Fur farming

Many countries in the EU have already banned fur farming, such as Slovakia, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Croatia, Czech Republic, Austria, Belgium, although no action has yet been taken at the EU level in this regard²¹⁸. Recently, as SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, has been identified on multiple occasions in mink farms, the Netherlands, France, and Hungary, have also announced the end of fur farming due to public health concerns²¹⁹. The UK was the first country to ban fur farming, which happened in 2000, with the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act,²²⁰ applicable in England and Wales. In 2002, bans had already been introduced in all four nations, England, Wales, Northern Ireland²²¹, and Scotland²²². The House of Commons’ research for the bill stated that ‘there is solid evidence of shortcomings in the current standards of welfare and that some methods of killing fur-bearing animals are inhumane’²²³ The national bans were not aimed at banning the trade nor the wearing of fur, but the keeping and breeding of animals primarily or solely used for their fur. The main criticism of this industry tends to revolve around the

218 PETA, ‘A Guide to the Fur-Free Revolution: These Places Have Banned Fur’.

219 Four Paws, ‘COVID-19 in Fur Farms’, 10/02/2021.

220 Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, Chapter 33, An Act to prohibit the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur; to provide for the making of payments in respect of the related closure of certain businesses; and for connected purposes. 23rd November 2000.

221 The Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, No. 3151 (N.I. 5), 17 December 2002.

222 Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Act 2002, asp 10, An Act of the Scottish Parliament to prohibit the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur; to provide for the making of payments in respect of the related closure of certain businesses; and for connected purposes.

The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 6th March 2002 and received Royal Assent on 11th April 2002.

223 McGinness, 2000; 7 Nimon - Broom, ‘The Welfare of Farmed Mink and Foxes in relation to Housing and Management’, Cambridge University Animal Welfare Information Centre, 1997; House of Commons Library, Research Paper 00/04, the fur farming (prohibition) bill, Bill 6 of 1999-2000, p. 3.

ethical wrongness of keeping and slaughtering wild animals for a final product that is commercialized as a luxury good. Therefore, neither the main criticism nor the bans extend to the commercialization of by-products of food productions, such as rabbit skin and bovine leather.

The animals most present in the fur industry are the mink, foxes, and chinchillas, being the mink the most popular one²²⁴. Minks are essentially wild animals, which started being domesticated only in the 20^th century. This is notorious when observing that they immediately revert to their natural behaviour when they escape and how effortlessly they are capable of surviving in the wild when this happens²²⁵. This is a crucial argument when considering that these animals might simply be inherently unsuitable for farming. In this sense, the discussion hinge on how humanely possible is to keep a wild animal encaged while simultaneously ensuring its welfare. It might be the case that, as Eagle argued in the reasoning for the British ban, ‘if it is true that the mink is non-domesticated and cannot be kept humanely then the only welfare option is to prohibit the keeping of mink in cages’.

In this regard, it is important to draw a distinction between a legal ban on welfare grounds from a legal ban on ethical or moral grounds. The fur farming ban is normally grounded on welfare grounds, as in the case of the UK ban. If the minimum welfare of minks and foxes, as wild animals, could be assured in fur farms, the ban would probably not have occurred where it did. This distinction explains why welfare bans usually face less opposition than ethical or moral prohibitions. Whilst it might be argued that the law should not use criminal sanctions to impose one’s moral views and standards on the entire society, the welfare argumentation is perceived as more indisputable, as it is usually based on veterinarian science rather than on philosophical theories.

The scientific report carried out by the University of Cambridge Animal Welfare Information Centre pointed that one of the most recurrent effects of mink confinement was stereotypy, a phenomenon caused by boredom and desire to escape captivity²²⁶.

224 Ludwiczak, A., - Stanisz, M., 2019, p. 273-274.

225 Idem n. 220.

226 Ludwiczak, A., - Stanisz, M., 2019.

Stereotypy are repetitive behaviours, such as excessive twirling with no apparent goal, which is present in 70% of the animals kept captive and absent in the wild or in enriched environments, such as zoos, where the environment is better designed to the animals’

needs; i.e. with swimming water and available toys²²⁷. Other commonly noted behaviours among minks kept in poor welfare confinement and absent in the wild are self-mutilation and cannibalism²²⁸. After an analysis of the breeding programs used by fur farmers, the report concluded that the only behaviour trait successfully replicated was the breeding of more fearful minks, which does not equal the complete domestication of the animal. As mentioned before, the EU law-making on animal welfare is guided by the Five Freedoms, which offer the basic criteria that any animal rearing system must comply with, namely, freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury, and disease; freedom to express normal behaviour; and freedom from fear and distress²²⁹. Fur farming animals can certainly be kept free from hunger and thirst, and can debatably be free from discomfort, pain, injury, disease, fear, and distress. However, as wild animals, it is not debatable whether they can be free to express normal behaviour²³⁰. Besides, other arguments can draw the distinction between keeping and killing minks or foxes for their pelts and keeping and killing cattle for their meat and skins. First, fur is commercially perceived as a luxury item, while beef is regarded as a common foodstuff eaten by most of the population. Second, cattle have been domesticated for over a thousand years, whilst minks and foxes have been kept in captivity in Europe for less than a century²³¹. Finally, cattle are herbivores and as such, easily domesticated, while minks and foxes, as carnivorous animals, are not. Minks are solitary in the wild and protect their territories through aggression, like most carnivorous animals. This behaviour is noted when adult minks are confined together in small cages²³². Thereupon, due to the appointed welfare problems in keeping wild animals in captivity in such constrained spaces, in addition to the presence of behaviours such as cannibalism and stereotypy within rearing

227 Idem.

228 Idem.

229 European Commission official website, ‘Animal welfare’.

230 Idem n. 220.

231 Idem n. 220.

232 Nimon - Broom, 1997.

systems that are absent in enriched environments, fur farming is inherently incompatible with article 13 of TFEU and therefore, should be banned in the EU on animal welfare grounds.