Can Leather Be a TreeHugger-Friendly Material?
by Collin Dunn, Corvallis, OR, USA 
on 02.14.07
Leather, as a material, hasn't made a big splash here at TreeHugger; aside from one lonely post, we haven't given it much time. Yet, it remains a very popular material for clothing, accessories, furniture, luggage and shoes, from the runways in Milan and Paris to just about every mall in the US. So, what's the deal?
It's true: from a TreeHugger's standpoint, it's best if leather is simply avoided. Why? First of all, it's dead animal skin, which means that animal has to be raised: fed, watered, pastured, and eventually slaughtered. Most leather (about 66% of it) comes from cows, and it takes 8 acres of land, 12,000 pounds of forage, 125 gallons of gasoline & other petroleum derivatives for fertilizer, 2,500 pounds of corn, 350 pounds of soybeans, 1.2 million gallons of water & 1.5 acres of farmland (to grow the crops for feed), plus various insecticides, herbicides, antibiotics & hormones to grow one cow from an 80 pound calf to its full size, when it can be slaughtered and the hide harvested. Something like bison, on the other hand, takes less land and less water, and they're primarily pasture-raised, meaning they aren't stuck in feedlots getting fat for half their natural lives. Since they're on the pasture, and their hooves are smaller and sharper, they help till and fertilize the soil (with their waste as fertilizer), and though they require more feed per pound, they aren't picky about where the food comes from; it can be prairie grass or whatever they happen across. Regardless, the point remains: it takes a ton of resources to grow cows.
Once the animal skin becomes available (usually as a byproduct of the beef industry), it doesn't get much prettier. Before tanning, the skins are unhaired, degreased, desalted and soaked in water over a period of 6 hours to 2 days. To prevent damage of the skin by bacterial growth during the soaking period, biocides, such as pentachlorophenol (a synthetic fungicide that is toxic to humans), are used. Hides are then either vegetable tanned or mineral tanned. Vegetable tanning employs tannin, from which tanning gets it name, which occurs naturally in tree bark; the primary barks used these days are chestnut, oak, tanoak, hemlock, quebracho, mangrove, wattle, and myrobalan. Hides are stretched on frames and immersed for several weeks in vats of increasing concentrations of tannin. Vegetable tanned hide is flexible and is used for luggage and furniture; Q Collection, one of TreeHugger's favorite sustainable designers, uses vegetable-tanned leathers in their furniture (this gorgeous chair is an example).
Mineral tanning, on the other hand, usually uses chromium and is a fairly chemistry-intensive process. The hides are "pickled," raising the pH to a high acidity level (about 3) and enabling chromium tannins to enter the hide. For preservation purposes, fungicides and bactericides are also applied (yum). After pickling, when the pH is low, chromium salts are added. To fixate the chromium, the pH is slowly increased through addition of a base of magnesium oxide and more fungicide -- sounds like something you'd really want to snuggle up against, no? Chrome tanning is faster than vegetable tanning -- less than a day for this part of the process -- and produces a stretchable leather which is preferred for use in handbags and garments.
Chromium is not very nice stuff for people; studies have clearly established that inhaled chromium is a human carcinogen, resulting in an increased risk of lung cancer. While people aren't as likely to inhale once it's been ingrained in the leather hide, it doesn't bode as well for the people tanning the leather, and, on the whole, isn't something that will really benefit you by rubbing up against your skin all the time.
For the most part, cow leather is a bi-product of the beef industry; this is a double-edged sword. Cows raised for beef aren't going anywhere any time soon, so beef-eating TreeHuggers will note that we may as well use as much of the animal as possible, but tanning leather is a dirty, energy-intensive, potentially toxic process. Further, the synthetic "versions" of leather include vinyl and other plastics, which aren't really very good for anybody either (but that's another post).
Unfortunately, there aren't any regulations or certifications for "organic" or "certified humane raised & handled" leather, as there is with beef and some other leather-producing animal meat, so there is no easy way to insure that your leather products came from an ethical and/or planet and animal-healthy environment, short of raising the animal yourself. So, in the end, the best thing is to avoid it altogether; replacing a leather product with a vinyl one won't be doing anyone any good, so for those who simply must have it, we recommend finding it repurposed or second-hand or otherwise reused, rather than buying a virgin product, and if you absolutely, positively have to have new leather, vegetable-tanned is the only way to go.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
There is nothing wrong with using leather.
It is about as organic as it gets.
The thing about leather is that the cow is not raised for the leather. It is raised for the meat. The profit from the leather is a bonus. As long as cattle are raised for meat, leather will be affordable to produce for a good portion of the populace.
If meat is not consumed then the cost of leather will become prohibitive to all but the rich.
If you are going to eat the cow, you may as well use this natural resource. It would be a waste if it was just discarded.
The environmental problem with leather is the chemicals used to treat it, and that this toxic job is often done in countries where environmental regulations are a lot softer than in the western world. Because of that, it pollutes even more than it should, but you also have to factor in shipping.
Raw leather might be "organic", but what we use to make coats, sofas and car seats is anything but.
There's actually more ways to tan leather than outlined here. The vat method is "batch" based: an 18th century approach. Continuous processing also is possible, with or without chromic acid. Much more materially effiicient, with closed loop recycling possible.
Chome has multiple valence states. Chrome VI is very hazardous: the lower valence states are not. Per the above, a non-batch process, with no Chrome VI, should have minimal hazardous exposures.
The hair and alkaline discharges are serious environmental problems in developing nations where crude tanning methods result in the alkaline hair removal bath getting dumped into streams that someone else needs for agriculture and drinking. Take a look at the tags on leather coat and you will notice that country of origin for the leather is almost always some place where batch processing is the norm and wastewater treatment standards non-existent. Thus, the global economy is once again at the heart of the problem. If US environmental standards were met, the processing impacts would be far less.
Leather is organic and natural. If the tanning chemicals are toxic then that is the problem.
If the leather is discarded then it will have to be replaced by another material. Cotton, flax, etc. Most upholstery fabrics have olifen, nylon, rayon, acetate, etc. They probably use some nasty chemicals in todays manufacturing of upholstery or clothing in processing and dying cotton and flax also.
My point is that if the cattle are raised for meat, the leather is already there, you may as well use it. If you discard it then you will have to use some other natural resource instead.
If you don't want leather to be used, convince people not to eat meat.
what about buying a really nice leather bag and keeping it for the rest of your life?
surely buying a new bag every 6 - 12 months because your organic hemp, vegetable dyed bag wears through with all the stuff you put in it could VERY easily add up to tons and tons of environmental problems: from excess waste from throwing away irreparably damaged bags to transportation costs because no one in your metropolitan area (over 50% of the US lives in an urban area) hand weaves your hemp (to save the fossil fuels that are burned in the weaving - oh wait, your Hemp Trader's messenger bag isn't hand woven?!?). Plus, it's true these cows are going to be raised anyway, so the first half of your argument just doesn't stand up.
I'm all for buying vintage (plus, it's cool too!), but you can also buy a really nice bag once in a life-time (like Coach, which has a lifetime guarantee - making it truly a bag you can keep forever). Just laying out the bad sides to leather doesn't put out a balanced argument. I expected more from TreeHugger!
There are many more ancient forms of tanning which are less toxic, and the costliest of leathers do not use chemical processes. Of course, these methods can be extremely human-capital intensive. (Inuit women chew their leather to tan it, and also urinate on it. I'm not sure in which order.)
As for the green (non-vegan) justification for leather, it can be VERYdurable.
A ship carrying fine tanned Russian hides sank off of Britain in the 1700's, and divers recently retrieved a bunch of the hides, which were in perfect condition, owing to the high-quality tanning methods and the salt water. The hides were auctioned off for huge prices and were bought up by the bespoke shoemakers of London. Russian shipwreck hide shoes, custom made, were going for in excess of ten thousand dollars a pair. Off-the-rack pairs going for at least fifteen hundred.
Partly the money brought in was the exotic appeal, but partly the extreme quality of the leather, which, as I said, was due to the ancient tanning methods, largely unused today.
As outlined above, it's the processing rather than the material itself that is the problem. So, instead of simply avoiding all leather products, the solution is to demand a more responsibly processed version in the same way we change agriculture by demanding more organically grown food. Compared with many of the common alternatives (hunting the endangered nauga for its precious hyde comes to mind), leather is durable and is a byproduct of an existing crop, so I think you'd have to be an extreme purist to boycott it.
That being said, are there any reliable sources out there of responsibly processed leather? I have a hankering for a big comfy leather chair, and I want to do the right thing...
I use leather I buy from second hand shops in the form of atrocious 1980's skirts and jackets. I can make a lot of stuff with a size 24 neon purple suede leather mini skirt. It saves it from disposal, I get what I want, and I don't feel guilty because the animal already died. I would feel guiltier throwing it all away.
Many new leather goods are actually made from recycled leather. Tthose distressed leather flight jackets and sofa cushions and other items are actually made from recylcled auto and other upholserty. And remember all those funky '70s slouch hats and bags made from patchwork scraps? It's a wonderfully versatile product.
A sustainable leathergood manufacturer should pledge to make items of enduring quality and style, so that they'll last a lifetime. (Of course non-obsolescence will cut into their repeat business, but they can charge more up front.) Dooney and Burke and Coach come to mind for ultra-long lasting style. The Coach bag hasn't changed for 50 years. The French nosebag purse hasn't changed in 100 years.
Jesse from Q Collection has this to add:
I saw your recent posting on sustainable leather. I thought I would send you a few thoughts. We carry a leather which we feel is the most sustainable leather on the market. I will describe it below.
I certainly understand your perspective on using any leather at all. I can also relate to the comments posted about leather being a by-product of human consumption.
Either way, the reason we carry a line of leather is because, first and foremost, we want to offer choice in the market. The reality of our time is that leather is used extensively by architects and interior designers. By our not carrying leather I don't feel we are going to dramatically chance that trend. Instead, we feel the best we can do right now is offer the market the most sustainable leather on the market.
Our leather:
- uses 100% vegetable dyes (e.g. taro root, rhubarb, etc)
- no toxic mordents
- fully eliminated the use of heavy metals (chromium has been one of the major concerns in the past)
- is 100% biodegradable (not finishes or additional treatments)
Anyway, just thought I would share that a lot is being done out there on sustainable leather.
I think economists would disagree with the assertion that the leather would have been made anyways as a result of beef production. The fact is that cow farmers consider that source of revenue and therefore produce a larger amount of cattle (in essence the sale of leather subsidizes the cost of beef production and vice versa). Imagine if the sale of leather were outlawed tomorrow. Rather than a cow being worth lets say 12K it would probably only be worth 10K, due to the loss of leather revenue. Meanwhile the ranchers cost of production would stay the same per cow. Therefore in order to make up the loss in revenue that rancher would have to raise the price of beef which in turn would reduce the demand for beef which in turn would reduce the amount of cattle produced.
All of that said I still believe that leather is a great commodity owing to its natural source, beauty, flexibility in uses, and most importantly durability. Well made shoes can be resoled multiple times thereby cutting down on waste and even keeping some jobs in your local economy. Leather retailers would however be wise to develop some sort of certification process to show that their leather was sustainably produced.
As broad generalizations go, this article was OK. However, the mere fact that there is no ready certification program to rely on should not condemn all leathergoods. Crafters, artisans, and deeply concerned people can still get it right. Leather can also be sourced from deer, rabbit, goat, and others. These animals can be part of a properly managed and humane approach. Surely, each has its benefits and pitfalls, like cattle. Next time, don't use such a broad brush. Bringing up the nonobvious steps in the process and the land (habitat) consumption were good.
The assumption that animal skins are just something that would go to waste if not utilized for leather is a misperception. The hide represents two thirds of the value of beef by-products. Leather is an important product of the beef industry. The above TH article states that the beef industry is going to be around for a while. Without the sale of animal skins for leather, the beef industry would find it hard to stay viable.
Most leather comes from factory-farmed beef. Factory farming is extraordinarily environmentally destructive, and cruel beyond belief. It doesn’t matter if you tanned the leather with fairy dew, the production of its main component, animal skin, is still monumentally harmful to the environment and stratospherically inhumane.
The ethical considerations alone are reason enough to not buy leather. The reality of modern day factory farming is that in addition to other unbelievable abuse, animals are routinely skinned or boiled alive. This is what you support when you support leather, living hell for animals. Leather from factory farm sources is diametrically opposed to what an environmental website should stand for.
If there were leather products from humanely raised animals, that would be well and good, but the leather in the products that I see on Treehugger is the living hell torture variety. The same for just about any leather product you will find out there. Let’s keep this stuff out of Treehugger, it’s not a good look.
There are plenty of alternatives to leather, if we can’t find them in the products we like, we can write letters to our favorite designers. Factory farming as a whole needs to end, and any way we can contribute to that goal is worthwhile. I agree with the article, that leather should be avoided altogether. Second hand leather does not seem like an answer to me because the act of wearing it is advertising the consumption of leather, the person passing by on the street will not know the story behind that particular piece. Sometimes some things have to be sacrificed to do good. When people really look inside themselves and weigh their vanity against the torture of innocent beings, they will make the right decision, and the sacrifice will become a sacrifice no more. I used to be a die-hard leather wearer. When I finally became conscious about leather, it became unappealing to me.
Please watch these videos if you are considering supporting leather:
Free Me
Meet Your Meat
Some leather and factory farming links:
By-Products’ Big Bang—Beef Mag
Last Chance For Animals
Skinned Is Skinned
Cowsarecool.com
Peta
I'm tired of people attacking my principles not on the basis of what is more environmentally sound but on the basis of what cute animals were hurt in the process.
Steven R.
Are you saying you don't care about hurting animals?
Nice straw man. I don't think there is anything wrong with breeding animals for food or products. It would be nice if they leaned towards cleaner and more sustainable methods.
For a discussion of leather and where to find alternatives see http://www.veg.ca/issues/leather.html
thanks for that link stevel.
I don't know about all the claims made in this article, but whenever I read something that is outrageous on it's face I question everything written. It is claimed that raising a cow to maturity requires 1.2 million gallons of water. Every source I see talks about a fully grown cow consuming 25 to 50 gallons of water a day. Five years is generally considered well beyond fully mature, so if you multiply through the most extreme of these values you come to about 90,000 gallons of water. Unless you require EXTREME amounts of water to grow the feed that the cow will consume, this water requirement is patently false.
As far as the general point of the article, I feel that production of cattle based products do have some strong negative impacts on the environment, but not nearly to the degree that many claim.
There are built-in inefficiencies in cattle production, but once produced cattle are processed more efficiently than almost any other agricultural product. Nothing is wasted, the meat is eaten, the hyde is made into leather, the hooves make glue, etc. etc. etc.
**Author's comment**
While your math is correct, don't forget about all the water required to irrigate the the feed the cow consumes over the same span -- it's a lot!
"Chromium is not very nice stuff for people.."
Well that couldn't be more wrong. Chromium trivalent (CR3+) is REQUIRED for the metabolism of sugar. Without it 25 - 36 micro grams, we'd all die. Painfully. On the other hand, Chromium hexavlent (CR6+) is carcinogenic, mutagenic, and all sorts of nasty.
Please get your chemistry right. Next I expect to hear an article about the toxic effects of the heavy metal bismuth...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1282796533661048967&q=earthlings
"EARTHLINGS is a feature length documentary about humanity's absolute dependence on animals (for pets, food, clothing, entertainment, and scientific research) but also illustrates our complete disrespect for these so-called "non-human providers." The film is narrated by Academy Award nominee Joaquin Phoenix (GLADIATOR) and features music by the critically acclaimed platinum artist Moby.
With an in-depth study into pet stores, puppy mills and animals shelters, as well as factory farms, the leather and fur trades, sports and entertainment industries, and finally the medical and scientific profession, EARTHLINGS uses hidden cameras and never before seen footage to chronicle the day-to-day practices of some of the largest industries in the world, all of which rely entirely on animals for profit."
anyone know of any good leather sources? scrap/veggie-tanned/lower impact?
Cattle herding is one of the largest causes for deforesting the rainforests in south america. leather is in no way eco friendly.
Hey..
I would be interested to see a second part to this article addressing the Dyeing process of leather which can be just as harmful as the tanning process. Which dyes are harmful which arent.
At least leather products are designed to last. How many fabric or vinyl covered pieces of furniture get tossed simply because the upholstery didn't hold up?
Hi there,
I am in the business of saddlery goods and together with my partner in India we are currently promoting vegetable tanned leather for several reasons. Mostly we emphasize on sutainability and human/animal health and welfare. Yes, there is no such thing as a certificate fro "eco-/ organic-/ or bio-leather, however our batches are tested and certfied by SGS inorder to make sure no toxic substances and no chromium is to be found in our leather !!! Chromium, Azo-dies and softeners all contain highly toxic substances harmfull to human and animals. pls check out www.green-e-lite.blogspot.com "Green Tack" in order to find out more.
Regards
Patricia