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
Cal Chamber sues state for profiting from AB 32
Nov. 15, 2012 By Wayne Lusvardi The California Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday sued the state of California to stop
Will Dems support pension reform?
On Monday, the Senate PERS committee will vote on much-needed pension reform — SB919 by Sen. Dennis Hollingsorth, R-Murrieta. As
Is 2014 the best year for pension reform?
I politics, timing is everything. In 1973, Gov. Ronald Reagan pushed Proposition 1 to cut state income taxes 7.5 percent.
