Fur and the environment. The use of animal fur products has an environmental impact at least 3 times greater than that caused by alternative eco-fur products, in relation to the "freshwater eutrophication" environmental effect. This is what a new Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study, commissioned by LAV, reveals, the results of which validate what was already found in 2011.
Don't store avocado like this: it's dangerous
Fur and the environment. The use of animal fur products has an environmental impact at least 3 times greater than that caused by alternative eco-fur products, in relation toenvironmental effect of “fresh water eutrophication”. This is what a new Life Cycle Assessment study (LCA), commissioned by LAV, whose results validate what was already detected in 2011.
If in the previous study the production phases of 1 kg of mink fur were compared with the production of a similar quantity of cotton, polyester and acrylic fibers, this new study takes into consideration the entire 'lifespan' of the products, thus also including the use and treatment of the garment, up to final disposal.
The products selected for this study are a mink fur, compared with a synthetic fur coat (with different support bases: cotton, polyester, wool), and a mink fur insert, compared with a synthetic fur insert. The two influencing aspects are the 'lifespan' of the product itself and the 'maintenance' required.
And it is this last parameter that has a decisive impact on the environmental impact of an animal fur product compared to a synthetic fur one. In fact, animal fur needs specific maintenance, including storage in environments protected from humidity and, depending on the environmental conditions, even refrigerated. And this highlighted the differences, in some cases enormous.
Indeed, among the 17 environmental effects taken into consideration, the difference factors found range from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 7 for the “climate change” effect; between 13 and 72 for "soil acidification"; between 4 and 44 for "eutrophication of water"; between 6 and 64 for "land use"; between 83 and even 1.537 due to "terrestrial ecotoxicity".
“Animal fur causes suffering not only for animals but also for the environment - declares Simone Pavesi, LAV Fur Campaign Manager - This further study demonstrates once again that eco-friendly products are only those that also respect animals. Fashion companies should take this into account by preferring alternative materials to those of animal origin, especially when they aim to build a socially responsible image ". Consumers, therefore, have an additional reason for prefer fur-free clothes and accessories.
To consult the study click here
Roberta Ragni
READ also:
- Toxic fur: carcinogenic substances in children's garments with inserts
- Fur inserts? No thank you! Here's how to recognize synthetic hair from real hair
- Ecological fur: synthetic or natural?
- Wearing fur is eco-friendly: the English Authority bans misleading advertising by the EFBA
