Banning fur is bad for New York
COURIER L 42 IFE, MAY 17–23, 2019 PS
BY KAREN GIBERSON
A ban on any fur products is
unacceptable. The bill, which
was just introduced in late
March, is being inexplicably
fast tracked to the hearing
stage, which was scheduled
for May 15. This does not allow
our industry ample time
to prepare or accurately study
the implications of this decision.
We are baffl ed as to why
there is a sudden rush to pass
this legislation.
If government can pick and
choose to eliminate a specifi c
material, then what’s to stop
politicians from telling us
what else we can’t wear, eat,
and create moving forward?
As the fashion capital of the
world, we must work with textiles
and fabrics that our customers
are demanding today.
Our industry has embraced a
variety of materials, including
vegan leathers, faux furs,
and other options that are being
developed every day.
That said, calf hair, shearling,
and fur still play a signifi
cant and sustainable role
in our designs — from shoes,
handbags, gloves and hats, to
trim and cuffs on coats.
Fur is already a heavily
regulated industry, with rules
covering from farming and
trapping standards to ethics
to labeling. The animal byproducts
are used in a variety
of other products, from the
beauty industry to compost
and fertilizers.
We encourage all to learn
more about the process. If you
don’t like these materials,
you don’t need to use them,
to manufacture with them, or
buy them as a consumer.
New York City is the hub of
retail, wholesale, trade shows,
and commerce for many fashion
accessory companies. The
ban preventing any sale of
these products would cut off
one of designers’ largest markets,
negatively impacting
their livelihoods and those of
the suppliers and retail shops
they work with.
In all, a recent economic
study commissioned by the
International Fur Federation
Americas found the ban would
result in $850 million in lost
taxable business revenue and
cost New York City 7,500 jobs
in the fi rst year alone.
According to a survey we
conducted this month of accessory
and outerwear companies
in Manhattan’s Garment
District, more than 90 of
the factories there use these
materials, making items such
as gloves, handbags, and outerwear.
One of them, Cockpit
USA, makes shearling coats
for the United States military.
These are specialized experts.
If the “fur ban” passes,
some of them would need to
close their businesses, while
others would face signifi cant
layoffs.
Let’s be realistic: If the law
passes and a manufacturer
can’t sell in New York City, the
owner has two choices: close
up the business and fi re all
employees, or lay off workers
and rent space in New Jersey,
Yonkers, or Nassau County to
ship the product. Either way,
once again, New York City
loses much-needed manufacturing
jobs — but this time it’s
by its own direct action.
Losing valuable blue-collar
jobs is not the only unintended
consequence of this legislation.
Council members have
championed environmental
issues. In this case, they fail
to recognize the negative environmental
impacts of synthetic
materials.
Most fake furs are petroleum
based and do not biodegrade.
One faux fur coat is
the equivalent of thousands of
plastic straws.
My biggest concern, however,
is that a fur ban would be
just the start. Animal rights
activists have made no secret
of the fact that their eventual
goal is to ban the use of all
animal products. If the City
Council succeeds in banning
fur today, they will next take
aim at leather, feathers, wool
and silk.
To wear fur, like any consumer
product, is a choice. It’s
one New Yorkers have been
making for hundreds of years
and a product that remains in
high demand today. It’s not the
job of City Council members
to legislate away livelihoods
simply because fur is a choice
some of them wouldn’t make
for themselves.
Karen Giberson is president
of the Accessories Council, a
trade group for accessory, eyewear
and footwear brands.
OPINION