Hold the Label in 90210

By Teresa Platt, Executive Director, FCUSA

FOR SEVERAL MONTHS in 1998, animal rights' signature gatherers, ironically armed with press packages swathed in petro-chemical fur, worked to qualify an initiative for the Beverly Hills City ballot. "Beverly Hills Consumers for Informed Choices," a new group led by a Luke Montgomery, developed the "Consumer's Right to Informed Choices Act of 1999" to label fur coats sold in Beverly Hills. The draft of the credit card-sized label lists a variety of methods by which the animals may (or may not) have been put down. Imagine if such a label were required for meat, chicken, fish, medicine - the list is endless!

Montgomery's group, under the shell "Campaign Humane", rented a Beverly Hills office and distributed an edited videotape of local retailers commenting on the production of fur. By comparison, one could tape waiters and chefs discussing how beef, chicken or fish are produced, or even pharmacists discussing how medical experimentation is conducted. Then simply edit out any knowledgeable response and say that labeling is necessary for consumers to get real information. Or one could go to the source: the ranchers, farmers, fishermen, researchers and the appropriate government agencies. Even the proponents of the labeling initiative submitted a boxful of information to the Beverly Hills City Clerk to argue their case, proving that information is readily available, to any consumer seeking it, from industry publications and websites, federal and state Departments of Agriculture and Fish and Wildlife agencies. Layers of bureaucracy ensure the animals are protected because, quite simply, inhumane acts, no matter what the animal or the action, are illegal. I repeat, inhumane equals illegal.

During 1998, local business groups, furriers and the Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce took stands against the initiative and by the end-of-October deadline, Montgomery's efforts resulted in a minimal number of signatures, from about 300 registered voters, delivered to the Beverly Hills City Clerk's Office.

Surprise!

Then surprise! In mid-November, Montgomery's group delivered, with a threat to sue if denied a count, over 5,000 signatures, collected who knows where.

Sampling invalidated thousands of the signatures but the initiative qualified by a hair and the Beverly Hills City Clerk submitted the paperwork to the City Council for action.

At its January 5 meeting, the Council listened to testimony from those opposing the initiative, local furrier Wanda Pressburger and Keith Kaplan of California Fur, as well as proponent Luke Montgomery. Concerned about legality, tracking, enforcement and cost, Mayor Les Bronte simply stated, "This does not sound like something the City would want to be involved in." Other Council members questioned the motives of Montgomery and company, calling the measure "over the top."

The Council reviewed the options: adopt the initiative immediately, incur the cost of holding a special election in the near future or refer the matter to legal staff for review. The Council voted unanimously to refer the initiative back to legal counsel. The City Attorney was given until February 2 to comment on fiscal impact, whether the initiative exceeds the City's scope of power, and if federal labeling laws pre-empt frivolous local labeling initiatives not necessary for health or human safety.

Feb. 2 Beverly Hills Council Meeting
Democracy Is Not A Spectator Sport

On February 2, Beverly Hills independent furriers joined with Neiman Marcus, Saks, Fendi and a variety of other merchants, a restaurant association, the Chamber of Commerce, and fur farmers represented by Fur Commission USA. With one voice, these concerned citizens spoke out against the initiative at the City Council meeting. In spite of compelling testimony regarding deceptive practices by the opposition and the strong case of federal pre-emption, the City Attorney advised the Council members that they had no option but to approve the initiative for a special election on May 11. The Council reluctantly moved forward. Council member Vickie Reynolds found her position so unappealing that she abstained for the first time in 18 years. In spite of having his back up against the wall, Mayor Les Bronte, to his credit, voted "No".

Now that this procedural hurdle has been met, the City can attack the initiative in court and ask for a ruling on the legality of the initiative. This decision will be made in two weeks at the next City Council meeting, February 15.

City Council members used descriptions such as "overboard", "deceptive", "does not inform the consumer", "does not protect animals", and "has substantial problems". Council member Reynolds stated she was having a "crisis of conscience" in that she supported the initiative process as a method of citizens accessing government but had a "feeling there is a subversion of the law" surrounding the initiative which she called "misleading" and "not forthcoming".

Luke Montgomery lost patience with the Council several times as they attempted to derail his train. At one point, while leaving the podium, he mumbled that the Council members were "morons", within earshot of the Los Angeles Times reporter.

Will the newly formed coalition of irate Beverly HIlls citizens sue against the initiative? Will this issue be debated in the public forum? Will fur farmers leave teh farm and travel to zip 90210 to make their case? Will the people of the fur trade win the debate and turn LA into a furry town? Will others object to the misuse of the initiative process for advancement of narrow, special interest agendas? Will Luke Montgomery lose his patience with all us who refuse to accept petro-chemical coats? Stay tuned!

We urge you to send comment to: Beverly Hills City Council, 455 No. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210, Tel: (310) 285-2400, fax: (310) 385-0862, email: webmaster@ci.beverly-hills.ca.us. Please, send us a copy.

Who's Who?

LUKE MONTGOMERY, the organizer of this "consumer choice" action, at one time ran for DC mayor after legally changing his name to Luke Sissyfag.(1) As Sissyfag, he achieved notoriety for heckling President Clinton during a Georgetown University speech on World AIDS Day. Montgomery accused Clinton of not doing enough to support AIDS research. Hypocritically, Montgomery/Sissyfag also worked as a program staffer for Last Chance for Animals (LCA). According to LCA's website, LCA "does not accept a difference in species as justification for wanton exploitation or oppression for any purpose. LCA opposes the use of animals for food, entertainment, clothing, and scientific curiosity. In addition, LCA recognizes the use of non-human animals in experimentation designed to cure human disease as both immoral and of questionable scientific validity." LCA, as does Montgomery/Sissyfag, promotes the philosophy of animal rights, which disallows the ownership and use of animals for human benefit, including the worthy goal of a cure for AIDS.

In 1998, LCA launched a joint website with Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT), a group dedicated to abolishing the world's first and oldest organic clothing choice, fur.

Who's Next?

The proposed draft of the initiative does not yet focus on other products sold in Beverly Hills, but people must wonder, "Who's next?" Would each shop in Beverly Hills be forced to attach labels to leather, steak, silk, sushi, cotton, vegetables and medicines? And how much would the shops be required to pay to how many different special interest groups for monitoring these labeling programs?

While supporting conservation and animal welfare, most people reject "animal rights", the philosophy that opposes the direct use of animals for food and clothing (meat/fish and leather/fur, etc.) while supporting the indirect use of animals and their habitat for the production of food and clothing (grains/vegetables and petro-chemical synthetics/cotton, etc.). Urbanization and agriculture are the leading causes of habitat loss and a variety of animals are killed during agricultural harvests. So much for "cruelty free" pasta and veggies!

Should we tally up all the birds, rabbits, rodents, snakes, all the animals harmed by agricultural combines, then label carrots "bunny unsafe" as part of some consumer choice concept? Should T-shirts be labeled, "This cotton was produced with methods known to injure and kill animals as well as take their habitat"? Should medicine come with a sticker stating, "Brought to you by animal research"? Should condos carry a sign, "Warning! Warning! Habitat loss and animal deaths"? Should sushi have a tag, "This fish may have been suffocated, clubbed or electrocuted"?

Special Interest Labels

Currently, the Federal Trade Commission works with industry to satisfy consumer demands for any truthful label. However, the label in question is designed to confuse the consumer, not clear the air.

From "dolphin safe" to "sustainable" to "cruelty free", attempts at special interest labeling have been fraught with controversy and complicated discussions. "Dolphin-safe" tuna, the first and only label hammered out in Congress, required five years of work by the world's largest conservation groups to redefine the label to one that actually worked for dolphins, a host of marine creatures, consumers and the California-based tuna fleet, a fleet which already carried government observers on every fishing trip.

Special interest labels come with a cost. The estimated price tag for the World Wildlife Fund to monitor its proposed Marine and Forestry Stewardship Councils' "sustainability" labeling program is 1 to 4 percent of gross. That's in addition to the taxes we already pay for government to do the job of ensuring that everything produced comes from sustainable and humane harvests.

The Basics

There is no "one size fits all" method for raising or putting down animals, just as there is no "one size fits all" method for producing grains, timber, minerals or any of the other products consumed by people living in cities like Beverly Hills. Each animal species and environmental situation is unique and the methods chosen are continuously evaluated for what is best for people, the environment and the animals.

Although much has changed in the last million years, the basics remain constant. Water, undrinkable salt water to boot, covers 75% of the Earth's surface. About 10% of the land mass - or just 2.5% of the planet - can support agriculture to feed and clothe us. The other 97.5% of the planet can support grazers and predators and birds and fish, animals which consume what are to us inedible plants and animal life, converting organic life forms to food and clothing for human use.

Animal rightists disallow human benefit from ownership and use of animals, essentially barring mankind from the bounty found on 97.5% of the Earth's surface. Animal rightists do allow mankind to stand by and watch as animal stocks naturally peak and crash in endless cycles, negatively impacting the environment with each turn.

The Furry Basics

All the parts of the animals that humans do not consume, millions of tons of fish, beef and dairy by-products, eggs and cheese not up to human standards, are fed to fur farmed animals. Nothing is wasted in this recycling program which results in fine clothing.

Products made from wild animals support wildlife management programs which maintain a balance between animal populations and habitat, infusing value into wildlife so people live off the bounty of nature.

This is sustainable use, which is supported by every major environmental organization in the world.

The efforts of the fur industry, which includes such diverse components as indigenous trappers and hunters, fur farming families, designers, manufacturers, high fashion models and consumers around the globe, result in an exquisite natural insulator, a fabric that is used in some of the world's most beautiful garments. Conservationists wear fur and leather proudly.

Beverly Hills can be chilly at times and Beverly Hills residents travel and know first-hand that nearly half the Earth's surface is subject to snow, ice, and seasonally frozen ground. The fur industry is proud to contribute to protecting people from those harsh elements with grace and style.

Hold the Label

Our impact on animals and the environment is a worthy subject for scientific study and reasoned debate, with rational controls developed by veterinarians, biologists, conservationists, industry and government. Too many special interest groups attempt to reduce the discussion to trendy credit card-sized labels while advancing their narrow or fatally flawed agendas.

Say no when asked to support the "Consumer's Right to Informed Choices Act of 1999". Any Beverly Hills citizen can become an informed consumer any day by simply surfing the Net for the truth.

These leather boots were made for walking and that's just what we should do. Walk on down Rodeo Drive and into the nearest restaurant for sashimi or a steak sandwich. Hold the label.

NOTES:

(1) For more on Montgomery / Sissyfag see:

The Fear of Being Ordinary by Dale Carpenter for the Bay Area Reporter, May 4, 2000.

He's An Oxymoron, Animal People, June 1997.

The Adventures of Luke Sissyfag, Sydney Morning Herald, Mar. 23, 1996.

Teresa Platt, executive director of Fur Commission USA, represents 400 mink-farming families, and serves on the board of the National Animal Interest Alliance and as secretary of Alliance for America, groups working to restore people and common sense to the environmental equation. Fur Commission USA, 826 Orange Avenue, #506, Coronado, CA 92118 USA, (619) 575-0139, (619) 575-5578/fax, furfarmers@aol.com, www.furcommission.com.

Home

© 1998-2008 Fur Commission USA