.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Real Fur, Masquerading as Faux
The Stuart Weitzman ballet flats from
Neiman Marcus sported sweet faux fur pom-poms. The Alice and Olivia coat was
trimmed with a dark faux fur collar.
The problem was that the faux fur was, in fact,
real fur.
That’s right: it was faux faux fur.
In a forehead-slapping development, Neiman Marcus and two other
retailers, DrJays.com and Eminent, on Tuesday settled
federal claims that they had marketed real fur as fake fur. The supposedly fake
stuff was actually rabbit, raccoon and, possibly, dyed mink.
Animal protection groups applauded the settlement, reached with the Federal Trade Commission,
saying many retailers have been selling real fur disguised as fake fur.
On the face of it, the real-for-fake switch might not seem to make
business sense. But because many people are no longer buying real fur,
manufacturers and retailers are scrambling to meet growing demand for faux fur.
As a result, some products are being mislabeled.
“The lines between real and fake have gotten really blurry,” said Dan
Mathews, a senior vice president with People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals. “In this global marketplace, there are fur farms in China that raise
dogs for clothing that is labeled as fake fur here in the U.S. because that’s
what the market best responds to.”
Others chalk up the incorrect labeling to sloppy product descriptions.
Hymie Betesh, the founder and chief executive of DrJays.com, says his company sells about
50,000 styles of products each year on its Web site.
“There were a handful of instances where a word may have been omitted in
our product descriptions, and others where the word ‘fur’ was used to describe
the style of a product, not intending to describe fabric content,” Mr. Betesh
said in an e-mail.
Eminent, doing business as Revolve Clothing, according to the F.T.C.,
did not respond to an e-mail requesting a comment.
Under the F.T.C. settlement, which is preliminary and carries no
financial penalties, the retailers will be subject to significant fines if they
mislabel fur again in the next 20 years.
Mislabeling real fur — inexpensive rabbit as luxurious mink, say — is an
old game. But mislabeling real fur as fake fur is relatively new. The three
retailers were accused of violating a fur law that was enacted in the 1950s
and, at the time, was meant to prevent people from marketing furs like rabbit
under its English name, Coney, or selling muskrat as Hudson Seal.
The F.T.C. investigation was prompted by a petition filed last fall by
the Humane Society of the United States.
Each year since 2006, when the Humane Society received an anonymous
communication that a retailer was going to be advertising an animal fur product
as fake fur in a printed circular, the group has conducted investigations. It
scours Web sites and stores for mislabeled products. Suspected real-fur items
are sent to a lab for testing.
Last fall, the group found fur where it was not supposed to be in a
handful of products sold at 11 retailers, including the three in settlement
announced Tuesday, as well as Dillard’s and Barneys New York, according to a
complaint filed by the organization.
“We continue to find animal fur sold as faux fur every single season,”
said Pierre Grzybowski, the research and enforcement manager of the Fur-Free
campaign for the Humane Society.
Neiman Marcus is a frequent target of the group. In 2007, for instance,
the Human Society found a children’s Andrew Marc jacket whose label said it was
100 percent polyester.
Testing, however, identified fur from a raccoon dog, a member of the
Canid family, which includes dogs, wolves, foxes and coyotes.
A later investigation by the F.T.C. resulted in no action.
In 2008, when the Humane Society discovered raccoon dog fur
misidentified as fake fur on several coats sold at Neiman Marcus and other
national retailers, it sued the retailers. In 2010, Neiman Marcus paid a
$25,000 judgment after a District of Columbia court found that the retailer had
violated consumer protection laws.
That same year, a $1,895 St. John coat that was advertised as raccoon
fur on the Neiman Marcus Web site tested as being raccoon dog.
In an e-mailed statement, a spokeswoman for Neiman Marcus said the
company maintained a robust program to comply with all laws and regulations.
And under the F.T.C. agreement, Neiman Marcus “has committed to identify
correctly and promote accurately the fur and faux fur products offered in our
catalogs and on our Web sites,” the statement said.
Phrases:
- “On the face of it, the real-for-fake switch might not seem to make business sense. But because many people are no longer buying real fur, manufacturers and retailers are scrambling to meet growing demand for faux fur. As a result, some products are being mislabeled.”
- “Mislabeling real fur — inexpensive rabbit as luxurious mink, say — is an old game. But mislabeling real fur as fake fur is relatively new.”
Comentario:
El hecho de que los comerciantes digan que venden piel real como sintética
para satisfacer el mercado es simplemente escabroso. La gente que compra esos
productos los compra con la convicción de que están comprando un producto sintético,
que no daña o maltrata al medio ambiente, ya que esta es la nueva tendencia, y
afortunadamente ya se piensa un poco más en la naturaleza.
Pero estos comerciantes parece que no les importa la naturaleza, solamente
llenar sus bolsillos engañando a la gente, esperemos que se les pueda
judicializar o multar de manera efectiva, y no solo por medio de la protección al
consumidor, sino por el daño al medio ambiente y ojala se fortalezca la
justicia para este tipo de casos, ya que como se menciona en la lectura esta
modalidad de cambio entre piel sintética y real es relativamente nueva y no hay
maneras efectivas de controlarlas.
Fuente: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/business/faux-fur-case-settled-by-neiman-marcus-and-2-other-retailers.html?ref=business&_r=0
.jpg)
