A few months ago, Cotance, the European federation of national tanning associations, had expressed their opinion about the topic, while emphasizing that Flyleather, the “new” material worked up by Nike as “leather fibre board” and launched last September, recalls the term “leather” inappropriately to such an extent that it is considered illegal in many countries. Today GLCC (Global Leather Coordinating Committee), which comprises ICT (International Council of Tanners), ICHSLTA (International Council of Hides, Skins and Leather Traders Associations) and IULTCS (International Union of Leather Chemists and Technologists Societies) addresses the problem resolutely. Yesterday GLCC publicized an accurate and detailed statement, clearly pointing out that “although we may appreciate all processes that enable to profitably retrieve whichever scrap resulting from leather manufacturing, we are compelled to stress the fact that Flyleather material is not leather. In addition to that, such term may be misleading and might therefore be deemed as inappropriate and illegal in many countries around the world”. Furthermore, GLCC members keep being “skeptical about Flyleather environmental impact, supposedly overrated by Nike, since Nike’s method to work it out is pretty hazy and controversial”. Ultimately, they go straight to the point: “Nike’s evaluation seemingly does not tally with a fair method that should be adopted to feasibly compare such material with leather”.
Global Leather Coordinating Committee stands up against Nike’s Flyleather: it’s not leather. And the term may be misleading
