Ingrid Frahm Getty Images

If you feel like getting threatened, here’s an idea: Head to an anti-fur protest and mention child labor. That was my mistake last Fashion Week, when a pack of protestors jammed the entrance to a runway show. “Hi,” I said, grinning, “Thanks for standing up for animal rights. Do you know your cheap sneakers were made by children chained to machines?” They screamed; I screamed. It was cathartic until someone shrieked that he’d skin me alive like a trapped fox, and I scrambled inside fast. Then some $5,000 dresses floated past me, unconcerned with anything but being beautiful. Still, my fists were clenched the entire time. I took the back way out.

The debate over long-lasting fur versus cheaply-made faux is nothing new. Just watch the classic 1998 Friends episode “The One With the Yeti” in which Phoebe inherits a mink. “Why would my mother send me a fur?!” she laments. “I have a perfectly fine coat that no innocent animals suffered to make!” Chandler deadpans: “Just some nine-year-old Filipino kids who work their fingers bloody for 12 cents an hour.” The audience roars.

Ingrid Frahm Getty Images

Twenty-one years later, the quip has moved from must-see TV to the front lines of government. In California, a bill banning sales of all new fur apparel and accessories is waiting for Governor Gavin Newsom's signature, while in New York City—the epicenter of America's fashion industry—City Council Speaker Corey D. Johnson has introduced a similar bill to stop fur sales for good. “There is no such thing, in my estimation, as ethical fur, or ecological fur, or excellent welfare fur,” the Democrat, whose district includes fashion hubs like the Garment District, Chelsea, and West SoHo, has said. “That is marketing language aimed at hiding the brutality of this business.” If it were up to Speaker Johnson, that business would soon be over.

Deleting fur from fashion is an on-trend idea that’s lately been adopted by brands like Burberry and Gucci. Versace, Miu Miu, and Prada have pledged to stop using fur by 2020, citing—in the words of Mrs. Prada—“innovation and social responsibility,” and the chance to “explore new boundaries of creative design while meeting the demand for ethical products." But according to some biologists and bioethicists, not to mention many private citizens, these brands, along with Johnson, have got it wrong. In their view, fur is the fashion equivalent of farm-to-table beef; it's more ethical, and safer for our ecosystem than a polyester or acrylic faux alternative. Plus, its production is a family business for thousands of New Yorkers.

Complicating the debate is that there’s a lot of fake news on fur’s pros and cons, and identifying what’s manipulated data is a fact-checker’s nightmare. At a hearing on Johnson’s bill at New York’s City Hall in May, for instance, the anti-fur contingent gave impassioned accounts of animals being skinned alive and electrocuted with car batteries, horror stories that couldn’t be confirmed through independent sources. Meanwhile, the pro-fur contingent claims that their pelts are earth-friendly (though depending on what chemicals are used to tan and dye them, that isn’t always true), and biodegradable. Frustratingly, most studies on fur's ecological harm are sponsored by anti-fur groups. On the flip side, many studies that claim fur's earth-friendly benefits are funded by pro-fur brands. And when London Fashion Week had its first fur-free season in 2018 (the collections were for Spring 2019, hardly the time for a warm coat), the Humane Society International/UK issued an official statement that “fur cruelty is no longer welcome on the catwalk at London Fashion Week,” even though the British Fashion Council has not banned it, and its chief executive Caroline Rush told the Guardian last year that “using fur is not illegal in the U.K. and it needs to come down to the choice of both the designer and ultimately the consumer.”

The eye of this storm is a central question: Is fur inherently animal cruelty? And it can be answered a hundred times, depending on whom you ask. For those against killing animals for human use, fur is empirically wrong, no matter how well the animal is raised. For those who believe animals can be ethically raised and culled, fur is a sustainable resource that fuels local businesses and employees traditional artisans. All the gray in between, from “pain-free” fur farming to “vegan” (i.e., plastic) leather, makes the issue one of the most fraught within the fashion world. Legendary houses like Saint Laurent, Louis Vuitton, Fendi, and Valentino continue to use fur, as do rising designers like Saks Potts and Charlotte Simone. On the other hand, faux-fur confections from labels like Shrimps, Fuzz Not Fur, House of Fluff, and the cruelty-free master class of Stella McCartney are street-style staples worldwide and have sparked a copycat frenzy from fast-fashion chains.

Ingrid Frahm Getty Images

That’s a serious concern for environmental scientists, who claim that fake fuzz is a far bigger threat to wildlife than the real thing. That’s because most faux-fur and “vegan leather” products are made from petroleum-based materials like polyester and PVC—essentially liquid plastic spun into yarn, or pressed into a shoe—that shed tiny plastic particles during and after production. And while a recent study showed that natural fur begins to biodegrade within four weeks—the same amount of time as an oak or willow tree leaf—studies put the rate of plastic decomposition closer to 200 years. Then there’s the issue of microplastics, which “shed” into the water supply (and into the habitats of animals) through plastic textiles like polyester, a faux fur staple. A study from U.K. group Friends of the Earth estimates that 1,600 tonnes (more than 3.5 million pounds) of microplastics were shed from synthetic fabric in 2018 alone.

But there are environmental red flags in fur production too: Since animals create waste that can lead to excess phosphorus and nitrogen washing into our waterways, fur is hardly a zero-impact material, and various fur dyes and tanning agents contain their own share of toxic chemicals. There are scientists trying to make zero-impact luxury fuzz, but the technology isn’t there yet—even though fashion pioneers like McCartney and H&M are making progress. As Suzanne Lee, former Chief Creative Officer to Modern Meadow and founder of consulting company Biofabricate, told Fashionista last year, “To fully grow fur would require you to build a whole organ, essentially like a hair follicle. [Animal-free] fur is a wonderful aspiration, but for now, the reality is scientifically challenging.”



Also challenging are the long-term ethics of fur, especially when warm, insulating material—be it ermine or polyurethane—is literally life-saving to humans in extreme weather conditions, which is becoming more common due to the climate crisis, with record-breaking cold temperatures continuing today. One option for human warmth kills animals, typically minks or foxes, and typically on-site at a fur farm. The synthetic option can create toxic pollution that lasts long after the faux pelt is made—often with questionable labor practices. Consider the view of sustainable fashion expert Alden Wicker, who has written, “I often hear well-meaning people conflate 'vegan' with terms like 'ethical,' 'sustainable' or 'eco-friendly,' as if they can all be used interchangeably. The unnecessary death of animals is of course a bad thing, but an animal’s death sometimes produces social and even environmental benefits.” Industry giants like Finland’s Saga Furs say their practice fits that bill, claiming their animals are well-kept and their fur farms use every part of the animal. For example, a mink becomes not just a pelt but also a fertilizer, a feed for other animals, an oil used to waterproof and time-guard leather, and even a biofuel.

Ingrid Frahm Getty Images

For designers like New York's Aurora James, a pelt’s purpose can also be cultural, as well as important to indigenous traditions. James, the creative director of Brother Vellies, has been recognized by the CFDA for her sustainable and super-cool shoes and bags created with kudu leather and springbok fur from South Africa. “When you look at the communities we work with, the process of hunting is really traditional to them,” she explains. “Springbok and kudu are overpopulated in parts of South Africa, so the government grants certain South African tribes a certain number of the animals to cull to help manage the population. Then we’re able to purchase the fur as a byproduct of that ancient hunting ritual. Our leather is vegetable-tanned and we use vegetable dyes. There’s no waste. There’s no pollution. And then for Corey Johnson to say, ‘No, you can’t give these tribes a second stream of income,’ all because of his own personal Western values and ideas? That doesn’t seem fair to me.” James adds. “People at the hearing were comparing fur to slavery. How dare you? Black people are being murdered here and now and he’s talking about beavers and cows. What am I not getting?”

The economic impact of a fur ban hits close to home too. “This bill will deprive many hard-working people of the ability to make a better life for their families,” testified Leonard Kahn at the hearing. The 91-year-old furrier has been working with pelts since 1947, and has trained other craftsmen in the trade for over 60 years. Added Manhattan fur factory owner Nicholas Sekas, “Our labor force is trained in working specifically with fur. The product is very unique. There are special methods from start to finish that take years to apprentice and learn.” The International Fur Federation estimates that a fur ban would cost 7,500 New Yorkers their jobs in the first year alone—a number the Accessories Council president Karen Giberson quoted at the hearing.

Does a person’s livelihood take precedence over an animal’s life? P.J. Smith, director of fashion policy for the Humane Society of the United States, sees the fur industry’s erosion as an inevitable step towards progress. “I used to work at Blockbuster Video,” he told the audience at the Future of Fashion Summit in New York this summer, an event organized by Maison de Mode and Fashion Trust Arabia to discuss ethical luxury. “I don’t anymore because Blockbuster doesn’t exist. It’s obsolete. Fur will be, too, and you have to adapt.”



But Speaker Johnson’s no-fur bill also has to adapt, and the councilman knows it. As he admitted to reporters in May, “Maybe I should have thought more about this before I introduced it because I didn’t realize the amount of pushback there would be… I was actually moved by some of the furriers and their testimony. While we are trying to be less cruel towards animals, we also want to do this in a more humane way to the workers as well.”



Ingrid Frahm Getty Images

That “more humane way” includes open communication on all sides, so it’s only fair to share mine. I own several fur coats—two vintage heirlooms, two runway samples. I love them, and I will wear them until they fall apart (or until a teen steals them from my closet, like I did from my mom’s in high school). But after studying all sides for this article, I don’t think I would personally choose to purchase farmed fur. Ironically, the evidence that put me off fur came not from PETA or the Humane Society, but from the fur industry itself: While watching industry group Fur Europe's videos about the welfare and care of fur-farm animals, I was struck by how small the mink and fox cages were. I’d assumed fur farms were free-range enterprises. I was wrong, though I still think the wild-roaming springboks of Brother Vellies are an ethical material. (See also the alligator skins of Gigi Burris, and Katie Gallagher’s buckskin bomber jackets.)



That said, my choice can’t—and shouldn’t—be everyone’s, and a New York City fur ban is both misguided and hypocritical. Case in point: Both the fast-fashion and farm-to-table meat industries are allowed free rein by City Hall while farm-to-fashion fur is vilified. As for buying a new faux fur instead? Again, hard pass, at least until a low-impact version is developed and endorsed by objective scientists who are neutral on the issue. (Also, it has to look great. Game on, fashion innovators.)

Still, it seems clear that the fur industry needs an external review board to establish industry-wide ethical standards and practices, not just internal watchdogs like Fur Europe's WelFur program. At the same time, animal rights groups must be vigilant about shunning “vegan” clothes if they ultimately harm workers and the environment. And no part of the fur debate can claim to live “a more humane way” until they stop the fake news, the shock tactics, the finger-pointing, and the threats of violence. Animals deserve ethical treatment, but so do humans. Screaming obscenities at those on the other side of the debate isn’t ethical treatment of anyone. And until we care for one another like we claim to want animals cared for, what’s even the point?

Ingrid Frahm Getty Images