City of Plymouth’s Attempts to Restrict Fur Retailing May Violate Massachusetts State Law
The American Fur Council Calls for an Article 20 Citizens’ Petition be removed earlier than expected April 2 town meeting
NEW YORK, March 29, 2022 /PRNewswire/ — Citing the lack of a legitimate local authority to restrict fur sales and the unconstitutional restriction on interstate and foreign trade, the American Fur Council (AFC) is calling for the immediate withdrawal of Citizen Petition Article 20 from the spring annual municipal meeting scheduled for April 2.
Proponents of Article 20 have intentionally misled residents and elected officials in the City of Plymouth with animal welfare stories that have been proven wrong time and time again. It has been documented that these same supporters believe that the sale of leather, wool and other animal products should also be banned. Fur products remain popular with consumers in Massachusetts as well as the ability to choose the products they want to wear and enjoy.
While fur producers around the world comply with the animal welfare and sustainability standards of the FurMark program, Article 20 is extreme and unnecessary, as the Plymouth member of the finance committee Gail Butler who voted against supporting the settlement and said, “at this point I don’t think we need this.”
A number of small local businesses that sell fur trim and accessories could be harmed with unintended environmental consequences, particularly the promotion of plastic faux fur, a fossil fuel by-product. Research has shown that these synthetic fur fibers “shed” microfibers in water when cleaned. A single garment can lose 100,000 microfibers in the wash. The microplastics associated with faux fur and other products are so significant that the World Health Organization (WHO) came close to calling it a public health crisis.
“Massachusetts’ the legislation regarding the sale of fur in the state is complete. It clearly regulates how fur can be sold in the state. If the fur is sold according to state law specifications, it can be sold legally anywhere in the state. In attempting to ban the sale of fur products entirely within a defined area of Massachusetts, Plymouth Section 20 is inherently contrary to state law,” says Nick PologeorgisPresident of the AFC.
The American Fur Council is already engaged in litigation in other jurisdictions over municipal fur bans that are preempted by state bans and the US Constitution having already won concessions in several municipalities. The American Fur Council expects the article to be removed before the April 2 vote.
American Fur Council
SOURCE American Fur Council