Everyone hates lobbyists, and it is not just a waste product like they claim but on the other hand, the cows are not killed for just the leather. It is certainly an extra source of income and a reason for the farmer to have and eventually kill the cow.
But the main reason for slaughter is still the beef and leather is usually a very durable – lasting decades – and natural product and the alternative is plastic products that just cause more microplastics build up on our planet. A good pair of leather shoes can outlast like 5-10 plastic sneakers. So maybe there should be a different set of rules for leather. I don’t know
Of course we would exclude a product from one of the biggest industries at fault for literally every single common environmental issue we have. Animal AG is horrible for everyone involved and not involved.
Anyone any thoughts about this one?
Seems like a reasonable position to me, though some additional nuance would be nice. Unless the hide is the primary output from a farm I don’t see that the leather industry causes deforestation.
There are already (in many parts of the world) pretty stringent controls on the impact of tanning, I know at least one tannery in the UK that draws water from the local river and return cleaner water at the end of the process and that’s including the fact that tannery does produce chrome tanned hides. Veg tanning is a longer process but the chemicals are much less aggressive, so cleansing is less onerous.
Ultimately, leather is principally a byproduct of the meat industry, occasionally from animal population control schemes (one example in know is for kudu in South Africa).
Leather is a natural, and biodegradable textile (even after tanning) that outlasts the man-made alternatives. Although I’d like to speak favourably of things like pineapple.leather they simple don’t work without too much additional plastic/rubber material that undoes all the benefit and should not (IMO) be allowed to greenwash as ‘vegan leather’.Stay away from exotic leathers, and revisit if the meat industry reduces to the point an animal.could be raised and killed for a hide without massive economic loss on the activity.
Fish, gator, tegu and croc leather don’t have those downsides. Three are invasive and the other’s skin is usually discarded.
Can you explain how it can be a biodegradable and somehow outlast everything after being pumped full of chemicals? The entire point of tanning is taking a biodegradable natural material, and make it not that.
Also, tanning and all the resources that go into the cow make leather actually much worse than the alternatives. And that’s ignoring all the natural alternatives, like pineapple leather, or cork.
It’s not a byproduct. As long as it makes money, it’s a product. It supports the industry that is arguably the worst and most wasteful industry we have, the animal ag industry.
First up, sorry for the long response. You asked some simple questions that didn’t have equally short answers (hence the log reply) and that made me test my existing assumptions. Whether we still disagree (to me at least) matters less than that process so I’ve upvoted you as some thanks for that.
>Can you explain how it can be a biodegradable and somehow outlast everything after being pumped full of chemicals?Firstly - the claim that leather is pumped full of chemicals is a vast oversimplification. I referred to chrome tanning in my previous comment but personally would be glad to see that gone, or proper environmental regulation brought it to those countries that do not currently have it. That would drive increased costs and likely industry and buyer behaviour towards a self correction - back towards veg tanning. Vegetable tanning relies on plant based tannins, no man made chemicals. These tannins bind to the proteins in the hide, increasing the strength of the fibres and delays decay. It takes weeks to do, whilst chrome tanning (using chromium salts) takes days to deliver a product that has a worse environmental footprint but still (IMO) better than a fossil fuel product. Arguably veg tanning produces a better product that will age and patina whilst chrome tanning inhibits a lot of that so would never be my personal preference as a hobbyist.
Leather lasts longer than most textiles simply because it has a more resilient fibrous structure (skin has evolved to have these properties and the tanning process accentuates)
To offer some real scenarios: with correct care and re-soling (leather soles, not rubber) the same pair of boots can last well in excess of an adult lifetime. I see no other natural material that can repeat that feat. A leather belt, bag or briefcase can easily be a lifetime or heirloom item with minimal care, same for well made leather coat or jacket (usually the thing that wears out in the latter is a fabric lining which could be replaced with skill and care).
Leather may take a long time to eventually break down but throughout that time, the process is not releasing microplastics, it is not poisoning water sources or wildlife.
>Also, tanning and all the resources that go into the cow make leather actually much worse than the alternatives. And that’s ignoring all the natural alternatives, like pineapple leather, or cork.The cow will be farmed whether the hide is waste or used. There are a lot of hides that go unused just because the scale of the meat industry is vastly larger than tanning and leather goods.
I haven’t ignored the alternatives, I said before I´d love to speak positively about pineapple leather, but the plain truth is that most ‘vegan leather’ is actually PU or PVC made from fossil fuels and I hope we aren’t going to disagree that use of fossil fuels is just worse. Worth noting that many countries outlawed the term ‘vegan leather’ as it is a misleading marketing term, not a material. Sadly plant-based leather alternatives all require additional support/structure for durability and wearability and that comes in the form of plastic. Which might be animal free but its not in any way ecologically sustainable. These do not have the durability of leather and will crack, peel, break, in relatively short order. If its what you want to use then that’s a choice you have, but they aren’t (again IMO) a real alternative to leather and any environmental high ground they claim is just greenwashing fossil fuels and plastics. That said, I do personally hope that they find better solutions and the situation changes in the future.
>It’s not a byproduct. As long as it makes money, it’s a product.Sorry but that’s just not correct. A byproduct is defined in Merriam-Webster as “something produced in a usually industrial or biological process in addition to the principal product¨. The vast majority of leather is a byproduct of the meat industry, or to a much lesser degree of animal control. I get your point, but I never argued against their being some commercial interest.You’ve argued it is a product because it has commercial value, but that’s not what a byproduct is, thats a secondary product and it would require the hide to be worth a material percentage of the value of the animal; based on the cost of tanned hides it just cannot be.
> ...arguably the worst and most wasteful industry we have, the animal ag industry.Animal ag is a real problem; no doubt. In fact I´d argue Ag in general is a problem for the number of people we have on the planet. Not to diminish that, but I think fossil fuel and the US tech oligopoly might just be worse for the planet and society respectively.
They talked about leather as a byproduct. Not leather as a product of husbandry.
Ignoring them and putting words in their mouth based on partial sentiment is not constructive. You are just creating rifts and hate.
Just because something is sold does not mean it can not be a byproduct
Fuck the leather industry
