Fashion or Slaughter

This page is designed to highlight issues surrounding the fashion industry and its use of animals. Everyday, animals are being raised and slaughtered for fashion. There are many activists who are attempting to shed light on this issue such as PETA, Green Peace and even Sea Shepherd Conservation Societies. According to them, there is no reason to wear fur, which is why we are going to shed light on this issue as well.




The following clip is a less graphic clip on Fur Farms.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTKgtFrMD9o&feature=related


Please enjoy this page :)


Ashley
(this is my page)



Animal testing/use vs. cruelty free products


According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) (2012), there are thousands of animals that are being tested on every year for the cosmetic industry. The cosmetic industry is one of the largest industries that tests its safety of products on animals.  These products are intended for human consumption, which is why they argue that these forms of testing are irrelevant and cruel. 


There is a notion of Cruelty Free products, of which do not test it's products on animals. This being said, these companies and products are so small in comparison to Proctor and Gamble and Johnson and Johnson, that many people do not know that these products exist. 


Women are those most likely to use cosmetic products. This being said, many women probably would not use certain products if they knew how they were made or even tested. Mascara is tested on rabbits to the point where they go blind (PETA, 2012). Mascara is also made out of bat feces (PETA, 2012).  These 2 reasons alone made me throw out all of my mascara and opted for cruelty free and bat feces free products. The sad thing is, the majority of people do not know about these issues and continue to purchase these products simply because they like one brand over the other without knowing what is really in the product or how it was tested. 


This idea of cruelty free leads to many aspects of fashion and not just cosmetics. If we look at fashion over all, we can see that animals are used for testing, but also for the products themselves. How often do we see leather purses, jackets, boots, wallets and gloves? How often do we see fur trim on coats such as the Canada Goose Jackets that have become widely popular as fashion? Even the wool industry can be seen as cruel because of how many sheep we raise to sheer them without proper techniques leaving the animals with severe cuts that could lead to infections and even death (PETA, 2012). Why do we treat animals as a commodity and not an equal living thing?


In regards to cruelty free products, PETA certifies products as being cruelty free. This logo:

Is PETA's logo that they place on products that are cruelty free. This logo can be found on shampoos, soaps, makeup, perfumes, coats, boots and even our beloved purses. It often says Cruelty Free and even to a larger extent cruelty free and vegan. 


People can still engage in fashion and still make ethical choices. By making these ethical choices, we can save the lives of thousands animals every day. If people knew what was in some of the products they love, they may not use them, such as mascara then they would probably not buy them. If companies listed ingredients as they were and not chemical compounds, many people would change their opinion of what their consumption would be. 

Fashionista, hipster or animal killer?

            The purpose of this post is to highlight more issues surrounding the fashion industry that use animal leathers, furs and bi-products. I will also highlight issues surrounding animals being used in the cosmetic industry in terms of how they are constantly getting tested on for our human consumption. This is an issue to us because the driving force to animal slaughter and testing for fashion is our demand for fashion consumer products. We engage in fashion to form our identity, which is why our choices can have an impact on animals.

Many products are designed to create an identity for the consumer (Goodman & Cohen, 2004) and this is especially true with fashion. According to Goodman & Cohen (2004), as a consumer society, we will always consume because that it what our world has been founded on. This being said, what we consume has a drastic impact on the market as well as our identities (Goodman & Cohen, 2004; Velben, 2000). If someone is buying certain products, one can assume many things about that person (Velben, 2000). In today’s society, fur coats often mean wealth. With this in mind, animals get the short end of this identity because they ought to be killed for our image. When the norm is created around what we wear, it is no wonder people want to wear the same things, which in this case; leathers, furs and animal bi-products.

Not being part of the norm or conformity of society tends to make people question many things about you (Goodman &Cohen, 2004; Slater, 1997). Many people will not buy clothing that is made with animal skins. These products help people distinguish themselves from others and we use fashion and clothing to help that distance grow more.

With clothing aside, fashion is also seen in the cosmetic industry. This is one part of fashion that I become a critical/conspicuous shopper. From soap to makeup to shampoo, these products ought to be cruelty free because I strongly believe that animals should not be tested on for human consumption. If it is unethical to test these products on humans then why are we testing them on animals? Products that we use on our bodies should safe to use but they do not have to be tested on animals to assure public safety (PETA, 2012). Personally, there is no need to force feed shampoo to guinea pigs (PETA, 2012). Animal testing is unnecessary, irrelevant and cruel. According to PETA (2012), testing on animals causes pain, distress and death to thousands of animals each year. In addition to the cruelty that animal testing causes, it does not always test for safety accurately. Due to the significant differences between species in skin, hair, eyes, metabolism and absorption rates, animal testing cannot define clear relationships between the test and the intended product use (PETA, 2012). Results can vary from test to test, and from lab to lab.

I am still a female therefore I fit into the target group for many clothing stores and cosmetics. I myself do not wear fur, leather and products that have been tested on animals. I feel like I am a radical consumer by the choice I made to not buy these items. It is because of the market that we see so many different brands because we as a society want the buying power and the choices (Slater, 1997). If people are constantly buying mass produced goods such as leather and suede coats from Danier Leather,  then our resources will be massively produced and consumed also (Goodman & Cohen, 2004; Velben, 2000).

According to PETA (2012), if people were to stop buying these products, it would put pressure on companies to make these products with the faux versions of these fashion items. If there is a demand for cruelty free products, one could also argue that there would be more of a demand on those who do test and perhaps then they would change their ways of manufacturing their products (PETA, 2012). At the end of the day, the main issue is supply and demand, where if we ask for it (demand) then they will produce it (supply), which lead to everyone being more of a critical buyer (Velben, 2000).

References

Goodman, D. and M. Cohen (2004) “From Consumption to Consumer Culture” in Consumer Culture: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.

Slater, D. (1997) “Consumer Culture and Modernity” in Consumer Culture and Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Schor, J. and D. Holt (eds.) (2000) The Consumer Society Reader. New York: The New Press.

PETA (2012). http://www.peta.org/

Veblen T “Conspicuous Consumption” in READER: Chapter 11