Need to Register?

Solmu · May 27th, 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdriaticBlue


	However...In considering this business, my overall concern is - a customer, their child or their pet experiencing a harmful effect as a direct result of wearing my screenprinted apparel with chemical-based dyes and screenprinting inks. I have yet to read of such a story or case but I've read some about harmful effects of PVCs & phthalates.

I think that's a problem for those working with those substances, not the wearer of the end product. I suppose someone with allergies might be effected by an improperly cured shirt, but I've never heard of any negative effects from a printed product. The chemicals are a problem for those working with them - the shirts are not full of them. As far as I know the worst chemicals are those used for cleaning; they never come in direct contact with the clothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdriaticBlue


	The other question I have with that is, if there shouldn't be a concern, why are ink manufacturers and screenprinters making products and processes more "green?"

Because it's a concern for those of us who have increased exposure to the chemicals (i.e. people working in the industry), and for the environment as a whole (the less poison we put into the water table the better). Just because some of the by-products are unsafe, doesn't mean the end product is unsafe.

RichardGreaves · May 28th, 2007

As I walked home from breakfast this morning I thought about AdriaticBlue's questions about what to ask vendors, perhaps, I think I understand more about what she is trying to learn.

I was distracted by the blind assumption that water-based ink was a safer solution to 'nasty' plastisol, that we use in a screen printing shop.

I focused my discussion to the actual use I make of these inks in the shop, not their manufacture or disposal.

There is no question that vinyl chloride exposure during manufacture is dangerous, so I can see that any person that prints any ink should wonder if the manufacture of the product causes health problems. Laws were changed in the early 1970's to limit exposure, even though the real problem is chronic exposure even at low dosage.

There are known hazards to resin workers at risk when PVC pellets are converted into consumer products. Industry workers in Italy bagging resins while their bosses knew it was dangerous, ground water and air contamination near chemical plants never goes away once absorbed into the body. Italians have lead the cause in Europe as they discovered that the Venice lagoon was knowingly being polluted by manufacturers.

I can see that AdriaticBlue could benefit from documenting the results of her investigation (just as food producers document the origins of their raw materials), to ensure that workers at fabricators are not exposed to the building block of polyvinyl chloride, vinyl chloride, whether it is in water based ink or plastisol.

As an industry, I'm sure we are more interested in the value and convenience we get from these products, not their womb to tomb manufacture or disposal. The recycling impact of ink is impractical compared to PVC plumbing pipe and I hope that manufacturers take precautions to protect their neighbors and environment. Here the European demand to eliminate PVC from as many products as possible is targeted at the raw manufacture of products and especially disposal.

Alas, we are a tiny consumer of vinyl chloride, but it is crazy not to acknowledge that hazards of the manufacture of the raw materials and the dangers of disposal, especially if dioxins are released when it is burned. We survived the elimination of lead from our inks because of the chronic danger to EATING the lead. That damn Nader lead the cause to eliminate those sharp knobs on the dashboards of cars, just because it killed people.

PVC in baby toys, pacifiers and disposable packaging is a focal point that will effect what we use when screen printing shirts.

Ross B · May 28th, 2007

I have sat on the sidelines and watched with interest as the discussion has unfolded. Thanks especially to Richard for his willingness to share his obvious expertise and industry experience. However, I am still not sure whether I understand completely, and think it's time to check.

To summarise thus far (and Richard, please correct me if I have something wrong):

1. There are environmental plusses and minuses with plastisol and water-based screenprinting inks. It is not possible to come out 100% on the side of one or the other. Neither, therefore, are ideal from an environmental POV.

2. In terms of worker safety at the ink manufacturing stage, water-based inks are preferable. This is also true in terms of the human environment generally.

3. For screenprinters working with these inks, neither pose a significant health risk if the printing process is managed properly.

4. Neither pose significant environmental risks at the waste disposal stage, providing this is handled responsibly.

5. For the client (wearer of the T-shirt), neither ink printed on a T-shirt poses any sort of health risk.

6. In terms of the final screenprinting appeal, plastisol has a definite hand and a good, sharp, vivid finish, and is as durable as any screenprinting ink.

7. Water based screenprinting is equally durable, but looks a little different: "softer" in appearance; little hand evident, since it "soaks" into the fabric rather than staying on top of it.

OK. Now, to organic apparel itself, and if I have escaped with understanding intact with the points above, this is where I am not so sure I have things right.

A. My research indicates, and I have been told by industry professionals (at least, that was their claim) that the farming of organic cotton is a far more environmentally friendly process than conventional cotton farming. Why? Because none of the usually extensively applied and multiple pesticides are used and only organic fertilisers are used. Water use is still high.

B. I have been told that organic cotton is stronger and better quality than conventionally grown cotton. True or false?

C. I have been told that the chemicals (pesticides and fertilisers) used in conventional cotton farming are detectable in the finished fabric product through scientific analysis. If true, surely this suggests strongly that organic cotton is better for the end user. But IS IT TRUE?

D. Internationally credible certification exists that gives a reasonable guarantee that organic cotton is truly organic, in that it adheres to a set of internationally agreed upon criteria. I choose to believe this, but would be interested in the views of people directly involved in the certification process.

E. Finally - and this is getting away from my original post while still being relevant to anyone interested in organic apparel, since it involves the human environment - how certain can one be that the process of producing organic apparel does not entail so-called sweatshop labour?

Organic industry folk I have been communicating with claim that their products are "sweatshop-free", but one industry person from Turkey casts doubt that these claims hold true in the case of produce from India and China. I understand that the whole concept of "sweatshop-free" is hazy and open to philosophical interpretation, but would be interested in the views of informed people nevertheless.

Cheers all!

RichardGreaves · May 28th, 2007

I have sat on the sidelines and watched with interest as the discussion has unfolded. Thanks especially to Richard for his willingness to share his obvious expertise and industry experience. However, I am still not sure whether I understand completely, and think it's time to check.

To summarise thus far (and Richard, please correct me if I have something wrong):

1. There are environmental plusses and minuses with plastisol and water-based screenprinting inks. It is not possible to come out 100% on the side of one or the other. Neither, therefore, are ideal from an environmental POV.

Greaves: Is it possible to come out 100% for an ideal on any environmental issue? This is an attitude that has no boundaries and fuels argument.

A vegan would never eat a free range chicken. Many people feel saddling and riding horses cruel. Therefore there is no ideal for the environment when it comes to inks or t-shirts or bleached toilet paper.

2. In terms of worker safety at the ink manufacturing stage, water-based inks are preferable. This is also true in terms of the human environment generally.

Greaves: Why? As I've written in these posts there are sometimes aggressive chemicals in water based ink. Simply not wearing a mask while handling powders can be dangerous.

Like #1, broad black & white approaches to these question will never work.

What will work are the specific promotion of the benefits of how you produce your products.

Ulano documents on most of their labels that 'All Ulano Products Are Phalate Free'.

I see Penelope Cruz advertising some hair color "and it doesn't have any ammonia."

No animals were harmed in the printing of these shirts.

3. For screenprinters working with these inks, neither pose a significant health risk if the printing process is managed properly.

Greaves: I don't want to breath fumes from water based ink or ZFS (discharge fumes). I don't want to breath fumes from shirts because I don't know what's in it - organic or not. I don't want to breath the vapors or fumes from stain or haze removers. They should be properly ventilated outside the building so all the people in the neighborhood can share the smells.

4. Neither pose significant environmental risks at the waste disposal stage, providing this is handled responsibly.

Greaves: Yes.

5. For the client (wearer of the T-shirt), neither ink printed on a T-shirt poses any sort of health risk.

Greaves: I wouldn't want a customer to wear a discharge shirt without washing it first. I wouldn't want a customer to wear a shirt printed with under cured white plastisol.

6. In terms of the final screenprinting appeal, plastisol has a definite hand and a good, sharp, vivid finish, and is as durable as any screenprinting ink.

Greaves: No, I don't accept the premise. Plastisol with a heavy deposit will have a hand. If the only tool yo have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you print plastisol and it has hand, that was your choice.

This is more a function of the mesh thickness, squeegee angle and the ink. Plastisol designed to have soft hand will be soft, but not if it's printed through a 110 mesh! I can show you plastisol prints I've made with no hand.

Water based ink for opaque printing on a dark garment can feel hard because of the film required to cover up the color of the shirt and the stiffness of the water based resins usually used. As the new discharge trend shows us, discharge is the future - that is until digital takes over.

Properly cured - completely cured textile ink will outlast the fabric.

7. Water based screenprinting is equally durable, but looks a little different: "softer" in appearance; little hand evident, since it "soaks" into the fabric rather than staying on top of it.

Greaves: Wet on wet liquid plastisol using soft resins can have the same hand as water based ink on light colored shirts.

OK. Now, to organic apparel itself, and if I have escaped with understanding intact with the points above, this is where I am not so sure I have things right.

A. My research indicates, and I have been told by industry professionals (at least, that was their claim) that the farming of organic cotton is a far more environmentally friendly process than conventional cotton farming. Why? Because none of the usually extensively applied and multiple pesticides are used and only organic fertilisers are used. Water use is still high.

B. I have been told that organic cotton is stronger and better quality than conventionally grown cotton. True or false?

Greaves: That statement would be like saying that all German cars are better than American cars. Hundreds of growers, hundreds of processors, hundreds of knitters. Who could say? What's the point? If I were you I'd be making demonstrations of how YOUR cotton and your printing skills make YOUR shirts worth the premium price you charge.

By the nature of your question, you force me to answer False, because inferior cotton grown by even just one farmer forces me to say say no.

You are still looking for some sort of moral high ground. You don't have to worry about ALL the cotton, just yours.

Here in the USA, there are millions of people that don't buy American, they buy what they percive as the best value. The #1 retailer is Wal-Mart, not Lord & Taylor. Is the mens underwear at Lord & Taylor stronger and better quality than Wal-Mart? To some people yes. To some people the control, speed, handling and long life of a Porsche, make it an excellent value and have no problem paying.

The doctors motto "First, do no harm" is a principle taught to all medical students, yet doctors kill over 100,000 people per year. Does this make all doctors good, or bad?

C. I have been told that the chemicals (pesticides and fertilisers) used in conventional cotton farming are detectable in the finished fabric product through scientific analysis. If true, surely this suggests strongly that organic cotton is better for the end user. But IS IT TRUE?

Greaves: This means that all the chemicals absorbed by any plant (or human hair) is detectable. If you keep insisting on looking for a black & white answer that organic cotton is better you need documentation on YOUR cotton you can promote.

"Our cotton is free of all heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, mercury, ureas or other nitrates, DDT, animal by products, gene enhanced proteins and only watered with acid and smog free rain by 18 year old virgins."

D. Internationally credible certification exists that gives a reasonable guarantee that organic cotton is truly organic, in that it adheres to a set of internationally agreed upon criteria. I choose to believe this, but would be interested in the views of people directly involved in the certification process.

E. Finally - and this is getting away from my original post while still being relevant to anyone interested in organic apparel, since it involves the human environment - how certain can one be that the process of producing organic apparel does not entail so-called sweatshop labour?

Greaves: Document and promote your suppliers so your customers know that you are "Kosher". Rabbis have been doing it for thousands of years.

Organic industry folk I have been communicating with claim that their products are "sweatshop-free", but one industry person from Turkey casts doubt that these claims hold true in the case of produce from India and China. I understand that the whole concept of "sweatshop-free" is hazy and open to philosophical interpretation, but would be interested in the views of informed people nevertheless.

Greaves: This is another statement without boundaries. There are good and bad cops, doctors and lawyers. In China, children may work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week and paid $3 per day. This might be great for them, but a scandal in Australia.

Consider the huge textile upheaval in Australia when Fiji manufacturing went down the drain when George Speight toppled the Fijian government. Much of Australian textiles were made in Fiji because of the less expensive labour there.

Of course, they needed some environmental training.

I'm going to Berlin on Friday for FESPA. This subject will be on my mind and I will load up on what I can find on Turkish textiles and the latest on the PVC disposal measures.

Ross B · May 28th, 2007

Jeez, Greaves (I am using your first name, yes?), do I take from your responses that I have not properly understood virtually anything, then?!

Must admit, I find some of your responses mercurial. I can't make up my mind whether you are being pedantic, or answering in the fashion of some Eastern mystic! And I mean this honestly - I do not intend this as a criticism!

I'll have to study your answers when I have more time, and see if I can get to the core of them. May have to check back with you!

Cheers and sincerely, thanks for your time.

RichardGreaves · May 28th, 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ross B


	Jeez, Greaves (I am using your first name, yes?), do I take from your responses that I have not properly understood virtually anything, then?! Must admit, I find some of your responses mercurial. I can't make up my mind whether you are being pedantic, or answering in the fashion of some Eastern mystic! And I mean this honestly - I do not intend this as a criticism! I'll have to study your answers when I have more time, and see if I can get to the core of them. May have to check back with you! Cheers and sincerely, thanks for your time.

There are other Richard's in this forum, so Greaves is clearer.

A pedant and Eastern mystic! I do live in NYC now so that's the East. There is no question I pontificate in this forum. I hope everyone has seen as I made jokes in the posts that I see room for a discussion. This is unlike a discussion of why it's a bad idea to under-expose a screen, then let the stencil remover dry on the mesh where there is not room for discussion.

I put my comment about a vegan never eating a free range chicken at the front of the post to make that point. Perhaps I was too mystical? You can cut through that by being specific about what you question.

If you make broad unprovable statements you can get elected to political office, but I wanted to change your viewpoint - what ever it was - with my tongue in cheek examples of how you can say what you want, tell the truth AND sell the shirts you want to. A company AdriaticBlue mentioned "Screen Gems", has some pretty scary dogmatic statements that are debatable. Screen Gems Custom T-shirts Organic Cotton Environmentally Friendly Inks

But there is the key - debate. They dismiss the ZFS formaldehyde used in discharge inks, "It is used in such small quantities that it is hardly there and it washes out of the shirt in the first washing."

I compare this to the statements they make protecting you from nasty PVC, which state is completely fused 100% to the shirt. It seems to them that it is OK that they promote disposal of formaldehyde in the discharged water of your washing machine.

I don't mind this. They are clear about what they promote.

Like many beginners, looking for understanding, you are looking for answers. If I didn't persuade you that dogmatic final answers can rarely be true, then I certainly didn't make myself understood.

If you tell me that all plastisol prints feel rubbery or thick, I know you don't know what I know. I avoid saying you are wrong, but you are. You started by saying ALL. That's just asking for an argument.

If you say, "I've never seen a plastisol print as soft as water based ink", you aren't wrong. Just a different way to say almost the same thing.

"I have not properly understood virtually anything, then?" Even this is black and white. The things I contradicted, you didn't understand - That's why you asked for help.

Only you can tell me what you didn't understand. Only you can tell me what you are afraid of or don't understand how to convince your customers, girlfriend or employees what you believe.

Ross B · May 28th, 2007

Greaves,

(Actually, I'd rather call you Richard if that's your first name...I don't think you'll be in any doubt that it is you whom I am addressing, regardless of how many other Richards are subscribed to this forum! But, your call...)

I get the philosophical point you are making about dogma by its very nature not encompassing the full truth (or sometimes any of it - heh heh!)...but it would be an impediment to effective communication to labour this point too much, I think?

Yes, I am relatively inexperienced in this industry, but I have been investigating the business from different angles for over a year now, and am not uninformed. It has only been quite recently that I have started researching the organic side, though.

A point I need to take up re your comment: "...you can say what you want, tell the truth AND sell the shirts you want to." I am not interested in getting away with literal truths while leaving the full story unsaid in the interests of sales spin that will make me a successful business.

My stance and interest in the organic apparel industry IS moral/ethical AND business-orientated. The two are surely not mutually exclusive. I am committed to having my values aligned to the business I am in.

Mainstream companies do, as I understand it, exploit workers (yes, that is my value judgement based on the factory conditions and remuneration as I believe them to be based on my research...allow me that much room for imposing my own morality and interpretation on the facts as my research has uncovered them - if one starts to question everything and insisting on 100% proof or casting everything in a philosophical light, you end up getting nowhere at all!). So, I do not wish to be associated with worker exploitation or to support companies that exploit workers (in my terms in which I understand exploitation).

Further, I am seeking the facts on organic apparel in an effort to determine whether the environmental and client benefits that are frequently claimed by distributors and agents are supported by evidence. The only way I can determine this, not being an expert myself, is to ask the experts and hope they are indeed knowledgable and honest! Hence my queries here.

I really will have to give more time to studying your responses to ascertain whether any of my queries have really been answered, or whether I need to re-frame the questions.

I can't help feeling, though, like King Midas, whose wish was that everything he touched be turned to gold, and who ended up being unable to drink, because the water turned to gold, and effectively lost his wife and daughter, who turned to gold when he touched them, etc... Poor old Midas, of course, MEANT to wish for instant and unlimited riches, but in taking him literally, the genie or fairy (or whatever it was) played a cruel trick and gave him his wish while taking everything else away!

Could you please, do you think, WHERE POSSIBLE, ease up on the pedantic literal interpretations and philosophical considerations, and gimme some facts as you know them?!

I feel bound to say again, I am not meaning to complain or criticise. I mean it! Whatever else I mean...well I'm not sure any more! Go on - put forward the proposition that if I'm not sure, I can't expect anyone else to be!

RichardGreaves · May 29th, 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ross B


	Could you please, do you think, WHERE POSSIBLE, ease up on the pedantic literal interpretations and philosophical considerations, and gimme some facts as you know them?!

No.

What possible part of my answers were not based on facts?

Which examples to your answers were not based on making a clear statement in response to your questions?

Ross B · May 29th, 2007

Quote: