In the world of fashion, you get what you pay for, and that’s exactly the point Britain’s House of Lords has taken issue with. Clothing chains like H and M, or Forever 21 epitomize this trend of “Fast Fashion”- where it’s in one day and out the next. Does this simply foster a culture of irresponsible waste- or is this what being “fashion forward” means in the year 2008. The Takeaway talks to their own personal shopper of sorts, The Takeaway contributor Mary Elizabeth Williams.

Guest: Mary Elizabeth Williams, Takeaway contributor

Contributor's Notes: Responsible fashion: Doing good while looking good

I usually don't take fashion advice from the British House of Lords, but you know, they may have the best perspective on shopping this season.

Last week, their Select Committee on Science and Technology issued a report on our "throwaway society" and the culture of "fast fashion" that "encourages consumers to dispose of clothes which have only been worn a few times in favor of new, cheap garments."

On the one hand, esteemed ladies and gentlemen of the House of Lords, I wouldn't criticize anyone else's sartorial choices until I'd walked a mile in her Payless shoes.

On the other hand, it's not surprising that the fashion and feminine blogospheres have lit up on the subject. As Jezebel pointed out last week, "Of the 2.5 million Bangladeshi garment workers, 75 percent are women and children, who earn approximately $5 a week."

Speaking as one who at this moment is wearing a Guatemalan-made T-shirt, I am starting to think more now about who and what went into getting this $5.99 shirt on my back and how my choices affect other people and the planet.

If you've been in a Forever 21 or H&M more than once, you know the merchandise turns over at a breathtaking rate. How better to lure consumers in again and again, than with the novelty of the new, at Happy Meal prices?

Then again, maybe not. Retail sales were down overall for July, a portent that does not bode well for the back-to-school and fall fashion industries.

Part of it is the economy. But there's something else bubbling up here too. Just as we've begun doing over the last few years with our food, we're going to have to start thinking about the footprint we're leaving in those stylish but inexpensive boots. What's the point of carrying our groceries in a hemp tote if our $15 jeans have a less savory provenance? How can we buy our tomatoes locally when our underpants originated in an Indonesian sweatshop?

I was in Target yesterday with two tykes whose talent for growing and getting dirty is bottomless. I'm on a minuscule income myself, which is why I also enthusiastically scour thrift shops, prowl eBay and do clothing exchanges with friends. I'm not a guilt-trippy, finger-waggy type -- though, hairshirts are never in style. I also won't patronize certain big retailers whose budget-friendly clothes seem to fall apart before my kids can get them buttoned. And, my children will not wear clothes other children made. Those are choices we can make.

Resources like Freecycle can be another great way to shop without spending. And I've bookmarked sites like Sustainable Style for other ideas on doing good while looking good.

The bottom line, for retailers and consumers alike, is money. We're clearly already voting with our wallets -- the numbers show that the current cheapcheapcheap moremoremore business model isn't wowing the crowds. All of us, not just members of the House of Lords, deserve a wardrobe that fits our consciences as well as our bodies. My kids need clothes for the coming cooler days. They also need to grow up with enough respect and care for the things in their closet that they want to keep them around a while. And I want them to live in a world where corporate responsibility, to the planet and workers of it, is good business.

— Mary Elizabeth Williams

  • Share
  • Print
  • Email
The Mix Add Your Comment
Yay team! Having just lived thru back to 8th grade shopping for my daughter, I know this is an important topic. Big crises that she has to use the same LLBean backpack as the past 2 years (why we dropped the $ on LLBean). 8th appears to be the big fashion year around here. can't wait till it is over. Last year, when I suggested balancing out the Am Eagle stuff with Target, this girl told me that she "really wasn't comfortable buying her clothes from a store that also sells food"!!! Hard to take when most of my clothes are from consignment! anyway, nice show!

Posted by Paula, 7:07 a.m. Tuesday, August 26 2008 Permalink

Talk about totally missing the point. The issue is churn and not whether someone uses a plastic or reusable canvas bag. Each year the fashion industry works hard to convince hobby shoppers, teens and women, to toss away perfectly usable products in favor of this year's glitz. Thus women complain of lack of closet space for the 80% of old (more than one year) outfits they don't wear and mothers complain of the cost of replacing last years still usable outfits for their budding fashionistas. Let's not forget all the paper junk mailed to shoppers or in fashion magazines or in newspaper fashion ads and fashion sections promoting shopping for shopping's sake. It's easy to beat up on the those stuffy Brit-tish lords but they're right. Recently retail analyst Howard Davidowitz suggested that there was twice as much retail space in square feet than was sustainable by U.S. consumers. Now there's a waste of land.

Posted by Rick Evans, 7:25 a.m. Tuesday, August 26 2008 Permalink

Righto. It's missing the point, big time, to suggest that Forever 21 and H&M are just trying to sell affordable clothes to the common folk. Plenty of stores do that. In fact, with the exploding of cheap exports from China and the far east, where workers make pennies a day and factories are powered with air-clogging coal, clothes prices in general have held remarkably steady over the last ten years. Thus, we all spend less in real dollars for our wardrobes, whatever they may be (excluding the luxury market I guess). But that's not what people are complaining about when they talk about H&M and Forever 21. The whole point of those stores is that they are explicitly marketing fashion that changes every two or three months, at rock bottom price and quality, with the goal of shoppers buying new clothes and throwing away the old. Why not! They are so cheap! This is not about back to school shopping. It's about a new fashion model based on using things for a short time, and remaining "fashionable" by buying something new and throwing out last months' clothes, and damn the consequences. Wake up! This is not a sustainable life.

Posted by Sarah, 7:54 a.m. Tuesday, August 26 2008 Permalink

I'm shocked that the possibility of Second Hand clothing or merchandise never came up in this conversation - talk about missing the point!

Posted by Morgan , 9:05 a.m. Tuesday, August 26 2008 Permalink

Hey Morgan! You're absolutely right about secondhand and freecycling. I'd meant to bring it up in the segment and didn't get around to it. My friends and I do regular clothing exchange parties, both for our own and our children's clothing. It's a great way to get a little of the retail therapy buzz without the economic or environmental impact.

Posted by Mary Elizabeth Williams, 10:29 a.m. Tuesday, August 26 2008 Permalink

This is an interesting topic that was handled in a not so interesting way. Why introduce the House of Lords when the host doesn't even let the reporter let us know what the real issue is? This was really just a chat between two people about shopping, which is fine, but don't bill it as news! I set my alarm to NPR in the mornings because I want the headlines and reporting, not chatter.

Posted by Kate, 5:20 p.m. Tuesday, August 26 2008 Permalink

This segment was one of the worst I have heard on the show, and there have been some bad ones. If the person presenting a segment is obviously unprepared to present the subject, and despite prompting from the show's anchor, still can not do anything but agree with what the anchor is spoon feeding her, then terminate the segment. It was embarrasing. This is a very important topic, and someone else should be assigned to delve into it. The amount of sheer useless garbage that is being manufactured, much of it nonfunctional when new, or soon after, is a criminal waste of resources.

Posted by Dan, 9:15 p.m. Tuesday, August 26 2008 Permalink

The main debate surrounding this issues comes from consuming something that you don't need (i.e. like food you buy but then throw out because it goes bad) and the environmental and social impacts resulting from the production of the garment in question. In the case of the latter, I am a shocked you did not bring up the issue of the production of cotton, which can have very adverse environmental impacts from its production and from the widespread application of pesticides and fertilizers. In addition, there are also has socio-economic impacts that include health issues in persons applying fertilizers and pesticides as well as increased vulnerability to famine in the case when the production of cotton displaces other food crops. Finally, the way in which the clothes are produced (in factories etc), should ensure that no child-labor is used and that basic worker rights are guaranteed. In summary: We should perhaps re-evaluate how many clothes we actually need. In addition, we need to see where these clothes come from and ensure that they are produced in a sustainable way that does not harm the environment or those producing the materials or clothing items. H&M and other companies have already made improvements on this front by launching clothes produced with organic cotton and which cost only a bit more. This is a very complex issue and I think it deserves a more detailed and serious analysis of the issues involved

Posted by Jeremy, 6:07 a.m. Wednesday, August 27 2008 Permalink

Not to pile on, but I am seconding Morgan's remark. I actually think it was irresponsible not to mention second-hand clothing, consignment, free-cycling etc. (oh and how about sewing!) on this show. People need help stepping out of habitual behavior. Most people who fall prey to the fall shopping rush for their children are being pushed and pulled by several emotional, economic and time pressures. Why not help them overcome those pressures and encourage them to try out a different way to shop by pointing out the cost-saving and other benefits to these environmentally responsible options? I think this was really a missed opportunity to give people a partial solution to this problem rather than just telling them (once again) that there is a problem.

Posted by Jamileh, 11:29 a.m. Wednesday, August 27 2008 Permalink

  • By leaving a comment you have read and accept the Terms and Conditions.

Recent Programs

  1. StreamListen | Download   Friday November 21   More »
  2. StreamListen | Download   Thursday November 20   More »
  3. StreamListen | Download   Wednesday November 19   More »
  4. StreamListen | Download   Tuesday November 18   More »
  5. StreamListen | Download   Monday November 17   More »
  6. StreamListen | Download   Friday November 14   More »

Audio For August 26, 2008

  1. ListenListen to all segments
  2. ListenListen | Download  Entire Show In One File   
  3. ListenListen | Download  Hour 3   
  4. ListenListen | Download  Hour 4   
 

Libery Mutual