“Animal friendly” policy of fashion brands? Nope!
"Is this faux fur"? "Of course, madam, I wouldn't sell you mink for this price!" Well, not really! As Sky News find out, some of the "animal friendly" brands are still using the real fur in their "no fur" products...
Few years ago, buyers would have to make sure, that the fur, that they’re spending hard cash on, in is genuine, and not a subway rat colored to a “polar fox” . Now, with the “no fur” policies of some brands it is the opposite.
We are living in the “fur free” times, when animal rights are becoming more important for the brands. It might be just a temporary “trend”, we’ll see, but for now it looks pretty serious. Britain decided on the “no fur” policies in 2003, when they closed all the animal farms in the country, which brought most of the fashion brands to the “animal friendly” path as well.
To be honest, we don’t really need the genuine fur – the temperature doesn’t fall to “Siberian” -30, so the fur is mostly used as an accessory part of our wardrobe.
However – Sky News and Humane Society Internation (HSI) investigated and tested some of the products on the market, and found out, that “fur free” brands like TK Maxx, Boohoo, Amazon, Groupon and Miss Bardo, have been using the genuine fur like mink or rabbit in their products, which have been advertised as faux fur. The fiber testing expert reveled, that the 6€ earings from the Boohoo e-shop were actually made of mink, and also retailers “pom-pom” bridal shoes had parts of a rabbit fur on them.
Well, I mean its is a great deal, if you think about it – the mink earings for just a 6 euro, that is aaawesome, right?
In the Santa’s “naughty” list ended up brands like TK Maxx, Groupon, Miss Bardo and Amazon. The Missguided shoes were most consistent with cat fur.
As it might be a “good deal” for costumers, it is not really “nature friendly” attitude. The companies “blame” the importers, who bring the “mix” of the faux and geniune fur. As in every company – they pick the “cheapest” suppliers, to make the maximum profit. And cheep supplies mean cheap production costs, which means, that the animals are probably kept in horrible conditions.. And Im not even mentioning possible “unhuman conditoins of the workers”, which we know has been a big issues for big corporations nowadays. What do they say to that?
So here we are ladies and genlemen. Nowodays we prefare quantity instead of quality. Paying less for cheaper product – cheaper costs of production and material (that comes from who knows what conditions!”). And I am not even mentioning the such a tiny little hyprocritical detail – such as excluding the fur from our lives, but still keeping our leather purses and shoes as if “that is something different”…
What are your thougts anout this?
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang