Interesting Article: "How Clothes Poison You"


why not?
Jul 28, 2010
Terrible but true. Dyes are some of the worst chemicals. I've read that there's simply no such thing as a very permanent natural dye. All the more organic, natural ones fade more quickly. I do wish there were more options for organic clothes. Makes me feel better about wearing my clothes for years and years.

Anna R.

Apr 28, 2009
What I don`t get: why does it have to take them until 2020?! You could do this right now, and everyone would be happy. The whole thing could be done in a few months, if they really wanted to cooperate/change something.


Feb 13, 2010
This was a good read!

Butttttt... meh. I mean, "everything" kills you. Almost everything we eat (and I eat relatively clean) has some kind of "horrible" effect on our bodies, and evidently everything causes disease, etc...

I'm sure there is a large amount of merit to clothes poisoning us, but... what, are we gonna walk around naked? :supacool:


May 18, 2007
Okay, I admit that 2020 seems a bit long, but this is an entire industry we are talking about here. Changes on that scale don't just happen overnight.
Also, I agree that pretty much everything has the potential to kill us in some way, shape, or form. I'm really not concerned about the dyes in my clothing.


Feb 22, 2006
I recently bought a pair of Lauren Conrad for Kohls pants that were black. I got them home and the smell of sulfur was over powering. I thought washing them would help but it didn't. I ended up taking them back and the lady said they had lots of returns of them for the same reason. It was ridiculous!

Also, about 6ish years ago I started to get a terrible rash on my breasts. They itched like crazy all of the time. It was shortly after that lawsuit against Victorias Secret was filed stating they use formaldehyde in their bras. I threw away all of them and it got better. That's the only possible thing it could have been. I have since gone back to VS because I couldn't find any others I liked but haven't had any problems. I don't know if a batch got through with an unusually high amount of formaldehyde or they have changed their manufacturing practices.


Jun 4, 2006
One line just shows me this article is hocus pocus

"Forced to quit two jobs, Samantha Devlin suffers from 'POTS' (postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome) which makes her allergic to toxic chemicals"


why not?
Jul 28, 2010
Well, we're all dying anyway, but this matters more than most other things since clothes have direct contact on our skin. The article mentions phthalates which are potential hormone disrupters that don't just cause rashes - they can potentially affect things like puberty onset and genital development in male children, who are generally more sensitive to these chemicals. That why there was a big deal over them in the cosmetics industry and why so many products advertise as containing "no phthalates." and that whole turn around took a lot of consumer grassroots action to happen - large companies generally don't care about your health and don't want to change operations in any way since it's a cost.

It may not be the biggest deal in the bigger picture, but chemical exposure is something to consider with rising allergy/asthma and cancer rates these days, especially if you have kids. Maybe some kooks get behind these issues, but they do actually have a basis in fact. We thought DDT was perfectly safe til we realized it wasn't...


Dec 22, 2008
so let's all walk around naked. we can get pneumonia in winter and skin cancer in summer but dont worry at least clothes won't kill us.


Sep 14, 2009
Not to say that dyes aren't dangerous, but this article is from the Daily Fail who are nothing if not sensationalist and panic inducing. Real journalism it is not.


why not?
Jul 28, 2010
Yes, because the only option aside from wearing toxic clothes is to walk around naked. It's a necessary evil at this point but as we've seen in the cosmetics industry change can happen but it certainly won't if we're not even informed.

For goodness sake I don't know why people are so against considering even the possibility. If you don't like the article do a search for better sources and use those to make up your own mind.
Jan 4, 2009
San Francisco
:rolleyes: And California says don't eat cooked potatoes. We're all going to drop dead from everything. I'm shaking in my lethal boots. Not to say that this is total bs...obviously there are chemicals in clothes...but I'm really not concerned.

Also, sensationalist journalism make me laugh.

Princess Pink

Oct 3, 2007
I don't think this is sensationalist journalism. Obviously there is an issue somewhere (H&M have acknowledged it) so kudos to having it brought out in the open. As a consumer I like to be aware. To say "it doesn't matter because oh well I'm going to die anyway" is a bit naive and just the attitude the big corporations that are sucking our money love!

No need to walk around naked ladies :giggles: the message I get the article is that in some places the level of chemcials in clothing is controlled and regulated. But it seems to be the MIC items to be aware of. It's all about choice of the consumer at the end of the day.


Sep 22, 2006
Most clothing can be washed before wearing, and this DOES eliminate most of the problem. No, not all of it, as the article warned, but it does take care of most of it, and repeated washings will likely remove all risk.

For non-washable items, dry-cleaning chemicals and fumes are dangerous, too, and always have been. So a person is d*mned if they do and d*mned if they don't in that respect.

But again it comes down to people wanting items that are cheap and disposable. If we weren't importing massive quantities of cheap items from countries with cheap labor, they wouldn't need to treat fabrics with anti-fungals and other chemicals to prevent insect, moisture and mildew damage to clothing that spends incredible amounts of time in transit on ships.