Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 2010

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2480) to improve the accuracy of fur product labeling, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2480, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act.

I want to begin by thanking Representative Moran from Virginia for introducing this bill and Representatives Rush, Waxman, Whitfield, and Barton for moving this bill through the committee process.

H.R. 2480 is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that, with one exception, requires all articles of apparel containing fur to be labeled regardless of the cost of the garment. This legislation will make clear to consumers and retailers exactly which products contain fur and which do not.

During committee consideration, one exception was added to these requirements. An amendment by Mr. Latta was accepted by voice vote to exempt from the labeling requirements those fur products that are sold by hunters and trappers out of their homes or at fairs or at other temporary spaces. This exemption is extremely limited. It applies only to fur sold by the individual who actually hunted or trapped the animal when the sale of such furs is not the primary source of income for that individual. The bill also directs the Federal Trade Commission to update the Fur Products Name Guide, which has been criticized as inaccurate and outdated.

As indicated, this bill enjoys very broad support from Members on both sides of the aisle. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to, again, salute my colleagues for making this a bipartisan effort. I think there's a consensus of opinion that the more information that's available to the consumer, to the retailer, the better off we all are. I mean, in many respects that's the essence of a consumer protection initiative is to make sure that people who are purchasing these products actually have good information, truth in labeling at their fingertips.

I did want to salute the efforts of the Humane Society of the United States because they have been very responsible and persistent advocates on these issues over many, many, many years. As a result of those efforts, Americans have been learning more and more about some of the unsavory practices--it was just referred to by my colleague--when it comes to the sale of these fur products and how they're manufactured and what the source of the fur is. And, as a result, consumers want to know more, rightly. They justifiably want to understand more about where those products come from and be in a position to support the many businesses who are actually doing the right thing and are engaged in good, positive, best practices when it comes to marketing these products that contain fur.

And so I think that this bill that's been brought forward by my colleague, Mr. Moran, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act, is going to help to advance that goal. And again, I'm very pleased that it has the bipartisan support that was indicated.

I did want to cite some of the information that was gleaned through a few investigations that were initiated by The Humane Society. They discovered that there were dozens of designers and retailers--Mr. Whitfield has referred to this--that were selling some of these fur- trimmed jackets as faux or raccoon or coyote, or they weren't labeled at all. And you could find these in many of the retailers whose names you know. And they looked at 38 jackets. They subjected them to the spectrometry test which allows you to look and see exactly what the source of it is.

Many of them, as I say, that were identified as faux, of the 38 jackets that were looked at, every single garment was either unlabeled, contained a label that misidentified the animal, or was falsely advertised with this faux label. Three of the jackets advertised as fake fur, two of which had no label, were found to contain fur from domestic dogs. Now, this goes in contravention of legislation that's already on the books. But if you don't have that labeling imperative at work, then this kind of thing can slide through.

Designers, retailers, and consumers, as a result of this, get put in a position where they can't have confidence that what they're getting-- whether it's faux fur or real, and if real, from what animal--is something that they can count on, especially, I might add, when it is a source from China, based on some of the investigations that have been done. So that's why this legislation is so critical.

As a result of the very broad support it has, and based on its merits and the substance of it, I would urge my colleagues to support its passage today.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to Representative Sutton from Ohio, who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and sits on the subcommittee that had jurisdiction with respect to this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge the support of this bill from my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Truth in Fur Labeling Act, legislation I introduced along with Representative Mary Bono Mack.

The Fur Products Labeling Act of 1951 requires that animal fur garments be labeled with the name of the species used, manufacturer, country of origin, and other information.

That law protects consumers by providing product information and letting them know whether the product is made from real animal fur, and if so, what type of fur.

A provision in that labeling law, however, exempts products with a ``relatively small quantity or value'' of fur.

Since 1998, the Federal Trade Commission has set that amount at $150.

Many garments--such as jackets, sweaters, vests, and accessories-- that are only trimmed with animal fur fall below this $150 threshold.

And because that threshold includes only the cost of the fur, not the total cost of the garment, even products containing several pelts could fall below the limit.

Products without labels, which are estimated to account for 13 percent of the fur garment market, pose a significant problem for consumers.

Some consumers may be allergic to certain fur products. Absent a label, they may buy a product that they assume is faux fur, but turns out to contain real fur that can impact their health.

Also, many consumers have strong moral objections to purchasing real fur products or have concerns about the use of certain species.

Without labels, how are customers supposed to know what they are buying?

At its core, this is a consumers' rights bill.

And consumers have a right to be skeptical about the accuracy of the information they receive when buying products at retail outlets.

A series of recent investigations by The Humane Society of the United States revealed that dozens of designers and retailers were selling fur-trimmed jackets advertised as ``faux,'' ``raccoon,'' ``coyote,'' or not labeled at all, which turned out to be raccoon dog, domestic dog, or wolf.

The problem is complicated by the increasing use of dyeing and shearing on fur products.

If customers see pink, orange, blue, or sheared trim, they often assume it is synthetic because it is not labeled and does not resemble an animal's fur.

Quite simply, the current labeling law has not kept up with changes in the marketplace.

The only way to ensure consumers have all the information they deserve is by removing the $150 loophole and requiring labels on all fur products.

This bill has the support of designers and retailers such as Gucci, Burberry, Saks Fifth Avenue, Bloomingdale's, Macy's, and Tommy Hilfiger.

These companies recognize the need for clear and consistent standards as a way to ensure consumer confidence in the products they sell.

It is also supported by National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators (NACAA), an organization representing more than 160 government agencies and 50 corporate consumer offices.

This bill has been vetted thoroughly and modified at both the Subcommittee and Committee level to address valid concerns raised by the Members of the Minority, including the addition of language excluding from the labeling requirements small amounts of homemade products made by hunters and trappers.

Finally, it is important to note that this bill would in no way restrict any trade in fur or any methods of producing fur.

Again, this is about giving all consumers, whether they have a closet full of fur garments or wouldn't be caught dead in one, the complete information they need to make enlightened purchasing decisions.

This is a commonsense bill that deserves broad support, and I ask my colleagues to vote for its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 2480, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act, which improves the accuracy of labels on fur products sold in the United States. The bill would also require the Federal Trade Commission to review its Fur Products Name Guide, ensuring that document contains accurate and consistent species names. I support the Truth in Fur Labeling Act because American consumers deserve to know what, exactly, they are purchasing when they shop for fur garments, regardless of the price of those garments.

This legislation guarantees transparency so that shoppers can make informed decisions about the products they buy. This transparency is currently compromised by the ``fur

loophole'' in the Fur Products Labeling Act of 1951, which allows manufacturers of fur and faux-fur garments under $150.00 to sell these products without a label or with a label that fails to list all of the types of fur included in the product. In the market today, exporters use this loophole to deceptively sell products made from cat and dog fur as though they were made from faux fur or the fur of other animals, although it is illegal to import, export, sell or advertise domestic dog or cat fur in the U.S.

China exports about half of all the imported fur garments sold on the U.S. market. In Chinese factories, many domestic dogs and cats are brutally killed and sometimes even skinned alive for their fur. A Humane Society investigation found in the 1990s that the death toll of domestic dogs and cats in China reached 2 million animals every year; the same investigation revealed that some of the resulting dog fur was being sold in the U.S. After this scandal broke, Congress passed the Dog and Cat Protection Act of 2000, which banned the trade in dog and cat fur. Unfortunately, the ``fur loophole'' has created a way for dishonest exporters to continue profiting from sales of dog and cat fur to American consumers. Manufacturers also use the loophole to market real fur as faux fur, tricking Americans with humane shopping policies into supporting an industry they oppose.

Part of my objection to the current, deficient, language of the Fur Products Labeling Act lies in the fact that its loophole only applies to products of ``relatively small quantity or value.'' A garment of $150, the upper limit of that category, can contain multiple animal pelts. Clearly, new legislation is necessary to allow customers to be confident in the type of fur they are buying, regardless of how much money they spend.

I urge my colleagues to also support this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2480, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 2009. This bill will amend the Fur Products Labeling Act of 1951 to close the loophole that allows the sale of products containing a relatively small quantity of fur or fur that is valued at $150 or less.

The current loophole denies consumers the right to know what their garment is really

made of. It may say ``faux'' but this may not be accurate. Consumers who may have allergies to fur or ethical objections to fur cannot make informed purchases. Our constituents have the right to know what they are purchasing and wearing.

This bill was introduced in response to a series of investigations of fur products sold at major retailers across the country. This investigation found that a significant number of clothes designers and retailers were selling some fur-trimmed garments that were described as faux when actually they turned out to be real fur. This legislation is about transparency and providing consumers with accurate information on what they're buying.

This legislation simply requires that fur-trimmed garments meet the same labeling standard already in place for fur garments of a higher dollar value. It does not affect the trade in any animal fur or the methods used to produce animal fur. The legislation also asks the Federal Trade Commission to review the Fur Products Name Guide and ensure accuracy and consistency of species names.

I supported this legislation in the 110th Congress, and strongly support it today.

Mr. Speaker, I want to strongly add my support to H.R. 2480, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H.R. 2480, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act. This legislation is an important step for consumers and animals. It is also basic common sense. It removes a loophole that has kept consumers from knowing what they're buying and enforces a law that Congress passed ten years ago.

We all deserve to know what we're buying. However, the current fur labeling exemption is unclear and out of date, leaving consumers in the dark. Consumers often end up buying real fur that they are told is fake or domestic dog fur mislabeled as raccoon fur. If a product has less than $150 worth of fur on it, it doesn't even need to be labeled at all. That means that a $500 coat with $150 worth of fur on the collar and cuffs does not require a label. Based on approximate pelt prices after tanning and dressing, that coat could be made using the fur from 30 rabbits, three Arctic foxes, one otter or one timber wolf, without requiring any sort of label. That does not provide consumers with adequate protection and doesn't allow them to make informed decisions. The Truth in Fur Labeling Act will remedy the situation and give consumers the ability to make choices for themselves, rather than being kept in the dark or even deceived.

I am proud to support this legislation today, and am pleased to see the widespread support it has received from outside organizations, including such diverse groups as the Humane Society of the United States, Macy's and Saks Fifth Avenue. I hope that my colleagues will join me in protecting consumer rights and animal welfare.