Eco + cruelty-free…what else is criteria for “mindful” fashion? Local (at least with thrift and jewelry).
Well, the above sharp suit ain’t eco per se. But it is natural, and cruelty-free.
As we’ve learned wool is generally cruel (not always, but say 95% of the time), and now we’re learning that while it may be natural its creation involves an awful lot of farting and toxic this and that and hunting of kangaroos and what not.
That said, if the sheep were nicely treated and humanely sheared, I assume they’d still be running around farting.
via PETA, via Discerning Brute:
Did you know that sheep outnumber people by more than four to one in Australia, one of the world’s largest wool-marketing nations? Not only do all those poor sheep create an awful lot of climate-cooking methane gas as a result of, ahem, “enteric fermentation,” they also produce an enormous amount of waste, which contributes to both air and water pollution. Sheep farmers also love to douse animals with toxic “sheep dip” and advocate killing off all manner of wildlife (kangaroos, dingoes, and rabbits in Australia and coyotes in the U.S.) in cruel ways (poisoning, trapping, etc.) because they compete with sheep for land and, in some cases, harass and kill sheep before the farmers can do that themselves. And don’t even get me started on the mulesing mulitation, which is definitely in the running for the world’s cruelest “standard agricultural practice.”
Of course, to my mind, and hopefully yours, by far the most eco (and affordable, and generally well-made and well-cut) option is vintage.
Last year, thinking about running for City Council, I found three mint vintage Brooks Brothers suits at my local Buffalo Exchange (home of “recycled fashions”)—each for thirty or forty bucks, if I remember correctly. Then, around New Year’s, I bought a vintage tux with my friend Lisa at a thrift store for only 10 bucks, and got it tailored to fit for another 30 or forty.
Who said “eco-responsible” was only for rich folk?