Economic Decline and Ecological Impact: What Future for European Fur Farming?

Environmental impacts

The introduction of exotic, non-native species via farms, gardens or zoological collections, poses significant threats to biodiversity. Invasive species, intentionally or unintentionally released into the wild, can disrupt ecosystems, endangering native flora and fauna.

One well-documented example is the connection between feral American mink (Neogale vison) populations and fur farms, which has been associated with the decline of local European mink (Mustela lutreola), the endangerment of water voles (Arvicola terrestris) and nesting failure in various bird species. Other farmed species like nutria (Myocastor coypus) and muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus) have caused habitat destruction and damage to infrastructure, such as riverbed collapse and weakening of railroads and dams.

Environmental impact studies on fur farms reveal significant negative effects throughout the fur production cycle, processing and transportation. These include water depletion, marine and freshwater toxicology, eutrophication, terrestrial acidification, and particulate matter formation (Bijleveld et al., 2011). Animal feed contributes to over 80 per cent of the cycle’s ecotoxicology and eutrophication.

A life cycle assessment (LCA) of fur production identifies chicken offal and wheat-based feed as major contributors to pollution, accounting for approximately 50 per cent and 45 per cent, respectively, of water-source depletion. The same study also highlights that producing 1 kg of mink fur requires over 11 animals and approximately 563 kg of feed, more than 60 per cent of which is sourced from chicken offal. Additionally, fur production has a significant carbon footprint, with some studies suggesting that mink fur generates five times the carbon emissions of wool (Bijleveld et al., 2011). These environmental costs may be exacerbated by the outsourcing of fur processing to regions with potentially lower environmental regulatory standards.

In the context of the EU Green Deal, the European Commission has proposed new measures to reduce the environmental and climate footprint of the agricultural sector and improve animal welfare. These actions include financial incentives for circular agricultural practices. Several related strategies and funding schemes, such as the EU Farm to Fork Strategy and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), are well-suited to small, family-run enterprises. These programmes could provide viable opportunities for fur farm owners seeking to transition to more environmentally and economically sustainable practices in the future.

Disease and parasite spread

Fur farms, with their high-density animal populations, create ideal conditions for pathogen spillover. Farmed animals, acting as reservoirs for various pathogens, may transmit such pathogens to humans, either through direct contact or intermediary hosts such as cats, dogs and rats (Keen, 2022). This can also facilitate the spread of ectoparasites (11 species of fleas and lice) and endoparasites (32 species of nematodes and trematodes).

Farmed animals, particularly Neovale vison, are well-documented carriers and transmitters of various zoonotic diseases. These include Chlamydia abortus, Aleutian mink disease virus (AMDV), canine distemper virus (CDV), Mink enteritis virus (MEV), and human and animal influenza viruses with pandemic potential. These diseases can be highly infectious and sometimes challenging to treat, and there are historic records of hospitalisation of farm staff and nearby residents (EFSA, 2021; Keen, 2022). Despite the long existence of these diseases in Europe, the introduction of new fur species increases the number of vectors, elevating the risk and rate of spread.

The most striking example of this risk occurred in 2020 during the global Covid-19 pandemic. By the end of 2020, 214 cases of mink-to-human infection were recorded in Denmark alone. As a result, over 17 million animals were culled by Carbon Monoxide (CO) gassing and their carcasses burned or buried. As of January 2023, SARS-CoV-2 virus had been detected in 447 mink farms for fur production in nine countries in the EU/EEA, namely 290 farms in Denmark, 69 in the Netherlands, 25 in Greece, 19 in Spain, 17 in Lithuania, 13 in Sweden, 12 in Poland, 2 in Italy, and 1 in France (EFSA et al., 2021).

Biosafety measures, including human and animal testing, disinfection, personal protective equipment (PPE) use, and reduced personnel on-site, have been implemented in functioning farms. Yet, studies continue to highlight the risks associated with fur farming practices, including mink's hyper-susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection, spill-over and spill-back interactions between humans and farmed mink, escaped mink acting as reservoirs, and mink mutations evading human vaccines (Keen, 2022).

Zoonotic viral outbreaks are appearing at an increasing rate, with fewer years between outbreaks and a wider geographic spread (EFSA, 2021). This emphasises the need for primary prevention measures on fur farms, including regular viral surveillance through testing and quarantine, and wildlife trade adherence to international agreements and standards.

Economic trends

This section focuses on the economic trends related to heads, tails, paws and other suitable pieces or cuttings for furriery (henceforth referred to as raw furskins), excluding raw hides and skins of bovine, equine animals, sheep or lambs.

If we look at export and market trends, the European fur farming sector has traditionally been dominated by two main players: Denmark and Finland. Over the past decade, with few exceptions, European exporters of raw fur skins have seen declining export values (Figure 3). This decline is evident for both mink and fox fur skins, the two most common species in EU fur farms (authors’ calculations based on ITC Trade Map data).

European Fur farms often engage in activities beyond fur production, including the cultivation of agricultural crops, electricity generation and farm-related food services. On average, fur farms employ between 10–15 workers, with three to five directly involved in fur-related activities, while the remainder work in other operations (FiFur, 2022). Before the Covid-19 pandemic, European fur farms produced approximately 43 million furskins, accounting for about 50 per cent of global production (EFSA, 2021). In Finland, annual revenue from wholesale skin sales reached €10 million in 2021, with an additional €5 million from retail sales of fur clothing. To put this into context, the total export value of raw fur skins was estimated at €362 million, constituting only 0.5 per cent of Finland's total export value that year (FiFur, 2022). Similarly, despite Denmark being Europe's and the world's largest mink fur exporter, fur represents only a small fraction of its total annual exports of animal-related agricultural products (Figure 4).

Notably, the decline in European fur production has not resulted in a proportional increase in fur products exports from other countries. Trade data indicate a significant decrease in global fur product imports as well (Hansen, 2021). Between 2014 and 2023, the value of imported raw furskins continued to decline worldwide. The global import value of raw furskins in 2023 is estimated at €947 million, marking a drop of over 70 per cent from 2014, when it stood at approximately €3.268 billion (authors’ calculation based on ITC Trade Map data, 2025).

The fashion industry remains the primary consumer in the fur value chain, but over the past decade, demand for natural fur products has shifted significantly. Many high-profile fashion houses and high-street brands have discontinued the use of natural fur mainly due to buyer pressures and ethical concerns from animal welfare groups. Brands that have phased out natural fur include: Gruppo Giorgio Armani (since 2016), H&M (since 2016), North Face (since 2017), Gucci (since 2018), Prada (since 2020), Adidas (since 2021), Dolce & Gabbana (since 2022), Canada Goose (2021) and Max Mara Fashion Group (2024), among many others. Similarly, major high-street retailers and department stores have followed suit, responding to both regulatory pressures and evolving consumer sentiment. The outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 strains in mink farms exacerbated the decline, causing substantial economic losses and placing the industry in the global spotlight, sparking public debate and policy scrutiny. Additionally, Russia, historically one of the largest fur markets, has seen a drop in demand due to economic sanctions imposed in 2022 in response to the war in Ukraine. These restrictions have disrupted trade flows and reduced purchasing power, further constraining the market. The increasing number of fashion brands phasing out fur reflects a declining role for traditional fur products in fashion and a broader industry shift towards ethical and sustainable alternatives. A 2023 study commissioned by the European Commission explored public opinion on animal welfare across the EU. Findings indicate that 57 per cent of Europeans support a strict ban on fur farming, while 32 per cent believe fur farming should continue but with improved EU-wide welfare standards (EC, 2023).

Looking at more local economic impacts, specific studies on the effect of fur farming on nearby housing prices are limited. However, unpublished research in Poland has assessed its impact on property values and the housing market. Findings suggest that residential properties and agricultural land within 1 km of a fur farm experienced significant depreciation. Although the industry claims substantial community support, surveys indicate that neighbouring residents express dissatisfaction with fur farming, citing concerns such as unpleasant odours, increased insect populations and escaped animals (Marcinkowski and Urbański, 2018).

Public data on the costs of eradicating invasive species that have escaped from fur farms are scarce but suggest that efforts are often expensive and not always successful, even after decades of control attempts. For example, removing American mink from 1,000 km² of Hiiumaa Island, Estonia, cost an estimated €70,000–€100,000 over two years, while a similar campaign in the Scottish Outer Hebrides cost £1.65 million over five years. These costs stem from labour-intensive efforts, specialised equipment and ongoing monitoring to prevent reinvasion. For a comprehensive review of scientific literature on American mink management programmes worldwide (1992–2022), see Lopez et al. (2023).