Confusing textile language can mislead consumers and obscure the real environmental impacts of what we wear and use in our homes. An RMIT expert explains.
Dr Rebecca Van Amber, Senior Lecturer Fashion and Textiles
"Everyday consumers are being asked to make responsible choices in a landscape saturated with vague claims, greenwashing, and unsubstantiated health benefits.
"Brands have not been legally required to list the fibre content on clothing in Australia for some time, and are only legally required to list the care instructions.
"In the case of silk: using the word "silky" conveys that the product is like silk - a natural, luxury fibre - when you can instead get a "silky" feeling from polyester or viscose/rayon - heavily processed, chemical-based fabrics.
"This type of language is extremely misleading to consumers and can be construed as greenwashing.
"At a time when we are asking consumers to drive sustainability transitions through purchasing power, and as Australia is seeking to move towards a circular economy for textiles, removing this most basic level of transparency feels like a step backwards.
"If food must list every ingredient, why shouldn't clothing? Would we purchase differently if we knew a textile was derived from fossil fuels, old-growth forests, contained restricted chemicals, or was produced using forced or underpaid labour?"
Dr Rebecca Van Amber is a Senior Lecturer in Fashion and Textiles at RMIT University. She is an expert in textile science and sustainability, with research expertise in textile waste, repair and durability practices, and circular economy strategies for the fashion and textiles industry. Her work focuses on sustainable material development, textile performance and testing, and the design of experimental methods to evaluate textile performance and product longevity.
***
