Assembly Member Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) introduced the ‘State Fur Ban, AB 44′ on Monday — a bill that would make the Golden State the first to implement such a measure. The move follows similar decisions made across several of its cities — in September, the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to ban the sale of fur within the city limits, six months after San Francisco passed a similar ban.”California is one of the most progressive states in the country and a world leader in animal welfare,” said Assembly Member Friedman. “Given the overwhelming evidence of inhumane practices in the fur industry and the availability of so many different options for warm and fashionable fabrics, we will not continue to be complicit in unnecessary cruelty towards animals solely for the sake of fur.”คำพูดจาก pg slot เว็บใหม่

The bill, which is sponsored by Animal Hope in Legislation and the Animal Hope and Wellness Foundation and The Humane Society, would make it illegal to manufacture, sell, trade and donate fur products within the state (with the exception of used fur), across clothing, handbags, shoes, slippers, hats and accessories.A California fur ban would be in keeping with the tidal wave of support for the growing anti-fur movement across the fashion industry and the world. Multiple fashion houses have recently made public their plans to discontinue the use of fur, including Chanel, Coach, Diane Von Furstenberg, Burberry and Versaceคำพูดจาก สล็อตเว็บตรง. Earlier this year, Norway became the latest country to propose a ban on fur farming, while September’s London Fashion Week was an entirely fur-free event.