Debunking the Myths: Leaders Gather to Unify the Cotton Family

When people engage in competition, they expect to be challenged and attacked by their opponents. That’s the very nature of the competitive relationship. But when those attacks come from your own team rather than the enemy, it’s a major problem.

That was the backdrop as some of the top minds in the cotton and textile industries met on Sept. 7 in Buenos Aires during the 70th Plenary Meeting of the International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC). They gathered to answer this question: With subcategories such as traditional, organic, Freetrade, BCI (Better Cotton Initiative) and CmiA (Cotton made in Africa), is one type of cotton truly “better” than the others?

It’s clear that there is confusion about that question in the marketplace, but exactly what to do about that confusion is less clear.

The discussion took place during ICAC’s Second Breakout Session, entitled “Debunking the Myths: Answering the Attacks on Cotton.” Elke Hortmeyer from the Bremen Cotton Exchange and Jeff Silberman of the International Forum for Cotton Promotion emphasized the stunning number of attacks the industry faces on Web sites and blogs, many of them referring to cotton as “the world’s dirtiest crop.” Even more stunning is the fact that many of those references come from cotton-oriented sites – just not “traditional cotton” sites, but rather, ones that advocate a different growing method, such as organic.

Such bickering, the experts agree, only benefits the true threat, which comes from synthetic fibers. But some question if there is any way to unify the different types of cotton. Dean Etheridge, director of the International Textile Center of Texas Tech University, believes this kind of internal competition might be unavoidable. He points out that “special” cottons like organic and Freetrade, which typically charge a premium, must somehow justify why they are worth the additional cost – and the only way to do that is to denigrate traditionally produced fiber.

As for countering those attacks, some in the audience suggested that perhaps cotton should fight fire with fire by pointing out how environmentally damaging oil-based fibers are, but Cotton Council International’s Alan Terhaar advised against such negative campaigns, saying no one benefits when they spend more time slinging mud at each other than they do promoting their own industries.

Besides, a new player that can handle the dirty work is entering the picture. Compared with cotton, polyester might be a young material, but its own internal competition is already gaining strength. Soon, the experts contend, polyester will find itself attacked by manufacturers of recycled polyester, who will promote their own product as being more environmentally responsible.

Truly, what comes around, goes around.