I’ve been told I’ve caught the “fur bug”, and I couldn’t agree more. I’m not only in love with this… Read More
I’ve been told I’ve caught the "fur bug", and I couldn’t agree more. I’m not only in love with this beautiful, natural material, but I’m also attracted by the industry. People living off the land, small family businesses, and the fact that I’m welcomed with open arms in farms, auction houses and design studios around the world, make me so happy to be a part of the international fur family.
But there’s been one thing that’s been annoying me and I think it's time to set the record straight.
Tree Huggers and Lefties
As a campaigner for fur, I’ve been called a few nasty things by animal activists, but what annoys me most is when people in our trade refer to “tree huggers” and “lefties” as being the enemies of the fur trade.
For the record, I’m not what you would call a “tree hugger” (I find that people are much better for hugging!), but I am a tree lover and I’m sending as much love as possible towards the forests. I love nature and I want to protect it, and it strikes me as so strange that animal activists are referred to as “tree huggers” as an insult.
Aren’t all you hunters, trappers and farmers also tree "huggers” or lovers in your own way? You want to protect the land and nature too, don’t you? Where will we hunt and trap if all of the forests are cut down?
Proud to Be Left
When it comes to politics, I’m definitely “left of center” and proud of it. So are a lot of people working in the fur industry, notably Mark Oaten, CEO of the International Fur Federation.
Mark is a former senior member of the Liberal Democrats, the third-largest political party in the UK. To clarify for those of you not familiar with British politics, the Lib Dems make the US Democratic Party look like Tea Party activists by comparison.
And yet ... he and I, and many other “lefties”, love fur and dedicate a part of our lives to ensuring that this industry thrives and grows.
So why the "leftie" jibes? Why do some of us use “tree hugger” as an insult?
Let’s save our insults for the people who are trying to destroy the industry we love.
Just because I’m a staunchly left, female, half-Muslim immigrant that loves trees, doesn’t mean I can't also succumb to the fur bug. It doesn't mean I can't also love fur, farmers, trappers, and the wonderful history and traditions of this industry.
Let’s embrace the diversity of the international fur family and use our energy to ensure that this industry thrives and continues to succeed for as many years as people have been wearing fur. That’s a long time, by the way.
February 2015 has come and gone, and it’s time for our Fur In The News roundup of the month’s best… Read More
Fendi Fall 2015
February 2015 has come and gone, and it's time for our Fur In The News roundup of the month's best stories. It's a furry time of year in the fashion world right now. For starters, we are still in the depths of winter and furs are all over the streets.
On the high fashion front, February is the start of fashion month, when the top catwalk designers show their Fall 2015 collections. Who ever said fur is dead was very wrong. (Well, technically the animals are dead, but fur is VERY alive on our catwalks.) Spotted all over New York, London, Milan, and soon, Paris, fur continues to be a staple in the designer collections.
We've got a soft spot for Fendi, who are famous for their furs and showed a collection of fur-trimmed down coats that look like Canada geese on drugs. (You'll also need some drugs to get over the shock of the price tags.) Check out their show on Style.com.
And while we are talking about designers, Pamela Paquin's brand Petit Mort has been getting a lot of press. She makes fur accessories out of road kill, and we love this feature on her finding her "materials." Of course, the animal rights terrorists activists are still kicking up a fuss, so let's talk about them for a moment.
Are They Terrorists? Hell Yes!
Many of us are following the case of Kevin Johnson and Tyler Lang, two animal rights activists who have served prison terms for releasing mink and foxes from fur farms in the US. They are facing federal charges (under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act) that may result in a further 10 years in prison.
People are debating whether they deserve to be branded as terrorists. We think you all know our feelings on the subject: you terrorize people and their farms, you are a terrorist. Read some articles on the story here and here.
And since we are on the (fun) topic of animal rights activists being charged with felonies, we also suggest reading this article in the New York Times about a woman who stole two ducks from a farm which produces foie gras.
We do loathe giving the activists so many column inches, but we'll end it with this fantastic video aired during the Superbowl. Made by the good people at the Center for Consumer Freedom and PeTA Kills Animals, it was inspired by the horrific kill rates at PeTA's "shelters." Warning: this is a bit of a tear-jerker.
"Fur: An Issue of Life and Death"
February saw the end of a fantastic exhibition on the fur industry, its issues, and its history. Entitled "Fur: An Issue of Life and Death", this show at the National Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen was a fascinating trip into the history of the use of fur, from ancient to modern times.
Featuring a massive collection of high-fashion items, the show certainly demonstrated the innovative designs that can be made from fur. There was a "guess your fur" activity (which demonstrated how fake fur can be good quality, as it was hard to identify which one was not real). Also highlighted were the fur and skin costumes dating from 1850 to 1950 from Greenland, Canada, Alaska, Siberia and the Sami areas of Scandinavia. The seal stomach raincoats were very interesting to see.
"Fur: An Issue of Life and Death", National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen
That's it for now. Spring is only three weeks away so enjoy these last days of winter with your minks, foxes, coyotes, lynx, beavers, and chinchillas, just as long as they aren't fake!
Welcome to 2015 and our first Fur In The News roundup of the year! Coming up: all the best news… Read More
Welcome to 2015 and our first Fur In The News roundup of the year! Coming up: all the best news articles in January.
While we got all caught up in the trapping and farming side of things (pardon the pun!) – Women’s Wear Daily reminded us that fur is all over the streets of the fashion capitals of the world.
And the international media sure have caught on to the fur story. The Financial Times, The Telegraph, Harper's Bazaar, Toronto Life, and Style Caster all posted articles questioning whether it is acceptable to wear fur. We are thrilled to see that all of these articles are leaning towards a YES!
While the UK may be known for being quite anti-fur, we are thrilled to see its two leading ladies, Kate Moss and Queen Elizabeth, are both fans of this beautiful, luxurious product.
And let's not forget the environmental argument: here is a great article highlighting that the "cruelty-free" option is rarely the environmentally friendly one.
The National Museum of Denmark is putting on a major exhibition on fur. Entitled Fur: An Issue of Life and Death, it is on until Feb. 22. Here's your excuse to visit Copenhagen!
And the antis continued their hypocritical tirade against us nature-loving fur folk. Here are a few of the quotes summing up their rude and often-threatening attitude towards us:
"What I don't respect are hypocrites who rail about 'killing poor, defenseless animals' while chowing down on a juicy sirloin or fried chicken leg. Until they wipe the grease off their chin and start living on tofu and bean sprouts, they should button it up." From an article in the Lebanon Democrat.
"These are the same people who supposedly care so much about animals," Chaney said. "But they'd rather kill a chef than a duck." From a chef who likes to cook with foie gras, from the Huffington Post.
"Unless you’re going to be vegan and not wear a leather belt, you can’t be hypocritical about wearing fur." A great article from the Edmonton Journal including some good fur coat storage tips.
"I hope you (expletive) die a miserable death (expletive) ..." A fantastic opinion piece from the FDL Reporter explaining that death threats have no place online. We agree!
But let's end this round up with something fun: proof that people who wear fur are fun. Cheers to this guy from Winnipeg!
Want to get the Truth About Fur blog straight into your inbox, including our Fur In The News roundups? Sign up here.
Ontario trappers have launched an exciting new campaign to inform the public about how they protect people and property by responsibly managing… Read More
Ontario trappers have launched an exciting new campaign to inform the public about how they protect people and property by responsibly managing wildlife populations.
“We are trying to reach that 80% of the population that simply does not know what we do or why and how we do it,” says Robin Horwath, General Manager of the Ontario Fur Managers Federation (OFMF).
OFMF’s posters carry a bold headline stating that, "Trappers Manage Wildlife While Protecting People!" This message is accompanied by three large photos of forest land under water and a road closed by beaver flooding.
For more information, the posters direct people to the Ontario Fur Managers’ website at www.Furmanagers.com.
Street-Level Ads
The campaign over Christmas featured large posters in two major Ontario malls, one in Ottawa’s Bayshore mall and one in Toronto’s The Path mall. In March, the campaign will shift to street-level advertising in Toronto and ads on six Ottawa buses.
“Last year, I saw some street-level info ads about the oil sands and I thought: that’s what we’ve got to do; we’ve got to get out there and tell our own story!”
“People are intelligent, but they can’t make the right decisions if we don’t give them the facts,” says Horwath.
Of course, a few posters will not change the world on their own, at least not immediately. But imagine if trappers’ councils across North America did the same thing!
Happy New Year from all of us here at Truth About Fur! Following is a round-up of major news items… Read More
Happy New Year from all of us here at Truth About Fur! Following is a round-up of major news items dealing with fur in 2014. We'll be sending out monthly updates this year, or you can visit Fur In The News on the Truth About Fur website.
The TV news item was about the upcoming duck season, and the soundtrack in the background was a recording of… Read More
I've watched a dozen movies where they show a flock of cranes in a V formation accompanied by goose music!
The TV news item was about the upcoming duck season, and the soundtrack in the background was a recording of somebody blowing a duck caller. The calling wasn’t bad, but what ruined it for me was the film clip they were running to illustrate duck hunting.
They were filming a flock of coots.
Unfortunately, that sort of stuff is pretty common on today’s television and movie programming. Pay attention, and you’ll see it all the time. I bet I’ve watched a dozen movies where they show a flock of cranes or ibises or some other species that flies in a V formation, accompanied by an overlaid soundtrack of - you guessed it - goose music.
Things like this are laughable, but they ought to also serve as warning flags. Every instance should remind us that not everyone is as knowledgeable about things outdoors as we are, and that simple but profound fact can (and often does) come back to bite us. In fact, the general lack of knowledge of the public about nature might well be the biggest problem we trappers, hunters and anglers face.
Sure, there are plenty of other things for us to worry about - loss of habitat to urban encroachment, shrinking access to public and private land, decreasing recruitment of young people into the outdoor lifestyle we know and love. But at the end of the day, none of those things will matter if our legal right to trap gets taken away at the ballot box.
And slowly but surely, that’s what’s happening. This year, for example, there was a petition drive in Montana to get an initiative on the November ballot prohibiting trapping on any public land in that state. (See Toby Walrath’s piece in the November 2013 issue of Trapper & Predator Caller for more on that.) They failed to get sufficient signatures this time, but if this thing passes in the future, more than a third of Montana would be closed to trapping.
Montana wouldn’t be the first state where it’s happened, either. It’s already against the law to trap on public land in Arizona and Colorado, and trappers have been so restricted and legislation-crippled in states like California, Florida, Massachusetts and New Jersey that I swear I can’t understand why any trapper would live there.
Coots Instead of Ducks, Cranes Instead of Geese
The reason this has happened, and the reason it continues to be a threat, goes right back to that coots instead of ducks, cranes instead of geese thing - a widespread lack of knowledge in the non-hunting, non-trapping public about all things wild. Most of these folks aren’t necessarily against hunting or trapping. They’re not anorexic, wild-eyed vegans. They eat meat just like we do. Nor are they stupid. They just have no interest in hunting or trapping. That’s all. And so they don’t bother to learn anything about it.
But they care about wildlife in an abstract, feel-good sort of way, and that’s why they’re susceptible to the exaggerations, half-truths and flat-out lies the zealots on the bunny-hugger side of the fence keep throwing at them. For example, it’s true what the anti’s say, that the lion does sometimes lay down with the lamb. But what the anti’s always forget to mention is that the reason the lion does so is so it can more comfortably eat the lamb.
It’s up to us to stop this brainwashing of the non-hunting, non-trapping public, and the most effective way to do it is personal communication. Every trapper has many friends and family members who don’t hunt or trap. These folks would be more inclined to believe us than they would be to believe some complete stranger telling them trapping and hunting are evil. However, they won’t get our side of the story unless we tell them.
Are you doing that with your friends and relatives? If so, thanks very much, and keep up the good work.
In this age of “shock imagery” being used to promote political agendas, it’s easy to paint an entire industry by… Read More
In this age of “shock imagery” being used to promote political agendas, it’s easy to paint an entire industry by the actions of a single actor. As the fur farming industry well knows, a suspect undercover video produced in China almost 10 years ago, of an animal being horribly skinned alive, is still being used to paint the industry worldwide. Though the creators of that undercover video have refused to provide the un-cut footage, identify the perpetrators so they can be prosecuted (yes, it is a crime in China) or even reveal the location or time it was made, they still try to use it as “proof” that fur production should be outlawed.
Today we continue to find that animal-rights groups, in their efforts to ban animals from our diet, clothing, medical research and pet stores, are increasingly using undercover video as “whistleblower” evidence of cruelty or neglect.
No one, especially those of us whose livelihoods depend upon healthy, well-cared for animals, wants to see an animal injured or treated badly. U.S. mink farmers, and, indeed, all animal agriculture, not only view animal welfare as a moral obligation, but know that humane care is critical to producing the quality food and fiber that America is recognized for.
Fur Commission USA supports both “whistleblower” protection laws and farm protection statutes. While extremists, often through deceit and creative editing, continue to generate and distribute shock imagery that supports their world-view, it is important to farmers in the U.S. that credible evidence of actual abuse or neglect is identified in a timely manner, and reported to the proper government authorities for investigation so that any problems can be immediately corrected. It is, and should be, all about the well-being of the animals.
Too often we see these anti-animal use groups hold back their “evidence” in order to receive maximum media coverage. They don’t want pesky issues like war, disease or human suffering to take attention away from their agenda.
Does this help the animals? No. In fact, between the time an undercover video may actually have been taken, edited and broadcast, months may have gone by. In that time, if the video is a true depiction, how much animal suffering could have been prevented?
Regrettably, it is painfully obvious that often these organizations appear to care less about the animals than they do about maximizing publicity, self-promotion and fund raising – and that should be the real crime.
Individuals are expected to do their bit too, which usually means giving something up: our gas-guzzling cars, meat (for those who see cows as methane-emitting monsters), and the list keeps growing …
What we don’t often hear is that you can keep warm and look great while fighting climate change ... by wearing fur!
Unlike most synthetics, real fur is not made from petroleum. For lots more reasons why fur is a great choice for those who care about nature, check out www.furisgreen.com. Also: Plastic Bags on Our Backs.
And for the truly dedicated eco-warrior, keep your furs on indoors and turn down the thermostat!
Heck, maybe you can even try going naked in fur! That should keep everyone happy!
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) was formed on the principles of free trade and non-discrimination. However, its Dispute Settlement Body… Read More
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.
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.
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.
Public morals and their protection are certainly a concern for governments, but is the EU abusing its authority in using… Read More
Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6
Public morals and their protection are certainly a concern for governments, but is the EU abusing its authority in using morality as an excuse to ban trade? The World Trade Organization thinks not, and that should worry all of us.
On May 22nd, the WTO Appellate Body released a long-awaited decision about the EU ban on importation of seal products "to protect public morals". While activist groups were quick to trumpet victory, it will take some time to understand the full impact of this complex 250-page judgment.
Nonetheless, it is clear that this ruling will have far-reaching implications for anyone involved with animal production or trading in animal-based products.
On the positive side, the ban (implemented in 2010) was condemned by the WTO’s highest authority for “arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination” against products of other countries, and the EU was instructed to amend its legislation accordingly.
The main issue here is an exemption for Inuit hunters. The WTO noted that “virtually all” Greenlandic (i.e., EU) seal products benefitted from this indigenous exemption while the “vast majority” of Canadian seal products did not.
It therefore found that the ban was discriminatory against Canada. In reality, the exemption did little for Inuit hunters anywhere, because the ban (and related campaigning) eroded markets for all seals. (1)
The real goal of the exemption was to provide cover for activists and EU politicians, since concern for indigenous rights is almost as politically correct as animal rights among the chattering classes, in theory at least.
The WTO, to its credit, saw through the ruse and denied that such racially or culturally defined exemptions “can be reconciled with, or is related to, the policy objective of addressing EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare”.
The EU was hoisted by its own petard. If the way in which seals are hunted is so morally repugnant that a trade ban is justified, how can these same hunting methods be acceptable when employed by Inuit people? It will be interesting to see how the EU responds.
Of much greater importance, however, is that the WTO accepted the EU’s claim that trade restrictions based on animal-welfare concerns can be justified“to protect public morals”.
Until now, the WTO has refused to tolerate any ban based on the “means of production”. And for good reason: Say goodbye to world trade if countries can ban each other’s products because they don’t agree with their worker-safety regulations, environmental-protection controls – or now, animal-welfare concerns. (2)
No wonder that animal activist groups are cheering: a brave new world of political campaigning has just opened for them!
"This is a very exciting development,” gushed Sheryl Fink, director of Canadian wildlife campaigns for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). “Hopefully it will have positive repercussions for other animals that are affected by trade as well." (3) Fur trappers and cattle ranchers take note!
But whose “morality” is really being protected here?
The EU had argued that “because of the way in which seals are killed, the EU public regards seal products from commercial hunts as morally objectionable and is repelled by their availability in the EU market.”
To justify this claim, activists and EU politicians often cite an Ipsos MORI public opinion survey commissioned by Humane Society International (HSI) and IFAW. Conducted in 2011, in 11 countries, the study found that 72% of Europeans supported the import ban on seal products. (4)
The responses to another question in this study, however, are less often quoted. Europeans were asked “how much –if at all – would you say you personally know [about the seal hunt]”. The findings are astounding: 25% of Europeans admitted that they had “never heard of it”.
Another quarter (23%) said they had heard of the seal hunt, but knew “nothing at all”. And another 30% said they knew “not very much”.
In summary: 78% of Europeans say that they know little or nothing at all about the seal hunt. So much for the burning moral issue that justified putting the world trading system at risk!
But despite knowing nothing, 72% of Europeans support the import ban on seal products. That shows what 50 years (sic!) of activist campaigning can do. And it shows why anyone involved with animal production should now be very concerned.
* * *
(1) Inuit leaders have claimed from the start that the exemption for the products from Inuit hunting would not protect their people.
It’s no secret that fur was one of the hottest trends of the season with a presence in most major… Read More
It's no secret that fur was one of the hottest trends of the season with a presence in most major runway shows. But fur is more than just fashionable, it is also one of the most sustainably-produced natural resources on the planet. Furs such as coyote, fox, beaver and muskrat have been used for centuries to provide warmth and incredible versatility. And when these furs are used responsibly, it's not just the fashion industry that thrives, our natural environment benefits too!
Why trapping?
Nature, like most things, requires balance. This balance today includes the coexistence of humans and animals, and the modern fur trade plays a role in helping to maintain this relationship. Without regulated trapping and hunting to manage the size of wildlife populations, many ecosystems would be drastically affected. Regulated trapping is also often necessary to protect property and natural habitat, and to protect both humans and wildlife from disease. Let’s look at a couple of examples.
Leave it to Beaver!
The historical fur trade that led to the foundation of many of our towns and cities was fueled, above all, by the beaver. After more than 400 years of commercial fur trading in North America, biologists tell us that beavers are as abundant as they were when Europeans first arrived here – thanks to modern trapping regulations. However, too many beaver can be as much a problem as too few beavers. Left unmanaged, beaver populations will keep increasing until they eat themselves out of house and home.
Once vegetation is destroyed, it will take many years before beavers can return to the region. With regulated trapping, beaver populations are maintained in balance with available habitat – they are more stable and healthier. Furthermore, overabundant beavers can flood homes, roads, fields and forest habitat. Much better that we use some of what nature provides!
One of the first furs to be used for clothing by First Nations people, beaver is still widely used today by some of the top designers. Specifically, on the runway this year, Givenchy has used beaver to create a sleek bomber jacket, Haider Ackermann showed a monochrome coat while Chloé featured a spectacular beaver vest.
Beaver fur played a role at (from left) Givenchy, Chloé and Haider Ackermann. Image via Getty Images
Coyotes get wild!
Coyotes are highly abundant across North America. They adapt well to human proximity and have profited from wolves being pushed out of much of their traditional range. Coyotes, however, can become dangerous when they are overpopulated and lose their fear of humans. In California, where I live, coyotes have been taking pet dogs and cats from backyards! They can also cause serious problems for cattle ranchers and sheep farmers when they prey on young calves and lambs. And overpopulated coyotes are more likely to spread diseases including rabies, tularemia, and hepatitis which can be transmitted to both animals and humans. Regulated trapping seasons help decrease the negative interactions between humans and wildlife – so why not make use of this remarkable natural resource?
Coyote, canus latrans. Image via Dawn Beattie
Coyote fur, warm and dense, is great for making rugged men's jackets. It's beautiful, natural hue has also been popping up in women's accessories and shoes. And, of course, it is the favorite choice for trimming the hoods of down-filled parkas. (Fur trim on your parka hood protects your face from the cold winds of winter like nothing else!)
Peter Som - Fall 2012
Think about it!
So here’s the real question: since wild furbearer populations are abundant and, in many cases, must be managed to maintain a balance with available habitat, should we kill these animals and throw them away? Or is it more respectful to use this beautiful natural material?
In their attempt to discredit the environmental credentials of the fur trade, activists often cite a “life cycle assessment” (LCA)… Read More
Editor: in our last two blog posts we showed how two “studies” that are often quoted by animal activists (World Bank and University of Michigan/Ford Motor Company) are completely misrepresented. Now we turn our Truth-About-Fur detector to a third commonly cited study.
In their attempt to discredit the environmental credentials of the fur trade, activists often cite a “life cycle assessment" (LCA) produced by CE Delft, a Dutch research consultancy (see: NOTES, below). This study (The environmental impact of mink fur production, Delft, January 2011) found that: “Compared with textiles (including polyester, cotton, wool, and polyacrylic ‘fake furs’), fur has a higher impact on 17 of the 18 environmental themes, including climate change, eutrophication and toxic emissions.”
Because these claims, if true, would contradict our belief that fur is an environmentally responsible choice, we decided to take a closer look. It is lucky that we did!
Stated simply, we found that CE Delft’s negative assessment of fur results from several methodological assumptions or questionable statistics.
Among the most important concerns:
CE Delft used a significantly inflated figure (almost double our findings!) for the amount of feed required to produce farmed fur.
They ignored the fact that, because this feed is composed mostly of wastes from our food-production system, it could be considered an environmental benefit rather than a cost.
Mink manure made from soiled straw bedding and carcasses could also be assigned environmental credits rather than costs – for replacing synthetic fertilizers and fossil fuels.
Not least important, CE Delft discounts the environmental benefits of real fur apparel lasting much longer than fake furs or other textiles, i.e., if a real mink last five time longer than a fake fur coat, its environmental impact should be compared with that of five fakes, not one!
Let’s look at this CE Delft report in more detail ...
CE Delft (“Committed to the Environment”) describes itself as an "independent research and consultancy organization specialized in developing structural and innovative solutions to environmental problems. CE Delft’s solutions are characterized in being politically feasible, technologically sound, economically prudent and socially equitable.” [Socially equitable? Except for mink farmers, it would seem!]
This study, was commissioned by three European “animal-rights” groups that strongly oppose the use of fur: the Dutch Bont voor Dieren, the Belgian GAIA (Global Action in the Interest of Animals) and the Italian Lega Antivivisezione LAV). (No comment!)
Turning to the substance of this study: the feed used to produce mink is identified as one of two elements that account for most of the environmental costs of fur. This claim, however, is based on several assumptions:
- CE Delft sets out to compare 1 kilogram (kg) of mink fur with 1 kilogram of fake fur and other textiles. To this end, they propose that 11.4 mink pelts are needed to produce 1 kg of fur, and that each animal consumes close to 50 kg of feed (including a share for the mother). From these assumptions, CE Delft concludes that 563 kilograms of feed are required to produce one kilogram of fur (49.4 kg of feed x 11.4 pelts/kg of fur.), and this is the figure on which they base all their subsequent calculations of environmental impacts. [p.6]
- Our own survey of North American and European farmers – including statistics published by the Danish Faculty of Agricultural Science, Aarhus University (2010) -- suggests that it actually requires from 38-45 kg – or an average of about 41.5 kg of feed to produce a mink pelt. CE Delft’s figure for how many pelts are required to supply a kilogram of fur is also higher than what we found -- perhaps because their calculation was apparently based on two sample pelts provided by the Dutch activist group Bont voor Dieren, which may not represent a true average size? Using the same methodology as CE Delft but with a large data set provided by European fur auctions, we find that 1 kg of fur represents about 7.75 pelts – not 11.4, as CE Delft proposes. If an average of 41.5 kg of feed is required to produce one mink pelt, multiplying this by 7.75 pelts indicates that 322 kg of feed would be required to produce 1 kg of fur – i.e., a little more than half (57%) the amount of feed used by CE Delft in their calculations. This discrepancy alone explains much of the higher environmental impact they attribute to real fur.
- CE Delft also assumes that mink food is comprised of 70% chicken waste and 30% fish offal. But feed composition varies according to local availability. Thus, in Denmark (which produces three times more mink than Holland, where CE Delft is based) feed is more commonly composed of 80% fish offal and 20% chicken waste. But the environmental cost of fish offal is much lower than that of chicken wastes. In fact, in a 2013 follow-up study, CE Delft acknowledged that a mink diet based on fish rather than chicken would lower environmental impacts by 30%. [See, #6, below.]
- Most important of all: other uses would have to be found for this meat and fish waste -- or it would go into landfills or be incinerated -- if mink weren’t eating it. It could therefore be argued that an environmental CREDIT should be applied to mink food production, since the environmental costs of disposing of these meat and fish wastes are avoided.
In summary: Since mink feed is the predominant factor in 14 of the 18 environmental impacts that CE Delft considered, their assumptions raise serious questions about the credibility of their findings.
4. The second major source of environmental impacts identified by CE Delft is emissions associated with mink manure and other farm wastes.
Here again, CE Delft ignored the subsequent use of this manure and the environmental CREDITS that could be associated with reducing the need for artificial fertilizers when mink manure and other wastes (soiled straw bedding) are properly managed and applied to local agricultural lands. Mink carcasses and wastes are now also used to produce biofuels, thereby reducing the need for fossil fuels.
5. Finally,the way in which CE Delft framed the scope of its study has skewed its findings:
CE Delft did not do a complete, “cradle-to-grave” Life Cycle Assessment in its 2011 study. Instead, it did a partial (“cradle-to-gate”) analysis which included the environmental costs of raising of the mink on the farm, pelting, transportation, auction sale, and processing (dressing) – but stopped at the point when the fur would be made into a garment.CE Delft therefore completely ignored one of the most important environmental attributes of fur apparel, i.e., that it is much longer-lasting than most other clothing materials. Clearly, it matters whether the environmental costs of production are amortized over 5-10 years (fake fur coats) or 40, 50 or more years (real fur coats)!
6. To address this blatant methodological flaw, CE Delft published a follow-up study in June 2013 (“Natural mink fur and faux fur products, an environmental comparison”). This study completed the “life cycle” by assessing the manufacture, use/maintenance and ultimate disposal of real and fake (polyacrylic) furs – but again concluded that real fur apparel has a greater environmental cost than fakes. Here’s why:
- The new study used the same assumptions and calculations about mink feed production and manure/waste management that were presented in the first study – and these two elements still accounted for most of the environmental impacts.
- Furthermore, to blur the environmental advantages of fur apparel lasting much longer than fakes, CE Delft proposed several “scenarios”. It acknowledges that real fur may last as much as five times longer than fake, e.g., 30 years vs 6, as proposed in an LCA prepared for the International Fur Federation [DSS, 2011). But then it backtracks, suggesting that “it is conceivable that the lifespan is determined by the change in fashion; in this case the lifespan of a natural fur coat and a faux fur coat could be equal.” (p.5) This statement reveals ignorance or deviousness:it doesn’t seem to know (or doesn’t want its readers to know?) that fur apparel can be taken apart and completely reassembled (“remodeled”) as fashions change. This is one of fur’s important environmental attributes; no one throws away a fur coat because styles change. In fact, with the current revival of fur in fashion, retailers are busy remodeling coats their customers bought during the last fur boom, in the 1970s and 1980s, i.e. coats that are already 30–40 years old!
- CE Delft also claims that the longevity of real fur coats may be off-set by the environmental costs of cold storage during the off-season. They suggest that 30 years of seasonal cold storage would have more impact on climate change, for example, than the entire process of raising the mink, processing the pelts and producing the coat! (Figure 7, p. 34.) The energy costs of fur storage as estimated by CE Delft, however, are considerably higher than figures collected from real fur storage facilities. More to the point, most fur coats are simply not kept in special cold-storage vaults, especially now that many homes are air-conditioned through the summer months. Furthermore, off-season storage of furs has always been less common in Europe than in North America, and is almost non-existent in Russia and the booming new markets of Asia.
- More fundamentally: we could question CE Delft’s core contention that real and fake fur coats can be compared at all. The fact that people are prepared to pay considerably more money for real fur coats than for fakes would seem to confirm that they have different qualities and “value”.
- Finally, we note that neither CE Delft study appears to have been submitted for peer review.
In conclusion, CE Delft’s often-quoted claim that “fur has a higher environmental cost than fakes” appears to be based on a series of questionable assumptions and calculations. CE Delft is cautious in how it presents its findings, especially in its 2013 study where it provides a number of different “scenarios” to account for the uncertainties it acknowledges. Activists, however, show no such caution when they cite these findings.
The biggest threat to climate change, in fact, may be activist “hot air”!
Here are a few examples where the “CE Delft” study is cited in an attempt to discredit the environmental credentials of the fur trade:
1. “A study by consultancy firm CE Delft in 2011 found that the impact of fur production on 17 out of 18 environmental issues – such as climate change, ozone pollution and soil acidification – was found to be more harmful than when compared to common textiles.” From Cruel or cool? Worldwide sales of fur top £10 billion by Hayley Leaver, Metro.co.uk, 22 May 2013.
2. “PETA points to a 2011 study by a Netherlands consultancy firm CE Delft which compared the impact of fur production with common textiles on 18 different environmental issues such as climate change, ozone pollution, soil acidification and water and land use. ‘For 17 of the 18 issues, fur was found to be much more harmful than common textiles,’ says Ben Williamson, a spokesperson for PETA.” From Is the fur trade sustainable? By Tansy Hoskins, The Guardian, 29 October 2013.
3. “A 2011 study by Dutch independent researchers CE Delft calls fur production worse than textile production, in terms of environmental degradation. Carcinogens like chromium and formaldehyde, employed in dressing and dyeing processes, compromise fur’s biodegradability, not to mention ecological stability.” From Fur is Green. True or Faux? By Jody McCutcheon, Eluxe Magazine, 22 February 2013.
