PETA Fires FTC Salvo at ‘Ethical’ Cashmere
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, better known as PETA, has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission to accuse the Sustainable Fibre Alliance (SFA) of “misleading” consumers with its Cashmere Standard certification, which claims to minimize the luxury fiber’s environmental impact, protect livelihoods and ensure high animal welfare standards.
But the animal rights organization said that the U.K. and Mongolia-based nonprofit, which lists brands such as Burberry, J.Crew and Madewell on its website, allows “many cruel industry-standard practices,” including the castration and slaughter of goats and the use of sharp metal combs for hair removal. PETA said that its complaint follows a recent exposé in Mongolia that revealed “rampant cruelty,” including by SFA-certified producers.
More from Sourcing Journal
“We take animal welfare very seriously, which is why it is a main pillar of our standard,” an SFA spokesperson said. A previous statement by the organization addressed PETA’s undercover footage of alleged SFA-certified producer sites, which it said “includes evidence of some practices that are in clear violation of our standard requirements.” An investigation is ongoing, it said, adding that any findings will inform appropriate actions, including stripping the certification from any producers in violation of its standard.
Burberry did not respond to a request for comment. While J.Crew Group, which owns J.Crew and Madewell declined to provide a statement, a 2022 ESG report from the company noted that its relationship with the SFA involves women’s empowerment in Mongolia, not sourcing—that would be the Good Cashmere Standard by the Aid by Trade Foundation. The regulatory body referred to more commonly as the FTC did not answer an email seeking comment.
PETA’s complaint cites animal welfare experts from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Australia, who have the employment of sharp metal combs “a prolonged procedure that can lead to bruising and skin injuries, and cause unnecessary and extended pain, suffering and distress in goats.”
The SFA’s standard, PETA said, doesn’t require pain relief for castration or injuries that occur during combing. Neither does it bar the slaughter of goats no longer desired for cashmere production, including kid goats. PETA also criticized the fact that the SFA recommends, rather than requires, the “humane” treatment of animals before slaughter, permitting, for instance, the blunt-force trauma to stun goats.
“If consumers knew how goats suffer as they’re pinned down while workers painfully tear out their hair and bash them over the head before they’re slaughtered, they’d never touch cashmere,” said Tracy Reiman, executive vice president at PETA. “PETA is urging the FTC to prevent the Sustainable Fibre Alliance from duping consumers with misleading labels.”
The SFA says that it remains “steadfast” in its mission to use the standard as a “tool for positive change” and that it will continuously strive to improve its standards and assurance process.
“We are convinced that the SFA cashmere standard provides us with one of the most effective mechanisms for incentivizing the large-scale adoption of welfare-friendly practices across Mongolia and China,” it added. “We are always grateful for any information that helps us identify and change bad behaviors within the cashmere industry.”
PETA has used the threat of regulatory action as a cudgel before. Last February, the organization sent a cease-and-desist letter to cashmere purveyor Naadam, demanding that it stop advertising its products as “cruelty-free.” The FTC Act, it wrote in its missive, ”prohibits unfair methods of competition, which includes false and misleading advertising” and Naadam’s claims that its cashmere products are “cruelty-free” and “without cruelty” “assert without qualification that the goats did not experience anything that a reasonable consumer would consider to be ‘cruel.’”
However, PETA added, “cruelty is inherent in cashmere production, including painful and distressing combing, castration without pain relief and violent slaughter.” The gambit worked. Naadam, which did not respond to a request for comment, dropped the verbiage from its website, even as it chose not to give up the goat—so to speak—as the welfare watchdog wanted.
“Removing false claims about the hair torn from goats’ skin is right to do, but Naadam must now stop selling goods that involve cruelty towards animals and switch to selling items made of luxurious animal-free materials instead,” Reiman said.
In 2022, PETA hailed Victoria’s Secret’s decision to join the likes of Asos, Columbia Sportswear, Johnston & Murphy, Icebreaker, Sorel, The North Face and Timberland in dropping cashmere, if not its less expensive and more commonly used counterpart, wool from sheep, which has dealt with its share of controversy. Most cashmere is produced by nomadic farmers in China and Mongolia, though additional herds roam the wilds of Afghanistan, Iran and Tibet as well. Overgrazing leading to desertification is a problem that standards like the SFA seek to alleviate through responsible rangeland management.
But cashmere isn’t the only target currently in the sights of PETA, whose motto includes the phrase, “Animals are not ours to wear.” Earlier this week, the group plastered the area surrounding the United Nations headquarters in Manhattan with messages denouncing another animal-derived material, one that it says conjures images of dictators like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un: leather.
“People who wear leather are more dangerous than you think,” proclaimed posters featuring the Russian and North Korean strongmen’s unsmiling visages. “Animal agriculture—which includes the leather trade—fuels the climate catastrophe and deforestation. We’re on the brink of irreversible environmental collapse.”
This year, the FTC is poised to release a new version of its Green Guides, with updated definitions for terms such as sustainability-linked terms like “recyclable” and “biodegradable” and advice for how companies can back up their environmental claims and prevent deceptive practices. It will have been more than 10 years since the guidance was last renewed, during which time such assertions have proliferated.