Fur in Fashion: Regulate or Ban?
While organic vs. non-organic clothing is discussed in the fashion industry, the eternal debate over fur remains a much broader problem. In addition to the inevitable question of animal cruelty, attracting the wrath of animal rights activists, fur raises the question of fashion sustainability. Unlike real fur which will eventually biodegrade, it would take hundreds of years for faux fur fibres to break down, not to mention that microfibres may leak into the water system when faux fur garments are washed.
The industry response to both these issues was the creation of “Furmark”, a global certification and traceability system for sustainable natural fur that ensures the highest animal welfare and environmental standards. In broad terms, Furmark indicates whether fur products comply with the local laws and reaffirms “the value of sustainable natural fur”.[1] Should fur or other animal products be banned once and for all? Is regulating more efficient that banning? What are the legal considerations that might affect such legislation?
In October 2021, the French Senate strengthened its fight against animal abuse by adopting an immediate ban on the breeding of American mink in France. The Fur Free Alliance find this news to be “historic” as it will shut down the last two remaining French mink fur farms.[2]
But what is the difference between wearing fur and wearing leather? As social norms become laws, the answer can only be cultural. No Americans or Europeans would be likely to wear the fur of fluffy animals that could be their pets. It is no surprise that the U.S Congress in 2000–followed by France in 2007–enacted the Dog and Cat Protection Act prohibiting the import, export, sell, trade, advertisement, transport, or distribution of any products made with dog or cat fur.[3] Senior vice president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Dan Mathews, stated that “[i]n this global marketplace, there are fur farms in China that raise dogs for clothing that is labeled as fake fur here in the U.S. because that’s what the market best responds to.”[4] Indeed, racoon dog fur in China is often mislabeled as “racoon” or “coyote”.[5]
Concerned about purchasing what they actually paid for, consumers were granted with further protection in 1951 with the Fur Products Labeling Act (FPLA). The FPLA requires that garments made entirely or partly with fur have a label disclosing “the animal name”, “the name or Registered Identification Number (RN) of the manufacturer, importer or other seller, marketer or distributor of the fur”, “the country of origin for imported fur products”, “if the fur is pointed, dyed, bleached, or artificially colored”, “if the fur product is composed of more than 10 percent of surface area of piece”, “if the fur is used or damaged” and “the textile or wool content of the product, its country of origin and its manufacturer or dealer identity.”[6]
It goes without saying that labels should refer to the most accurate animal name in the consumer perspective. To that end, the Fur Products Name Guide, updated in 2014 for a correction in some animal names, provides the list of animals whose fur could be used in a garment.[7]
The U.S Trade Commission points out that “simply because a name is on the list does not make it legal to sell that fur in the U.S”.[8] Indeed, “some animals on the list may be endangered species, and so the sale of their fur is prohibited.”[9] The violation of the Act is considered “an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice under the FTC Act” and the violators are subject to “monetary civil penalties of up to $42,530 per violation.”[10]
Los Angeles, San Francisco… Cities after cities in West Hollywood started banning fur. The State of California took a step further when banning manufacture and sale of fur products in the entire state as of January 1, 2023.[11] However, the attempt of a fur ban in New York failed in 2019.[12]
If cruelty obviously plays against fur, fashion houses began to explore possibilities of selling fur without killing animals, which led to the rise of faux fur commerce. However, faux fur products bear substantial environmental impacts: biodegradability and the effects of cleaning such products are issues with great concern. In a New York Times article, Vanessa Friedman questioned: “Is all fur bad fur?”[13] In the search of the “greener” option, it is true that the lines between vintage, upcycle or new fur are blurry.
So…, To Fur or Not to Fur?
Footnotes
