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

No comments

Write a comment
No Comments Yet! You can start the discussion, add a comment to this post.

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply


Related Articles

Fuller puts first responders front and center

With an increasingly contentious campaign season in full swing, it’s easy to forget that occasionally there’s positive news in public

California government as organized looting, chapter 237

April 5, 2013 By Chris Reed The longer I’ve lived in California, the more governance here seems to resemble organized

Free BART Tickets for Caltrans

OCT. 27, 2010 By ANTHONY PIGNATARO The California Department of Transportation recently began investigating an allegation that employees at the