Fur imported and sold in UK should be banned
Fur imported and sold in the UK should be banned, an MP has said.
While fur farming has been banned in Wales and England since 2000, many types of fur are still legally imported and sold.
Ruth Jones, Labour MP for Newport West and Islwyn, has introduced a Private Members' Bill to Parliament that would prohibit the import and sale of new fur products.
The British Fur Trade Association (BFTA) accused Jones of being the "wardrobe police", adding the ban would be "unenforceable and unworkable" and may breach trade agreements with the EU and the US.
How my challenge to stop buying new clothes has gone
Designer brings Welsh myths to London Fashion Week
Miners' strike designs help Welsh fashion find voice
Jones said: "Twenty years ago, a Labour government banned fur farming because it was cruel and inhumane.
"If we think it's cruel and inhumane to farm it, why are we importing it? It doesn't make sense."
The MP added: "Caged animals are kept in dreadful, inhumane conditions just to provide fur for a declining industry.
"Faux fur could do the job just as well."
Sonul Badiani-Hamment, UK director for animal welfare organisation Four Paws, recently presented a petition with one-and-a-half million signatures in support of a fur-free Britain, alongside other campaigners.
"There isn't any justification for the cruelty experienced by these animals on fur farms," she said.
"Country after country are leaving the market. Sweden recently committed to decommissioning the fur trade entirely."
The British Fashion Council attended one of the campaign group's events in Parliament to support the proposed bill, she said.
Ms Badiani-Hamment said she had noticed the fashion industry changing, adding there were "very few designers left in the country handling fur".
"It's just not desirable."
But Mel Kaplan, who works at Vintage Fur Garden in London, said demand for vintage fur was growing.
"We have queues going out the door in the winter," she said.
"Over the past three years, there's been a resurgence in the want for vintage fur.
"I think younger people especially are looking more to vintage clothing in general. I think fast fashion has taken a decline in popularity."
Furriers in the UK sell a variety of fur that has been imported from other countries.
The import or export of cat and dog fur, and products containing their fur, is banned. There is also a ban on selling cat and dog fur in the UK market.
The new bill calls for a ban on all new fur being imported or sold in the UK and would not apply to vintage items.
Ms Kaplan said all the coats and jackets in their store were from the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s.
The shop has a rigorous process when acquiring fur products to ensure that what they are selling is vintage, not new fur, she added.
Ms Kaplan also said vintage fur was sustainable, adding: "If it were to be discarded, it would go back into the earth, everything - all the fibres and the fur is natural.
"I don't support the making of new furs, I don't support the farming and I don't support the sale of it, but I can get behind a piece that was already made with the intention of being worn so it can carry on being worn."
In a statement, the BFTA warned that a ban could cost thousands of skilled British jobs.
"Standards in the fur sector are among the highest of any form of animal husbandry with rigorous and comprehensive animal welfare standards, third-party inspection and strict international and national laws," it said.
"Fur is popular as evidenced by the number of young people choosing to wear it who are rejecting oil-based fast fashions often made in sweatshop conditions.
"MPs like Ruth Jones should respect that others are happy to wear high-welfare fur, rather than acting like the wardrobe police."
The second reading of the bill is expected to take place in Parliament on 4 July.
Meanwhile, the UK government said it was building a "clear evidence base to inform future action", with an updated animal welfare strategy due to be published later this year.
French fashion giant to ban use of fur
Queen Camilla will buy no more real-fur items
Soaring cost of King's Guards' real fur bearskin caps revealed
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
SNP must follow Labour's plans after UK Government winter fuel U-turn, says MSP
Readers may be aware of the welcome news from the UK Labour Government on Winter Fuel Payments for older people this week. The move means that more than three quarters of pensioners in England and Wales will receive the payment this winter. Households with a pensioner under 80 years old will receive £200, while those with one over 80 will receive £300. But by restricting it to those with an income of, or below, £35,000 per year, the UK Labour Government is also making sure that rich millionaires who simply don't need the payment won't get it. Pensioners in England and Wales with incomes of, or below, £35,000 a year will receive winter fuel payments after a U-turn by the UK Government - and Neil Bibby says the Scottish Government will have no choice but to follow suit for older people north of the border. (Image: Newsquest) This is a response to the many concerns raised that the threshold for eligibility was too low. It's not often governments listen and make changes when they get things wrong, but it is refreshing, and I am glad they have. This news is fantastic for pensioners south of the border who were worried about heating their homes this winter. But it is also great news for pensioners in Scotland because the SNP Government will now have no choice but to follow suit. This decision will bring even more money to Scotland - so there is no excuse not to pass it on. READ MORE: Inverclyde councillors rubber-stamp £600,000 fuel help to more than 1,000 needy pensioners The SNP Government also needs to follow Labour's plan because, since the payment was devolved in Scotland, many lower- and middle-income Scottish pensioners are due to get less money than they would elsewhere in the UK. The SNP's current plans mean that Scottish pensioners who are not in receipt of specific benefits will only receive £100. Since the UK Government's initial announcement on the Winter Fuel Payment last year, Scottish Labour has continued to call for a Scottish solution to the issue. READ MORE: 12,500 households in Inverclyde set to lose up to £300 to help keep warm this winter Indeed, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar stated last November that he would reinstate the payment and extend the eligibility threshold if elected into government in 2026. The UK Labour government's expansion of the Winter Fuel Payment is a game-changer and good news for pensioners. The SNP Scottish Government should now follow suit without delay to ensure that pensioners in Scotland get the benefit.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
UK warns against all travel to Israel as it moves jets to Middle East
Britain has issued new advice to its citizens not to travel to Israel as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer refused to rule out the use of RAF Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The UK should protect its allies in the Gulf and Middle East – but Israel isn't one of them
For Britain, Israel is mostly a strategic liability – but it's also a very close ally in stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Now that Israel is locked in a war with Iran and Britain is rushing to send a handful of RAF jets to the region, that relationship needs careful management. The UK cannot afford to be seen as guilty by association in respect of Israel's campaign in Gaza, or to suffer reputational damage by offering Israel unnecessary help – there is plenty for the RAF to do aside from that. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has said that the aircraft may be used to defend the UK's allies – in other words, shoot down Iranian missiles heading towards Tel Aviv. Helping Israel to stop the erratic and malevolent Iranian regime from making an atomic bomb is smart. Being seen to do so, and protecting Israel against the consequences of its endeavours, is not. Iran has threatened to attack any US ally that defends Israel. The US has already helped to shoot down ballistic missiles fired by Tehran in retaliation for the ongoing, and widespread, Israeli attacks on Iran's air defences, missile systems, military leadership and nuclear programme. The US has a vast array of military assets very close to Iran, with air force and navy bases positioned across the Persian Gulf, in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Oman. These are all vulnerable to attack. Given the UK is a Nato member, joining in with the defence of these locations would be good politics, and could be considered part of its obligations to the alliance under the Article 5 mutual defence agreement. But Reeves was opaque about what the RAF's handful of aircraft, likely operating out of Akrotiri in Cyprus, would be doing. Asked whether the UK would come to Israel's aid if it were asked to, the chancellor told Sky News's Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: 'We have, in the past, supported Israel when there have been missiles coming in. I'm not going to comment on what might happen in the future, but so far we haven't been involved, and we're sending in assets both to protect ourselves and also potentially to support our allies.' Let's be very clear. Israel is prosecuting a campaign against the population of Gaza with the intent, according to Israeli cabinet ministers, to empty the territory of 2.5 million people. It is simultaneously campaigning on the West Bank, illegally taking land from Palestinians there, setting up colonies, and imposing a system of grand apartheid on the non-Jewish population. The UK has attracted widespread criticism for its reluctant and tardy criticism of these operations, and continues to operate a spy plane over Gaza while supplying small amounts of military equipment to Israel. This is a very bad look – a moral failure that could lead to blowback in the form of violence against the UK. In April last year, former head of MI6 Sir Alex Younger told a Commons committee: 'You cannot pretend that the international environment, our foreign policy or the way in which the West is perceived are not significant drivers of all of this.' This is obvious. It should be obvious, too, to the British government that the very limited military capacity the UK has will make no difference at all to the defence of Israel. Israeli forces were able to fly 200 planes in their first attacks on Iran this week. There's no way the UK can get that many into the air under any circumstances. According to Military Balance 2025, a report published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Israel has 240 fighter-bombers. The UK has 113. Israel has more attack helicopters (Apaches mostly) – 38 vs 31 – and the RAF has only nine aerial tankers compared with Israel's 14. Israel also has the kind of air-defence capability that the UK could only dream of; this includes the Iron Dome system, so effective against Hamas attacks. It also has the David's Sling system, which has a range of about 185 miles and, like the Iron Dome, can take down short- and medium-range missiles by smashing into them mid-flight. Meanwhile, its Arrow 2 defence system can hit incoming missiles 30 miles away at very high altitude, while Arrow 3 has a range of 1,500 miles and can shoot down missiles in space. The UK and US do have a very important listening station in Akrotiri, which is also a busy airfield for planes flying over Gaza and the whole of the Middle East. It is within range of Iranian missiles and would need defending by the UK's extra jets and other assets. Iran is likely to try to strangle oil traffic through the Gulf. The UK used to help patrol the region, but the Royal Navy has been steadily reducing its presence there. Meanwhile, Britain runs the UK Maritime Trade Operations service, which advises shipping in the Gulf and Red Sea about security threats. It has stepped up its warnings to shipping in the Gulf and has reported the jamming of navigation systems and ramming attacks by small, unknown vessels before Israel's sorties against Tehran. These operations are clearly ongoing rehearsals and training being carried out by Iranian forces. So, there is plenty for Britain to do without risking the reputational damage that could occur as a result of helping Israel with military aid that it hardly needs right now. It's geopolitical dirty linen.
