Elizabeth Olsen, founder and owner of Olsenhaus
Producing leather—whether by chrome/chemical tanning or vegetable tanning—comes with a host of problems. It heavily contributes to global warming, land devastation, environmental pollution, the depletion of valuable natural resources, and water-supply contamination, not to mention the spread of disease and the abuse of billions of animals.
Chloé Jo Berman of The GirlieGirl Army
CREATING LEATHER
From start to finish, the amount of energy required to create a leather hide is 20 times greater than what’s used to produce a synthetic material. The production of leather includes breeding and raising the animals, transporting feed, removing animal waste, powering housing and killing facilities, the use of vaccines and antibiotics, and removing carcasses and transferring pelts. At the tannery, the skins are sorted, soaked, fleshed, tanned, wrung, dried, kicked, cleaned, trimmed, buffed, dried again, finished, then transported to the garment maker, wholesaler, and so on.
From start to finish, the amount of energy required to create a leather hide is 20 times greater than what’s used to produce a synthetic material.Leather is the hide of a dead animal. It is, by nature, meant to decompose. To prevent decomposing, it is treated with chemicals—including hexavalent chromium salts, aniline, azo dyes, lead, cyanide, formaldehyde, tannins, solvents, formaldehyde, and chlorophenols—that pollute the land, air, and water supply. Groundwater samples collected near tanneries have shown the presence of arsenic, chromium, lead, and zinc. At the same time, toxic gases like ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and carcinogenic arylamines are emitted into the air. The smell of a tannery is the most horrifyingly putrid smell on earth.
VEGETABLE VERSUS CONVENTIONAL TANNING
There are several methods used in the tanning of hides: vegetable, chrome, aldehyde, alum, and synthetic. The only difference between vegetable versus chemical tanning is the source of the color. Vegetable tanning uses ingredients from vegetable matter, such as tree bark, which gives the leather a more subtle, muted color. Every other step in the process is the same.
The smell of a tannery is the most horrifyingly putrid smell on earth.
Although vegetable-tanned leather is often touted as being less harmful to the environment, Bill Bartholomew, a representative for The Leather Group admitted at the World Shoes Accessories ecoEthics Conference in February that “eco-friendly” vegetable tanning is just as polluting as chrome tanning.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pages: 1 2
Leather is the hide of a dead animal. It is, by nature, meant to decompose. To prevent decomposing, it is treated with chemicals—including hexavalent chromium salts, aniline, azo dyes, lead, cyanide, formaldehyde, tannins, solvents, formaldehyde, and chlorophenols—that pollute the land, air, and water supply. Groundwater samples collected near tanneries have shown the presence of arsenic, chromium, lead, and zinc. At the same time, toxic gases like ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and carcinogenic arylamines are emitted into the air. The smell of a tannery is the most horrifyingly putrid smell on earth.
VEGETABLE VERSUS CONVENTIONAL TANNING
There are several methods used in the tanning of hides: vegetable, chrome, aldehyde, alum, and synthetic. The only difference between vegetable versus chemical tanning is the source of the color. Vegetable tanning uses ingredients from vegetable matter, such as tree bark, which gives the leather a more subtle, muted color. Every other step in the process is the same.
The smell of a tannery is the most horrifyingly putrid smell on earth.
Although vegetable-tanned leather is often touted as being less harmful to the environment, Bill Bartholomew, a representative for The Leather Group admitted at the World Shoes Accessories ecoEthics Conference in February that “eco-friendly” vegetable tanning is just as polluting as chrome tanning.
[...] Via: Ecouttere [...]
I had never really thought about all of the energy, chemicals and cruelty that go into producing leather goods. It doesn’t seem that an eco-friendly leather would be possible. I guess I always thought of leather as the more “natural” product, never knowing where the leather was actually coming from. Reading this post has made me realize that I need to start looking at synthetic materials, and know that it’s healthier for the planet.
-erica with worldofgood.com
Thanks for this article, and for your stance on the leather industry… you’ve been educating in an important area that not many other people talk about. But one question remains for me: What about the durability of synthetics versus leather? You compared the two in terms of energy use, which is great. But I’m reminded of a quote I got from an interviewee once–”You have to balance eco-friendliness with performance.” I know that a quality leather bag or pair of shoes will last for years. How do the synthetics you use compare?
(I ask this for both general knowledge and a specific purpose, because honestly I’d love to order your Charm shoes right now! But without being able to see them in person, I’m a bit leery of how the faux suede will wear.)
Thanks, Elizabeth!
Janette
I appreciate that you are examining the impact of your materials, I myself study materials and their ecological footprints. I do not particularly advocate leather or wear it much all, but I think there are options in leather production that you may have overlooked. If it is impossible to make leather last without harsh, earth damaging chemicals, how did pre-industrial people all over the world make highly functional, long-lasting leather clothing and implements for thousands of years? As far as sourcing leather, I too think that factory-style cattle operations which utilize antibiotics, hormones, cages, and grain-feeding are terrible for the planet, and should be stopped immediately. However, as hard as we try to convince people to eat a vegetarian diet, surely there will always be people who want to eat beef. As long as someone in the world is raising cattle for food, there will (hopefully) be skin on that cattle. When the cows are butchered, their skin can be wasted or made into usable leather.
I have not yet done the calculations, but my guess is that if we can greatly reduce our transportation emissions, industrial emissions, energy production emissions, population expansion, and (totally unnecessary) factory farming emissions, it would be quite sustainable for each person on earth to eat grass-fed steak a few times per year, and own a few excellent quality traditionally-tanned leather garments.
I’m not trying to be the devils advocate here..but…I’ve always had a few doubts about this issue. I understand the problems with massive, industrial, assembly line production of leather. But what is the problem with real organic production of leather. If I live in a community where there is a real sustainable use of our natural resources, where all the resources are used properly. Just as we have farmers who grow our fruits and vegetables, we have ranchers who produce our meat products, and not only do they produce meat products for the community to eat, but for other purposes too, which is the case of leather. If we (as a community) have and kill a cow to feed ourselves and our families (with milk and meat), why is it wrong to put to good use other parts of that cow that would be thrown out in other cases. In my opinion this is as organic and resourceful as it gets.
If you dobt it just look at the “gauchos” in the argentina pampas, who live off the land and its resourcess and dont throw away a single part of an animal they kill in order to live. Would you consider them unecological?
Thank you for all of your great comments and questions, I am very happy to address them.
Leather is not ecological. Many of you have been asking questions about this subject and passing the info on. This is great! I will answer and clarify wherever I can. To start: leather is not a naturally occurring item. It is a processed product created from the skins of animals. Skin is composed of cells, protein, collagen, etc., that decompose when no longer living. To make leather, skins are put through the process of tanning, to preserve the skins and allow pliability. One question asked about pre-industrial tanning, how was it done? We would assume the traditional method would be sans chemicals and ecologically sounder.
Tanning has been done for centuries. It was arduous, time consuming work, and was/is extremely noxious smelling. The chemicals used were of more natural means in pre-industrial times. Today’s toxic tanning chemicals replace: urine (often human), feces (dog & pigeon), brains (from the animal), alkaline salts, alum, tannin (from tree bark) etc. These various bodily fluids contain chemicals within them that caused putrefaction of the skin that was needed for creating leather. Traditional tanneries are extremely rare today, possibly not a surprise. Local tanneries using local cattle was brought up in a question, most likely they are utilizing the chemicals available today that are poisoning waterways, soil, and the atmosphere as well. I would call and inquire about their process.
Durability of synthetics: Leather is very durable yes, considering all the chemicals used to preserve it. Ultrasuede is an excellent alternative to leather/suede that we use often. Unlike suede, ultrasuede can be spot cleaned. It has the look and feel of real suede, if that is of importance to you. It is very durable as it is being used as upholstery for furniture, car interiors, apparel, has breathability, and is stain-resistant. It really is superior to suede/leather. Otherwise OlsenHaus is constantly looking for the most durable eco materials to create with. All in all, it comes down to the individual’s opinion, and then subsequent choice. Take the information you have about the leather industry (please investigate for yourself as well) and the information you have on any ecologically aware company working for the environment rather than against. Choose from there. Your dollar is your vote.
Also-
Please feel free to contact me directly:
info@olsenhaus.com
Thank you again!
Respectfully,
Elizabeth Olsen
I posted this awhile back on Facebook as a response, but felt like others perusing this article should read it as well.
“This article didn’t really answer any of the questions that I have. It actually raised more for me.
For example, isn’t leather a renewable resource, compared to whatever the hell they use to make synthetics?
Isn’t leather more durable? Therefore, aren’t synthetics more likely to end up in a landfill? For example, my mom has had the same pair of leather boots since the 70s–and I invested in a pair of decent leather moccasins a few years ago. Even with wearing them almost every day, they are in pristine condition. I can’t say the same for my synthetic shoes, even if I paid a lot of money for them.
I hate to play devil’s advocate, but I am completely depressed by the lack of balanced reporting on this issue. Come on, Inhabitat!
By the way, I find it kind of disgusting that you would play the “child labour” card. Let’s look at where MOST synthetics are produced–in sweatshops around the world. Go into places like Payless and you’re bound to pick up a pair of shoes made by children. It has NOTHING to do with the type of material–just with the garment industry in general.
In my opinion, I’d rather invest in a pair of leather shoes that are going to last me for years than a pair of synthetic leather shoes that may or may not hold up–which creates this disposable culture.
Next, why not give some REAL alternatives? Instead of allowing this girl to freely advertise her business, let’s talk about thrift stores! If you really want synthetic shoes, they’ve got tons of them there, and they are often better-made than what you pay $60 for now.
I’m just saying…balanced articles, please!”
I added:
“That said, I don’t know which is greener, but all I’m asking is that I be accurately informed.”
@el3phant
Our “Ask a Designer” posts are op-eds, not investigative pieces, so any opinions of the designers are their own. We’ll be looking more in-depth into the issue in the future, however, so thank you for your comments and suggestions.
El3phant and Readers,
-OlsenHaus has been featured in VOGUE, Daily Candy, Marie Claire, O the Oprah Magazine, on THE FASHION SHOW, on Fox TV and other notable publications. OlsenHaus does not need to use Ecouterre as a base for advertising. I was asked to do this piece based on my industry experience, and to raise awareness of this issue, which is the goal of OlsenHaus as a whole. We thank Ecouterre for bringing this issue to the table for discussion and education.
-We are not aware of the FaceBook post you mentioned, I assure you that your questions would have been addressed promptly.
-Leather is the product of the chemical tanning of animal skins. This process keeps the skin from decomposing while polluting the ecosystem. Hence, a loved pair of leather boots from the 1970’s is still around today. Does this make them eco? How many pairs have been thrown out since the 1970’s? There are too many directions to go in with this debate.
-Indian leather units produce 80,000-90,000 cubic meters of wastewater per day. “Tanning of one kilogram of leather requires about 35-40 litres of water, all of which is polluted during various processes of converting skin into leather.”. (1)
India is one of the largest producers of leather (funny as it is a mostly vegetarian country) and has no environmental laws or no enforcement pollution control. Among the disastrous consequences of this noxious waste is the threat to human health from the highly elevated levels of lead, cyanide, and formaldehyde in the groundwater near tanneries. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the incidence of leukemia among residents in an area surrounding one tannery in Kentucky was five times the national average. (2)
-The issue is not that OlsenHaus wishes to use synthetics. We are a Vegan company. Our priority is to show the world there is an alternative to the emotional and physical abuse, and murder, and wear of non-human animals. OlsenHaus demonstrates that the use of animal derived products is excessive, outdated, and without modern logic.
-We are committed to utilizing materials that are less damaging to the environment, recycled and organics as they become available. To address where our alternative materials are made, our main material is made in a highly technical factory, adhering to the strictest environmental laws, located in Japan. Other materials we use are from Italy. We strive to be earth and human animal friendly whenever possible. The textiles industry is aware of the demand for these eco/sweatshop free materials. We are excited to be a part of this evolution in textiles and accessories.
-We believe in animal rights as well as human rights. We gain nothing by “playing” the “child labor card”. Child labor is a very serious human rights issue. It is not something to be “played” or taken lightly. Our factories employ adult women and men paid fair wages- provided a safe working environment for the employee- no child labor. We do not produce in Asia. We do not use sweatshops.
-We are not Payless- and yes, they are produced in sweatshops. This was our original point.
-I have worked in the fashion industry for over 15 years, having visited both tanneries and synthetic production facilities. I speak from first hand experience.
-Again, thank you for your thoughts! These topics however are based within emotional opinion, not research. I encourage everyone to do their own research and come to an educated decision. Please visit below sources and links.
Respectfully,
Elizabeth Olsen
info@olsenhaus.com
(1)http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/enviornment/10-feet-sand-image-to-highlight-harmful-effects-of-leather-industry_10056144.html#ixzz0W6gYUxSm
(2) Richard E. Sclove et al., Community-Based Research in the United States (Amherst: The Loka Institute, 1998) 52.
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=skin-trade-ili&Player=qt
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
http://www.cowsarecool.com/theFacts.asp
There are a few tanneries in Sweden that actually tan their leather in Sweden using animals from Scandinavia and they all do vegetable tanning. It’s not really fair to compare the tanning that’s done in Asia with the products made by Olsenhaus, which, I hope, is a big improvement comapred to much of the fast fashion synthetic leather products produced.
All products we produce have the potential to be harmfull for the enviroment, let’s not have a fight over what material is the best, there will seldome be a definitive answer. Let’s try to figure out what we can do to improve everything instead.
[...] Designer Elizabeth Olsen is on a mission – to turn your old TV set into fabulous shoes! [...]
A long time sustainability advocate working in the production side in the apparel industry, I cannot corroborate many of the statements made in this editorial. I’ll let it all go but the most egregious -assigning the costs (ecological and otherwise) to the by product hides themselves. As much as one could want to believe it, it is simply not tenable that animals in India are raised and killed for their hides; the costs of leather would be astronomical.
Consider: cow hide from India sells at approx 2.25 a square foot, the average cow rendering about 50-60 sq. ft. That amounts to $112 – $135 per cow. The supplier who sells it to manufacturers paid half that or $56-$66. The hide producer sold it to the supplier for half that, namely $28-$33. Considering the hide producer needed his margins, he paid half that again $14-$17 into which he had to roll all the costs of his operation (labor, facility, overhead, raw materials, profit) of which materials cost was 1/4 or $3.50+. It simply is not credible to think a cow can be cared for and fed -in increasingly deforested India no less- to maturation for $3. Think about it.
Right now, vegetarians comprise less than 4% of the US population. Personally, it would be a dream come true if more people stopped eating meat, it’d make eating out a heckuva lot easier for me and my family. It’s ecologically saner and would dramatically reduce the amount of fossil fuels but I’ll just shut up about it.
I see no contradiction btwn my being a vegetarian and working in leather production. If the supply of hides dried up because people stopped eating meat, I would be thrilled, absolutely beside myself. I would be *delighted* to be a casualty of the fall out and peaceably find another line of work.