Leather vs. Vegan (PU) Debate

A long running discussion is going on in the footwear industry regarding the use of leather or vegan (PU) materials and which is better for the planet. There are some pretty uninformed articles circulating on the web. I thought I would re-post two thoughtful comments I read recently from LinkedIn discussions.


From Kathleen Fasanella, a vegetarian, animal activist:

"I've been lurking to gauge the direction of discussion and have been pleased other factions haven't been maligned. That's a tack to keep, it makes us look good. I suppose I should qualify my perspective:
1. I've been a vegetarian for a very long time.
2. I'm an activist, involved in animal rescue for years.
3. I'm a leather pattern maker working in leather garment production. I love the medium and don't find it incongruous to 1/2 in the slightest.

My point being that the motivations of vegetarian activists are not universal. As such a few misconceptions bear an airing because it's a way to integrate conversation and thus increase credibility and influence. For example, not all vegetarians and vegans are anti-leather activists. I know vegetarians who don't even like animals.

Many people like me are vegetarians because husbandry practices in the US (mostly) are unsustainable, highly wasteful of fossil fuels and extremely detrimental to the environment. Since few animals are killed for their hides, the remainder skins amount to byproduct requiring disposal contributing to still further degradation, disease and clogged landfills. In this light, the more responsible action is to process the skins so relatively less is wasted.

The points that can make an impact with activists is peppering the discussion with:
1. Few animals are slaughtered for their hides.
2. It is more wasteful to dispose of leather byproducts than to reuse them for materials.
3. Leather is more sustainable because it is longer lasting and more durable than substitutes.
4. The environmental load of synthetic leathers is arguably greater than that of leather hide production.
etc.

I've been fairly successful at converting quite a few activists with these points. Perhaps it is due in part to the credibility I have with sustainability adherents, my community and of course, that I'm a vegetarian animal activist working in the leather needle trades but it readily translates."


From John Avery, leather consultant of over 30 years:


"A true and thorough life-cycle analysis is difficult to achieve, one material to another. There are always grey areas, perhaps where commercial interests get in the way and some companies would prefer that actual figures don't get out. 


My 30-odd years in the industry do build up the anecdotal evidence though that anything based on the petrochemical industry is fundamentally short-term and less sustainable as well as being worse for the environment. 


Also, assuming that people will continue to eat meat, however grown and collected and regardles of pressure groups, that the chemical products of degradation from a rotting hide or skin are more environmentally damaging than the output from the tanning process. That said, the level of environmental responsibility demonstrated in many areas of the world immediately makes tanning the preferred option, due to the advanced treatment technologies available for waste waters from tanneries. 


Therefore it is always better to process a by product into a useable material. In the case of leather, one that provides unrivalled flexibility of application, performance and elegance."