interview
When Nike recently announced that it had changed its CSR policy and joined the Responsible Wool Standard (RWS), FashionUnited picked up the news with the headline “Nike chooses painless wool”. The next day, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) contacted FashionUnited to say the headline was inaccurate – joining the RWS outlawing mulesing, i.e. cutting off the skin around a sheep’s rump and tail, does not make the whole process painless – sheep are still hit, kicked, pushed and eventually killed.
This shocking fact made FashionUnited want to know more, not only in relation to wool, but also down, mohair and other animal-derived materials. FashionUnited spoke to Jacqueline Sadashige, Senior Corporate Responsibility Officer at PETA, which helps companies adopt more humane and sustainable products and policies.
What exactly does your area of responsibility include?
I work for PETA’s corporate responsibility team. We work closely with companies, alerting them to cruel industry practices around animal-derived materials and encouraging them to move towards new and exciting vegan materials.
Are companies defending the use of a specific material that involves animal cruelty?
Yes, companies sometimes say they can’t stop using a certain material because consumers want it. But the question is: why do they want it? They want it because the marketing was so good, because maybe it was advertised as “natural” or “luxurious.” But that’s not it. Let’s take wool for example. Consumers are told it’s natural and wonderful, but PETA has surveyed more than 100 wool farms on four continents – including Scotland and England – and sheep have all been punched, kicked, pushed and eventually killed. Cruelty to animals is something that is inherent in the industry.
And there is no exception, no material of animal origin that is “safe”, i.e. obtained without cruelty to animals?
No. The moment an animal becomes a commodity, there is violence, there is cruelty. We looked at animals raised for their fur in Peru, Mongolia and Australia, among other places, and we found that the animals are subject to violence and high levels of stress. Alpacas, for example, are prey animals and shearing increases their stress levels. Every time they are shorn, they go into a “fight or flight” state.
What about small farms that treat their (few) animals more like family members?
Unfortunately, they are often worse, and due to their small size, veterinary care can be rudimentary – if any. Also, the environmental impact can be even worse due to poor waste management.
I witnessed sheep shearing as a tourist attraction in Australia in the 1990’s. At that time I noticed how little time was spent on each animal, how roughly they were treated and that the animals were bleeding because the clippers penetrated their flesh.
Yes, what you saw in the 90’s was what was considered acceptable to the public. Things haven’t gotten any better since then. Sure, many companies now refuse to buy mulesing wool, which is an improvement, but overall wool production has increased and workers are still paid by volume, favoring a fast, aggressive shearing that leaves sheep with open, bloody wounds.
Coming back to the idea that a material is considered “natural” because it comes from an animal…
It’s a rumour. Once the material reaches consumers, it is anything but natural. Take wool for example – wool is extremely greasy, so it protects the animal in all weather conditions. Therefore, a thorough cleaning process is required, which requires chemicals and enormous amounts of water. Leather must be tanned, which usually requires toxic chemicals – any material of animal origin that is processed for human use will not decompose if thrown into a landfill and can therefore never be called ‘natural’. While wool is biodegradable, these so-called natural materials often contain harmful chemical dyes or finishes that can be released into the environment as the item degrades.
What’s the alternative?
Many soft, vegan materials are available.
Some of which get a bad rap for having to add plastic to them to make them more durable and stretchy.
The development of these alternatives is progressing rapidly. Although some of the early non-animal materials had these problems, there are now plant-based polymers and also materials that are 100 percent plant-based. For example, hemp, cotton, bamboo and pulp-derived materials
So how reliable are the current standards such as the Responsible Wool Standard, the Responsible Down Standard or the Responsible Mohair Standard?
While the idea isn’t bad, enforcement is an issue and interpretation can be unclear. Some painful procedures are still allowed, such as castration and ear cutting in sheep. Regarding the administration of painkillers to animals, the wording of the standards is “when appropriate painkillers are available”, which leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
Although the Responsible Wool Standard prohibits “live export”, this practice is still used. This means that at the end of their “useful” life, animals are loaded onto ships and transported to slaughter. The journey often takes months, and as the animals are treated as mere commodities, they receive insufficient food, water, let alone medicine. Those that die can simply be thrown overboard or left to rot.
An entire agricultural area can be certified during the audits, whereby a random sample of the certified area is sufficient for certification. The PETA Asia investigation of the Responsible Down Certified operation in Russia told investigators that the inspectors knew the area and therefore didn’t bother to ask the farmers how the geese were raised. The audits of the individual companies are usually announced so that the companies can prepare for them. Brands need to conduct their own unannounced audits if they want to see what’s actually happening.
But the bottom line is that profit is always more important, and supplier assurances are therefore meaningless. The power of the industry is enormous, and the ability to accurately enforce the standards is limited.
What can you do?
Brands, retailers, consumers and associations need to work together. Consumers in particular are not aware of how much power they have. You can start asking for non-violent products in stores. dr Martens is a good example – the brand’s profits skyrocketed when it offered the first vegan boot (along with Marc Jacobs). Nike also understands the reach of vegan products and has collaborated with Billy Eilish – who is vegan and supports PETA – on various designs. Consumers are now well informed and know where to find the information they need. And if you’re not sure, visit our website for nonviolent shopping lists, research information, and the PETA Mall.
What about the popular argument that product costs would increase?
Yes, we hear the argument; Companies say: “It would cost more to produce non-violently, we would have to pass that on to consumers”. But studies have shown that they would pay more for products that align with their values.
And last but not least: Does PETA actively support or fund alternative materials?
It’s important to remember that PETA is first and foremost an animal welfare organization. At the end of the day, companies know what materials they need; we are not experts. However, we will inform you about alternative materials, for example there is a wildflower down alternative. Businesses need to have a head start on these opportunities. Our main goal is to keep animals out of the supply chain. But we also have design awards and compassionate business awards, and there’s the $1 million Vegan Wool Challenge