A Focus on Workers’ Health

By now you have gathered that at each stage in the complex process of garment production, there are risks to both human health and our environment. Issues range from the overuse and contamination of water, to the exploitation of human labor, to the severe health implications of poor indoor air quality. It is difficult to unravel one issue from another, as they are all intertwined and are the effects of common causes. Perhaps the biggest challenge in my evaluation of the fast fashion industry, is choosing one issue on which to focus, but focus I must. Workers’ health is compromised at every stage of a garment’s life cycle, and so it is on those health effects that I will zero in.


not in my backyard

It wasn’t always like this. Before and during World War 1, we had vastly different customs regarding consumption. Clothing was often made in the town or city in which it was worn. Ill fitting clothing was tailored, using special techniques that allowed the tailoring to be reversed and fitted to another person or to accommodate changes in body or trend. In the years following the war, consumerism rose alongside the economy, and so did workplace regulations. Policies and societal norms compelled factory owners to pay their workers certain wages and to provide them specific safety measures. These regulations came at a human cost, following tragedies such as the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire(predating the war)- which in 1911 was the deadliest industrial fire in the history of New York City.

The average household dedicated anywhere from 13 to 30% of it’s annual expenditures on clothing from 1901-1960. Today, the average household spends closer to 3% on clothing. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006, 2020) Major changes to safety and trade policies have allowed industry to move from the U.S. overseas, where companies are not constricted by the standards demanded here. We are not buying less, we are spending less. Fast fashion has accelerated the fashion cycle, and cheap clothing (both in price and quality) has proliferated. We do this at the expense of worker health and safety in far flung places which we will never visit.

Percentage of Household Expenditures on Clothing Over Time

Chart made using information compiled from Bureau of Labor Statistics.

implications for workers’ health

Image via ilo.org

Textile workers experience infertility, burns, and rashes due to occupational exposure to a variety of harmful chemicals. Studies have found that workers also suffer disproportionately from certain cancers and respiratory illnesses due to occupational exposure.(Cowley, 2021)

Types of cancer due to chemical exposure:

  • Bladder

  • Gastrointestinal

  • Testicular

  • Lung

  • Kidney

Respiratory Illnesses:

  • Byssinosis

    • a lung disease caused by prolonged inhalation of textile fiber dust.

  • Bronchitis

    • inflammation of the mucous membrane in the bronchial tubes. It typically causes bronchospasm and coughing.

  • Asthma

    • a respiratory condition marked by spasms in the bronchi of the lungs, causing difficulty in breathing. It usually results from an allergic reaction or other forms of hypersensitivity.

  • Pneumonia

    • lung inflammation caused by bacterial or viral infection, in which the air sacs fill with pus and may become solid. Inflammation may affect both lungs ( double pneumonia ), one lung ( single pneumonia ), or only certain lobes ( lobar pneumonia ).

  • Silicosis

    • lung disease caused by breathing in (inhaling) silica dust.

The practical functions of these chemicals in the textile industry include:

  • Pest control

  • Dyes

  • Flame retardants

  • Wrinkle free fabrics

  • Waterproofing

  • Bacteria control

The problems experienced by textile workers can be attributed to prolonged exposure to loud factories and years of repetitive movements, as well as exposure to some of the following:(ILO, 2021)

  1. Sand and dust exposure

    • Cotton dust exposure

    • Silica exposure

  2. Chemical exposure

    • Pesticides

    • Brominated flame retardants

      • PFC’s (perfluorinated chemical or carbons)

    • Formaldehyde

    • Methylene chloride

    • Tetrachloroethylene (PERC

    • Trichloroethylene (TCE)

    • PFA’s (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances)

Of note: California’s Prop 65 requires that consumers be notified of the presence of 900 dangerous chemicals, but does little to protect the workers who produce these items.

Graph via BMC Public Health Journal.


regulatory Whack-A-Mole

When researchers began to observe “Brown Lung Disease” (byssinosis) in among textile workers in North Carolina, they petitioned the U.S. government to enact policy which regulated ventilation and associated factory conditions in order to protect workers from the harms of poor indoor air quality. Industry leaders fought the action all the way to the Supreme Court, but eventually the Cotton Dust Standard of 1971 was adopted.

Similarly, after observing the respiratory illness silicosis in sandblasters, Great Britain passed the Factories Act of 1949, which served to regulated the use of silica in sandblasting in an effort to protect workers.

By certain measures, regulators have succeeded in protecting workers in developed countries, but industry has succeeded in skirting the regulations by moving their operations “offshore” to places like Turkey, India, China, and many other developing countries.

Image via ilo.org.

The Hierarchy of Controls represents a protective protocol which can be implemented at the factory level. With the ultimate goal being to eliminate workplace hazards altogether, any step taken leads to a reduction in potential harm. The hierarchy consists of 5 categories, each category’s effectiveness increasing as you go up the pyramid. (ILO, 2021)

In order from most to least effective:

  • Remove harmful chemicals

  • Use alternative, less harmful materials

  • Engineering controls used to isolate worker from hazard (ventilation)

  • Adjust work to limit exposure (i.e. limit time spent on hazardous tasks)

  • Availability and proper use of PPE