Consumers Outraged Over Real Fur at Asda Stores

Wal-Mart-owned Asda has added its latest entry into the company’s history of bizarre stories.  The grocer was recently forced by outraged consumers to recall pet toys made with real animal fur at 275 of its stores.  One of the toys was confirmed to have been made with rabbit’s fur, which infuriated animal rights protests, arguing that fur is acquired barbaric conditions.  The activists suspect that many of the toys could be made with dog or cat fur, since Asda asks few questions of its Chinese suppliers.  (Read: your cat could be chewing on its cousin’s skin.) They have also called on the government to mandate labeling so that consumers can be aware which fur is real and which is synthetic.  Asda’s manufacturer has called it a ‘slip-up,’ but this most recent business blunder surely leaves writers thinking “you can’t write stories this good.”

Read the full story below:

Outrage as supermarket giant sells real fur toy [Sunday Herald (U.K.)]

OUTRAGED CONSUMERS have forced supermarket giant Asda to remove pet toys made out of real fur from 275 of its stores. The consumer campaign has exposed how many items, which customers are buying on the high street in the belief that they are made from fake fur, are actually made from real fur.

Animal rights protesters noticed the Swipe’n’Sway toy, a cuddly mouse for cats to play with, in an Asda store in the Wirral near Liverpool and sent it for testing. It was found to be made from rabbit fur. Animal groups are warning that there is a chance that toys from other stores could be made from cat or dog fur because Chinese suppliers are not honest about what they are selling.

The toy found its way on to shelves after a slip-up by manufacturer, Hartz.

Asda has a strict non-fur policy and promised to remove the toys from all its stores, but Kathy Musker, the campaigner who found the toy, has called on the corporation to stop dealing with Hartz, which sells real fur toys elsewhere in the world.

“I am very pleased that Hartz is removing the product from sale and have pledged not to use fur in the UK,” Musker said. “I would be even more pleased if Asda would boycott the supplier as they obviously do deal in fur. For animals to be kept in deplorable conditions in China and to be killed in inhumane ways for such unnecessary items which could very easily be synthetic is very wrong.”

Fur from China is almost as cheap as fake fur, and is used in many products, such as the fluffy fringe of parka jackets. Unwitting consumers are so used to synthetic fur that they often do not realise what they are buying.

Most of the fur is taken from rabbits that are bred in barbaric Chinese factory farms and often skinned alive, but traders often sneak in cat and dog fur. The trade in the fur is about to be banned in the EU, so suppliers are eager to offload supplies while they can.

John Patrick from Glasgow-based animal rights group OneWorldScotland said: “This is a victory because it shows people are on the ball, making sure shops don’t start selling fur. Nowadays, the big problem is not huge fur coats, it’s the small scraps used in things like jackets. Also, a lot of the fur from China that is supposed to be from rabbit actually turns out to be dog and cat fur.”

Other animal groups warned that inadequate labelling means consumers are unable to work out whether they are buying real or synthetic fur.

Mark Glover, campaign manager at Respect for Animals, the group that tested the toy, said: “Consumers are being caught out and are buying fur by mistake. We have been pushing the government to act on labelling.”

Asda apologised and offered customers a refund. A spokeswoman said: “Asda has a strict no-fur policy across all its ranges. Hartz also has a clear and unwavering policy not to sell fur products in the UK. Hartz believed it had imported a non-fur toy for cats in accordance with this policy but, unfortunately, this was not the case. This was a genuine error for which Asda and Hartz fully apologise.”

Hartz admitted the mistake but did not wish to comment further.

Posted by Media Team on Monday, August 18, 2008

Click Here for a Printer-Friendly Version

COMMENTS

Note to Media Team:

If you’d run this story with a pic of cute, furry kittens instead of those hideous hairless monstrosities, you might have generated some comments.

There is more to life than “cheap underwear“. ~ The Peninsula Neighborhood Association

Ken V in Texas
Monday, August 25 at 11:21 AM

Ken: Or how about a split screen-with a “before and after”?  (Cute furry on left, hairless on right.) You could entitle the thread - “And Yet Another Way to Skin a Cat?”

ddrb in
Wednesday, August 27 at 09:00 AM

Commenting is not available in this content entry.

Comment Policy

WalmartWatch.com reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to remove or refuse to post blog comments.