Beverly Hills Voters Reject “Shock Politics”

FUR COMMISSION USA PRESS RELEASE, MAY 11, 1999
Beverly Hills Voters Reject “Shock Politics”
May 11, 1999, Beverly Hills, CA: Voters in Beverly Hills overwhelmingly rejected a city ballot initiative that would have required labels on fur products detailing how the animal may, or may not, have been killed. The measure was rejected by the voters with 64% voting against Measure A in an unusually large turnout for a single-issue ballot. The actual votes were 5,271 voting, with 3,363 opposed to the “shock politics” measure.
Beverly Hills Coalition for No on A chairman Marty Geimer stated, “The election really brought the community together. Seldom have so many people with such diverse views on community issues united in a political campaign due to the deceptive tactics and outrageous agenda of the opposition.”
Many citizens expressed concern that the labeling initiative would extend to meat, chicken, fish, leather and all animal-based products, including medicines produced through animal research. Others felt Beverly Hills should bow to state and federal regulators controlling fur production since Beverly Hills does not produce or manufacture furs.
“The citizens of Beverly Hills embraced decency and common sense. They know that humane care and treatment for animals is not achieved by placing misleading ‘credit card’ sized labels on products,” stated Keith Kaplan, president of the Southern California Fur Retailers Association.
“The proponents of Measure A consistently repeated a list of methods that may, or may not, have been used to kill a variety of animals in a ‘shock politics’ approach,” stated Teresa Platt of Fur Commission USA which represents U.S. mink and fox farming families from 31 states. “Sensationalized words and deceptive tactics do not change the fact that humans currently adhere to stringent humane care standards over our behavior toward the other animals on which we depend.”
Cities do not generally involve themselves in labeling since the Federal Trade Commission controls the clear labeling of products while fur production is regulated by state departments of agriculture and fish and wildlife agencies.
Rudy Cole, campaign manager for the Beverly Hills Coalition for No on A stated that the citizens of Beverly Hills were united as never before in successfully fighting the initiative which the locals saw as a method to gain international attention on an issue that was not appropriate for resolution in Beverly Hills. The voters, he said, appreciate rationality, however, stated Cole, “If you come in with a scheme, this is not the place for it. Beverly Hills is a power to be reckoned with.”
See also:
Website:
Beverly Hills Coalition for No on A
Biography:
The Adventures of Luke Sissyfag (a.k.a. Luke Montgomery), the brains behind the Bev Hills labeling initiative. From the Sydney Morning Herald, Mar. 23, 1996.
Articles:
May 24: Press Comments on Beverly Hills Labeling Initiative
May 8: Wall Street Journal Questions Bev Hills Labeling Campaign
April 17: Don’t Label Beverly Hills By Teresa Platt, Executive Director, FCUSA (April 1998 – May 2011).
Feb. 11: In Beverly Hills, Fur Is Flying Over Truth-In-Slaughtering Label Direct link to Seattle Post-Intelligencer, with permission.
Feb. 8: Fur Labels Aren’t Needed Ventura County Star editorial, reproduced with permission.
Feb. 7: Should Furs Have Tags on How Animals Were Killed? Reader’s letter to Westside Weekly, a publication of the LA Times.
Feb. 5: Fur Flies As City’s Name Is ‘Used’; This Is A Grievous Type of Fraud Beverly Hills Courier editorial, reproduced with permission.
Feb. 3: Hold the Label in 90210 More on labeling initiative.
Jan. 9: Initiative Qualifies by A Hair. How Now in Beverly Hills?
Nov. 23, 1998: Are the Signatures Valid in Beverly Hills? Fur Farmers Think Not
Nov. 6, 1998: Animal Rights Signature Drive Goes Down in Flames in Beverly Hills
June 18, 1998: “Hold the Label,” says Teresa Platt, executive director, FCUSA.
-
For further information contact Fur Commission USA.
Home
© 1998-2011 Fur Commission USA