A fur industry group sued San Francisco on Monday in an effort to overturn the city’s ban on fur sales, reigniting a fierce debate between global fashion businesses and local animal rights activists.
The International Fur Trade Federation, which has members in more than 40 countries, filed suit against the city and San Francisco Public Health Department Director Dr. Grant Colfax, who enforces the law, in the Northern District of California.
San Francisco’s fur ban took effect this month; it was passed in 2018.
“This is a startling precedent to impose morality on citizens,” federation spokesman Mike Brown said in an email, adding the ban was driven by a small segment of the population that doesn’t like fur.
The lawsuit argues the ban is unconstitutional because, by regulating products from other states and countries, it violates a clause in the Constitution that gives Congress, not other levels of government, the right to regulate commerce. It will “place a dam in the stream of interstate and foreign commerce of tens of millions of dollars of products that do not threaten the health, safety, or welfare of a single resident — human or animal — of San Francisco,” the suit said, noting fur is not produced in the city.
More than 50 million animals are killed for their fur every year, most on farms, San Francisco’s law says. It bans the sale and production of animal fur but doesn’t prohibit resale or recycling of used products. It also doesn’t apply to cow skin used for leather or sheepskin with the fleece on.
Other cities, including Los Angeles, followed San Francisco. Last year, California became the first state to ban fur sales, set to take effect in 2023. (The industry sued San Francisco rather than the state because the city’s rules are already in effect.)
John Coté, communications director with the Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said fur farming contributes to pollution and high energy use.
“San Francisco’s legislative leaders have made it clear that this city does not condone killing millions of animals a year in fur farms to make a fashion statement. The City’s legislation is lawful, and we will vigorously defend it in court,” he said in an email.
San Francisco officials expected local businesses would take a hit. A 2012 city controller report estimated an $11 million annual loss; a San Francisco Chamber of Commerce 2017 survey with 50 members said it would cost $40 million.
But the chamber said Monday that because the city’s ban was phased in — last year retailers could still sell fur that was bought before March 2018, before the total ban took effect this month — it didn’t drive away businesses.
“It gave companies time to adapt to this new policy, which was important to keeping small businesses alive and giving them enough room to maneuver,” spokesman Jay Cheng said. Instead of leaving, companies are “experimenting with different products, different trends in fashion or moving focus in clothing to non-fur products, non-animal good products.”
The fur industry’s lawsuit said the city’s ban has “far-reaching sweep” that doesn’t take into account where fur comes from or how the animal is treated under an industry global standard, FurMark, that calls for “humane euthanasia.”
“True progressivism is not the city council dictating to people that they can’t buy fur or what they must eat or wear, but in supporting science-based programs such as FurMark that ensure sustainability and animal welfare,” Keith Kaplan, a spokesman for the Fur Information Council of America, which is supporting the suit though it has made no filing, said in a statement.
But FurMark is a private entity with no ability to enforce welfare requirements — and still allows for small cages and anal electrocution, said Matthew Hamity, director of Campaigns and Legislative Affairs at a San Rafael group called In Defense of Animals.
“More importantly, keeping wild animals in captivity for the sake of killing them and ripping away their fur is inherently cruel, and no voluntary certification program can change that,” Hamity said in an email. He argued prevention of animal cruelty is a legitimate local interest within city authority — similar to local laws on cat declawing.
Fur is no longer as globally popular: Even the Queen of England announced last year she would stop wearing real fur.
Wayne Hsiung, co-founder of Bay Area activist group Direct Action Everywhere, said “the fur industry is resorting to these frivolous legal tactics because they know the public is turning against animal cruelty. Consumers are against fur and other forms of animal abuse.”
Mallory Moench is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: mallory.moench@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @mallorymoench
"sales" - Google News
January 14, 2020 at 05:19AM
https://ift.tt/2TrMV69
San Francisco’s ban on fur sales just took effect. Now the industry is suing - San Francisco Chronicle
"sales" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2Y6RbrS
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "San Francisco’s ban on fur sales just took effect. Now the industry is suing - San Francisco Chronicle"
Post a Comment