It is part of the fur factory farming industry's marketing campaign to denigrate faux fur. In response we provide stakeholders of the textile industry and fashion designers facts and documented information not related by the fur lobby.
All information spread here are documented by journalists. They are reliable and have more value than studies commissioned by the industry. Indeed, studies created by industrials are brought to the general public with the goal to keep the business alive, not to inform on an equitable basis.
Studies
Most of the studies regarding the environmental aspect of fur available so far were commissioned by the fur sector itself in order to protect the financial interests of the industry rather than providing the fashion industry with balanced information. Those studies usually don't take into account the global process of fur production, but rather focus on a certain idea of the "natural life cycle". Despite the "fur is green" claims, eco branding of fur was banned in several european countries and was ruled misleading by the Advertising Standards Authority of Great Britain in 2012.
Independent studies were urgently needed.
In 2011 the carbon footprint of mink fur was compared to other fabrics by the eco experts of Ce Delft. The climate change impact of fur is 12 times that of a cotton and 20 times that of acrylic. The biggest factor accounting for mink fur’s poor score is the large quantity of feed consumed by animals. It takes 563 Kg of feed to produce 1Kg of mink fur.
In 2013 a comprehensive study from the eco-expets of the Ce Delft compared mink fur finished clothing with faux fur for the life of the products from the time they are bought until and including their disposal “a natural mink fur product will always have a higher environmental impact than faux fur, even when the lowest possible impact is used for the feed in case of equal life span ”. "
 clic on the image to read the study |  |  |
|---|---|---|
 clic on the image to read the study |