Comments on: Fur is only the beginning of luxury’s sustainable push

By: Ty Savoy

Ty Savoy — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:20:35 +0000

The fur industry mouth-pieces like Alan Herscovici, of the Fur Council of Canada, commenting here keep repeating their claptrap about ‘fur is green’. It isn’t. This seems to be their only argument, given that they simply ignore the incredibly needless cruelty that the fur business is.

A study done in 2010 by Ce Delft showed the lie that fur is somehow environmentally sustainable.

http://bit.ly/1UeCqw1

‘Summary:
At the request of three NGOs, the Dutch Bont voor Dieren, the Belgian GAIA and the Italian LAV, in 2010 CE Delft carried out a study comparing the environmental impact of 1 kg of mink fur with that of 1 kg of other textiles, including wool, cotton and polyester. However, a need was felt to compare fur goods with a faux fur variant, too, and CE Delft has now conducted a life cycle assessment study comparing natural fur coats and faux fur coats and natural fur collars and faux fur collars. A range of scenarios for product lifetime and maintenance were examined.

From the study it emerges that for all the environmental impacts investigated the natural fur product has a greater impact than the faux fur alternative. The environmental impact of natural fur products is at least a factor 3 higher than the least favourable faux fur variant. For some environmental impacts the impact is more than 10 times greater.’

By: Sascha

Sascha — Wed, 25 Oct 2017 08:51:19 +0000

We can improve our practices and choose eco-friendly, natural materials – look at leather replacers Pinatex, MuSkin and Vegea for a few examples – but there will never be an ethical way to kill an animal. Animals have their own inherent value as living beings, and they are not ours to use for “luxury”.

By: Sascha

Sascha — Wed, 25 Oct 2017 08:02:11 +0000

We can improve our practices and turn to natural, eco-friendly materials – look at sustainable leather replacers Pinatex, MuSkin, and Vegea for just a few examples – but there will never be an ethical way to kill an animal. Animals have their own inherent value as living beings, and they are not ours to use for “luxury”.

By: alan herscovici

alan herscovici — Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:28:01 +0000

OMG…It is not encouraging for those hoping to protect the planet for future generations when Gucci — and the author of this article — don’t seem to understand that the modern fur trade is actually an excellent example of sustainable production. Fur is a long-lasting, renewable and biodegradable natural resource. Most of the synthetics being proposed as alternatives are made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource! The capture of fur animals from the wild is strictly regulated in North America to ensure that only abundant animals are used, never endangered species. Farm-raised mink are fed left-overs from our own food supply — the parts of chickens, pigs and fish that we don’t eat. The rest of the mink are usually composted to produce organic fertilizers or bio-fuels. Nothing is wasted. By comparison, most “fast-fashion” lasts only a season or two before they are sent to clog land-fills. Mostly made from petroleum-based synthetics, they are just another form of plastic bags! Fur, in fact, is one of the most eco-sustainable clothing materials we have.

By: Simon Ward

Simon Ward — Tue, 24 Oct 2017 02:24:38 +0000

Unfortunately there seems to be a growing confusion – exemplified by Gucci and this article – that “sustainability” means prioritising petrochemical synthetics over renewable natural resources like fur. It’s one thing to argue about whether animals’ lives should be taken to make clothing, but it’s absurd to suggest that fur clothing is less sustainable than petrochemical clothing. Quite the opposite is true.