You’d be shocked what they allow to be called leather. I expect the environmental impact of leather is far worse than the production of vinyl. Tanning is pretty nasty.
Comment on Most of plant based leather uses a lot of polyurethane
ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 1 day ago
Not all plant based leather uses plastic. It’s unfortunate that plant+plastic mixes are allowed to call themselves plant based leather.
Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
“Real” leather (A.K.A. someone else’s skin) is also usually coated in plastic and processed with extremely harmful chromium salts, so it’s usually not any better than the worst leather alternative.
Pipster@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 hours ago
And veg tan? I try not to use chrome tan in stuff I make for both environmental reasons and the fact its a pain to work with but we have been veg tanning for thousands of years.
rapchee@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
we’ve (as human) been doing things for thousands of years, which was barely noticeable because there were less than a billion of us until the 1800s, less than 400 million until 1400s and the obvs even less before
Pipster@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 hours ago
My point was more that harmful chemicals in the sense of chromium salts etc. aren’t present in veg tan which, for the most part, is boiling it in a load of tree bark.
Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
While the conclusion of this argument is valid your premises don’t follow a logical sequence. Firstly, leather is defined as a material obtained from rawhide which is tanned (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leather) - this is real leather, there is no need for calls to ignorance here.
Secondly, what do mean by referring to “someone else’s”? Because the common usage for such statements usually mean human, not non-human animals. This essentially looks like an emotional appeal at this point.
Thirdly, you state that it is common for leather to be coated in plastic. While this is technically correct - as large portion of the market is composed of reusing scraps, it dismisses leather production from virgin rawhide and processes using vegetable or synthetic tanning which don’t need plastic for the resultant product.
Paragone@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Herdbeasts are sentient: they are “others”.
They don’t want to be slaughtered: we care more about using meat from their bodies for a momentary meal than we care about their lives-themselves.
That is OUR values.
& our being sociopathic doesn’t make sociopathy universally-right or universally-valid.
( I’m not vegan, but universe has beaten learning into me until I’ve come around to seeing the prejudice in our whole “civilized” “relationship” with reality )
TTBOMK, vegetable-tanning isn’t done as much because it costs more.
& the original person’s comment about chromium-salts looks spot-on, & was ignored by your counter.
Just pointing out some stuff for objectivity, is all: integrity’s a precious-resource, & it takes all of us being loyal to it, to make it remain in our world.
_ /\ _
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 hours ago
there is no proof they know that they, themselves might die. they don’t want to be slaughtered any more than they don’t want to be ceo of beyond meat. they don’t know it’s even a possibility.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 hours ago
you’re using an ambiguous term and insisting everyone is using the same definition as you.
Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
I can definitively agree on the explanation stated infering the second point. However, it is an aspect which needs further clarification, like op said: “someone else’s skin” is usualy interpreted as human directed (dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/…/someone). This essentially introduces double meaning within the argument.
In terms of vegetable tanning your best knowledge is correct, it costs more as it requires substantially more time thats why it is only used for higher end or artisan leather. Additionally, I have stated synthetic tanning which is comparable to vegetable, but not as bad as chromium.
In regards to that, can you provide relevant information which details it?