Fur : Real v. Faux... Fashion's Hairiest Debate

Forums New posts
dior_couture1245 said:
LOL. California is such a sh*thole.
Click to expand...

Hang on, why? Lol. thought they'd get everyone's stamp of approval on this!
I understand the fur debate is divisive, but surely there aren't actually people out there who condone animal testing? I know there are other equally pressing issues in your state, but can we applaud them for this move, specifically?

I do need to know more about 'enforcement' and what will happen to all the products currently on the shelves which were tested on animals. How will they get rid of it?
 
^^Clearly, the state legislature puts animal welfare weellllllll above human welfare.

Sure, the state is rotting, cities are falling apart, housing prices skyrocket, traffic is getting worse by the day, roads are potholed to crumbles, trash and litter are everywhere, homeless are taking over the streets and subsequent health crises arises because of said homeless, crime is being decriminalized, gotta spend an entire day in DMV hell to get REAL IDs, exorbitant sales taxes, etc, etc, etc...you name it.

But, YES!! NO MORE FUR AND NO MORE ANIMAL TESTED COSMETICS! I can finally sleep at night and only now can I say I am proud, PROUD, to be a Californian!!
 
FashionMuseDior said:
I don't want to start a debate on this but the animals that the law are protecting now have nothing to do with problems such as poverty or homelessness
Click to expand...

Enforcing this new law cuts into the state's budget.

I’m not familiar with the protocols of California’s individual city council procedures and operations, but it’s not a blind supposition to conclude that legislations require dedicated enforcement by the state’s official personnel (otherwise it’s just a hollow gimmicky slogan on an expensive tee by Maria Grazia). Personnel that are on the payroll of the state. A payroll that cuts into the resources of the state’s (city) budget. Fundings that will be (further) cut from the overwhelming and immediate needs that dior outlined.

As far as I’m concerned, stricter legislations need to be enforced and imposed on the beauty industry— which is a luxury and privilege and not a necessity. But when it comes to the needs and rights of people to the needs and rights of animals, I’m putting people as a top priority.
 
Phuel said:
But when it comes to the needs and rights of people to the needs and rights of animals, I’m putting people as a top priority.
Click to expand...

But that's a moral opinion, Phuel. Your moral opinion, which yes, of course, you're entitled to. But the state of California clearly doesn't agree with that and has decided to take this minor step to ensure some degree of quality life for these animals. This is not in aid of people because products tested don't actually harm people in any way, but it does harm animals. Can't you grant animals this one measly right?

I do agree that stricter laws need to be enforced in the beauty industry.
 
^^So, here in LA...if you had to choose between giving your attention to a human being literally rotting on the street, and a lab rat, you’d pick the lab rat to save first.
 
Benn98 said:
But that's a moral opinion, Phuel. Your moral opinion, which yes, of course, you're entitled to. But the state of California clearly doesn't agree with that and has decided to take this minor step to ensure some degree of quality life for these animals. This is not in aid of people because products tested don't actually harm people in any way, but it does harm animals. Can't you grant animals this one measly right?

I do agree that stricter laws need to be enforced in the beauty industry.
Click to expand...

It’s no longer a personal moral issue.

The state of California passed the legislation and that absolutely makes it a legal— which means it needs to be enforced… which will cut into state/city funding; unless the legislation is going to be upheld and enforced by volunteers and donations LOOOL It’s not a morality issue anymore, Benn. It’s a state /city issue. And California is already proposing federal funding from the government, despite it being one of the most insanely taxed states— with a huge poverty/homeless epidemic.
 
Ah.. I have to remind myself this is a fashion forum and can't really push for a lot of critical thinking in politics and I also already repeated this in the previous page but, both things matter, it's not one or the other, that's not how a government works... ever. Anywhere. Or a democracy for that matter. I also know there's a certain age in life in which, if wired from early on to the thought process of fallacies informed through ordinary visuals as opposed to research and scrutinized data ('is a dumpster on fire and is the tap card machine not working and making me waste my precious time? this city is therefore getting worse and losing sight of what's important!'), there really isn't much to debate and you might as well find some consolation back in Breitbart, but, as I said in the previous page and from my experience having lived/worked in Central LA/Westside, people do care about these issues and these people donate money and vote with the expectation their issues (as invalid or laughable as they may seem to others) will be addressed, and the ruling party makes sure of that because, you guess..

There are also the duties of the government and then the duties of a [hopefully] politicized citizen. One of them is information. The homeless crisis is complex. It's not just housing or gentrification. Take the pharmaceutical/health care variable out of the equation and it will decline, or perhaps disappear altogether, pretty sure that's the dependable variable. I have been to some pretty poor areas of this planet, have seen lack of housing affordability and their usual consequences (migration and illegal settlements), but never seen people removed so immediately and aggressively from all dignity as a human being as I have while I lived in the US and it's having turned everything (from essential things like food to human "mistakes" such as catching bronchitis) into a commodity and if you can't afford it, it strangles you and drugs you and throws you onto a sidewalk all within days. You can blame California for that, but any life experience outside the US or maybe some traveling will tell you: it's the country. You can try fixing that by informing your vote. But if you can't wait for that and it makes you so grumpy you do care more about rats at this point, then maybe move out like I did lol.
 
^^^ It’s absolutely too complex an issue with poverty/homelessness (and that’s not going into the alarming population of abandoned dogs and cats)— and the horrifyingly deteriorating state of healthcare for those unfortunate to not be able to afford premium health insurance, not just in California, but in the US: You’re not kidding when you stated that a case of bronchitis will wipe out someone’s savings. I have a lot to complain about with Canada (and it’s almost mostly to do with it being a barren wasteland when it comes to the fashion industry because we are on a fashion forum), but thank god for Canada's healthcare system's dignified accessibility to every citizen that needs it (thus far…).

(BTW, it may be easier for you and me to leave a place when we no longer find it worthy of our growth potential/livelihood. Unfortunately for many, it’s not even an option. Another complex issue that hasn’t a convenient solution. Sorry We Missed You is a great film that deals with the issue of a family desperate to escape living from meager paycheque to paycheque. They cannot even afford £1,000 for the downpayment for the essential vehicle that’s needed to kickstart the potential for a better life. It’s a very real dilemma that is sadly just another obstacle of life for countless families in our First World Nations. In a Third World Country, the entire family, kids included, would be working tirelessly to contribute to the family’s survival [hello sweatshop…]. Once again, too complex an issue to make simple judgement on the horrendous existence of sweatshops, as it provides a readily available income for the survival of many families in these countries.)
 
Phuel said:
It’s no longer a personal moral issue.

The state of California passed the legislation and that absolutely makes it a legal— which means it needs to be enforced… which will cut into state/city funding; unless the legislation is going to be upheld and enforced by volunteers and donations LOOOL It’s not a morality issue anymore, Benn. It’s a state /city issue. And California is already proposing federal funding from the government, despite it being one of the most insanely taxed states— with a huge poverty/homeless epidemic.
Click to expand...

But I just cannot understand why a law in aid of animal rights (who btw, cannot fend for themselves and have no agency - ugh, damn you for making me sound like a Peta nut!) is deemed fluffy and unnecessary and therefore cannot coexist next to all the other priorities. I also think people don't seem to realise why they've made this decision? The law involves animal testing in the cosmetic industry, a sector that needs to be pulled into line. Cosmetics are not a necessity. The entire situation becomes magnified by the fact that most beauty products are not considered safe to use after a year, and you cannot imagine the number of unsold items removed from the shelves and being disposed of in one way or the other. So why must animals bear the brunt and go through physical torture just because you want a body wash or an eye cream that ticks all the boxes, or worst-case scenario, for a bunch of products which will end up in a landfill?

Furthermore, I may not live in LA but I refuse to believe the state is doing absolutely nothing about the social issues or letting people rot on the street while rushing to save a lab rat. As it is, there's a laundry list of new legislation being passed this month, especially the housing ones which would impact the homeless situation directly. Now you can pull those apart or pick holes in them, but you can't say lawmakers are passive. Dealing with those who have fallen onto hard times is not as practical as one may think. You need to focus on the contributing factors....education, wages, benefits, housing and so forth.
Also, a few posts back in this thread someone alluded to people being dropped off at bus stops. Whether that is a greater conspiracy to cripple the 'Golden State's' social system and ultimately make them look bad or just a sort of craftiness to pass your own troubles onto someone else, I don't know. But, try this for size. What if it's actually out of people's own free will to move about and rather head to LA because according to them the city is more prosperous and promising, the weather is better, and so you would have a greater chance at luck or at best, survival?
 
Listen...I’m not for animal cruelty.

The truth of the matter is California, and LA and SF in particular, are progressive bastions with total political hegemony.

Because of their complete and uncontested political control - of which they’ve had for many decades - they have no one to blame for the disasters but themselves. And unfortunately no one will face that ugly truth that they’ve let these cities fall apart on their own watches. If they wanted to solve the problem, they would. Because the problem is entirely solvable with conviction. It just requires tough decisions to be made. It’s not a matter of it taking time to resolve because it’s incomprehensibly complex...it’s gotten severely worse of the last 30 years...that’s a lot of time that the problem could have been solved in. No excuse is adequate at this point in my eyes.

They come up with a million ridiculous reasons here in California why nothing has been done, and somehow always have someone else to blame...but the problems continue to get worse. I see it every day.

I know he’s a controversial figure currently, but what California needs is a Rudy Giuliani - who transformed overnight New York City from the seediest, most drug infested, rotting, crime addled, mugging and murder capitol of America into an entirely livable and safe, clean city.

This is my home...I’m a fourth generation Californian. I don’t want to leave, but at a certain point, what is one to do?

So, when I see the misery and destruction on the streets in real time, it really is so puzzling how anyone can consciously argue the old “walk and chew gum”...because so far, all I’ve experienced is the banning of plastic straws and plastic grocery bags while simultaneously the litter on the streets has become exponentially more aggressive and fur and animal testing banned while simultaneously the homeless rot on the streets, naked and covered in lesions and open sores. No one is “walking and chewing gum,” here. Believe me.

It’s like I said before...when your house is on fire, it’s not the time to fix the leaky sink.
 
Last edited:
Justice! And no, I am NOT the author of this article. LOL.



San Francisco Fur Ban Upheld Despite Legal Challenges
By Ben
Jul 19, 2020


SAN FRANCISCO— On Thursday, July 16, the US District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a constitutional challenge against San Francisco’s current ban on the sale of fur products.

In 2018, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the fur ban, which began on January 1, 2019. They passed the ban to prevent animal cruelty and environmental impacts linked to producing fur. Animals on fur farms are often stacked in small cages before getting skinned, electrocuted, suffocated, or poisoned.

The International Fur Trade Federation filed the lawsuit against the city and county of San Francisco in January, 2020, claiming that the ban was unconstitutional. The Animal Legal Defense Fund and Humane Society of the United States worked to defend and preserve the fur ban. Judge Richard Seeborg of the US District Court sided against the fur industry stating that they didn’t present a valid legal theory and the ban does not violate the Constitution’s commerce clause. The court’s decision provides precedent in case future fur bans like the state of California’s encounter legal trouble.

According to the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s official press release, “The challenge to San Francisco’s ban was a test from the opposition to the constitutionality against all fur bans, as this legislation gains momentum,” says Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells. “The Animal Legal Defense Fund will continue to defend fur bans, and other animal protection legislation, as voters fight back against systematically cruel industries that profit from the exploitation of animals.”

SF News
 
A Fur-Free Future Depends On China

Global attitudes towards fur are changing, but China is both producing and consuming more fur than ever. What will it take to change that?

Key Takeaways:
  • China’s fur animal farming industry is currently worth $61 billion, making it a notable contributor to local growth and employment.

  • In early 2019, a fur production drop was predicted, and a sudden shortage of mink forced prices up by as much as 30 percent in Asia.

  • Despite its popularity in some areas, a significant shift has occurred among China’s millennials and younger people away from larger fur items such as coats and jackets.
With mink producers around the world hit hard by the COVID-19 outbreak, countless countries have been putting a stop to animal farming. This has added to a drop off in the use of fur in fashion due to growing animal rights concerns, numerous anti-fur demonstrations, and a rise in quality fur substitutes and alternatives. Over the past three years, Gucci, Burberry, Michael Kors, and others have gone fur-free, while numerous retailers and fashion weeks have banned its use.

However, while global attitudes towards fur are changing, China’s case requires specific attention. Though consumer sentiment is embracing animal welfare, the country remains the largest markets for fur consumption. And now, given the implications of the pandemic, China could become the world’s leading suppliers of fur too.

According to Humane Society International, China’s fur animal farming industry is currently worth $61 billion and, therefore, is a notable contributor to local growth and employment. Peter Li, the China policy specialist at Humane Society International, explains how that is especially pertinent in China’s economically underdeveloped regions in North and Northeast China.

Even so, the charity group ACTAsia pointed out in its 2019 China Fur Trade report that China’s role in the global fur chain, which is worth more than $22 billion a year, has historically been underestimated. The latest figures from the China Leather Industry Association on mink production show that it produced substantially more pelts than expected — 11.69 million rather than the predicted seven million in 2019.

In early 2019, the auction house Kopenhagen Fur had already predicted that global mink production would drop to around 37 million pelts. Despite a pre-existing oversupply of deadstock, the culling of mink in 2020, most notably in Denmark (15 million pelts), has further reduced supply. The International Fur Federation warned that worries over a sudden shortage of mink forced prices up by as much as 30 percent in Asia.

This jump means that, as the West’s production stutters or gets put on hold until 2022, it may well fall to China to fill the demand. In light of this, Jing Daily explores how consumer interest, digital retailers, and government regulations can impact China’s appetite for mink.

Will brands lead or follow consumers?

Despite the number of brands that have gone fur-free in recent years, fur is still a touchy subject. Fur-friendly brands like Fendi and Louis Vuitton could not be reached for comment, while luxury conglomerate Kering declined to promote any specific brand message on the issue.

“I can see why they don’t want to comment,” John Lau, the associate dean of the School of Design & Technology at London College of Fashion stated. “They still have a large consumer market in China, and they wouldn’t want to hurt that market.”

In December, the Finnish auction house Saga Furs Oyj livestreamed the first auction since the slaughter of mink in Denmark, which led to media speculation that brands still using fur (such as Louis Vuitton, Dior, and Fendi) were going to transition to pelts like fox and chinchilla at the Finnish auction.

While Samantha Vesala, the business director at Saga Furs, declined to name customers, she said, “Brands and the designer community are still supporting using furs. Our customers include world-famous iconic brands focusing on quality and certified natural products. We are also seeing an increasing focus on using sustainable furs, also from China brands.”

Kopenhagen Fur’s CEO, Jesper Lauge Christensen, told Reuters he had received interest from China wanting to take over the auction house’s brand, apparently valued at up to $163 million. Trending KOLs actively wear and promote fur, from actress Dilraba to celebrity Liti Zhong.

Yet, younger Chinese consumers are still the future drivers of the country’s tastes. Pei Su, the founder of ACTAsia, said a significant shift has occurred among millennials and younger people away from larger fur items such as coats and jackets — but not from smaller fur trimmings. “In vox-pops, people wearing fur trim tend to excuse it as ‘it’s only a bit’ or, ‘I didn’t know it was real,’ and then they state they would never wear a fur coat.”

The sustainable fur-free Chinese brand Icicle topped Tmall’s 11.11 ranking as the biggest selling luxury brand. Meanwhile, on social media, citizens are also expressing fur-free opinions. On Weibo, the hashtag #whenthebuyingstopsthekillingcantoo has 340 million views and #saynotofur has 90 million views.

Bottom Line: Ultimately, brands in the Chinese market seem to follow consumer demands for fur. Chinese consumers are on the whole, somewhat indifferent on the subject — perhaps more so than any other market — which means that for now, there is still an opportunity .

Big tech pushes fur forward

After the pandemic broke — but before the contamination of mink was a talking point — fur-sellers digitally adapted as a way to maintain their connections with buyers. Several retailers invested heavily in e-commerce platforms, now the new standard for sales. According to figures from the Kopenhagen Fur China team via eight major online retail fur stores, total sales during Double 11 reached $16 million, indicating an upward trend.

Haining Leather City, which has been dubbed the “Leather Capital of China,” opened a ‘cloud mall’ on Taobao, where consumers can browse fur coats online from around 100 merchants. The deputy general manager of Haining Leather City, Yao Zhengyu, told Sohu News that there are huge opportunities within the online fur business since the supply of leather clothing exceeded supply this year.

He explained that many merchants in Haining Leather City have already transitioned to online, but big online events help amplify their reach: “In large-scale events such as 618 and 11.11, online leather merchants can concentrate their efforts to make a larger impact.”

Alibaba Group declined to comment on whether it will ban the sale of fur products in the future, while JD.com was unresponsive to requests for comment. “These big players like Alibaba and JD.com have such a huge hold on the fashion industry, and there is an opportunity for them to make a point here,” Lau told Jing Daily. But, Alibaba’s acquisition of the e-tailer Farfetch, which has a fur-free commitment, will likely force the agenda.

Moreover, the goodwill generated by banning fur shouldn’t be underestimated. “That’s a huge selling point for brands,” said PJ Smith, the director of fashion policy at the Humane Society. “Nordstrom’s stock soared when it announced it was going fur-free. You can do good, and your stock will go up. And you’ll get really positive feedback. To me, the writing is on the wall.”

Bottom line: Whereas other markets have seen fur sales decline alongside the rise of digital, the opposite has occurred in China. A wide reach and diversity of product categories mean that Chinese e-commerce platforms are the perfect place for fur brands to reach fur lovers. If tech platforms banned mink and other fur products, this could seriously hamper the industry.

How can government intervention help?

As this outbreak has shown, the way we treat and contain animals has massive health implications. According to the animal rights organization Peta, conservation experts warn that the exotic-skins industry practices could also increase the risk of epidemics in the future.

So, while animal welfare concerns grow, China has thus far failed to provide any official response regarding the risk of future pandemics from wild animal farming for purposes other than food.

The Chinese government has exempted fur farming from its wildlife trade and consumption ban. In fact, mink (along with raccoon dog, and fox) has been moved to the livestock list under the Animal Husbandry Law for domesticated farmed animals.

All the same, as the fur supply chain concentrates and brands lose their key suppliers in Europe, will they opt for Chinese pelts? Su noted that pelts from Chinese farms are “rarely classified as top quality, ” unlike European ones. Su predicted it could go either way: “a flood of cheap mink but with low-to-medium risk from contaminated pelts or rare-to-find mink with higher prices.”

LVMH’s head of sustainability, Helene Valade, stated that the conglomerate obtains fur from Finland and relies on brokers to bid only on 100 percent certified mink, fox, and raccoon. Saga Furs is the only fur seller in the industry with a supplier certification and auditing program on environment and animal health and welfare, and the company insists its procedures ensure that pelts don’t represent a risk to public health.

But sustainability is also a priority. “To give you an overview of fur farming, the mink eat 100 percent by-products,” Vesala explained. “We make biofuel and biogas from the manure and cosmetics from the fat. Additionally, fur is a fully recyclable product that lasts for decades.”

For now, Vesala said that China is buying around 70-80 percent of the global fur production and that demand has remained strong thanks to rising wealth. Whether China will push fashion to break the final frontier and go fur-free is unknown — although it is not impossible.

“If the national government is determined to phase out the operation, it can be achieved,” Li noted “As 400 billion yuan is a drop in the bucket of China’s enormous GDP, not a significant part of the Chinese economy.”

Perhaps 2021 could be the year China puts a stop to fur farming, and there are incremental movements in that direction. Fashion KOL @congya, who has over 560k followers, has received praise online for wearing fake fur.

But ACTAsia wants to see a fur-free China, and Su is hopeful: “After Covid, the fur issue has become much more complex, with a wider environmental impact on our health concerns.” And should these worries intensify, the situation could change swiftly, from the top-down, forcing the hands of pro-fur companies.

Bottom line: The persistence of fur in the luxury market largely depends on its presence in China. As such, tightened government regulations and the trajectory of Gen-Z interests in China could very well determine the future of the fur industry altogether.

Jing Daily
 
This can't happen soon enough!!!


via The Guardian:

UK considering outright ban on fur sales after Brexit

Move comes 20 years after Britain became first country in Europe to ban fur farming

Lisa O'Carroll Brexit correspondent
@lisaocarroll

Fur sales could be banned after Brexit under plans being considered by the Department for Environment, it has emerged.

The UK was the first country in Europe to ban fur farming in 2000, but sales of some furs are still legal in this country and across the EU.

The move to an outright ban is reportedly being spearheaded by the Tory peer Zac Goldsmith, minster at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and also a close friend of Boris Johnson’s partner, Carrie Symonds, who last year described anyone who wanted to buy fur as “really sick”.

Once the UK leaves the single market, it will have the power to unilaterally ban fur sales, something it is now considering.

A spokeswoman for Defra said: “We have some of the highest welfare standards in the world, and that is both a source of pride and a clear reflection of UK attitudes towards animals.

“Fur farming has rightly been banned in this country for nearly 20 years. Once our future relationship with the EU has been established there will be an opportunity for the government to consider further steps it could take in relation to fur sales.”

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which has been campaigning against fur sales for decades, says hundreds of fashion designers and brands – including Coach, Giorgio Armani, Gucci, Donna Karan, Calvin Klein, Michael Kors, Ralph Lauren and Versace – have already stopped using fur.

Peta helped changed the face of activism using nudity and gore to get its message across. Many of its adverts were banned but its slogan “I’d rather go naked than wear fur”, used in campaigns featuring celebrities including the model Naomi Campbell, the actor Eva Mendes and the musician Pink, had such resonance it survived for more than three decades before being retired this year.

According to reports, Goldsmith met the anti-fur organisation Humane Society International in May to explore the issues around the fur trade.

Government sources said that during the Brexit transition period, which ends on 31 December, “it is not possible to introduce restrictions relating to the fur trade as this would restrict free movement within the EU single market”.

But once Brexit happens, “there will be an opportunity for the government to consider further steps it could take in relation to fur sales”.

Goldsmith argued that Brexit meant “whatever barriers may have prevented us from raising standards on imports at the point of entry” would have gone.

The British Fur Alliance is gearing up to fight any move to ban sales, arguing that natural fur is an antidote to the environmentally damaging cheap fashion and if ethically sourced should not be prohibited.

“Natural fur is inextricably linked to the environment: it is a sustainable material which represents heritage, quality and individuality. Environmental stewardship is one of the foundations of the contemporary fur trade and fur is part of the solution to the ‘fast’ fashion problem,” it said.
 
I want to applaud the above comments on human rights vs animal rights. Never thought I'd see the day.

Now, with Brexit fighting regarding fur... I never understood the ban of fur in fashion, specifically that I come from Eastern Europe where harsh winters are an awful reality and I would wear fur, what else can you do? Of course, I could get back behind the fashion statement of fur, sure, it can be seen a bit... of a topic discussion whether warmer countries need that. But, regardless, if it's cold and fur is accessible, think of yourself.

Brexit fighting over fur is ridiculous. Without touching the politics behind it, we are in a pandemic, this is not the time and place to think of anything else over human lives.
 
Luz said:
... think of yourself.....this is not the time and place to think of anything else over human lives.
Click to expand...

That's the fundamental difference between you and the anti-fur movement, which I support.
 
I just wanna add something that is driving me absolutely nuts is every one of these companies going “fur-free” and still producing like fantasy shearling coats. I know it’s hard to do every single thing right all the time but it makes no logical sense to me to proclaim being above using say even rabbit fur but lamb is okay? Please at least try keeping your marketing lies consistent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Threads

Benn98
Finn Buchanan
Replies
6
Views
2K
Benn98
Benn98

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 1, guests: 3)

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
210,705
Messages
15,124,406
Members
84,410
Latest member
peytontung

Share This Page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->