bamboo.
And to the person who commented about bamboo, its eco because the raw material grows quickly and is renewable, not because it is cheap to process. Cotton may be easier to process, but it takes huge amounts of water and pesticides to grow large quantities. And, bamboo textiles use the inner pulp of the bamboo, after the outer layers are used for other things like wood floors and furniture.
I live in Vancouver and have followed the lululemon story since inception (first store is two blocks from my house).
On the morning of Nov 14th I became aware of the lululemon seaweed incident (which I subsequently blogged about) and have to say that since that time, the retail market here in Vancouver has certainly reacted. After all, this is TRULY a green city.
Long term impact? Hard to say, if anything at all?
Wood pulp in its natural state certainly is a sustainable product. However, it would feel like you were weraing a burlap sack and no one would ever wear it.
What they fail to tell the public is that wood pulp is turned into Lyocell by processing the fiber into rayon. Rayon production is one of the worst processes for the environment. The same goes for bamboo (you will now see tags that say "rayon made from bamboo"), and other such "natural" fibers. Asia is the only place that makes rayon fabrics because of its toxicity to the environment.
I work for a well-known textile company and am well-versed on what is marketing hype and what is reality. This, my friends, is all about marketing.
As a sometimes reader (and usual skeptic) of treehugger.com posts, I appreciate those who know more about certain topics contributing when they see flaws in the argument of "greenness."
People like Leesalyn and Meg help us all learn a little bit more about the bigger picture of what we should really be concerned about--the toxicity of manufacturing processes and the impact on our own health by wearing these garments.
It's too bad people who look to the NYTimes to be a resource for green issues can't just automatically be redirected to grist.org. Grist.org may not be perfect, but they're pretty darn close.