Wearing fur is good for the environment: it reduces CO2 emissions, produces no waste, feeds the recycling chain and, last but not least, also helps conservation. Really horrifying. But it is argued by a shocking advertising campaign by the European Fur Breeders' Association, which justifies these shocking claims point by point. For example, under the heading "reduction of CO2 emissions", you can read: "no transport necessary, fur animals are born, bred and die on the farm".
Don't store avocado like this: it's dangerous
Wear a fur is good for the environment: it reduces CO2 emissions, produces no waste, feeds the recycling chain and, last but not least, also helps conservation. Really horrifying. But it is argued by a shocking advertising campaign by the European Fur Breeders' Association, which justifies these shocking claims point by point. For example, under the heading "reduction of CO2 emissions", you can read: "no transport necessary, fur animals are born, bred and die on the farm".
But for Global Action in the Interest of Animals (GAIA) it is obviously a completely false, or at least misleading claim, as demonstrated by a study conducted by the Ce Delf, according to which theenvironmental impact of mink production if anything is greater than the production of other types of clothing, or the fact that the commercial does not take into account factors that are an integral part of the production process, such as transport of food for animals or the fur themselves.
Fortunately, theAdvertising Standards Authority , the English Authority of advertising regulation, defining the spot as a form of greenwashing (in one of its most vulgar forms, we add) e prohibiting its diffusion in Great Britain. Thus, after the complaint by Gaia, the Authority explains in a note that the statement "it is eco-friendly to wear fur"Cannot be used if advertisers are unable to provide pconvincing evidence that their product does not cause any environmental damage, also taking into account the entire life cycle of the product, from production to disposal. "The information and documentation presented by the European Fur Breeders' Association have not shown that the fur trade would not cause environmental damage", concludes the ASA, which labels the campaign as misleading for the consumer.
In short, whatever the fur lords say about it, advertising will not be able to appear in the UK, just as had happened in Belgium, where the Guarantor had always declared the same spot misleading. Dear leather craftsmen, start repeating: it is not eco-friendly to wear a fur, it is not eco-friendly to wear a fur, it is not eco-friendly to wear a fur. Repetita iuvant…
Roberta Ragni
