Legislating Fur
It’s difficult not to chuckle at Assemblywoman Fiona Ma’s, D-San Francisco, proposed bill requiring all garments sold in California made of animal fur to be identified as such on the label. However, at the heart of AB 1656 is not just consumer protection, but animal rights according to Ma.
Concerned that unidentified animals are being used in clothing manufacturing, Ma said in an interview yesterday, “People have a right to know if they are buying dog fur or a polyester blend. It shouldn´t be a mystery.”
I am aware of fur accessories using raccoons, dogs, cats, and rabbits; who knows what other furry creatures may adorn a jacket collar?
Of particular interest is that some manufacturers may actually dye the fur an unnatural shade of pink without identifying what type of animal pelt was used, according to Ma.
AB 1656 is surprisingly not the first fur labeling bill in the country: Wisconsin, Massashusetts, Delaware, New Jersey and New York already requiring fur labeling.
Meanwhile, the fiddling continues while Rome burns…
-Katy Grimes
Related Articles
The book of Jobs
Not sure if you’ve noticed lately, but everybody who’s ever been elected to office, from the lowly dogcatcher to the
State can offload retiree health costs on Obamacare
June 8, 2013 By Chris Reed One of the best reasons to snort with derision over Gov. Jerry Brown’s claim
‘Unemployed’ Protected From Employers
Katy Grimes: The state is trying to prevent employers from legally looking into the employment backgrounds of job applicants. A
