The debate over natural fur vs. fake rages on in the media, but with no new arguments being put on… Read More
The debate over natural fur vs. fake rages on in the media, but with no new arguments being put on the table, it's hard to tell whether our industry is gaining ground. On the upside, the sustainability argument is now front and centre, and fake fur is taking a beating, as in a recent Huffington Post piece, "Faux fur is made of plastic, and it's not helping the environment." On the downside, almost all media reports are using the same cute but unhelpful hook: that both natural and fake fur are bad, so what are we to do? Here's a classic example, from Fashion United: "Fashion's battle with fur: real vs faux".
They call it "balanced reporting", but there are no winners when the message getting out is that neither natural fur nor fake fur is the way to go.
But heh, let's be optimists, like Thomas Salomon, fourth-generation owner of designer brand Yves Salomon. Thomas is a great spokesman for the fur trade as a whole, not just the retail sector, and he is adamant that the cloud now hanging over natural fur has a silver lining. When asked by Hong Kong Tatler whether fur was "a dying industry," he responded, "It’s not a dying industry, but rather it’s a time where it’s modernising itself."
In other fur fashion news, the Korea Herald covered last month's Asia Remix, a contest for young designers working with fur, organised by the International Fur Federation. On hand to spread the word was Kelly Xu, CEO, IFF Asia Region. “Using fake fur damages the Earth, with the waste going to the oceans, affecting the entire ecosystem,” she said. “Fur is natural material which has been used by humans for thousands of years. It is biodegradable, it is sustainable fashion.”
Meanwhile, there's nothing better for a designer brand than some celebrity endorsement, and guess who reaped the windfall last month? When actress Katie Holmes stepped out in Manhattan, she was wearing a snuggly fox-trimmed coat from none other than Yves Salomon. Interestingly, celebrities are in far less of a rush to ditch fur than designer brands like Gucci.
Katie Holmes, former better half of Tom Cruise, steps out in her fox-trimmed Yves Salomon jacket.
Trapping and Wildlife Management
Urban wildlife has been in the news again, and will be a regular fixture in the future. Even on the other side of the pond there's interest in North America's special problems, with the UK's Guardian featuring Toronto's raccoons. For some residents they are "scrappy heroes" but for others they are "villainous thugs". In case you missed it, "Conrad" the raccoon achieved fame posthumously when he died on a Toronto street in 2015. During the 12 hours it took for city services to pick him up, 'coon fans erected a memorial shrine to him.
Raccoons, of course, are a primary carrier of the rabies virus. A staggering statistic in "The value of modern day trapping" in The Bradford Era is $550 million - the cost of controlling rabies in the US annually. Without trapping, it is estimated this would balloon to $1.5 billion.
Urban coyotes are at it again, this time in Roswell, Georgia. Trapper Tim Smith was called in and soon trapped four. “They’re eating all the small dogs in the neighborhood, rabbits, every once in a while, we’ll get one that wants to come up to kids at the bus stop,” he said.
While North Americans argue about the place of trapping in wildlife management, New Zealanders understand. True, their eradication programs target invasive species, such as possums and rabbits, but animal rights opposition is almost unheard of. Here's an inspiring story of one man's efforts to protect a breeding colony of indigenous seabirds from rats, stoats, mice and hedgehogs. "Unfortunately, conservation in New Zealand is all about killing things,'' says conservationist Graeme Loh. "It is grim. I've been involved in the biodiversity part of things for many years, and most of my work has been working out better ways to kill more of the right stuffs at the right time.''
Timmins Fur Council member Raymonde Dallaire explains various animals to children at the Timmins Fall Fair.
Education, of course, is the key, which is why the Timmins Fur Council in Ontario takes its outreach programs to kids and families very seriously. Read "Put down your gadgets kids, learn to love nature" by council member Kaileigh Russell. If the name sounds familiar, that's because the council was co-founded by her grandfather fully 50 years ago.
Last but by no means least (especially if you're a Brit yearning to live in the past), learn about a traditional form of wildlife management that's making a comeback: molecatching. "Moleskin: A unique fur once favoured by British high society" is a story of royalty, a pest, and a unique fur that takes 600 pelts to make one coat!
In response to rumors of his demise, American writer and humorist Mark Twain is famously quoted as saying, “The reports… Read More
This article was first published by FurInsider, July 30, 2018.
In response to rumors of his demise, American writer and humorist Mark Twain is famously quoted as saying, “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.” It seems a similar quip might be made in response to comments from legislators, anti-fur zealots and the media that have appeared in discussions of the San Francisco fur ban ordinance. Let’s take a minute to delve into the truth about fur’s unwavering appeal within fashion.
Reports of the death of the fur trade have been greatly exaggerated.
Hyped-up talk by legislators, anti-fur zealots and media about San Francisco’s possible fur ban ordinance hasn’t shaken fur’s unwavering appeal with consumers.
So what is the truth about fur’s unwavering appeal and how consumers feel about it?
If you want to look at the research, Gallup’s annual poll on consumer attitudes towards a range of products showed that a significant majority of respondents supported the “moral acceptability” of fur in 2018 and, in fact, the total percentage reflected an increase of 3% over the previous poll. Another firm, Nanos Research, conducted a series of focus groups in several cities across the US just a few years ago. They found that in every city 100% of the respondents supported the consumer right to choose to buy and wear fur. It is important to note that half of the people in these groups identified as fur wearers and half of them stated they would not wear fur. That’s right ... 100% supported the freedom to choose to buy fur!
As of May 2018, 60% of Americans support "buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur."
Suspicious of research? Then let’s look at the best indicator of any when it comes to consumer attitudes, the cash register. If consumers weren’t buying fur, retailers would not be taking up valuable space and spending marketing dollars to sell it. And if retailers weren’t offering it, designers and manufacturers would not be producing it. It is that simple. But as the fall 2018 and couture runways show, there are a lot of great fur fashions coming this season.
If you pay attention this fall you will see fur fashions, fur shoes and fur accessories in designer boutiques, outerwear and sporting goods stores, shoe salons and all over the major luxury department stores. Just last week I visited the Bloomingdale’s in Century City, CA and saw 45 different shoe styles with fur on display ... and we’re still in the heat of summer!
Clearly the anti-fur zealots have not been successful in changing consumer attitudes enough over the past 35+ years, nor have they put a dent in fur’s unwavering appeal. As a result of this failure, they now turn to legislators to force their anti-fur agenda upon the rest of us. It is a gross violation of the core principles of democracy.
Here at Furinsider we are admittedly fur-friendly. But our focus is fashion. In that regard, we celebrate the creative freedom that allows designers to innovate and produce fresh new fashion season after season.
And we celebrate the freedom inherent in our democracy that allows us, the public, to choose to buy and wear fashion that expresses our individuality. All of which is to say, if consumers want fake fur we are all for it, as long as they have done their homework and considered the environmental threats imposed by the microfibers that enter our waterways and are ingested by marine life. And, of course, as long as it is well designed!
At the same time, if consumers want real fur for its rich, luxurious texture, its warmth, the incredible fashions and accessories made from real fur, or the very fact that they are concerned about the environment and they choose to buy products that are renewable and sustainable ... we say go for it!
For those that choose not to buy fur, wear leather, or eat meat, we respect those choices. But, you have no right to take these freedoms from the rest of us.
Fur has been making the headlines more often than usual, and we are very happy to see the media questioning the use of faux fur. While the media aren't exactly singing praise for real fur, we are starting to see a consistent message that faux fur may not be a viable substitute for the real thing, especially since they are finding plastic microfibre pollution in water, caused in part by our use of synthetic fabrics. Of course us fur folk know this and it's part of our campaigning, but the fact that the media are regularly mentioning this is certainly positive for the trade.
Check out articles by Drapers, ABC, and Refinery 29. Not all of these articles are pro fur, but at least people are beginning to understand the damage caused by fake fur. Unfortunately this piece by Forbes failed to call out the companies who are dropping real fur in the name of sustainability, when we all know that real fur is so much more sustainable than the alternative.
Now that you are convinced that real fur is far superior to faux fur, are you considering buying one? Our guide to choosing the right fur for youwill give you a hand with your shopping. But be careful – there have been some isolated cases of real fur being labeled as fake. The fur industry’s stance on this matter is in agreement with animal rights activists (that’s a first): labelling needs to be accurate. Everyone has the right to know what they are buying. If you do end up getting yourself a beautiful new fur coat, here are some great tips on caring for it.
Animal Activists Bothering Everyone
It was never just about fur. PETA is targeting LVMH for using animal skins. Image: Louis Vuitton.
While they are still very much bent on ending the fur trade, animal rights activists have also been busy on other projects, and any fashion brand that thinks dropping fur will get them off its back should think again. For example, they want to stop the use of skins like crocodile and snake, leather, wool, and silk. (Prince Charles will certainly have an issue with that, since he's recently been promoting the benefits of wool.) Now PETA has luxury conglomerate LVMH in its cross hairs, pressuring it to stop using exotic skins.
It’s normal to be frustrated with activists trying to restrict our freedom of choice and force us into faux fur, but there is one story in particular that has really bothered us. You may have heard of the Toronto restaurant that reacted to vegan protesters by butchering and eating a deer leg in the restaurant’s front window. When the story hit the headlines across North America, we thought the activists would move on to the next unsuspecting small business. But instead, they told the restaurant owner that they would only be willing to cease protesting if he put a vegan slogan in the front window. The restaurant owner refused and referred to the threat as extortion – which we agree with. On the upside, the restaurant continues to get tons of free press as this saga continues.
How the US pays for conservation is threatened by a decline in the number of hunters, reports NPR. Photo: Nathan Rott/NPR.
It’s Christmas time so, for a change of pace, let’s wander off the topic of fur, and on to Christmas… Read More
It’s Christmas time so, for a change of pace, let’s wander off the topic of fur, and on to Christmas trees. So which are best for the environment, real trees or fake trees? You may find some of the arguments familiar!
We are flies on the wall at the dairy farm of Fred and Mary in upstate New York, where son Nick is visiting for the festive season along with his wife, Nancy. Since Nick grew up on the farm, he knows all about milking and mucking out, but Nancy is a city girl from Rochester, where she works as a personal lifestyle coach.
“A what?” Fred and Mary had asked the first time they’d met Nancy. In the years since, good-natured goading had become a part of Christmas family tradition, but it was always a two-way street because Nancy’s knowledge of nature was as pitiful as Fred and Mary’s knowledge of city life.
“Why must your cows be pregnant when you’re just using them for milk?” she’d asked one year. “And how is it even possible? They’re all female!”
This year, with a couple of days to go to Christmas, they all climbed in Fred’s truck to see a friend who had a beautiful tree picked out for them. In the back seat, Nancy lovingly caressed her early gift from Nick, a big, bouncy, faux fur fox hat. Behind the wheel, Fred proudly wore his Daniel Boone hat, made by a local artisan from a roadkill raccoon Nick had run over.
“Faux? That means fake, right? Plastic?” Fred asked Nancy, knowing perfectly well what it meant. “Well at least it hasn’t got rabies!” Nancy shot back, pointing at Fred’s head. “For the umpteenth time, my hat does not have rabies!” Fred began, before Mary intervened. “You both look lovely!” she pleaded.
No fake trees for these guys! Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone shared a sense of fashion and a lot more besides!
Shortly after, they were headed home with a spectacular nine-foot spruce hanging off the flatbed. Fred and Mary were beaming, while Nick looked anxiously at his wife. She was bursting to say something!
“Poor tree,” she muttered, and Fred eased off the gas. “Come again?” he said. “Uh oh,” said Mary and Nick.
“Why can’t you just get an artificial tree?” said Nancy. “You know, save the planet?”
Fred stroked the tail of his raccoon hat meaningfully.
“If everyone bought a real tree,” continued Nancy, “soon there wouldn’t be any left – like what’s happening in the Amazon.”
“Seriously?” responded Fred. “That’s like saying we’ll run out of carrots if too many people eat them. That was a farm we just visited, and each year my friend plants saplings to replace the ones he’s sold. His family’s been doing it for forty years, and they’ve got more trees now than when they started! Some trees do come from forests, but even those are managed so they don’t run out.”
“But why take the chance?” said Nancy. “If we need more artificial trees, we just make more. They’ll never run out.”
“Never? It’ll take a long time,” conceded Fred. “But most fake trees are made of PVC, and one of the ingredients for making PVC is oil. That’s a non-renewable resource. So if anything won’t run out, it’s real trees.”
Nancy rallied fast. “But real trees are so wasteful. After just a few weeks you’ll throw yours in the garbage, while mine will last for years.”
“Actually, we use our trees for all sorts of things,” explained Fred. “Mary puts the branches on the flower beds to insulate the plants against frost. I chop up the trunks for firewood. And there’s a truck that collects them too, and puts them in the chipper to make mulch for the parks. And even if they just get tossed on the garden, they just become worm food. Like you say, PVC trees will last for years, but they’ll still end up in landfills, polluting groundwater for the next thousand years.”
“Heh, artificial trees can be recycled too!” said Nancy.
“That’s true. PVC is easy to recycle once or twice,” conceded Fred, “but it weakens with time and most still ends up in landfills, and it doesn’t biodegrade – it doesn’t become worm food. A lot is also mixed in with household waste and is incinerated to produce electricity, but that releases harmful dioxins into the atmosphere.”
“In fact,” he continued, “since we’re on the subject of pollution, greenhouse gases are emitted during the making of fake trees, but buying a Christmas tree from a farm is a carbon-neutral purchase.”
“A what?” spluttered Nancy.
Nick took pity on her. “Trees sequester carbon dioxide, right? They absorb it and store it. Now carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and if we cut down all the trees, it would be released back into the atmosphere, worsening global warming. But each time a farm cuts down one tree, it replaces it with another, so on balance, no carbon dioxide is released into the air. So it’s a carbon-neutral purchase.”
Nancy glared at him. “How about a divorce? Is that carbon-neutral?” Nick stifled the urge to laugh. “Sorry, dear. I’ll be quiet.”
Real Christmas trees make excellent mulch. Photo: Southern Living.
“So how about all those people driving out to tree farms in their gas-guzzling trucks to buy their trees?” asked Nancy. “Or are they all driving Teslas? I don’t think so!”
“Nancy dear, they don’t drive Teslas when they go to the mall to buy a fake tree either,” interjected Mary in her best peacemaker tone. “More importantly, real trees are farmed close to consumers, while your fake tree probably came all the way from China. So the greenhouse gases involved in shipping fake trees are much higher. Right, Fred?”
Fred grunted, sensing he’d said enough.
“Well, how about the cost to you personally?” Nancy asked Mary, mimicking her sweet tone. “Each year, you spend $100 on a tree that lasts a few weeks. I bought mine for a little more, but it’ll last for 20 years.”
“Bingo!” said Fred, unable to keep his mouth shut. “And that’s the only reason for buying a fake tree. It’s cheap. But in the long term, there’s a price we all have to pay. Real trees are sustainably produced and don’t harm the environment. But fake trees are unsustainable and polluting.”
“Stop the car, Dad! Dead raccoon!” shouted Nick suddenly. “Are you sure you don’t want a hat like Dad’s, Nancy?”
In its 2014 Sustainability Report, fashion brand Hugo Boss said that it was planning to stop using farmed fur in… Read More
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.
*Units in "millipoints" - used to express diverse types of potential impacts. Source: A comparative life cycle analysis: Natural fur and faux fur by DSS Management Consultants.
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.
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.
