PETA Takes Responsible Down Standard Complaint to Canada

Meghan Hall
·5 min read

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is back to crowing in regulators’ ears about Textile Exchange’s Responsible Down Standard (RDS) and Responsible Animal Fiber (RAF) certifications.

The Norfolk, VA-headquartered animal rights organizations has a track record of skirmishes with the Lamesa, Tex.-based textile industry nonprofit. In the latest salvo, PETA has filed a formal complaint to Canada’s federal Competition Bureau, written by Laura Shields, PETA’s director of corporate responsibility, which accuses Textile Exchange of misleading and deceiving consumers who purchase products because of the RDF and RAF standards.

More from Sourcing Journal

The feather foe’s complaint has three main claims: that Textile Exchange’s assertions don’t present a true picture of animal treatment because RDS and RAF standards “permit inhumane treatment of animals that the ordinary consumer would find cruel, unacceptable and irresponsible”; that RDS and RAF certification processes “do not ensure independent evaluation or strict enforcement of animal welfare standards” and that RDS certification doesn’t ensure source-to-product traceability.

The Aritzia antagonist submitted a similar complaint to the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in May.

In the complaint, PETA says Textile Exchange’s RDS standards don’t do enough to protect animals used to source down. Textile Exchange outlaws live-plucking, force-feeding and other harmful behaviors.

However, the letter insinuates that RDS-certified farms source irresponsibly and in a way that violates the RDS standards.

Part of the complaint hinges on a PETA investigation that it said showed the abuse of ducks on farms throughout Vietnam in 2022. The animal rights organization insists that slaughterhouses in violation of RDS standards “supplied to Nam Vu, a Vietnamese down purchaser and processor.”

Shields said consumers shouldn’t be duped into thinking the RDS prevents this kind of behavior.

“If consumers knew that ducks were stabbed and had their feet cut off while still conscious for ‘responsible’ down, they’d never buy these products,” Shields said in a statement. “PETA is urging the Competition Bureau to investigate Textile Exchange for its deceptive marketing scheme and prevent it from certifying materials with misleading labels.”

Upon release of the footage the exotic skin opponent claims it shot in Vietnam last year, Textile Exchange told Sourcing Journal it would investigate any potential issues.

The Textile Exchange spokesperson said that, after further analysis, the organization could not directly verify the claims the Ugg instigator made about the videos.

“None of the videos released as part of PETA’s ongoing campaign against the RDS have been inextricably linked to farm sites certified to our standard, though our certification bodies performed additional audits in the alleged regions. We do not have a clear confirmation about when and where the footage that claims to have been taken in Vietnam was captured. In addition, the Russian region that has also been outlined was not certified at the time the video was published,” a spokesperson for Textile Exchange told Sourcing Journal.

A PETA spokesperson said that the organization has confirmed that all footage circulated as part of that investigation was taken from Textile Exchange-certified operations.

Nam Vu Down & Feathers still boasts its RDS certification on its website.

Textile Exchange said it uses independent, third-party certification bodies to audit the necessary facilities. Part of PETA’s gripe comes from the fact that those auditors may give farms and facilities a heads up prior to their visit.

“When auditing does occur, it is announced ahead of time—giving farms ample time to present the most favorable view of operations, rather than the day-to-day reality,” the letter to the Canadian government reads.

Textile Exchange said that’s not always the case—and when it is, it’s because auditors want to make sure the correct personnel can attend the audit.

“[Audits] are not always preannounced—some are also semi-announced, which provide up to 72 hours’ notice, and others are unannounced with no warning,” the Textile Exchange spokesperson said. “Announced audits are common practice among voluntary standard certifications as auditors need to have the responsible staff present to interview, ensure correct personnel are available for document reviews, and that key supply chain processes are actually occurring for observation.”

PETA’s complaint also argues that RDS-certified companies don’t actually bear the burden of tracing materials “from farm to final product,” as the Textile Exchange website suggests.

Textile Exchange said its traceability criteria requires companies seeking certification to be certified to its Content Claim Standard requirements and to be linked to a verified transaction certificate, which can verify that “the product contains material from certified farms and that their identity has been maintained through the supply chain,” the spokesperson said.

The biodiversity advocate acknowledged that traceability doesn’t always yield perfect results.

“While certification to a standard is not a guarantee of specific practices, third-party verification through systems like ours reduces the risk that activities cause unnecessary harm and incentivizes improved practices. The presence of certification also creates an official capacity to investigate and resolve grievances and complaints.”

But PETA said in the complaint that, when asked to procure documents to prove they had no connection to reportedly problematic suppliers, RDS-certified companies like Gap Inc. and H&M Group either wouldn’t or couldn’t do so.

“Surely, if the traceability claims were true, these companies could easily show that they have no connection to noncompliant down sources,” wrote Shields in the letter.

Textile Exchange said it has not heard from PETA about the complaint it lodged.

“We have not been directly contacted by PETA regarding any of the claims or allegations relating to the RDS. We await the Canadian Competition Bureau assessment and will fully support the process wherever needed,” the spokesperson said.

In the letter, Shields requests that Canadian authorities require Textile Exchange to cease and desist marketing the RDF and RAF as “responsible,” to remove false or misleading statements and issue corrections to media where those statements had previously been disseminated, prevent Textile Exchange from making misleading statements in the future and more.

Textile Exchange said it understands the importance of animal welfare, but still stands by the fact that animal use should be appropriately monitored, not outlawed.

“We recognize the role of animal rights organizations in driving necessary change in our industry. However, while organizations such as PETA hold the position that animals being used for human purposes is unacceptable, we believe that animal-derived materials should only be used if and when measures can be taken to prevent unnecessary harm to animals,” the spokesperson said.