The Surf Industry Responds To The Big Sea Documentary

Surf Industry Members Association (SIMA) Executive Director Vipe Desai on the film linking neoprene production in Louisiana to increased cancer risk.

We’ve covered The Big Sea, a documentary that links the production of neoprene (the trade name for chloroprene) in the Denka plant in Louisiana with increased cancer risks in the surrounding community. Matt Barr also covered the issue in the new print edition #264 of Wavelength. The filmmakers Lewis Arnold and Chris Nelson have claimed that the surf industry, or the makers of wetsuits, have been complicit in using neoprene, either ignoring or being ignorant of the cancer risks involved in the Denka plant. 

We reached out to members of the surf industry for a response, and to Vipe Desai’s credit, he has responded on the record. Desai is a Californian surfer with 45 years of combined history and experience in the surf industry and is the Executive Director of the Surf Industry Members Association (SIMA). 

WL: The film’s major assertion is that the production of neoprene at the Denka facility in Louisiana is linked to increased cancer risk. They quote the EPA as stating that the cancer risk to the community there is the highest in the USA – 50 times the national average, due to the chloroprene emissions from Denka. As most wetsuits are made from Denka-produced neoprene, do you think the surf industry has a role in moving away from a product that is causing harm?

Vipe: I’ll start by saying that I have not seen the film and am relying on comments from those who’ve seen it, along with various statements the filmmakers have made in interviews and podcasts. 

I too question how the EPA could allow any of the culpable Cancer Alley facilities to continue operating and don’t doubt the Denka factory and others are linked to cancer and/or other health risks. However, if the film points to the Denka facility in Louisiana USA as a supplier of neoprene for major surf wetsuit brands, this would simply not be factual. While there are several other suppliers, some limestone chloroprene rubber chips are indeed sourced via a Denka-owned facility, but in Japan. These Japanese chips are not petroleum based and research shows those facilities are not associated with elevated health risks.  

Because surf wetsuit brands within SIMA’s community are manufactured primarily via one prominent entity, it is relatively easy to verify supply chain facts. One SIMA brand we spoke with was able to confirm none of their wetsuits had ever contained materials sourced from Louisiana within 48 hours after being alarmed by an article in The Guardian regarding Cancer Ally four to five years ago. This one go-to wetsuit manufacturer for surf brands is also Patagonia’s partner in developing natural rubber and Yulex. Surely the filmmakers worked with them to build their story and would know that they have never sourced neoprene from Louisiana.   

 

SIMA has a proven track record supporting grassroots environmental and social activism so we take this subject very seriously. While confirming neoprene for surf wetsuits does not come from the Denka facility in Louisiana, we learned that the plant is partly owned by Mitsui & Co. and specializes in products such as polymers that prevent your car dashboard from melting, laptop sleeves, electrical insulation, and neoprene for automotive belts and hoses. In this case, if we’re aiming for transparency, you are much more likely to be supporting Denka in Louisiana by driving a car than by wearing a surf wetsuit made by any well-known brand. 

Now, I want to be very clear; the social environmental injustice suffered by the citizens in Cancer Alley is unacceptable. This is an inexcusable failure of the oversight responsibility of the EPA. An activist friend of ours involved in SIMA’s Environmental Fund has been engaged in lawsuits against other petrochemical plants in Cancer Alley for over 20 years. This type of pollution must stop. However, if the film claims surf wetsuits are behind the appalling circumstances the people there are up against, it would be very misleading. If misleading the surf community doesn’t sit well with me, the thought of telling the ravaged citizens of Cancer Alley that their suffering has been caused by surfers – when it clearly has not – feels especially wrong. 

And yes, the surf industry has played a major role in moving away from materials causing harm and will continue to do so. We’ve made real progress minimizing plastics in packaging, trims, hand tags, switching to FSC paper, phasing out PFSA chemicals, and increasing the use of preferred materials such as hemp, organic cotton, recycled poly, etc. 

At SIMA, we are also proud of the vital environmental activism we’ve been engaged in for decades with organizations like Surfrider Foundation, Surfers Against Sewage, Save the Waves, Wildcoast, etc. We’ve granted just under $10 million in funding and have earned a tremendous amount of trust in conservation circles. The thought of breaking that trust by misleading the surf community around something as serious as Cancer Alley is not something we take lightly.  

It’s also worth pointing out that most of the brands we spoke to are either bringing natural rubber wetsuits to market already or are planning to. In terms of moving away from harmful materials, our understanding is natural rubber wetsuits are better than limestone wetsuits which are in turn better than petroleum-based ones. However, even FSC natural rubber is not necessarily the “silver bullet” that will exonerate wetsuit-wearing surfers of our supply chain sins, i.e. plant-based rubber comes primarily from non-native, monoculture industrial rubber tree plantations that are widely known to use fertilizers and fungicides associated with elevated cases of cancer and other health risks. Natural rubber is certainly a step in the right direction but cold water surfers looking for a zero-impact wetsuit today will have to rely on a strong tolerance for cold, and maybe Wim Hof breath exercises until there’s a cleaner alternative.   

The director Lewis Arnold goes further, he said in my interview that, “When you dig into it, the surfing industry and surf media has known about this and has been complicit and still is.” Do you think that is a true statement?

Surf brands have been on the forefront of adopting preferred materials including hemp, organic cotton, recycled poly, etc. In terms of wetsuits, SIMA endorsed Yulex as soon as it was launched, awarding Patagonia’s wetsuit ‘Environmental Product of the Year’ around 2014. We spoke with one brand that launched a natural rubber wetsuit in 2015 who affirmed they felt great about the product in theory, but the wetsuit was noticeably less flexible, less durable, no warmer, and significantly more expensive than market alternatives. In their own words, they “had to give the suits away”. Even still, this brand and others have continued testing and are bringing natural rubber to market if they haven’t already. So to say the industry is complicit or hasn’t made an effort in this case is categorically false.

So, brands who are touting Yulex are reaping the benefits of other surf brands that endorsed and invested in helping this solution gain recognition. So it’s a little off-putting to hear them exploiting this issue rather than raise their voice on what steps are being taken to remedy this problem for surfers around the world.

And were you aware personally of the neoprene and cancer links?

Again, no surf brands that we know of are sourcing neoprene from the facility in Louisiana’s Cancer Alley. And again, the Denka facility producing chloroprene rubber chips for surf wetsuits in Japan is not connected to any elevated cancer risks per our knowledge.  

As an industry, it is critical for us to protect our consumer base and to protect our oceans. I’m encouraged by seeing the industry as a whole take more action to change their thinking and product development. And we’re very passionate about protecting water quality and protecting our coasts with SIMA’s Environmental Fund, literally putting our money where our mouth is.   

We’re also aware that all business has an impact. We take pride in progress made to date and accept the challenge to continually improve and innovate. Innovation takes time, as has been the case with natural rubber wetsuits, but we are firmly committed. I would also stress that decades of environmental activism have proven how a united surf community can accomplish significant environmental victories such as blocking the Trestles Toll Road, saving surf spots and surrounding ecosystems such as Punta Lobos in Chile. A divided surf community based on a misleading or false narrative would be disappointing, to say the least.    

The film, and brands like Patagonia, believe that plant-based rubber, of which Yulex is the current market leader, can provide an answer to the issue. 

As I’ve stated above, natural rubber is the better alternative as of now, and SIMA championed Yulex out of the gates for this reason. That said, finished consumer products must be accepted by the broader market as typically determined by performance, durability, availability, and cost. We believe that Yulex is doing great work and tackling FSC certifications, community management, etc. but if we’re striving for real transparency, industrial monoculture rubber tree plantations are not without negative impact. Ideally, wetsuits [and all consumer products] will keep moving towards circular product loops made from truly clean/regenerative sourced raw materials.  

We’ve asked The Big Sea’s filmmakers Chris Nelson and Lewis Arnold to respond to Vipe’s comments above. We hope to have their response published next week.