Hugo Keane’s investigation into polyester began at home. He had just started year 7 but, thanks to Covid, he was stuck knocking about at home in Camden, north London.
“It was kind of a family pandemic project,” said his mother, Alexandra Milenov. “He sat down with my husband and did the calculations on the microplastic release of three items of his uniform: the blazer, the PE T-shirt and the shorts.”
What he found out was to significantly affect his school career.
Almost every child in England spends about 195 days a year in uniform. They are not a legal requirement, but the Department for Education insists they promote “the ethos of a school”, provide “a sense of belonging and identity” and set “an appropriate tone for education”.
But the widespread use of uniforms has a hidden cost: most of them are made from polyester, the synthetic, petroleum-derived fibre that is one of the world’s most significant environmental pollutants, leading some to question our reliance on it, and whether it is a suitable fabric in which to dress our children.
Polyester, the “miracle fabric”, was invented in Britain in the 1940s as a new synthetic fabric that followed the popularity of nylon in the 1930s. Thanks to its durability, economy and ease of production, it has come to dominate the global garment industry, and by 2023, 71.1m tonnes of polyester were produced around the world – 57% of global textile production.
“Polyester is, in fact, the most-used synthetic fabric globally,” said Dr Melis Duyar, an associate professor in chemical and process engineering at the University of Surrey. “Since there is no need to grow the fibres needed to make this fabric, it can be made cheaply and quickly in vast quantities, which is why it has become the fabric of choice for the fast fashion industry.”
But in common with other petroleum-derived plastics, polyester is not biodegradable. “Washing causes each item of clothing to shed tiny strands, or microfibres, which are carried down the drain and into our water systems,” Duyar said. “Microplastics are particularly hard to remove from the environment and are easily ingested by organisms across the food chain.”
The infiltration of these microfibres into the biosphere is now well known – these insidious chemical pollutants have been detected from the Mariana Trench to the peak of Mount Everest, and in almost every organ of the human body. Researchers have estimated that synthetic textiles are responsible for 35% of the microplastics in the planet’s oceans. But the long-term effects of them remain uncertain.
At home, using a Plymouth University study which estimated that between 700 and 4,000 microplastic fibres are released per gram in a single wash, Hugo calculated that just a year’s worth of washing and everyday wear of the uniforms worn by the 125 boys in his year would shed 6.4bn plastic microfibres.
When school Covid restrictions ended, Hugo presented his findings at his student council and in class. Teachers were enthusiastic about his advocacy, and helped him take it to the headteacher and the board of governors. “And you know everyone was very supportive and excited about his work,” said Milenov. Meanwhile, she had managed to source a cotton alternative to nearly every item of school uniform, but not the blazer, which in any case had been temporarily waived for fear that such an infrequently washed item would be a vector for Covid transmission.
Milenov lobbied the school, but the headteacher was not interested in changing direction, and by the time Hugo entered year 8, William Ellis reimposed all uniform requirements, including the wearing of its polyester blazer. “We wrote to the head of year 8, and we attached Hugo’s presentation, and we said for environmental reasons, and because we want to support our son’s advocacy, we are unable to purchase or have him wear polyester items in the school uniform,” said Milenov.
Her persistence worked; Hugo was granted an exemption. The school agreed that his objections to the pollution caused by polyester schoolwear had the status of a protected belief. To forestall disciplinary action from over-keen teachers, he was issued with a card: “Notification of non-compliance with school uniform,” reason: “Sustainability ethical issue.”
Hugo became his school’s – and perhaps the country’s – first conscientious objector to school uniform. But he is not unique in expressing concerns about the synthetic fabrics used for uniforms.
Nazia Habib’s daughter, Monica, was a pandemic baby and came through bouts of Covid before she was able to walk. “We only have one child and we want to give the best like all parents,” Habib said. “We wanted to make sure not only that the food that she eats is good, but the clothes that she wears are also very healthy.”
Habib, a professor at the University of Cambridge and the director and founder of its Centre for Resilience and Sustainable Development, studies synthetic materials supply chains and advises the textile recycling industry. Naturally, for her own family, she chose cotton and other natural fibres. But when Monica started school, Habib found that choice taken away. Even at the age of five, pupils were required to wear a polyester uniform, branded with the school’s insignia, and available from just a single supplier.
“Polyester [clothes] in general are not very good for skin,” Habib said. “They are OK for a short period of time if you are going for hikes, jogging, or you want to be very, very warm, so you have polyester jackets. But on a daily basis, for a long period of time, [wearing] polyester means that your skin is not able to breathe.
“Unbreathable children’s skin basically means that you’re sweating your dust and dirt and everything is getting stuck to you, and if you have a child with a skin problem then it’s going to worsen the symptoms.
“Number two, there is already now more than enough evidence that shows that polyester also releases microplastics, and by rubbing and using it on a daily basis you are inhaling the microplastics.
“My daughter also had multiple Covid, so her lungs were already weakened. So as a conscious, academic parent I could not imagine giving her more polyester so that she has more micro[-fibre] sedimentation in her young lungs, because you can never process those microplastics out of your body.”
Habib was finally able to reason with her daughter’s school and its supplier. She provided the cotton garments – bought easily online – and the supplier provided the school’s logos to apply to them.
after newsletter promotion
An emerging body of research suggests the harms from polyester may go beyond microplastic pollution, and that such harms can be particularly severe for children.
Sarah Dunlop, the director of plastics and human health at the Minderoo Foundation, an Australian philanthropic organisation, explained that to make plastic work properly other chemicals needed to be added: “Plasticisers, flame retardants, UV stabilisers, you name it. The first flaw is that those chemicals are not covalently, or not strongly bonded, to the polymer, so they leach out and they get into us and harm our health. The second flaw is that plastic fragments [break] into micro and even smaller nanoplastics.”
Phthalates, for example, are often used to make plastics more flexible and durable and a 2020 study of preschool children’s clothing by scientists in China found them in all samples examined. But some phthalates are an endocrine disruptor and have been linked to a decline in sperm counts worldwide: the EU and US have been so concerned about the effects they may have on children that they have restricted their use in toys, childcare items and food packaging.
Another endocrine disrupting chemical, bisphenol A (BPA), is used in the textile industry in polyester-based clothing to improve the lifespan of fabrics, to add moisture-wicking or anti-static properties, or to fix dyes. Researchers and campaigners have found high levels of it in sportswear, or in the recycled polyester that is sometimes used in ‘eco-friendly’ school uniform items. This chemical has been banned for use in food contact materials by the EU, although the US continues to judge it safe.
Manufacturers are also coating children’s clothes in even more chemicals once they are made. “We see in a lot of childrenswear especially, that we put a lot more into it than we would potentially on other products,” said David Megson, a reader in chemistry and environmental forensics at Manchester Metropolitan University.
“[In] trying to make it stain resistant, trying to make it water resistant, trying to make it flame retardant … we get a lot of additives that are added within that process.”
Suppliers are not required to reveal the ingredients used to formulate their plastic fibres and garment coatings, even for children’s clothes. And even when they do, details can be unclear. Often it is only laboratory analysis that can reveal what we are dressing our children in.
“I wish I had more say over what I could dress my daughter in,” said Megson, who also recently bought his daughter a school uniform. “I’d rather take my chances on having something that isn’t flame retardant, because she’s not smoking and to me there’s a very low risk of my daughter catching fire, so I don’t really think she needs a flame retardant pair of knickers.
“The same with the stain resistance, like she spills something on her I’ll wipe it off. I’d much rather have that minor inconvenience than increase her risk of developing a serious disease later in life and hampering her potential fertility.
“It really annoys me. I feel like there’s so little I can do about it because I can’t find out what is in these products, so I can’t make an informed choice.”
Specialist retailers exist that supply basic school uniform items in organic cotton, but these can be expensive and they do not solve the problem of the liveried garments that so many schools now insist on.
A new children’s and schools bill going through parliament will restrict the number of branded items a school can prescribe to just four, but some say it could go further. Peers including Rosie Boycott and Natalie Bennett have tabled amendments that would ban the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl Substances (Pfas) or “forever chemicals” and polyester in school uniforms, but look to be defeated by the government.
Bennett said she backed parents who were prepared to face down schools that prescribed uniform items made of polyester. But, she added: “When you think about the inequality in our society and the health inequality in our society, the time, the access to information, the chutzpah to do that sort of thing is not equally spread around society.
“I think it’s great any parent who’s able to do it absolutely. But what I’m trying to do is start at the structural end and say no school should be prescribing, that’s kind of the right word, that their children wear unhealthy clothes that are bad for their health.
“And it shouldn’t be up to individual parents to have to fight their corner.”
Hugo is now in sixth form, and no longer needs to wear a blazer. But “parents can refuse”, said Milenov. “The law protects people who believe that they need to take action to protect the environment.” That’s if, after a long summer, parents have the energy.
