This content may contain affiliate links. Please see our disclosures for more information.
UPDATE: The Dog and Cat Fur Prohibition Enforcement Act, H.R. 891 DID NOT MAKE IT OUT OF IT’S HOUSE COMMITTEE AND WAS NOT BROUGHT UP FOR A VOTE ON THE HOUSE FLOOR
A story broke a few weeks ago about major retailers/designers like Tommy Hilfiger and Nordstrom, selling “faux fur” jackets really made out of dog fur (yes, fur from fido). Regardless of where you fall in the fur debate, this is a pretty disturbing story. Not to say that dogs are “more important animals” than say rabbits, cows, or minks (what is the plural of minks? Minx?), it’s just that when you purchase a mink coat, you KNOW you’re purchasing a mink coat and in this case it seems that several animal lovers may have purchased items that were made from dogs.
From the Associated Press:
The Humane Society of the United States said it purchased coats from reputable outlets, such as upscale Nordstrom, with designer labels—Andrew Marc, Tommy Hilfiger, for example and found them trimmed with fur from domestic dogs, even though the fur was advertised as fake.
In response to the public outcry regarding this issue, members of Congress recently drafted The Dog and Cat Fur Prohibition Enforcement Act, H.R. 891, which “aims to strengthen the current law and protect consumers and animals by outlawing the import of fur from raccoon dogs and requiring all garments trimmed with fur to be labeled, regardless of value.”
I can’t help wondering why a manufacturer would use dog fur in the first place? I would think that using animal fur is a much more difficult process (you have to catch the animal, prepare the hide, etc.). Isn’t cheaper to just use faux fur? As a bargain shopper, I’ve always suspected that something was fishy (or should I say doggie) with some of the faux fur items I’ve purchased.