Fashion Scandals: False Labeling of Fur-Trimmed Products

Angelique Vita Rivard

With the winter shopping season upon us it is important to remember the animals who sacrifice their lives for the production of many of the items commonly purchased, including leather, fur, and wool. Within the fur industry alone, millions of animals including rabbits, raccoon dogs, minks, bobcats, foxes and even domestic dogs and cats, are killed annually to make unnecessary fur products. These animals are often skinned alive. But given the advancements in technology, governmental oversight and surged ethical inquiry it must be easy to find humane fur alternatives in stores. Or is it?

Recently, the spotlight has come down on Kohl’s retailer stores after an investigation conducted by The Humane Society of the United States revealed that handbags listed as being made with faux fur were actually trimmed with real rabbit fur. Check out the detailed story on how HSUS uncovered the scandal and take a look at the investigation’s subsequent results.

Unfortunately, this is not novel news. Just last March, another HSUS investigation discovered that coats designed by Marc Jacobs designer labeled as faux-fur were actually real fur coming from Chinese raccoon dogs. Raccoon dogs are members of the dog or canine (Canidae) family who are often skinned alive for their soft fur. The Marc Jacobs scandal prompted, Manhattan Assemblywoman, Linda Rosenthal, to focus on state legislation mandating that all fur products (real or faux) be labeled appropriately.


Caged raccoon dog.

So, where’s the law here? What legal protections do both animals and consumers have against scandals such as these. Because outrages like the ones from Kohl’s and Marc Jacobs are actually much more than scandals, they are crimes. As it turns out, there are virtually no animal protection laws and only a few consumer protection laws pertaining to fur labeling. Selling animal fur as “faux fur” is a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, under its prohibition against “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” in commerce, but the penalty is limited to $16,000 per violation.

Federally, the Fur Products Labeling Act, strives to protect consumers from being deceived by mandating that garments containing fur be properly labeled. The law was strengthened in December of 2010 after pressure from HSUS and other organizations prompted President Obama to sign the Truth in Fur Labeling Act, an amendment to the Fur Products Labeling Act that closed a loophole in the law, which previously allowed real fur-trimmed garments to go unlabeled if the value was $150 or less. And the Dog and Cat Fur Protection Act, largely enacted because of the alleged use of cat and dog fur being imported from China, prohibits dog and cat fur trade in the U.S. and consequently does offer some protection for certain species. And while there are several state laws regulating trapping and fur farms, they generally do not pertain to the welfare of the fur-bearing animal.

I commend organizations such as HSUS for taking initiative and launching investigations that uncover such crimes relating to animals. But revealing these crimes should not solely depend on the limited resources of non-profit organizations. The government must step up and make animal protection a priority by enacting stronger laws that protect animals and consumers and generate better enforcement of those laws and regulations. We should take a page from countries like Austria, the United Kingdom, Croatia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland and Sweden, who have either strictly regulated or have completely banned fur farms and also appropriately regulate or ban its importation.

Scandals such as the ones surrounding Kohl’s and Marc Jacobs combined with a lack of regulation and governmental oversight reduce consumer confidence in the FTC and in the products they are purchasing. If you want to avoid spending your hard-earned dollars on cruelty and torture then take action!

Take Action

7 Responses

  1. Hi,
    I’m wondering about this statement: “But given the advancements in technology, governmental oversight and surged ethical inquiry it must be easy to find humane fur alternatives in stores.” What does “surged ethical inquiry” mean? We’d love to reblog this, but I’m not sure if it’s a typo. Thanks!

  2. Thank you for raising awareness about the abhorrent fur industry.

  3. Thanks for reblogging Buddy2Blogger and for the support and appreciation, Emy Will. Lorraine Murray, I apologize for being unclear and I appreciate your question. What I meant by “surged ethical inquiry” is a rise in ethical questioning and decision-making. For instance, colleges and universities are making ethics a priority and dedicating whole courses and even programs to it. Personally, I received my Masters in Ethics and Society from Fordham University before going to law school. An increase in ethical contemplation (asking the questions and searching for answers) along with advancements in technology (being able to easily create synthetic fur) and governmental oversight (regulation of fur trade) should prompt fashion designers and retailers to provide faux fur products without obstacle or pause. Feel free to reach out if you need further explanation. Thanks!

  4. Thank you for your reply and clarification, Angelique. We did republish the article on Friday, thanks! (We have an agreement with Animal Blawg to allow us to do so, by the way. We always include a linkback.)

  5. […] Our thanks to Animal Blawg, where this post originally appeared on December 10, […]

  6. […] and cat fur is often deceptively labeled or even mislabeled, making it very difficult for consumers to tell what they are purchasing. Dogs and cats killed for […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: