EU approves ban on destruction of unsold clothing

https://www.dw.com/en/eu-approves-ban-on-destruction-of-unsold-clothing/a-67641000

by mrzool • 3 years ago

48 55 3 years ago

wyager5• 3 years ago

"It is time to end the model of 'take, make, dispose' that is so harmful to our planet, our health and our economy." ... "New products will be designed in a way that benefits all, respects our planet and protects the environment."
The agreement outlined that the European Commission can issue legally binding requirements to make goods such as furniture, tyres, detergents, paints and chemicals more environmentally friendly.

It's interesting to watch how people constantly invent new ways to re-introduce legal concepts that we threw out when we invented liberalism. For example, we got rid of sumptuary laws, which restrict the consumption habits of the lower classes, but now we're bringing them back under the principle of being environmentally friendly.

yladiz• 3 years ago

C’mon, there is a pretty big difference between this and sumptuary law, don’t try to equate them. A sumptuary law is on the consumer and this is on the producer.

378474r9r3• 3 years ago

"You can't compare two things just because their outcomes are the same."

wyager5• 3 years ago

When there are two parties to a transaction, it doesn't really matter which party you forbid from making the transaction. The effect is the same, which is all that really matters from an economic standpoint

defrost3• 3 years ago

Sumptuary laws limited expenditure, these laws are intended to limit waste with the pressure applied to the producer and not the consumer.

Fast fashion put waste into overdrive, easily by a factor of two thirds as it specifically encouraged online ordering with free returns so that consumers ordered their size, a size above, a size below and returned two out of three purchases .. rather than sell "worn goods" returns went to land fill.

The mountain of excess production (consuming energy, resources, producing excess CO2, etc) that comes with the past decade of fast fashion brought little of real value and is a practice worth discouraging.

Let the consumer spend by all means, but at least reduce the litter that comes with every purchase.

wyager5• 3 years ago

"This law doesn't prevent consumers from buying X, it prevents vendors from selling X"

The bulk of your comment is just an explanation of why you think sumptuary laws can be good (which may be correct! Not arguing that), not a refutation of the idea that this is a sumptuary law

csomar2• 3 years ago

I’m not sure why you are downvoted. If history and precedents are anything, then the industry will find new ways to exploit the new laws to their advantage.

foobar27232• 3 years ago

This is a really interesting point! I think regulation is the wrong way to go in this case. It sounds reasonable until you consider the burden of enforcement. Your comment brings in another dimension of how and why we determine certain things to be poor ideas for the ‘masses’.

legitster2• 3 years ago

Based on other articles I am reading, it sounds like they can't discard them at all.

Does that mean you can just "sell" a lot of clothes to a recycler for $1? Or do they have to keep that ugly jacket on the shelf for decades if they have to? How is this enforceable?

Also, I'm all for durable/repairable clothes, but I'm not sure how much the average consumer is really into darning their own socks. If we want more durable clothes we are talking about less spandex and polyester and more thick and uncomfortable garments.

ocdtrekkie4• 3 years ago

Presumably they could discount it heavily to consumers or, barring that, donate it to someone who needs it?

But the key issue is how discards allow bad practices. As we prohibit waste, businesses will adjust what they produce and ship accordingly.

ars6• 3 years ago

So basically if I buy the ugly shirt I get a discount on a good one?

And then the consumer throws it away later? So basically the same disposal, but with extra steps?

This article really needs more details on how they plan for this to actually work.

csomar2• 3 years ago

You could always ship it to a third-world country. Someone out there will buy it.

foobar27232• 3 years ago

We already do this. It creates a system of free clothing but also has had the unintended consequence of destroying domestic clothing production.

shiroiuma• 3 years ago

Spandex is great for comfort, but instead of polyester, they could use more nylon. Nylon is extremely durable compared to most polyesters.

But I agree: repairability for clothes seems a little silly. We have industrial processes (like automated cutting) that make clothes-making extremely efficient, and materials that make them far more comfortable than ever; we just need to improve what we do with them at the end-of-life (i.e., reusing/recycling).

As for the ugly jackets, they should be able to sell these to secondhand stores or the like for next-to-nothing, where they could be sold for very little. Or given to homeless shelters.

mc323• 3 years ago

"Just" ban fast-fashion and ban weakening the clothing on purpose (like tears and acid washes) Normally I would not call for bans, but that's Europe and they're into banning things, so that's my recommendation.

ethanbond3• 3 years ago

The ban on destruction of unsold clothing seems way better-defined and defensible than an abstract idea like "fast-fashion." How would you concretely ban such a thing?

mc323• 3 years ago

It's not that hard. They take cues from the catwalks, mass produce with quick turnaround and JIT production in familiar paces in the East with added characteristic of low-cost and short shelf life.

A Bonobos is fast-fashion, but a Gitman Bros less so; you'll see the same cloth/pattern/colors year in, year out. Maybe the collars change over time and maybe they'll add darts one year...

magicalhippo• 3 years ago

Here in Norway, most consumer goods is protected by a 2 year (5 for long lived items like washing machines) by a rule that says the seller must fix or refund any item which suffers from a production flaw.

Breaking before those 2 years during normal usage is usually considered a flaw. In case of a dispute, it's on the seller to prove that the customer did something that's not considered normal use.

Once an item is fixed, the fix gets another fresh 2 years.

In principle I don't see why most clothing couldn't be covered by a similar scheme. It would force the producers to make clothing that actually lasts. Sure the price would go up, but you'd need less of it.

There's a shop here in Oslo which has moved in this direction[1]. Their stuff is made from durable fabrics and they allow one free repair.

[1] https://www.northernplayground.no/en/usemore

andromeduck• 3 years ago

Easier to just encourage attention to quality by mandating technical grading/disclosure of the fabric, longer warranty pwriods etc.

ars6• 3 years ago

This article is light on details, but I assume the intent is to warehouse unsold clothing until they are damaged by moths or water, and then throw it away later?

Or do they actually plan to require stores to keep clothing that no one wants on the shelf forever?

MichaelRo• 3 years ago

How about those second hand shops, who supplies them? https://bineboutique.ro/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1_IMG-202...

Maybe they are just discarded "first hand" clothing?

lofaszvanitt• 3 years ago

It might've been a better idea to somehow inform the consumers about the thread tensile strength and other quality indicators, because clothing quality is on a downward slope in the last 10 years, and it's getting worse and worse. They need to regulate the market, just as they regulated the mobile chargers and the like.

I have 25 year old clothes that hold up to this very day and I have recently bought farmers and trousers from the same brand which only lasted for half a year compared to early models that I still have and they are intact. And these are not cheapo parts...

ykonstant• 3 years ago

It is ridiculous; I have a 20 year old t-shirt from a middling local brand that is still holding on, so I went and bought a similar one from them a year ago. It fell apart within six months. I cannot figure out where to find good, sturdy clothes anymore.

Edit: I just realized I am wearing said t-shirt right now!

toofy• 3 years ago

it’s literally why i just won’t buy clothes online anymore, not at all. and i know this is anecdotal, but so many people have been telling me the same thing over the last year or two.

so often i’m disappointed, over and over again when i order online vs buying from a store. whether it’s the quality is terrible, the color is just wrong, or the fit is weird, buying online is an awful experience and seems to be getting worse.

i can’t tell you how exhausted i got over time waiting for stuff to arrive, wasting time going through the exchange process, having to ship it back, waiting yet again for the new one to arrive, and then let down again. rinse and repeat over and over, so frustrating.

i know how ridiculous this next thing sounds, but it’s just so much more satisfying doing a full on trip to the mall.

gmerc• 3 years ago

Welcome to the glory of capitalism - if things don’t break you can’t sell more.

To answer your question: Japan. Uniqlo for example is a solid choice and if you want really long lasting things, buy in Japan directly. It’s the only society on the planet that has resisted the insanity of continuously sacrificing quality.

ainiriand• 3 years ago

If you buy socks, buy Stance brand. Super solid. I do not have any other advice unfortunately.

janosdebugs• 3 years ago

Exceptions for small companies... Franchise model, is that you knocking? (I haven't read the law, I'm unable to say if that would actually be viable.)

closetkantian• 3 years ago

Just a random thought, but what if companies were required to include an "expected lifespan" label on clothing.

EU approves ban on destruction of unsold clothing

Related Stories