The Range’s “Guide to Owning a Hamster” published on their website says ” Avoid cotton wool of ‘fluffy’ bedding, materials that can separate into thin strands, or non-specialist material, as these can harm your hamster.” But at the same time as providing this advice they sell their own brand of cotton wool bedding that they say is “Suitable for hamsters, gerbils, mice, and rats”.
Since 2021 HamsterWelfare.com has communicated with The Range regarding this bizarre issue. We have of course pointed out that major organisations such as The RSPCA, PDSA and Blue Cross all advise against the use of of cotton bedding for hamsters, for example RSPCA have said “Don’t give hamsters nesting materials that separate into thin strands, e.g. cotton wool or similar ‘fluffy’ bedding products. They pose a serious risk to their health and welfare, due to the possibility of entanglement or ingestion.” which is very similar to the advice that is published in The Range’s own hamster guide as can be seen on their website here.
The Range has over 200 stores in The UK and they have recently purchased The Wilko brand and also sell the same bedding online at Wilko.com. They are knowingly putting the lives of many hamsters at risk and it is bizarre that they won’t listen to the advice from their own hamster guide along with the advice from multiple animal welfare organisations.
In recent years many retailers have removed fluffy bedding from their shelves. For example, a similar discount retailer and close competitor to The Range, B&M with over 700 stores removed fluffy bedding. We hope that The Range will listen to the Animal Welfare advice from major organisations and their own care guide and once and for all do the right thing for their customers and their pets.
This product is sold to the public and it is therefore in the public interest for HamsterWelfare.com to publish our findings regarding our communications with The Legal Counsel at The Range.
The extracts below show our communications with regards to The Animal Welfare Act:
The Range Legal Counsel, said:
“I note your reference to the Animal Welfare Act. Please can you direct me to the specific section of the Act which imposes a responsibility on retailers to act as you suggest. As I have explained to you before, section 3 of the Act covers responsibility for animals. Section 3 provides that “a person who owns an animal shall always be regarded as being a person who is responsible for it”. The Act does not, as far as I can see, impose a responsibility on retailers (or their employees) for the safety of animals in the way you suggest. Again, if you think I am wrong on that, then please direct me to the specific section(s) of either this legislation, or any other legislation, or any case law you think is relevant.”
Response from Mark Diner HamsterWelfare.com:
“My Solicitor Edie Bowles has said:
Section 4 does not require a person to own or be responsible for an animal and that it applies if:
– an act or a failure to act causes an animal to suffer,
– they knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would cause suffering or be likely to
It is clear that The Range knows the risks of fluffy bedding, not least due to the RSPCA’s advice, but also due to what it has in its own handbook.
There is also a separate Animal Welfare Act requirement under section 9 to provide a suitable environment, this, along with section 4, will apply to The Range’s customers who are responsible for a hamster.
The Range also has a responsibility under SOGA (see para 10 and 11 in my letter dated 16 Feb 2021). I have re-attached this letter for your convenience.”
The Range Legal Counsel, Response:
“The explanation that I have previously provided to you is that we, as a responsible retailer, have a number of considerations which include our customers, the welfare of animals, and our legal responsibilities. The responsibility for animal welfare primarily rests with animal owners. We understand that position and do not presume to know the circumstances of every animal owner, nor every animal. We note the recommendations you have provided regarding paper bedding or shavings and it is our understanding that there are certain risks associated with this type of bedding as well. With all of that in mind, our position is to provide customers with the ability to decide what type of bedding they require individually whilst also alerting customers to the risks of wool-type bedding. We believe that it would be disproportionate and potentially unhelpful for us, as a non-specialist retailer, to attempt to dictate to customers what they should or should not buy for their own animals in their individual circumstances.
Mark, you may remember that I asked you to be specific in relation to your claims regarding the Animal Welfare Act and I have reviewed the letter dated 16 February 2021 which provides some specific references. What it doesn’t seem to address is causation. As I have explained previously (and above), primary responsibility for the welfare of animals lies with the person who owns the animal. We do not force owners to buy fluffy bedding (in fact, we warn them about the potential dangers of it). It is therefore up to owners to decide whether that type of bedding is suitable for their own animal. Yes, we accept there are risks associated with fluffy bedding but we also understand that there are risks with alternative bedding materials as well.
In relation to SOGA, we note that the cases you highlighted both concerned the provision of feed to animals, which is not the case here. I anticipate that you will argue that there is no material difference, which we will dispute. In any event, we do not believe that there is sufficient justification for any action under this legislation or the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Finally, our continued position is that we will not immediately stop selling the bedding which you oppose and we trust that you now understand our reasons. With that being said, we do hope that we have successfully conveyed to you that we appreciate your concerns and will keep our position under review.
To that end, we are considering the potential application of additional warning features for customers looking at fluffy bedding.
As always, we will keep this matter open and will review regularly.”
Response from Mark Diner HamsterWelfare.com:
“Thank you for your response. I am of course disappointed that you continue to sell your own brand of Wool Bedding for hamsters. There is always the element of trust that a customer has when purchasing a product from a major retailer and customers would widely expect a product that is sold at The Range to be fit for purpose for their pet.
You have said “our position is to provide customers with the ability to decide what type of bedding they require individually whilst also alerting customers to the risks of wool-type bedding”
Your warning against cotton wool for hamsters is hidden within your care guide on the web and I feel that it is unrealistic to expect your customers to also stumble across this warning when purchasing this item.
You have mentioned that “we are considering the potential application of additional warning features for customers looking at fluffy bedding”. Your warning on your website says ” Avoid cotton wool of ‘fluffy’ bedding, materials that can separate into thin strands, or non-specialist material, as these can harm your hamster.” It would of course be prudent to add this warning to the packaging of your “Small Animal Wool Bedding” so that customers make an informed decision “whilst” making a purchase.”
