The governing body for "Organic" industry standards has just decided that Chemical dyes qualify as "Organic". 

As a 33 year professional Natural dyer, I am not surprised.

Nevertheless, it is a lie.

There is no class of chemically manufactured dyes that can possible be considered to meet the standards for what the "Organic" label usually stands for: food, textiles or other consumer goods produced from the earth without the use of artificial fertilizers or pesticides.  Exactly how does a chemical dye, which is by definition manufactured from chemicals, qualify?

Obviously, it doesn't.  It never can.  Why then is this lie being accepted by the textile industry and the consumer?  Mostly, thru ignorance: What is a "Natural" dye anyway?  I have had more than one dyer tell me they were using natural dyes only to then ask;  "Like what?"  "Oh, Procion"  "And exactly why do you think Procion is a Natural dye?" " It's biodegradable!"

This is basically the "Low Impact Dye" philosophy:  since very little is released into the water supply, since we can't see too much obvious visible pollution, we'll just call it "Organic".  Since the average consumer, even the well educated consumer, has little resource to learn otherwise, who's to call the lie?

I call the lie.  Because it is a lie.  The whole idea of the "Organic" label is to certify to the consumer, who does not know, that those who do know have determined that this product meets the highest standards of natural production.

"Low Impact Dyes" meet a very low standard of minimal pollution.  That does not make them "Organic".  It only means they are not quite as bad, post dyeworks, as formerly was permitted.  That is their only merit: that they are not quite as bad as the bad old dyes.  But guess what: they're still bad.

They still have to be manufactured at a chemical plant somewhere, causing incredible pollution wherever that somewhere else is.  They still poison and pollute the body of those who wear garments dyed with them.  They are still poisonous chemical dyes.

By contrast, Natural dyes, as used professionally and conscientiously, are capable of being honestly and correctly labeled "Organic", to the highest of standards.  They are grown of the earth, they are processed and dyed in simple water baths, they are fixed with minimal amounts of mineral salts.  People have been dyeing and wearing colours Naturally dyed for thousands of years.  Up until about 150 years ago, there wasn't anything else.

Are our museums filled with colourless textiles? or are not the standard for beauty in colour found in the oldest of the antique, and thus Naturally dyed, Oriental carpets which formerly graced both palaces and the humble homes of merchants?  Are we so poor that we cannot afford the same beauty and quality?

Here we begin to address one of the real reasons for this fraud being perpetrated on the textile consumer: cost.  Yes, real costs more.  Real always costs more these days.  We have accepted as a standard the artificial, which can be produced in unlimited quantities, from the basic building block of the hydrocarbon chain of petroleum.  The only true value these artificial products have is what money they earn for the company that manufactures them, the money distributed to those company's stockholders.  Who holds stock in the Natural dye industry?

I remember when polyester came on the market.  Suddenly you couldn't buy cotton.  Everything was polyester or poly-blended, with 40% cotton being about the maximum you could find of natural fibre.  It took awhile, but consumers led the movement to demand more cotton.  Polyester just isn't as comfortable and anyone can feel that.  When 100% cotton was reintroduced, it came at a higher price.  Guess what? people paid it.  They knew it was worth extra.  Besides feeling better, cotton lasts longer, looks better longer, nobody thought about ecology, it just is a better cloth. 

But the damage to the consumer mentality as respecting garments has been irreparable.  It used to be clothes were a very big deal. Not as an idea, but as a physical, material reality. Every garment had value, whether it was a ridiculous court poofery in twelve colours of shimmering silk, or a humble but eminently serviceable workers smock in blue or brown hemp.  A garment was an investment.  When polyester arrived, suddenly everything cheapened.  Clothing was incredibly cheap.  For the same price as one garment before, one could now buy four.  They didn't last, but that just exacerbated the buy now, throw away tomorrow unreality that still dominates the American consumer.  There is so much clothing bought and thrown away by the American consumer that the entire third world (who used to make and wear traditional clothing of their culture) now wears second hand clothing shipped by the boat load in containers from the United States.

And this is how we relate to clothing: something new!  I want something new.  It's candy to the spirit, but based on a cheap momentary thrill, not long term value and investment.  The thrill gone, the garment goes to resale, Goodwill or the dump.  And people get to feel good because they think they're doing the best possible by recycling.  Who thinks about reducing the incredible environmental toll of the garment industry as it is by buying quality that will last years; who buys garments with the thought that they will wear them till they are quite worn out?

This being the current mentality, who is going to pay for Natural dyes?  Because the reality of Natural dyes is, they cost more.  Does Fresh squeezed Orange juice cost more than Tang?  Nobody thinks that's strange.  Does Organic cotton cost more than polyester?  Nobody thinks that's unreasonable.  Why such a problem with the extra cost of Natural Dyes?  And it is a problem:  none of us professional Natural dyers who have the knowledge, skill and experience to incubate this industry have been able to succeed with even a modest small business.  Over 33 years I have watched dozens go bankrupt trying.

Who holds stock in the Natural Dye industry? 

Nobody.  That's part of the problem.  Nobody has invested any capital in this industry.  Professional Natural dyers are few, but we exist.  I've run a separate heading "Natural Dyes - Custom Dyeing" in the National Green Pages for years.  Has anyone called for consulting?  for investing?   Everyone has opted out for the cheap and false fix of "Low Impact".  Even when the knowledge and skill to move into Natural Dyes has been available to anyone who bothered to look.

Why? 

It needs to be noted that the strongest and the clearest and the fastest Natural dyes, the ones  I use in my art, come almost exclusively from the Third World.  There's a natural reason for this:  Natural dye colours are captured sunlight, in essence, and there's a whole lot more sun in the Tropics.

This means that a Natural dye industry, to develop, needs to invest capital in the Third World countries of the Tropics.  Ideally, it needs to support the already in place Natural dye producers, natives in those countries.  These producers have the capacity to expand to meet the world demand for quality colour.  Such expansion would mean a blessed influx of money into areas where people are currently dyeing of poverty.

The reality is, it would seem, very few First World people really want to see their money flow into the Third world.  We, as a class, are way too selfish to share. Add the price of two Latte Grandes to the cost of that new shirt - dyed an earthy rich tone with some tropical plant - and almost no one will buy it.

The purchase of Naturally dyed clothing would necessarily support the ailing economies of the entire Third World, but most people don't care.  Even those who do care think that donating their cast offs makes it all even.

I will now address some specific charges made by businesses who prefer to justify a bad choice, rather than support a good one.

Added 2006:

"The colours are all blah" :  This really shows the ignorance of the speaker, for have they never visited a textile museum?  Every textile made before 1856 all 100% natural dyed (and 100% natural fibre).  Are these faded to nothing?  Think of the rich Oriental carpet that is valued so highly; think of Louis 14th silks and Renaisance velvets; Gobelin tapestries; Chinese embroideries: are these ugly blah colours that have faded to nothing?  The speaker has not investigated nor taken the time to learn how to create these same rich deep and vibrant colours today.  (And it's well advertized on the web and in the Green Pages: consulting with an expert is easy and cheap.)

"It costs too much"  duh.  Everything said above explains why that is no excuse.  Education as to QUALITY has to come first.

"The customer doesn't care".  They didn't care about poisons in the food for about 30 years.  Both alternatives have to be provided and education has to be free and abundant.  Today already I see a class of super sensitive people who are desperate for the natural dye alternative, to save them from a world of white, beige and alpaca browns.

I also see a serious interest from home schoolers and Waldorph schools.  These children will grow up to want and appreciate naturally dyed clothing.  In Europe and England this movement is well advanced, with many inquiries and dyes sent to students at textile colleges, especially in England and Scandinavia.

"Aren't the mordants just as bad as synthetic dyes?" Oh, please:  all synthetic dyes are made from coal tar, one of the most carcinogenic substances on the planet.  They are all toxins, poisons and carcinogens.  Natural Dyes are all medicines and the mordants used today are all salts of minerals needed by the body, and they are used in minute amounts.  Those who follow Tyria's standards are pledged to reuse and/or exhaust all mordant baths so less is discharged than in the urine of supplement takers.  Compared to heavy industry daily discharge that which a small natural dye operation would discharge, if one were ever to be built?  One plant can discharge 1,000 lbs of horrifically dangerous mercury, per year, and not even have to register or notify anyone.  Aurora Silk dyeworks estimates yearly discharge from rinsewater as less than 1/4 lb of tin, less than 1/2 pound of alum, less than 1 oz of copper and less than 1 oz of chrome.  The city of Portland in it's urine discharges aprox 100 times this, at least.

"Is it really sustainable?"  It would be if people contribute to replanting!  Indigo is a legume and very valuable to increase production, which can be done in one year.  Cochineal is raised on cactus that can be cultivated in otherwise infertile and barren land.  Production can (and has been) raised continuously.  Madder can be grown in all the poppy fields of Afghanistan, in fact it once was: the Kandahar valley produced the finest madder in the world - that's why rugs from there were so valued.  Weld and other herb dyes can be increased exponentailly every year, faulting only land and demand.  Land is needed to be purchased NOW for replanting of the wild tree dyewoods such as Logwood, Brazilwood and Fusticwood.  Altho the period before cutting is 25 years, if replanting were to commence NOW there would be a continuous supply.

Please email comments to:  dyer@aurorasilk.com   Thank you for caring. 

Copywrite Cheryl Kolander