Or more can be killed for one single fur coat. Jo-Anne McArthur. Going Fur-Free. Because animals need their fur coats more than we do. Domestic deception. Read More. The growing fur-free movement. Buy better. Tell companies to go fur-free. Sign the Pledge. We're fighting to make compassion the new fashion.
In it we will detail the exacting animal welfare standards, and the extensive laws and regulations that govern the sector, and why fur remains popular with increased year on year sales. We will also set out the many damaging consequences that implementing a ban on the sector would bring and why the majority of people in this county do not support such a step.
We would have the unpalatable prospect of law-enforcement agencies checking whether the coat or hat that someone was wearing was real or fake. These sorts of draconian measures are a step too far and are a significant curtailment of consumer choice.
There is no support for ban on ethically produced fur in the UK, and we strongly believe that individuals should be free to make up their own minds.
It is also clear that restrictions on fur would be the thin end of the wedge, and would simply open the door for restrictions and bans on other animal products, including wool, leather and silk, as well as modern farming methods.
Animal rights activists, who have long campaigned for a UK fur ban, want to see an end to the use of all animal products or materials entirely, including for food. Their narrow views do not represent the majority of the people of this country and nor do they care about the consequences. There are exacting standards and rules in place governing the fur sector, banning natural fur would do nothing to improve standards in animal welfare and is a purely symbolic move pushed by animal rights activists.
A ban would also not work and would be unenforceable. It would simply push sales online, untaxed and unregulated and to those who care little about animal welfare. It would also impact on the indigenous groups who still depend on fur for their survival in places like Greenland and Canada. It would lead to thousands of job losses and closed businesses in the UK. It would also damage London as a global fashion hub, as many designers and brands use fur, and it would disrupt trade relations with some our closest allies who are fur-producing and manufacturing countries, including Canada and the US.
We would therefore have the prospect of one part of the UK being free to trade and sell fur but would be blocked from selling or importing its goods into the rest of the UK. This directly contradicts the aims of the Internal Markets Act that was designed to guarantee the free movement of trade between the four nations of the UK. It is also a natural, sustainable material, far better for the environment than oil-based synthetic fast fashions.
It would be entirely illogical and counter-productive for the government to move forward with restrictions on a natural, sustainable material that would lead to an increase in synthetic materials in the same year as it is hosting the global climate conference, COP Do you know your cheap sneakers were made by children chained to machines?
Still, my fists were clenched the entire time. I took the back way out. The debate over long-lasting fur versus cheaply-made faux is nothing new. Twenty-one years later, the quip has moved from must-see TV to the front lines of government. Johnson has introduced a similar bill to stop fur sales for good.
Versace, Miu Miu, and Prada have pledged to stop using fur by , citing—in the words of Mrs. In their view, fur is the fashion equivalent of farm-to-table beef; it's more ethical, and safer for our ecosystem than a polyester or acrylic faux alternative.
Plus, its production is a family business for thousands of New Yorkers. Frustratingly, most studies on fur's ecological harm are sponsored by anti-fur groups. On the flip side, many studies that claim fur's earth-friendly benefits are funded by pro-fur brands. The eye of this storm is a central question: Is fur inherently animal cruelty? And it can be answered a hundred times, depending on whom you ask. For those against killing animals for human use, fur is empirically wrong, no matter how well the animal is raised.
For those who believe animals can be ethically raised and culled, fur is a sustainable resource that fuels local businesses and employees traditional artisans. On the other hand, faux-fur confections from labels like Shrimps, Fuzz Not Fur, House of Fluff, and the cruelty-free master class of Stella McCartney are street-style staples worldwide and have sparked a copycat frenzy from fast-fashion chains.
And while a recent study showed that natural fur begins to biodegrade within four weeks—the same amount of time as an oak or willow tree leaf—studies put the rate of plastic decomposition closer to years.
0コメント