The letter from Stephen M Sothmann, president of the Leather & Hide Council of America, responding to Lauren Indvik’s piece on the future of the leather industry, is misleading and completely sidesteps Indvik’s other concerns about animal welfare (“As long as we eat meat and dairy, it makes sense to wear leather”, September 16).

Sothmann’s point on the environmental benefits might be more worthy of consideration if leather was a monetarily worthless byproduct but as Indvik points out it contributes between 10-15 per cent of the value of a cull. This means that leather deserves to own a similar percentage of the carbon impact.

It could equally be argued by the meat industry that it is carbon virtuous because if it didn’t take the meat left over from the leather trade, that product would be sent to landfill. But all this is surely irrelevant to the wider point on animal welfare.

Fur did not primarily become passé and objectionable because of its environmental impact. No. People shunned fur because they realised it is primeval and barbaric to rob a sentient being of its life and its coat, certainly since there have been superior alternatives available.

David Coombs Corby, Northamptonshire, UK