FUR
Not Biodegradable. In their own study, the fur industry revealed that only a modest fraction of the “real” furs used for an experiment did biodegrade (from 6.6% to 25.8%) significantly. The “real” fur dyed with chemicals almost didn’t biodegrade at all. The claim is inconsistent. (you can read the full fur-industry-funded study here). Collection systems for composting old fur coats are nonexistent, and if you threw your old fur in a compost pile, it could negatively impact an otherwise healthy composting ecosystem due to the presence of formaldehyde, hexavalent chrome, alkylphenol ethoxylates, azo dyes, chlorinated phenols (PCPs), and other petrochemical components used to process the pelts.
A top polluter. According to the World Bank, fur dressing (the use of chemicals to prevent rotting) is one of the world's five worst industries for toxic-metal pollution. This was addressed in this article as well.
Reliant on fossil-fuels. The Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health note in a 2008 report that intensive animal farming operations like fur farms are “almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels.”
Air pollution. In addition to air pollution arising from gases released in the animals’ manure, significant air pollutants are released when disposing of animal carcasses by incineration, a fairly common method of disposal. These air pollutants may include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrochloric acid (HCl), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), dioxins, particulates and heavy metals. Furthermore, the European Commission considers air pollution to be one of the chief environmental concerns of the tanning process, whereby toxic and odorous substances are typically emitted during normal tannery operations.
Eutrophication. Fur factory farming accounts for 10% of ammonia emissions (which causes eutrophication of aquatic environments due to runoff) in major fur producing countries such as Finland. This is an underestimated environmental threat according to scientific journal Nature (Dec 2018)
Water pollution. A 2003 Michigan State University study in the Fur Rancher Blue Book of Fur Farming states that “the U.S. mink industry adds almost 1,000 tons of phosphorus to the environment each year.”
Greenhouse gasses. The carbon footprint of the production chain of a single piece of mink (28kg CO2 - eqv / pelt) or fox (83Kg CO2 - eqv / pelt) is at the same level as the carbon footprint resulting from one to three days average consumption of a consumer. (source)
LCA. A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) on mink fur and faux fur was conducted by Dutch research organization CE Delft. They examined manufacturing, cold storage, cleaning and life of the garments finding that faux fur is almost five times less harmful than mink. The overall conclusions of the LCA were : compared with other textiles, fur has a higher impact on the environment per kg in 17 of the 18 environmental categories, including climate change, eutrophication and toxic emissions.
Petrochemicals. Fur processing is a big business in Asia where regulations are lax. The process involves chemicals and dyes manufactured by the petrochemical industry. The ingredients used are volatile components.
Hazardous to health. Formaldehyde, chromium VI (hexavalent chrome), alkylphenol ethoxylates, azo dyes and chlorinated phenols all are widely used to preserve raw animal skins and turn them into preserved pelts for use by the fashion industry.
Scientific analysis of six fur fashion items purchased from high-street stores in China has revealed potentially dangerous concentrations of toxic chemicals, in one case 250 times above the levels permitted by law.
An investigation in Italy in December, 2014 found carcinogenic toxins like hexavalent chrome and formaldehyde present in fur clothing intended for babies and toddlers. The main processing chemicals used for preserving pelts are formaldehyde (linked to leukemia) and chromium (linked to cancer). In 1991, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined six fur processing plants $2.2 million for the pollution they caused, citing them for hazardous waste violations and stating that “the solvents used in these operations may cause respiratory problems, and are listed as possible carcinogens.”
Toxic tanning. Common methods for dressing fur skins involve formaldehyde and chromium — chemicals that are listed as carcinogens and are otherwise toxic to humans. Other chemicals that may be used or emitted in the dressing and dyeing processes and that appear on one or more US government lists of toxic chemicals include aluminum, ammonia, chlorine, chlorobenzene, copper, ethylene glycol, lead, methanol, naphthalene, sulfuric acid, toluene and zinc.
Invasive species. The fur industry has introduced invasive and non-native species (like nutria) that have destroyed coastal wetlands, and now they pat themselves on the back for killing feral nutria in the name of “guilt-free fur” and “saving the wetlands” that they destroyed in the first place.
History of extinctions.. Historically, the fur industry is responsible for the extinction and near extinction of many animals including the sea mink, toolache wallaby, Eurasian beaver, American bison, koala bear, and northern fur seal. The capture of "non-target" animals including endangered species is still a problem in the trapping industry.
Underregulated. Currently, at the Port Authority in NYC, fashion items from major brands containing endangered and threatened species are still regularly confiscated, as the investigative journalists at NBC’s news 4 I-Team discovered.
Studies on the toxicity and environmental impacts of fur production
Toxic Fur: A Global Issue (2018)
Toxic Fur (2016)
Poisons In Furs (2011)
A 2019 study of 80 million shoppers over 12 month shows a 66% increase in searches for sustainable fashion with “Vegan fashion” specifically responsible for over 9.3 million social impressions on Lyst. It’s clear why the fur industry is so desperate to confuse people about whether it is “green”, they are trying to cash in on consumers’ genuine concerns for animals and the environment.
A 2016 study of over a thousand millennials conducted by Mic clearly shows that the majority of young people won’t buy or wear fur. Only 19% said they were comfortable wearing fur. Meanwhile 70% of respondents said they would not buy a new clothing item with fur on it.