After a long wait, the UK government has published two important documents on the fur trade: the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion on the responsible sourcing of fur and its summary of responses to the 2021 call for evidence on the fur market in Great Britain. Taken together, they add to the already strong case for ending the UK’s role in the fur trade.
The Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion is especially important because it raises serious concerns about whether fur can ever really be described as “responsibly sourced”. It points to significant welfare harms in fur farming systems, questions the strength of certification and traceability schemes, and highlights the difficulty of getting clear, reliable information about the origins of fur sold in the UK.
The opinion is also striking in what it says about consumer confidence. It makes clear that people cannot always tell whether a product contains real fur, faux fur or a mixture, and that there is a wider lack of sufficient traceability in the market. That should concern anyone who believes shoppers deserve honesty and transparency.
The Committee also raises doubts about the systems the fur trade often points to in its defence. It notes weaknesses in auditing and certification, including announced inspections and limited independent scrutiny. On China, an increasingly important source of imported fur, it says it was unable to obtain meaningful evidence about how the GOOD4FUR scheme operates in practice.
Respect for Animals submitted evidence to the Animal Welfare Committee during its work, and the opinion lists the organisation among those that gave evidence and assistance to the inquiry. Its references also include Respect for Animals material on fur farming, public health and the environmental cost of fur.
The appendices also show that the Committee heard from fur industry interests, including the British Fur Trade Association, members of the International Fur Federation, Fendi and LVMH. That makes the final opinion all the more striking. Freedom of Information requests submitted by Respect for Animals revealed that the committee also travelled to various European fur farms and the Kastoria fur fair in Greece.
Alongside this, the government’s own consultation summary shows just how little support there is for the fur trade among the wider public. It records overwhelming opposition among individuals and non-fur-trade organisations to animals being killed for fur, and strong opposition even where fur farming is presented as being subject to assurance schemes.
Importantly, the consultation summary also reflects a point campaigners have been making for many years: banning fur farming at home while continuing to allow fur imports is inconsistent. If fur farming is too cruel to permit in the UK, it is hard to justify continuing to sell the products of that same cruelty when it happens overseas.
These publications do not in themselves bring forward the action animals need. But they do add to a growing body of evidence showing that the fur trade is cruel, opaque and out of step with public values.
Mark Glover, Director of Respect for Animals, said:
“These findings expose a fur trade that is cruel, opaque and impossible to clean up with labels and assurances. The time for delay has passed. The UK banned fur farming because of animal welfare concerns. There is now an urgent need for the government to ban fur imports.”
The government banned fur farming because it was too cruel. That principle should not stop at the border. After years of delay, the case is stronger than ever: the UK should now act to ban fur imports and end its part in this trade for good.
