In its 2014 Sustainability Report, fashion brand Hugo Boss said that it was planning to stop using farmed fur in its collections from Autumn/Winter 2016 onwards. According to Bernd Keller at the company, its sustainable corporate strategy should take precedence over the “fast and simple route to success”. Like many companies, it has realised that global consumers are demanding a more sustainable approach to business.

I completely agree that sustainability should take precedence over short-term corporate goals and applaud Hugo Boss for thinking that way, but I would respectfully disagree that moving away from farmed fur is a good method for accomplishing it.

Fur is actually one of the most sustainable materials that apparel brands can employ. Fur farms recycle food waste from other industries and can provide organic replacement for chemical fertilisers, while natural fur garments usually last 20-30 years or more and are regularly brought to furriers for remodelling, which extends their life considerably. And at the end of its life, natural fur will degrade quickly and naturally.

Globally the environmental aspects of fur are strictly regulated in accordance with national legislation. These guidelines cover the handling and distribution of manure and the use of chemicals. This means that the regulated fur industry sets the best standards in the world when it comes to the environmental impact of this type of farming.

Artificial fur, on the other hand, is far from the "safe alternative" some lobbying groups might have us believe. Fake fur, comprising polyacrylates, requires the extraction and fractionating of petroleum, its subsequent conversion into fibres and mass manufacturing into products. These are not only incredibly energy intensive and damaging to local ecosystems, but also produce extremely unpleasant chemical compounds.

Plus, fake fur garments are very much "disposable fashion" and will rarely be kept for more than a couple of years – after which they end up alongside plastic bags on rubbish tips, where they could remain for centuries.

But perhaps most importantly, I’m concerned that Hugo Boss is not respecting consumers’ choice and ability to decide for themselves. Have the vast majority of its customers in regions like Europe and Asia said they don’t want fur products and stayed away in droves? Its most recent global earnings figures would probably suggest otherwise.

SEE ALSO: 5 REASONS WHY FUR IS A GOOD FASHION CHOICE

Also, its 2014 annual report noted that Hugo Boss “has been in dialogue with several animal and consumer protection organisations for many years, to continuously improve in the area of animal welfare”. We certainly welcome intelligent and informed debate on the topics of sustainability and animal welfare.

So I would like to conclude with a request to Hugo Boss. If you’re genuinely keen on sustainability and truly eager to engage in dialogue with interested parties, get in touch with us at the International Fur Federation. Moving away from fur may net the brand some short-term headlines, but it may cause more harm than good in the long run. And the long run is what sustainability is really all about.

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) was formed on the principles of free trade and non-discrimination. However, its Dispute Settlement Body recently announced that it is supporting the EU's ban on the commercial trade in seal products, a ban that was set up on the grounds that the legislation served the 'public moral concerns' of a select segment of the EU population.

But what is 'public morality', really? The WTO itself doesn't have a definition. The General Agreements on Tariffs & Trade (GATT) does, but only that it allows each country to set its own definition.

This is opening a huge can of worms. It could allow a deluge of restrictive trade measures being justified on the grounds of 'public morals'. For example, a WTO member could block the import of pharmaceuticals based on a 'moral' objection to reliance on animals in medical research. No scientific support or data - just the belief it's immoral.

Similarly, governments could impose restrictions on the importation of animal products based solely on 'moral' concerns related to the animal husbandry practices employed in a particular country. No incentive to improve its animal welfare standards or attempt to correct long-held misapprehensions.

SEE ALSO: EU SEALING POLICY IS HYPOCRITICAL, ANTI-DEMOCRATIC

To take an example close to home - people still believe the fur industry skins animals alive for their pelts. Why would workers do something so unnecessarily cruel and make their own jobs that much harder? They don't, but many still think they do.

And why would WTO member states bother to negotiate complex trade disputes if they can just assert a moral objection and ban it? A decade ago, the EU, Russia and Canada addressed ethical concerns over fur trapping and that led to some of the most stringent animal welfare standards in the world - ones that apply to this day.

That would never have happened if they'd just said it was 'morally wrong' and slammed the door on any further discussion.

Freedom of Choice Denied

It's actually a matter of freedom of choice - something we take as a right, but that this decision has damaged massively. If someone doesn't want to wear fur, or eat beef, they have every right to do so. The same applies if they do.

SEE ALSO: PUBLIC MORALS AND TRADE BANS: WTO CAVES

This crops up in the fur trade because animals are involved, and that makes it emotional and divisive. Using 'public morals' to ban an animal product doesn't address the underlying issue of animal welfare or species conservation, as animals will continue to be hunted and farmed in the banned country and virtually every other country as well.

Instead, surely the responsible way forward is to promote welfare standards that create an incentive. This became abundantly clear after my recent trip to Sweden and Ireland, where hundreds of thousands of fur-bearing animals are trapped and killed - and virtually all are discarded. Why? For conservation and animal management.

This applies to the red fox in Switzerland, the 200,000-300,000 muskrats trapped in the Netherlands every year and millions of animals trapped throughout Europe, virtually all of which are discarded. Many consider that to be immoral.

So in essence, the anti-fur campaigns have stunted improvements in animal welfare and conservation practices and denied millions of Euros to rural people. But easy images of traps and "poor, innocent animals" are all we ever see. If these are the effects of public morality in action, we are indeed on a slippery slope.

To be honest, my own personal experience tells me it can be an easy mistake to make. As a former member of parliament I suspect I was at times guilty of thinking I had the right to set a moral agenda when I passed laws. All too often our politicians get too involved - lecturing the public on what's right or wrong - or worse still making sweeping judgements perhaps based on a few hundred protest cards or e mails rather than thinking about the silent majority.

With hindsight, I recognise that we are in dangerous territory when a politician or a government seeks to try and form a range of moral standards or assumptions. Making laws based on morality troubles me. Laws based on a set of basic human rights' principles or scientific evidence is a better measure than a politician's rather flimsy interpretation of what he or she thinks the moral values of the electorate might be.

This article was originally published in The Huffington Post - United Kingdom. View it here: Public Morals are a Slippery Slope