Story by: Jessica Scott-Reid.
Jessica is a Canadian writer, animal advocate and plant-based food expert. Her work appears regularly in media across Canada and the US.
Fur fashion production and products continue to be banned in varying degrees around the world by a mounting list of jurisdictions, designers and companies -- most recently in the state of California, and by Macy’s department store. This growing anti-fur trend appears to be inspired by the various ethical issues associated with the product, including terrible fur farm conditions, inhumane trapping and killing practices, mislabeling of one species for another, and lack of necessity in an age of alternatives. But, while fur farming and trapping are without a doubt inherently and blatantly cruel, there is yet another harmful aspect of this industry that must also be considered: environmental impact.
Fur producers and promoters will often attempt to divert ethical debates about fur and distract consumers with claims about the environmental benefits of the product. They would like consumers to believe that fur is “natural,” that fur farming is “sustainable,” fur trapping is “wildlife management,” and that fur textiles are an “eco-friendly” product. But is this really the case?
“The fur industry is attempting to green-wash many of their issues,” says Michael Howie, Director of Advocacy and Communications for Canadian group, The Fur Bearers. But, he adds, “fur farming is not sustainable.” With the vast majority – about 80-85 percent -- of the world’s fur fashion coming from fur farms, that means with every fur coat, trim, or pom-pom, comes a substantial ecological footprint. From the massive amount of waste produced by each animal, the transportation and incineration of carcasses, and the chemical processing of pelts, there appears to be nothing eco-friendly about farmed fur.
In Canada, for example, about half of the country’s mink pelts come from the province of Nova Scotia, where less than a decade ago the industry was booming, but is now seeing a dramatic downturn. This is due in part to concerns and complaints over environmental effects. Water quality surveys done between 2008 and 2012, showed significant degradation of several lakes, causing toxic algae blooms and making waters un-swimmable. Researcher Michael Brylinsky of Acadia University, told the CBC, "Nutrients within the impacted lakes consist of extremely high levels of inorganic phosphorus, which is most likely a result of the use of superphosphate in the mink farming industry."
And this is only one area. Estimated waste production by mink farms only, in the US, is up to 1 million tons each year. A 2003 Michigan State University study in the Fur Rancher Blue Book of Fur Farming claims “the U.S. mink industry adds almost 1,000 tons of phosphorus to the environment each year.”
China, Russia and Denmark produce more fur than the US.
So, is a more eco-friendly option for fur production instead to hunt and trap, as a means of managing animals often considered “pests”? Brands like Canada Goose that trim their coats in fur from wild coyotes caught in leg-hold and neck-snare traps, certainly want buyers to believe that. But according to Howie, it’s not accurate. “For well over a century, the American government has spent millions of dollars on extermination programs targeting coyotes, including the use of bounties to encourage hunters and trappers to kill more, [using] cyanide 'bombs' and other tactics.” The result, he says: “Coyotes remain where they were, have extended their range, and there's even scientific theories that persecution increases coyote populations.” Beyond this, says Howie, echoing the thoughts of many wildlife advocates and experts, “Coyotes play an essential role in ecosystems, naturally managing smaller animals who can spread disease and decimate crops.” In much of Canada, he says, coyotes can be hunted year round.
Silver fox cubs at a fur farm.
Photo: Jo-Anne McArthur/The Ghosts in Our Machine.
Whether fur comes from an animal farmed or from the wild, the production from live animal to fashion product involves many steps that are environmentally hazardous. This includes the disposal of the dead animals after being skinned. According to a report by Humane Society of the United States, “significant air pollutants are released when disposing of animal carcasses by incineration,” including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, hydrochloric acid, and others. In addition, carcasses are often transported to incineration facilities in carbon-heavy refrigerated trucks.
The chemical processing or “dressing” of furs to stop them from decaying, also causes ecological damage. According to The Guardian, the World Bank has ranked fur dressing “as one of the world's five worst industries for toxic-metal pollution.” And the US’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) previously fined six fur processing plants for causing high levels of pollution for the solvents used in fur dressing, which typically include formaldehyde, chromium, naphthalene, and others.
Though fur producers and promoters would like consumers to think of fur as a “natural” product, there appears to be nothing natural about the breeding and confining, or trapping and shooting of animals, burning their bodies en masse, and processing their skins with an abundance of hazardous chemicals.
As we now face looming climate chaos, eliminating non-essential new products that are known to contribute to the degradation of the planet is an obvious move, and for the vast majority of us, this now includes fur fashion.
Sign up below to receive “Planet Friendly News” every month.