“House of Fraser has a strict no fur policy and we ensure all of our suppliers and brand partners are aware of this," a spokesperson for House of Fraser told us this morning. "We would never knowingly mislead our customers, who we believe have the right to know what they purchasing. We are extremely concerned that fur can be mislabelled in this way, particularly for brands that we stock. Our customers want assurances that House of Fraser is not be complicit in such unnecessary suffering of animals and we take this issue very seriously and have communicated this to the brand in question."
The company also pointed out that "all products have been removed from sale and returned to the brand"; it "will offer a full refund on any purchases of this item previously made"; and it will be "launching a full brand partners and supplier engagement to ensure that they are reminded of our no fur policy".
While the brand has reacted quickly to the outcome of the investigation, the exposé of fur being sold through one of its concessions mirrors a similar case back in 2015, when it was revealed that another of its concessions, Silvian Heach, was selling a jacket with real fur trim. At the time, a statement from the brand said that it was notified "that the jacket in question was made of 100 per cent polyester and 100 nylon which we later understood was inaccurate".
In the most recent Sky News investigation, high-street store Missguided was also implicated. A pair of its pointed pumps sold were identified as "having pom-poms most consistent with rabbit fur" by fibres expert Phil Greaves. The brand, which also has a strict no-fur policy, removed the shoes after being informed of the investigation's findings. A spokesperson told Sky News: "We will be launching an internal investigation with the relevant suppliers and will ensure these matters are addressed urgently."
The revelation once again raises the larger question of transparency in the fashion chain, with increasing numbers of garments either not being labelled in the factories where they are being produced or worse labelled incorrectly.
"This is a problem in two ways," said Claire Bass, executive director of Humane Society International. "Firstly it's a problem for the animals who are suffering awful, deprived lives and excruciating deaths on fur farms and traps around the world to produce these products. And secondly, it's a problem for consumers, who are not being protected from unfair trading, who want to shop ethically and avoid the fur trade."
The company also pointed out that "all products have been removed from sale and returned to the brand"; it "will offer a full refund on any purchases of this item previously made"; and it will be "launching a full brand partners and supplier engagement to ensure that they are reminded of our no fur policy".
While the brand has reacted quickly to the outcome of the investigation, the exposé of fur being sold through one of its concessions mirrors a similar case back in 2015, when it was revealed that another of its concessions, Silvian Heach, was selling a jacket with real fur trim. At the time, a statement from the brand said that it was notified "that the jacket in question was made of 100 per cent polyester and 100 nylon which we later understood was inaccurate".
In the most recent Sky News investigation, high-street store Missguided was also implicated. A pair of its pointed pumps sold were identified as "having pom-poms most consistent with rabbit fur" by fibres expert Phil Greaves. The brand, which also has a strict no-fur policy, removed the shoes after being informed of the investigation's findings. A spokesperson told Sky News: "We will be launching an internal investigation with the relevant suppliers and will ensure these matters are addressed urgently."
The revelation once again raises the larger question of transparency in the fashion chain, with increasing numbers of garments either not being labelled in the factories where they are being produced or worse labelled incorrectly.
"This is a problem in two ways," said Claire Bass, executive director of Humane Society International. "Firstly it's a problem for the animals who are suffering awful, deprived lives and excruciating deaths on fur farms and traps around the world to produce these products. And secondly, it's a problem for consumers, who are not being protected from unfair trading, who want to shop ethically and avoid the fur trade."
No comments:
Post a Comment