We've come to the conclusion it’s pointless to use the terms sustainable, ethical and eco to describe our clothing. Why?

One of the largest fashion brands H&M recently issued a statement claiming ‘fashion can be cheap and ethical’. This translates to fast fashion is cheap and ethical but only on our own definition of ‘ethical’. Each brand has developed their own version of what’s sustainable, ethical and eco, based upon their existing supply chains, resulting in a devaluing and meaningless charade.

When you decide to manufacture in the lowest wage country and use factories with no working fire escapes and then call it ethical, its time to jump.

You then have other major brands that manufacture 95% of their products in a dubious, polluting manner and then create a single shoe or product line from recycled materials and bathe themselves in greenwash.

Where to jump too next? We've decided the answer has to be consumer ‘transparency’ Where each garment is supplied with information on pay, working hours for textile workers and the number of carcinogen and hormone disruptor chemicals used. Enabling consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions at the point of sale. Fashion brands have deliberately chosen to hide this information from consumers, for obvious reasons. We feel now is the time to cone clean and reveal how your clothes are made and what toxic chemicals are used to make them.

When a quarter of the worlds chemicals are used to produce textiles and there’s no mention of a single chemical on clothing labels, something’s clearly awry.

This is why we have developed a consumer ‘clothing data label’, which is bound to be ignored by every other fashion brand, until we can persuade others to work with us and use it to increase awareness and standards.

Fashion can be cheap and transparent.



If you really want to know how your clothes are made and what chemicals are being used, then we ask you to support our petition for a 'clothing data label'.

Will you support our 'clothing data label'? https://www.change.org/p/consumers-do-you-want-to-know-how-

This can form part of the existing clothing label or be a new label; physically attached to each garment or digitally via bar codes/QR. Providing vital information to consumers at the point of sale. Enabling you to make more informed purchasing decisions.

Any comments would be much appreciated. Thank you for your support.



Golf Refugees are proposing a ‘clothing data label’. (See picture – data supplied by Labour behind the label)
It could form part of the existing clothing label, usually stitched inside the side seam of garments.
This example is based upon daily rates and hours worked, however fashion brands could decide upon using weekly or monthly rates.
Data comprises of a daily rate converted to the local currency, in this case the garment was manufactured in Sri Lanka but sold in the UK.
The number of daily working and overtime hours for textile workers.
Plus a chemical contents list of the number of carcinogens and hormone disruptors used to make the garment.
As consumers please let us know your thoughts.
We are hoping to gain support for our ‘clothing data label’ and work with others to try and persuade fashion brands to use it.
‪#‎clothingdatalabel‬ ‪#‎golfrefugees‬



We need to stop using the following words to describe our clothing; sustainable, eco and ethical. I have used them myself and it is meaningless unless you can back it up with ‘real’ data from your suppliers. Without this you are just playing the same deception game as all the other fashion brands, only on a much smaller scale.
Supply chain data should consist of; pay / working & overtime hours / and chemicals used.
Someone has to be brave or stupid enough to put this information in front of the consumer when purchasing clothes.



Just how lovely is that brightly coloured top you’re wearing?

The average exhaustion rate is 80% for most textile dyes (20% of the dyestuff is expelled with the waste-water) and 80% of the dyestuff remains in the fabric. In other words, those chemicals used in the dye will remain in the clothes you wear next to your skin.

Cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, nickel, mercury, lead, antimony and arsenic are all typical toxic chemicals used in textile dyes.

If possible look for dyes that have been certified by a third party, such as GOTS, where toxic chemicals are restricted to lower levels (rather than prohibited as many people believe).

The dye formulation means a lot when you’re evaluating the eco credentials of clothing.



In Cambodia and China the minimum wage would need to be at least twice as high to cover the basic cost of living (Clean Clothes Campaign, 2014).

In the Cambodian garment industry, over 80% of workers are women, aged 18-35. In India, Bangladesh and across Asia likewise, most garment workers are women. Many of these women have children and families to provide for and no other income earners in the family to contribute.

According to Clean Clothes Campaign, one worker’s salary typically supports at least three people in a family. Not only do low wages keep garment workers in a cycle of poverty, but they also add to the pressure to work long overtime hours, which impacts on health and safety.

Research shows for the most part, people don’t trust brands anymore. By and large, consumers are now sceptics. Why the mistrust? Rana Plaza, the banking crisis, the horse meat scandal, VW emissions scandal, IAAF doping scandal and the FIFA corruption are just a few of the incidents that have ravaged public trust in business.

Consumers now expect that business exists to serve society: on an individual and the collective level. People expect brands to help make our daily routines easier — by helping us stay healthy, by better connecting us to our loved ones and by helping us make informed, smart decisions.

We also expect brands to play bigger roles in our communities through event sponsorships or corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives that help support our collective well-being.


Customer walks into a sports retailer and picks up a top which states the average pay and conditions of the textile workers in Cambodia and lists the number of cancer causing and hormone disruptor chemicals used to make the top.
A similar garment in the same store, similar colour, identical price, again manufactured in Cambodia provides no information on how its made.
Which sports top does the consumer purchase?



The lo-down on PFC's
A chemical that for decades was a key ingredient in making Teflon and hundreds of other products including as a water/stain repellent in our clothing. Perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, belongs to a class of chemicals that have invaded the bodies of people and animals in the farthest reaches of the globe. PFOA pollutes the blood of almost all Americans and can pass from mother to unborn child in the womb. It builds up in our bodies, and studies have shown it can cause cancer, reproductive disorders and other serious illnesses.
How was this allowed to happen? Toothless regulators, no consumer chemical labelling transparency, corporate lies coupled with a complete disregard for human / environmental safety.
Nothing has changed.



What do you see?

Athlete, talent, intelligence, beauty, health?

What else do you see?

Perhaps a world where one in two Americans will be diagnosed with cancer? How can that be?

Do you see a young woman in make-up, wearing hair, skin-care products and dressed in synthetic textiles? Exposed daily to untested combinations of hidden toxic chemicals from carcinogens to hormone disruptor's.

In 1965 Ralph Nader published a book ‘Unsafe at Any Speed’ accusing car manufactures of a resistance to introduce safety features and spend money on improving safety.

In 2016 do we need another Nader moment ‘Unsafe at Any Level’ accusing the chemical industry of a reluctance to rigorously test combinations of toxic chemicals prior to being used in consumer products?

It’s our time to act.



DuPont faces 40 trials a year over cancer tied to water-repellent chemical known as PFC: C8 or PFOA.
This single case proves beyond doubt that chemicals in consumer products are insufficiently tested for safety prior to being used.
Just think how many brands (products) used this chemical for non-stick applications for decades; including cooking utensils and textiles. Many of us will still be using Teflon coated pans and waterproof apparel containing this toxic chemical.
To give you a specific example GR looked at leading sportswear brands RSL's and found PFOA stated in their polyester apparel. There is currently no legal obligation for clothing brands to disclose the toxic chemicals they use to their customers.
We can't be the only people who find this alarming 'cancer causing chemicals in your sportswear'.



Glyphosate, the main ingredient in the Monsanto’s flagship product Roundup, is now the “most widely applied pesticide worldwide,” according to a report published today in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe.
Though mainly used in agriculture, Roundup has also been sprayed on gardens and golf courses. Does your local Golf course use RoundUp?
Other scientific studies link glyphosate exposure to adverse liver and kidney problems, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Last March, the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC), the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm, infamously declared that glyphosate was a “possible carcinogen.”



What we do know is that the overall incidence of cancer has been increasing in recent decades. And there is a compelling—and growing—body of evidence linking this troubling trend to toxic chemicals in our daily environments: carcinogens and hormone disruptor's in our environment and consumer products.
There are more than 80,000 chemicals in commercial use. Chemicals in products we all use every day. Chemicals to which we are all exposed throughout the course of our lives.
The legislation “regulating” chemicals exempted about 60,000 chemicals from testing for safety. And in 40 years only 200 chemicals have been tested for human safety. Out of these, only five chemicals have ever been restricted due to their harmful impact on human health.
The conclusion is not that we have about 80,000 harmless chemicals on the market; the shameful truth is that our regulators and legislators have been asleep at the wheel and subservient to the lobbying of the powerful chemical industry, while we've all been exposed to countless toxic chemicals linked to cancer and other health problems.
Consumers need to start asking their favourite brands to disclose the carcinogens and hormone disruptor's in the products we love and use, as we cannot rely on anybody else.
Ref: Karuna Jagger - Health Insights.