(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.

Celebrities like singer Beth Ditto show that style doesn't have a size. (Courtesy of Love Magazine)

In Britain, researchers have learned that four in ten women wear a U.K. size 18 (equal to a U.S. size 14) or larger. And we have to imagine that the data would hold true for Americans as well. Yet in spite of recent development like Marc Jacobs announcing a plus-size line, women of size overwhelmingly feel fashionable choices are extremely scarce in the apparel industry.

Grazia magazine reports:

However, larger women have told researchers Mintel that more still needs to be done. Four in ten women size 18 and over say plus-size clothes tend to be less fashionable.

‘Rising levels of obesity mean that plus-size consumers are increasing and these shoppers are looking for improved choice,’ said Mintel fashion analyst Tamara Sender, ‘Given the numbers of not just plus-size women, but also men, these consumers can no longer be considered a minority or niche sector and retailers need to wake up to the potential of this market.’

If finding fashionable plus-size clothing is hard, ethical plus-size clothing is basically an endangered species. But luckily for our readers of size, it’s not totally extinct. Check out this guide to stylish eco-friendly clothing that comes in size XL and up.

Yesterday, Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) proposed a new law that would enable designers to patent their ideas in an effort to crack down on counterfeiting and copyright infringement in the fashion world.

The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act is backed by both the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) and the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA). It aims to succeed where other efforts to protect intellectual property in fashion have failed, such as the Design Piracy Prohibition Act of 2007.

The New York Times reports:

“In the first go-around there was nothing that gave our members protection,” Kevin Burke, president and chief executive officer of the AAFA said, adding that there was “a vast difference” in the Schumer bill. “It provides the protection for unique design.”

The proposed legislation provides very limited intellectual property protection to the most original design. A designer who claims that his work has been copied must show that his design provides “a unique, distinguishable, non-trivial and non-utilitarian variation over prior designs.” And it must be proven by the designer that the copy is “substantially identical” to the original so as to be mistaken for it. The bill would cover all fashion designs, including products like handbags, belts and sunglasses, for a three-year period from the time the item is seen in public—on a runway, say. Factors than can’t be used in determining the uniqueness of a design are color, patterns and a graphic element.

In other words: In the event of a copyright dispute, the onus is on the designer to prove that his or her design is the most original.

For another point of view about why such legislation is unnecessary, check out this piece by USC economist Krisztina Holly.

Swiss luxury jeweler Cartier has filed suit against members-only shopping website HauteLook.com for allegedly selling counterfeit, damaged, and secondhand jewelry bearing the Cartier name.

Cartier reportedly bought five watches from Hautelook to check them for quality, and the inspection resulted in the lawsuit. In it, Cartier says Hautelook never “partnered with Cartier and is not an authorized dealer of Cartier’s merchandise.”

According to Reuters:

HauteLook is “causing immediate and irreparable harm to the Cartier brand and trademark,” Cartier said in its 36-page complaint filed on Tuesday evening in Manhattan federal court.

Cartier claimed that HauteLook has sold used Cartier watches despite maintaining on its website that it “never” sells “secondhand merchandise, ever.”

It also said HauteLook has also sold Cartier goods that were damaged, were shipped in the wrong packaging, or carried defaced authenticity certificates, and sometimes included a Cartier warranty booklet though the warranty did not apply.

Cartier is rumored to be asking for more than $2-million in compensatory damages. At best, this is an “oops” of major proportions; at worst, it’s fraud.

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.

(Frank Ockenfels/Blogs.AMCtv.com)

The advertising industry spent a whopping $125-billion last year alone to convince you that you couldn’t live without something. That is serious money, and while the ad industry can claim success, they can’t exactly say they came out of that success smelling like roses.

To combat the negative image many people have of advertising, industry leaders have banded together to launch the Institute for Advertising Ethics at the University of Missouri.

There’s a burgeoning need for this, says one of the institute’s founders:

“Because it is persuasion, advertising is viewed in a questionable way by a lot of people,” said Margaret Duffy, a former ad executive who now teaches at the University of Missouri School of Journalism and is helping to organize the ethics institute.

But even though the industry’s fundamental purpose is to convince shoppers to buy a product they may not actually need, such persuasion can be done in an “ethical and tasteful” way, she added.

The institute has appointed Wally Snyder as its leader, who will use his background as a former Federal Trade Commission lawyer and American Advertising Federation president to help people in the industry approach advertising in a more ethical way, and benefit ad viewers as well.

For more on the ethics of advertising, check out E.S. Issue 36, the Art of Persuasion.

The groundswell of support continues to grow for legislation that would outlaw unpaid internships in all industries, including fashion. And yesterday on NPR, listeners chimed in on why.

In a story that could have been on The Devil Wears Prada cutting-room floor, a listener wrote in to Talk of the Nation host Neal Conan with this anecdote:

A friend’s daughter worked as intern for a famous fashion designer and had to run errands all over New York City. On one of the outings, someone on a subway burned a cigarette into the intern’s arm.

When she got back to the designer’s office, she got scolded for taking too long – no sympathy for the incident on the train, no reimbursement for the subway, no money for the internship. Needless to say, she quit.

Certainly most of us would. If a stipend is not possible, covering work expenses for interns at the very least should be mandatory.

Have any of you had a terrible unpaid internship? Get it off your chest (anonymously!) in the comments section.

Scary stuff! The Oakland-based Center for Environmental Health has conducted lead tests on a variety of faux leather handbags, wallets, and other women’s accessories and found dozens that exceeded the federal safety standard for lead paint. (There is currently no standard for lead in clothing.)

Planet Green reports:

Researchers don’t know for sure that the lead in your handbag could leach out and expose you to toxic levels. But like the children’s jewelry and toys that were recalled in 2007 (see my Good Housekeeping feature for the full scoop) these handbags count as a pretty unnecessary source of exposure, and one that it makes sense to minimize when we’re exposed to so many unavoidable toxins in our air, water and food every day. And activists and public health officials alike worry about what happens when a toddler messes around with mom’s purse or jewelry, given the tendency of young children to put things in their mouth.

Which is why it’s great news that CEH announced today that it has succeeded in getting over 40 major retailers to agree to phase out lead-containing accessories. Macy’s, Sears/Kmart, Target, Kohl’s, JC Penney, Guess, Victoria’s Secret, Saks and other retailers have until December 1 to make sure their accessories meet new, stricter standards for lead content, after which they’ll face mandatory fines of up to $12,500.

This news just further confirms our established suspicious about petroleum-based pleather goods. Steer clear, people!

(via GbD)