The Tamesis
Natural fibers are more environmentally friendly than synthetic ones—at least, that’s the long-standing tenet of sustainable fashion. But what if that’s not the case?
A new research paper co-authored by Fashion Revolution co-founder Carry Somers, along with academics and citizen scientists, challenges the fashion industry’s assumptions that natural fibers are inherently biodegradable.
In samples collected from the sediments of Rudyard Lake in Staffordshire, England, which has long been fed by rivers lining textile mills, color factories, laundries and dyeing works, researchers found that most of the fibers recovered were natural fibers, with cotton accounting for more than 70% of the 150-year fiber record.
The study is the latest in a series of papers over the past decade that highlight the durability of natural fibers in the environment. This is a direct blow to the fashion industry narrative that natural materials like cotton are better alternatives to synthetic materials that shed microplastics. New paper published in sciencedirectly discusses the fashion industry’s use of natural fibers to make “green” claims, and specifically calls on the industry to focus on outcomes to ensure the sustainable fashion narrative is led by science rather than assumptions.
“We have to move away from the extreme that if plastic is bad, nature [fibers] It must be good,” said Summers, whose new book The essence of fashion Study how plants shape fashion.
A fierce battle rages between synthetic and natural fiber producers, campaigners, activists and policymakers over which fiber is less harmful to the environment. According to the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) methodology, which serves as the basis for the EU’s validation of green claims, synthetic fibers have a lower environmental impact than some natural fibers, such as cotton, due to factors including using less water in production, requiring less land, eliminating the need for pesticides and greater durability. This position has been hotly debated, with critics arguing that the comparison ignores key points such as the impact of fossil fuel extraction and processing of synthetic materials, the renewable nature of natural fibers and the potential benefits of regenerative agriculture.
In 2024, more than 900 signatories representing more than 500,000 farmers worldwide said the PEF approach “misrepresents that natural fibers are harmful to the environment” and poses a significant risk to the livelihoods of natural fiber producers. Meanwhile, a 2026 paper published by the Bremen Cotton Exchange took aim at how the UN agency allegedly downplayed the impact of oil-based synthetic fibers.
The sentiment among consumers who want to shop in a more sustainable way is to avoid plastic clothing and opt for natural materials instead. What should industry and consumers make of this new research? The aim, the authors say, is not to exonerate plastics, but to avoid the risk of seemingly quick fixes, such as replacing natural fibers with synthetic ones, leading to unintended, more complex problems.
tunnel vision
Synthetic fibers have become a major focus of research and activity as their production has grown to account for 69% of the global fiber market and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) estimates that synthetic clothing is the leading single source of marine microplastics (accounting for 35% of releases). Concerns have been raised after studies showed microplastics (tiny bits of plastic, including synthetic fibers that break off from clothing) were found in nearly every environment tested, from lake beds and remote mountains to soil and ocean waves. Research into potential environmental harms, such as slowing algae growth and making soil less fertile, not to mention potential effects on human health, further fuels this concern.
