Schwarzenegger vetoes fur bill

[alp227]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

(09-27) 18:34 PDT Sacramento - --

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have required clothing manufactures to disclose exactly what they use to make their products - including whether it's made of dog fur.

The bill by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, mirrored laws in at least five other states. It would have required manufacturers to disclose on clothing labels whether any animal product was used to make the merchandise - even if it's just a little bit of trim. Backers of AB1656, including the Humane Society of the United States, said many consumers mistakenly assume they are buying faux fur when really it's made of animal skin, because federal law only requires manufacturers to list materials valued at more than $150 on clothing labels.

Ma said many clothes items include fur from raccoon dogs, a small canine native to Asia. Rabbit fur is another popular trim.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/27/BA301FKFKN.DTL

[flvegan]

1. "the governor said he had concerns about the costs for both merchants and manufacturers,"

Hey look, another Republican sellout.

Fuck you, Arnold. Wish that Kennedy blood seeped a bit deeper into your system, you shit.

[ThomasQED]

2. Oh yes, let's ALL be real concerned about the livelihood

of "people" who electrocute small animals anally for a living.

[Bryn]

3. Disgusted!!!!

If they don't disclose "fake fur" stuff I won't touch one. Arnold is just one of the whores of the corporate. I knew way back that he didn't care for animals because he wanted to cut down days when cats and dogs could stay at shelters to save money.

[Irishonly]

4. Creep n/t

[SoapBox]

5. Oh, what the hell?!?

...I am SO FLIPPING tired of being lied to at every turn by these companies. BAD enough
that this was a fur issue, but then a RushThugPhoney has to help them hide their creepy business.

[catgirl]

6. You suck Arnold

[Kringle]

7. if you don't want fur, don't buy it

our economy has too many burdens,
as it is

[jtuck004]

8. But they want fake fur. Some buyers have allergies that might

kill them, and some don't want animal fur.

They just want the facts on the label. What is there to hide?

[Jokerman]

11. Truth in labeling should not be a "burden".

I don't buy any real or fake fur but someone who does deserves to know what they are buying.

[ThomasQED]

12. So let the manufacturers tack on a $5 labeling fee

to their overpriced roadkill garments. Anyone who would wear such a thing should be made to pay out the nose for it anyway.

[Ferret Annica]

14. Then if I can turn a profit turning your skin into a lampshade

does "if you don't like it, don't buy it apply?

Go to you tube and search for how they treat companion pets when they steal them to brutally and sadistically kill for fur, watch a couple, and then come back and apologize for your ignorance.

[Nihil]

9. What? Disclose what goes into a clothing product? That would only lead to trouble ...

Next those damn do-gooders will be wanting labels to tell you what
goes into your food ...

Now just chow down on your GM-fed BSE-infected All-American cow products
and stop bothering the share price with your panic-mongering!

:evilgrin:

[and-justice-for-all]

10. revolting...nt

[XemaSab]

13. Animal rights and the morality of fur aside

I am DEATHLY allergic to rabbit fur.

Food manufacturers have to disclose if something is processed in a plant with peanuts, why not disclose if something is made of a potentially deadly fur?