Re: “Fur Is Green?”
Feb. 27, 2009
To the editor:
While I applaud Dan Rankin for at least acknowledging opposition to the new “Fur Is Green” campaign, some simple research could have easily uncovered the unavoidable truth behind this not-so-clever marketing deception.
To start, an independent energy-consumption study proved that, compared to that used for faux fur alternatives, trapped and farmed fur pelts take three and 40 times (respectively) the amount of energy to produce. For those keeping score at home, 85 per cent of fur comes from farmed sources. Let’s also not forget about all those wonderful carcinogenic chemicals used in the dyeing and tanning processes — my favourites of which include formaldehyde and chromium — many of which end up airborne or as a contaminant in our water supplies. And of course, we all know China, the world’s largest fur producer, is not exactly at the forefront of the green movement (or the animal welfare front, for that matter).
With respect to treatment of animals, suffice it to say that the fur farming industry has been party to some of the most horrific cases of cruelty ever carried out. I omit the graphic details, but encourage those who are not convinced to conduct a bit of research on their own.
Fur is green? Don’t piss in my ear and tell me it’s raining.
— Derek Williamson
HBA1, Ivey Environmental Committee