green cleaning.

anu wrote about how washability is a key component of what she believes good quality consists in, and i could not agree more with her. the increasingly common labeling of clothing as "dry clean only" seems unrelated to the quality of materials used or common fabrics suddenly becoming non-washable, but rather appears to result from a reluctancy to take responsibility for the garment's quality in long term use. as a consumer, i have learned to read dry clean instructions on cotton tees as do-as-you-please-but-don't-come-crying-at-our-door-if-the-seams-twist, which, first of all, irritates me and, secondly, seems totally foolish now that manufacturing techniques and materials available should have improved, especially in higher-end products.

the daring interpretation transforms into daring action on my part: i tend to wash items which explicitly state that i shouldn't. wool, silk and cotton are materials which should, in my opinion, survive water. my trusted, four-year-old tiger of sweden peacoat has been to the washer (in low temperature and wool wash) so many times i've lost count because of constant wear and, luckily, it still looks flawless. but i have not been as fortunate with everything and despite materials and technique improvements should have taken place, we all know it is not entirely true: high price neither implies quality workmanship nor material.

dry cleaning is a hassle, environmentally suspect and, in finland, also fairly expensive, which acts as a hindrance to leisure-washing motivated by mere laziness. the finnish market seems also less competitive and the biggest selling point is low price rather than other qualities of the service, whereas in new york city there is a growing business of "green" and "organic" dry cleaners. as with everything marketed as eco-friendly, the description "green" is used comfortably when even a slight ecological improvement can be displayed meaning obviously that the process or product sold to the customer may be a far cry from environmentally sound. what seems incredible is the equivocation of the term "organic": dry cleaners use it in the sense of organic chemistry (carbon based) rather than organic produce (toxin free). in the ny times article alan spievogel, the technical director of the cleaners' association, is quoted saying:

Under that standard, [--]I could clean garments with nuclear waste and I could call myself organic.

i am quite sure this sounds appalling as a marketing strategy to most of you.

despite knowing what horrible toxins are used for cleaning our everyday surroundings and the things we wear, i cannot claim my consumer choices are honestly motivated by ecological considerations. i still believe the main reasons i try to steer clear of "dry clean only" is the hassle and the price rather than toxins. i still, like many people, associate the smell of artificial fragrances with clean laundry which is one of the reasons i do not use soap nuts. nevertheless, were they more readily available, i might consider them again since they worked ok.

which brings in mind my main belief when it comes to making sound choices: they need to be easy. we're all a bunch of sloths.