Bianca Bartz
|
A Canadian fur company has hailed their fur products as ethical… “Protecting nature, while pampering yourself,” is their tagline. WHAT? isn’t that a major paradox? In their marketing campaign, the Fur Council of Canada is calling fur an “Eco-Fabric” and is featuring banners across the site with model cloaked in a fur-trimmed hood with the slogan, “Fur is Green.” Their justification? “To be considered ‘green’ or ‘environmentally-friendly’, apparel and accessories should be made from natural materials that are: Renewable; Durable, long-lasting; Reusable, recyclable; Biodegradable; Non-polluting, non-toxic; Energy efficient in their production, use and disposal.” I wonder what PETA’s celeb activists that would “rather go naked than wear fur,” would say to this one?
|
Paradoxical Fur Ads
Edit
"Fur is Green" Campaign
Edit
 |
 |
 |
Naked For A Cause - Alicia Silverstone Strips Down For PETA (GALLERY)
FOUR WAYS TO REACT: vote, favorite, add more examples of Paradoxical Fur Ads or comment about Fur is Green Campaign.
| Jeremy Gutsche on Nov 25, 07 1,655 Trends 2,598 Comments |
Clever and controversial. |
Jeremy Gutsche on Nov 25, 07 1,655 Trends 2,598 Comments
0
|
| Nee Hung on Nov 29, 07 0 Trends 1 Comments |
| I have read that in 1992 the Dutch Advertising Standards Authority ruled that fur apparel advertised as “ecological” was improperly and misleadingly labeled. In 1991 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined 6 fur processing firms $2.2 million for the pollution they caused. The EPA stated that the waste from fur processing plants "may cause respiratory problems, and are listed as possible carcinogens." What I also don't understand is why fur is always compared to fake fur. The alternative to a cruel product is any and every fabric there is. Why not compare fur with cotton? If we must compare fur with fake fur, a 1979 study by the Scientific Research Laboratory at Ford Motor Company compared the amount of energy required to produce real versus synthetic fur coats. A synthetic fur coat was found to require 120,300 BTU (British ThermalUnits), which is approximately equal to the amount of useful energy in one gallon of gasoline(128,000 BTU). A coat made from trapped animals required 433,000 BTU, and a coat made from cage-raised animals required a staggering 7,965,800 BTU—66 times more energy than what is needed for a fake fur. This study took into consideration the feed required for cage-raised animals and the transportation, skinning, scraping, drying, tanning, and dyeing of pelts. The production of a wild caught fur coat uses 3 times more energy than the production of a synthetic jacket, and studies have found that the production of a fur coat uses 20 times more fossil fuels than the production of a synthetic product, primarily because of the processing of the pelts, feed production, transporting of the pelts to the processor to the auction house to the wholesaler and retailer. |
|
Nee Hung on Nov 29, 07 0 Trends 1 Comments
0
|
|
TREND HUNTER is the world's largest trend spotting and cool hunting community. It is an explosion of cool trends and ideas, fueled by a global network of trend spotters and cool hunters. By tracking the evolution of cool, Trend Hunters stimulate creativity and generate breakthrough ideas. About Us Trends Trend Reports Tools Store RSS (98 Flavors) Innovation Keynotes Exploiting Chaos Terms of Use Tips / Contact Join 0.2656 - Hosted by web1 Trends and Content Copyright © TREND HUNTER Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
