The mention of fur farming can evoke some pretty strong reactions from some people, but this industry largely flies under the radar most of the time. The industry itself is dying out in much of the world, as people turn away from raising animals solely for their coats, but large numbers of animals are still farmed in some countries.

Recently, the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE),  Federation of European Companion Animal Veterinary Associations (FECAVA) and World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) released a joint position statement on fur farming. It’s pretty straightforward, and consistent with various other statements, but further highlights concerns about fur farming and pressure from professional groups for countries to take action. The statement calls for:

• A legally-enacted complete phase-out of fur farming globally in the next decade.
• A phase-out of farmed animal fur and products containing such fur being placed on the market.
• A ban on importing farmed animal fur and products containing such fur from countries that have not phased it out.

The position statement supports its call for a ban on fur farming by highlighting the inability of confinement rearing to meet the complex behavioural and physiological needs of species commonly farmed for fur (e.g. species like mink and fox, which naturally range over wide areas and don’t live in large groups), health and welfare problems from common rearing conditions (e.g. wire-floored cages), concerns about euthanasia methods commonly used for these species, the impact of escaped non-native animals on local ecosystems and native species, and zoonotic disease risks.

Some people will point to arguments like “If we ban fur farming, then we should ban all animal farming,” for two different reasons. Some will say it because they want all animal farming stopped. Others will say it to argue that we shouldn’t restrict one type of farming if we aren’t going to restrict others, and to let consumers decide which industries should survive.  

Like most things, there’s a middle ground. The cost:benefit also comes into play, but it can be tough to calculate for multifaceted issues like this where the costs and benefits are not easy to quantify (especially animal welfare) and where a component of the “cost” involves the potential for future infectious disease outbreaks. The societal component is also part of the consideration.

• The societal benefit of fur farming is likely negligible. Yes, some people make a living from it, and some people like the products, but that’s a very small group. There are less than 100 known fur farms in Canada.  Given the small number, it could be more practical to fund transition plans for fur farms to close or move into other types of agricultural activities, if the main concern is those who rely on the industry for their livelihood.
• The societal risk from fur farming could be substantial (though it’s hard to predict) since some farmed species are potential reservoirs of a variety of infectious diseases, including some that can infect wildlife or even people. Mink, in particular, are good hosts for a few concerning viruses, like influenza and SARS-CoV-2. Mink farming was eliminated in some countries during the COVID-19 pandemic when it was recognized that mink were getting infected, and the farms had potential to act as viral reservoirs and increase the risk of viral mutations. While the odds a problem developing are really low, the implications if it happens could be really high. The position statement adds “Despite biosecurity measures, fur farms remain a persistent potential reservoir of zoonotic risk, requiring disproportionate disease surveillance, culling, and resource investments.”

So, we have little to no broader societal benefit but the potential for serious infectious disease risks, on top of the substantial animal health and welfare concerns when it comes to fur farming, which is why this statement ultimately calls for a ban. We’ll see if more veterinary associations follow suit with similar statements.