Written evidence submitted by Respect for Animals (FUR0055)

 

 

How large is the fur trade in the UK?

 

  1. The fur industry in the UK has been in serious decline since the mid-1980s. Today, in terms of the UK fashion and retail sector it is insignificant. This decline has come about as the public and retail outlets have learnt the truth about where fur comes from. The fur industry is one that belongs in the past, both morally and economically.

 

  1. Since the 1980s, consumer attitudes towards the wearing of fur in the UK have changed dramatically.

 

  1. The following clear indicators trace the fur trade’s decline in the UK:

 

  1. In the 1980s all Debenhams stores used to have a luxury fur department and the British Fur Trade Association frequently used to take out full-page advertisements in national publications listing their retail members.  One of these in the Sunday Times Magazine (16 October 1983) listed 174 outlets. Today only a handful remain.

 

  1. The Hudson Bay Company had been running in London since 1668, gaining a Royal Charter and operating one of the fur trade’s main auction houses. All this came to an end as the appetite for fur in the UK diminished and the Hudson Bay site was demolished in 1987.

 

  1. The UK fur trade used to have its own monthly glossy magazine ‘Fur Review’ but it ceased publication in May 1989. Reflecting the demise of the trade in the UK the magazine shrank as the years passed with its final edition made up of just 34 pages. This contrasts with the April 1980 issue of 110 pages. One of the regular features of Fur Review was its ‘Recommended Stockists’ section. In 1980 there were 63 fur categories listed that could be supplied by 320 companies. By the last issue, only 24 categories appeared in what was now called ‘Market Place’ and these included Insurance, listing a mere 43 phone numbers.

 

  1. The ban on Fur farming in 2000 reflected the public’s growing rejection of the fur trade and, in particular, the way fur is produced. The fur trade argued that British fur farms were amongst the best in the world. Even if this was true, the conditions revealed in these places – described by the Countryside Alliance as ‘light industrial units’ – were terrible and contributed to the decision to ban them following a thorough consultation with all sides and a full consideration of the evidence, as can be seen in Hansard.

 

  1. By contrast, as the fur trade has declined, the number of retailers that have agreed to be ‘fur-free’ has increased markedly.  Respect for Animals oversees the global Fur Free Retailer program in the UK and the scheme currently has more than 80 UK retailers signed up. This list includes high street chains Next, Zara, John Lewis, M&S as well as fashion designers including Stella McCartney and, more recently, Gucci and Michael Kors.

 

  1. Official UK trade statistics show that in 2017 the net import of ‘furs: articles of apparel and clothing’ was £26.6 million. By way of comparison, in the same year, the net import of ‘Articles of apparel and clothing accessories along with surgical gloves, gloves and mittens of vulcanized rubber’ was £192.3 million – some seven times greater.

 

  1. It is clear that the fur trade in the UK is small and has diminished significantly in the past 30 years.                                                               

 

 

How effective is the current law with regards to animal fur, and does it go far enough?

 

  1. The UK ban on fur farming is a strong and successful piece of legislation, ensuring that the overwhelming moral objection by the British public to fur farming is protected. The UK ban has been and continues to be an inspiration for similar moves across Europe. There is real momentum now in many countries towards banning fur farming and Britain, whose ban was one of the very first, has seen its continental reputation enhanced as result of this.

 

  1. The leg-hold trap, or gin trap, has been banned in the UK since the 1950s, but the same type of traps are still commonly used in the USA, Canada and Russia and the fur from animals caught in them is still legally imported into the UK.

 

  1. A British initiative in the mid-1990s to ban the import of fur from animals caught in steel-jawed leghold traps was sadly withdrawn at the last minute under pressure from Canada. The failure of this extremely popular and logical initiative would be remedied by the UK banning the import and sale of all real fur products.

 

Insufficient labelling

 

  1. Under European Union regulations, there is a legal requirement for textile products containing fur to be labelled as containing animal products but not specifically as containing ‘fur’. Regulation (EU) No. 1007/2001 requires that products containing at least 80% textiles by weight and less than 20% animal products, such as fur or leather, must be labelled with the wording ‘contains non-textile parts of animal origin’.  

 

  1. Therefore, if the item contains more than 20% fur by weight, it is not even covered by this labelling requirement.

 

  1. This European textile labelling does not go far enough and is misleading for consumers, especially where a garment also contains leather or suede, for instance.

 

  1. Clearly this is not having an effect with regard to fur. There is now ample evidence that real fur is being miss-sold at UK retail outlets – both deliberately and in error. As well as major High Street retailers mentioned in recent media reports, real fur items are also frequently now found on sale at markets, often incorrectly labelled or with no label at all. One common item found on sale at these outlets is bobble/pompom hats.

 

  1. As an example, following reports from members of the public, Respect for Animals found identical hats sold at different market stalls in the centre of Nottingham for the same cheap price (£10): one with a fake fur bobble, one with a real fur bobble. The only label that both hats contained said ‘100% acrylic’. It became apparent that many customers had no idea that they were buying products from the cruel fur industry. In this case, Nottingham City Council has a policy which prohibits real fur being sold at its events and, having received our evidence, ensured the trader ceased its sale of the real fur items. 

 

  1. In this case it was only thanks to keen eyed and caring members of the public that this came to light and was dealt with. We have had similar reports of this type of miss-selling happening all over the country.

 

  1. We fear that real fur being sold as fake on markets is happening on a significant scale. For this reason, Respect for Animals has unveiled an official Fur Free Markets program, which many councils are interested in joining.

 

  1. But measures such as these, on their own, cannot resolve the issue.

 

  1. The fact is that imported real fur can be very cheap, much of it coming from China, where there is virtually no enforced animal welfare legislation.

 

 

Is the legislation sufficiently enforced?

 

  1. Clearly not but the main issue is the lack of legislation covering this specific issue. As an interim measure, clear, unambiguous labelling for real fur items is required followed swiftly by a ban on the import and sale of all real fur products.

 

  1. Respect for Animals and our supporters have regularly reported the miss-selling of real fur as fake to Trading Standards. The response has been inconsistent, with Trading Standards offices in many areas lacking the resources to take action.

 

 

What improvement, if any, can be made to the current labelling of fur products and fake fur products, and how could these be enforced?

 

  1. There is no specific requirement to label real fur products as fur.   All existing relevant legislation is confusing and inadequate.

 

  1. Under UK law, the Trade Descriptions Act makes it an offence for a trader to make false or misleading statements about goods or services. It is supposed to be enforced by Trading Standards Officers. The extent of real fur being sold while described as fake shows that the current system is not functioning in a way that protects the consumer. Public opinion is so consistently opposed to real fur that labelling of fur garments must be urgently reformed.

 

  1. The government response to calls for improved fur labelling is that:

 

27.1.1.  ‘As with other claims about the properties or origins of products there is consumer protection legislation in place. You may be aware of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (2008) (CPRs) which implement the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD). The express purpose of the UCPD (and therefore the CPRs) is to achieve a high level of consumer protection by prohibiting unfair commercial practices which harm consumers’ economic interests and product labelling is one form of commercial practice.’

 

  1. We are confident that most members of the public would not be ‘aware of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (2008)………’ but even if they were, the government says that ‘a failure to disclose that a product contains real fur is not one of the 31 practices banned outright.’ (by the CPR rules) and so such a failure has to be assessed on a case by case basis.

 

  1. It continues:

 

29.1.1.  ‘It would also of course be open to a consumer concerned about the issue, to ask the trader whether the product contained real fur; and if the reply was false or deceptive then this would be likely to be a misleading action in breach of the CPRs. The same would result from giving the impression that a product was not made of real fur when it was.’

 

  1. But what if the consumer is under the impression or has been told the item they are buying is made from fake fur? They would have no reason to question the trader.
  2. Respect for Animals believes that it is unreasonable and impractical for consumers to have to take recourse to unfair trading legislation to protect themselves against being duped into buying the products of the cruel fur trade.
  3. The onus cannot lie with individual consumers in this case.
  4. It is logical for specific and simple new legislation to be brought in which would stipulate an information requirement when real animal fur is included in any product. Manufacturers and retailers should be obliged to clearly label any item made with or that includes real fur, irrespective of the value of the article of clothing and percentage of fur contained therein.
  5. The label should be clear and unambiguous in a bold standardized typeface giving consumers the protection they deserve and provide them with concrete information to make informed decisions about purchasing fur products.
  6. The label should read ‘MADE USING REAL ANIMAL FUR’
  7. The UK currently has inadequate fur labelling requirements.
  8. It is also clear that Trading Standards officers are not able to adequately enforce such laws as there are that relate to the selling of fur.
  9. The case for banning the import and sale of real fur is therefore made even stronger.
  10. Opinion polls make clear that the British public oppose the fur industry and it should not be left to consumers to take measures to double check the fake fur they believe they are buying is not real.
  11. Such labelling to protect the consumer should be viewed as urgent but only as a temporary measure before the implementation of import bans on the import and sale of real fur.

 

 

What improvements should be made to the regulation of the fur industry?

 

  1. The killing of animals for their fur can be likened to commercial whaling. Both are inherently cruel and both provide products for which there are many alternatives. In the case of the fur trade, the products are also on the luxury and trivial end of the scale of consumer demand. The UK has supported bans on the killing of whales as well as commercial seal product imports. Banning the import and sale of real fur would be a consistent addition to our reasonable but much needed animal welfare legislation.

 

  1. The fur industry is represented by various trade bodies which can be compared to tobacco industry lobbyists or sponsored climate change deniers, both of which are narrow, self-interest groups whose aims are to defend certain practices and stave off legislation or regulation aimed at limiting their damaging activities and protecting the public.

 

  1. Recent initiatives such as Welfur – the fur industry’s latest scheme that tries to put a gloss on their cruel practices – can be seen in this context.

 

  1. The WelFur scheme is being promoted by the fur industry, despite being comprehensively debunked by the recent report by Respect for Animals: ‘The Case Against Factory Farming: A Scientific Review of Animal Welfare Standards and ‘WelFur’’.  Drawing on the best and most up to date science, the reports concludes: ‘WelFur is not able to address the major welfare issues for mink and foxes farmed for fur, nor the serious inadequacies in current labelling and regulation’.
  2. History shows that the legislation and regulations in place relevant to fur farming in Europe are simply not being applied (See Appendix for more information regarding this).

 

  1. Furthermore it is reasonable to assume  that there will be no improvements made in China with regard to its very large fur farming sector.

 

  1. It is incumbent on civilized societies to take action where they can to remedy issues of widespread, preventable animal cruelty.

 

  1. In this instance and to end a hypocrisy of allowing the sale of items, the production of which is banned, further attempts to regulate or improve regulations would be an inadequate response. Only a ban on the import and sale of real fur can resolve the issues involved.

 

 

 

What opportunities does Brexit offer to change current legislation?

 

  1. The possibility of Britain leaving the European Union and the single market, which enshrines the principle of free movement of goods, offers opportunities for the urgent need for a ban on the import of real fur.

 

  1. The World trade Organisation has set a precedent for such a ban. Following challenges by Norway and Canada, the WTO upheld the right of the EU to ban trade in commercial seal products on the grounds of public morality. The WTO panel explicitly noted that commercial seal hunts pose inherent dangers to animal welfare. In 2014, this was appeal by the same countries but once again the WTO upheld the EU’s right to ban trade in seal products.

 

 

APPENDIX

Fur farming in the EU contravenes existing welfare law:

 

  1. Directive 98/58/EC (the farm animal welfare directive), which applies to animals farmed for their fur, says:

 

Article 3

 

Member States shall make provision to ensure that the owners or keepers take all reasonable steps to ensure the welfare of animals under their care and to ensure that those animals are not caused any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury.

 

Article 4

 

Members States shall ensure that the conditions under which animals (other than fish, reptiles or amphibians) are bred or kept, having regard to their species and to their degree of development, adaptation and domestication, and to their physiological and ethological needs in accordance with established experience and scientific knowledge, comply with the provisions set out in the Annex.

 

  1. The Annex then has these provisions (amongst others of relevance):

 

7. The freedom of movement of an animal, having regard to its species and in accordance with established experience and scientific knowledge, must not be restricted in such a way as to cause it unnecessary suffering or injury.

Where an animal is continuously or regularly tethered or confined, it must be given the space appropriate to its physiological and ethological needs in accordance with established experience and scientific knowledge

…

 

21. No animal shall be kept for farming purposes unless it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of its genotype or phenotype, that it can be kept without detrimental effect on its health or welfare (emphasis added).

 

  1. The directive is based on the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes (the Convention), made by the Council of Europe. The Council has issued a Recommendation Concerning Fur Animals (the Recommendation). Article 1(4) says:

 

No animal shall be kept for its fur if:

a. the conditions of this Recommendation cannot be met, or if

b. the animal belongs to a species whose members, despite these conditions being met, cannot adapt to captivity without welfare problems (emphasis added)

 

  1. The Recommendation recognises in the preamble:

 

Considering that in the light of established experience and scientific knowledge about the biological needs of each of the various species of fur animals, including those satisfied by showing certain behaviours, systems of husbandry at present in commercial use often fail to meet all the needs the fulfilment of which is essential for the animals' welfare;

Bearing in mind that the environment and management have to fulfil the animal's biological needs rather than trying to "adapt" the animals to the environment (emphasis added)

 

  1. There is substantial scientific evidence to demonstrate that fur farming, as normally practised in the EU, cannot meet these and other provisions.

 

February 2018

1 | Page