FUR OUT THE CLOSET:

Home » Posts tagged 'South Africa'

Tag Archives: South Africa

Advertisements

PETITION: take note Takealot.com

Petition link:

https://www.change.org/p/lauren-greve-for-fur-free-sa-take-note-takealot-com-stop-selling-real-fur

Background: 

Takealot.com claims to be “South Africa’s leading online store”.

Yet, despite huge public outrage this retailer sells items containing genuine fur. Their argument is that Takealot will not sell items derived from endangered animals.

PROTEST HELD OUTSIDE TAKEALOT OFFICES ~ September 2017

Well, in my opinion this is putting greed over compassion. Even though thousands of minks, foxes and so on, are not endangered, they suffer immensely on fur farms. 

Shame on Takealot for supporting this cruelty!

 

 

Advertisements

MISLABELLING OF FUR PRODUCTS: who is to blame?

The international fur trade operates on many levels.  Animal fur is no longer just used for luxury fashion garments. There is now a growing market where inexpensive items including jackets, accessories, trinkets, toys, hair bands, blankets, pens, pencil cases, jewelry etc. contain animal fur.  In some shops, these products are properly labelled as containing real fur. While this is distressing to people who abhor the cruel and senseless fur trade, it is legal to sell genuine fur in South Africa.

The problem arises when these types of goods are sold as synthetic, often by reputable retailers with a fur free policy. This happens when merchandise is labelled as fake/faux fur or not labelled at all. They are mostly imports from China – a country with inadequate animal protection laws. Products such as these can include dyed and sheared rabbit, dog and cat fur, which is cheaper to manufacture than synthetic fur. The anti-fur organisation, Fur Free SA (FFSA), which I head, continues to find numerous South African retailers that are mistakenly selling real fur as fake.

As a consequence, shoppers inadvertently buy items containing real fur. Compassionate consumers want to know that their purchases are made without cruelty to animals and are understandably outraged at being duped.  Stricter fur labelling laws in South Africa would help address this issue, but for now we can only turn to the Consumer Protection Act No.68 of 2008 (“CPA”) for guidelines. According to this act, retailers are prohibited from misleading the public through false descriptions of their products. 

Mislabelling does not generally happen in the luxury fur range, as it is fairly straight forward to source luxury fur garments. Eighty-five percent of the world’s fur comes from fur farms. Furriers buy pelts directly from auction houses supplied by these farms worldwide. Pelts, therefore, pass through several countries before reaching the final destination to be made up into fur garments to sell to customers. These luxury garments have labels indicating the type of animal fur, for example mink, fox, chinchilla and sable. Some garments have the ORIGIN ASSURED (OA™) label, which was launched by pro-fur organisations supposedly to guarantee that origin of the fur is from a country where there are adequate welfare regulations or standards. Of note, this does not exclude countries where the factory farming of animals for fur, which is inherently cruel, is condoned.

Unless it is a luxury-brand labelled fur garment, ready-made fur clothing sold in upmarket boutiques is generally sourced from international fur fairs. Here, fur dealers sell their merchandise directly to retailers who support the fur market. The World Society for the Protection of Animals argues that weak import and labelling law makes it difficult to identify from where fur originates. Consequently, furriers and fashion retailers sell fur items without knowing their source.  

In my opinion, though, people who buy fur fashion from these shops are ego-centric and don’t care about the prolonged suffering inflicted onto animals, or about environmental hazards arising in the process of fur production (See previous post @ http://bit.ly/2GklT7s).

The sourcing of inexpensive fur products is more complicated, as there are several players in the supply chain. The CPA defines a  ‘‘supply chain’’, as “with respect to any particular goods or services, means the collectivity of all suppliers who directly or indirectly contribute in turn to the ultimate supply of those goods or services to a consumer, whether as a producer, importer, distributor or retailer of goods, or as a service provider”.

One would think that ethical companies would carefully monitor their supply chains? Yet fur items are slipping through and the question arises as to who is responsible for this? Where retailers have mistakenly been found selling real fur products they have consistently told FFSA  that they too were misled, as it was the supplier who gave them wrong information. As already discussed, manufacturers of fur products cannot know the exact source of the fur unless they are killing and skinning the animals themselves. Investigations have shown this to be the case in China where often dogs and cats are rounded up and skinned for their fur. Suppliers then obtain finished products from the manufacturer, which are then distributed to various retailers.

FFSA has been told by small businesses that the owner sources the products directly from a supplier, by-passing a middle person. In some cases there are language difficulties perhaps accounting for the mislabelling of the stock. Here, the retailer should share some of the blame.  

Once FFSA has ascertained through basic or laboratory testing that a product contains animal fur, it is up to retailers to remove these items. Some retailers such as Solo Shoes, Perocili, Polly Potters toy shop and Kingsmead Shoes did not, however, withdraw their stock.  In their opinion the fur is “too cheap” and despite evidence to the contrary they believe the supplier who claims that the fur is synthetic. Other companies immediately removed the offending stock and some have apologised to the public for their mistake.

With bigger companies, accountability probably depends on the contract between them and a supplier. If their contract stipulates that a company only wants fur free products and the supplier defaults on this, then surely it is the fault of the supplier. Ideally companies should have the safeguards in place to keep real fur out of their supply chains, but is this really feasible with large retailers?

What companies can do, though, is if a supplier defaults on their side of the contract the retailer can never use that supplier again, and in this way ensure that unethical suppliers are weeded out of the system. Another safeguard could be at the shop floor level and to educate sales people how to tell the difference between real and fake fur. However, until that happens, it is still left up to consumers to be vigilant as to what they are purchasing and to complain when they are misled.

THIS TWEET STORM IS ON NOW ~ WFFF

Anti-fur tweet sheet:

https://sites.google.com/site/furnotethical/

rabty

 

Countdown to WFFF

Worldwide Fur Free Friday (WFFF) is a day when people across the globe unite against the fur trade.

Please join Fur Free SA with a tweet storm on Friday 25th November 2016.
This link will access the event for more details.

 https://www.facebook.com/events/1329099623787458/

A tweet sheet will be posted on Thursday. Watch this space.

Every tweet counts!

ANIMAL CRUELTY: Not seasonal

September 1st marks the beginning of spring in South Africa. Our senses are now fed by a burst of colour and scent.

Jasmine

The heady scent of Jasmine in my garden

Sadly, the abuse of other species is not seasonal.

We are approaching the time of the year when animals are “harvested” for their fur i.e. killed and skinned.

So even if fur garments are out of sight, please never let the suffering of fur animals be out of mind.
FB1

 

To mother’s of fur children

Momd

PETITION: FUR is OFFENSIVE NOT LUXURIOUS

If you haven’t yet. Please add your voice to this anti-fur petition:

http://chn.ge/1S15enC

In 2015, Sandton City Centre, Johannesburg, South Africa, opened a luxury section called “Diamond Walk”, where several shops sell items containing animal fur.

This petition is to inform the management of this shopping centre that animal fur fashion is no longer considered to be luxury.

Even if Sandton City management do nothing, it is important for compassionate people to speak out against the despicable fur industry.

Remember, West Hollywood and Australia banned the sale of real fur in shops due to public pressure.

MISLABELLING FUR: Not a mistake

Due to weak labelling laws, misinforming consumers about the contents of fur items has become a global problem.

Products containing animal fur can be labelled as synthetic or not labelled at all. Unsuspecting consumers buy these items assuming the fur on their garments is synthetic.

The Sun (UK) did an investigation including DNA testing on mislabelled fur goods. The results are shocking.

Below are some of the findings of the objects in this photo:

Mislabelling

Photo: The Sun (UK)

  • KIDS’ SHOES (top row, left)

Label details: None

Lab finding: Most consistent with chinchilla

  • BLACK COAT (top row, centre)

Label: 100 % polyester

Lab finding: Consistent with raccoon dog/fox

  • BLACK SHOES (top row, right)

Label: None

Lab findings: Most consistent with rabbit

  • BEIGE GLOVES (middle row, centre)

Label details: None

Lab findings: Fur most consistent with rabbit

  • POMPOM KEY RINGS (middle row, beige)

Label: None

Lab findings: Most consistent with rabbit

  • WHITE BAG (middle row, centre)

Label: None

Lab finding: Most consistent with rabbit

  • PURPLE CARDIGAN (middle row, right)

Label: None

Lab result: Most consistent with rabbit

  • RED HAT (bottom row, left)

Label: 100 per cent acrylic

Lab findings: Most consistent with raccoon dog

  • STRIPED NECK WARMER (bottom row, middle)

Label: Polyester, acrylic and cotton

Lab findings: Most consistent with rabbit

  • BOBBLE HAT (bottom row, middle)

Label: 100 per cent acrylic

Lab findings: Most consistent with fox

  • BLACK GLOVES (bottom row, right)

Label: None

Lab findings: Most consistent with rabbit

Read more @ http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/6816528/Animal-pelts-in-UK-High-Street-sold-as-fake-fur.html

If in doubt, please don’t buy.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF THE SEAL: Fact #4

More than 80,000 baby seals will be slaughtered in Namibia to make Fur Coats in China that Are SOLD OVER THE INTERNET! evil

#FeelFreeFriday ~ 71

This week has left me in its dust and the dust has not yet settled! 

As part of Fur Free South Africa I have been helping to organise an event for International Day of the Seal (March 15).

This is a day of global action to raise awareness about the brutal and senseless commercial slaughtering of seals. During these commercial seal hunts, tens of thousands of seal pups are killed for their soft skins, which are then sold to international fur markets.

Male seals are killed for their genitals, which are sold in Asia to customers who erroneously believe that these are an aphrodisiac.

The two well-known seal hunts happen in Canada and Namibia.

Fur Free SA is having and online event to protest against these hunts. If you are interested read more @ http://on.fb.me/1Q3fqgB

Feeling sick by looking at the horrific images of seals bludgeoned to death, I was pleased to find this feel-good story on  http://cuteoverload.com/

Argyro, is a Mediterranean monk seal.  It seems Argyo decided to take life easy on the beach at Samos Island in Greece. Out of the blue Argyro arrived and settled into a beach chair. According to cuteoverload, this chair “has now been sealed off just for her use” .

sealondeckchair

Dedicated to the millions of seals who are cruelly massacred every year for human greed!

 

%d bloggers like this: