The Green Moms Carnival tackles the clothing conundrum this month. Most of us bemoan how difficult it is to figure out how to buy environmentally-friendly fashions in the first place.

Mary of In Women We Trust regrets how few organic fabrics are designed for the boardroom instead of the beach, and points out the valuable role that the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) play in ensuring that textiles are produced organically.

Amber at Strocel.com compares polyester and acrylic, two synthetics made from fossil fuels, and comes down on the side of buying less clothing over all, and natural fibers over synthetics. “Reducing consumption pretty much always comes out ahead,” she notes.

Anna at Green Talk provides a comprehensive analysis of the use of recycled plastic bottles in clothing, as well as other textiles. A big concern is that textiles made from recycled plastic emit the chemical antimony, which has been linked to a wide variety of health problems in laboratory animals. Anna also reports that demand for plastic bottles that can be recycled into textiles has risen so much that some manufacturers are using brand new plastic bottles, rather than recycled ones. Talk about the law of unintended consequences!

Linda at Citizen Green points out several benefits to using recycled plastic, like the fact that “30% less energy is needed to down cycle the bottles into shirts than is needed to make them out of virgin plastic.” So what’s the worry? Plastic is still plastic, and will take hundreds of years to biodegrade.

Sarah of Practically Green provides a great set of tips if you’re shopping vintage. “Don’t keep it if you will NEVER be that size again,” she suggests — good advice whether you’re buying old or new. You’ll also love her pictures of the vintage clothes she’s snagged over the years, from a snazzy leopard clutch she lined with red leather (see photo, right) to her dad’s v-necked, cashmere sweater.

Keep reading. There’s more!

Lynn of OrganicMania goes for classics that never lose their style. While they might not be made from “eco friendly fibers,” these designs last forever – a real value in these days of fast, disposable fashion. Read Lynn’s post to get the inside scoop on her favorite retailer – a savvy store whose consistent color schemes and excellent craftsmanship make it possible to extend the life of any of the businesswear she buys there.

Micaela of Mindful Momma warns against actually buying clothes labeled as “smart” – since they may be loaded with “specialty fibers infused with all sorts of chemicals and technology” that may cause more problems than they fix. Micaela worries that “these products and technologies have not been thoroughly tested for safety on humans. Nor do we know the impact on the environment. Will the great new technology of today be the BPA of tomorrow?”

Jenn at the Green Parent suggests eco-friendly alternatives to clothes treated with fire retardants (aka, nasty chemicals that have been linked to a host of developmental health problems). High on Jenn’s list is organic merino wool, which is soft and naturally resistant to fire.

At Crunchy Chicken, Deanna raises a red flag about dangerous lingerie. While acknowledging that these garments “aren’t exactly meant to be worn for long,” Deanna notes nevertheless that the bustiers, bras, and corsets sold as “adult wear” are not made from fabrics you should be putting near your genitalia, “due to residual formaldehyde, flame retardants, and polyurethane.” A better alternative to these sexy but not-so-safe play clothes? A non-toxic or edible body paint. Chocolate, anyone?

At Big Green Purse, I tackle the question of bamboo. Is it green…or greenwashed? I compare bamboo to conventionally manufactured cotton (an exercise that would be so much easier if sustainable standards were in place) and find, that on several measures bamboo comes out ahead. However, organic cotton would still be my fabric of choice, and my post explains why.

Karen at Best of Mother Earth thinks the solution may be to sew clothes herself…if she knew how. That way, she’s sure the clothes she wearts will fit her criteria: “I have to feel and look good in it…it can’t cost a fortune…I won’t dry clean it…and does it even fit me?”

Maybe she can take a sewing lesson from Lisa at Condo Blues. Lisa learned how to sew without wasting fabric from her mom, and she’s heartened at the efforts the fashion industry is making to reduce its trash, too. Take a look at the knock-out Renaissance-era gown Lisa recently sewed, and you’ll be begging her to make some garb for you.

What about how much clothes cost? Lisa at Retro Housewife Goes Green reveals the costs hidden in the manufacture of clothes, noting that many designs today are manufactured in sweat shops that only pay a fraction of the decent wages laborers deserve. Lisa suggests buying designs certified as Fair Trade to ensure that workers receive a fair payment for their work.

Tracy at Inspire Planning addresses the cost issue as well – as in how much money you can save by buying “green.” To her that means, shopping for gently worn clothes that are fashionable, swapping clothes with friends and neighbors, and shopping online at reasonably-priced eco-designers. Another savvy tip? Peruse your favorite design magazines and websites to get a sense of current fashion trends, then dress up clothes you already have in your closet with accessories like scarves and hats.

Most of these posts link to additional resources on topics like eco-friendly shoes, handbags made from recycled materials, and more. Hope you’ll browse the “racks,” figuratively speaking of course.

The post Clothing: What’s Eco, and What’s Not appeared first on Big Green Purse.

* Products labeled “natural” may contain some biological ingredients, but they may also include synthetic dyes and fragrances.

* “Hypoallergenic” has no medical meaning. The word was invented by advertisers who used it in a cosmetics campaign in 1953.  Says the Food and Drug Administation, “There are no federal standards or definitions that govern the use of the term hypoallergenic. [It] means whatever a particular company wants it to mean.”

* “Biodegradable” should mean that, when a product is exposed to air, moisture, bacteria, or other organisms, it will break down and return to its natural state within a reasonably short time. However, no government entity verifies the accuracy of a biodegradable claim; the term is often used simply to provide a marketing edge to a product that otherwise has no real environmental attributes.

* “Free range” implies that a meat or poultry product, including eggs, comes from an animal that was raised in the open air or was free to roam. But a vendor can give his livestock as little as five minutes of fresh air and still make the claim. Free range…or free rein to greenwash you, the concerned ecoshopper?

* “Fragrance-free” suggests a product has no natural perceptible smell; however, synthetic ingredients may have been added to mask odors — and the dangerous phthalates that create them.

What’s the point of this litany?

Currently, no government standards define specific “eco” terms like the ones above. Companies are free to use these words to gain a marketing advantage regardless of their accuracy. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) prohibits deceptive advertising and has issued guidelines encouraging manufacturers to substantiate environmental claims, but the agency rarely enforces its own rules.

This is a problem because consumers who want to protect themselves and the environment are increasingly reading product labels — and walking away confused. Should they buy the “green” cleaner — even though the label also says “Warning – Hazardous” because it actually contains toxic chemicals that can irritate the lungs or eyes?  Lipstick promises to make you beautiful. Should you use it, even though it  may contain lead? And what’s with those “fuel efficient” hybrids that get less than 20 mpg?

How much easier these choices would be if products were required to meet meaningful standards set by independent third parties, a point Mary Hunt over at In Women We Trust has been arguing for years, and a point being made again this month by the members of the Green Moms Carnival, which Mary is also hosting.

You could avoid most greenwashing traps and label ambiguities if companies adopted comprehensive standards guaranteeing that their products were fully “sustainable” – that they protected public health and the environment throughout their entire commercial “life cycle.” That includes the extraction of raw materials through their manufacture and use to final disposal or reuse in a new product.

Ideally, such standards would be set at the federal level. But if you’ve been watching the health care debate, you know how tough passing new regulations can be. That’s why there’s so much interest in Wal-Mart’s recent jump into the sustainability arena. The retail giant is planning to develop a sustainability index against which it will judge the vendors that supply products to its stores.  Want to do business with Wal-Mart? You’ll have to be able to vault over their bar.

How high that bar turns out to be remains to be seen.  Given Wal-Mart’s role as the world’s retail superpower, the higher we can convince them to set the bar, the better off we’ll all be.

To that end — and in honor of Blog Action Day — now would be a good time to contact Wal-Mart and urge the company to set the most meaningful environmental standards possible.

The post We Need Meaningful Standards to Protect the Planet — and Us, too. appeared first on Big Green Purse.