First the November circular, where (finally) Textile Exchange transposes the international guidelines on animal material terminology and, in fact, defends the definition of leather. From whom? From those who abuse it, though not tanning, for the purposes of sly marketing. Then, the applause from the leather world, which in turn defends the technical terminology with its teeth and is not used to be supported by third parties. For example, the American LHCA’s praise: “This is a significant step forward in market and labelling transparency,” – is the message President Stephen Sothmann entrusts to a note -. For too long, brands have hidden the true profile of their materials from consumers with ambiguous and misleading terms, such as vegan leather (prohibited in Italy by the Leather Decree, ed.). We thank Textile Exchange for taking such an important step: we hope that associated brands will adopt it”.
The definition of leather
The subject has already come up in the press review: even vegans now find vegan marketing insufferable. Because they, too, get lost in the labyrinth of materials generically indicated as being of “vegetable origin” and vigorously presented as “alternatives to leather”, but with the term leather in the trade name. The Textile Exchange, a non-profit organisation that intends to accompany the fashion industry in its green reform, intervenes in the diatribe. To its members (brands and suppliers) it says in summary: “Get a grip”. Or rather: “Align yourselves with EU Directives 94/11/EC, ISO 15115 and EN 15987:2015”. The standards that define leather, in a nutshell, as materials of animal origin that retain their fibrous structure with coatings no larger than 0.15 millimetres. Everything else, to the good peace of marketing, ends up in the category “non-fibrous artificial materials”.