Filed Under: Op-ed

A Naked Attack on Consumer Choice

Originally published in Fox & Hounds Daily by Will Coggin on June 4, 2019:

Should the government police what goes on in your bedroom? How about advancing a bill in the state legislature that would stick the government in everyone’s closet?

The legislation, A.B. 44, would ban Californians from buying clothing made with natural fur. If enacted, the ban, which passed the state Assembly on Tuesday would be the first step in intrusive legislation designed at restricting the lifestyle choices of Californians, from what they wear to what they eat.

The bill is ostensibly being pushed for animal welfare reasons, with animal activists claiming fur production is inhumane. Yet the bill sponsor, Assemblywoman Laura Friedman, has publicly rejected a compromise that would have required all fur in California to be humanely certified under an international program. This would have protected both animal welfare and consumer choice.

If the goal is to ensure animals are treated well and that California leads the nation in promoting animal welfare, what’s wrong with mandatory humane certification?  As it has often been said, animals raised humanely for food or fur only have one bad day in their life. The rejection of this compromise reveals the radical far-reaching agenda of the fur ban’s hardcore proponents.

The loudest lobbyist for the ban is the Berkeley-based organization Direct Action Everywhere. This group has become notorious in recent years for harassing people inside restaurants and grocery stores. Whole Foods had to get a restraining order against them. Its activists break into farms and steal livestock.

Read more here.

More on “Op-ed”

Featured image for post

The Problem with ‘Plant’-Based Protein

Posted September 19, 2019 at 8:37 am
Featured image for post

Will California police your fashion?

Posted August 28, 2019 at 1:46 pm
Featured image for post

Why Banning Fur Will Hurt the Environment

Posted June 15, 2019 at 4:11 pm