International Fur Association Prosecute San Francisco Legislature

The International Fur Federation (hereinafter referred to as IFF) filed a federal lawsuit against the San Francisco legislature because the city's legislature approved the ban on the production and sale of fur products in 2018. The new law passed last year and will take effect this month. Fur retailers, including fashion brands such as Canada's high-end outdoor brand Canada Goose (Canada goose), must sell all remaining stocks before 2020. IFF said they are suing the lawsuit to stop the law from coming into effect, and the San Francisco legislature is trying to legislate ethics. IFF believes that the ban is a violation of the Constitution and commercial provisions, which gives the federal government some power to control the trading rights of states.

More than 50 million animals are slaughtered to get fur every year in San Francisco, most of them on farms. The new law only prohibits the production and sale of fur products, but does not include leather made from cowhide and sheepskin with wool, nor is it prohibited from resale or recycling of products.

IFF is headquartered in London and has more than 40 members. "If this law is implemented, San Francisco will also ban wool, leather, meat and many other animal related products in the future," said Mark Oaten, chief executive of IFF. The rights of California people should not be less than those of other states. They have the right to freely purchase legally produced goods unless there is a public safety or health problem. There are no such problems in the newly produced fur products. "

IFF also believes that the prohibition of the sale of new fur products will damage local businesses and environment, because artificial fur products are often made of petroleum and plastic fibers. IFF says fur sales in San Francisco are only $40 million a year, and sales in the fur industry are $23 billion globally.

Losangeles, another city in California, also passed the ban on new fur products last year, allowing only the sale of leather by-products from the antique fur industry and the food industry, as well as the leather products used for "religious purposes". IFF also announced that it would sue for new Losangeles injunctions, but those prohibitions will not take effect until 2023. New York and Hawaii are considering similar ban on fur products.

If IFF successfully brings a lawsuit against San Francisco, the result may affect other cities or states that have issued such injunctions.

Another Fur Information Council of America, an organization supporting fur, supports IFF's lawsuit. "The ban is not helpful in improving animal welfare," the group said in a statement. The real progress is not the city council ordering people not to buy fur, or what they must eat or wear, but to support science based projects, such as FurMark, which are ensuring environmental sustainability and animal welfare.

The FurMark created by IFF is a new certification project aimed at ensuring the welfare and benefits of animals. The project is not yet fully effective and is expected to be implemented this year.

　　 But anti fur advocates, such as the The Human Society, which supports fur ban, and the brand that chooses to no longer use fur, says San Francisco's new ban reflects only the evolution of democracy.

The Human Society chairman and chief executive Kitty Block, in an interview with WWD, said: "we see animals being cruelty again and again, the fur industry desperately trying to overturn democratic legislation enacted by democracy, but they failed again and again. We do not want to see any difference in San Francisco, because under the California and federal laws, the "fur ban" is entirely within the jurisdiction of San Francisco.

The anti fur organization said: "fur factory animals are endured constant fear and are pushed into small cages, where they wait to be poisons and electrocuted. Animal fur is a nightmare of the environment. Fur is processed in the mud of toxic chemicals to prevent animal skin from rotting. Consumers do not want to support such abuse of environment and animal welfare at all. We encourage fur trade to turn to innovative zero cruelty materials instead of maintaining the status quo with various reasons. "

In fact, interest in fur is declining among major fashion brands. Stella McCartney has long advocated fur free and vegan fashion. Gucci (Gucci), Chanel (Chanel) and Michael Kors also have the same attitude. Some retailers are also willing to give up selling fur products, such as Macy s (Messi department store) and Bloomingdale 's department store.