Faux or Feline? The Truth in Fur Labeling Act Will Help You Choose |
 |
March 9, 2006
| |
 |
| |
Bales of cat fur piled in a Chinese warehouse. |
What if one in seven medicine bottles didn't list key ingredients? We depend on labels to help us make decisions every day, including what we choose to eat, the medicines we take, and the clothes we wear. Americans "check the label" because labels tell us important information, like whether a medicine has a dangerous side effect, a food has an allergen, or a favorite t-shirt will shrink two sizes in the dryer.
Now consider that one in seven garments with real fur trim—jackets, coats, and other apparel—do not have to list fur as one of the materials used, all because of a loophole in current labeling laws.
According to government estimates, 500,000 garments sold in the United States every year are trimmed with bobcat, fox, rabbit, or other animal fur, potentially with nothing on the label to indicate there is any fur on the garment. With the labeling loophole in place, consumers are left in the dark; they have no idea that their new clothes may contain fur from animals—even dogs and cats—whose treatment can include being skinned alive, anally electrocuted, or held struggling underwater to drown.
Many of these garments in the United States marketplace are being manufactured in China, a country that HSUS investigators found to be killing and skinning an estimated two million dogs and cats a year for the fur trade. In response to the investigation, Congress passed a law in 2000 that banned the sale of dog and cat fur in the United States. But the labeling loophole provides the fur industry an easy way to sidestep this law. They can easily slip dog and cat fur onto garments, leaving American consumers, shopping off the rack in our local department stores, uninformed and unprotected.
This labeling loophole deceives consumers and contributes to animal suffering, which is why The HSUS is working to see it closed through federal legislation, H.R. 4904, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 2006, introduced to Congress on March 8.
Looking though the Loophole
Passed in 1951 by Congress, the Fur Products Labeling Act was designed to protect consumers by requiring that fur garments imported, sold, or manufactured in the United States list the standard name of the fur-bearing animals used, the country in which the animals were killed, and other important pieces of information.
|
How many lives equal
$150 worth of fur? |
|
An individual garment with the amount of fur shown below could be sold without a label, since the total would equal $150 or less.*
| Fur in an Unlabeled Garment |
|
Pelt Price |
| 30 rabbits |
|
$5 each |
| 25 ermines |
|
$6 each |
| 3 raccoons |
|
$28 each |
| 3 badgers, beavers, fishers, or minks |
|
$50 each |
| 3 Arctic, grey, or red foxes |
|
$50 each |
| 1 bear or timber wolf |
|
$150 each |
*Based on approximate pelt prices after tanning and dressing. |
Unfortunately, a loophole in the 1951 labeling law exempts garments with a "relatively small quantity or value" of fur. The current value of this loophole is anything but, allowing up to $150 worth of real fur to be on a garment but not on the label. So, a $500 coat can have $150 worth of mink on the collar and cuffs, and not have "fur," "mink," or any other reference to fur anywhere on the label. (See sidebar.)
Without being able to depend on a label to reveal the source, consumers can be deceived by the trim on jackets. Faux fur now often looks real, and real fur is often disguised to make it look like something other than fur. For an industry that claims to be proud of its product, the animal fur industry spends a great deal of time making its fur look synthetic. Dyeing, shearing, and weaving are commonly used to make fur resemble velvet, fabric, and other materials before being affixed to garments for sale.
Stop the Deception
The Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 2006, introduced by U.S. Reps. Mike Ferguson (R-NJ) and Jim Moran (D-VA), will amend the original Fur Products Labeling Act to eliminate the loophole that allows real fur trim to go unlabeled. Garments with any amount of real fur should say so on the label, because any amount of fur causes animals to suffer, something that many people want to avoid. Labeling all fur garments would also aid consumers who have country of origin preferences or allergies to real fur.
"Consumers who are considering buying a new jacket or gloves have a right to know whether those garments contain fur and exactly what animal was used," Rep. Ferguson said. "Even consumers who thought they were buying faux fur can be confused by misleading or outright false labels. Without clear labeling on fur-trimmed garments, consumers are rightly wary that even domestic dog and cat fur could still be slipping into the country."
Whatever their reasons for avoiding animal fur, American consumers have a right to know what they are buying.
What You Can Do
Ask your representative to support and co-sponsor H.R. 4904, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 2006, so you can keep dog, cat, and other fur out of your closet.
See the Video
HSUS's Dog and Cat Fur Investigation
Fur Shame
Related Links
An HSUS Investigation: What Is That They're Wearing?
Coats for Cubs Doubles the Return to the Animals
Questions and Answers about Fur
