GLOBAL animal welfare body FOUR PAWS is focusing on consumer education through point-of-sale information and labelling in its ranking of wool garment brands on animal welfare and specifically mulesing.

The organisation now calls the surgical removal of excess skin around the breech and tail area of lambs ‘live lamb cutting’ rather than the more commonly used ‘mulesing’.

FOUR PAWS claims it investigated the efforts of more than 100 fashion brands in eleven countries on animal welfare and wool labelling for consumers to produce its Behind The Wool report.

It found 67 percent of brands fail to clearly disclose how they address live lamb cutting or mulesing in their sourcing policies, product labelling, or both, leaving the public in the dark about animal welfare standards.

Of the 100-plus brands included in the global investigation, 26 brands (25pc) undertook positive concrete actions after they were contacted by FOUR PAWS, eight brands including H&M, Jack Wolfskin and Marc O’Polo have strengthened their wool policies – by stating their exclusive use of certified non-mulesed or live lamb cut-free wool.

FOUR PAWS has now focused on US fashion label luxury-brand Michael Kors after ranking it lowest due to its unresponsiveness to questions, lack of transparency on wool sourcing and no commitment to mulesing-free certifications.

Point-of-sale consumer information is the issue

FOUR PAWS live lamb cutting campaign manager Rebecca Picallo Gil said it had identified lack of clear consumer information at the point-of-sale as the biggest issue.

She said the brands were ranked according to the clarity and strength of their publicly available wool sourcing policies, the transparency of their product labelling online and in-store, and the concrete steps they take to address live lamb cutting “which remains the most severe routine mutilation in the wool industry.”

“We based our assessment solely on publicly available data and shared preliminary findings with brands ahead of publication, offering guidance and time to improve.

“Top-performing brands source 100pc certified live lamb cut-free wool, verified through accredited, independent farm audits and full supply chain traceability.

“They clearly communicate this in their sourcing policies and display certifications at the product level, both online and in-store,” she said.

In contrast, the lowest-rated brands lack any public policy on lamb cutting and provide no product-level information to inform consumers.

“To safeguard lambs and consumer trust, FOUR PAWS urges brands to commit to using only live lamb cut-free wool, certified to the more robust standards with full traceability and product transparency.”

Ms Picalli Gil said the investigation looked beyond brand policies and included point-of-sale communication – “specifically wording or certification information on swing tags to highlight the live lamb cutting status of a garment, whether information was listed within individual product descriptions of the items online, or posters or other forms of communication within the physical store with regards to how the brand tackles the issue.”

“Often the moment when shoppers make decisions and trust is built or broken.

“International polls show that once people understand what live lamb cutting entails, 80pc want brands to phase it out,” she said.

“Encouragingly, 84pc of reviewed brands have a public policy opposing live lamb cutting, showing a strong consensus against this cruelty.

“However, we wanted to understand whether consumers can confidently exclude live lamb cutting based on the information brands provide.” Ms Picallo Gil said.

“While nearly two-thirds (65pc) of brands understand the importance of robust certification, only one-third (33pc) share these certifications at the point of sale.

“This is the biggest transparency gap we identified.”

Ms Picallo Gill said brands are being urged to share robust, internationally recognised certifications at the point of sale on hang tags and online product descriptions, to provide shoppers with real assurance.

“The release of the Behind the Wool report is therefore timely, as it highlights evolving textile regulations and offers practical advice to help brands make clear, verified statements about avoiding live lamb cutting. Guidance that is valuable beyond this specific issue.”

Ms Picallo Gil said mandatory labelling regulations, like those being considered by Nordic Swan, could help close the point of sale communications gap, offering consumers clarity and giving brands clear guidelines to follow.

Are Chinese wool garment brands next?

Defenders of mulesing in Australia often downplay its retail point-of-sale importance by highlighting the continued sale of the entire Australian clip and consumer ignorance of mulesing, including in China, the biggest buyer of Australian wool, whose industry has recently requested Australia produce more certified non-mulesed wool because of European market demand.

However, Ms Picallo Gil said FOUR PAWS is open to engaging with any interested Chinese owned brands, and has not ruled out including them in future ratings and analysis initiatives.

“FOUR PAWS engages with a range of European brands that source their garments from China and much of the current concern from China about mulesed wool is related to their supply chain into Europe.

“Having said that, China is definitely a changing market with a growing concern and interest in animal welfare issues that will undoubtedly impact consumer purchasing behaviour in the not too distant future,” she said.

“We also engage with Australian and US brands – of which we can confidently say most source from China – and the growth of commitments to move away from mulesed wool are truly felt globally.”

She directed Sheep Central to a 2010 survey  on ‘Chinese public attitudes towards, and knowledge of, animal welfare’ that found most participants were not aware of the meaning of animal welfare, but the number of those that were aware was higher than reported previously.

The survey found the welfare of wild animals was rated particularly important compared to other animals. The links between welfare and the taste and/or safety of food were considered to be important, and Chinese consumers reported a willingness to pay more for food from animals produced in good welfare conditions, although the quality of the food was considered more important than the animal suffering. Most survey respondents reported that there should be legislation protecting animals and certification of welfare on farms, that animals on farms should be provided with enjoyable experiences and that transportation times should be minimised and animals should be stunned before slaughter.

The researchers concluded that “animal welfare is of importance to the Chinese consumer, in particular because of its connection to food quality.”

FOUR PAWS said it doesn’t have concrete plans at this stage to focus specifically on the garment labelling of Chinese brand wool products, but the organisation is assessing the links between mulesed wool in global supply chains, including between Chinese manufactured wool products and their supply chain to European, US and Australian fashion brands.