(Courtesy of Kmart.com)

Got a real craving for more fake? Here are some other stories on the topic from the Behind the Seams blog.

• Kmart has a faithful knockoff of the uber-popular “Houlihan” cargo pants by J Brand. But is borrowing a design fair game, or cause for intellectual-property war?
• Counterfeit fashion is enjoying a surge during the recession — and it’s not just $2,000 Louis Vuitton bags that are now being illegally copied.
• A fur-labeling bill has passed the California Assembly, requiring retailers who sell clothes and accessories laced with any amount of fur to disclose that information on garment labels. Previously, items with less than $150 worth of fur could be sold without a label, leading many consumers to mistakenly believe real fur to be faux.
• Luxury jeweler Cartier has sued sample-sale website Hautelook.com for allegedly selling used, unauthentic, and factory seconds under the Cartier name, “causing immediate and irreparable harm to the Cartier brand and trademark,” according to the legal complaint.
• Do “purse parties” lead women to feel so guilty about buying a knockoff that they ultimately go on to purchase the real thing? Some new research says this is more common than you’d think.

In 2005, Vogue editor Anna Wintour was pelted with a pie thrown by a PETA protestor at Paris Fashion Week. (AP/Guardian.co.uk)

We were disheartened to see the news that PETA’s website for kids now hosts a video game in which budding activists can throw rotten tomatoes at people in fur coats. The game’s introduction even says that game players can find tomatoes in real-life produce aisles, with the directive: “No mink stole or raccoon wrap is safe from a pulpy projectile that’s gone to seed.”

A blogger for the Dallas Morning News writes:

In real life, of course, this is assault, and it’s illegal. And I wonder how ethical it is to teach kids to assault other people and destroy property just because those people don’t happen to share the same views as Peta members do about animals. What would Peta say if, for example, Rush Limbaugh urged tea partiers (or their children) to run around throwing tomatoes at anyone they believe is acting too liberal, like lettuce-wearing members of Peta?

And where does Peta drawn the line? I wear a leather belt and leather shoes. Does that mean I’m a tomato target too?

It’s disappointing to see that a prominent group would advocate threatening the personal safety and property of people with opposing views, only to say that animals deserve better treatment — and directing this contradictory message at kids, no less. There are better (and more legal) ways to make the point.

(Courtesy of ShalomNewYork.com)

A controversial law that will ban the import and sale of fur in Israel is set for debate next week. If passed, the law will be the first one in any country that outright bans the fur trade.

AOL News reports:

On Sept. 2, the Knesset is due to debate the second and third readings of the groundbreaking bill introduced by Ronit Tirosh, a legislator from the opposition Kadima Party, to outlaw the production, processing, import, export and sale of fur from all animal species not already part of the meat industry.

There was some opposition from religious groups representing ultra-orthodox Jews, whose traditional festive headgear, known as a shtreimel, is made partly from fox fur. Tirosh introduced a clause in her proposed legislation allowing for the import of fox fur for religious purposes.

Israel’s fur trade generates only about $1 million a year in sales — a tiny slice of the overall $11 billion market. However, the people who do provide that demand for fur will be forced to turn to the black market to get what they want. And we’re not sure that’s an improvement.

Once fur is illegal, there will be no regulatory safeguards (like the Origin Assured program) that will protect how the fur was obtained. Therefore, a ban could potentially lead to worse conditions for animals raised for their fur.

Thoughts from the peanut gallery?

Two models wear sealskin coats by German designer Bente Houmann Andersson. (Courtesy of NunatsiaqOnline.ca)

The contentious European Union ban on Canadian seal fur has been temporarily suspended, pending a lawsuit filed on behalf of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, a tribal group that represents 53,000 native Canadians who rely on the seal hunt for their livelihoods.

Canada’s CBC News reports:

The proposed EU ban does exempt trade in seal products that come from aboriginal groups, but [ITK president Mary] Simon said the Inuit fear their sales will still plummet when the ban comes into effect.

“When the market collapses, our market collapses with it,” she said. “This has a very direct impact, and therefore, this Inuit exemption, or so-called Inuit exemption, won’t work for us.”

Animal welfare advocates said the temporary court setback ultimately won’t change the fate of the seal hunt.

“The EU court may wish to look more closely at the ban, but the court of public opinion around the world is clear: the seal slaughter is uniquely cruel and no market wants the pelts,” said Dan Mathews of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

“At the end of the day, this is a consumer issue and seal skin has a worse stigma with the public than herpes.”

PETA may be exaggerating about the unanimous rejection of sealskin; recent surveys in China show young, affluent Chinese shoppers are open to it. But then again, the issue isn’t as cut and dried as animal-rights activists would prefer.

For more about the ban’s impact on Inuit communities, read up in our archives.

(Courtesy of WWD.com)

A fur-labeling assembly bill introduced earlier this year passed the California State Senate last week, and is now awaiting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s signature into law.

Under current federal regulations, if a garment is trimmed with less than $150 worth of fur, the retailer is not required to disclose the materials used. Because of that loophole, clothes containing real fur were often mistaken for faux.

Sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States and supported by the fur industry, this new law would supercede that, requiring clothing labels to disclose the type of fur used on all garments with fur trim.

The bill was authored by Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) and Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco), who told the press:

“Many consumers choose not to buy fur products because they have ethical objections or are allergic to animal fur,” Lieu said in a written statement. “This bill will help consumers get the facts about the contents of these garments.”

Federal law requires that clothing manufacturers label all clothes that contain animal fur only if their value exceeds $150. Supporters of AB1656 say this bill will help shoppers distinguish between real and imitation fur, regardless of the price.

“There is an assumption out there that if a garment isn’t labeled it must be fake – this isn’t always the case,” Ma said in a statement.

This may be the first time that animal-rights activists and the fur industry have ever agreed on anything, but it’s a win-win for both sides: More transparency in garment labeling means consumers can know exactly what they’re buying.

With the arrival of the phonebook-sized September issues of our favorite magazines, the fall fashion bug has officially bitten.

And after perusing the F/W 2010 lookbook posted by The Battalion Eco Couture on Facebook, we can’t wait to bust out the label’s take on the cozy layers, leggings, and luxe fur trims that are so in style.

Our favorite looks include this dolman-sleeved sweater over leggings and industrial boots, as well as a fur vest over an embellished tee with riding pants and wedges. (The Battalion uses “veggie fur,” but it reminds us of this vintage-inspired getup worn by Emma Watson in her boyfriend’s music video.)

Ever since discovering The Battalion last year, we’ve been continually impressed with how designers Chrys and Linda Wong seamlessly blend style and eco-sensibility in their collections, which focus on organic textiles and expert tailoring.

The designs are urban, not hippie, and we count them as a must-buy for the discerning shopper who wants to do good while staying on-trend.

We read with dismay the news that fur activists had anonymously taken credit for an act of arson against a couple who once owned a mink farm in Oregon.

The extremist group known as the Animal Liberation Front published the admission on its website:

We delivered eight incendiary devices to the lovely folks at Ylipelto’s Fur Farm, at 92659 Simonsen Loop Road in Astoria on the morning of July 27th. It is nice to see that the enslavement, torture, and death of thousands of innocent creatures affords certain people luxuries like boats, nice cars, and various (expensive, no doubt) farm machinery, and we were more than happy to alleviate them of these. A careful attack sent structures up in flame both in the front and rear of the property, simultaneously. We hope that this can leave an impression on our friends, Veikko & Eeva, that making such a living off of the subjugation of sentient creatures (for something as selfish and disgusting as the fashion industry, no less) will not be tolerated.

Trouble is, the elderly couple that owns the farm had given up the fur business after activists twice broke into their operation to release their minks in 2008 and 2009. So in addition to losing their livelihood, the Ylipeltos have now lost what remained of their property as well.

No matter where you stand on the fur issue, it’s just not right to bankrupt an elderly couple out of spite, just because you disagree on an ideological matter.

It seemed like international skating sensation Johnny Weir made bigger headlines this winter over his choice to wear fur than he did for his figure skating routine at the Vancouver Olympics — proving what a hot-button issue fur continues to be among the PETA set.

This week, he spoke to New York Magazine about why his preference for fur is an informed choice, and what we can expect to see from him fashion-wise in the future:

You encountered a spot of trouble earlier this year for wearing a bit of fur on one of your skating outfits. Do you own a lot of fur?
I do have a lot of fur. I’m a big fan of fur. I’m not a fan of nutria or fake fur and I’ve taken a lot of flack for that, but it’s just a choice that I make. I travel a lot to Russia and it’s usually in winter when I’m in Russia, so you can’t walk around in a plastic coat and plastic boots when it’s minus 40 degrees. I’m from the country, I’ve gone hunting, so I know what happens. I know everything there is to know about the fur industry and I choose to wear fur.

He also reports he has a men’s clothing line in the works, about which he says: “I want Chanel quality, of course — a different price point, but of course Chanel quality.” Love him or hate him, you have to give it to him that he knows what he wants and where he stands on fashion ethics.

Emma Watson, the cherubic star of the Harry Potter movies, can add a new credit to her résumé: love interest in her musician boyfriend’s music video, “Say You Don’t Want It.”

In it, the fair-trade–loving starlet wears a short fur jacket that boasts a vintage vibe as they traipse through New York.

Ms. Watson has been outspoken in her support for People Tree, even collaborating on a fair-trade fashion collection for teens with the British label. So we find it interesting that she’s also showing love for vintage in this music video, presumably over which she had some creative control in the wardrobe department.

Keep on rockin’ in the free world, Emma.

In an article that appeared in the New York Post on the extreme shopping habits of five New York City women, one seasoned consumer offered some surprisingly sound advice:

“You’ve got to be socially responsible in terms of style, and that means recycling. Things like furs and skins, if you hoard them and don’t wear them, you are making it so that more needs to be produced. Sell it, give it away and get it back out there. That is a big part of being a good consumer.

“Never hoard!”

In other words: If you loved something once, set it free so someone else can love it again. From an article in which an executive assistant brags about spending $4,000 a month on clothes (even if it occasionally means she has to sell something to scrounge up money for rent), this is actually pretty reasonable.

So E.S. readers, how often do you purge your closets of items that aren’t getting enough love?