After receiving a letter from PETA in which they were advised about the ‘abysmal treatment of animals killed for leather’ in India, Gucci said they would not use Indian leather. PETA also informed Gucci that: ‘Although India has strict humane laws regulating the slaughter of animals, they are marched for days and crammed into overcrowded trucks, causing suffocation and broken bones. Those who collapse from exhaustion or injury have their tails broken or their eyes smeared with chilli peppers and tobacco to keep them moving.
At most slaughterhouses, workers hack at animals’ throats with dull blades and skin them – often while they’re still alive – in full view of other animals. There are 32,000 illegal, unlicensed slaughterhouses in India, many of which are supported by the Indian leather industry through its skin purchases.’
I think it is about time we answer these correct but on the other hand totally wrong accusations and I intend to send a copy of this Limeblast by email to Gucci and all those other companies who have decided to boycott Indian leather or leathergoods.
The leather industry knows exactly what is true and what is untrue in the PETA statement, and it is regrettable that certain companies take for granted a one-sided statement that is submitted to them by pressure groups who have their own agenda, rather than take a correct and balanced decision. So let us tell the consumers the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth.
Dear PETA, Gucci, Esprit, Gap, Reebok, Nike, Timberland, Florsheim and others, please be informed that with very few exceptions, an animal, goat, sheep, cow, pig, buffalo, ostrich, rabbit, chicken, duck etc is killed for its meat, the meat you and I consume as part of our dietary habit. In terms of weight, a 450kg bovine is made up of about 300kg of meat and 30kg of hide. The rest is bones and intestines. In terms of money, the meat is worth a minimum of $500 and the hide about $50.
Within this economical logic, it is easy to understand that the hide is a byproduct of the meat production and not vice-versa. Hence it is absurd to maintain that an animal is killed for its hide, particularly if that hide has a monetary worth of only 10% of the animal. Therefore, the leather industry has no influence whatsoever in a farmer’s decision to send an animal for slaughter, whether that is in India, the US, Argentina, China or Australia.
The leather industry is not involved in the transport of animals since we pick up the byproduct from the abattoirs after the animal is processed, and most of the times after the abattoir has taken care of the first conservation process.
This is a basic principle, the God-fearing truth, which the leather industry in general has been unable to get across, and which the consumer must understand before he backs certain pressure groups, who conveniently never explain this important detail.
The leather industry worldwide, and our Indian colleagues are no exception, deeply regrets inhumane treatment of animals, anywhere in the world, first of all because of the fact that we are just as sensitive to animal suffering as any other person or group of persons.
Second, people should know that it is actually in the interest of both the meat industry and the leather industry alike that animals are treated well and not submitted to stress or pain, let alone physical abuse before slaughter, as an unstressed healthy animal assures better meat and undamaged hides.
The consumer wants tender meat on the table, and it is proven that a stressed animal delivers tough meat. When a consumer buys a leather product, he obviously wants a faultless one, not damaged by scars or holes. Once again, it is only logical that the meat and leather industry are absolutely against the mistreatment of animals.
We applaud, therefore, the principle that there must be no animal abuse, but we cannot accept a public campaign that states that it is the leather trade that provokes the abuse when the leather trade has no say whatsoever in the decision making of the owner of the animals, nor the persons or companies who transport the animals or those who process them.
It is the responsibility of governments to implement compliance with their laws and close illegal and unlicensed abattoirs, first of all because the public health of the country is at stake.
It is absolutely untrue that the leather industry ‘supports’ illegal slaughterhouses in India or elsewhere. There are only disadvantages for the leather industry if an animal is being processed in an illegal, hence unprofessional, abattoir which delivers hides that are generally of inferior quality.
The leather industry does not profit from the deaths of animals. It is a matter of fact, however, that the leather industry provides an ecological service, apart from when unattended hides become an ecological and hence a health hazard.
From the above points you, the industry that uses the leather we produce, can deduce that depicting the leather industry as unscrupulous sadists and murderers is not correct at all.
By buying leather, you use a beautiful, natural, strong and long lasting product.
By buying leather, you indeed help to keep the environment clean. You also help to keep hundreds of thousands of jobs, and you certainly don’t contribute to the mistreatment of animals.
The Indian leather industry has done its level best and more to urge the Indian government to implement the available laws to avoid animal abuse, which is actually all it can do. By boycotting Indian leather, you severely and undeservedly punish a branch of industry that has no power to eliminate the abuse we all abhor. You punish tens of thousands of honest workers.
Instead of boycotting (Indian) leather, I think it is far more constructive if you use your influence with your own governments and the United Nations to urge governments all over the world to issue and implement proper laws that regulate the treatment of slaughter animals, as the problem at hand is not an Indian exclusivity.
The situation can be improved in many more, mostly developing, countries, although horrible scenes of the loading and unloading of German slaughter animals destined for the Middle East were shown on German TV last year.
On behalf of the leather industry, I herewith urge you to review your position in the light of the arguments I have given you.
Sam Setter
mail@samsetter.org
