Natural or artificial: Which fur is more ethical and environmentally friendly
"We'd better go out naked than put on the fur", - supermodels of the 90s chanted in a special PETA animal rights campaign. The famous black and white picture was taken almost thirty years ago, and since then the attitude to natural fur has only gotten worse: it was rejected by the brands Giorgio Armani, Burberry, Vivienne Westwood and a whole list of fashion designers of the first echelon. Even brands for which working with complicated material was an important part of their own DNA refused to sew fur coats and upholster loafers with fur stripes: first Gucci did it, and then their neighbors in Versace Milan Fashion Week. “I don’t want to kill animals for fashion. This is wrong,” said Donatella Versace last March.
Today, popularity has shifted to the cheburashka fur coats: sales of synthetic fur are increasing year by year. Often it is they who are served as a panacea for all the problems of the fur business - after all, they look almost as beautiful, and as if their beauty does not seem to require victims. But the multi-colored “Cheburaszkas” have a lot of flaws and a lot of opponents that remind: synthetic chemical fiber is obtained from oil, and the process of obtaining cannot be called environmentally friendly. In addition, cheap artificial fur, which captured all the mass-markets of the planet, is of very poor quality. Once at the landfill, it almost does not decompose and poisons the soil, water and even air for more than a dozen years.
So who in the end is right, lovers of natural or artificial fur? Which one harms ecology more, and which one less? What is “ethical fur” and did such an artificial analogue appear that is not inferior in quality to its original? Is there a compromise between them? We understand with the help of fashion industry experts.
Text: Anton Danilov, author of the Telegram channel "Promeminizm"
Alena Akhmadullina
designer brand Alena Akhmadullina
I started working with fur in my student years when I actively participated in contests: the Admiralty Needle and the Russian Silhouette. One of the prizes was a trip to the Saga Furs training center in Denmark, where I studied technology and sewed things from fur with my own hands. Fur is a very beautiful, warm, comfortable and wear-resistant material; It can be used for many years, it can be recycled, and it is also completely biodegradable - unlike artificial materials, which, like plastic bottles, harm nature.
Fur possesses incomparable properties and opens up new possibilities that ordinary fabric cannot offer. Synthetic and natural fur can not be compared - it's just different categories of materials, like chiffon and mink, for example. In addition, we live in a northern country: I believe that as long as we have snow for six months a year, women will wear natural fur. He is out of trend. In fashion can be a design, color, technique, and fur is the base material, and from it you can make both fashionable and classic things.
The Alena Akhmadullina brand has been working for many years with the auction company Saga Furs, which has set standards for environmentally friendly fur production. (The list includes farm hygiene, proper feeding of animals and their health. The entire list is on the company's website. - Note ed.). The company has created a certification system that regulates the work of European fur farms, including animal welfare, operational and environmental issues. Saga Furs works exclusively with certified facilities, which are audited by representatives of the European Union, local authorities and independent experts. Our partners offer such technologies of work with the material, in which even the smallest pieces are used and nothing is thrown away.
Giampaolo Sgura
photographer
I decided to become a vegan two and a half years ago - while I am in the process of transitioning to a fully vegan lifestyle, because I still eat eggs. Then I saw the documentary "Cowspiracy" (The picture tells about the impact of livestock on the environment, based on the statement that it plays a key role in the problem of global warming. Scientists have not yet come to a common opinion whether this is true - many people still blame primarily greenhouse gases resulting from the burning of oil, natural gas and coal. - Note ed.), which opened my eyes to the shocking practice of animal husbandry. Later I began to study the topic in detail. In addition to the fact that meat and dairy products cause cancer and heart disease (consumption of more than 80 g per day of red meat is really associated with an increased risk of colon cancer; a varied and balanced diet is important for heart health. At the moment there are no medical recommendations that would talk about the need for complete abandonment of meat or milk for health reasons. Note ed.), I could not ignore the cruel treatment of animals in the meat and dairy industry and decided to do something about it.
I decided to be consistent in my convictions, so since then I haven’t taken pictures of fur, exotic skin, or feathers. I had no special problems because of this: a lot of clients do not work with these materials. The fashion industry about animal abuse is learning more and more, and I am very happy about that. Personally, I no longer buy or wear natural leather, but it is still very much on the market. It takes a lot of time to switch to a vegan counterpart: it still costs more than the natural one. In the future, I am sure we will solve this problem. Another important part of the discussion is how wool is produced: sheep are often inhumanely (for example, in Australia, sheep are often subjected to mulesing, a procedure in which wool is cut from animal buttocks with skin to prevent infection by parasites. Defenders of the practice argue that it helps to save the lives of many animals, but its opponents indicate that mulesing is performed without anesthesia and can be used only in the most extreme cases, since there are more humane alternatives Natives: PETA strongly opposes mulesing and other problematic sheep farming practices. - Approx. ed.). I do not buy and do not wear wool, I can not stop taking it off, because then I really have to change jobs!
It seems to me that artificial fur, with all its flaws, is needed at least in order to stop the production of the present and stop the killing of animals. In the end, the costs, as it seems to me, (what tools are used for processing and coloring) are not so terrible. (Fur coats made of faux fur may be made of wool, and may be made of synthetic material. Synthetic fur in the form in which we know it today, only a modification of plastic, which in itself poses a threat to the ecology of the planet. - Note ed.). In the future, I am sure we will completely give up natural fur. I am very pleased to see the role that social networks play in popularizing eco-mechanics. They make it clear that fur is a relic of the past, a toy in the hands of bourgeois people.
Irina Novozhilova
President of the Center for the Protection of Animal Rights "Vita"
Today it is possible to replace the natural fur easier lighter. There are a lot of alternative technologies: if we talk about artificial insulation, it is hollofiber, tinsuleyt, hollofil, shelter, flabertek, isosoft (basically, these heaters are made from recycled polyester and can be reused; here is the production diagram of tinsuleyt. - Note ed.). If we talk about substitutes based on vegetable fibers, it is flax, jute, coconut and banana fiber, bamboo, eucalyptus, soy (All of the above materials are considered environmentally friendly; More about flax and banana fiber. - Note ed.). These heaters withstand temperatures up to minus thirty degrees.
They say that fur - it is natural that our ancestors wore it in antiquity. But we are not living in the Paleolithic! Is it not strange with our level of technical and social progress to return to it today? There is also an opinion that in Russia it will not survive without a fur coat in winter. You are surprised, but low temperatures do not allow wearing fur coats: the bitter cold simply destroys the natural fur. Once we went to the White Sea with a brigade of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, and none of them thought to go there in a fur coat. And in the Arctic, the fur instantly swells and becomes damp.
Natural fur definitely cannot be called eco-friendly. Advertising standards committees in England, Holland, Italy and other European countries decided that any advertisement stating that fur is safe for the environment is misleading the consumer. From recent examples, a ban on promotional furs in the UK, in which its manufacturers claimed that wearing it means being “eco-friendly”. How does fur harm nature? To answer this question, the Italian League against LAV vivisection ordered research. Its meaning is the analysis and comparison of the production of animal fur and other materials, their impact on the environment. The results say that getting one kilogram of natural fur has the worst impact on 17 of 18 environmental indicators, including climate change, toxic emissions and many others. Fur is more harmful than cotton, acrylic, wool and even polyester with indicators two or even 28 times higher at production stages, where previously these values were considered low.. The only exception is water consumption, in this case the highest rate of cotton.
The fur farms themselves cause tremendous harm to nature: the fur complex in Kresty in 2002 became one of the dirtiest productions of the Moscow Region. The waste products of animals concentrated on a small area litter the environment, seep into the soil and poison water bodies. And, of course, we must not forget about the cruelty of these farms: in Russia, they still use leg-gripping traps, which lead to a long and painful death. On our fur farms, the main way of killing is curare-like drugs, which lead to slow suffocation (curare-like drugs are not recommended for lulling animals, because today there are more humane methods. - Approx. ed).
Fans of mink coats say that the fur is easily decomposed - this is true. However, in order to get this fur, you need completely non-environmentally friendly chemicals - otherwise your fur coat would simply rotted in a matter of weeks. Mineral salts, formalin, formaldehyde, coal tar derivatives, oils and dyes based on cyanide, caustic - all this poisons the surrounding nature no less. By rejecting livestock products, we reduce the already huge impact on the environment - we all should strive for this.
Ksenia Krushinskaya
ficher director of The Blueprint
The abandonment of fur in the collections of large brands is the case when an effective marketing strategy is combined with real help from animals. Millennials are the most solvent audience, and they (that is, we) do not pursue "luxurious luxury". Of course, in many respects the rejection of fur is an attempt to please the audience, but I think that many designers have good motives mixed with it. A few years ago, I finally and irrevocably decided: natural fur is not. I am not a vegan and already not even a vegetarian, but I love animals and try not to complicate their already difficult lives, not to indulge in ill-treatment. For me, a thing made of natural fur is primarily a thing made from the skin of a dead animal. And since foxes, minks and rabbits make me infinitely tender, I do not at all want to carry their dead carcasses on me.
I believe that in an ideal world there should be no advertising of natural fur - including editorial support in glossy magazines. It is clear that salaries are formed from advertising budgets, but I hope that one day this need will simply disappear. I am glad that I almost do not write about fur, but I have no right to condemn colleagues who do this.
There are several faux fur coats in my wardrobe, and I am quite pleased with them. Cute "cheburashki" need to look in the collections of independent brands: so the purchase will be more expensive, but better. Another good solution is vintage: my artificial leopard fur coat from the 80s is very high quality. Surprisingly, decent specimens can be found in inexpensive mass market. I have a fur coat from Mango, which this year will celebrate the thirteenth anniversary. She is so chic that they often ask me if it is a mink.
Of course, the production of synthetic fur is not environmentally friendly, but of the two evils of faux fur, for me personally, the least. These coats are visually indistinguishable from fur coats - and this is for me an additional argument in its favor. To the touch, artificial and natural, of course, differ. The second one is tactile, a little softer and more pleasant, but for me this is not a reason to start wearing it. I think in the future the problem will be solved, people will come up with a method of producing artificial fur that will not harm anyone. But until the future has come, we work with what is.
Tatyana Matyushina
Matu brand designer
In our work we use not natural fur, but artificial. It is created from sheared sheep wool, and it is natural in its composition, it can be recycled after disposal. It attracts that it is produced in Russia: this material is relatively inexpensive and easy to bring, there are no problems with logistics. And it’s easy to experiment with him: the color and texture of this fur can be changed for each collection.
To do without a fur coat made of natural fur today is real, there are plenty of alternative options. It is still difficult for us to get used to the changed reality and to believe in Japanese developments - we know for sure that it will be comfortable in a fur coat. Ours, for example, are sold in Siberia, and there, first of all, it is not the beauty of the product that is important, but its ability to keep warm. Nevertheless, I think that natural fur will never disappear. There will always be a certain number of people who will like it - and this is normal.
However, fur coats made of faux fur are also not salvation. The composition of this material is not much different from the composition of a plastic bottle, but to talk about it when buying is not accepted. Which of the two types of fur is better? To be honest, I can not give a definite answer. There are different types of synthetic fur. The one that we use, and the one that is commonly used in synthetic fur coats, are made using completely different technologies.
The same applies to ethics: at first glance, artificial fur is ethical with respect to animals. Another question is how environmentally friendly it is to create and dispose of? We do not use the skin of animals, but only wool - but I would like the process to get it to become more transparent. Is it ethical to animals during and after the haircut? There are different answers to these questions, but one thing is for sure: we still have yet to learn the recipe for the perfect fur coat in every sense.
Alexander Shumsky
President of the National Chamber of Fashion and Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Russia
Fashion brands create trends, but they are obliged to follow trends themselves, in this case - social ones. If society has decided that natural fur is bad, then it is worth changing the concept of your thinking, at least visually. Brands do not want shaming by consumers or users on social networks, so their designers refuse fur in their collections. But the main reason is still economic: why do what the consumer does not need or does not like? I think fur has become more difficult to sell, so designers and refuse this material.
Today, you can live without the skin of an animal in Antarctica. When buying a fur coat to refer to the cold is stupid: synthetic materials retain heat better than fur. Another question is aesthetics. Ecomech can be just as beautiful, but it has problems with thermal insulation. I think that with time, a solution will be found, and the functionality will be combined with external characteristics. But there is another problem - the mentality of the consumer. Fur has always been a symbol of wealth, and breaking this stereotype can be much more difficult than coping with the cold.
This fall, London Fashion Week was entirely fur free: not a single British designer showed the fur on the catwalk. It looks like an industrial consensus: Britain is not a leader in the production of fur, the British do not buy fur - why show it? Fashion Week itself has nothing to do with it, this decision was made by each designer on their own. In addition, London Fashion Week is unlikely to refuse to show Tom Ford if he wants to once again show the collection in the British capital. Tom Ford, by the way, has recently become a vegetarian, but has not completely abandoned the fur in his collections.
Russia has a different production situation, not to mention the consumer one. I am sure that our designers are not yet ready to completely abandon the fur: the buyer dictates the demand. Only units are ready to change the consciousness of their customers. If the designers are ready, we will be happy to announce a fashion week for both fur free and leather free, and something else free: for PR, this is good, the press will consider it a success. Although I believe that it is important not only to declare a social orientation, but also to prove it with deed.
For example, we have been doing regular events in Moscow for five years related to inclusive clothing - from this point of view, we have the only Fashion Week in the world that works systematically in this area. But we can afford it, because our fashion industry is not too, shall we say, commercial. Вместе с тем в нашем расписании много дизайнеров, которые работают с экомехом и искусственным мехом. Прямо с ходу могу сразу назвать несколько: Otocyon, Za_Za, Dokuchaeva, есть ещё десяток брендов. Популярностью пользуются равнозначно и меховые дизайнеры, и любые другие, потому что девяносто процентов аудитории каждого показа - это приглашённые люди: клиенты, пресса, партнёры.In the same London, a similar situation: those who call for a brand go to the shows, so young designers and newcomers to the audience are mostly “near and dear”.
Photo: shop.mango (1, 2), furnow18