Facts about Fur production in the EU
The present briefing is intended to provide MEPs with an overview of the key issues and problems associated with fur production from an animal welfare perspective.
(1) Fur farming
Each year, around 32.1 million animals in the European Union are kept and killed solely for the purposes of fur production. Mink, fox and raccoon dogs, the main species of animals reared in fur factory farms, are still essentially wild animals, which have been subject to little active selection for tameness and adaptability to captive environments. They are unsuitable to be kept for production purposes. These animals spend short and miserable lives in small wire cages, only to be gassed or electrocuted to death when their pelts are at their prime. The various animal welfare problems associated with fur farming are outlined below.
Limited active selection for adaptation to captivity
The main species reared on fur farms, namely mink and fox, are still essentially wild animals. They have undergone only a very limited domestication process. As the European Commission’s own Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare concluded in its 2001 report The Welfare of Animals kept for Fur Production: - “these species, in comparison with other farm animals, have been subjected to relatively little active selection, except with respect to fur characteristics. There has thus been only a limited amount of selection for tameness and adaptability to captive environments.”
Mink and fox are carnivores, predators and are highly inquisitive, active animals with complex social lives. Unlike most other types of farm animals, which tend to be flock or herd species, mink are solitary by nature. Mink and fox are both territorial and, inthe wild, go to great lengths to defend their territories. These animals are unsuited to farming conditions and especially intensive breeding and rearing.
Housing conditions and Council of Europe recommendations
Animals bred for fur production are typically housed in long rows of wire cages in open sided sheds and are fed with dollops of paste placed on the cage tops. Water is supplied by hose and nipple. Mink are provided with a nest box and sometimes also minimal cage enrichments, such as plastic tubes. A typical mink cage measures 70cm long by 40cmwide and 45cmhigh. The cage size is based more on the length of a person’s arm than the biological needs of the species. According to Council of Europe recommendations, the minimum space requirements for a single adult mink is 2550 cm2, whereas a single adult with kits requires 2550 cm2, up to 2 juveniles after weaning require 2550 cm2 with 850 cm2 added for each additional animal more than two. A cage for two Arctic fox typically measures 1.1m2. According to Council of Europe recommendations, the minimum space requirements for a single adultfox are 0.8 m2, whereas a single adult with cubs needs 2.0 m2. Juveniles after weaning have a minimum space requirement of 1.2 m2 with 0.5 m2 added for each additional juvenile more than two. The minimum cage height isset at 70 cm.
Abnormal behaviour
The conditions under which fur farmed animals are kept do not satisfy their behavioural needs. Their caged environment is monotonous and physical exercise is restricted. The animals are also unable to express their species-specific behaviours. Foxes, for example, are denied the opportunity to dig, while mink have no access to swimming water and can not avoid social contact. As a consequence, animals on fur farms have routinely been found to exhibit stereotyped behaviour (such as pacing along the cage wall, repetitive circling/nodding of the head, etc.), as well as self-mutilation (i.e. sucking or biting of the animal’s tail fur, or other parts of the pelts). Infanticide and cannibalism has also been reported. Although the fur industry claims to have reduced such abnormal behaviours through (minimal) cage enrichment, footage from recent investigations into fur farms in Denmark, Finland and the Czech Republic suggest that such abnormal behaviours and self-inflicted injuries are still prevalent on EU fur factory farms. Fearfulness is also awelfare problem for fur animals. A recent Norwegian study, for example, found that the majority ofmink and foxes displayed fear, rather than trust in response to tameness tests. Indeed research suggests that attempts to breed animals with less stereotypical behaviour can result in a higher promotion of fearful animals in low stereotyping mink. Finally, it should also be noted that fur animals that passively sit or lie in their cages are not necessarily calm or thriving. In ethological terms, a lack of normal behaviour can also be an indication of poor animal welfare.
Additional health and welfare problems
In addition to the identification of abnormal behaviours, recent investigations into Scandinavian fur farms also revealed a catalogue of serious health and welfare problems on the farms studied:
The farms investigated included ones that are owned by key figures within the fur farming industry.
In addition to the identification of abnormal behaviours, recent investigations into Scandinavian fur farms also revealed a catalogue of serious health and welfare problems on the farms studied:
- untreated, severe infections of animals’ eyes, noses and ears;
- gingival abnormalities, including masses entirely engulfing the teeth or severely irritated gingival;
- open wounds, gashes and injuries;
- loss oftails and/or limbs;
- malformed limbs
- cannibalism of dead siblings or offspring
- rotting corpses left in cages with living animals
- lame animals
- dilapidated cages with sharp wire and mesh protruding into animals’ living environment
- empty, unclean and/or broken water bowls
The farms investigated included ones that are owned by key figures within the fur farming industry.
Welfare of fur animals at the time of killing
The killing of animals on fur farms is carried out immediately after their first winter's moult when their fur is at its best and any defects have disappeared. Fur farmers claim that the animals must be well looked after or their fur would suffer, that is why they have to be killed as soon as they moult before it begins to deteriorate. Slaughter methods include gassing (often using vehicle exhaustfumes), electrocution (using electrodes clamped in the mouth and inserted in the rectum), a percussive blow to the head and, less commonly, lethal injection.
Use of gas for killing fur animals
Carbon dioxide at high concentration (i.e. more than 30% carbon dioxide), carbon monoxide (pure source) (gas mixture to contain more than 4% carbon monoxide) and carbon monoxide associated with other gases (i.e. allowing for the continuation of gas produced from engine exhaust) are all presently permitted methods for killing fur animals. It should be noted that mink, which are primarily killed by the gas method, are semi-aquatic and highly evolved physiologically to hold their breath. They are able to detect a lack of oxygen in their blood and are prone to hypoxia, which means that they can suffer significantly during gassing. Veterinarians have voiced concerns about the use of the following gasses:
Carbon dioxide at high concentration (i.e. more than 30% carbon dioxide), carbon monoxide (pure source) (gas mixture to contain more than 4% carbon monoxide) and carbon monoxide associated with other gases (i.e. allowing for the continuation of gas produced from engine exhaust) are all presently permitted methods for killing fur animals. It should be noted that mink, which are primarily killed by the gas method, are semi-aquatic and highly evolved physiologically to hold their breath. They are able to detect a lack of oxygen in their blood and are prone to hypoxia, which means that they can suffer significantly during gassing. Veterinarians have voiced concerns about the use of the following gasses:
- Carbon monoxide (CO): The use of CO has been deemed an unacceptable method for killing animals kept for their fur due to concerns about poor CO concentration reliability, the use of contaminated engine fumes, the animals’ detection of hypoxia and the long period to insensibility in animals killed using CO. There are also human health and safety concerns related to the use of CO.
- Carbon dioxide (CO2): The aversiveness of this gas and the practical difficulties in achieving reliable high concentration of gas in the killing chamber, make CO2 an unpalatable and unacceptable method for group killing of mink, fox or other animals kept for their fur.
Head-to-tail electrocution
Head-to-tail electrocution is the primary method used to kill foxes and raccoon dogs. Electrocution, however, requires considerable restraint, and use of electrodes inserted into orifices. If cardiac arrest is induced without first inducing unconsciousness, there is potential for severe pain and distress to the animal. Electrocution equipment also presents hazards to the operator. The electrocution of foxes has already been banned elsewhere, namely in New York State.
Head-to-tail electrocution is the primary method used to kill foxes and raccoon dogs. Electrocution, however, requires considerable restraint, and use of electrodes inserted into orifices. If cardiac arrest is induced without first inducing unconsciousness, there is potential for severe pain and distress to the animal. Electrocution equipment also presents hazards to the operator. The electrocution of foxes has already been banned elsewhere, namely in New York State.
Conclusions on the welfare of animals on fur farms
In its 2001 report, the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare concluded that ‘... husbandry systems cause serious problems for all species of animals reared for fur...’. It went on to recommend that both housing and management of mink and fox be ‘greatly improved’. No significant improvements have been made nor are they likely to be made. In view of the inherent but unnecessary cruelty involved in fur factory farming and the methods of slaughter used to kill these animals, the FFA and Eurogroup for Animals are totally opposed to these practices and calls for them to be banned.
In its 2001 report, the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare concluded that ‘... husbandry systems cause serious problems for all species of animals reared for fur...’. It went on to recommend that both housing and management of mink and fox be ‘greatly improved’. No significant improvements have been made nor are they likely to be made. In view of the inherent but unnecessary cruelty involved in fur factory farming and the methods of slaughter used to kill these animals, the FFA and Eurogroup for Animals are totally opposed to these practices and calls for them to be banned.
EU Member State bans on fur farming
The tide is turning against the practice of fur production within the European Union as concerns about animal welfare and the ethics of breeding animals for luxury products continue to grow. A number of Member States have examined the issues involved very carefully, taken extensive evidence, and have decided to act, believing that fur factory farming cannot be conducted in a humane way. Fur farming is already banned outright in Austria and the United Kingdom. It was also banned in Croatia from 2007 with a 10 year phase-out period for existing farms. In December 2012, the Netherlands, which is the EU’s second largest mink producer, passed a ban on fur farming and will phase-out mink production entirely by 2024. Slovenia also banned fur farming in March 2013 with a three year phase-out for existing producers. Proposed legislation to prohibit furfarming is also currently being considered in Belgium and Estonia. Fox and chinchilla fur production was already phased-out in the Netherlands following bans that were adopted during the mid-1990s. Likewise, Denmark introduced a ban on fox farming in 2009 with a phase-out period. Fox farming has also been eradicated in Sweden following the introduction of animal welfare requirements that foxes could only be kept in such a way that they can be active, dig and socialise with other foxes. This has effectively rendered fox farming economically unviable in Sweden. Germany also adopted new regulations for fur farming in 2009, which require increased cage space for animals. From 2016, the regulations will also require the provision of swimming water for mink and an area for foxes and raccoon dogs to be able to dig. These regulations will potentially lead to the closure of fur farms in Germany.
The tide is turning against the practice of fur production within the European Union as concerns about animal welfare and the ethics of breeding animals for luxury products continue to grow. A number of Member States have examined the issues involved very carefully, taken extensive evidence, and have decided to act, believing that fur factory farming cannot be conducted in a humane way. Fur farming is already banned outright in Austria and the United Kingdom. It was also banned in Croatia from 2007 with a 10 year phase-out period for existing farms. In December 2012, the Netherlands, which is the EU’s second largest mink producer, passed a ban on fur farming and will phase-out mink production entirely by 2024. Slovenia also banned fur farming in March 2013 with a three year phase-out for existing producers. Proposed legislation to prohibit furfarming is also currently being considered in Belgium and Estonia. Fox and chinchilla fur production was already phased-out in the Netherlands following bans that were adopted during the mid-1990s. Likewise, Denmark introduced a ban on fox farming in 2009 with a phase-out period. Fox farming has also been eradicated in Sweden following the introduction of animal welfare requirements that foxes could only be kept in such a way that they can be active, dig and socialise with other foxes. This has effectively rendered fox farming economically unviable in Sweden. Germany also adopted new regulations for fur farming in 2009, which require increased cage space for animals. From 2016, the regulations will also require the provision of swimming water for mink and an area for foxes and raccoon dogs to be able to dig. These regulations will potentially lead to the closure of fur farms in Germany.
(2) Trapping
In addition to the tens of millions of animals that are bred and killed on fur farms, the pelts of animals trapped in the wild are also imported to the EU to be sold by the fur trade. Indeed, millions of wild animals, including bobcats, coyotes, foxes, lynx, raccoons, and wolves, suffer and die in traps each year, mainly in the US, Canada and Russia. Traps, including steel-jaw leghold traps, body-gripping traps, and wire neck snares, are inhumane devices that inflict great pain and suffering. Some traps, such as the leghold trapare designed to hold their captives in a vice-like grip, rather than kill them. Others are designed to either strangle or crush their victims. Some animals will chew off their trapped limb to escape from leghold traps. Trappers refer to this as ‘ring-off’. Some may die from blood loss or shock and some animals will be trapped for long periods, even days,before the trapper returns to kill them. Guns are often avoided since bullets cost money and they may damage the animal's pelt. Instead, they are usually beaten or stamped to death. Examples of such horrific and routine cruelty inflicted by trappers have also been documented. As traps are indiscriminate, they are triggered by the first animal unfortunate enough to step into them. Endangered species can also be caught, as well as domestic pets. Stories of dogs and cats being caught are all too common. Trappers have a name for non-target animals: 'trash'.
Leghold trap Regulation
One of the most commonly used traps used to catch animals for their fur is the steel-jawed leghold trap-a device so cruel that its use has been banned throughout the European Union. In principle, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 prohibits the use of leghold traps in the Community and the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries that catch them by means of leghold traps or trapping methods, which do not meet international humane trapping standards. From the very outset, Canada and the United States, the primary exporters of wild animal fur, did everything in their power to scupper the Leghold trap Regulation. In 1997, the European Commission concluded an agreement with Russia and Canada and later a separate (non-binding) ‘agreed minute’, which severely weakened the original Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91. In essence, it removed all of the teeth from the Leghold trap Regulation and allowed trappers to continue to use leghold traps under a number of circumstances and the fur from these traps to be imported into the EU. In short, this ‘tripartite’ agreement focuses exclusively on the physical injury inflicted by traps and thus fails to adequately take into account the pain and stress, which animals suffer as a result of being ensnared in them. Moreover, it allows the use of certain padded leghold traps, despite the fact that these traps also cause great pain and stress for their victims; it also permits drowning as an acceptable killing method. The Agreement ignored all animal welfare recommendations made by scientific experts. Killing traps are, therefore, deemed to be ‘humane’ if the selected species listed in Annex I of the Regulation suffer a death struggle of up to 300 seconds (i.e. 5 minutes); experts had recommended a maximum limit of 30 seconds but this was ignored. The upshot is that fur from wild animals caught in inhumane traps continues to be placed on the EU market.
One of the most commonly used traps used to catch animals for their fur is the steel-jawed leghold trap-a device so cruel that its use has been banned throughout the European Union. In principle, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 prohibits the use of leghold traps in the Community and the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries that catch them by means of leghold traps or trapping methods, which do not meet international humane trapping standards. From the very outset, Canada and the United States, the primary exporters of wild animal fur, did everything in their power to scupper the Leghold trap Regulation. In 1997, the European Commission concluded an agreement with Russia and Canada and later a separate (non-binding) ‘agreed minute’, which severely weakened the original Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91. In essence, it removed all of the teeth from the Leghold trap Regulation and allowed trappers to continue to use leghold traps under a number of circumstances and the fur from these traps to be imported into the EU. In short, this ‘tripartite’ agreement focuses exclusively on the physical injury inflicted by traps and thus fails to adequately take into account the pain and stress, which animals suffer as a result of being ensnared in them. Moreover, it allows the use of certain padded leghold traps, despite the fact that these traps also cause great pain and stress for their victims; it also permits drowning as an acceptable killing method. The Agreement ignored all animal welfare recommendations made by scientific experts. Killing traps are, therefore, deemed to be ‘humane’ if the selected species listed in Annex I of the Regulation suffer a death struggle of up to 300 seconds (i.e. 5 minutes); experts had recommended a maximum limit of 30 seconds but this was ignored. The upshot is that fur from wild animals caught in inhumane traps continues to be placed on the EU market.
(3) Environmental and ecological impact of fur production
The fur industry is keen to promote itself as a ‘green’ and sustainable industry. Fur is often presented as a ‘natural’ product, but in reality –as will be outlined below -it requires a lot of processing, transporting and inputsbefore it can be made ready to wear. It should also be noted that fur is generally produced as a fashion item and -while it can be recycled by being turned into other garments –fashion trends are notoriously short-lived. There are no guarantees that fur products will continue to be worn into the next fashion season, or be recycled.
Chemical processing
Once an animal’s pelt has been removed, it will rotunless it is chemically treated. Chemicals,such as formaldehydeandchromium,are needed to prevent the animal skins from rotting. Since fur is part of a dead animal it needs protection from attack by natural decay agents including insects, bacteria and fungus. A cocktail of harmful and toxic substances are used to process and protect raw furskins. These include surfactants and fats, solvents, acids, tannins, biocides, fungicides, dyes and bleaches. Workers in the industry are at risk from acute and chronic effects ranging from skin complaints and eye irritation to cancer and even death. Risks to the environment include toxicity to aquatic organisms, as well as air pollution. Much of the fur processing industry has moved to developing countries, such as China, due to their lower environmental standards and cheap labour. A 2003 European Commission Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control study on Best Available Techniques for the Tanning of Hides and Skins recognizes the tanning industry as "a potentially pollution-intensive industry." Indeed, the Industrial Pollution Projection System rates the fur dressing & dyeing industry one of the five worst industries for toxic metal pollution to the land. Although much fur processing has been shifted to China, even the Chinese government is becoming concerned about the pollution caused by fur dyeing factories. In December 2007, one of the fur trade's publications, The Trapper & Predator Caller, reported that China was considering imposing a punitive tax on the fur dressing and tanning industries as part of an attempt to penalize "industries causing excessive pollution.
Once an animal’s pelt has been removed, it will rotunless it is chemically treated. Chemicals,such as formaldehydeandchromium,are needed to prevent the animal skins from rotting. Since fur is part of a dead animal it needs protection from attack by natural decay agents including insects, bacteria and fungus. A cocktail of harmful and toxic substances are used to process and protect raw furskins. These include surfactants and fats, solvents, acids, tannins, biocides, fungicides, dyes and bleaches. Workers in the industry are at risk from acute and chronic effects ranging from skin complaints and eye irritation to cancer and even death. Risks to the environment include toxicity to aquatic organisms, as well as air pollution. Much of the fur processing industry has moved to developing countries, such as China, due to their lower environmental standards and cheap labour. A 2003 European Commission Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control study on Best Available Techniques for the Tanning of Hides and Skins recognizes the tanning industry as "a potentially pollution-intensive industry." Indeed, the Industrial Pollution Projection System rates the fur dressing & dyeing industry one of the five worst industries for toxic metal pollution to the land. Although much fur processing has been shifted to China, even the Chinese government is becoming concerned about the pollution caused by fur dyeing factories. In December 2007, one of the fur trade's publications, The Trapper & Predator Caller, reported that China was considering imposing a punitive tax on the fur dressing and tanning industries as part of an attempt to penalize "industries causing excessive pollution.
Fur is not green
Far from being ‘natural, renewal resources’, real fur products consume more of our precious and irreplaceable energy resources than do those made from synthetic materials. It takes nearly three times more energy to produce a fur coat from trapped animals than to produce a synthetic fur, according to a study by GregoryH. Smith, a transportation research engineer at the University of Michigan. The claim that fur is a ‘green’ product has also been strongly contradicted by the findings of a recent study into the environmental impact of mink production. In 2011, Dutch researchers from CE Delft conducted a ‘life cycle assessment’ of fur production, which studied the production chain from the manufacture of mink feed through to the production of a kilo of fur for use in the fashion industry, looking at eighteen different environmental themes to be able to quantify the impact of the production process. In addition, the study compared the impact of mink fur with common textiles, such as cotton, acrylic, polyester and wool. This study found that compared with textiles, fur has a higher impact on 17 of the 18 environmental themes, including climate change, eutrophication and toxic emissions. In many cases fur was found to score markedly worse than textiles, with impacts a factor 2 to 28 higher, even when lower-bound values are taken for various links in the production chain. The exception is water depletion: on this impact cotton scores highest. Other factors making a sizeable contribution to the overall environmental impact of mink fur are emissions of N2O (Nitrous oxide) and NH3 (ammonia) from the mink manure. These emissions contribute mainly to acidificationand particulate matter formation. The climate change impactof 1 kg of mink fur is five times higher than that of the highest-scoring textile (wool). This is dueboth to the feed and to the N2O emissions from the mink manure.
Impact on biodiversity
The fur trade also has a significantimpact on biodiversity. Indeed, historically it has been responsible for the depletion and even extinction of various furred species including the sea mink. As noted above, trapping poses a major threat to wildlife populations. The traps used to catch wild animals are notoriously indiscriminate and can result in non-target species, some of which may be classified as endangered or threatened, being caught, injured or killed. Trapping can therefore put additional pressure on populations of animals that are already imperilled. As an example of the fur trade’s cavalier and irresponsible attitude towards the environment, all the big cats in the wild and many of their smaller cousins are now endangered and protected from further exploitation due, to a large part, to the excesses of the fur trade’s past excesses. In addition to this, fur farming has also been an important pathway for the introduction of invasive alien species. American mink, raccoon dogs, muskrats and coypu are all non-native species that were originally introduced to Europe deliberately for the purposes of fur farming and have now established themselves in the wild. Such invasive alien species pose a significant threat to biodiversity and are recognised as such under the Convention on Biological Diversity. These four species have been placed on the list of 100 worst invasive alien species in Europe (DAISIE database). A Danish study estimated that 80% of free-roaming mink were fur farm escapees. American mink, for example, have been implicated in the displacement of the European mink and European polecat through competition for resources. Through predation, the species has also had an impact on the breeding success of native birds and has also, particularly in the UK, been implicated in the decline of another species, the water vole. Invasive alien species can cause significant damage to the ecosystems and habitats to which they have been introduced. There are substantial economic costs associated with their removal from the environment or the reduction of their impact. Such invasive alien species can also serve as a reservoir for parasites or as a vector for other pathogens. The cost of invasive alien species in the EU has been estimated at least as 12billion Euros a year and damage costs are increasing. In view of the major impact of invasive alien species and with the EU’s commitment to halting the loss of biodiversity, in September 2013, the European Commission adopted a legislative proposal for an EU Regulation on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species. The Fur Free Alliance and Eurogroup for Animals advocate the inclusion of species, such as the American mink, raccoon dogs, muskrats and coypu, a future list of ‘species of EU concern’ and hopes that the ‘polluter pays principle’ will be applied where liability can be established for the intentional or negligent release of invasive alien species into the environment - Fur Free Alliance and Eurogroup for Animals.
The fur trade also has a significantimpact on biodiversity. Indeed, historically it has been responsible for the depletion and even extinction of various furred species including the sea mink. As noted above, trapping poses a major threat to wildlife populations. The traps used to catch wild animals are notoriously indiscriminate and can result in non-target species, some of which may be classified as endangered or threatened, being caught, injured or killed. Trapping can therefore put additional pressure on populations of animals that are already imperilled. As an example of the fur trade’s cavalier and irresponsible attitude towards the environment, all the big cats in the wild and many of their smaller cousins are now endangered and protected from further exploitation due, to a large part, to the excesses of the fur trade’s past excesses. In addition to this, fur farming has also been an important pathway for the introduction of invasive alien species. American mink, raccoon dogs, muskrats and coypu are all non-native species that were originally introduced to Europe deliberately for the purposes of fur farming and have now established themselves in the wild. Such invasive alien species pose a significant threat to biodiversity and are recognised as such under the Convention on Biological Diversity. These four species have been placed on the list of 100 worst invasive alien species in Europe (DAISIE database). A Danish study estimated that 80% of free-roaming mink were fur farm escapees. American mink, for example, have been implicated in the displacement of the European mink and European polecat through competition for resources. Through predation, the species has also had an impact on the breeding success of native birds and has also, particularly in the UK, been implicated in the decline of another species, the water vole. Invasive alien species can cause significant damage to the ecosystems and habitats to which they have been introduced. There are substantial economic costs associated with their removal from the environment or the reduction of their impact. Such invasive alien species can also serve as a reservoir for parasites or as a vector for other pathogens. The cost of invasive alien species in the EU has been estimated at least as 12billion Euros a year and damage costs are increasing. In view of the major impact of invasive alien species and with the EU’s commitment to halting the loss of biodiversity, in September 2013, the European Commission adopted a legislative proposal for an EU Regulation on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species. The Fur Free Alliance and Eurogroup for Animals advocate the inclusion of species, such as the American mink, raccoon dogs, muskrats and coypu, a future list of ‘species of EU concern’ and hopes that the ‘polluter pays principle’ will be applied where liability can be established for the intentional or negligent release of invasive alien species into the environment - Fur Free Alliance and Eurogroup for Animals.
