![\"Ostrich](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.animals24-7.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/Picsart_25-12-11_20-07-48-846-e1765512492143.jpg?ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n NEW YORK,\u00a0 N.Y.\u2013\u2013<\/strong>\u201cWhat would it take to rid fashion of animal fur?\u201d mused longtime sustainable fashion consultant Lucianne Tonti for the fashion magazine Vogue <\/em>on December 11, \u00a02025.<\/p>\n \u201cIn the space of a couple of weeks in early December 2025,\u201d\u00a0 Tonti recounted,\u00a0 \u201canimal rights activists celebrated three big announcements.<\/p>\n \u201cThe first was when Poland \u2014 the world\u2019s second largest producer of animal fur behind China \u2014 passed a law that proposes to end fur farming by 2033.<\/p>\n \u201cThen, \u00a0the Council of Fashion Designers of America announced animal fur will be prohibited at New York Fashion Week from September 2026.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/a> Irish anti-fur campaigner John Carmody disrupted the 2007 Milan fur fashion show.<\/strong><\/em> Finally,\u00a0 Tonti wrote,\u00a0 \u201cHearst Magazines, \u00a0publisher of Elle<\/em>, \u00a0Seventeen,\u00a0 Cosmopolitan<\/em>,\u00a0 Harper\u2019s Bazaar<\/em> and Esquire <\/em>among others, \u00a0announced a ban on fur in its editorial and advertising content.\u00a0 Vogue Business<\/em> publisher Cond\u00e9 Nast made a similar move in October.\u201d<\/p>\n Business of Fashion<\/em> writer Jessica Kwon two days earlier reported that Hearst Magazines \u201chas added a new regulation to the sustainability section of its \u2018About Us\u2019 web page:<\/p>\n \u201cAcross our portfolio of wholly owned global brands, \u00a0Hearst Magazines prohibits the promotion of animal fur in editorial content and advertising. \u00a0(Our guidelines recognize defined exceptions and apply to all new business and future content).\u201d<\/p>\n Noted Kwon,\u00a0 \u201cHearst Magazines\u2019 ban follows a five-day protest campaign against the media company by grassroots organization the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, \u00a0which included a December 5,\u00a0 2025 demonstration in the lobby of global headquarters Hearst Tower in New York City. \u00a0The Coalition Against the Fur Trade said it would next be campaigning against the U.S. luxury brand Rick Owens.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n \u201cWhat would it take to rid fashion of animal fur?\u201d asked ANIMALS 24-7<\/strong> editor Merritt Clifton on assignment for the long defunct Animals\u2019 Agenda<\/em> magazine in November 1986.<\/p>\n The assignment came just a few days after the annual \u201cFur Free Friday\u201d demonstrations in New York City and elsewhere had mostly spotlighted the failure of a decade of protests to accomplish anything at all against the enormously cruel fur industry.<\/p>\n Emphasizing the cruelty of fur trapping and fur farming in often shockingly graphic literature,\u00a0 distributed with ever-increasing fervor,\u00a0 animal advocates had nonetheless seen steep annual increases in U.S. retail fur sales.<\/p>\n The fur trade looked unstoppable.\u00a0 But business information obtained by Clifton from inside the fur industry itself told a different story.\u00a0 \u00a0The fur trade was not worried about anti-fur literature targeting cruelty,\u00a0 but was desperately afraid of literature targeting image.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n The January\/February 1987 edition of Animals\u2019 Agenda<\/em> published those findings.<\/p>\n Almost everyone in animal advocacy was skeptical that the fur trade was really worried about anything:\u00a0 U.S. retail fur sales in 1987 soared to $1.8 billion.<\/p>\n In January 1988,\u00a0 however,\u00a0 the Humane Society of the U.S. hired Clifton to do a six-month investigation of the complete economic and demographic structure of the fur trade,\u00a0 in search of an Achilles heel.<\/p>\n The 300-page analysis was to have been published by the Humane Society of the U.S in September 1988 in book form for the use of anti-fur activists everywhere.<\/p>\n When the Humane Society of the U.S. reneged on the publishing contract,\u00a0 Clifton in October 1988 sent photocopies of the complete manuscript to all 19 national animal advocacy organizations then campaigning on the fur issue.\u00a0 All 19 used the information,\u00a0 albeit without attribution.\u00a0 None had been asked for,\u00a0 nor was any expected.<\/p>\n A twentieth photocopy was sent later to the founders of the Coalition Against the Fur Trade.<\/p>\n The Humane Society of the U.S. meanwhile launched a new anti-fur campaign building on the findings,\u00a0 \u201cThe Shame of Fur,\u201d\u00a0 using illustrations showing not graphic cruelty,\u00a0 but just a woman in fur covering her face.<\/p>\n Fur industry market research showed that this ad in particular stuck in the minds of young women,\u00a0 from their teens through their early thirties.<\/p>\n These young women were not yet big fur wearers,\u00a0 but based on market history were expected to become the target market for \u201cstarter\u201d fur garments during the next few years,\u00a0 meaning mostly mink coats priced at under $2,000,\u00a0 and were expected to become the major retail fur consumers within ten to 20 years.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n More precisely,\u00a0 those young women\u2019s fathers,\u00a0 husbands,\u00a0 and boyfriends were expected to become the big fur buyers of the next generation,\u00a0 purchasing fur garments as gifts for their daughters,\u00a0 wives,\u00a0 and girlfriends to wear in public,\u00a0 thereby helping to advertise fur coats and accessories to the generations following.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Shame of Fur\u201d campaign continued,\u00a0 but within \u201cthe movement,\u201d\u00a0 amid many other anti-fur campaigns,\u00a0 was barely noticed,\u00a0 even as the fur industry analysts watched it and developed ulcers.<\/p>\n Why it worked was remarkably simple:\u00a0 most young women rapidly averted their gaze from graphic depictions of cruelty,\u00a0 and were therefore not deeply touched by the message,\u00a0 but were vulnerable to the more softly presented message that wearing fur might become socially unacceptable because of the cruelty.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage) <\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n The fur industry marketing gurus already knew this.\u00a0 What they did not know,\u00a0 and spent millions of dollars fruitlessly trying to find out,\u00a0 was how to counter it.<\/p>\n To a certain extent,\u00a0 the fur industry marketing gurus also knew,\u00a0 the cruelty associated with fur was a selling point,\u00a0 especially as one female fashion writer put it,\u00a0 to women who had \u201cscratched\u201d to reach their socio-economic status,\u00a0 and shamelessly enjoyed a \u201crich bitch\u201d image.<\/p>\n Cruelty,\u00a0 to that market segment,\u00a0 was no deterrent to sales.\u00a0 Shame,\u00a0 creeping in on fur wearer\u2019s enjoyment of flaunting their riches,\u00a0 very much was.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n U.S retail fur sales peaked in 1988 at $1.85 billion,\u00a0 then crashed to $950 million just five years later.<\/p>\n Once fur was no longer ubiquitous on the streets of New York,\u00a0 Chicago,\u00a0 Toronto,\u00a0 and San Francisco,\u00a0 among other fashion trade centers,\u00a0 the fur issue no longer drew animal advocacy donors\u2019 money as it previously had.<\/p>\n The Humane Society of the U.S. discontinued the \u201cShame of Fur\u201d campaign in 1992.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n But People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and others had only just begun to pursue the \u201cShame of Fur\u201d theme,\u00a0 in their own words, \u00a0in their own campaigns.<\/p>\n U.S. retail fur sales eventually crawled back over $1 billion a year,\u00a0 but in inflation-adjusted dollars never remotely came close to the 1987-1988 heights.<\/p>\n As of 2023,\u00a0 the U.S. retail fur trade claimed to be worth $574 million,\u00a0 but after adjustment for inflation,\u00a0 that was equivalent to only $208 million in 1988 dollars.<\/p>\n That amounted to an 89% decline in retail fur sales from peak.<\/p>\n \u201cPETA paved the way for fur\u2019s downfall with campaigns that reshaped fashion and public opinion,\u201d \u00a0boasted PETA staff writer Elena Waldman on December 10,\u00a0 2025.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n \u201cOur legendary \u2018I\u2019d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur\u2019 ads,\u201d\u00a0 Waldman continued,\u00a0 \u201csparked a cultural shift that prompted numerous brands to abandon fur.<\/p>\n \u201cAs top designers dropped fur, \u00a0factory fur farms shuttered at a global scale, \u00a0and the industry crumbled, \u00a0we broadened our focus to expose cruelty in the skins, \u00a0wool, \u00a0and feather trades. But our mission to banish fur from fashion magazines never wavered.\u201d<\/p>\n The association of mink farms in particular with the spread of the COVID-19 avian influenza virus also had a lot to do with factory fur farms closing around the world,\u00a0 but the trend had already begun before the first bats and birds sneezed on people and mink.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage) <\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n The Fur Free Alliance, \u00a0self-described as \u201ca coalition of more than 45 animal protection groups in 30 nations,\u201d\u00a0 claims to have helped,\u00a0 since 2000, \u00a0\u201cto ensure that more than 25 countries have introduced legislation to prohibit or restrict fur production on the basis of animal welfare and public morality.\u201d<\/p>\n California,\u00a0 for instance,\u00a0 in 2019 legislatively banned sales of new fur garments,\u00a0 effective in 2023.<\/p>\n Continues the Fur-Free Alliance web site,\u00a0 \u201cTrailblazing fashion designers such as Gucci, \u00a0Armani and Michael Kors publicly abandoned animal fur, \u00a0after working with the global network of the Fur Free Alliance, \u00a0marking a turning point for cruelty-free fashion.\u00a0 Today over 1,600 brands have pledged to go fur-free.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n \u201cDepartment stores like Macy\u2019s and Bloomingdale\u2019s phased out fur sales by 2020,\u201d\u00a0 the Fur-Free Alliance continues,\u00a0 \u201cwith other luxury brands following suit, \u00a0reducing mainstream availability.<\/p>\n \u201cIn just five years,\u201d\u00a0 beginning two years before COVID-19 hit, \u00a0\u201cthe number of fur farms in the European Union fell from 4,350 in 2018,\u00a0 to 1,088 in 2023. \u00a0Even in China, \u00a0the world\u2019s largest producer of fur, \u00a0production has dropped by more than half since 2022.<\/p>\n \u201cDespite this progress,\u201d\u00a0 the Fur-Free Alliance admits,\u00a0 \u201cthere is still work to be done while fur brands, such as Fendi, \u00a0Louis Vuitton and Woolrich continue to profit off of the backs of animals.\u201d<\/p>\n Key members of the Fur-Free Alliance include Humane World for Animals and several international HWA subsidiaries.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n Observed Humane World for Animals in a December 2,\u00a0 2025 media release,\u00a0 \u201cPoland,\u00a0 the largest fur-producing country in Europe, \u00a0raising and killing around three million mink, \u00a0fox,\u00a0 raccoon dog and chinchilla for fur annually,\u201d\u00a0 legislatively banned fur farming \u201cweeks after a damning report by the European Food Safety Authority concluded that animal suffering is systemic on fur farms and keeping animals for their whole lives in small barren wire cages cannot meet basic animal welfare needs.<\/p>\n \u201cThis report,\u201d\u00a0 Humane World for Animals continued, \u00a0\u201cwas requested by the European Commission in the wake of a Fur Free Europe petition signed by 1.5 million European Union citizens which called for an EU-wide fur farming and sales ban. The Commission will publish its official legislative policy response by March 2026.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n \u201cPoland\u2019s ban,\u201d\u00a0 assessed Humane World for Animals, \u00a0\u201cfurther isolates the last few remaining member states that still allow fur farming\u2015 notably Finland, \u00a0Denmark, \u00a0Spain, \u00a0Hungary and Greece.<\/p>\n \u201cMore than six million animals are kept on almost 1,200 fur farms across the European Union,\u201d\u00a0 Humane World for Animals said,\u00a0 \u201cbut the practice is now fully or partially restricted in 24 member states\u2014now including Poland\u2014with the other bans implemented most recently in Romania (2024) and Lithuania (2023).<\/p>\n \u201cPoland\u2019s existing 200 fur farms have until January 2034 to close,\u201d\u00a0 the Humane World for Animal media release noted, \u00a0\u201calthough many are expected to stop business earlier than that due to compensation being offered to those closing within the first five years of the ban.<\/p>\n \u201cThe earlier that fur farmers apply for compensation and close their farms,\u201d\u00a0 Humane World for Animals explained,\u00a0 \u201cthe higher the amount paid.\u201d<\/p>\nThree big fur fashion announcements build on one long-ago campaign discovery<\/span><\/em><\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\nHearst & Cond\u00e9-Nast<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nWhat would it take?<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nFindings<\/h2>\n
<\/a>\u201cThe Shame of Fur\u201d<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\nInvestigation<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nWhat the fur trade already knew<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nThe fur trade crashed<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n89% sales decline<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nGoing naked<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\u201cAnimal welfare & public morality\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nDepartment stores & fur farms<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nHumane World for Animals<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nSix million animals on 1,200 fur farms<\/h2>\n