König Karl polarisiert auch nach seinem Tod

“Ich finde es besser, wenn sich Leute im Grab umdrehen, als ewig zu ruhen.”

Fred Roeder

Der plötzliche Tod von Fashion-Ikone Karl Lagerfeld hat Wellen der Bestürzung ausgelöst und der internationalen Presse noch einmal die Möglichkeit gegeben sein buntes Leben und viele seiner prägnantesten Zitate zu präsentieren. Doch nicht jeder zeigte sich bestürzt über das Ableben des langjährigen Kreativchefs von Chanel. So äußerte sich die Gründerin der Tierschutzorganisation PETA zu Lagerfelds Tod in abschätziger Weise, dass mit ihm auch die Ära von Pelzen und Leder in der Modeindustrie gestorben sei.

Während PETAs Statement zu vielen negativen Reaktionen führte und sich selbst Veganer gegen PETA in dieser Sache äußerten, zeigt es dass die Debatte um die Nutzung tierischer Produkte in der Mode weiterhin stark polarisiert ist. Gruppen wie PETA stellen all diejenigen, die Stoffe, wie Leder und Pelze, befürworten als grässliche Tierquäler dar. Doch besonders das Beispiel Karl Lagerfeld zeigt, dass die Debatte um tierische Produkte deutlich differenzierte geführt werden kann und muss.

Lagerfeld war ein großer Tierliebhaber und schrieb sogar ein Buch über seine geliebte Katze. Nichtsdestotrotz sah er in der Verwendung von tierischen Produkten in der Modeindustrie kein grundsätzliches Problem. Er setzte sich stets für nachhaltige Materialien ein und verlangte ein höchstes Maß an ethischen Kriterien bei der Verwendung von tierischen Produkten.

Gleichzeitig sah er aber auch die ökologischen Probleme mit künstlichen Produkten wie Fake Fur oder Kunstledern und wies darauf hin, dass Pelze und Häute nur ein Teil der Tierverwertung darstellen und solange Menschen Fleisch essen und Leder verwenden würden Pelze als Abfallprodukt sowieso entstehen. Dazu passt auch sein Kommentar zu genau diesem Thema „In einer Welt, die Fleisch isst und Lederschuhe trägt, ist eine Diskussion über Pelz kindisch.“

Er warf Gruppen wie PETA auch vor zu ignorieren, dass viele indigene Gruppen (besonders in Nordamerika) vom Pelz- und Häutehandel ökonomisch abhängig sind, Militanten Pelzgegnern ginge es nicht um die Menschen, die in diesen Gemeinden arbeiten, sondern stellen den Wert von Tieren über den von Menschen.

In westlichen Ländern verkaufte Modeprodukte enthalten lediglich tierische Produkte aus kontrollierter Produktion mit hohen Standards an die Tierhaltung. Wildpelze kommen meist von Tieren, die aufgrund von Artenkontrolle und Balance in der Tierwelt von Rangern oder Jägern erlegt werden mussten. Dadurch, dass deren Häute und Felle nicht weggeschmissen werden, sondern in der Modewirtschaft zum Einsatz kommen, lässt sich ein Teil der Kosten von Naturparks und Wildschutz finanzieren.

Verbraucher können ohne Probleme auf Kunstleder und andere Plastikprodukte zugreifen, für den Fall, dass sie tierische Produkte persönlich ablehnen. Anderen sollte aber die Wahlfreiheit gelassen werden, welche Mode und Stoffe sie tragen möchten. Anstelle tierische Produkte in der Mode schlichtweg zu dämonisieren, sollte es also vielmehr eine ausgewogene Debatte über die Vor- und Nachteile deren Verwendung geben. Lagerfeld hatte viele ausgewogene Argumente für die Beibehaltung tierischer Produkte.

Eines seiner legendären Zitate passt zu dieser Situation wahrscheinlich am besten “Ich finde es besser, wenn sich Leute im Grab umdrehen, als ewig zu ruhen.” Denn die Ignoranz und Pietätlosigkeit geht über den Tod von König Karl hinaus.

Originally published at https://www.huffingtonpost.de/entry/konig-karl-polarisiert-auch-nach-seinem-tod_de_5c6d5227e4b0c393d09b165c?ncid=other_twitter_cooo9wqtham&utm_campaign=share_twitter

mm

About Fred Roeder

Fred Roder has been working in the field of grassroots activism for over eight years. He is a Health Economist from Germany and has worked in healthcare reform and market access in North America, Europe, and several former Soviet Republics. One of his passions is to analyze how disruptive industries and technologies allow consumers more choice at a lower cost. Fred is very interested in consumer choice and regulatory trends in the following industries: FMCG, Sharing Economy, Airlines. In 2014 he organized a protest in Berlin advocating for competition in the Taxi market. Fred has traveled to 100 countries and is looking forward to visiting the other half of the world’s countries. Among many op-eds and media appearances, he has been published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Wirtschaftswoche, Die Welt, the BBC, SunTV, ABC Portland News, Montreal Gazette, Handelsblatt, Huffington Post Germany, CityAM. L’Agefi, and The Guardian. Since 2012 he serves as an Associated Researcher at the Montreal Economic Institute.

Los Angeles receives the BAN Award for outlawing animal fur

The City of Los Angeles, California receives the February 2019 BAN Award for being the largest municipality in the United States to outlaw the sale of animal fur, depriving consumers of fashion choices and endorsing a policy that ignores evidence on animal conservation.

The ban is expected to go into full force by 2021, unless the second vote on the matter changes and Mayor Eric Garcetti doesn’t sign the bill. However, because the vote was a 13-1 margin, it is likely to pass.

“Rather than following the evidence on animal conservation, the city council of Los Angeles has blindly succumbed to the wishes of activist animal rights groups who have spread misinformation on the fur trade,” said Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, a millennial consumer advocacy group.

“Such a ban will have immediate consequences. First, it deprives consumers of the choice to wear fur or not. Second, it ignores the evidence of vital wildlife conservation for balancing our ecosystems. Last, it will force the existing companies out of business and underground, creating a black market that will be unregulated without regard for consumer standards and safety,” said Ossowski.

“Responsible wildlife management is a vital part of maintaining our ecosystems, and responsible players in the fur industry have done this. Criminalizing these elements will do more harm than good, and deprive consumers of their fashion choices.

“Making the buying and selling of fur an illegal act is anti-consumer, anti-free expression, and a huge blow to legitimate animal welfare efforts,” said Ossowski.

“Rather than following the whims of activists, municipalities should allow consumers to choose the fashion items they wish to wear, whether those be made of fur or not, and help support a vital fur trade that actively helps support and balance our environment and ecosystems.”

About the BAN Award:

Every month the Consumer Choice Center awards an institution, person, or organization with the Bureau of Nannyism or short BAN Award. The BAN Awards recognize the work of an individual or organization that has made major contributions to advocating limits on consumer choice. This award serves to recognize extraordinary abilities in disregarding consumers and evidence-based public policy. The award was created by the Consumer Choice Center to draw attention to the important role politicians, lobbies, and advocates play in limiting consumers’ choice and ignoring them in the policymaking process.

Selection criteria: The Bureau of Nannyism (BAN) is a group of consumer choice advocates that discuss nominations on a monthly base and award the nominee with the most innovative or most blunt actions against consumer choice with the BAN award.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org.

mm

About Yaël Ossowski

Yaël Ossowski is a journalist, activist, and writer. He's currently deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center, and senior development officer for Students For Liberty. He was previously a national investigative reporter and chief Spanish translator at Watchdog.org, and worked at newspapers and television stations across the country. He received a Master’s Degree in Philosophy, Politics, Economics (PPE) at the CEVRO Institute in Prague. Born in Québec and raised in the southern United States, he currently lives in Vienna, Austria.

Debunking animal-derived material myths

A LEADING consumer group has hit back against animal rights activists who have been encouraging consumers to stop using animal-derived materials, on the grounds that they are hazardous to the environment.

Last Thursday, the Consumer Choice Center launched a campaign titled #ChoiceInFashion – which seeks to inform consumers about animal-derived materials used for fashion and debunk myths and urban legends spread by what they call ‘self-proclaimed animal rights groups’.

Managing director Fred Roeder explained: “The Consumer Choice Center values animal rights, animal welfare, and protection of the environment but this campaign seeks to debunk some of the myths used by animal-rights groups to cloud the judgments of consumers.

“More and more innovations already allow consumers to switch to animal-free food products and fashion items,” he continued. “At the same time, a trend of emotionally charged campaigns, such as those undertaken by PETA, that misinform consumers about animal welfare in developed countries has been on the rise. With alternatives at hand, there is no reason to stigmatise against the use of real fur and leather in fashion choice,” said Mr Roeder.

“In the coming weeks and months, we will provide more information and arguments for choice in fashion on our website: www.ChoiceInFashion.com.” he concluded.

READ MORE
mm

About Fred Roeder

Fred Roder has been working in the field of grassroots activism for over eight years. He is a Health Economist from Germany and has worked in healthcare reform and market access in North America, Europe, and several former Soviet Republics. One of his passions is to analyze how disruptive industries and technologies allow consumers more choice at a lower cost. Fred is very interested in consumer choice and regulatory trends in the following industries: FMCG, Sharing Economy, Airlines. In 2014 he organized a protest in Berlin advocating for competition in the Taxi market. Fred has traveled to 100 countries and is looking forward to visiting the other half of the world’s countries. Among many op-eds and media appearances, he has been published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Wirtschaftswoche, Die Welt, the BBC, SunTV, ABC Portland News, Montreal Gazette, Handelsblatt, Huffington Post Germany, CityAM. L’Agefi, and The Guardian. Since 2012 he serves as an Associated Researcher at the Montreal Economic Institute.

Vegane Mode am Pranger: Dämonisierung tierischer Produkte soll aufhören

Die „Mythen“ veganer Mode sollen entlarvt werden

Vor etwa einer Woche verkündigte das britische „Consumer Choice Center“ in einer Pressemeldung den Start der Kampagne #ChoiceInFashion: „Wir möchten die Verbraucher über tierische Materialien informieren und die Mythen und urbanen Legenden über vegane Mode entlarven, die von selbsternannten Tierschutzgruppen verbreitet werden.“ Die Konsumenten würden einem zunehmenden Druck ausgesetzt um tierische Produkte zu meiden, beklagt die Kampagne. Der CCC (der sich abkürzt wie die Clean Clothes Campaign) vertritt Verbraucher in über 100 Ländern und kämpft für die Erhaltung der Auswahl an Konsumgütern (nicht nur in der Mode) und gegen die zunehmende Regulierung. „Wir beobachten aufmerksam die regulatorischen Trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brüssel, Genf und anderen Hotspots der Regulierung und informieren und aktivieren die Verbraucher, um für den Fortbestand der Wahlmöglichkeit zu kämpfen“, heißt es weiter. Kurz: Die Dämonisierung tierischer Produkte soll aufhören!

READ MORE

Let consumers make informed choices about fur

Wearing fur is becoming more and more taboo. The issue is increasingly fraught and some large brands and fashion shows have decided to opt out of fur altogether.

It isn’t just firms and consumers making the choice to ditch fur. Fur farms are outlawed in many European countries, such as the UK, Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, or Croatia. Some countries are in the process of phasing out fur production before a complete ban. Those include Belgium, Bosnia, the Netherlands, and Norway.

It’s perfectly fine not to like fur. And yes, in a free society you can yell at people in the street, telling them that their fur is evil. But for all your freedom to do so, you should also accept some realities about fur. For much of the campaign against fur is built on misapprehensions.

First, fake fur, which looks about the same for the non-expert consumer and which doesn’t necessitate animal farming, is not the harmless solution many take it to be. In an age in which every plastic bottle cup is demonised and outlawed, the environmentalist answer to fur is polyester. The same polyester decried as a major ocean pollutant. Fur on the other hand is a product with a long, yet circular approach: the fur on your winter coat is biodegradable. This is not a call to throw last year’s collection into the woods, but adding hair to compost is something you can indeed do.

In many countries, a large amount of fur is the by-product of meat production or hunting. In Germany, red fox hunting produces large amounts of fur as a by-product.

Yes, the fur and leather industry has an interest in selling their product, but the trade surrounding animal-derived fashion products affects millions of others in the supply-chain, including those working directly with animals involved. Be it indigenous Aborigines in Australia, pashmina (i.e. cashmere) producers and entire families involved in goat farming and fibre collection in the Kashmir region, or the 150,000 people associated with the python industry in Indonesia: people and animals are hurt when a ban is introduced, or companies drop fur products. These producers are the conservation specialists needed to maintain a population.

In a powerful recent op-ed, four conservation experts made exactly this point. They also argue: “Apparently, many millennials prefer to buy products that are “ethically sourced.” But the irony is that the economic use of wild animals is far more ecologically sustainable (i.e. ethical) than domestic animal production.”

And there are instances in which countries have failed on a regulatory level without imposing outright bans. Often, existing consumer and retail regulations are not been applied so consumers can make informed decisions about their purchases. Consumers are misinformed or outright lied to on the description of their clothing. Some producers have been negligent about this, others have sought to dupe consumers. However, responsible representatives of the industry itself have called for mandatory precise labelling of fur products and adequate enforcement in parliamentary hearings. Both law enforcement and producers have their role to play.

It is easy to demonise all consumers, but blatant bans will hurt both responsible farmers and consumers in their choice of buying fur products. Initiatives such as Furmark, an industry-led labelling system which uses independent and recognised experts from Baltic Control and NSF for animal welfare checks or ChainPoint as traceability systems, is an effective and logical solution that would help producers and consumers in the fur industry.

The idea that all fur is evil is a myth, and it doesn’t help consumer choice, wildlife protection, or responsible industry behaviour. Consumers should ask for responsible industry-led initiatives in order to have fruitful interaction between those who produce responsibly and those who wear. Screaming at customers won’t do anyone any good.C

Bill Wirtz is a Policy Analyst at Consumer Choice Center.

Originally published at https://capx.co/let-consumers-make-informed-choices-about-fur/

mm

About Bill Wirtz

Bill Wirtz is policy analyst for the Consumer Choice Center, based in Brussels, Belgium. Originally from Luxembourg, his articles have appeared across the world in English, French, German, and Luxembourgish. He is Editor-in-Chief of Speak Freely, the blog of European Students for Liberty, a contributing editor for the Freedom Today Network and a regular contributor for the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). He blogs regularly on his website in four languages.