Fake fur is a synthetic fur: studies and research

Fake fur | Many of you will have asked yourselves why I haven’t gone into the subject that in fashion and among sector workers is the “love / hate relationship” of the year: what is better? Fake fur or real fur?

(In reality I have done this many times but this time I will jump in deep)

Don’t be surprised by the fact that this piece is not two lines long because for me the answer is simple.  It is better to use real fur.

I’m not hiding the fact that I love real fur. But I am writing this post from an impartial point of view, because I want to provide free and unconditioned information. My aim is to silence the lies around this issue. Even if that means I have to admit I am wrong!

To do this doesn’t mean not having or not being able to have an opinion; to do it you need to inform yourself without presuming you know everything. Well, with humility, I did it.

I have read hundreds of articles, collected the opinions of tens of people from biologists, zoologists, chemists, animalists, furriers, designers, fashion brands and also “common people”

I have analysed everything and will break it down so that each of you can decide if you “love it or hate it”.

Sixty percent of the world’s population wears synthetic fibers used in sportswear, pile jackets, socks, underwear, synthetic puffer jackets without real feathers but filled with polyester.

Zero feathers and animal hair but all steam ahead with plastic.

The International Union of Conservation of Nature  (IUCN) has stated that the washing of garments containing synthetic fibres is the cause of 33% of the emissions of microplastics into the environment. 

Lately it has been fashionable to define “fake fur” (let’s call it that for now until we have cleared our ideas on what the real name is) as being ecological fur, eco fur or organic fur.

The term synthetic fur has mistakenly been nearly buried.

But when we talk of ecological or organic fur do we know what we are referring to? Or are these adjectives used a bit like “friend” to define someone who we may have seen just once?

The GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) is recognized as the world’s most important standard for sustainable production of textile products made with natural fibres from agriculture, like cotton or wool (organic). If a textile is certified GOTS it is considered organic and ecological.

I haven’t yet seen this label on “fake fur” but let’s not digress, let’s go on. 

GOTS Certification confirms that the textile products have been made using at least 70% natural fibers coming from organic agriculture such as fibers, threads, clothes, games in textile fibers, linen for the house and the products for looking after the body.

Obviously these fibers are colored, and, to certify that the processes of coloring and the materials used respect the rigorous standards not harmful to human’s health and respecting the environment the ball passed to the ICEA (Institute for Ethical Environmental Certification).

The ICEA is a non profit consortium, to which belong bodies, associations, companies and civil organizations in agreement with the rigid international standards of reference.

The ICEA controls and certifies that thousands of companies operate respecting man and the environment protecting the dignity of workers and the rights of consumers. 

The fact is that that even cotton is not eco-friendly. I am sorry to admit it, because I love organic cotton. By solving my allergy problems it has changed my life. But it is not good for the environment: to produce a t-shirt it takes nearly 3000 litres of water, most of which are used to produce fibre or water the plant. 

 Far from hemp and bamboo, the latter is even 100%  biodegradable.

Fake Fur and Google

Among the various certifications that the ICEA issues, one of the most important is the RDS (Responsible Down Standard) that certifies that the feathers used for stuffing are obtained according to criteria that respect the protection of the animal.  This is an important and essential role.

The adjectives “eco-friendly fur” and  “organic fur” in the fur field have been so wrongly over-used, that I believe it has confused even Google.

Googling “organic fur ” or “eco- friendly fur” among millions of associated and connected results I selected the best targets and here are the four that I appreciated particularly, take a moment to check them out:

1. Kanekaron one of the preferred fibers for producing “fake fur” for its look and softness very similar to real fur.

It is among the Google results for “organic fur”.  But this is a lie: by definition, with a modacrylic fibre that contains a percentage of acrylonitrile that goes from 50% to 85%, above 85% we enter the world of the mythical acrylic. Which is what this fabric is. It was first produced by the Japanese Kaneka Corporation global chemical giant in 1957 for the clothing of firemen given its extraordinary flame-retardant qualities.

It has a revival in 2010 when it made a comeback in 2010 with Chanel during a famous fashion show among the ice of the Arctic, brought it to the catwalk as part of its “fake furs” collection.

Frankly I was quite surprised when I read the declarations of Bruno Massa, ex CEO of Daks, whose competences include being an expert in ecology.

Massa explains «compared to acrylics and polyester that synthetic low cost furs are made of, this has a light and a quality that is hugely different » and continues – «I knew Kaneka (ndr the Kaneka Corporation chemical multinational with headquarters in Osaka, motto of the company Make Your Dreams Come True) when I was distributor in Japan of Valentino — he tells — One of their more alert managers asked for an idea of how to develop this new material and sent me a piece to Milan. My eyes were opened».

If we want to call the finished product “organic fur” well, it seems like a load of rubbish to me!

It’s ok to change your mind, but I thought that only one person had the monopoly on literally resurrecting for now!!!

2) Site that denies having ecological material – sorry it is one of the leading sector sites (in Italy)

mmh they tell me there are no results for “eco-friendly fur” so I presume I will find nothing not even “organic fur”. In fact…nothing. But the description is really interesting fur in polyester…

Here below is the photo of the search on the site 

3) “Quality organic materials with or without GOTS certificate who thinks that eco-friendly materials can’t be modern and colorful is wrong, enter the bright and wonderful world of eco-friendly materials by Alpinschnuller”.

Help..where are the furs in this site?

That’s right! There are none, let’s go on!

4) “Synthetic fur is the vegan alternative to real fur with which you can enhance your own outfit in a second. Eco-friendly furs worked with high quality procedures are difficult to distinguish visually from real fur. Moreover, they are super soft and perfect for creating jackets and vests. Synthetic fur can also be used simply to create a collar. This soft textile will attract admiring looks in any situation and will protect you from the winter cold.

WOW it seems an add to promote the elixir of eternal beauty pity that if you go and have a look you see what they are talking about.

I can conclude that there is no fake fur that is eco-friendly, organic and that its real name is synthetic fur or synthetic material.

Synthetic garments, including synthetic furs, are made from petrol derivatives mostly from acrylic acid. This is the same substance present in plastic in high percentages that cause irreparable environmental damage.

Just to give you an idea, the demand for acrylic acid has increased in the last ten years from three to six million tons. It is a derivative of propylene, and a by-product of working in refineries.

We all know how polluting a refinery is, how much the extraction of petrol and the permanent damage that oil rigs accidents cause are devastating for the seas and the environment. 

Petrol and its derivatives move an industry of so much money it can silence any issue in just a couple of days. 

None of this sounds healthy for me, neither for the icebergs in Greenland nor for the seals and above all not for the populations that inhabit that land that often many pretend to forget. Because of these “oversights” it was decided that seals must be defended from the need of the inhabitants of that land: the Inuits, better known by the great public as Eskimos.

If someone was confused we will now learn something, hoping that I won’t have to do it again.

Inuit nations were forced to present themselves at the Parliament of Strasburg two years ago to protest against the law issued in 2010 by the European Parliament that introduced the ban on trade and purchase of products deriving from hunting seals. This collapsed exportation of the skins by 90%, condemning a whole community to famine. 

“You cannot understand that this has been our way of living and maintaining ourselves since the dawn of time” the ex-minister of agriculture and hunting Karry Lyberth prayed crying out loud.

Greenpeace made public amends and a step back admitting that the intentions to “stop commercial exploitation of seals had gone too far.” Knowing to say sorry is not always easy. 

Greenpeace and the Inuits even allied against drilling in the Arctic, yes they went that far.

Strasburg  turned a deaf ear with the result that the economy for the survival of those populations was practically zeroed and the seals populated so much they endangered several marine species: maybe you haven’t been told  but one seal eats about 200kg of living fish every day.

That doesn’t sound like an eco-friendly diet for the oceans for me. 

NO to the false extinction of seals but YES to the real extinction of the Inuits and the fish: how democratic!

If it is natural and doesn’t shock anyone to see a film of a seal eating hundreds of fish, and I don’t think they do it delicately, it is just as natural and should not shock that an Inuit should hunt for his sustenance and that of his family.

Lets get back to burning in the sun.

The United Nations in Geneva, during a forum, gave out really alarming data on the environmental impact of fashion, calculating it at second place among the most dangerous industries in the world. This is because it produces 20% of the total water waste and 10% of global emissions. 

In first place was the petrol industry.

Producing synthetic fur in mass would do nothing but worsen this data. 

Admittedly, even though I should have said this before, the data and the news I am reporting are based on industries that can be called such not on farmers or tanneries, improvised, abusive or State ones where there are no rules and where there are not even human rights.

Let that be clear! 

It is also clear that these realities do not even deserve to be called farms or tanneries and should be fought against no matter what you believe in.

I have already written about the fact that unfortunately in the world not everyone respects laws and rules, this in everyday life. But thankfully there are still some who out of obligation or by the will to do so, do..

I want to share with you a thought that has been going around in my mind for days.

Why are synthetic furs a bigger trend than ever? 

Yes because after having repeated this information, spoken with experts in every field, found myself talking about chemistry when at high school I was scared to even look at my teacher, hamletic doubt has wormed its way into my head.

The information reported here are accessible to all.

Why does the London brand Shrimps produces synthetic furs?

Why is Stella McCartney, who for years congratulated herself for not putting any garments in her collections that could even remotely look like fur, now going mad over fake ostrich? 

Maybe she could continue on her old track.

Fifty years ago when fake fur came out, ok, they were the only alternative to endangered species like jaguar and tiger plus people didn’t have access to all the information on the environment we have today.

Our planet didn’t yet have all the illnesses caused by plastic and petrol it now suffers from.

I wasn’t there but I trust my granny!

I would probably have been one of the first to buy the number of Vogue on which the fake fur brand Timme-Tation promoted its fake tiger with a slogan, probably the first declaration against furs, “Does the international beauty that has recently bought an oversize coat made with the fur of ten tigers know that now there are only 590 specimens left?”

Top Models and international stars that have earned millions of dollars from fashion brands being testimonials for advertising campaigns or walking the catwalk with real fur garments now have repented and become fur-free.

I will quote myself and invite you to click here and read my post where you will find also that today has become friends just with  PETA, then in a moment of crisis, I think economic, went back to being friends with everyone.

Gisele Bundchen we are in the era of internet, do you remember how you celebrated Roberto Cavalli’s 4oth? ?!? You can click on the link. Damn!!!

Did they give back the money they earned or give it to charity without telling us? How cute!

Quite rightly more and more laws in favor of protecting endangered animals are coming out and groups of animal activists like PETA are demonstrating against the killing of animals, others backtrack and admit that maybe eco-friendly fur is not such a great vitamin for the planet.

After all the planet is not their main worry, the problem is the slaughtering of animals.

I don’t know maybe it’s that of all the things that are fashionable it is most fashionable to do what everyone else does.

Follow the crowd for fear of standing out.

Real fur, whether you like it or not, is much more natural and eco-friendly. Real furs are organic furs.

Still doubtful?

OK so watch at this video too where a team of researchers prove it scientifically. 

Differently from other material of the textile sector, garments in fur can be cut again and transformed following the evolution of fashion. 

Furs are one of the only garments that are handed down and often used by two or even three generations.

Two thirds of European animals bred for their skins are used 100%.

The resources that are used to fight against the fur sector should be used first and foremost to give the right information and to fight who really breaks the law.

There are many solutions that can, have been or are being put into action.

There are Ci brand like London’s Mou that use, sheep, antilope, lamb and rabbit that come from food industry waste and can last thirty years.

Aurora James of Brother Vellies, a shoe and bag brand, uses only furs of rabbits kept in the open bound for the food sector or of exotic animals from farming.   

If you like written rules instead the IFF promises that by 2020 it will certify more than 3500 European mink, fox, and finnraccoon farms and the auction houses will be able to sell only certified skins with the label WELFUR that will certify the origin, the method with which the animals are farmed giving an objective evaluation of their state. 

By the end of 2020 the IFF will make the “FURMARK” programme operative that considers sustainability, well-being of animals and the environmental impact of tanning processes and dyeing of furs.

FURMARK will be partnered with the Saga Certification Scheme base on strict Finnish standards, laws on farming mink in North America, an ample system of laws and checks for wild furs, the system of global certification of tanneries and dyers and , after 2020, new laws that will regulate sable farming in Russia and the  programme on karakul in Namibia (Swakara), not to mention the first drafts of guidelines on the standards of framing Afghan karakul.

Ok it’s true, those who should taken measures first took some time over it but…better late than never!

Samantha

PS: In this post I will tell you how men get sick and die to produce these fake furs, children die with malformations and once we don’t like them anymore we send them back to those that produced them: in the third world.  A world of slaves to fast fashion.