OK they're stylee, thats for sure, (and from montreal, which makes for extra cool points)
but PCV and PolyUrithane???? Puhlease... that ought not be filed under "accessories" and thus given a TH seal of approval (think of the kids!! they'll think they're doing good but will be supporting even more planetary toxicity), it's an "almost" at best.

In fact contrary to what Mat & Nat say, there are greener ways of making leather (have yet to hear of an eco way to make PVC except for one-- don't!)

...besides, you guys know better!

Although stylish, their quality is horrible. I have a purse that ripped, a wallet that broke and boots that gave out two weeks into wearing them.

Although vegan, they do not endorse fair trade, eco friendly priciples, or are a decent price.

Green, me thinks not! Stay away! there are cheaper and better alternatives, (including vintage) and other great vegan products that dont cost so much and are just as stylish.

I agree with Earthchange. Even when I was a vegetarian (ages 12-25) I still used limited leather accessories, as I couldn't imagine how plastic was better for the planet. Sure, it's doesn't directly take an animal's life, but down the road it creates more waste, toxins and just may take an animal's life or two.

I agree with the above comments. I've been vegetarian or vegan for the past 12 years (currently vegetarian), and still do not understand the vegan community's endorsement of plastic products. What about reclaimed leather or cellulosics like bamboo and hemp? Or, at least, reused plastic? Unfortunately, "vegan" is not synonymous with "sustainable - the makers admit that synthetic leather is not "environmentally ideal". Something that needs to be taken into account by a young company like Matt & Nat is that continued harm to the overall environment is cruel to all living creatures. /rant

OK, if there are greener ways to make leather: what's the retail resource for leather goods made from with that method? Because as was also discussed on a post this week about vegan belts, leather production is quite pollutive:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/vegetarian_belt.php

Still, I'm just not going to be directly responsible for the death of sentient creatures by eating or wearing them. It's really that simple for me. I do mostly go for accessories that are fabric-based or madefrom recylcled products, not pleather-based, but I'll still choose pleather over leather any day.

"Still, I'm just not going to be directly responsible for the death of sentient creatures by eating or wearing them."

If there's an imbalance between meat and leather consumption, then leather would just go to waste. Isn't it more ethical to use the whole animal instead of just throwing parts of it away?

Also, I find it hard to fathom that people would think in terms of "direct responsibility". Isn't that a form of just willfully disregarding the systems we all use? Think of how many Bambis go down in front of semis bringing us our plastic handbags and our tempeh. Or the electricity infrastructure poisoning and electrocuting incalculable amounts of birds and animals. How about roads themselves slicing up the landscape? Or sprawl eating up land? How many vegans willfully participate in all of this and then pretend like they live a fully ethical life with respect to animals? Heck, think of pet owners, and specifically cat owners. What are the issues there? Certainly birds might have some objections to all the Fluffies of the world.

None of us lives in a bubble and leads some sort of perfect life that doesn't harm something somewhere. I think it's important to keep that in mind instead of deluding ourselves that somehow we aren't "directly responsible" for suffering and destruction in the world.

I'm not going to even address the dehumanizing qualities of certain vegan choices (eg, rapeseed/canola over butter).

How about a bag that doesn't look like leather at all? (hemp, cotton, bamboo, etc)

Personally, I'm repulsed by "Buffalo Wings" -- they look like the legs of animals. This is true if they are free-range chickens, chess-playing ostriches, pressed soy, or well-disguised corn. It still looks like an animal leg to me.

As a rule, I don't like my vegetables shaped like pieces of animals.

I can understand not wanting to kill an animal to make a purse. But is it so much better for a purse to just LOOK like an animal was killed to make it?

"None of us lives in a bubble and leads some sort of perfect life that doesn't harm something somewhere. "

Exactly my point. We none of us can be perfect. We all have to draw lines somewhere. My particular line is that I don't eat or wear animals.

All other decisions (and we all face many every day) come after that one.

The idea (speaking for myself of course) by not personally partaking in the eating or wearing of animal products is to be part of a movement to reduce *demand* for such products. It's a quite rational economics-based action.

So I find the notion that somehow it's my job as a vegetarian to help make meat consumption more "ethical" by wearing the byproduct of its production ludicrous.

Gomek: You're lucky. I've been a vegetarian for 17 years, and meat still looks and smells just fine to me.

So, yes, if those are my two choices, I think it's better to look than to actually be animal-based.

That being said, I do tend towards fabric-based handbags, not pleather-based.

Joseph, you could replace "vegan" by "environmentalist" in what you just said. Nobody is perfect, but they can do their best.

The point is that there are some things you have control over, and some where you don't. I can't control how many "bambis" get run over by semis, but I certainly can control what I eat and what I wear.

Besides, a lot of vegans/vegetarians don't wear leather because they find it kind of disgusting and a constant reminder of things they dislike.

"Joseph, you could replace 'vegan' by 'environmentalist' in what you just said. Nobody is perfect, but they can do their best."

Sure, but there's a difference between an honest acknowledgment of one's impacts on the world and another which revels in some sort of "personal purity" which is totally artificial, and whose main function often involves cultivaitng a sense of moral superiority, which of course then engenders resentment, reactionary behavior, and simple mocking of an extreme and unrealistic position or set of behaviors.

"The point is that there are some things you have control over, and some where you don't. I can't control how many 'bambis' get run over by semis, but I certainly can control what I eat and what I wear."

Of course you can control that to a certain degree by purchasing more locally, getting involved in processes to change policy, etc. You can certainly also make choices about what kind of electricity you consume, where it comes from, and how much. My point is that this notion of "direct responsibility" is purely subjective and leads to a false sense of being ethically pure with respect to something you care about.

"Besides, a lot of vegans/vegetarians don't wear leather because they find it kind of disgusting and a constant reminder of things they dislike."

I am not telling them they should wear leather, I'm just asking what exactly should be done under a scenario where meat consumption outweighs leather demand. Should we just chuck the leather? Or is it more respectful and natural to use the whole body? One can't escape that reality, and the fact is that people will always eat meat. It's not going to end. So why make people feel guilty for using leather, especially when the alternatives (eg, vegan fake leather) do a lot of harm to the natural environment and end up hurting animals anyway? It seems like that's robbing Peter to pay Paul, all to serve a myopic need to feel "ethically pure".

I'm also not proposing some sort of "might as well do anything since everything's intertwined". I guess it's more of a plea to move away from zealotry and extremes altogether, which I view veganism to be. It's fine as a personal choice, but when it starts crossing the line into judging others, then it's only natural for the judgments to be reflected back.

"I am not telling them they should wear leather, I'm just asking what exactly should be done under a scenario where meat consumption outweighs leather demand."

Considering that leather production from the skin of dead animals is quite polluting because of the chemicals used and energy intensive because of all the shipping (iirc, they often ship it to countries with lower environmental standards and cheaper labor, and then ship it back), it's probably better to just compost it than to make leather with it. AFAIK.

Joseph: So you perceive veganism in general as judgmental which is your rationale for reflecting judgment back on individuals who didn't actually make any judgmental statement about you?

I think you're reading a lot more into the phrase "directly responsible" than is there. It's just a statement of fact, not a judgment nor a claim of personal purity.

"Considering that leather production from the skin of dead animals is quite polluting because of the chemicals used and energy intensive because of all the shipping (iirc, they often ship it to countries with lower environmental standards and cheaper labor, and then ship it back), it's probably better to just compost it than to make leather with it. AFAIK."

Leather can be made locally and with low environmental impact. So, assuming that to be true, my question remains about the ethics of dealing with hides which will always exist.

---

"So you perceive veganism in general as judgmental which is your rationale for reflecting judgment back on individuals who didn't actually make any judgmental statement about you?

I think you're reading a lot more into the phrase 'directly responsible' than is there. It's just a statement of fact, not a judgment nor a claim of personal purity."

Whoa. The "directly responsible" issue was covered in pretty good detail. All I have been saying is that it's a fairly subjective thing to be deciding what "directly responsible" means. If you choose to ignore all sorts of choices you make that lead to animal suffering (eg, relying on long-distance shipping, the petrochemical industry, etc), then you're not being honest about the metric for your ethics. It's pretty easy (and emotional) to understand the slaughterhouse/industrial husbandry thing and how much animal suffering is created by it. It's another to understand the ways in which trying to be vegan can end up harming wild animals so we can placate our guilt about domesticated animals. And certainly industrialized technologies for producing these highly-processed "cruelty-free" products creates a good deal of human (ie, animal) suffering as well.

Veganism is almost always judgmental. It's an extreme reaction to an extreme culture. You don't see veganism in as much prevalence in more "middle road" cultures where meat, especially red meat, plays a much less dominant role in people's diets.

I remember back when I was first experimenting with vegetarianism and orderd a dish called "yasai itame" at a Chinese restaurant in Japan. "Yasai" means "vegetable" and "itame" means "stir-fry". So I thought I'd be getting stir-fried veggies.

So, the plate comes and there's a couple small pieces of meat (probably pork) in it and I naturally asked what the deal was. They told me that it was there for flavor and a little protein. At the time, it pissed me off and frustated me.

But coming back to a culture where people often have a big slab of meat on their plate three times a day, I got some perspective about moderation.

I also attended a gourmet vegan chef's training program in New York for 4-5 months, and in our class we had 3 vegans out of 16 people. None of them was a vegan at the end of our program, despite having gone through training which would enable them to cook a wide variety of vegan dishes with great taste and skill.

It's a choice which is very personal, but almost always there's a hostility and judmentalism towards others who don't share in the practices and views. You know, and that's fine, but in my experience that tends to do more harm (in terms of reactionary responses) than any marginal good that comes from one's personal dedication to purity.

I also know that some people will never do well, from a health perspective, with a pure vegan diet, and no one should feel guilty if their constitution is that way.

Eating an omnivore diet is a major cause of global warming. Anyone who really cares about the environment would eat a plant based diet. Here are just a few reasons why . . .
-An omnivore riding a bicycle contributes to more greenhouse gases than a vegan driving a hummer. If everyone became vegan, it would reduce greenhouse gases more than if all our cars were taken off the road.
-It takes 22 times the acres of land to meet the food energy needs of one person eating meat than it does for one person eating potatoes.
-It takes more than 13 times the water to produce one day's food supply for an omnivore than it does for a vegan.
-It takes 27 times the petroleum to produce a hamburger than it does a soy burger.
-The land animals confined and killed every year excrete 130 times the feces and urine produced by humans. Livestock production also utilizes more than eight percent of global water use, primarily for feed-crop irrigation.
-The annual greenhouse gas output from burger consumption is the equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas output from between
four and 13 million SUVs.
-In the Amazon, approximately 60-70 percent of deforestation results from cattle ranches and soybean cultivation.
-And according to a UN FAO report, "in all, livestock
production amounts to 70 percent of all agricultural land and 30 percent of the land surface of this planet." The USDA says growing crops for animals takes up 80 percent of the agricultural land in the US and animals raised for food in the US consume 90 percent of the soy crop, 80 percent of the corn
and 70 percent of its grain. (Ref: VegNews)

So if you really care about the environment, a plant based diet is the way to go. That includes not wearing animals too!
We need to be protecting the environment, not ruining it for our generations to come. How awful is that that they will be born into this world having to put up with the consequences with our actions and having to fix it all, because of us.

People find vegans extreme, because they are challenging their beliefs and they feel that when they meet a vegan they are being judged, whether they are or not.
It gets frustrating knowing that if people had the information that I know, in regards to a plant based diet being better for ones health, wellbeing, environment and animals that there would be less animal consumption.

Hello Dear Sir/madam

Thanks for your interest in B's Purses! As you can see from our website, B's is a fun and sassy business that has captured great attention since our first line of purses and accessories were launched! I am very excited that you have contacted us for additional information. I will contact you with details on how you can start your own B's business and fill you in on our fashionably chic lines of products that will be sure to captivate your friends and family.

Thank you again for your interest and I look forward to speaking with you soon! Please feel free to call me anytime.

Eileen Jia
Designer
eileen@lifeng-gifts.com

+86 512 57010195

I'm vegetarian and wanted a professional looking tote that was not leather or PVC to take to work.

I found this website: http://www.crystalynkae.com/ and ordered the troubadour tote in the burgundy-ish color.

Her site explains that her bags are made of upholstery grade fabric, and then they are treated with a glaze and stretched. I'm not a crafty person at all so I really don't understand how any of that is accomplished, but I will tell you that the bag is beautiful and looks very much like an expensive leather tote. It's incredibly soft and so far seems to be quite durable.

She as other bags available as well, and she ships for free (I got my bag in 3 days!!)

I explored Mat and Nat as an option, but I think this is a much more exciting (and beautiful) way to go.