Episodes 36 and 37 - Forced Labour

For Labour Day, we wanted to highlight the conditon of workers who aren’t protected by modern labour laws and labour unions. Given its prevalence throughout the world, we chose to examine the cross-cutting theme of forced labour.

We brought back Alexandra Sundarsingh for Part One, to bring historical context. Lex is a second year PhD student in the department of history at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She has a BA and MA from the University of Toronto. Thematically, her research interests include the history of Indian indenture, and its intersections with labor, race, gender, diasporic Indian culture, colonialism, and empire. Geographically, she focuses on how South Asia and the Indian Ocean world connect to broader global histories of migration, labor, and culture. She approaches these topics mainly through legal documentation and debates, transportation and labor infrastructure, and print culture in the Indian Ocean British colonies between 1840 and 1920. She also has an ongoing love of and interest in food history and hopes to be able to use this in her research as well. Check out her work here!
Lex recommended another book for this episode: We, the Survivors by Tash Aw

 Excerpt from Amnesty International’s “Turning People into Profits” (p.7):

When Suresh, aged 39, first considered leaving his village in Saptari district for a foreign job, he hoped it might be a life-changing experience that would set him and his family up for a more secure financial future. His first step was to contact an agent in his village who knew about job opportunities abroad. The agent had good news. He could offer him work in a Malaysian glove making factory. Pay would be relatively high, at RM 1800 (USD 420) per month, and conditions would be good, with one day off every week, safe working conditions and clean accommodation. Ultimately, the agent said, this would give Suresh the chance to save enough money to buy land for his family.

But this chance would cost: Suresh had to pay the village agent, as well as the Kathmandu recruitment agency who would finalise the deal, upfront. To get his job, Suresh borrowed NPR 250,000 (USD 2,416) from a local moneylender, at an annual interest rate of 36%. Although the recruitment fee was enormous (and illegal), Suresh’s agent and the Kathmandu agency assured him that he would be able to quickly pay off the debt once he started earning in Malaysia. The reality was very different. At the glove making factory, Suresh was unpaid for months on end, and when he was paid, his employer made a number of unexplained deductions from his salary. Suresh could not leave and get a new job, because his passport had been taken away, and his employer refused to end his contract or even allow him to leave the factory. In desperation, Suresh turned to his recruitment agency for help. They did not return his calls.

Instead of making money, when Suresh finally returned to Nepal in 2015 he had accumulated a staggering debt of NPR 550,000 (USD 5,317).[1]

What is forced labour?

Forced labour is a form of modern slavery. It includes slavery, practices similar to slavery, and bonded labour/debt bondage. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), forced labour is: “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily”. The ILO definition includes two core elements.

First, labour must be extracted under the menace of any penalty. The penalty can be penal sanctions or a loss of rights and privileges. In its most extreme form, the menace of a penalty can involve physical violence or restraint. But other, more subtle, forms of penalty exist as well. Sometimes that might mean denouncing victims to the police or immigration authorities. Penalties can be financial, as in the case of debt-bondage and wage theft. In other cases, people may have their documents confiscated.

Second the work must be of an involuntary nature. For this criterion, the ILO looks at things like the method and content of consent, any external constraints or indirect coercion, and whether it is possible to revoke freely given consent. It is often the case that victims enter forced labour situations initially of their own accord and discover later that they are not free to withdraw their labour. (FYI, the ILO definition excludes prison work.)

Debt bondage is a particularly prominent feature of forced labour in current-day contexts. Half of forced labour imposed by private actors included debt bondage. In agriculture, domestic work, and manufacturing, debt bondage was even more prevalent – occurring in more than 70% of cases.

Forced labour is different than sub-standard or exploitative working conditions – so, even though things like low wages or unsafe working conditions are exploitative and bad, they are not in themselves forced labour.

There are numerous international treaties on forced labour, including: ILO Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29); ILO Forced Labour Protocol (ratified, not yet in force); UN Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery; Palermo Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children.

How it works

This short video does a good job of showing how forced labour often happens.

There are two main phases of forced labour: recruitment and control and exploitation.

Forced labour usually involves some kind of unfree recruitment, involving deception or coercion. Coercive recruitment often involves debt bondage or confiscation of documents. It can also occur through abuse of a difficult financial situation, irregular migrant status, or a difficult family situation. Deceptive recruitment is where promises made at the time of recruitment are not fulfilled. Victims are most commonly deceived about wages, working conditions, the jobs themselves, or the length of stay.  

People in situations of forced labour work under exploitative conditions. This can include low salaries, delayed payments, imposed poor living conditions, excessive work, and lack of social protection. Victims of forced labour face coercion, which might include:

●      Threats or actual physical harm

●      Restriction of movement or confinement to the workplace or a limited area

●      Withholding wages or excessive wage reduction that violates previously made agreements

●      Retention of passports and identity documents

●      Threats of denunciation to the authorities, when the worker has an irregular immigration status

What is the scale of forced labour?

In total, about 40 million people around the world are in modern slavery. That is roughly the same as the population of Canada. Modern slavery includes forced labour and forced marriage. Forced labour makes up more than half of modern slavery. At any given time, an estimated 25 million people are victims of forced labour. For context, that’s roughly the same as the population of Australia. (15 million people were living in a forced marriage). Those estimates are from a study called the Global Estimates of Modern Slavery created in 2017 by the ILO, the Walk Free Foundation, and the International Organization for Migration.

And that’s at any given time. In the past five years, 89 million people experienced some form of modern slavery.

Somewhere between 83% and 90% of the world’s forced laborers are working for the private sector, according to one estimate. Forced labour generates annual profits of about $150 billion USD.

State-imposed forced labour

State-imposed forced labour is declining as a source of forced labour, but it does occur. At least 2.2 million people worldwide are trapped in state- or rebel-imposed forms of forced labour. This form of forced labour often occurs in prisons or in work imposed by rebel or armed forces.

You can think about child soldiers as an example of state- or rebel-imposed forced labour. In previous episodes we have also talked about the Uzbek government’s connection to forced labour in the cotton industry. And of course, forced labour in Chinese re-education camps for Uighurs has received a lot of attention recently.

Another example is North Korea’s overseas workers program. North Korea sends somewhere between 50,000 and 120,000 of its citizens to work overseas and the government receives the lion’s share of wages for these workers (70-90%). North Korean overseas workers are primarily in China and Russia, although they have been found in dozens of countries in Asia, Africa, South America, and Eastern Europe. They are employed mostly in mining, logging, textile, and construction.

The United Nations and others have documented conditions that amount to forced labour. For instance: workers do not know the details of their employment contract; they receive tasks according to their state-assigned social class; they are under constant surveillance while working abroad; and they are threatened with repatriation if they commit infractions. It is believed that the North Korean regime makes $1.2 to 2.3 billion annually from its overseas worker program.

In the second episode, Kyla talks about the Chinese prison system and Christmas Light production. It’s pretty grim, but you can follow the link to read more. She also mentions the stories that have come out in the past few years of consumers finding notes in their merchandise from people experiencing forced labour, and you can read more about that here.

Where is forced labour a problem?

Modern slavery occurs everywhere, although forced labour is most prevalent in Asia and the Pacific, where 4 out of every 1,000 people were victims. Europe and Central Asia was the region with the second highest prevalence of forced labour (3.6 per 1,000), followed by Africa (2.8 per 1,000), the Arab States (2.2 per 1,000), and the Americas (1.3 per 1,000).

Forced labour happens in a bunch of industries, especially: domestic work; construction; manufacturing; agriculture, forestry, and fishing; accommodation and food services; wholesale and trade; personal services; mining and quarrying; and begging.

Source: Global Estimates of Modern Slavery 2017, p.32

There are some regional patterns to this. In the Middle East, for instance, forced labour is most often for domestic work (270,000 out of 400,000 according to the ILO). In developed economies, forced labour is more common in other sectors like agriculture, construction, and manufacturing.

An American study created a typology of sex and labor trafficking using data from a human trafficking hotline. The typology includes 25 categories of work, many of which are related to sex. According to the US Department of Labor, the goods with the most forced labor listings (meaning number of countries listed) are: bricks, cotton, garments, cattle, and sugarcane.

Who is affected by forced labour?

More than two-thirds of modern slavery victims are women and girls (71%). It’s true that some of this is because forced labour in the commercial sex industry is overwhelmingly women and girls (99%) and because women and girls are mostly the victims of forced marriages (84%).

But even in other sectors, women and girls make up more than half (58%) of forced labour victims. There are a few sectors where males are primarily victims of forced labour: mining and quarrying; begging; construction and manufacturing; and agriculture, forestry, and fishing. On the other hand, victims are most often women in domestic work and accommodation and food services.

Victims of forced labour tend to be younger than the workforce overall. About one fifth of forced labour victims are children (18%), although state-imposed forced labour uses children less frequently (7%). 

Even though sexual exploitation is only about one-fifth of all forced labour, in terms of the number of people affected, two-thirds of profits from forced labour were generated by forced sexual exploitation. That is because sexual exploitation is the most lucrative form of forced labour, with an average annual profit per victim of $21,800 USD (compared with $4,800 in construction, $2,500 in agriculture, and $2,300 in domestic work). On the other hand, while forced labour in the agriculture, fishing, and forestry sector makes up a fairly small component of profits from forced labour, it affects quite a lot of people – approximately 3.5 million in 2014.

According to the Canadian Human Trafficking Hotline, some groups are most at-risk of forced labour. First are foreign nationals with precarious immigration status, recruitment debts, language barriers, and a lack of awareness of their rights. Second are those working in: agriculture and farming (seasonal workers, farm hands); domestic service (child/elder care and home housekeeping); hospitality (hotel housekeeping, restaurant kitchen work); construction and resource extraction (e.g., mining, timber, etc.); and services such as nail salons and commercial cleaning businesses. Third are people with vulnerabilities related to: precarious housing or homelessness, substance abuse, poverty, physical or learning disabilities, and mental health issues.

What are the causes of forced labour?

Poverty and globalization are two foundational causes of forced labour. But these are pretty broad concepts. To be a bit more specific, I want to talk about six dimensions that make people vulnerable to forced labour: restrictive migration regimes; economic vulnerability; sexism and racism; state fragility and conflict; authoritarianism; and global capitalism.

Restrictive Migration

Forced labour is closely connected to migration and, in particular, human trafficking. Almost one in every four victims of forced labour were exploited outside of their country of residence. This is especially the case for forced sexual exploitation, where three-quarters (74%) of victims were exploited outside of their country of residence. That is because there is a high degree of risk associated with migration, especially for migrant women and children.

Approximately 20% of forced labour is a result of human trafficking. Human trafficking is “the acquisition of people by improper means such as force, fraud or deception, with the aim of exploiting them.” People trafficked into forced labour are trafficked into commercial sexual exploitation (43%), economic exploitation (32%), and for mixed or undetermined reasons (25%).

Of course, it’s not just human trafficking: restrictive migration regimes can create unfreedom as well. Qatar’s successful bid to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup drew a lot of attention to the situation of migrant workers there. 95% of Qatar’s labour force consists of migrant workers, and these workers are brought in through a sponsorship system called the Kafala System. Qatar was roundly critiqued for this system, and international pressure led to changes. For instance, now workers do not require exit visas to leave the country. Although the Kafala System has been rightly criticized for how it creates the vulnerabilities that can allow for forced labour, what I found the most striking when I was reading about it is how similar it is to seasonal migrant worker programs in Canada and other wealthy countries. We mentioned COVID outbreaks among Canadian temporary workers and you can listen to more about that on this episode of Front Burner.

The ILO has a good description of how the vulnerability of migrant workers gets exploited in the construction industry in Eastern Europe, for instance:  

Migrant workers are brought illegally to work on a construction site, without knowing the working conditions or terms of payment. There, they discover that they are forced to live together in a remote place provided by the employer (to avoid police controls) and told that they will be paid only at the end of the construction. A few days before the end, when the work is done and wages are due, the owner may call a law enforcement officer to inform him of the presence of irregular migrants. The workers are then deported and the employer does not need to pay them. All due wages (minus the bribe) increase the profits made.

Economic Vulnerability

Poverty and lack of outside options are important risk factors for forced labour. In addition to poverty, people can be more vulnerable to forced labour when their family has undergone an income shock or is experiencing food insecurity.

Lower education and literacy levels can also make workers more vulnerable to forced labour. Weak labour protections create pools of unprotected workers, “who face serious barriers to acting collectively and exerting rights”. Workers can be unprotected because their country lacks robust labour protections or because they are in a category of work that is unprotected. In particular, the expansion of precarious work makes people more vulnerable to forced labour. The ILO has estimated that more than 75% of the global workforce is in temporary, informal, or unpaid work: so, “only a quarter of workers have the security of permanent contracts”.

Sexism and Racism

Some people are made more vulnerable to forced labour because some part of their identity denies them rights and full personhood. Although different, intersecting forms of discrimination play a role in forced labour, sexism is one of the most prominent dimensions.

Authoritarianism

State-imposed forced labour is largely a product of authoritarianism.

State Fragility and Conflict

On the other hand, state fragility and conflict can create opportunities for rebels and criminal organizations (and sometimes the government) to carry out illegal exploitation of workers.

Global Capitalism

Several facets of our global economy create pressure within the market for exploitable forms of labour and create spaces for exploitation. A report by openDemocracy and the Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute identifies four of what they refer to as “demand side” causes of forced labour: concentrated corporate power and ownership; outsourcing; irresponsible sourcing practices (E.g., fast fashion’s quick turnaround); and governance gaps.

Forced labour in global supply chains

The US Department of Labor produces a list of goods produced by child labor or forced labor. The most recent report is for 2018, and it is LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG. Forced labour can appear in any industry, and can affect the supply chains or direct operations of companies of different sizes.

The top five products at most risk of modern slavery, according to the Walk Free Foundation, are:

1. Laptops, mobile phones, and computers ($200.1 billion in at-risk products imported into the G20);

2. Garments ($127.7 billion);

3. Fish ($12.9 billion);

4. Cocoa ($3.6 billion); and

5. Sugarcane ($2.1 billion).

Every year, over $34 billion in goods imported into Canada are “at a high risk of having been produced by child or forced labour.” “More than 1,200 companies operating in Canada were identified as having imported one or more of these high-risk goods.” For global figures, see the Global Slavery Index produced by the Walk Free Foundation.

Workers are particularly vulnerable to forced labour in the lower tiers of global supply chains – extracting raw inputs and processing them. While forced labour is a complicated challenge, it is possible for companies to monitor their supply chains to reduce the risk that they are complicit.

Preventing forced labour in global supply chains

Companies can work to prevent forced labour in their supply chains by having policies, knowing where in their supply chain there are risks of forced labour; having supplier codes of conduct and carrying out due diligence; and training staff to recognize forced labour.

What should you do about it? 

Pick Leading Big Brands

You can try to look for brands that are taking action to address forced labour in their supply chains. But know that these leading brands have not eliminated forced labour.

For example, in 2019 the UK police uncovered the largest modern slavery operation in its history, involving 400 Polish trafficked workers. Some of those victims were employed by second-tier suppliers to major supermarket and building supply chains, including Tesco and Sainsbury’s – the two leading companies in Oxfam’s Supermarkets Scorecard for performance in protecting human rights.

Right now, there are no big brands that have truly eliminated forced labour from their supply chains. But there are companies that are doing much better than others.

The Stop Slavery Award recognizes companies with strong policies and processes to limit the risk of slavery in their supply chains and operations, as well as those acting as key agents in the global fight against slavery. Some previous winners include Apple, Unilever, Adidas, Intel, and Co-op.

Know the Chain’s benchmarking reports can help you find leaders and laggards in apparel and footwear; food and beverage; and information and communications technology.

Try Fairtrade

To the extent that Fairtrade labels are available, they can provide an alternative that is likely to be free from forced labour.

Fair trade is a set of movements, campaigns, and initiatives that have emerged in response to the negative effects of globalization. A product that is certified as Fairtrade has met a set of standards on pay, working conditions, and sometimes other social or environmental criteria. As we discussed in the Sugar episode, there are also fair trade member systems that work a bit differently.

However, there are some critiques of Fairtrade. Some see the use of fairtrade certification as “fairwashing” – meaning a way to superficially seem like a company is doing well on workers’ rights without actually addressing the problem. Critics tend not to argue that fair trade products are not living up to the standards established by certifying bodies. Instead, they argue that fair trade does not address the root causes of problems like forced labour.  

Boycott?

A boycott can be tempting, but it is almost impossible and potentially counterproductive. In his TEDx Talk, a Foreign Affairs producer at PBS Newshour named P.J. Tobia recommends focusing on one product at a time and learning about how the supply chain works, what is causing forced labour in that issue, and what solutions are being proposed. Then you can support NGOs working on the problem or lend your voice to promote policy change or to push a company to change its practices.

Use Your Voice to Promote Human Rights

Another thing you can do is tell your representative that you care about ratifying the ILO Protocol on Forced Labour. The Protocol on Forced Labour is an international treaty. To enter into force, it needs 50 states to ratify and currently only 45 states have done so.

If ratified, the Protocol on Forced Labour would require governments to take new measures to address forced labour. For instance, countries will need to increase inspections to protect workers and guarantee victims access to justice and compensation. Canada has already ratified, but the United States and Australia both have not. You can find out more about the ILO Protocol on Forced Labour and how to get involved at the 50 for Freedom campaign website.

In Canada, tell your Member of Parliament that you want to see the Modern Slavery Act (Bill S-211) become law, but you want it to include: higher penalties, due diligence requirements, and a broader focus on human rights (in addition to child and forced labour). The Modern Slavery Act would create an obligation for companies to report to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on steps taken to prevent and reduce the risk of forced or child labour in any step of the production process. This Act is not as strong as its French and Dutch counterparts, but it is a good first step.

The UK’s Modern Slavery Act 2015 is the first such legislation, though other jurisdictions such as California and Australia now have similar laws. Most modern slavery laws only apply to large companies – for instance, only 150 companies are covered under the French legislation.

The Canadian Act was introduced for a first reading in the Senate in February. Read the report that spurred this legislation.

The Challenge

For our challenge, Kyla and I each looked at a specific good that has been linked to forced labour by the US Department of Labor. I chose rice. Kyla chose Christmas lights.

According to the US Department of Labour’s Sweat and Toil app, there has been forced labour documented in rice production in Burma, India, and Mali (as well as child labour in a few other countries).  

India: debt bondage

In 2007, 24 people were rescued from a rice mill in India. They had been “abused and enslaved” there. The mill owner was convicted under India’s Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act in 2018. There is another story from 2019 where a pregnant woman named Soniya working in debt bondage at a rice mill lost her baby because of the harsh working conditions. Even though debt bondage is illegal in India, in the country’s 2011 census India identified more than 135,000 bonded workers. Of course, the real figure is likely a lot higher – International Justice Mission estimates 500,000 bonded labourers just in the state of Tamil Nadu.

Myanmar: state-imposed forced labour

In Myanmar, there are accounts of up to 8,000 Rohingya Muslims being forced into hard labour by soldiers. Rice production is one of the industries in which this kind of forced labour occurs.

Mali: descent-based slavery

For Mali, forced labour primarily happens in rice production because members of the Bellah or Ikelan community in Northern Mali are often enslaved by Tuareg communities. Tuareg society is an ethnically casted society with five tiers. Three tiers are perceived racially as “white”, according to an article by Baz Lecocq. The lowest two tiers are perceived racially as “black”, a grouping of craftspeople and then the unfree caste of slaves. Colonialism reinforced this hierarchical pyramid, particularly the links between race and bondage. Mali is one of three countries in Western Africa where Anti-Slavery International has undertaken initiatives to address descent-based slavery.

Endnotes

[1] Amnesty International. (2017). Turning People into Profits: Abusive Recruitment, Trafficking and Forced Labour of Nepali Migrant Workers. London: Amnesty International Ltd.

Episode 20 - Alix's Notes on COVID-19 and Inequality

Covid19 and Inequality

Some people frame this pandemic as a “great leveller” because people are all vulnerable to getting ill. This argument goes something like, we’re all facing the prospect of getting sick, we may all lose loved ones, and we are all having our routines altered as we commit to social distancing.

However I’m not alone in arguing that in general this pandemic is exacerbating existing inequalities rather than simply creating some sort of “shared experience” equality. Capturing all these impacts is a really important research and activism agenda, but here are the trends that have jumped out of me – at least in Canada and similar advanced industrial democracies or whatever we want to call them.  

Risk and Age

The first aspect of inequality relating to the Covid19 pandemic that comes to mind is age. The general consensus is that people who are older, alongside people who are immunocompromised or have any history of respiratory difficulties. The CDC has released a report on this[i] that indicates to date, fatality is higher for those aged 85 and older and then decreases with age.

In Canada, the outbreaks in care homes have been particularly awful for residents and for workers (the latter of which I will discuss more further on). In Ontario 27 people have died in one home, while over 100 people have become sick at a home in Laval in Montreal, and 17 people have died who were living in a care home in North Vancouver.[ii] The largest outbreak in Alberta is also at a care home/centre. There have also been some issues with testing in care homes in Ontario around admitting asymptomatic residents.

Some people might see this as a one-off, but I think the conditions in care homes are worthy of more thought for the long term as we see populations aging – how do we best care for people who need more medical support in their later years? This is not my area of expertise but it’s definitely something I think societies should be having more frank conversations about.

Life cycle effects

When we start to think about the long-term effects, these are going to vary across the life cycle. After the financial crisis, there was some evidence suggesting that entering the workforce (from high school or university or another form of education) during a recession can have a scarring effect on income. Will we see another wave of millennials and Gen Zs moving home? Deepened housing insecurity and job insecurity? It’s possible, especially without a comprehensive long-term policy plan.

There might also be effects on people’s family planning decisions or care burdens – we don’t know what the long-term health effects are for people who have recovered. We also don’t know what the financial insecurity will do for populations. I’ve seen people joking about a COVID baby boom, which is one option. Another option is that people delay making big life decisions as we head into another recession.

Gender

The pandemic also has gendered effects in relation to running households when everyone is home. Women in straight relationships still do more of the household work than their male partners in the US according to the Bureau of Labour Statistics[iii] and the same is true in Britain – where women do an average of ten more hours of household work, including childcare, a week.[iv] In households where both parents are able to work from home, the burden is most likely falling on women to manage increased dishes, cooking, and childcare – while managing the challenge of trying to get kids through whatever schoolwork type setup they are focused on. The flow on effects for women’s careers will be interesting to track.

There are a couple of other aspects of gender inequality that stand out that we didn’t get to in the podcast. One is the gendered nature of essential work – medical work, work in supermarkets or grocery stores and pharmacies. Exactly how gendered is essential work? I took a really quick look at the Stats Can data on the proportion of men and women in occupations for 2019 (using NOCs – the National Occupation Classification titles).[v] IN 2019, health occupations writ large were pretty women-dominated – women make up 79% of this labour force. Service work is more evenly split – 48% of retail workers and 53% of service support workers are women. When it comes to front-line public protection services (think fire, police), the labour force is overwhelmingly male – only 17.5% of workers in this category in 2019 were women. So, there are of course some greater risks for men in this category.

And finally, a pretty scary concern gender-based violence in a pandemic. This is a high stress time and people are spending as much time as possible at home. Add to that the stresses of job loss – it’s a very high stress situation.[vi] A recent StatsCan survey reported on by the Toronto Star indicated that one in ten women were “very or extremely concerned” about the potential for family discord or violence.[vii] While governments and organizations appear to know about this issue, it’s still incredibly hard to address. I took a brief look only, I must admit, at Ontario’s response and crisis lines are open.[viii]I’d be curious to know what extra resources are being provided to get people out of unsafe home situations. Shelters are also under extra pressure as a result, trying to keep physical distancing protocols in place.

So, a real mix of gender-related inequalities are being highlighted by this pandemic – all of which are worthy of serious responses from governments, communities, and individuals – and worthy of further research.

Race

This pandemic is also exacerbating racial inequalities – notably relating to both health and work.

It is incredibly alarming to note that in the US, preliminary statistics indicate that COVID19 is killing black people are disproportionately higher rates.[ix] It speaks to the US’s ongoing legacy of inequality and racism. These are revealed in long-term economic and health inequalities. So, Black Americans are less likely to have access to quality medical care, more likely to be exposed to diseases related to poverty (some of which are respiratory), and face the initial burden of medical professionals providing substandard care to people of colour because of racist assumptions about pain.

In Canada, the issue of race-related inequality seems to so often be sidestepped by a culture of pretending racism doesn’t exist here. The most basic way to think about it, I think, is that there are persistent economic inequalities between people of colour and white Canadians that translate into poor quality housing, less access to medical care, and other factors that can lead to ill health like living in food deserts or near sources of pollution. These factors cause bad health outcomes, including respiratory diseases, which can then make people more vulnerable to COVID-19. 

For example, in some countries including Canada, there is a thing called the “healthy immigrant effect” where people who migrate here initially are actually healthier than the general population. However, over time, some evidence indicates that this effect wears off and immigrants end up with worse health outcomes [x]. York University professor Professor Michaela Hynie has worked extensively on the mental health outcomes of refugees in Canada. She has a review article in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry [xi]from last year that summarizes the evidence indicating that over time, the mental health of refugees and asylum seekers who settle in Canada actually declines. Income and employment are especially important in this story, as are housing, language barriers, the settlement process, social isolation, and discrimination.  

There is a very useful piece on The Conversation by Professor Roberta Timothy (University of Toronto’s Dalla Lama School of Public Health) [xii] that discusses the fraught history of government and medical treatment of black, indigenous, and other racialized communities in Canada and the US. There is a lot of distrust as a result of histories of mistreatment. In the article she asks, how are people supposed to navigate health systems that “consistently violate” them?

Also, of course, many essential workers are also racialized workers – and when you look at care-related roles in healthcare, elder care, and childcare, race and gender collide here to result in a disempowered, marginalized, and poorly paid workforce who are now also extra at-risk of catching coronavirus.

Work

Focusing on work is one way to consider the impacts of economic, race, and gender inequalities altogether. Some of these issues came up on episode 17 of Pullback, where you talked about champions and problems of 2019: no sick leave for most wage workers and barely any kinds of protections for gig workers.

• Wage workers are likely to experience unemployment and many in Canada don’t usually have sick leave. EI offers very little to minimum wage workers

• Independent contractors/gig workers are essential but denied all the usual protections of employment, including safe workplaces. Gig economy workers are very exposed to the public.

None of this is pleasant or fun for any of us. I’m not disputing that. But I think the ability to quarantine and minimize discomfort depends on your wealth and your job. If you can stay home without financial stress, you’re in a safer position than someone doing essential work or experiencing housing insecurity.

Essential workers

Essential workers still have to work, in increasingly hazardous conditions, and many don’t have employee status. Essential workers are, roughly:

• Health professionals of all sorts

• Social services

• Community service workers e.g. people collecting waste, sewage treatment, the justice system, police and firefighters, corrections etc.

• People looking after key infrastructure (water, power, internet)

• Some manufacturing, agriculture, and food production

• Some researchers – doing research that might help treat or prevent coronavirus.

• People working in supermarkets, liquor stores, corner stores

• People making and delivering food

• People who clean essential spaces, like hospitals and supermarkets

• In Ontario, it’s also some construction workers, which has been the subject of debate.

There are two main concerns for these workers: (1) safety on the job and (2) wages and job protection more generally.

Safety on the job:  so, of course people who are actively working are the most at-risk of being exposes to coronavirus, especially health workers – and especially if they don’t have access to personal protective equipment, which has been a major issue in the US. In Canada, the Brookfield Institute has done a cool/scary analysis of the risk of COVID-19 to workers in Canada.[xiii] It graphs frequency of exposure to infection with the closeness of contact. It basically shows that GPs and other medical practitioners are at high risk of exposure, followed by bus drivers, then delivery couriers and light-duty cleaners in the middle, then pharmacy workers, security guards and cooks, with writers at the low end. The risk for education professionals has shifted down as those things have moved online. The write up, by Viet Vu and Nisa Malii, also points out that many bus and Uber drivers in Canada are at least 65 years old, so they are likely even more at-risk.

Wages and labour protections: service workers in particular are likely to be in precarious jobs, exposed to the double-whammy of health risks and unstable work. This relates to a problem that predates the pandemic: the crummy state of worker’s rights in Canada which makes many workers vulnerable to poverty.

Some essential workers face increased safety issues AND the struggles of precarious work.

Other precarious workers are now struggling to earn any income and facing the stresses of this pandemic (worrying about safety, kids at home etc.) without any job security.

Precarious work

It’s probably helpful to step through what precarious work is. It’s basically a term for work that sucks on almost every dimension. Precarious work is work that is irregular, low paid, and has no job security (so it’s easy to get fired/lose the ability to do a certain kind of gig).

• This can include driving Ubers, working on casual contracts in cafes, and working informally (without a contract)

• So gig work and low-paid contract work is what we mean here

Precarious work is a feature in most countries and a growing phenomenon even in European countries like Germany that have strong labour protection legacies. It’s not a new thing – work outside of standard employment has always taken place – but it is a problem for ensuring all people have their basic needs met and are treated fairly and with respect in our economic systems. 

People involved in labour or who study work usually contrast it with work that meets the definition of a “standard employment relationship” – that is work that occurs in regular hours, is permanent and continuous [xiv], and usually involves entitlements to things like EI, extra health insurance, health and safety regulation, and perhaps sick leave. They also do not have steady income – their wages can fluctuate depending on demand for their labour.

The other key characteristic of precarious work is a lack of job security. In a lot of countries, job security has declined since the 1980s – there has been a shift in the organization of the labour market away from the idea of a job for life and towards the idea that people will move more fluidly between jobs. People also tend to work more jobs across their life span now.

In Canada, employees do still have some protections against being fired. If you are an employee, your boss can fire you but they have to give reasonable notice or they have to have just cause for an immediate “summary” dismissal. Contract workers can be dismissed per the terms set out in their contract – a breach of the contract can terminate it, though this may end up in a court process. People working informally without a contract have no protections, of course.

There’s a really good CBC piece on the experiences of janitorial workers during the pandemic – Michael Enright interviewed Deena Ladd, who is the executive director of the Workers’ Action Center in Toronto who do lots of good work [xv]. Deena explains that most cleaners are independent contractors who work for low pay. They work with heavy duty chemicals that they don’t get briefed about and little protective gear. Many are immigrants or undocumented so working informally. This group is the typical example of precarious workers. They work irregular hours in tough conditions with no benefits, no health and safety oversight, and poor pay.

This group has of course been affected by the pandemic: many have been asked to use even more harsh chemicals and are not given information about how to use these chemicals safely, they’re working more hours (or being asked to), and many are afraid to lose their jobs so won’t refuse to work even if they feel unsafe. If they quit, they’re not eligible for CERB and if they’re not employees, no EI. They might be eligible for provincial financial assistance if they have a SIN number and meet various provincial eligibility criteria, but usually this type of social assistance is set at a very low level.

Deena calls for us to reconsider how we value this type of work – the pandemic shows us just how important is for keeping us all safe and healthy. It doesn’t make sense that it should be done with no pay, no job security, and no health and safety protections.

Job loss generally

The other big concern is that in many countries, unemployment is skyrocketing. This, of course, increases inequality by taking people from the middle of the income range to the bottom.

Even those who are eligible for EI are in a worse position now – EI pays out at 55% of your earnings but this is capped at a maximum of $573 a week, AND the number of weeks you can get it for is capped, depending on the regional employment rate.

We know that a million Canadians applied for EI in the week starting 16 March! Layoffs have kept growing. The US is also experiencing mass unemployment.

We are, in all likelihood, facing another recession – and recessions are always worse for the poor. So, outside of this health crisis, things look pretty grim too.

Social Policy Responses

There are a whole host of inequalities and problems relating to inequality in Canada and beyond that this pandemic is exacerbating – both short term and long term. Governments are responding to some of these problems with a whole range of initiatives.

Here are some criteria to help evaluate social policy responses:

1.     Any form of assistance should create as few administrative burdens as possible. This is a concept developed by Pamela Herd and Donald Moynihan, two American professors, to capture all the ways in which government can cause issues for the very people various policies are supposed to support.[xvi] If something is low in administrative burdens, this means:

a.     It’s easy to learn about and understand

b.     You don’t have to do a ton of paperwork, or waiting around on the phone

c.     People are treated equally and with respect in the application/access process

d.     Using the benefit doesn’t carry any stigma – there’s no negative social image associated with it.

2.     Assistance should be as universal/inclusive as possible so that the most people possible get support

a.     This relates to the administrative burden thing – as soon as you start placing more eligibility criteria on things, it’s harder for people to access them even if they are entitled.

b.     It should also be equitable and promoted to all groups (e.g. available info in multiple languages, promoted everywhere…)

3.     Assistance should be targeted at the people most unable to meet their basic needs right now (this has to balance somehow with the second one).

a.     So, much more support for people experiencing homelessness

b.     More support to renters than people with mortgages, is an assumption of mine

c.     And of course, more support to precarious workers or people who weren’t in work before the crisis.

Changes to provide people with more income

Canada straight away (18 March) introduced a tax credit for low income families AND provided a moratorium on student loans. It also increased the Canada Child Benefit.

These all seem like good things though I think it’s obvious they wouldn’t have been enough alone. What about bigger forms of income support?

Employment Insurance

In theory, EI should support many Canadians who lose work at this time.To be eligible for EI, though, a person must have worked sufficient hours in insurable employment and have not worked in at least seven days through no fault of their own – and be available for and actively seeking work [xvii]. People must also apply for and have received this support.

Those working in non-standard employment relationships like contract-based work are excluded (though some can opt in and pay coverage premiums), which is concerning considering that misclassification of workers as contract workers rather than employees is a known problem in Ontario. As a result, between 30 and 41% of Ontarians are actually eligible for EI.[xviii] Eligibility is also unevenly distributed across Ontarians:  people aged 15-24, 55 and above, recent migrants, and rural residents  are much less likely to be eligible and women are slightly less likely to be eligible than men – especially among self-employed workers.

So – not enough coverage, annoying to access (according to friends), and a short term bandaid really.

CERB

The Federal Government introduced the Canada Emergency Response Benefit. In recognition that EI wasn’t going to cut it as a response to rising unemployment. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit provides $2000 a month for up to four months for workers who lose their income as a result of the COVID19 pandemic.

To be eligible you must:

• Live in Canada and be over 15

• Have stopped working because of Covid19, not voluntarily quit, and be out of EI or sickness benefits

  • But you can be self-employed OR an employee

  • You can even STILL be employed – as long as you’re not getting paid most of your income***

• Have had income of at least $5K last year

• Be, or expect to be, out of income for at least two weeks.

The idea is that it should help anyone who has lost income due to the pandemic and its flow on effects (e.g. people who need to undertake childcare now). It’s supposed to cover employees, self-employed people, and contractors more generally.

You can apply either through Service Canada or through the CRA. Nearly a quarter of a million people did on the first day you could apply, and only those born in the first few months of the year could apply (to try and manage the tide of applications).

Positives: It’s easy to access because it’s built on the principle of “presumed eligibility” – it’s set up to assume people who apply should be receiving it and so it’s granted quickly. Apparently, it’s being paid quickly.

The checks on eligibility will come later, which I think is a pretty good decision in these circumstances, though I hope the checks aren’t arduous and I hope repayment schemes are flexible.

• The government did the right thing by merging together the previous Emergency Care Benefit and Emergency Support benefit

• Simplicity is key!

The second reason I like it is that the government has continued to widen eligibility as they come across more groups of people who are excluded – so we’re heading towards something closer to universality (though we’re not there yet). Expansions:

• Just yesterday, the government announced it would expand eligibility to workers who are still working but earning $1000 or less a month, including seasonal workers who have run out of EI during the pandemic.

• This helps gig workers and independent contractors – at least in the short term (Sunil Johal has a good piece on this on the Policy Response blog)

• More is coming for post-secondary students too as this group was initially left out – so we’ll see.

There are, though, some problems with it:

• Remember our janitors – many of whom are precarious? They might be able to get it but

• Anyone who QUITS their job is also ineligible – so if you quit because you don’t want to work in unsafe conditions, you won’t get it.

• the undocumented group is rules out as you need a valid SIN to access it

  • this one is tough – it makes sense that the grant is being run through the tax system – administratively this is easiest. I’d be curious to know if there are ways around this.

• Anyone who was unemployed before the pandemic, receiving some income support from their province, isn’t eligible and is receiving a LOT less (ODSP pays out at $1169 a month for a single person, OW is even less). These people now face even tougher labour markets.

• In Ontario, people getting social assistance can get one-off emergency assistance to help with costs relating to the pandemic (e.g. transport, food, clothing, cleaning supplies) but these are capped at $100 for a single person and $200 for families. 

• There’s variation across the provinces too which is the result of having this be a provincial responsibility rather than federal.  

Wage subsidy program

So the other main tranche of the government’s response is the wage subsidy program, which many countries have put in place (notably not the US), including the Netherlands.

In Canada, businesses and people who are self-employed can receive a subsidy covering 75% of wages for up to three months. The government expanded this to businesses of all sizes after criticism the size rules were unhelpful.

The idea behind wage subsidies, which Zucman and Saez championed in a recent New York Times article, is to protect jobs and minimize labour market mayhem later. Wage subsidies help to “freeze” the labour market for some, meaning less re-matching/job applications and hiring to do later. That kind of makes sense.

However there are some problems with this:

• It might just retain shitty jobs

• It might prevent any positive kinds of alignment towards a new economy, new models of consumption and production…

• In New Zealand there have been a ton of issues with this – employers are “trusted” to pass it on to workers, but many haven’t been, or haven’t been paying the non-covered percent.

Effects on social services more generally

Social services that support people struggling with poverty are facing a really hard time – they have had to change their service models quickly AND possibly face insecurity around contracts and funding for the long term. The Globe and Mail’s daily update at the end of March ad a section on the effects for Canada’s charities

• So far I think there has been no federal financial aid for these organizations* (note: the Federal government announced additional funding after the podcast was recorded)

• Many have had to lay off staff.

This is an area of real concern – a lot of these organizations are the closest to people who are struggling right now.

Thinking long-term post crisis (!?)

This podcast is about ethical consumerism writ large

I’m not the first person to ask whether this is our chance to make a transition to a greener economy and a stronger, more progressive welfare state. I mean, I hope so?

In some ways, the rate of job destruction does suggest we have a chance to rethink our production and consumption needs – what do countries want to produce and consume, and what kinds of jobs should people be doing as a result?

• What this will do to people’s priorities and political values long term

• What it will do in terms of responses

  • Short term measures reveal governments’ priorities

  • And then what will happen long term?

Benefits need to be decoupled from employment status, otherwise benefits accrue mainly to the middle class, not the worst off (which is of course why governments and many voters like them).

The pandemic is making a pretty good case for universal social assistance set at a decent level for everyone below a certain wealth and income threshold. There is a Boston Review piece by Stuart White that argues for a wealth floor and that was also quite convincing – the idea is that everyone needs some wealth that provides them with coverage for hard times, extra costs, or the ability to fully participate in politics (in the US), invest in education, and similar.[xix] It sounds freeing to be honest – especially when you consider the cognitive burden of poverty.  

Endnotes

[i] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Severe Outcomes Among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) — United States, February 12–March 16, 2020.”

[ii] Grant and Anderssen, “‘These People Are Dying, Gasping for Air.’”

[iii] Bureau of Labor Statistics, “American Time Use Survey-2018 Results”; Carpenter, “Millennial Women Are Working More. But They’re Still Doing Most of the Housework.”

[iv] Burkeman, “Dirty Secret”; Office for National Statistics, “Women Shoulder the Responsibility of ‘Unpaid Work.’”

[v] Government of Canada, “Proportion of Women and Men Employed in Occupations, Annual.”

[vi] Duhatschek, “‘Self-Isolation Is an Abuser’s Dream’ | CBC News.”

[vii] Gillis, “COVID-19 Having ‘a Profound Effect’ on the Lives of Canadians, Survey Shows.”

[viii] Government of Ontario, “Helping Women Flee Domestic Violence.”

[ix] Eligon et al., “Black Americans Face Alarming Rates of Coronavirus Infection in Some States.”

[x] Health Canada, “ARCHIVED - Migration Health.”

[xi] Hynie, “The Social Determinants of Refugee Mental Health in the Post-Migration Context.”

[xii] Timothy, “Coronavirus Is Not the ‘great Equalizer’ — Race Matters.”

[xiii] Vu and Malli, “Anything But Static.”

[xiv] Arnold and Bongiovi, “Precarious, Informalizing, and Flexible Work: Transforming Concepts and Understandings.”

[xv] CBC Radio, “Why the ‘invisible Workers’ Cleaning up COVID-19 Need Better Labour Protection | CBC Radio.”

[xvi] Herd and Moynihan, Administrative Burden: Policymaking by Other Means.

[xvii] Employment and Social Development Canada, “Section 1: Applying for Benefits.”

[xviii] Bramwell, “Training Policy for the 21st Century: Decentralization and Workforce Development Programs for Unemployed Working Age Adults in Canada,” 402; Vosko, “The Challenge of Expanding EI Coverage | The Mowat Centre,” 33.

[xix] White, “We Need a Wealth Floor, Not Just a Wealth Ceiling.”

Reach out to Alix by following her on Twitter.

Check out our other episodes on COVID-19:
Kristen and Kyla React to COVID-19
Ten Unexpected Effects of COVID-19
COVID-19, Wildfires, and the Climate Crisis
Art, Artists, and COVID-19

Episode 20 - Kristen's Notes on COVID-19 and Inequality

For this episode, we were joined by the brilliant Alix Jansen. Alix is a PhD Candidate in Political Science at the University of Toronto. Her work focuses on welfare states and the political economy of skills in advanced industrial democracies. Alix did a lot of preparation for this episode. And she was kind enough to send us her notes! We wanted to give those notes the attention that they deserve, so we gave them their own research note. Check them out by clicking here.

Alix’s Bio

Alix Jansen is a PhD Candidate and a Connaught International Scholarship holder at the University of Toronto. She specializes in the study of welfare states and the political economy of skills in advanced industrial democracies. She contributes to the research outputs of Future Skills Canada and the Innovation Policy Lab at the University of Toronto. A former Fulbright Scholar, she has international experience in interview-based research concerning work and the welfare state. Her dissertation project focuses on the distribution of retraining to unemployed workers in Canada, the US, Denmark, and the Netherlands. She has also worked as a Senior Advisor for the Ministry of Social Development in New Zealand, where she specialized in operational policy and active labour market policy.

COVID-19 and Existing Inequalities

Pandemics have a way of revealing the problems and weaknesses in society. What are some issues that come to your mind when you think of the inequalities that COVID-19 is exposing? Themes: age, gender, race, economic inequality.

One of the things you said when we were preparing for this episode was that the axes of inequality become clearer when we look at the effects of the pandemic at work. Can you explain what you meant by that?

Is there a particular story or moment that sticks out in your mind when it comes to the unequal way that COVID-19 is affecting people?

White Collar Quarantine

Let’s break down the concept of white collar quarantine a bit. First, class plays a role in who gets to stay at home during the pandemic. Can you talk a bit more about that?

But it’s not just about who has to go to work. The experience of the pandemic can be very different depending on your life circumstances – how comfortable your living spaces are, whether you have access to the outdoors, and even the ability to social distance when you go out. On this, check out the Toronto artist who built a “social distancing machine” to illustrate how the sidewalks are too narrow for people to safely get essential goods and services. Then of course there are the challenges faced by vulnerable people, including those experiencing homelessness (see my Ricochet op-ed on this here); prisoners; and elderly people.

Prisoners

Over 100 inmates and corrections officers at Canadian federal institutions have tested positive for COVID-19. At least 25 of those are at one facility in BC (the medium-security Mission Institution). Given these concerns there have been calls by health professionals to release as many inmates as possible. That is especially important because prisoners are more likely to be medically vulnerable and to have infectious diseases like hepatitis C and HIV. 25% of the prison population is either elderly or people with pre-existing health conditions.

Guards also feel unsafe: there has been at least one work refusal action by guards in a Canadian correctional facility.

The Criminal Lawyers’ Association and the Union of Safety and Justice Employees have also called for low-risk prisoners to be released. So far, as far as I can tell Ontario is the only province to have done this. Ontario released 2,300 inmates from provincial jails (a drop of about 28% in the total population). These are people in jail for non-violent offenses and that are at low risk to reoffend. (I think jail is where you are before you’re convicted). A few American states have also released some inmates from jails.

Prisons are also using segregation and solitary confinement as a means to control the virus, which raises mental health and prisoner’s rights concerns.

Long-term Care Facilities

In Canada at least, long-term care homes have become the centrepiece of the pandemic. The stats are changing every day, but about half of Canada’s COVID-19 deaths are linked to long-term care facilities. In Quebec, 70% of COVID-19 deaths are linked to long-term care facilities and seniors residences. And we have heard gruesome stories of neglect in facilities such as Residence Herron.  

Unemployment/Debt

The pandemic is also an economic crisis, and that is something that certain groups of people are feeling especially acutely. What are some of the ways that this pandemic is likely to make our economy less equal? Themes: unemployment, unequal access to safety nets, difficulties for new entrants to the job market, and debt. In the US, 22 million unemployment claims have been filed in the last four weeks.

Policy Solutions

And what about the policy solutions to-date: are there actions governments could take that would mitigate these problems? Any countries that you think are doing particularly well or particularly badly? Spain is considering a permanent move to universal basic income, but there are still a lot of questions around whether the program will really be universal and unconditional.

How should we think about the economic problems posed by the pandemic? Themes: to what extent do policy responses increase job security and decommodify basic needs; universal basic income and the Canada Emergency Response Benefit; lowering administrative burdens for applicants;

Canadian Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Carla Qualtrough, had an interesting response the other day: she said the decision to have some barriers was because they felt having a substantial targeted benefit of $2,000 would be better than having an open policy that was smaller in scope. What would you say to that? 

Long-term Legacy

Ok, so the pandemic has revealed a bunch of problems with our society and it has forced countries around the world to come up to temporary solutions to these kinds of policies. To what extent do you think those actions will create a legacy? In other words, could we see a paradigm shift after this? Themes: which policies will stick around; the 2008 recession; the Green New Deal/Green Recovery.

It will be interesting in the long-run to see whether this crisis produces greater calls for revenue-raising and tax fairness (wealth tax, higher corporate tax rates, more progressivity in income tax) or whether we see a period of protracted austerity that further undermines the welfare state.

Check out our other episodes on the pandemic:
Kristen and Kyla React to COVID-19
Ten Unexpected Effects of COVID-19
COVID-19, Wildfires, and the Climate Crisis
Art, Artists, and COVID-19

Episode 18 - Ten Unexpected Effects of COVID-19

1. Crimes

Drug Cartels

According to a Vice article, COVID-19 is making it really difficult for drug cartels like the Sinaloa Cartel to make and distribute their products. The raw ingredients for manufacturing meth and fentanyl are primarily sourced from China (and in particular Hubei Province), so drug makers have been running low on essential materials for a little while. And even when they can get materials, the price is elevated.

Border restrictions are likely to make it difficult for them to move their product, which is typically smuggled in cars and trucks. “One trafficker who works for El Mayo in the border city of Mexicali told VICE News that last week they went from smuggling around 15 kilos of meth and heroin per week to five due to lack of supply and increased enforcement on the U.S. side.”

A drug dealer in Hamilton, Ontario was arrested for conducting a non-essential business during the pandemic (and also charged with drug trafficking and proceeds of crime).

However, we don’t want to make too much light of this situation because it has real harms. Increased prices are bad news for people with addictions, who will seek out the drug regardless of the cost.

Other Crimes

There has been at least one high-profile heist that has occurred during museum shut-downs – a Van Gogh painting was stolen from the Singer Laren museum in the Netherlands. But in general, muggings, burglaries, and home invasions have decreased because people aren’t out on the streets and because people are conducting transactions online.

On the other hand, declining access to street prostitution may increase online prostitution sites that feature trafficked and enslaved women. So, the kind of prostitution that is being carried out during the pandemic is likely to be worse for women.

Likewise, there are concerns that increased screen-time, coupled with health and economic anxiety, could increase online radicalization.

2. Car Accidents

People aren’t going out as much, so there are fewer car accidents. In Phoenix, Arizona car accidents in the last two weeks of March were down by 75%, as compared with the first two weeks of March. California collisions have gone down by roughly half, according to reporting by the LA Times and Quartz. In Seattle, car accidents have also been halved.

On the other hand, when car crashes do occur during COVID-19 they put first responders at risk of infection. For instance, a paramedic in the Peel region of Ontario has tested positive for COVID-19 after being exposed at a crash site.

3. Domestic Violence

Unfortunately, for some people “stay at home” orders have made life a lot less safe. Domestic violence tends to increase during periods when families spend more time together, such as Christmas and summer vacations.  

Now that families worldwide are in lockdown or being asked to stay at home, domestic abuse hotlines have seen an increase in call volume. For instance, French police reported a nationwide increase in domestic violence of about 30% (36%, according to another source). In the UK, domestic abuse calls have increased by 25%.

The Canadian government has contributed $40 million in emergency funding for women’s shelters, to help address the expected uptick in domestic violence. A further $7.5 million has been given to the Kids Help Phone so that they can hire more counsellors and volunteers to deal with the overload during COVID-19.

This funding is great, but we wouldn’t be in such a crisis if Canada’s regular systems for addressing family violence weren’t so broken. For example, a CBC investigation recently found that women and children are turned away from shelters in Canada almost 19,000 times every month. In September 2019, Maclean’s put out an investigative report by Anne Kingston on the crisis of domestic violence in Canada. Even before COVID-19, Canadian domestic violence was at an “epidemic level”, the five-year average having increased 40%. The report “found a response mechanism structured to fail – a lack of data, inconsistent record-keeping, systemic disconnects, lack of accountability and failure of political will.” They found an “underlying lack of concern for the human rights and safety of women and children” amongst law enforcement, the courts, and public perception.”  

4. Recycling

It is expected that residential waste collection may increase by 30% with more people staying at home and excess material from panic buying (stock home syndrome). And that same projection predicts that recycling contamination could increase by as much as 20%.

The increase in household waste requires recycling pickup and processing to increase, which is causing some disruptions in a few US cities.

And, of course, the demand for single-use plastics is going up as reusable options are prohibited.

Quote from Emily Atkin, who runs a climate change newsletter called HEATED: “The plastics industry is, after all, aggressively pushing for more single-use plastics in the era of coronavirus—and the science they’re using to justify it is shaky at best. And more generally, what are the effects of all this trash we’re generating?”

What Emily Atkin is referring to here is lobbying by the Plastics Industry Association to promote rules against reusable bags during the pandemic. According to her reporting, the studies that they are using to justify these claims actually does not demonstrate that there is a greater threat to consumers when they use reusables versus single-use plastic. And, in fact, if your reusable bag is not made of plastic it may actually be safer, because COVID-19 can last for a long time on plastic.

COVID-19 is also changing recycling procedures – there are fewer specialized recycling pickup options. London, Ontario is even asking sick people to avoid recycling altogether!

5. Armchair Activism

This is just a funny story and I wanted to share it. Apparently quarantined school children in Wuhan, China tried to get their homework app (DingTalk) taken off of the App Store by review-bombing it (giving it lots of one-star reviews). They were almost successful, but unfortunately it’s still up.

6. Climate Change

People have been talking about “silver linings” of COVID-19 in the form of improved air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. You may have seen satellite images of declining air pollution (e.g., nitrogen dioxide concentrations in Italy, air pollutant levels in San Francisco).

But these are temporary and likely to be offset by slingshot effect as countries race to re-grow by slashing environmental regulations. Environmental activists are pushing to ensure that recovery plans are green, but they may not be successful in every case. Also, our failure to address air pollution and other environmental problems has made people more vulnerable to COVID-19.

At the same time, the pandemic has really slowed the momentum of climate activism. April was supposed to be the Global Month of Climate Action, with climate strikes and other protests planned around the world. While activists have found ways to work online, the inability to physically protest has made their work more difficult. And with the pandemic dominating the news at this time, it is difficult to talk about the climate crisis. Yet it is vitally important that we do: “The Corona crisis is a 100-metre race and the climate crisis is a marathon. We have to run both at the same time.” Victor Galaz, Stockholm Resilience Centre.

Can COVID-19 provide lessons for how we can address climate change? Optimistically, some people observe the extraordinary measures taken to protect people and see an opportunity to extend that approach to the climate crisis. It also teaches the lesson that delaying is deadly. But we’ll see.

7. Olympians

Canada was the first country to say that their athletes would not participate in the Tokyo Olympics if they were held as scheduled this summer. The move created pressure such that the IOC postponed the Olympics to 2021.  

So, that’s obviously bittersweet for a lot of Olympians. Training for 2020 would have been very difficult under existing lockdown and social distancing rules. (Also, not getting COVID-19.) But on the other hand, many athletes may lose their chance to compete as a result of this.

An article in Burnaby Now by Lori Ewing and Donna Spencer highlighted the thin financial margins of Canadian Olympic athletes. Fortunately, Canadian athletes are still able to access their 2020-2021 monthly Athletes Assistance Program cheques, which offer between $1,060 and $1,765 per month (which by the way is about half of CERB funding). But prize money is often the main source of income for athletes. And the current shutdown of sport worldwide means athletes aren’t earning that prize money.  

8. Workers’ Rights

There are good and bad news stories on the effect of COVID-19 for workers’ rights.

On one hand, COVID-19 is accelerating the “Amazonification of the planet”. We’re all ordering online more, and mostly from online platforms like Amazon. Amazon is temporarily hiring 100,000 people in the US to deal with the increase. This shift could increase the percentage of the workforce that is doing precarious work in the long term – at the same time as the pandemic has highlighted inadequacies in worker protections for the precariat.

On the other hand, the pandemic is revealing the importance of workers – especially workers in the so-called “low-skilled” category. These workers have been declared essential, meaning they are among the few that have had to continue going to work during the pandemic. They are putting themselves at risk and are starting to receive more respect.

This increased public recognition of essential workers has pushed some retailers to raise pay, at least temporarily. For example, four Canadian grocery chains (Metro, Loblaws, Empire – which runs Sobeys, IGA, Safeway, Foodland, etc. – and Walmart Canada) have implemented temporary wage increases for workers. Amazon has also temporarily raised wages for its Canadian workers.

COVID-19 has demonstrated the importance of unions, who are pushing for worker safety protections across an array of industries. For instance, the LiUNA union has been pushing for increased enforcement to ensure worker protection for Canadian construction workers (construction was declared essential work in Ontario). The United Food and Commercial Workers union has pushed for safety measures for grocery store workers, such as protective shields at tills, limits on the number of customers allowed in stores, and security personnel to enforce social distancing, as well as the hazard pay raise that has been implemented in many chains. And nurses unions have been sounding the alarm about the need for adequate personal protective equipment.

At the same time, non-unionized workers have been mobilizing. Some people have likened this situation to the increase in peasants’ living conditions after the Black Death and the resulting Peasants’ Revolt.

Amazon warehouse workers in Europe and the United States have been striking and protesting to assert their need for safety and good working conditions. In Staten Island, NY, for example, workers walked out of an Amazon warehouse to demand that the facility be shut and cleaned during a paid time off after a co-worker tested positive for COVID-19. Oh, and a leaked internal memo shows that Amazon planned to discredit the strike leader as “not smart”. They also fired him. These kinds of walkouts are happening all over America. Likewise, Whole Foods workers (Whole Foods is owned by Amazon) in the US are undertaking rolling strikes/walkouts to demand safeguards against COVID-19. Instacart workers have also gone on strike. They are asking for $5 in hazard pay per order and a tip default on the app of at least 10% 

9. Ebola

The DR Congo’s tenth Ebola epidemic appears to be drawing down (for reasons unrelated to COVID-19). The systems put in place during the Ebola epidemic may help DR Congo to address COVID-19. However, there is a risk that WHO will wind down the response too early and that could put people at risk.

10. Inequality

There are so many links between COVID-19 and inequality that the topic deserves its own episode. But I did want to tease the discussion by highlighting recent reporting on how inequality makes it more difficult for some people to social distance.

The New York Times used location data to examine how inequality affects social distancing. They found that people in the top 10% of income have limited their movement more than the bottom 10% in the same metropolitan areas.

Given that, it’s no wonder that we’re already seeing inequalities play themselves out in COVID-19 deaths. In Louisiana, for instance, more than 70% of COVID-19 fatalities have been African Americans, even though this group makes up just 32% of the population.

Oh, and also this is fucked: two top French doctors proposed on live TV that vaccines should be tested on impoverished African populations.

Check out our other episodes on COVID-19:
Kristen and Kyla React to COVID-19
COVID-19 and Inequality with Alix Jansen
COVID-19, Wildfires, and the Climate Crisis
Art, Artists, and COVID-19

Episodes 12, 13, and 14 - Clothing

People

Fast Fashion

Fast Fashion has gotten a lot of buzz recently. Hasan Minhaj devoted an entire episode of The Patriot Act to it. CBC did a documentary on fast fashion, called Fashion’s Dirty Secrets. There have also been books published on fast fashion, like Fashionopolis by Dana Thomas or Over-Dressed by Elizabeth Cline.

Zara is often the brand people think about when they think of fast fashion. It is the world’s largest fashion brand, producing more than 450 million items in 2018.[1] Zara was a pioneer in fast fashion, and it has changed the apparel business paradigm. Other retailers have since gotten on board.

Essentially, under the model of fast fashion, brands take designs from top-tier fashion designers. Then they produce a cheaper version with worse fabric and sell it at low prices to middle-market consumers.[2] It’s called fast fashion because production and sales have been sped up.[3] Between 2000 and 2014, the number of garments doubled: 100 billion garments are now produced annually.[4] That amounts to fourteen new garments annually for everyone on the planet.[5]

In a way, fast fashion has democratized or massified fashion – bringing high design to regular consumers. But fast fashion has also caused a lot of problems

As a result of fast fashion, we have lots of poor-quality clothes and we don’t wear them for very long. On average clothing is worn seven times before being disposed of,[6] mostly to landfill. Shoppers buy five times more clothing now than they did in 1980.[7] In 2018, the average consumer bought 68 garments.[8] 

French designer Jean Paul Gaultier has said: “The system doesn’t work… There aren’t enough people to buy them. We’re making clothes that aren’t designed to be worn. Too many clothes kills clothes.”[9]

Offshoring and the Fractured Supply Chain

Another important change, to set the context, has been the globalization of clothing supply chains. This change is often called “offshoring”, which basically means relocating factories in countries with low labour costs. Offshoring has changed the industry dramatically over the last thirty years. In 1991, 56.2% of all clothes purchased in the United States were American-made. By 2012, it was 2.5%.[10]

And today that supply chain is not only offshore, it’s also fractured. Fabric is woven and dyed in one place, cut in another, sewn somewhere else, and then zippers and buttons are attached in another location.[11] Brands rarely own the factories that make their clothes. They contract to suppliers, who often subcontract to other suppliers.

Together, this creates challenges for ensuring workers’ safety and rights. And that matters: “fashion employs one out of six people on the globe, making it the most labor-intensive industry out there – more than agriculture, more than defense. Fewer than 2 percent of them [garment workers] earn a living wage.”[12]

The fashion industry’s supply chain has roughly six stages:

1.     Planting and harvesting the raw materials (e.g., cotton)

2.     Weaving the fibre into cloth

3.     Finishing and shipping the cloth to distributors

4.     Producing the garments

5.     Shipping finished products to the warehouse

6.     Distribution from the warehouse to the storefront

Within each of these stages, there can be different steps. For instance, dyeing isn’t included in here, but it will occur in most cases. For blue jeans the supply chain will also typically include distressing at a washhouse. These steps may occur in different locations.

Sweatshops

The garment industry has had sweatshops since the Industrial Revolution. In the 1830s, the invention of the lockstitch sewing machine made possible mechanization of clothes-making.[13]

Cotton mills in particular were horrorscapes. Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote about the conditions they observed in cotton mills, where death, mutilation, rape, and illness were common. Engels was so horrified by what he saw that he called mill work a new form of enslavement.[14]

One of the most famous incidents in historical sweatshops was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, which took place in 1911. 146 employees died in that fire (123 women and 23 men). The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire was NYC’s worst workplace disaster until 9/11.[15]

After a lot of activism, workers’ protections were introduced. In America, Frances Perkins, Labour Secretary under FDR, introduced a number of legislative protections for workers, which cleaned up the manufacturing industry.[16]

Unfortunately, when production moved offshore in the 1990s, “the old-style sweatshop system came roaring back to life.”[17] The EU is still a major apparel exporter, but most garments are exported from Asia. China is the top apparel supplier, followed by the EU, Bangladesh, Vietnam, India, Hong Kong, and Turkey.

Offshore sweatshops today look a lot like the sweatshops of the 1800s and early 1900s. They are hot, unsanitary, dusty, and unsafe. There is often no food or clean drinking water. Workers work long hours for low wages. They often don’t get breaks and are forced to work overtime for no pay. Buildings are often locked. Workers sometimes can’t talk to each other. And as most workers are women while most supervisors are men, sexual assault and rape is endemic.

In wealthy countries like the US and Canada, there are domestic sweatshops, too. When the FDR-era reforms got rid of legal sweatshops, sweatshops became less common – but they didn’t disappear entirely. There are still sweatshops in wealthy countries, but they exist illegally and are run by organized crime. Because of their illicit nature, these sweatshops are also hubs for human trafficking and money laundering. [18] Domestic sweatshops are a particular problem in the US, and especially LA, because of the large undocumented immigrant population. About half of the apparel manufacturing workers in LA are estimated to be undocumented workers who make as little as $4 per day.[19]

Rana Plaza

Beyond the generally shitty working conditions, there are still frequent sweatshop disasters on the same scale or larger than the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire.

One of the most famous ones took place in Bangladesh in 2013. On 13 April 2013 there was an explosion at the Rana Plaza garment factory. It ripped a hole in the wall. Engineers wanted to condemn the building immediately, but the owner refused.[20] The next day, workers returned. The power went out and, as backup generators went on, the building began to quake. Then, “It went down.”[21] Rana Plaza was the deadliest garment factory accident in modern history. 1,134 people died and another 2,500 were injured.

The infuriating thing, though, is that it was the third high-profile sweatshop disaster in Bangladesh within three years. A December 2010 fire at the That’s It Sportswear garment factory killed 29 and injured more than 100. Gap had just finished inspecting the factory.[22] In November 2012, a fire at the Tazreen Fashion factory killed at least 117 and left 200 injured.[23] Sears, Walmart, and Disney products were produced there. Overall, between 2006 and 2012, more than five hundred Bangladeshi garment workers died in factory fires.[24]

After a 2010 fire, NGOs created the Bangladesh Fire and Building Safety Agreement. It went unsigned until winter 2012.[25] Then, a handful of companies signed on when ABC News ran a story on the 2010 fire. Most other brands did not act until after the Rana Plaza explosion. And even then, a number of brands went with a watered-down voluntary agreement called the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety, which was not legally binding.

There have been some changes since Rana Plaza, but unsafe sweatshops still exist there.[26] And as of 2017, 95% of buildings in Dhaka still do not have a fire exit. A recent study found that firms support factory safety but aren’t willing to increase prices, so factories have to absorb these costs themselves. And although the incidence of sweatshops went down after Rana Plaza, there are still problems of low wages, long working hours, overtime, abusive supervision, and union busting. The optimistic way of framing this is that activism and public pressure can work, but it needs to be sustained in order to really generate progress.

A garment factory fire in New Delhi killed 43 people in December 2019.

Child Labour

The garment industry is also a hotbed for child labour. Child labour has been an unfortunately common practice in the apparel industry going back to the advent of mechanized clothing production. Lots of sweatshops have children working in them.

For example, in 2016 “H&M, Next, and Esprit were found to have Syrian refugee children sewing and hauling bundles of clothes in subcontracted workshops in Turkey.”[27]

Sometimes children are lured from their homes to work in sweatshops. For instance, a report by the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) and the India Committee of the Netherlands (ICN) found that: “recruiters in southern India convince parents in impoverished rural areas to send their daughters to spinning mills with promises of a well-paid job, comfortable accommodation, three nutritious meals a day and opportunities for training and schooling, as well as a lump sum payment at the end of three years.” (from the Guardian) But in reality, “Girls and young women are being lured from their home villages by false promises and are working under appalling conditions amounting to forced labour” (SOMO and ICN).

Bangladesh, China, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Thailand, and Uzbekistan are particularly notorious for child labour in the textile and garment industry.

Child labour occurs at different phases of the supply chain, from the production of cotton seeds (Benin), cotton harvesting (Uzbekistan), yarn spinning (India), and “cut-make-trim” garment production in factories (Bangladesh). An investigation by SOMO found that 60% of the workers at spinning mills in India were under 18 when they started working there (the youngest workers were 15).

Forced and child labour in Uzbekistan’s cotton industry is particularly egregious. “Every year […] approximately 1m people – including teachers, doctors and students – are dumped in Uzbekistan’s cotton fields to pick “white gold”. They are taken from their jobs and their schools, sometimes threatened with expulsion or dismissal or physical violence, and compelled to meet quotas to help the government earn some hard cash.” (From the Economist) This is a unique case of state-sanctioned mass mobilization of child and forced labour.

The Uzbekistani government sets cotton quotas. If famers don’t fulfil their quotas they can be kicked off of their land. But farmers can’t afford extra farm hands for harvest, so state officials order state employees (e.g. doctors and nurses) and students into the fields. A study by the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London found that between 86 and 100 percent of schools in the districts that they studied were subject to compulsory recruitment of children in grades 5-9 (ages 11-14). Students were employed in the cotton harvest for between 51 and 63 days without breaks and under unsanitary, unhealthy, and nutritional conditions.

The Responsible Sourcing Network has convinced 314 companies to pledge to eliminate Uzbek cotton from their supply chains. You can check out the list of brands here. As a result of advocacy efforts, the export of Uzbek cotton has been reduced from 2.5 million bales to 0.7 million bales in the last decade. The pledge was launched in 2011. American Apparel, as of December 2019, still has not signed the pledge. It is one of the last remaining American brands to do so. Polo Ralph Lauren is another non-signatory. I also did not see Roots Canada on the list.

Outside of Uzbekistan, child labour in the garment industry may not be state-sanctioned, but this does not make it any less harmful.

Forced Labour

The fashion industry is also one of the biggest sources of modern slavery. The Walk Free Foundation estimates that $127.7 billion USD worth of garments imported annually by G20 countries are at-risk of modern slavery.

Last year it was revealed that China is operating forced labour camps in Xinjiang province. Uighurs detained in “re-education camps” are reportedly working in factories producing cars, cotton, and clothing. Brands so far have said that they haven’t found evidence that the labour in these factories is forced, but investigative journalism has come to a different conclusion.

Women’s Rights and Sexual Assault

Fast fashion is fundamentally a gender inequality issue. Approximately 80% of workers in the garment industry are women between the ages of 18 and 35.

Rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment are big problems in sweatshops. For instance, a study by the Fair Wear Foundation and Care International found that 43% of women interviewed in Vietnamese factories said they had suffered at least one form of violence and/or harassment in the last year. Research by ActionAid found that 80% of garment workers in Bangladesh have either seen or directly experienced sexual violence or harassment in the workplace.

So Why Is Everything So Shitty? 

Here is where the fractured supply chain comes in: when disasters and abuses like these happen, brands often claim that they are not responsible, that the sweatshops in questions were not authorized suppliers. Basically, big brands have approved suppliers, and those approved suppliers subcontract to sweatshops. When a scandal happens, brands that claim to be sweatshop-free will “often claim they had no idea their “approved” contractors were subcontracting to sweatshops.”[28]

Are Things Getting Better?

Not really, no. These problems are fundamental to how fast fashion works: there is a need to get clothes made really quickly and really cheaply. People and the environment inevitably suffer.

There have been some changes, though. The first industry shift was a move toward supplier codes of conduct. In the mid-1990s, American apparel brands faced criticism over offshore sweatshops. “In response, some started drafting “codes of conduct”: a list of standards that a company expects its suppliers to respect.”[29] Levi Strauss approved fashion’s first code of conduct in 1992.[30]

The independent audits that are used to enforce the codes aren’t great. Visits are often announced in advance. And the monitors themselves have no oversight, so things like bribery can happen.[31] Still, this IS progress. In 1998 about 15% of company codes of conduct included freedom of association and collective bargaining, and now nearly all do. [32]

Another big move is transparency: it is becoming more common for brands to publish supplier lists.[33] Fashion Revolution and other NGOs have been instrumental in pushing fashion brands to be more transparent.

How You Can Act to Promote Human Rights in the Clothing Industry

Fashion Revolution

Fashion Revolution promotes a more ethical and sustainable fashion industry. Their manifesto is pretty holistic (it covers dignified work, fair and equal pay, labour rights, cultural appropriation, solidarity, environmental impact, the throwaway culture, transparency and accountability).

Fashion Revolution was founded in reaction to the Rana Plaza disaster. It is most well-known for publishing an annual Transparency Index. But Fashion Revolution also organizes Fashion Revolution Week and runs the #whomademyclothes and #imadeyourclothes campaigns.

Fair Wear

Fair Wear is an organization that is working to promote worker and human rights in garment production. They focus on the sewing, cutting, and trimming processes because those are the most labour-intensive parts of the supply chain. 133 brands have signed onto the Fair Wear Foundation’s Code of Labour Practices. You can check them out here.

Environment

The environmental impact of clothing comes from three different stages of production: the impact of producing the fabrics from which clothing is made; the impact of moving those fabrics around, turning them into garments, and selling them; and the impact of clothing disposal.

Fabrics

Fashion’s environmental footprint is mostly from manufacturing textiles – so, growing or making, then spinning, dyeing, and finishing the fabrics.[34] Examining the environmental impact of clothing means looking at the different fabrics that make up our clothing. The most commonly used fabrics in clothing today are cotton and polyester. They make up 75% of the global fibre market.[35]

Polyester

Polyester is everywhere. It is present in 60% of clothing.[36] There has been a 157% increase in the use of polyester between 2000 and 2016.[37] That is because polyester is the backbone of fast fashion: “it is the cheap, easy-to-produce material that an industry built on low price and speed depends on.”[38]

Polyester is plastic. It is made from fossil fuels, which are non-renewable and contribute to climate change. The demand for polyester and other plastics drives investment in petrochemical refining.[39]

Polyester has a huge waste problem. Because it is plastic, polyester does not readily biodegrade. And we really have no plan for what to do with the massive volumes of polyester we are producing. Right now, only a very small amount of polyester clothing uses recycled plastic, and typically this is from plastic bottles rather than plastic clothing.[40] And of course, go back to our laundry episode to hear more about how it sheds plastic microfibres.

Given that polyester is everywhere, if you want to buy the best version of the stuff, try to seek out recycled polyester or polyester that is certified hazardous substances free.[41]

Other synthetics – Spandex, Nylon, Acrylic, Polyurethane, PVC

There is a variety of synthetic fibres in clothing, and they are all slightly different. Nylon is present in 5% of clothing, making it the second most common synthetic fabric, next to polyester. Acrylic is the third most common synthetic material. It is present in 2% of clothing. It is a cheap alternative to wool. Spandex makes stuff stretchy. Polyurethane is used in things like coatings and faux leather

Most synthetics seem to have problems with carcinogens, and they all take a lot of energy to make.[42] As with polyester, Elizabeth Cline recommends looking for synthetics with safe-chemistry labels, as well as recycled synthetics.[43] She also recommends avoiding all polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which is used for vinyl and some faux leather, since it often includes a chemical that is linked to endocrine disruption.[44]

Cotton

Cotton makes up about a quarter of global fibre production.[45] The majority of cotton is grown in China, India, and the United States.[46]

Cotton can be tricky to grow, so usually it is farmed with a lot of pesticides and fertilized. As a result, cotton uses about 6% of all pesticides, which is more than any other major crop.[47] Twenty percent of insecticides are devoted to producing conventional cotton, even though it is grown only 2.5 percent of the world’s arable land.[48] The WHO has classified 8 out of 10 of America’s most popular cotton pesticides as hazardous.[49] These pesticides can poison workers, as well as the people and environment around cotton farms (when it gets into the air, water, and soil).[50]

Cotton is also super thirsty. Growing one kilo of conventional cotton requires 10,000 litres of water (2,600 gallons). And processing cotton requires even more: about 5,000 gallons for a t-shirt and a pair of jeans.[51] The good news is that organic cotton can be grown with up to 91% less irrigated water than conventional cotton.[52]

And almost 60% of all cotton is grown in water-scarce regions.[53] That means stuff like this happens…

The Aral Sea in Central Asia was once the world’s fourth largest lake, but today it has almost completely dried up. That is because in the 1950s the Soviets began using the rivers that feed the Aral Sea to irrigate surrounding agricultural area. It is a practice that has continued into today. As the Aral Sea has dried, it is releasing salts and carcinogens into the air, which has caused throat cancer and respiratory diseases for people in surrounding villages. How is this relevant to the fashion industry? Well, because the river is being used to irrigate 1.47 million hectares of cotton.

Where you can, try to find organic and/or fairtrade certified cotton, as well as recycled cotton.[54]

Viscose Rayon (Cellulosic Fabric)

This fabric type will show up on labels in a variety of ways, including viscose, rayon bamboo, modal, lyocell, eucalyptus, and Tencel. Some of these are identical and others are slightly different. But basically, all of these fabrics are made by chemically dissolving food from eucalyptus, beech, or bamboo trees; the chemical pulp is then reformed into a fibre.[55]Viscose or rayon (which are the same thing) makes up about 70% of this category of fibres.[56]

Cellulosic fabric and its compatriots are essentially a cheaper cousin to silk or cotton. Cellulosic fabric is also often marketed as ecologically conscious or sustainable, even though it may not be. So, you really have to be careful about greenwash with these fibres. There are some forms of viscose rayon that can be more sustainable (like lyocell).

Cellulosic fibres take a lot of energy to produce and the materials have a higher greenhouse gas impact than the manufacture of polyester or cotton.[57] They also produce a lot of waste: 70% of the tree becomes waste in the manufacturing process.[58]

And cellulosic fabric is driving deforestation. Ancient and endangered forests are being used in the manufacture of these fabrics. This includes the Amazon and Indonesia’s rainforests. But Canada’s boreal forests and Great Bear Rainforest are also being threatened by these practices. The NGO Canopy is working with clothing companies like Levi Strauss & Co., Marks & Spencer, and H & M to protect forests.

If you are going with a cellulosic fibre, try to look for lyocell (also called Lenzig Tencel), since it is the most sustainable cellulosic fabric. Look also for safe-chemicals certifications, and buy from brands that are working with Canopy.[59]

Wool and Leather

Although we did not focus on animal welfare in this episode, it is worth noting the environmental impact of animal-based fibres.

Leather has a big carbon, water, and land use footprint – we’ll do a full episode on leather, but let’s just mention that here.

Wool can be sustainable, or it can be bad for the environment – a lot depends on where it is produced and how the animals are raised.[60] Although there are different wools out there, sheep’s wool is 95% of the market.[61] Cashmere comes from goats.[62] Wool production can cause erosion when animals overgraze.[63] Cleaning raw wool creates high quantities of wastewater.[64] Also, it produces a lot of methane.[65] On the other hand, wool lasts longer than most other fabrics, so Elizabeth Cline recommends buying timeless wool products and mending them to make them last.[66] She also suggests buying organic and safe-chemicals-certified wool.[67]

Check out our Winter Gear episode to learn more about choosing between animal and synthetic materials.

Bast Fibres (Linen, Hemp, Jute, Ramie, Flax): Best Fibres

Linen is the oldest known fabric. It is a natural fibre, cultivated from the flax (linseed) plant. Together, bast fibres are about 5.5% of the global fibre market.[68] Bast fibres use less energy and fewer chemical inputs, so these fibres can be cultivated sustainably.[69] There are few environmental issues with purchasing these fabrics, but why not also look for recycled or organic bast fibres?[70]

Buying Conscious Fabrics

Whichever fibre you choose, there are a few certifications that you can look for to signal effort on one aspect of environmental stewardship.

The first set of certifications are safe-chemicals certifications, which guard against the use of hazardous materials. Some common safe-chemicals certifications include: Cradle to Cradle (C2C) Oeko-Tex, and Bluesign-approved.

Next, organics standards prohibit the use of pesticides. Some organics labels to look for in clothing include: Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS), Organic Content Standard (OCS), and Cradle to Cradle (C2C) certified.

You can also look for fairtrade member and certified products. Fairtrade essentially means that the workers producing a product have been paid fairly and experience some level of safety in the workplace. See our sugar episode for more on fairtrade certification, but one label we will mention here is Fair Trade USA.

Garment Production and Distribution

Water Use

The fashion industry uses a lot of water. “If fashion production maintains its current pace, the demand for water will surpass the world’s supply by 40 percent by 2030.”[71]

Emissions

Fashion also has a big emissions footprint. Apparel and footwear production accounts for 8.1% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. And clothing production is growing at a swift pace, meaning that emissions from textile manufacturing are projected to grow by 60% by 2030.

Some companies try to use carbon offsets to improve their image, check our episode on this subject to see where we land on that.

Pollution and Hazardous Chemicals

We talked about plastic microfibres in our laundry episode. But it is worth remembering that synthetic fabrics pollute waterways when they break down in the washing machine.

In addition to plastic microfibres, toxic chemicals are a big problem in the clothing industry. 46 million tons of chemicals are used to process textiles annually, and ten percent pose a potential risk to human health.[72] Some are even linked to cancer.[73]That is a problem for worker health and the environment, as well as for us because chemicals can remain on the clothing that we buy.

In 2011 Greenpeace released a report revealing that suppliers of major clothing brands are polluting the Yangtze and Pearl River deltas with toxic, hormone-disrupting chemicals. The report focuses on pollution from two facilities in China (the Youngor Textile Complex and the Well Dyeing Factory Limited). Greenpeace took samples of wastewater discharges from the two facilities and found that alkylphenols and perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) were present in the wastewater. These two facilities were linked to major brands including Abercrombie and Fitch; Adidas; Bauer Hockey; Calvin Klein; Converse; H&M; Lacoste; Nike; and Puma.

Greenpeace followed up this report with another one on the presence of nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) in clothing. Their analysis of clothing bought from 15 leading clothing brands, and found that two-thirds tested positive for the presence of NPEs above the limit of detection.

Why are NPEs bad? NPEs wash off of the clothing and break down into nonylphenols, which then accumulate in the food chain. Nonylphenols are hella toxic. So even though NPEs are banned in some places… they can still end up in the water supply when people wash clothing produced with NPEs elsewhere.

Tools for Seeking Out Conscious Brands

If you are interested in finding conscious brands, there are some tools out there to help!

The Good on You App and website rates the ethics and sustainability of fashion brands. Done Good is a web directory of conscious fashion brands. You can buy directly from the website. Rank A Brand assesses and ranks consumer brands on sustainability and social responsibility. There is, of course, also Fashion Revolution’s Fashion Transparency Index, which focuses on supply chain transparency. (For more on this, see our very first episode!) And you can also consult the Ethical Fashion Report. 

End-of Life

We, as a society, are throwing out so many clothes. Every second, the equivalent of one garbage truck of textiles enters landfill or is burned, which amounts to a $500 billion USD loss in value due to clothing waste. In the United States, 23.8 billion pounds of clothes are thrown in the garbage annually, which is about 73 pounds per person![74] Clothing is the fastest-growing category of waste in US landfills.[75]

In addition to the problem of waste from landfilling clothes, this can be an environmental problem. Natural fibres slowly decompose. When they are trapped in the landfill, they release methane, which is super bad for climate change.[76] Synthetic clothing can take hundreds of years to biodegrade, but the hazardous chemicals they are made out of can be released into the air or ground as they slowly break down.[77] For every 2 million tons of textiles we keep out landfills, we can reduce carbon emissions equivalent to taking 1 million cars off the road.[78]

Escaping Fast Fashion

Trying to incorporate ethics in clothing can be overwhelming. But the overall message to take is that we do need to reject the mentality of fast fashion, since the business model itself is causing a lot of problems.

More than 70% of the average wardrobe is going unworn.[79] Being more intentional about your wardrobe is an important first step. And, of course, just wearing what you have for longer is the biggest way to have an impact. But if you’ve got a fast fashion wardrobe full of shitty materials that wear out quickly, that can be tricky. So, what do you do?

You can work towards building a conscious closet.

The Conscious Closet

What is a conscious closet? According to Elizabeth Cline, author of The Conscious Closet: “A conscious closet is a wardrobe built with greater intention and awareness of our clothes, where they come from, what they’re made out of, and why they matter.”[80]

There are lots of different tools and strategies to build a conscious closet, and the mix that works best for you will be different than for everyone else. But Cline identifies three Fashion Personality Types that can help to guide you. Minimalists buy for keeps, have a more timeless look, and want to cut clutter from their lives. Style Seekers are maximalists; they want statement pieces and lots of change. Traditionalists are somewhere in the middle.

There are six components of a conscious closet:

1.     For-keeps: clothes you already own, love, and want to keep wearing;

2.     New-to-you: swapped, borrowed, handmade, hand-me-downs, resale, secondhand, thrifted, vintage;

3.     Rentals;

4.     Quality: timeless pieces that are built to last;

5.     Better Big Brands: clothes by the big brands that are on the right path, compared to their peers; and

6.     Conscious Superstars: the most pioneering, ethical, and sustainable brands.

Conscious Closet Inventory and Cleanout

Cline suggests starting with a Conscious Closet Cleanout, which is a good way to really examine what you own, how often you wear it (if at all), what it’s made of, et cetera. But this isn’t like Marie Kondo-ing your wardrobe. Cline wants to emphasize that you should not throw anything away.

We reproduced this impact inventory card from Elizabeth Cline’s book, The Conscious Closet.

Here are some quick tips for doing a conscious closet cleanout. First, purge by season. Focus on in-season clothes only. So, look at sweaters in winter and sundresses in summer. Your decision-making will be better this way. Also, it will be easier to responsibly deal with end-of-life (donation etc.) if the clothing is in-season. Next, if you love it, keep it. Don’t shame yourself for things you’ve already bought. Building a conscious closet takes time. Third, pay attention to what you wear most, and why they make you happy.

Eventually you will want to find your magic wardrobe number – how many clothes you need, which will be different for everyone. Cline suggests that minimalists can be happy with 50 pieces or fewer, but style seekers might want 250+ items and that’s okay. You can use a fashion fast or a capsule wardrobe to get a better sense of what your number is. De-cluttering your wardrobe is an important element of building a conscious closet, but you don’t want to go too far.

When deciding what to get rid of, here are a few tips. Aim for balance and look for things that go together. Look for pieces that don’t go with anything else. Then, either find a way to make them work or prune them. Cut back on trendy pieces. Learn from items you’ve never worn. When you are eliminating bad fabrics, focus on which fabrics wore out more quickly and what brands produced them. If you are even a little unsure, keep the item for a while and give it another go. And repair items if you can!

Reuse Plan

When you are getting rid of clothes, how do you deal with it responsibly? Cline calls this a “Reuse Plan”.

There are four different ways that you can consciously get rid of clothes, but you need to really think about the item, and which is the best fit.

1.     Donate or give away: do that when clothes are in a clean and wearable condition.

2.     Sell or swap: do this for your highest-value, on-trend, and in-season pieces when they are in pristine condition.

3.     Repair: do it where you can and either keep it for yourself or put it in one of the first two categories.

4.     Recycle: when items are worn-out beyond repair, do this.

Donations

Charities only sell about 20-25% of what we donate. The rest gets exported overseas or downcycled (turned into mattress stuffing, insulation, or rags). [81]

Exporting clothes sounds nice, but it is actually a big problem. Used clothes exports have tripled in fifteen years – the US exports 1.7 billion pounds of clothes annually.[82] Most exported clothes go to sub-Saharan Africa, where second-hand dealers distribute and sell it.[83]Although this sounds nice, the volume and low quality of the apparel that is donated means that those second-hand dealers aren’t able to make a living anymore; many are living in extreme poverty.[84] And ultimately a lot of this stuff ends up as garbage. One NGO found that 40% of all used clothing imported to Ghana is immediately landfilled rather than worn or resold.[85]

So, how can you donate effectively? Investigate first: make sure that you are giving to a reputable charity. Vet clothing donations bins. You can do this by looking for bins that are clearly marked with the organization’s name and going to their website. Find out what their acceptance policies are and where they send the clothes that they collect. Depending on what you are donating, you can often donate directly to those in need: homeless shelters, crisis centres, and churches. If you can meet a direct clothing need, this can help assure that your donation won’t end up in a landfill.

For example, Kristen’s building has a Diabetes Canada bin. The website says that their clothes are collected by the linked social enterprise National Diabetes Trust. It delivers clothing to Value Village, though, and they are not transparent about where unsold clothing goes. Kristen didn’t love this option.

Dress for Success Toronto is a charity that provides support, professional attire, and tools to help women achieve economic independence. Dress for Success international has a high (91.4%) charity rating. Kristen ultimately decided that this was the best option for the item she wanted to donate (a pair of dress pants).

It is also crucial that you follow basic used clothing etiquette. First and foremost: always, always, always clean your clothes first. It’s the best way to keep them from ending up as trash. Remove personal belongings from pockets. And tie your shoelaces together! That way the shoes don’t lose each other when they go through re-sorting. You should also mend and repair donated clothing whenever possible. Tears and stains often result in immediate landfilling: usually clothes aren’t getting repaired by the second-hand market. And never leave your donations outside unattended, because they can get rained on and then they will be landfilled.

Recycling

Most clothes are recycled through downcycling: the clothes you recycle are turned into lower-quality products like rags or insulation. That doesn’t solve the waste problem because these still eventually end up in a landfill. But it does increase the length of their lifespan, and that is good.

There are companies working on recapturing cotton that can be used again in exactly the same way as virgin fabrics, which is neat. Hopefully in the future that will be possible and affordable!

For now, though, how do you recycle clothes responsibly? If you are donating your clothes to major charities or thrift shops, a lot of it is likely already being recycled.[86] But ask to make sure! Kristen asked her local Value Village and found out that they do not do this: unsold items get shipped to Africa, where they are most likely landfilled.

There are also in-store garment recycling options. Brands (like Patagonia) sometimes will recycle or repair their own clothing, taking responsibility for end-of-life. A few other brands offer to take and recycle clothing of all brands. Depending on where you live, you may also be able have municipal clothes recycling, so look into this.

In Toronto, where Kristen lives, there is not a municipal clothes recycling program. But H&M, American Eagle, Puma, and North Face all have recycling programs that will accept any brand of clothing. All four brands use the same company (I:CO) to sort and reprocess the clothes, so is very likely that it makes no difference which of these programs you use. Clothes donated through this program are most likely to be downcycled, assuming they are in good enough condition.

Selling and Swapping

If you want to resell your clothes, you have a few options. You can use an online service that takes on the process of selling clothes for you, like thredUP and the RealReal. You can try to sell clothes yourself online through websites like Poshmark. Or you can sell in person through consignment stores.

The types of clothing that do well in the resale market include: on-trend and recent purchases; luxury and designer brands; and in-season items. If you bought something but never wore it and the tags are still on, resale might be a good option – especially if it is from a high-end brand.

Bypass resale if your clothes are damaged; if they are basics; or if they are kids’ clothes, menswear, or workwear. These do not sell well.

You can also organize a clothing swap with friends or a community group. Cline has some suggestions in her book for setting up a clothing swap. But here is another article with quick tips.

Clothes Rentals

Clothing rentals can be a great option if you are the kind of person that needs a lot of trendy pieces in your wardrobe. There are lots of options for renting from clothes rental companies, as well as a few where you can rent items from your wardrobe.  

There are basically two different kinds of clothing rental options: onetime rentals and monthly subscription plans. Rental companies will clean and repair clothes, so no worries there. With rentals, there are shipping and packaging concerns to think about. But this is minimal in comparison to the environmental impact of making clothes.

Your location will determine what your clothes rental options are. In Toronto, there are a few companies.

Dresst is a Toronto-based clothing rental subscription company. When you purchase a membership, you can rent a set number of items for each month. At the end of the month you return the item(s) and they clean it and rent it to someone else. Dresst charges $49/month for one item or $99/month for three items.

Fitzroy is a dress rental company in Toronto. If you are in need of a luscious party gown, this is a great option. Most of the rentals were around $100.

Reheart is a rental website where you can lend or rent. As a lender you get a cut of the profits from renting your item (less than 50%, but Reheart deals with cleaning et cetera). It can be a good way to de-clutter.

Escaping fast fashion is about valuing your clothes more, from the time you are deciding whether to purchase (or rent) them until you have responsibly disposed of the item. Try to think about clothes as an investment, rather than something disposable. Ultimately, you’ll save money and love your wardrobe more!

Endnotes

[1] Thomas, Dana. (2019). Fashionopolis: The Price of Fast Fashion and the Future of Clothes. New York: Penguin Press at p.1.

[2] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.31.

[3] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.31.

[4] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.34.

[5] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.35.

[6] Thomas, Fashionopolis.

[7] Thomas, Fashionopolis.

[8] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.3.

[9] Cited in Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.36.

[10] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.5.

[11] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.35.

[12] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.6.

[13] Thomas, Fashionopolis.

[14] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.45.

[15] Thomas, Fashionopolis.

[16] Thomas, Fashionopolis.

[17] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.47.

[18] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.41.

[19] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.40.

[20] Thomas, Fashionopolis.

[21] Shila Begum, worker at Rana Plaza, quoted in Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.57.

[22] Thomas, Fashionopolis.

[23] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.55.

[24] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.54.

[25] Thomas, Fashionopolis.

[26] Thomas, Fashionopolis.

[27] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.6.

[28] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.42.

[29] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.50.

[30] Thomas, Fashionopolis.

[31] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.51.

[32] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.65.

[33] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.65.

[34] Cline, Elizabeth. (2019). The Conscious Closet: The Revolutionary Guide to Looking Good While Doing Good. NY: Penguin Randomhouse.

[35] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[36] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.199.

[37] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.199.

[38] Cline, The Conscious Closet at p.162.

[39] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[40] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[41] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[42] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[43] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[44] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[45] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[46] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[47] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[48] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.70.

[49] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.70.

[50] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[51] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.71.

[52] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[53] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[54] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[55] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[56] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[57] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[58] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[59] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[60] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[61] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[62] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[63] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[64] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[65] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[66] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[67] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[68] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[69] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[70] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[71] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.71.

[72] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[73] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[74] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[75] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[76] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[77] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[78] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[79] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[80] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[81] Thomas, Fashionopolis at p.194.

[82] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[83] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[84] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[85] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

[86] Cline, The Conscious Closet.

Episode 10 - Sugar

This episode featured the inimitable Alexandra Sundarsingh, a PhD student in the History Department at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Lex is an historian of food, migration, and labour. She is also part of the Canadian debate illuminati, which is how she and Kristen became friends. Lex highly recommends that you check out the book Sweetness and Power by Sidney W. Mintz – which Lex drew on for some of the information in this episode. (Actually, Lex wants you to gift this book to pretty much everyone you know; we’d endorse that).

We were really excited to link Lex’s expertise on the history of sugar to some of the present-day practices of the sugar industry. So, the research note below focuses primarily on modern human rights abuses in the sugar industry. There is also some information about sugar and the environment, which Kristen collected but did not discuss – like, y’all, we had been recording for two hours and we thought, ‘Let’s maybe save this for a future episode.’ But we’ve put the notes here just in case you want to know what we found.

Background

What is sugar?

Sugar (sucrose) is produced from two major sources: sugarcane and sugar beets. We did not talk about corn syrup (fructose) in this episode, but it could have (probably will have) an entire episode to itself. We also didn’t talk about maple syrup.

Sugarcane is a grass that reaches 10-20 feet. It grows in warm, humid conditions, typically near the equator. It is a perennial. Sugar beet is a 3-5 pound off-white root crop. It can grow in temperate climates with warm days and cool nights. More than 145 million tonnes of sugar is produced annually in 120 countries.

Here are some different kinds of sugar:

·      Granulated sugar: pure sucrose, the most common form of sugar;

·      Icing sugar: powdered granulated sugar with cornstarch to prevent caking;

·      Brown sugar: produced by crystallizing the golden coloured syrup (before purification?) or mixing molasses syrups with white sugar

·      Liquid sugar

·      Other specialty sugars (e.g. plantation raw, organic)

How is sugar made?

Sugar-making is a multifaceted process. Briefly, here are the steps of the process:

·      Sugar plants are cultivated and harvested;

·      Then they are washed and sent to sugar refineries for processing;

·      Processing sugar starts by slicing sugar beets or crushing sugar cane;

·      Then the sugar is extracted by essentially stewing the sugar in hot water to make a juice;

·      Next, the pulp is removed;

·      Then the sugar is purified using a lime solution and concentrated by boiling it at a low temperature;

·      After a thick juice is produced, it is crystallized, spun in a centrifuge, and dried/cooled;

·      Finally, the sugar is packaged and distributed.

There’s a really good video on sugar beet production from How It’s Made. If you are interested in making your own, here is a link to a DIY process. To be honest, though, it seems a lot less efficient than the manufacturing process. But hey, if you’ve got sugar beets on-hand, you do you. The fibre that remains as a by-product of the sugar refining process is used to generate electricity, or it can be manufactured into paper goods or pelletized for animal feed.

Where does our sugar come from?

Most of the sugar that we consume (60-70%) worldwide comes from cane sugar, while the remainder is from sugar beet. Depending on where you live, that proportion can be very different. Fun fact: sugar beet rose in popularity as a result of a blockade of French trade lines during the Napoleonic wars.

The top five global sugar cane producers are Brazil, India, China, Thailand, and Pakistan. If we’re talking about both kinds of sugar, the only major change is that the EU takes third place. Brazil alone accounts for more than half (52%) of the world’s sugar market. 

Almost all Canadian sugar (90%) is from imported raw cane sugar. The remaining 10% is beet sugar, mostly from Alberta. When we import the raw cane sugar, it is processed by Canadian refineries in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver.

Albertan sugar beets are processed by a Canadian company called Rogers Lantic – the product of a recent merger of an east coast sugar company (Lantic) and a western Canadian company (Rogers). All Canadian sugar beets are processed by a refinery in Taber, Alberta. If you’re buying Rogers sugar with a black stamp on the bag that starts with the number 22, you’re buying Albertan beet sugar. There is also some sugar beet production in Ontario near a processing plant in Michigan.

Canada’s sugar industry is essentially dominated by Rogers-Lantic and Redpath Sugar. There are Canadian sugar refineries in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and BC. Aside from the Taber facility in Alberta, Canadian sugar refineries all process cane sugar.

Labour Abuses and the Sugar Industry

Human rights and cane sugar farming

Historically, sugar cane has well-documented links to slavery. But what are the practices today? Well, in short: it’s not great. Child labour, forced labour, and bonded labour are still prominent facets of sugarcane cultivation today.

Children between the ages of five and fifteen are engaged in child labour on sugar plantations. They may work as unpaid family helpers or migrate with their parents to find work on commercial plantations during harvest season. In El Salvador, for example, Human Rights Watch found that nearly all of the boys aged fourteen and older harvested sugarcane. And it’s important to remember that this is dangerous work.

Sugarcane may be produced using forced labour in Bolivia, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Myanmar, Pakistan, India, and Guatemala, according to Know the Chain. In Brazil, there are approximately 25,000 – 100,000 people in slavery, virtually all of whom are involved in agricultural work. Sugarcane production is one of the major sources of Brazilian slave labour. Most slaves work on estates in the extremely remove eastern Amazon region, occurring out of view of the population. As researcher Justin Campbell describes:

“Enslavement typically begins with a hired contractor, known as a gato, who recruits impoverished men from the slums of large cities or poor, rural villages. By offering cash up front and the promise of decent wages, he is able to entice these men to leave their homes for work on a distant estate. The men are then driven hundreds or thousands of miles to a remote ranch or plantation, where they are informed that they are in debt for the costs of transportation, food provided on the trip, and even tools. The debts are never erased; the illiterate workers have little recourse and are thus enslaved.”[1]

Research by the Conversation found that even among Bonsucro-certified sugar mills in Brazil (where workers are required to provide at least the legal minimum wage) workers’ earnings fall short of what is needed for a decent standard of living. Sugarcane is sometimes called the “hunger crop” for the poverty experienced by plantation workers.

And more generally, sugarcane workers experience negative health impacts. There was recently an epidemic of kidney disease across Central America, with rates rising by as much as 41% in some places (Nicaragua; 27% in Guatemala; 26% in El Salvador; 16% in Costa Rica). The suspected cause was heat stress from working in unsafe conditions on sugarcane plantations.

Canadian sugar beets and Japanese-Canadian internment

Canadian history: so fun! So many human rights abuses! Did you know that some of the Japanese-Canadians that were interned during WWII were forced to work on beet sugar farms? Well, they were. About 4,000 Japanese-Canadians were sent to work on sugar beet farms in Alberta and Manitoba to fill labour shortages (of about 12,000 total interned). Fuck you, William Lyon Mackenzie King.

Canadian sugar beets and the exploitation of Indigenous people

From the 1940s to the 1980s, thousands of Indigenous families were recruited to work on sugar beet farms across the prairies. Essentially, farmers would go into northern Métis reserved to offer families work harvesting sugar beets. Labour conditions were horrendous – 12-14 hour shifts with no food or water and very low pay. Living conditions were just as bad. In some cases, families received no accommodations and slept in their trucks. In other cases, they slept in tents. Indigenous workers were also subject to racism. Families continued to return because they had few other alternatives. The Department of Indian Affairs would cut off social assistance and apprehend children if they did not work on the sugar beet farms.

This practice only stopped when journalists with the Winnipeg Tribune exposed the labour conditions in Winnipeg in 1975. After that, Indigenous farm workers organized to demand better conditions. That struggle, in combination with the availability of farm machinery, ended the practice in the mid-1980s. (So yeah white Canadians did effectively nothing)

Labour practices on beet sugar farms today

What about human rights and sugar beets? We were not able to find a lot on this, but sugar beet farming today is mostly mechanized, so the labour practices are likely not so bad. However, this does prompt an ethical question of whether the guise of buying ethical – which if you’re buying beet sugar means buying from the global north – is perpetuating international income divides. That’s a tricky ethical question and at some point in the future we want to give it a full episode, because it’s a theme that we expect will recur.

For now, though, we’ll say this: we don’t think that buying beet sugar (or switching to substitutes like maple syrup) is really the right way to approach the problem. Definitely, switching to stevia is a bad way to go (see below). Instead, we think the best you can do is to: (1) support fair trade sugar and (2) support political change. More on fair trade later.

Labour practices in Canadian sugar refineries

It was tricky to find information about labour practices on sugar refineries. At least some sugar refinery workers are unionized, though. Lantic Roger’s Sugar workers in Taber, Alberta are unionized through UFCW (local 383); Lantic Suger workers in Montreal also unionized; and workers at Redpath sugar refinery in Belleville also unionized through UFCW. So even though labour issues might come up at sugar refineries, when we’re talking about labour abuses in sugar we are usually talking about sugar extraction – and mostly sugarcane extraction.

Environment and Sugar

The environmental impact of cultivating and processing sugar includes: loss of natural habitats; water use; agro-chemical use, discharge, and run-off; and air pollution (according to a study by WWF). Because sugarcane deteriorates as soon as it is harvested, it needs to be quickly transported to a refinery; in contrast, sugar beets can be stored for months.

Land use

We were unfortunately not able to find much on whether sugarcane or sugar beets are relatively more land intensive. Articles seemed to point to the fact that both divert land use. A European sugar lobby (le Comité Européen des Fabricants de Sucre) study found that sugar beets are 50% less land intensive, but this is a pretty biased source (Europeans grow sugar beet).

In 2019, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro lifted a ban on cultivating sugarcane in the Amazon rainforest and other areas of primary forest. This surprised even the sugarcane industry, which views the move as an unnecessary reputational risk. Sugarcane in Brazil is used for biofuel as well as sugar. Bolsonaro’s decision has been uniformly criticized by environmental groups. Sugarcane plantations threaten biodiversity and can cause deforestation.

Water use

Producing a 0.5 litre bottle of pop uses between 170 and 310 litres of water. Less than 1% of this is from the actual water in the final product. Most of the rest (95%) comes from the supply chain. A large portion of this comes from sourcing the sugar.

Sugarcane is a more water-intensive crop than sugar beet:

●      1 kg of sugar from sugarcane = 390 gallons of water

●      1 kg of sugar from sugar beets = 243 gallons of water

Oftentimes, to grow sugar producers will siphon water from local populations in water-stressed regions.

Air pollution

Harvesting process for sugarcane involves torching the fields to strip the crop of leaves. That causes air pollution.

Emissions

There is a lot more variability in how emissions-intensive sugar beets are, compared with sugar cane. At the high end, sugar beets and sugarcane are comparable. At the low end, sugar beets have a smaller carbon footprint. One of the big factors underlying this gap is transportation. Sugar beet is processed directly into white sugar (fewer steps than cane sugar) and generally at nearby factories.

Sustainability Labels for Sugar

Want to buy sustainable sugar? Here is some information about the ecolabels you might see.

Rainforest Alliance certification

Sustainable Agriculture Standard includes rules on biodiversity conservation; improved livelihoods and human wellbeing; natural resource conservation; and effective planning and farm management systems

Bonsucro certification

Bonsucro is a sustainability standard for sugar cultivation and processing. Producers must adhere to seven principles: obey the law; respect human rights and labour standards; manage efficiency to improve sustainability; manage biodiversity and ecosystem; continuously improve; adhere to EU directives; and organization of farmers (smallholder standard only).

Fairtrade

What is fair trade?

Fair trade is a set of movements, campaigns, and initiatives that have emerged in response to the negative effects of globalization, especially the often unjust and inequitable nature of international trade.[2] Fair trade began as a small church and Third World solidarity movement in the early postwar period.[3] Generally speaking, fair trade standards include values like decent and safe work, fair prices for producers, and sustainability

What fair trade labels are out there, and which is best?

There are five recognized fair trade labels: Fair Trade International (certified by FLOCERT); Fair Trade USA (certified by SCS Global Services); Fair for Life (certified by Institute for Marketecology (IMO)); the World Fair Trade Organization (a membership organization that recognizes its members by determining their adherence to 10 principles of fair trade); and the Fair Trade Federation (which is similar to WFTO).

Artificial Sweeteners

There are a bunch of artificial sweeteners out there, and we’ll do an episode on them sometime. But we do want to talk briefly about biopiracy and one artificial sweetener – Stevia – because it came up in the episode.

Stevia – Product of Biopiracy

Stevia is actually a product of biopiracy. Stevia rebaudiana is a plant native to eastern Paraguay and Brazil. Indigenous Guaraní peoples have traditionally used it to sweeten tea and medicine. In the late 1800s, stevia was identified in Western science as a sweetener.

Stevia is commercialized as steviol glycosides, which are ‘high-intensity’ sweeteners. Actually, it is not legal to sell Stevia leaves in EU, US, or Swiss markets. That is essentially because there has been little commercial interest in pursuing an approval process for Stevia leaves. Whereas steviol glycosides have been approved. “In practice this means that the products of large multinational corporations are able to access markets far more easily than products based on the traditional use of whole stevia leaves” (from the Bitter Taste of Stevia). Which is especially fucked because companies will play up the “natural” character of Stevia

The Guaraní have received negligible benefits from the global market for Stevia. This is in violation of their right to benefit from the use of stevia, as established under the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Nagoya Protocol. Today Stevia is grown in many countries outside of Paraguay. China is now the main producer and exporter of Stevia leaves. Stevia is primarily produced by smallholder farmers.

“In Paraguay, the average smallholder producer has only 5-10 ha of arable land available, and cultivates Stevia in crop rotation with other crops such as cotton, cassava, sesame or soy bean. Similarly, in China, Stevia is typically produced by contracted smallholders on plots of […] 667 square metres” (from the Bitter Taste of Stevia).

The largest Stevia (steviol glycosides) producers are the multinational corporations Cargill, Stevia First, and DSM. There is currently an effort to produce steviol glycosides through synthetic biology (SynBio) instead of producing them from leaves. Essentially, that would mean that you wouldn’t need to cultivate stevia farms to produce steviol glycosides. If that happens it could hurt smallholder farmers in Paraguay and elsewhere.

Sugary Drinks

Ethical Consumer recommends reducing packaging and food miles by making your own sugar at home, using Fairtrade and organic ingredients

But SodaStream has some of its own issues. It has been criticized for being complicit in Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights because of its operations in the West Bank. And it was recently bought by Pepsi, which has a number of ethically questionable practices.

Call to Action

Looking for something concrete that you can do? We’ve already recommended a few actions above. As a reminder, you can always seek out more ethical sugar by buying fair trade. It is also important to help keep human rights in the sugar industry on our political radar: tell your friends about what you’ve heard; stay informed; sign petitions and support organizations (like Know the Chain and Human Rights Watch) that work to uncover human rights abuses in sugar and elsewhere. But here’s one action we would recommend taking right now: contact your MP and ask them why Canada hasn’t ratified the Nagoya Protocol.

Endnotes

[1] Campbell, Justin. (2008). A Growing Concern: Modern Slavery and Agricultural Production in Brazil and South Asia. Human Rights and Human Welfare, https://www.du.edu/korbel/hrhw/researchdigest/slavery/agriculture.pdf, p.131-2.

[2] This is from an edited volume: Raynolds, Laura, Murray, Douglas, and Wilkinson, John. (eds.). (2007). Fair Trade: The Challenges of Transforming Globalization. NY: Routledge.

[3] Ibid.

Kyla’s Notes

An interesting and well-sourced article with more on how sugar affects the brain.

An idea of average sugar intake.

More on the Maple Syrup Heist.

More info on residential schools.

Even more info on residential schools, from Secret Life of Canada, a podcast we love.

Episode 06 - Beer

Beer is the fifth most consumed beverage in the world behind tea, carbonates, milk and coffee. Average global consumption is 23 litres/person per year.

Beer – what is in it and how is it made?

There are four main ingredients in beer: malt barley, hops, yeast, and water. Beer is derived from malted gains. Barley is the most usual grain, but wheat, rye, oats, and sorghum can also be used. Even in wheat beer the proportion of barley is generally over 50%. Malt provides the spectrum of colour to beer. Hops are made from the flower of the humulus lupulus plant, which is a species of flowering plant in the hemp family native to Europe, western Asia, and North America. They offset the sweetness of the malt barley. Yeast is the engine which creates beer through fermentation. Then, of course, you need water to brew beer.

To learn more, check out the steps of making beer here.

Major beer producers

The beer industry is an oligopoly with AB InBev and Heineken as the two top companies. AB InBev (Anheuser-Busch InBev) is the largest multinational beer company, with $55 billion USD in sales. It controls about 30% of the global beer market. AB InBev makes brands like Beck’s, Budweiser, Corona, Leffe, Stella Artois. Other major multinational beer companies include Heineken, Asahi Group, Kirin, Molson Coors, Carlsberg Group, and Thai Beverage.

You can find out whether your beer brand of choice is from one of these companies by going to https://isitbigbeer.com/ (although it is not comprehensive).

Beer and the Environment

Water usage

The brewing industry is one of the largest industrial users of water. 60-180 litres of water can be used to produce a litre of beer. This includes the entire life cycle of beer. One estimate suggests that the virtual water footprint of beer could be as high as 240L of water for 1L of beer. Within the brewery itself, a 5-to-1 ratio is common.

The main sources of water usage in beer production: upstream (producing and transporting raw materials, especially barley farming), operations (brewing and bottling), downstream (transporting and refrigerating the beer). More than three-quarters of the upstream environmental impact of beer is from (1) glass manufacturing, (2) barley production, and (3) malting. Big breweries are typically more water efficient than small brewers, generally speaking. However, some craft breweries are very water efficient.

Emissions

Emissions come from different stages of beer production. Brewery operations themselves are typically about 20% of overall emissions, but can be as little as 5% for environmentally-conscious breweries (according to Oxford Companion to Beer, Environmental Issues). The production of raw materials accounts for 47-63% of emissions. And packaging is 19-46%. The largest single impact in the beer supply chain is refrigeration at retail (25%).

Barley has a heavy environmental footprint. Using unmalted barley can reduce environmental footprint, as can using local organic barley.

Waste

The main sources of food waste from beer production are barley straw, malt waste, and spent grain.

Big or small: which is best?

Around half (46%) of the greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of brewing beer comes from indirect sources (barley agriculture, malted barley transportation, and bottle production). Generally speaking, large breweries are more efficient than small ones. The carbon footprint per litre of beer was more than double for craft breweries versus industrial production (in Italy).

Cans or bottles?

Bauxite is used to make aluminum, and it is often sourced from developing countries. Malaysia is now the top bauxite producer. Bauxite is typically strip-mined. And smelting aluminum is very energy-intensive. It is true that aluminum cans can be made of up to 70% recycled material (up to 40% according to the David Suzuki Foundation). Cans made with recycled materials can be more emissions efficient, as recycled aluminum uses only 3% of the energy required to produce virgin aluminum.

Glass bottles are made with silica (industrial sand and gravel), which is less energy intensive than making virgin aluminum. Glass bottles can contain approximately 30% recycled content. Manufacturing a 12-oz aluminum can is twice as energy-intensive as making a similarly-sized glass bottle.

However, aluminum cans are lighter, so they are less carbon-intensive to ship. Transporting a glass bottle emits up to 20% more GHG than a can if shipped cross-country. For this reason, the David Suzuki Foundation recommends that you use cans only if you are buying beer from far away.

Aluminum cans with plastic sleeves become an issue for recycling. These sleeves are often non-recyclable. It is also difficult to separate from the can, rendering it non-recyclable. So, the sleeves become a contaminant in the recycling stream, and can even lead to the can itself going to landfill. Craft breweries tend to use plastic sleeves because the minimum order for printing is usually pretty high.

Recycling glass is less efficient than recycling aluminum. However, glass bottles in Canada are often reused. Recovery rates are higher for glass bottles (97%, compared with 80%). In the US, this is different – cans are recycled more often than glass bottles.

In Canada, breweries can use “industry standard bottles” (IS-B). When they do, these bottled are cleaned and refilled an average of 15 times. The industry standard bottle program started by an agreement between Labatt and Molson in 1992. There were some early problems, but in 2001 the Standard Mould Bottle Agreement was struck. Signatories agreed to use only the IS-B for malt-based beverages sold/distributed in Canada in non-metal containers of less than 600ml. Around 50 Canadian breweries participating (including Molson Coors). Companies that sign on don’t have to pay provincial levies for non-refillables. The US has similar programs, but it is more prevalent in Canada. The emissions savings on washing/reusing a glass bottle versus melting and remoulding it is 92%.

So, what should you do? If you’re in Canada, buy beer in an industry standard bottle. If you’re in the US, buy an aluminum or steel can without a plastic cover. Either way, local is better. Try refillable kegs or growlers if your local brewery allows it.

Beer and Human Rights

We were not able to find much on beer and human rights, unfortunately. Maybe we will revisit this issue in a future episode. A few notes though. First, beer in aluminum cans also has the baggage of human rights abuses from bauxite production.

On labour practices in breweries, we looked a bit at unionization rates. All AB InBev beer made in the US is made by unionized workers. For other major producers, it’s a bit more mixed. You can find a list of union-made beer here. Craft breweries rarely employ unionized workers – in 2016 Gulf Island Brewery became BC’s first unionized craft brewery.

Kyla’s Notes

The colour changing gin she was drinking was Arbutus Blue Gin.
Vice published an article suggesting the higher the alcohol content, the higher the carbon footprint. Read more here!
Cider, the greenest alcohol?
While wine and beer are often not vegan (what? Why not, you ask? We talk about it more in our upcoming episode about Vegetarianism!), spirits are usually vegan unless honey or cream is used as an ingredient for flavouring.
The impact of wine on the environment appears to be ok! But this note is subject to change…
Some fun facts about different spirits!
Jobs in the alcohol industry, and revenue. And more fun revenue stats.
Alcohol’s death toll globally. And it’s health effects:
- From the WHO
- From Forbes

Episode 05 - Kyla and Kristen Ruin Christmas

Holiday Waste

The holidays are generally a wasteful time of year. The amount of garbage that we produce increases by about 25% over the holidays.

Christmas Trees and Ethics

If you live in the US, it’s likely that your Christmas tree is coming from Oregon, North Carolina, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. Oregon is the country’s largest Christmas tree producer, and cuts more than 6 million Christmas trees annually.

Environment

Around 80% of Christmas trees, at least in the US, are artificial. Most artificial trees made out of PVC (plastic) and metal (steel). There is a lot of information out there on whether it is environmentally better to get an artificial or real Christmas tree. Three factors that guide how environmentally friendly a Christmas tree is: ‘tree miles’, length of ownership, and disposal methods.

Some argue that Christmas trees aren’t so bad for the environment. A five- or six-foot tree takes just under a decade to grow and usually a tree is planted in its place.

Most of the articles out there on the environmental impact of real versus artificial trees draws on a lifecycle analysis commissioned by the American Christmas Tree Association (which represents artificial tree retailers). However, I read the report and it seems like it’s largely reasonable. They compare the most common artificial and natural Christmas trees purchased in the US. According to the study, the most commonly purchased artificial tree is manufactured at a large facility in China. It is shipped to the US and distributed by a major big box retailer. It is 6.5 feet tall and weighs 11 pounds). The most common natural tree is a Fraser fir. They assume a 6.5 foot tree cultivated on wholesale natural tree farms and distributed through large retailers. They assume that an accompanying tree stand is 10% metal and 90% plastic. The study covers three time periods of use for the artificial tree – 1, 5, and 10 years. They assume that the tree stand is used for the same amount of time as the regular tree. The study finds that, by energy intensity, an artificial tree is more energy efficient on a 5-year scenario. By GHG emissions, the study finds that – unless a tree goes to landfill – the artificial tree is better than natural trees on a 5-year scenario.

 If you are going with a live tree, try to get one that is Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified.

You can actually rent Christmas trees in some places. Essentially, you’ll get a live tree delivered with a root ball. Then it gets returned and is either rented again next year or permanently replanted. This option for sure exists in Ontario and BC. Oh, and using LED Christmas lights will save electricity.

Labour

Because Christmas tree farms require so much more labour over the holiday season, they use temporary labour – which means often long hours for migrant workers.

Wage theft in the Christmas tree industry has come up a few times. In 2002, there was a major court case over labour violations in the American Christmas tree and garland industry. Most of the workers were migrants from Mexico. One of the workers, for instance, was making $3.31 per hour (below the $5.15 federal minimum wage at the time) and working 80h per week. A similar issue came up in 2017. There are also fair trade tree options.

Ethical Gift Wrap

Can’t I just recycle my wrapping paper?

Paper gift wrap and cards can sometimes be recycled, but usually anything glossy or sparkly is not recyclable. A good rule of thumb is this: try scrunching the paper into a ball. If it scrunches and stays scrunched, it can probably be recycled. You will have to remove any sticky tape and decorations like ribbons and bows, since these cannot be recycled.

Putting non-recyclable gift wrap in recycling can contaminate an entire load of recycling, so you really want to avoid doing that. And even if your wrapping paper is recyclable, not every municipality will take it. Toronto does, but you should check with your local municipality before you put wrapping paper in recycling. If you absolutely must use disposable gift wrap, make sure it’s recyclable – and even better if it’s made from recycled material! – and minimize the amount of tape that you use. Remember to remove bows, ribbons, and tape before recycling.

If you do receive presents in non-recyclable gift wrap, try reusing it! A few ideas:

o   Roll onto empty tin cans for storing scissors, pens, and pencils

o   Shred and use in packaging or shipping to prevent breakage

o   Use to cover standard white photo frame mats

o   Save and reuse for next year 

Is reusable better?

Instead of going for single-use gift wrap, another option is reusable gift bags or fabric wrap. You can buy reusable bags. But you can also create your own pretty easily, either with or without a sewing machine.

However, you have to actually reuse the reusable gift wrap to make it worthwhile. I wasn’t able to find information on paper/plastic gift wrap versus reusable fabric specifically, but we can use an assessment on plastic versus reusable bags as a general approximation. A study by the UK government found that you would need to reuse a cotton bag 131 times to match the emissions of a plastic bag, because of the emissions intensity of cotton. (As a note, though, two other types of reusable bag only needed to be reused 4 and 11 times, respectively, to offset the emissions difference.

Depending on whether you take a sustainability or climate approach, you might decide that reusables are worthwhile or not. By emissions, it can sometimes be better to recycle (or even toss) a single-use item rather than reuse. But if you think about it from the perspective of honouring the earth’s resources, using a resource once and then having it burnt or sitting in landfill is not great. Planet Money did a pretty good two-parter on this a few months ago (Episodes 925 and 926).

If you are looking to make your own reusable gift bags, try using more sustainable fabrics like recycled cotton or hemp or linen! Or, upcycle old clothing by turning it into a reusable gift bag. 

Online Shopping and the Environment

A study done by Dimitri Weideli at the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics based on US figures found that in-store shopping has a larger carbon footprint than online shopping. However, rushed online shopping was worse than both in-store and regular online shopping. Most of an in-store shopper’s carbon footprint comes from the emissions used in transporting goods from the store. Having said that, the study assumes that consumers are driving to the store. Since I exclusively walk or use public transit, it is probably better for me to buy in-store. For online shopping, most of the carbon footprint comes from packaging. And for rushed online shopping, there is also a large footprint from air freight. (So, like, the fact that I had to express mail my gift to you probably makes the entire gift unethical)

Kyla’s Links

Kristen mentioned Planet Money episodes worth a listen, here they are!
The Wickaninnish Gallery where Kyla bought the paintings.
Vancouver’s waste free shop, Nada.
East York Meals on Wheels.
Metro Vancouver has some great tips on recycling and reducing waste.
Halloween Spending Reports.
6 million turkeys.
Thanksgiving weekend shopping figures.
Amazon pledges to be net carbon neutral by 2040.
Some clever tricks companies use to get you to spend more.
The Verge talks online shopping and package waste.
Amazon’s Profits.
CNN reports on the environmental impact of fast shipping.
Buzzfeed News looks at the environmental impact of Amazon and suggests ways we can be better.
Log Driver’s Waltz.

Episode 02 - Alternative Milks

What Are Alternative Milks?

Alternative milks are milk and milk products that are made from plants. They are also sometimes called vegan milk, plant-milk or non-dairy milks (or schmilks, if you’re a Science VS fan). The market for alternative milks is growing rapidly around the world. US non-dairy milk sales increased 61% between 2012 and 2017, according to a study by Mintel.

The most popular alternative milks are almond and soy milk (80% of market share in 2018). Soy milk is the traditional non-dairy milk. It was first sold in the US in the 1950s. But there are lots of alternatives (e.g., coconut, pecan, cashew, quinoa, hazelnut, rice, coconut, pea). Non-dairy milk alternatives can be cereal-based, legume-based, vegetable-based, seed-based, or nut-based. Oat milk is a relatively new entrant, but it ascending quickly in the alternative milk market.

Globally, the alternative milk market reached about $18.5 billion USD in 2018. By 2024, it is expected that the global alternative milk market will reach $38 billion USD, according to market research. Although this is a widespread trend, demand is growing the fastest in the Asia-Pacific region

Major alternative milk brands include Silk, Almond Breeze, and Rice Dream. Some newer entrants include Oatly, Califia Farms, New Barn Organics, Ripple Foods, Innocent, Mooala, and Malk.

Which Alternative Milk is Best?

Health

A big portion of the market for non-dairy milk is driven by health concerns. While this is a perfectly good reason to choose one product over another, we didn’t focus on it because it isn’t an ethical consideration. Non-dairy milks are not nutritionally equivalent to cow’s milk (although some vegan milks are fortified with nutrients like calcium, vitamin D, and vitamin B12 to make them more comparable).
Kyla mentioned a couple statistics on global lactose intolerance, including that “65% of the human population has a reduced ability to digest lactose after infancy”. You can read more about that at the US National Library of Medicine website.

Animal Welfare

All of the alternative milks we’re discussing are plant-based, but they may not necessarily be vegan. Many of them are, but some use honey or other animal-based substances in some of their products.  Usually the company’s website will tell you whether their products are vegan or not.

Environment

Assessing environmental impact is complicated. No single indicator can give us a holistic impression of what is environmentally best. Some common environmental indicators include land use, water use, emissions, and energy intensity. Generally speaking, dairy milk fares poorly on all of these environmental criteria when compared with alternative milks. But it gets a bit more complicated when it comes to choosing which non-dairy milk is the best.

Land Use: It’s a Matter of L and D

Cultivating a crop takes land, and that means diverting land use from other purposes. Agricultural land use contributes to deforestation and climate change because it requires the conversion of existing ecosystems like wetlands and forests, which are carbon sinks. There can also be social justice issues when agricultural land use pushes people out of their communities. Agricultural land use is a big challenge because of its scale: agriculture covers about 40% of the world’s land area. So, if you are concerned about environmental issues, it’s best to support an alternative milk that requires relatively less land to grow.

On land use, all four of the mainstream non-dairy milks do pretty well. They are all substantially better than their dairy counterparts. And the four main non-dairy milks - rice milk, soy milk, oat milk, and almond milk - all require relatively similar amounts of land to produce. However, oat and soy milk are slightly worse than rice/almond milk.

There have been some recent reports about deforestation and the displacement of indigenous peoples as a result of soy farming. This is absolutely a concern, but keep in mind that 90% of soybean crops go into animal feed. So, most of the land displacement occurring from soy is actually consumed indirectly in the form of chicken, pork, beef, farmed fish, eggs, and dairy.

Land use is also connected to other environmental consequences. Fertilizer run-off can pollute drinking water and accelerate eutrophication.

Oat milk is an interesting alternative from the perspective of soil sustainability. Some experts argue that increasing biodiversity in crop rotations can help farmers to use less pesticides. Since corn and soybeans are the two staple crops in the typical rotation, some experts suggest that adding a third crop (like oats) to the rotation can introduce big improvements for water pollution, soil erosion, and crop yields.

Emissions: Cashews Don’t Fart

Food production is responsible for a quarter of all human-produced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Dairy milk produces more than double the GHG emissions of its non-dairy counterparts, per glass. Amongst the non-dairy alternatives, there are minor differences - with rice milk at the high end and almond milk at the low end - but in general emission rates are similar.

Water Footprint

Water footprints measure the amount of water used to produce each of the goods and services that we use. It’s an important measure to think about, because so much of our water usage comes from indirect sources - from the water that is used to make the things that we buy. And it is especially important when we’re talking about food: about 90% of the water a person consumes comes from the food they eat or the water used to make it. We might drink 3 litres of water each day, but the average water footprint for a Canadian is 6,392 litres per day.

Water footprint is a big differentiator for alternative milks. Although almond and rice milk still have a smaller water footprint than dairy milk, they are much thirstier than soy and oat milk. A single glass of almond milk requires 74 litres of water to produce - more than a typical shower. This is because of the water intensity of the crop itself: almonds require six times more water to grow than oats.

As with most environmental metrics, it matters a lot where a crop is produced. That’s another thing that puts almond milk on the negative side of the ledger: almonds are a water intense crop produced mainly in California, a region which is at high-risk of droughts. And unlike crops that can be left fallow, almond trees require water even in drought years. In contrast, oat production is a lot less geographically concentrated.

Energy Use

We weren’t able to find much about the relative energy intensity of making alternative milks, unfortunately.

Labour and Human Rights

 Most of the information out there on non-dairy milk focuses on health and environmental sustainability. It was difficult to find information on labour and human rights, even though we know that agricultural workers can experience some of the most difficult working conditions.

1.3 billion people - approximately one-third of the global workforce are employed as agricultural workers. Agricultural workers are often employed informally, paid poorly, and subject to unsafe workplace practices. They are, somewhat ironically, among the most food-insecure. More than 170,000 agricultural workers are killed doing their jobs every year. And the risk of a fatal accident is twice as high in food production than in any other sector, according to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. Although most of the agricultural workforce is employed in developing countries, working conditions are also a concern in wealthy countries, who draw on temporary migrant workers for much of the workforce.

Generally speaking, crops like almonds and oats are less labour-intensive to harvest than fruits like avocados. But there are still significant labour concerns. And this is an area seems to be largely missing from the alternative milk conversation. Having said that, there are a few alternative milk companies out there that have ethical labour policies.

Oatly, a Swedish oat milk producer, sources its organic oats (it also uses conventional oats) from Swedish oat producers that have KRAV-certification. KRAV is a third-party organics standard that meets European Union organics regulations. KRAV also has labour and human rights provisions, including housing conditions for migrant workers.

One newer brand called REBBL, which makes plant-based “elixirs”, claims to ethically source its primary ingredients -- although they don’t use a specific certification scheme.

The Winner: Oat Milk?

Oat milk has become the darling of non-dairy milk advocates. It has three times the protein of almond milk and twice the fibre (according to Mother Jones). It uses less water - and grows in more places.

Is it better to buy or to make your own non-dairy milk? For our money, we would choose to make oat milk. It’s super easy, uses less waste, and you can control what goes into it.

Episode 01 - What is Ethical Consumption?

In this introductory episode, we explain what the Pullback podcast is all about. To illustrate how difficult it is to know what the right thing to do is, Kristen quizzes Kyla on the world of ethical consumption. If you are interested in trying the quiz, you can access it here.

Ethical Consumption Quiz

Below we include a bit more information on the themes from our ethical consumption quiz.

Ethical Consumer Labels

The first question is about ethical consumer labels. There are many of these labels, some with very robust standards and others with less rigour.

Most Effective Climate Solutions

We borrowed questions two and three from a a CNN quiz. CNN based the quiz on research done by a a group called Project Drawdown, which ranks climate change solutions.

Question two is all about food-related climate solutions. Even though throwing away less food was the most effective climate solution, the effect of eating a plant-based diet is similar. Specifically, Project Drawdown estimates the effect of the four food-based solutions as follows:

1.     Throw away less food: Similar to taking 495 million cars off the road;

2.     Eat a plant-heavy diet: Similar to taking 464 million cars off the road;

3.     Cook over clean stoves: Similar to taking 111 million cars off the road;

4.     Compost your waste: Similar to taking 16 million cars off the road.

Question three asks about waste-related climate solutions. Estimated effectiveness of the four waste-related solutions is as follows:

1.     Clean up chemicals in our refrigerators and air conditioners: Similar to taking 629 million cars off the road;

2.     Build with “greener” cement compounds: Similar to taking 47 million cars off the road;

3.     Use water more efficiently: Similar to taking 32 million cars off the road;

4.     Increase household recycling: Similar to taking 19 million cars off the road.

What’s the deal with refrigerants and climate? In the mid-20th century we used chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) in refrigerators. Unfortunately, we found out that CFCs and HCFCs destroy the ozone layer. So, in 1987 the international community came together and agreed on the Montreal Protocol, a treaty banning CFCs and HCFCs. Unfortunately, the refrigerants that have replaced the ozone-burning ones – hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) – are really potent greenhouse gases. They have a warming effect 1,000 to 9,000 times stronger than CO2.

HFCs are supposed to be phased out, per an amendment to the Montreal Protocol that came into force in January 2019. The Kigali Amendment sets a goal of reducing HFCs by 80% over the next 30 years, which could avoid up to 0.4 degrees of warming. The Kigali Amendment has been ratified by Canada, Australia, most countries in Europe, and a few African and Latin American countries. The United States has not ratified the Kigali Amendment. Nor have China, Brazil, and India, which are three risk priority countries.

Managing refrigeration chemicals was ranked as the number one climate change solution, not only in this category but overall, as identified by Project Drawdown. The top five climate change solutions identified by Project Drawdown are:

1.     Manage refrigeration chemicals

2.     Install onshore wind turbines

3.     Cut down on food waste

4.     Eat more plants and less meat

5.     Restore our tropical forests

What a Waste!

Question four is about waste. According to a USA Today article by Byrnes and Frohlich — which draws on the World Bank’s What a Waste Database 2.0 — Canada produces the most waste per capita.

Generally speaking, wealthier countries waste more. High-income countries account for 16% of the world’s population but generate 34% of the world’s waste.

But this is not necessarily in the form of garbage. Municipal solid waste (MSW) is, according to Byrnes and Frohlich, “waste generated from companies, buildings, institutions, small businesses, houses, and yards”. It is often less than 5% of total waste. Canada ranks 22nd in the world for MSW.

Most waste is from other “special” waste categories - things like industrial, construction, and agricultural waste. Canada ranked as the most wasteful country in both agricultural and industrial waste.

Ethical Mobile Phones

Ethical Consumer is a nonprofit that provides information for ethical consumers. Among other things, they rate companies and products on a range of ethical criteria. Their mobile phone ratings give major phone brands a score out of 20. Ethical Consumer considers a 14+ to be an ethical company to support. 5-13 is sort of the middle range and anything under 5 is ‘needs improvement’. Most phone companies are in the messy middleThis is a holistic score looking at people, politics, animals, and product sustainability. Question five asks which major phone brand has the lowest ethical score according to this rating.

Fashion Transparency Index

Question six asks about the 2019 transparency index. Fashion Revolution is a global nonprofit that is working to make the fashion industry safer, cleaner, and fairer. Every year it publishes a transparency index which rates the transparency of 200 major fashion brands. Transparency, as they define it, means “public disclosure of sourcing relationships and of companies’ social and environmental policies and practices, goals and targets, governance, performance and progress.” The Fashion Transparency Index benchmarks brands’ public disclosures across five areas: policy and commitments; governance; supply chain traceability; supplier assessment and remediation; and spotlight issues.

Know the Chain

Know the Chain is an NGO that is working to eradicate forced labour in global supply chains. They produce annual reports on three sectors that they consider high-risk for forced labour. Those reports evaluate how major companies are doing on the issue of forced labour. Question seven asks about Know the Chain’s 2018 ITC Benchmark Report, which evaluates 40 large information, technology, and communications companies on how well they address forced labour in their supply chains.

Divestment

Divestment – or, disinvestment – is a tool that activists use to create social change. It is the act of no longer investing in something (like a financial boycott). Divestment is famously associated with anti-Apartheid advocacy targeted at South Africa in the 1980s. But it has since been applied to a range of issues. Question eight asks about a recent divestment from the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB).

This year CPPIB quietly divested from GEO Group and CoreCivic, two companies which hold the majority of contracts to manage ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) detention facilities in the US. As of 2018, it had held nearly $8 million USD in stock from those two companies. CPP did not make a public statement, and it has denied that ethical considerations prompted this decision. In fact, the CPPIB says that it does not screen individual investments “based on social, religious, economic, or political criteria”. But this decision did come after pressure from civic groups like Sum of Us and Leadnow.

CPPIB still invests in fossil fuels. However, during the recent election campaign Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also pledged to divest CPPIB from coal, oil and gas, so we will see whether that will happen. CPPIB owns shares in the handgun manufacturer Smith & Weston, as well as Ruger and Olin Corp., which produces ammunition for AR-15 rifles. And as of 2018 CPPIB had not divested from tobacco companies.

The private prison divestment movement in the US is gaining steam. This year high-profile divestment decisions were made by prominent banks. JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, SunTrust, BNP Paribas, and Fifth Third Bancorp all announced that they will no longer provide future financing to private prisons companies. These banks represent 72% of the total current financing available to private prison companies.

Virtual Water Footprints

“Virtual water footprint” refers to the water used to produce a finished product or service is its “virtual water” footprint. Question nine uses a calculation by environmental organization Friends of the Earth in the UK to ask which product has the highest water footprint.

E-Waste

Question ten is about e-waste (electronic waste). Globally, we produce 50 million tonnes of e-waste every year, according to a joint report of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the World Economic Forum. Only 20% of that waste is recycled. The total estimated value of e-waste is $62.5 billion USD, which is roughly similar to the Gross Domestic Product of Croatia.