Jean Paul Gaultier’s provocative Autumn/Winter collection, unveiled during Paris Fashion Week recently, reignited an age-old debate. Combining Michael Jackson’s ‘Thriller’ track with animal call sounds, models repeatedly strutted down the runway in fox pelts, long trains of fur and animal heads atop their own as finishing accessories. The use of fur in fashion collections has long been the domain of high-end designer franchise, marred with controversy as a distinctly luxury item- the reliable winter income for fashion houses conscious of the profit margins. Gaultier’s collection used a tried and tested fashion formula, though his particularly extensive exploitation of animal skin means ethical dimensions of the fashion industry are no longer glossed over in catwalk reports – fur is firmly in the limelight once more.

So where exactly does the debate today lie? It would seem, according to director Mark Glover of the charity Respect for Animals, the answer is this side of the pond- “In Europe fur has never really gone away.” Milan, Paris and London fashion week are predominant pioneers of fur clothing, with Fendi, Givenchy, Chanel and our own Julien MacDonald the worst offenders. The 2003 British ban on ‘fur farms’, in which animals live in confined and cramped cages until suffocated or poisoned for use in the clothing and accessories market, means much of the products seen in shows like Gaultier’s are imported from central and eastern Asia, particularly China. Imports are cheap and questionable at the least. Methods for killing the animals often involve not only farms but the process of fur trapping, in which animals are baited and strangled or crushed before skinning and the use of domestic animals such as dogs and cats is also permissible in this region of trade.

The response of animal rights activists PETA to Gaultier’s fashion taunt this season, in which protestors doused his Paris boutique with red blood and scrawled ‘death for sale’ across windows panes, is one example of how the altercation between fashion designers and outraged charities that has ensued since the 1970’s has in part contributed to the consistency of skinned animals in garment architecture of recent times. Mass public outrage to the barbarity of skinning animals for decoration, particularly since PETA’s 1994 publicity campaign, in which catwalk models appeared naked in photo shoots headed ‘I’d rather go naked than wear fur’ means that most high street stores are now committed to providing what the public wants – a fur free retail zone. This demand for fake and synthetic fur from Joe Public, means that the real thing is now the sole arena in the fashion industry to which traditional couturiers have the monopoly. Topshop can indeed rip-off Chloe jumpsuits, and Primark is entitled to nab the creativity of Gucci’s evening wear, but for the woman with cash for a genuine article, fur is now a statement of wealth and power of which our Stone Age ancestors, when huddled in mammal skins to keep warm through the night, could never have conceived.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Stella McCartney’s latest ready-to-wear collection closed with a summary of her inspirations – “this is for everyone who believes you do not need fur in fashion,” echoing the shift in the fur debate to targeting change higher in the fashion hierarchy. The European public may be convinced, now it’s just about swaying the front row at fashion week to skip the Thriller track and down pelts, this winter let’s pray felt becomes the new symbol of extravagant living. Now that’s controversy.