Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 2009

Floor Speech

* Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. 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.

Source