Scientific and economic evidence show there is no ethical or sustainable future for fur farming in Europe. A full ban is the only way forward.
The scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the welfare of animals kept for fur production was the missing piece that, I hope, will finally put a nail in the coffin of the already indefensible fur industry in the EU, whose economic relevance is laughable and that is increasingly considered unethical, unacceptable, and expendable, starting from European citizens.
EFSA has provided solid scientific evidence proving that fur farming, as practised today, is fundamentally incompatible with animal welfare.
The EFSA’s findings highlight a systemic failure in cage-based fur farming, concluding with very high certainty (90–100%) that restrictions on movement and the resulting welfare harms cannot be prevented or meaningfully mitigated under the current system.
Simply increasing cage size does not resolve core issues, as shown in the case of mink, where even tripling the space without enrichment fails to reduce abnormal behaviours.
Common enrichments such as platforms, ropes, or toys offer only marginal benefits and do not address fundamental welfare deficits. A similar position is also shared by the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe, reinforcing the case for urgent political action to ban such systems.
The fur industry costs Europe more than it contributes
In addition to the EFSA’s findings on animal welfare, a joint report by Eurogroup for Animals, FOUR PAWS, Humane Society International, and Fur Free Alliance provides a comprehensive economic and environmental analysis of the fur industry’s true cost to Europe.
EU fur farming has undergone a steep decline over the past decade, with the number of farms, pelts, sales value, and employment all declining by 73-92%, a trend that is expected to continue with ongoing national phase-outs, resulting in a further decline of 15–20% by 2028.
The sector has been unprofitable for years, with pelt prices consistently below production costs, generating negative gross value added, which essentially means the industry takes away from, rather than contributes to, the EU economy.
Annually, its tax contribution is minimal at €16.6 million, mainly from low-paid labour, while corporate tax contributions remain negligible. At the same time, national governments have allocated extensive public subsidies and compensation packages that far outweigh the industry’s tax revenues, such as the €3.2 billion paid to Danish mink farmers during the COVID-19 cull and €78 million to Finnish farmers for COVID-19 and avian influenza losses.
The environmental burden that the industry imposes also comes at a huge price. Every year, the farming of mink, fox, and raccoon dog fur inflicts around €143 million in environmental damage, mostly from air pollution caused by ammonia emissions that form fine particulate matter, linked to chronic respiratory disease.
If one had to add costs of other environmental damages, including acidification, climate impacts, water pollution and invasive alien species, the total environmental bill equals €226 million each year.
Fur farming leaves behind poisoned air, degraded ecosystems, and declining property values, proof that this is not a tradition worth preserving but an industry whose true costs are paid by people, animals, and the planet.
No one needs to be reminded of the grim link between fur farming and the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, a wake-up call to the public health risks posed by this industry. Reducing the risk of the next outbreak comes at a staggering price: an estimate of €211 million annually. Even with this, it still wouldn’t cover the costs of all potential pathogens, such as Salmonella and other foodborne pathogens.
In the end, the fur industry costs Europe more than it earns: once environmental and public health damages are counted, fur farming leaves a €446 million hole in the economy each year.
Proposing new regulations fails the test of proportionality
EFSA’s report states there is no tested, scalable design that meets the required welfare needs of the species kept for fur production in the EU. Without a proven design to implement, further research and development of new systems would require large public subsidies with uncertain welfare benefits.
Experience in several Member States has shown that, in general, this declining industry could not survive even with the adoption of stricter minimum standards, and investing in hypothetically improved systems clearly is not a responsible use of EU funds.
Momentum for change is accelerating, with 23 Member States already introducing bans or stricter measures, including 14 full prohibitions. The Fur Free Europe European Citizens’ Initiative collected over 1.5 million signatures opposing the production and import of farmed fur in the EU, reflecting strong civil society cohesion on this issue.
Experts stress that only a full ban on both fur farming and imports can prevent EU citizens from being exposed, on the European market, to products that may have been derived from animals bred and killed inhumanely on fur farms outside the EU. Other countries, from Israel to Switzerland, and parts of the United States, have already acted, showing that import bans are feasible and enforceable.
With the EFSA report showing the current systems are unfit for purpose and abundant evidence that this is a polluting, unprofitable, unethical and hazardous industry, the only responsible policy is a clear ban with a transition period.
Investing in research to make major upgrades to the existing cage systems would be neither proportionate nor cost-effective. Having slightly larger cages with a piece of bone or stick does not constitute a new system, but rather an attempt to preserve the status quo.
Continuing to support fur farming goes against EU principles on animal sentience, welfare, public health and public opinion. For the EU, prohibiting fur farming and trade is the only coherent, ethical, and forward-looking path.
