Hi Dan, as the author in question, I’m not sure what you’re talking about, or how it relates to my article. However, I can tell you that your figure of “under 1%” – assuming it’s correct, which is quite as assumption – might apply only to the skins of sheep raised for wool, not meat. True, many do end up being eaten as mutton in regions of the world where mutton is popular. But these sheep are not primarily raised for consumption, and unfortunately it is often true that their skins have almost no market value. However, the story is very different for sheep raised for consumption, which in most countries means lamb. The fashion industry prefers to use the skins of lambs, and they provide an important part of a sheep farmer’s income. It would be interesting if you have a percentage for how many skins of sheep raised for consumption, i.e., as lamb, are actually used. I suspect it would be close to 100%.

Let me respond as the author of this post. For me, the issue with Pam Anderson is not that she was uninformed. It’s that she needed to be informed in the first place. When I was writing this piece, I tried to recall the moment in my life when I realised that sheepskin involved the killing of sheep, and concluded that I must have known it instinctively even as a child. No one ever taught me. I just knew it right away. For me, it’s like someone eating beef for 10 years without knowing it comes from dead cows. If you need to be informed of this fact by someone else, doesn’t that make you an idiot?

Re: designer fashion labels, they’re most definitely not an animal rights/vegan crowd (with a very few exceptions like Stella McCartney). And yes, their motivation is money. The reason why it’s newsworthy now is that a very prominent label, Gucci, has joined the “fur-free” crowd and is receiving an enormous amount of kudos from animal rights groups. It’s important for the fur trade to highlight that Gucci will almost certainly continue to use sheep fur, python leather, etc. It’s obviously bad for the fur trade if “fur free” becomes a big selling point.

I’m not sure what you are referring to, but if it’s about Pamela Anderson, not sure where you find idiocy. She wore boots that she was uninformed about, and when she was informed, she changed her opinion on them and stopped wearing them. I think it would be a lot more idiotic to continue on wearing them after she realized her ignorance…. no one is perfect.

If you’re talking about designer fashion labels, I would hardly call them an animal rights/vegan crowd. Pretty sure their only motivation is money, and they are creating these products due to an increased demand from this crowd you speak of. Not sure why the fact that they would possibly deceive people for profit is even news worthy any more (capitalism at its finest right?)