Should people wear fur products?

The fur industry isn't as bad as it used to be

Question: Should people wear fur products?
Position‹2 of 3›: Yes, it's fine to wear fur
Argument‹3 of 3: The fur industry isn't as bad as it used to be

As compared to the fur industry of old, newer methods of harvesting fur are less cruel and inhumane. More and more fur is being made to be Origin Assured, meaning there are high standards for the treatment of the animals.

The argument

Fur farms today are incredibly transparent about their products, unlike the fur industry that thrived on cruelty before. The central claim is that the objection to fur rests on a picture of the trade that no longer describes it, and that the change is verifiable rather than merely asserted. Traceability is the mechanism offered. Farms make the individual fur labels incredibly traceable (even back to the individual farms themselves), ensuring the welfare of the animals and that the farms are kept under strict regulations. What matters about traceability, on this view, is that it removes anonymity: a producer whose output can be followed back to its origin cannot rely on being unidentifiable, so poor practice carries a cost it would not carry in an opaque supply chain. Certification is the second layer. According to Master Furrier Lars Paustian, "The fur auction house Saga Furs has a certification and auditing program for suppliers; focusing on the environment, animal health, and animal welfare... Saga Furs actively contributes to the improvement of animal welfare, as there is a direct relation to quality." Proponents draw attention to that last clause, since it identifies an interest rather than only a rule: where welfare and quality move together, a producer's own incentives run in the same direction as the standard. Additionally, because of recent advancements in technology, the labels are interconnected within a broad online network, increasing traceability even further. The days of a cruel and inhumane real fur industry are, on this argument, definitively in the past. The standards themselves are specific. Some of the American Fur Commission guidelines for the treatment of animals like mink and rabbit are: "Vigilant attention to nutritional needs; Clean, safe and appropriate housing; Prompt veterinary care; Consideration for the animal’s disposition and reproductive needs; [and] elimination of outside stress."

Premises

[P1]Modern fur farms are transparent and traceable down to individual farms, operating under strict regulations and certification programs like Saga Furs' animal-welfare auditing. [P2] Industry guidelines now require attentive nutrition, clean and safe housing, prompt veterinary care, and reduced stress, so the cruelty of the old fur industry is in the past. [C] Therefore, because today's fur industry is far less cruel, it is fine to wear fur.

Counter-arguments

The tracing system in Europe today is incredibly nebulous, and terms like "assured origin" simply distract from the continued cruelty toward animals collected in these farms. Though there are regulations on the individual farms, the level of supervision each animal experiences is completely ambiguous, and many have no idea what goes on within these farms. Additionally, there are parts of the world that do not possess these regulations on animal treatment, so the fur industry as a whole is far from being ethical today compared to that of decades ago. The argument that everything is somehow morally acceptable is ingenuous.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The tracking system and "assured origin" labels in the fur industry can be incredibly ambiguous, and many of the regulations over individual farms are not strictly observed. Many farms today still employ the cruel and inhumane methods of fur harvesting as those of decades ago. [Rejecting P3] The fur industry today is not necessarily more morally acceptable than that of decades past.