Why do we shiver at fur but sigh when it’s about leather? This is the question the author explores. According to her, fur farming and production has gradually been subdued owing to lobbying against the cruelty towards animals reared for it. This is for the obvious reason that most of these animals are never fit for human consumption. Leather, on the other hand, is short for such an acceptance. As she points out, it is convenient to refer to it as a byproduct of the meat industry. Therefore, it enjoys a greater acceptance than fur. While this is true, the article fails to address some real end points about fur as well as in the leather industry.
It is true that fur production comes out as more cruel than leather. The article, however, fails to mention the byproduct benefit from the animal carcasses not fit for humans. Their disposal is still economical. Pet food industries benefit largely as well as organic compost and animal sanctuaries. Fur farming is therefore not as entirely destructive.
It is true that the byproduct belief has made the debate about leather more difficult. However, nowadays leather is not always a byproduct. There are animals being reared with the intent of better skin than meat. As such, the byproduct argument does not apply. The author notes that skin.
producing animals will eventually suffer the same mile as those producing fur. The environmental impact of leather tanning industries is stunning.
From this, the baton in regulating the leather industry then remain with the industry. The consumer is positioned at an end where not much could be achieved. The leather industry requiring more moderation is that where breeding and rearing is done solely to make a good skin. Animals here could easily suffer like those in fur farms. The case of animals reared for meat remains appropriate and in line with the byproduct consequence, therefore, requires no significant action. This will effectively protect animals while keeping leather demand at a manageable pace.