The Humane Society has just released the results from another round of tests on fur-trimmed products from national U.S. retailers, and in four cases they found that the advertised “raccoon” fur was actually “raccoon dog,” a canine indigenous to Asia. This is one case where the FTC is squarely to blame for creating the problem in the first place, because in 1951 they decided that trade trumps scientific classification and declared “that this animal should be referred to as ‘Asiatic raccoon’ in advertising and labeling.”
If you are one of the many Americans who are opposed to real fur, the problem is obvious: you bought “faux fur” and received real. Or–if you are ok with some types of fur–you thought you were purchasing one species but instead took home a garment trimmed with fur from a species of dog.
But even if retailers and designers were to stop falsely advertising and labeling raccoon dog fur today, consumers would still be left with less than ideal information about what is really on the jacket they’re purchasing.
That’s because, despite “raccoon dog” being this animal’s common name (that is, the non-Latin name which is generally used), the Federal Trade Commission inexplicably decided in 1951 that this animal should be referred to as “Asiatic raccoon” in advertising and labeling under the Fur Products Labeling Act.
So how do you keep from buying a dog fur coat? Well, here’s the Humane Society’s list of companies that have claimed they do not sell real fur products.
“Investigation Results Find Raccoon Dog Most Misrepresented Fur Sold in America” [Humane Society] (Thanks to Pierre!)
(Photo: hokkey)
More From Consumerist
-
Neiman Marcus, Other Retailers, Settle Charges Of Selling Fake Fur That Contained Actual Fur
-
Company Realizes Selling Dog Treats Made Of Endangered Whales Maybe Isn’t Such A Great Idea
-
13-Year-Old Aspiring Hot Dog Vendor Shut Down By City, Sells Cart At A Profit
-
Home Depot Sells Consumer Reports A Used Chainsaw, Refuses To Take It Back Because It’s Used
-
FDA: We Can't Prove Chinese Jerky Killed Hundreds Of Dogs, But Maybe Avoid It Anyway
@22rifle:
Sure, they were originally very useful for clothing and fur, back when our ancestors had no other option. Nowadays we have so many alternatives to fur/leather that it is a luxury item. We don’t NEED that mink coat or leather bag. We don’t NEED a fur stole to keep us alive through a harsh winter.
In the modern world wearing fur is the equivalent of a big,fat middle finger to all other lifeforms that share our planet with us. I rank it up there with driving around in gas-guzzlers like the Hummer and not giving two shits about your carbon footprint.
@animeredith:
So may I assume you restrict all your material possessions to items you have a strict need for?
Why does your carbon footprint matter to begin with?
I don’t understand the correlation between wearing fur and other life forms. Can you explain that for me?
@22rifle:
This practice is well documented all over the internet. take five minutes and look it up. it’s called google. And you obviously misread my comment. I have no problem with the fur industry that practices humane standards. I have a SERIOUS problem with these fucking people. If I saw someone skinning animals alive like that, I’d have very little problem putting a bullet in their brain.
@22rifle:
I hear what you’re saying, but I really don’t agree with skinning animals just for the sake of fashion. So for me I’m mainly upset at the barbarianism (if that’s even a word lol!) BUT I don’t necessarily like the fur trade either. Unless of course someone HAS to kill for clothing.
To everyone saying that all species of animal are the same: If you are promised beaver and get fish….you would probably rescind your comments!
@satoru:
Or…you kill an animal quickly because you’re not a sadistic fuckoff….
@TechnoDestructo:
Tell that to Steve Irwin!