Breaking the silence on animal welfare
Animal-Derived Materials, animal rights and why animal welfare is not just about animal "well-being"
Welcome to a new issue of The Crisps – you’re anti-greenwashing and honest fashion communication newsletter. In this issue, we’ll focus on animal rights and welfare. A topic that is often overlooked and deserves more attention. If you haven’t already, make sure to receive future issues of our newsletter by subscribing for free.
From greenhouse gas emissions to plastic pollution, the impacts of fashion production and consumption are widely discussed. But there are topics that often get overlooked in the sustainability conversation like animal rights and welfare. The industry faces significant criticism – at the latest since the launch of the documentary Slay! which examines the ruthless exploitation of animals for our textiles.
Poor working conditions in farming facilities, environmental issues, and severe violations against animal welfare have brought the industry’s shortcomings to the forefront. The environmental impact of Animal-Derived Materials (ADMs), also in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, in comparison to similar materials is often argued to be the worst.1 Practices such as mulesing, live-plucking, and fur farming continue to pose inherent risks to animal welfare, calling for a fundamental change in the use of animals in fashion.
Despite these daunting facts, many brands remain unaware of the numerous negative implications of using ADMs, while many others maintain the myth of ADMs being merely a by-product of the meat and dairy industry (which they are not!). And isn’t it a paradox that we often express immense love and compassion for our pets, yet we turn a blind eye when it comes to the conditions under which our clothing products were made?
With most brands not even having a formal animal welfare policy on paper, we think the topic needs more attention! Because also those that exist are often outdated. And brands don’t have the supply chain traceability to implement them. When consumer attitudes shift, the slow progress of brands leaves them open to reputational damage and greenwashing traps.
So in this issue, we will dive into terminology as well as ethical aspects associated with animal welfare. And we’ll tell you about a greenwashing case that was connected to Animal-Derived Yarns. Ready?
From Animal Rights to Vegan: Terminology you should know
In the realm of animal welfare and rights, the language used by the fashion industry can often be misleading and riddled with greenwashing tactics. Behind marketing campaigns and carefully crafted labels, true understanding and transparency are often obscured. To align ethics with action, let’s look at the most important terminology.
🔸 Animal Rights
Animal rights refers to the belief that animals possess inherent value and deserve to be treated with respect, free from exploitation and cruelty. True animal rights advocates recognize animals as sentient beings, capable of experiencing pain, pleasure, and a range of emotions, and for a complete abolition of using them for food, hunting, trapping, testing, education, and research.23 However, the fashion industry often co-opts the term "animal rights" to project an image of compassion while simultaneously engaging in practices that contradict these principles.
🔸 Animal Welfare
Animal welfare focuses on the “well-being” and quality of life of animals under human care. It encompasses providing adequate food, shelter, healthcare, and environments that allow animals to exhibit natural behaviors. However, the concept of animal welfare can be exploited through greenwashing, where brands claim to prioritize animal welfare without implementing rigorous standards or independent verification.4
🔸 Animal-Derived Materials (ADMs)
Animal-derived materials encompass a range of materials sourced from animals, such as fur, leather, wool, feathers, silk, and exotic skins. The use of these materials in the fashion industry raises ethical concerns due to the inherent animal suffering & killing associated with their production. Greenwashing can occur when brands use vague or misleading terms to make consumers believe that these materials are ethically sourced or obtained without harm to animals - which in the case of e.g. intentionally killing a snake for exotic skin is absolutely duplicitous.5
🔸 Animal-Friendly
"Animal-friendly" is a term often employed by brands to imply that their products or practices are considerate of animal welfare. However, without clear definitions or industry standards, this term can be employed ambiguously, giving the illusion of compassion without genuine commitments to ethical practices. Greenwashing may occur when brands use this term to divert attention from practices that harm animals.
🔸 Cruelty-Free
"Cruelty-free" typically denotes products or brands that claim to not test on animals. Greenwashing can distort the meaning of this term, as some fashion brands may market themselves as cruelty-free while still using animal-derived materials or supporting other practices that harm animals. Truly cruelty-free brands prioritize both the absence of animal testing and the exclusion of animal-derived ingredients. And, let’s be honest – if civilized humans are involved, it is very rare that a practice is truly cruelty-free.
🔸 Vegan
Beware of the 'vegan' label. Vegan products or brands are those that abstain from using any animal-derived ingredients or materials. However, greenwashing can infiltrate this terminology when brands mislead consumers by labeling products as vegan while disregarding other ethical considerations, such as the environmental impact of their production processes or the fair treatment of workers throughout their supply chains.
These are just a few examples of terminologies used in the context of animal welfare and rights within the fashion industry. As communicators, it is crucial to remain vigilant, question marketing claims, and seek transparency and authenticity from brands.
Animal welfare is not just about animals
Yes, when we discuss animal welfare we do talk about the conditions, practices, and suffering associated with Animal-Derived Materials. But we must also acknowledge the profound impact that these animals have on the livelihoods of countless communities worldwide. Farming communities have long relied on animals for sustenance, companionship, and economic stability. They provide vital resources such as milk, wool, and eggs, and serve as security for small-scale farmers who depend on them for their livelihoods.
Beyond the economic aspect, animals often hold immense cultural and emotional significance within these communities. They are revered as symbols of tradition, symbols of connection to the land, and symbols of heritage passed down through generations. The relationships formed between farmers and their animals extend far beyond utilitarian purposes for garments, transcending into a realm of deep emotional bonds.
However, as the fashion industry has evolved into a vast global enterprise, the dynamics between animals, farming communities, and the relentless pursuit of profit have become increasingly complex. Industrialized farming & husbandry practices have blurred the lines between ethical and exploitative, often catching farmers in the crossfire of conflicting demands.6
As demand for animal-derived materials soars, the pressure on farming communities to increase production intensifies. Large-scale operations emerge, prioritizing efficiency and maximizing profits, often at the expense of animal welfare and the well-being of these communities. Traditional, sustainable farming practices are gradually overshadowed, threatening the delicate balance between humans, animals, and the land.
The case study of Allbirds
Best known for their popular “sustainable” wool running sneakers, Allbirds is a US-American-New Zealand company selling footwear and apparel and a Certified B corporation. Despite its claims to produce as eco-friendly as possible, Allbirds has been accused of understating the environmental impact of using wool in its sneakers, misleadingly marketing that the sheep from its supplier “live the good life”.
According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) – the largest animal rights organization in the world – workers beat, stomped on, cut open the skin and slit the throats of conscious, struggling sheep. Moreover, while the company’s life cycle assessment (LCA) measures the carbon footprint of each product based on materials, manufacturing, and product use, it fails to assess the environmental impact of wool production on water usage, eutrophication, or land occupation.
While a proposed class action lawsuit filed in 2021 claiming Allbirds misled consumers regarding its carbon footprint and animal welfare claims was dismissed7, it puts emphasis on the importance of having your facts straight when communicating about animal welfare and the environmental impact of ADMs. Because in the communication on the sustainability of animal fibers, fossil fuels often win as the emotionality of animal caring is misused. But celebrating fossil fuel-based vegan fibers and materials is simply greenwashing without talking about the fossil fuel lobby and their environmental footprint as well.
In 2020, the Sustainable Apparel Coalition announced that based on its Higg Material Sustainability Index (Higg MSI), polyester—a synthetic fiber—was more sustainable than several natural (animal) fibers. In a time where calls to end the use of fossil fuels and focus more on natural and renewable resources are increasing, this biased information was shocking.8 This discussion is far from over, and we also know that HIGG (rightfully) has been under attack with several greenwashing cases going on.
This week, the international animal welfare organization Four Paws published a new two-part report series “Taming Fashion”. We’ve talked to Jessica Medcalf, the Global Corporate Engagement Manager at Four Paws, about the report and will share the most important findings here in next week´s pro-issue.
Best,
Tanita & Lavinia
Grossi, G., Goglio, P., Vitali, A., & Williams, A. G. (2019). Livestock and climate change: impact of livestock on climate and mitigation strategies. Animal Frontiers, 9(1), 69-76.
Francione, G. L. (1995). Animal rights and animal welfare. Rutgers L. Rev., 48, 397.
Francione, G. L. (1997). Animal rights theory and utilitarianism: Relative normative guidance. Animal L., 3, 75.
Francione, G. L. (1995). Animal rights and animal welfare. Rutgers L. Rev., 48, 397.
[…] The snakes, alligators, crocodiles, and other reptiles who are killed for their skins suffer immensely. Snakes are commonly nailed to trees and their bodies are cut open from one end to the other. Their mutilated bodies are then discarded, but because of these animals’ slow metabolism, it can take hours for the snakes to die. Lizards are often decapitated, and some writhe in agony as the skin is ripped from their bodies. Most alligator skins come from farmed animals who are raised in crowded tanks or pools of fetid, stinking water. The animals are shot or crudely bludgeoned with hammers. Workers sometimes use a mallet and chisel to sever crocodiles’ spinal cords—which paralyzes, but does not kill, the animals.[…] From PETA (2019). Exotic skins: the animals. https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-clothing/exotic-skins-animals/ accessed online 12.07.2023
Thompson, P. B. (2021). The vanishing ethics of husbandry. In Animals in our midst: The challenges of co-existing with animals in the anthropocene (pp. 203-221). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Shaak, E. (2022). ClassAction.Org. Class Action: Wool Shoe Manufacturer Allbirds Misled Consumers with Sustainability, Animal Welfare Claims https://www.classaction.org/blog/class-action-wool-shoe-manufacturer-allbirds-misled-consumers-with-sustainability-animal-welfare-claims accessed online 11.07.2023
Grimstad Klepp, I. (2022). Suston Magazine. SYNTHETIC VS. NATURAL
A DEBATE THAT'S FAR FROM OVER. https://sustonmagazine.com/2023/03/21/synthetic-vs-natural-fibers/ accessed online 12.07.2023