The leather industry is among the most polluting in the world. Without even accounting for the ethical risk around animal cruelty, climate change poses a tangible risk through the combination of regulatory and reputational challenges. This blogpost sets out to compare and contrast the approaches taken by two very different institutions: Tandy Leather Factory (NASDAQ: TLF) and Modern Meadow.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The pollution of the leather industry is caused by two factors; the need to raise livestock and the process of leather manufacturing itself. The first, raising livestock, has been deemed as the most important factor in fueling climate change[1]<\/a>. It has been estimated that animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gases; more than the combined exhaust of all transportation[2]<\/a>. Livestock consumes 80%-90% of water in the U.S[3]<\/a> and occupies around 45% of earth\u2019s total land[4]<\/a>, leading the charge in desertification which totals around 1\/3 of the planet today[5]<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n As for the actual process of leather, it utilizes a wide-array of dangerous chemicals that produce wastewater. Disposing of the byproducts of the tanning process is pretty much completely unregulated, leaving the responsibility up to each individual company to do it in a safe, responsible way. In the U.S, this falls under EPA\u2019s scope of action and the regulation is light[6]<\/a>, at best. Most worryingly, most leather comes from developing countries who have zero regulation in this matter, or if they do, they have little-to-no enforcement capacity. The companies themselves have little incentives to do so. Some of the chemicals generated include trivalent chromium, formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde[7]<\/a>. Dumping mostly untreated waterwaste in the nearest waterways is directly toxic to aquatic life and poses severe risks to humans including respiratory problems, infections, infertility and birth defects[8]<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n TLF is one of the very few\u2014not to say the only one\u2014publicly traded leather companies. The majority of TLF\u2019s comes from distributing leather from manufacturers to leather designers. \u00a0They also operate 108 retail stores and a small number of their own tanneries. As of today, most of the pressure to reduce its\u2019 environmental footprint has come from legal disputes of employee\u2019s or local communities[9]<\/a>. Most leather companies in the U.S are moving towards recycling chromium and investing in wastewater treatment. This approach can only minimally decrease the overall pollution generated in the process. As regulation tightens around wastewater treatment, the cost to treat raw hides will increase. This will reduce margins for all intermediaries and potentially begin to curb the demand for leather. Even when we reach the point of regulatory stress on the tanning side, the industry will face increasing pressure to address and reduce the waste generated in raising livestock. It is safe to assume that this pressure will lead to increasing regulation\u2014and thus costs\u2014aimed at reducing the sheer number of livestock raised for human consumption.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Modern Meadow (ModMed) is a bio-technology startup that is betting on regulation, fueled by climate change, to limit the use of livestock and to increase the current costs to manufacture leather. ModMed\u2019s innovating technology allows them to biofabricate real leather in a lab, without the need for livestock and without generating any wastewater. Their technology allows them to source cells through a simple biopsy, grow those cells, generate sheets of cells, layer these sheets, combine the layers, tan the layers and eventually apply the finishing touches[10]<\/a>. This radical breakthrough uses no livestock and generates no wastewater. It also has three additional benefits; it is cruelty-free, it\u2019s not regulated by the FDA and should pass the EPA\u2019s regulations easily. ModMed has raised over U$50M in venture funding to develop the technology and has made remarkable achievements in advance of their launch to market, which is still more than a year away.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The leather industry is comprised of many small players and most of them in developing country. This structure may allow for climate change and market dynamics to completely blind-side them and drive them out of business. Approaches like ModMed\u2019s have a strong vision that anticipate the changes that are coming.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Word Count: 785<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> http:\/\/www.cowspiracy.com\/facts\/<\/a><\/p>\n [2]<\/a> \u201cLivestock\u2019s Long Shadow\u201d. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, 2006. http:\/\/www.fao.org\/docrep\/010\/a0701e\/a0701e00.HTM<\/a><\/p>\n [3]<\/a> \u201cHow Important is Irrigation to U.S. Agriculture?\u201d. U.S Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. http:\/\/www.ers.usda.gov\/topics\/farm-practices-management\/irrigation-water-use\/background.aspx<\/a><\/p>\n [4]<\/a> \u201cLivestock and Climate Change\u201d. Thornton, Phillip, Mario Herrero, and Polly Ericksen.\u00a0Livestock Exchange<\/em> (2011).<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> \u201cFederal Register. Rules and Regulations\u201d. Enviromental Protection Agency (1996).<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> \u201dLeather Tanning\u201d. Environmental Protection Agency (1995).<\/p>\n The leather industry faces immense regulatory pressure while new players are leveraging breakthroughs in biotechnology. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2048,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","categories":[221],"class_list":["post-8633","hck-submission","type-hck-submission","status-publish","hentry","category-biotech"],"connected_submission_link":"https:\/\/d3.harvard.edu\/platform-rctom\/assignment\/climate-change-challenge-2016\/","yoast_head":"\n[5]<\/a> UN launches International Year of Deserts and Desertification\u201d. United Nations News Centre.<\/h4>\n
[8]<\/a> \u201cThe Environmental Impact of the Animal Product Processing Industries\u201d. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http:\/\/www.fao.org\/wairdocs\/lead\/x6114e\/x6114e03.htm<\/a><\/h1>\n
[9]<\/a> \u201cSouth Sioux woman wins emissions lawsuit against Tyson\u201d. Sioux City Journal. (2005)<\/h1>\n
[10]<\/a> \u201cLeather and Meat Without Killing Animals\u201d Andras Forgacs. (2013)<\/h1>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"