The puffer jacket first appeared in the 1920s.Companies are developing natural and bio-based alternatives to synthetics.Fashion statement or prescription for lazy dressing? Whatever your view, there are few winter garments that divide opinion – and attract as many memes – as the humble puffer jacket.
Payne, whose research has a sustainability focus, says the shell of puffer jackets is often made from one fabric, while the filling is made of another material, which can include animal feathers , recycled plastic bottles, or fossil fuel-derived nylons. Both parts can pose environmental problems in their manufacturing, and challenges for recycling the garment.
So, against a rising tide of “greenwashing” and spurious environmental claims, how can you know if the puffer jacket you’re buying is more sustainable? How are brands innovating to make one of our most-loved garments kinder to the planet? And should we be buying them at all?The puffer we know and love began its life as a jacket made from hot-air balloon material stuffed with down about 100 years ago.
that the Advertising Standards Authority in New Zealand found breached the code. The issue? The jacket could break down in landfill, but only in a precise set of circumstances that are beyond the scope of most public waste-disposal schemes.The issue of greenwashing in a category that is dominated by garments made from petrochemical-based materials continues to confound consumers and give certain brands a false halo, says Payne.
Icebreaker’s puffer never returned, its place taken by a jacket made from wool and cotton that Beneyto-Ferre argues is even better. Unlike down, wool doesn’t collapse when wet, and unlike nylon, the jacket doesn’t require tumble drying to retain its lofty appearance. But at $540, it’s not for everyone.
Business Business Latest News, Business Business Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: 7NewsSydney - 🏆 16. / 63 Read more »
Source: 7NewsSydney - 🏆 16. / 63 Read more »
Source: theage - 🏆 8. / 77 Read more »
Source: brisbanetimes - 🏆 13. / 67 Read more »
Source: smh - 🏆 6. / 80 Read more »