|
Home
GET TO KNOW US
About Us
Members
Mission
GET INFORMED
Consumer Information
Press Releases
FFA Members
in the News
Facts about the
Fur Trade
Fur Bearing Animals
Legislation
Library
GET INVOLVED
Design Against Fur
Activist Corner
Campaigns
Fur Free Retailers
Spread the Message
Sign the Fur Free Pledge
Shop & Support
|
 |
Press release Mar 16, 2005
Advertising Standards Commission finds in Bont voor Dieren's favour
Dutch Fur Institute and Fur Breeders Association found guilty of misleading advertising
Amsterdam, 16th March 2005—The website proficiatslimbontje.nl (congratulations smart fur wearer) has turned out to be a lot less clever than its name suggests. The Dutch Advertising Standards Commission (RCC) has ruled that the fur industry's website offers misleading and incomplete information about the origins and animal-friendliness of fur. The fur industry’s claim that no dog and cat fur is sold in the Netherlands is untrue. The Dutch fur farmers also unjustly portray themselves as being the world leaders in the area of animal welfare. According to the Commission, the fur breeders have been unable to substantiate this claim. In its ruling, the RCC also reached the verdict that fur-bearing animals cannot be considered as being suitably adapted to life on fur farms. The website also creates the misleading impression that all farmed fur that is sold in the Netherlands is a product of Dutch fur farms, which is certainly not the case.
In January 2005, Bont voor Dieren submitted a complaint to the Commission about proficiatslimbontje.nl, the Dutch fur industry's new website, which advertises fur as a product. Bont voor Dieren considered the 'facts' about the origins of fur that were published on this website highly misleading. In its ruling, the Advertising Standards Commission found in Bont voor Dieren's favour with respect to this argument.
The makers of this website (the Dutch Fur Institute and Dutch Fur Breeders Association) attempted to sidestep the complaint by claiming that this site was not intended to encourage the sale of fur, but was instead aimed at people who had already made the choice to wear it. The RCC disagreed stating that 'the statement in question is an expression of advertising according to article 1 of the Dutch Advertising Code given that it not only attempts to remove possible objections to wearing fur, but also extols the virtues of fur'.
It is worth noting that once Bont voor Dieren made its complaint, the fur industry immediately attempted to amend the offending website. On the page about 'fur facts' it added that the information related to the ‘retail outlets that are affiliated to the Dutch Fur Institute’ only. According to its very own website, www.bontwijzer.nl, only four retailers are actually affiliated to this Institute, including their very own fur innovation centre. Given the extremely limited numbers of members, the Dutch Fur Institute is hardly in a position to provide reliable information about the fur that is sold in Dutch shops.
Bont voor Dieren is delighted with the Advertising Standards Authorities ruling and hope that the fur industry will take heed of the RCC's recommendations to never advertise fur in such a fashion again.
|
|
