EU country pays up to €25 to repair your clothes and abstain from fast-fashion
This county's scheme to push it's consumers away from 'fast-fashion' brands like Shein and Temu offers shoppers up to €25 per repair for old clothes and shoes and advocates for "virtuous" purchasing
France's scheme to encourage the public to repair their existing clothes and shoes instead of purchasing new items could make you some extra cash, as you save from not throwing old ones away.
Launched in October 2023, France's bonus scheme was put in action, offering a discount of €6 (£5) and €25 (£21) per repair after their Junior Ecology minister, Bérangère Couillard, protested the 700,000 tonnes of clothing that's dumped in France's landfill's each year in 2023.
Promising to contribute €154m (£131m) to the scheme across the first five years, the French government aims to improve in sustainability and influencing their consumers away from 'fast-fashion' brands such as Shein and create new jobs by supporting the repair industry.
Couillard had suggested for "all sewing workshops and shoemakers to join the system" that rebates €7 for a new heel for old shoes and €10-€25 for new lining to be added to a jacket, skirt or other garment, reported the BBC at the time.
Couillard also said that the government's commitment dealing with the overwhelming rise of 'fast fashion' is "external" as it wishes for the French public to opt for more "virtuous" purchases and to repair them rather than contributing to the dark side of consumer-landfill.
A group asked to set up said scheme, named Refashion, claims 3.3. billion items - including clothing, homeware textiles and footwear - were added to France 's market in 2024. And whilst the impressive goal is a step forward in the right direction for sustainability and climate change, some
But not everyone is happy about the approach. Right-wing French MP, Eric Pauget, highlighted that the government was already stuck in debt of €3trillion (£2.5trillion) and that they should "stop throwing the French public's money out of the window".
Working for the Haute Couture and Fashion Federation, Pascal Morand shared his worry for the potential effect the new scheme would have on luxury brands. Speaking to Le Monde newspaper, he said: "A silk organza shouldn't be judged as less durable than a polyester one based purely on its physical resistance".
Help us improve our content by completing the survey below. We'd love to hear from you!
An addition to the sustainability motion is an enforced labelling system that insists items are detailed with their environmental impact. This new rule came into action on 1 January 2024 and is still in effect.
France's rules now mean that manufacturers list the amount of water needed to make and item of clothing, as well as the chemicals involved, the level of microplastic emissions risk and whether the product has any recycled materials in them.
Whilst the country is one Europe's largest fashion exporter, with an average of 35.7 billion euros of export revenue according to Fashion United and Institut Francais de la Mode, from November 2018, it has seen a noticeable decline in recent years. Fashion United reports that in 2020 French consumers dipped below the European average, spending around €430 on clothing.
France now plans to band 'fast-fashion' giants Shein and Temu in its continued efforts of sustainability.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Tunnock's is not to blame for society's problems
We know why the government feels this is necessary: we have eyes and the official figures provide the proof. In 2003, according to the Scottish Government, one-quarter of adults in Scotland were obese. Now it's one-third. And with obesity comes increased risk of cancer, diabetes and death and, as the UK Government points out, a cost of billions of pounds to the NHS. We are deep in a serious crisis that's getting worse. The question is how we get out of it and Tunnock's feels it is being unfairly targeted. Its sales director Fergus Loudon said in Scottish Grocer magazine that the food industry was being blamed for societal problems that were not of its making. 'Banning chocolate biscuit ads on TV before nine o'clock to prevent obesity,' he said, 'is rather like banning foreign holidays to prevent skin damage from too much sun.' A couple of things are going on here. First, it would be stupid to deny that food ads have an effect and that restricting ads can have some effect on what we buy and eat. The science writer Ellen Ruppel Shell points out in her very good book on obesity, Fat Wars, that Burger King spends more than half-a-billion dollars on promotional efforts every year and does it because it works. Conversely, no or little advertising would have the opposite effect to some extent and reduce consumption. 'Free-market capitalism is wonderful for many things,' says Shell, 'but public health is not among them.' However, accepting that advertising has an effect is not the same as solving the health crisis because it goes deeper than that. There's been virtually no advertising of vapes and vaping, for instance, and yet vaping has exploded as a habit. It's also worth pointing out that Tunnock's (est. 1890) was around when there wasn't an obesity crisis and is around when there absolutely is an obesity crisis. Of course, a ban on ads will have an effect around the edges, but the crisis will go on until we tackle the deeper trends advertising cannot change – what Mr Loudon of Tunnock's calls societal problems. I raise this subject whenever I talk to people in the food industry and it pretty much always comes back to the same few things. I had lunch with the French chef Jean-Christophe Novelli in Edinburgh and asked him what he thought was to blame for obesity. He said without a moment's hesitation: mobiles. We're getting fatter, he said, because of what we've done to our brains with technology – the constant messages, the instant gratification – and it means we're more absorbed in technology than in cooking and eating well. 'This is the thing that inflates your stomach,' he said, pointing to his phone. I agree with chef Novelli – we know phones are changing the way we behave, I can feel it myself. We also know it starts young. Children are much less likely now to be active and outdoors because they prefer their phones but Shell also writes in Fat Wars that no-one is born with a taste for hot, bitter or sour or, for that matter, single malt or cigars: tastes develop with exposure and social pressure – and that's fine as long as the influences are good. However, as Shell points out, in the US and the UK, children increasingly dictate family food choices, which leaves households 'immersed in a miasma of one-dimensional sweet taste that reinforces and entrains juvenile preferences'. Read more Are you 'upset'? The dangers of flags in Scottish schools These are the latest plans at the Glasgow School of Art. Really? No more Edinburgh Book Festival for me – where did it all go wrong? Anyone who grew up in the 1970s or earlier will know how true this is. I try to avoid using the phrase 'in my day' if I can, but in my day it was your parents who dictated the food choices based on what was good for you and how much it cost. Sweet foods like a Tunnock's Caramel Log, or the greatest British biscuit of all, the custard cream, were allowed as a treat but only a treat. By contrast, children now appear to be able to wield control and a veto on certain foods that would have been unthinkable in the 1970s. Adverts were around then and adverts are around now – it's the parenting that's changed. How we fix the problem isn't easy – we're now into the second generation of parents who don't know how to cook and have handed food choices to their kids. But another chef I've spoken to is Gary Maclean, senior chef lecturer at City of Glasgow College and a winner of MasterChef: The Professionals. He knows what's he talking about because he lived it. He grew up in the 1970s when most food was cooked from scratch and something like Wimpy was a treat. Now, kids are outdoors much less than they were, and McDonald's and KFC are a ubiquitous part of many children's diets. Result: fat kids. Maclean is well aware that an important factor in all of this is poverty. Unhealthy rubbish is relatively cheap. There was also an interesting Glasgow University study which showed that fast-food outlets are six times more prevalent in the poorest parts of the city. And it's all borne out by what happens to children and adults. By primary one, five-year-olds in Scotland are more than twice as likely to be at risk of obesity if they're from the most deprived catchments compared to the least. Roughly the same with adults: the obesity rate in the most affluent areas is 26% compared to 36% in the poorest neighbourhoods. An ad for Tunnock's (Image: Newsquest) You may think the answer to the problem is to tax unhealthy food, but Gary Maclean's concern is that it just makes life for poorer people even harder. Much better, he says, to try to get in early and encourage good habits at an early stage. If he had his way, he would make cooking and food education compulsory in schools – and it's hard to resist his logic. 'Learning to cook is just as important as learning to write,' he said. 'PE is compulsory and what you eat is just as important as what you do.' His conclusion is that Scotland has the best food in the world but the worst diet, and only something fundamental such as compulsory food lessons at school will change it. You could introduce all the rules on ads you like – you could ban ads for Tunnock's Teacakes entirely – but not only would that be unfair on a firm like Tunnock's that's trying to promote its product, it would only make a marginal difference on a population affected, and made unhealthier, by deeper trends. As it happens, Mr Loudon of Tunnock's also believes it's education that will address the problem and he's right: don't change the ads, change how we see them, and react to them. There's nothing wrong with a biscuit or two as part of a healthy balanced diet; all we need to do is to re-learn the fact.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Only Trump supporters are surprised by the President's bombing decision
POOL/AFP via Getty Images Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Over the weekend, President Trump's bombing of Iran's three nuclear sites has split his Make America Great Again supporter base. His normally outspoken and brazen acolytes have been learning to mid-air somersault as they seek to rationalise and excuse the President's decision. These commentators, after all, are the ones who have bleated an America First policy of non-interventionism. The bombing goes against everything the MAGA movement stands for. They say domestic policy, protectionist trade, and American nationalism are utterly incompatible with global interventionism and that spinning the Middle East roulette wheel and claiming you can foresee the outcome is utter madness. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But why are they surprised? The MAGA movement aspires to a status of selective global engagement. For most of the 19th century, Britain was diplomatically isolated, having what Lord Palmerston called "no eternal allies" to whom she owed favours. The obverse of this, of course, was that no other country owed favours to her. Trump's hostility to NATO lends credence to this ambition, but his unwavering allegiance to Israel continues to tie America's fate to the Middle East. His decision to strike Iran on the back of Israel's attack on June 13 can hardly come as a shock when the President has continued America's tradition of long-standing military and economic support for the country. American foreign policy has always been split: on the one hand, some believe the country should be an inspiring "Shining City on a Hill" example to others. Conversely, others are convinced that only intervention and a total military and economic global hegemony will liberate the world from despotism and fanaticism and shape it in America's image. The two dominant ideologies in the United States about foreign policy are interventionism, which encourages military and political intervention in the affairs of foreign countries, and isolationism, which discourages this. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This is an old controversy dating back to the Founding Fathers, who struggled to reconcile the opportunities of continental security with the realities of a British, Spanish, and French imperial world. No president has ever managed to reconcile their ambition with what our own former Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, called "Events, dear boy, events." In the American tradition, there has never been a clear demarcation between Left and Right, Democrats and Republicans, on whether the US should embrace a global role. "America First," after all, was first deployed by Woodrow Wilson, who was reluctant for the country to enter World War 1 (it, of course, subsequently did in 1917). Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson's Republican bitter rival and predecessor, believed the country should "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Roosevelt's approach to foreign policy was to negotiate peacefully and maintain a strong military presence to back up one's words. In the 19th century, the United States transitioned from an isolationist, post-colonial regional power to a trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific power. Debates about restraint and international engagement are still the same as they were at the turn of the last two centuries and just as self-deludingly hypocritical. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad President James Monroe declared the eponymous Monroe Doctrine in 1823, which opposed European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It stated that further European colonisation or intervention in the Americas would be viewed as hostile toward the United States. Monroe nevertheless expanded trade and pacified relations with Great Britain while growing the United States at the expense of the Spanish Empire, including obtaining Florida with the Adams–Onís Treaty in 1819. Likewise, Dollar diplomacy, notably during the presidency of William Howard Taft, sought to minimise the use or threat of military force by using the United States' economic power to further its aims in Latin America and East Asia. With no loss of irony, Taft was a proponent of American imperialism in the early 20th century, and like his presidential descendant, he considered North American economic integration with Canada inevitable. More often than not, internationalism is forced upon leaders. America passed successive Neutrality Acts in the 1930s to keep the country out of the Second World War. By the time of the Pearl Harbour attacks on December 8, 1941, America had been involved in a Destroyers-for-bases deal in 1940, and this was followed by the Lend-Lease Act of March 1941, which allowed the U.S. to sell, lend or give war materials to nations Roosevelt wanted to support: Britain, France, and China. The Truman Doctrine of 1947 likewise promised unabated assistance to anti-communist allies. Security does not begin or stop, as Trump tends to forget, at a literal border. No one presumably ever wants war, but it is a house of cards to build a cult of personality, as Trump has done, around the notion that he is not an international adventurer, a NeoCon imperialist, or an American Caesar. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Iranian regime is one of the most awful the world has seen. Since the Iranian Revolution and the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, they have tortured and tormented their people more than any foreign power. The regime's clear ambitions have consistently drawn strong opposition from Western countries and neighbouring states in the Middle East. The Trump presidency cannot pretend this reality does not exist, and Israel certainly cannot. "Trust in Trump" is now an exercise in faith. The problem, as Trump supporters will soon discover, is that the central tenets of MAGA are contradictory and more at home in a pre-WW2 world where the world was less interconnected. Complexity begets complexity, and only the stupid believe that war is an Occam's razor. You can do nothing, you cannot do everything. This is the irony of superpowers. America has been, and very likely will always be, caught in a game of setting an example to the world and being the world's policeman. It is a question for history as to whether this example is a good one or not. To defend its interests, the US has engaged in extrajudicial, covert, and military engagements in the name of everything from security to humanitarianism.
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Brexit rules spark ‘clear demand' for more motorhome parking, lobby group says
Boosting provision for these vehicles would generate more revenue for local businesses and increase the number of visitors to tourist destinations outside the peak summer season, the Campaign for Real Aires (Campra) said. Aires is a French word used to describe designated stopping places for motorcaravans – the collective term for motorhomes and campervans – which are much more common in continental Europe than the UK. Post-Brexit rules mean UK passport holders are prohibited from being in the Schengen area – which covers most of the European Union and some other European nations – for more than 90 days within a 180-day period. That means many UK-based motorcaravan users are seeking domestic destinations for overnight trips. But a survey of 6,731 users suggested 88% are dissatisfied with the UK's availability of overnight parking in desirable locations. The poll also indicated that motorcaravaners spend an average of £51 per day in local businesses and £23 per night on overnight parking or campsite fees. Many respondents commented on the UK's lack of infrastructure and welcoming attitude compared with continental Europe, Campra said. Last month, Hampshire County Council approved plans to ban campervans and motorhomes from staying overnight at the south coast beauty spot of Keyhaven, near Lymington. It claimed the move would 'bring order' to the area. Campra managing director Steve Haywood said welcoming motorcaravans to an area 'can be a hugely positive move'. He went on: 'There is a clear demand – emphasised by post-Brexit travel restrictions – for more overnight stay options in UK towns and cities, and those towns and cities could benefit hugely by embracing motorcaravans. 'More councils are seeing the benefits of providing facilities, instead of suffering the cost of enforcement and bans, not to mention the loss of potential revenue to businesses. 'In Fleetwood, Lancashire, for example, the introduction of overnight parking in the seafront car park for £5 per night has seen a huge boost in revenue for local shops, and has been so successful that additional facilities are now being planned for motorcaravanners. 'Every council that has operated a 12-month trial aire has been successful and made the overnight parking permanent.' Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency figures show more than 416,000 motorcaravans are registered in the UK. A spokesperson for the Local Government Association said: 'Policies around overnight motorcaravan parking and the provision of facilities are a matter for local councils.'
