THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC COST OF FUR FARMING

The environmental and economic cost of fur farming

By: Helene Kristiansen The fur industry has long been a topic of controversy. On one hand, animal welfare organizations, like PETA, have raised awareness of the miserable living conditions breeding animals endure. On the other hand, fur industry associations advocate that fur is a natural product that eventually will return to nature over time. In this article, I will present Denmark as one of the largest producers of mink skins, and how Covid-19 has affected the industry. Furthermore, I will present how there has been a shift in consumer values, and the environmental effects of fur farming.

Animals were originally hunted or trapped for food, and their pelts were rendered to provide protective clothing. As civilization developed, furs became less a necessity and more a luxury. The finer and more exotic furs were a symbol of wealth and status in the ancient societies of China, Greece, and Rome. Over the century’s furs remained a prized and commercially important commodity, and the trapping and trading of furs became a major business enterprise among early North American settlers. Today the fur industry is a profitable international market among major producers such as the United States, Canada, and the Scandinavian countries.

Denmark is the world’s largest producer of mink skins. Danish mink skins are the most expensive on the market because Danish farmers produce a higher quality of fur, which is in high demand by consumers. Kopenhagen fur, which is the largest fur auction house in the world, sells 19 million Danish mink skins and around 7 million mink skins from other countries annually. Mink skins account for about one-third of Danish exports to China and are the third-largest Danish agricultural export items of animal origin, representing an annual export value of approximately EUR1.1 billion. Statistics show that in 2019, there were almost 800 mink farms in Denmark, and that the value of the production was just over 2.5 billion DKK. This was created based on 2.5 million adult minks, each giving 5-6 puppies who were being turned into skins. Historically there have been fluctuations in the business cycle for the mink industry. In 2012, the value of production reached almost 10 billion DKK, but in recent years it has gone down to a production value of 2.5 billion. This is due to an imbalance between supply and demand that comes from fur houses in China.

The Danish mink scandal

During a press conference on November 4th, 2020, the Danish Prime Minister announced that all the Danish minks on fur farms should be killed due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) as the virus had mutated among the minks and had spread to humans. The Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, justified the decision with the fact that the mutated virus had been shown to react slowly to antibodies, and this would jeopardize future vaccines. The mutation of coronavirus (COVID-19) had been found on five different mink farms and had since been detected in 214 people among 5102 samples that had been collected between June and October in 2020. Out of the 214, these mink variants have been found in 200 people in North Jutland. Following the government’s decision, the Armed Forces, the Danish Emergency Management Agency, and the Home Guard were deployed to help euthanize 17 million minks, both those who were infected with the virus and those who were healthy. A lot of mink breeders during this time were losing their life’s work, some of which had been passed down by generations, therefore the Danish government promised to aid and compensate the affected mink breeders. While killing the country’s minks was done to secure the wellbeing of Danish society against Covid-19, it has had many serious repercussions, not only for the Danish mink breeding industry but also for the Danish economy.

Following the government’s decision, the Armed Forces, the Danish Emergency Management Agency, and the Home Guard were deployed to help euthanize 17 million minks, both those who were infected with the virus and those who were healthy.

Mink Fur

Photo by Marjan Blan, Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3FKYSsI

Henning Otte Hansen, who is a senior adviser and researcher at the Department of Food and Resource Economics at the University of Copenhagen, argues that it will cost the Danish economy almost 10 billion DKK to kill all of the country’s minks. This includes lost investments, lost earnings, and lost employment. By killing all of the minks, it has closed an entire industry. The former Minister of Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries, Mogens Jensen (S), stated in late October 2020 in a parliamentary response that the killing of all the country’s mink will cost the state between 2.3 and 2.8 billion DKK in compensation to the mink breeders. In addition to this, all mink farms must be cleaned and disinfected, which will cost an additional 2.4 billion DKK. Thus, the state’s bill for euthanizing all the mink will run up to about five billion DKK.

Some countries and fashion houses ban fur farming

The first countries to ban fur farming were the United Kingdom in 2000, and Austria in 2005. In December 2012, the Netherlands, which once was the EU’s second-largest mink producer, passed a ban on fur farming that would phase out mink fur production entirely by 2024. Following coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreaks on Dutch mink fur farms, the government declared an early shutdown of the industry in 2020. The French government also declared a ban on fur farming in September 2020, with a 5-year phase-out period. Along with multiple other countries banning fur farming, some luxury brands and retailers have also renounced fur in their collections and stores. These include Prada, Philip Lim, Farfetch, and Macy’s who in 2019 joined other companies such as Chanel, Burberry, and Yoox Net-a-Porter Group, in removing real animal fur from production and sales floors. Despite the changing opinion on fur in the fashion industry, industry associations in 2019 did not believe that fur bans or changes in public opinion would affect fur sales.

Following coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreaks on Dutch mink fur farms, the government declared an early shutdown of the industry in 2020.

Aesthetically, fur has not fallen out of fashion, so brands are providing consumers with alternatives to animal products with options like faux fur and vegan leather. But as the faux fur industry grew, the fur industry was actively promoting their products as a naturally sustainable choice, in hopes of making the consumer believe that alternative furs were not the responsible option. The fur industry ar-

7 of 42

gues that fur is biodegradable and that the absence of harsh chemicals in its processing is a testament to its sustainability.

The battle between faux fur and real fur

The battle between the two organizations, the one who advocates for fur and those who are advising consumers to wear fake fur instead, took a turn in the early 2000s when the fur industry turned the pollution argument on its head and attempted to smear faux fur as the unethical choice. In 2004, Teresa Platt, the executive director of America’s Fur Commission, revealed “...that one gallon of oil was needed to make three faux fur jackets.” Faux fur is usually made from nylon and polyester, which takes hundreds of years to biodegrade and produce pollutants on an industrial scale. Yet, a study conducted by the University of Michigan in 1979, found that despite the environmental cost of faux fur, it still takes 20 times more energy to produce a farmed-fur coat.

Environmental cost of fur farming

According to PETA, 85% of the fur industry’s skins come from animals on fur factory farms. These farms can house thousands of animals, and as with other factory farms, they are designed to maximize profits. Each mink skinned by fur farmers produces about 40 pounds of feces in its lifetime. That adds up to millions of pounds of feces produced annually by US mink farms alone.

Each mink skinned by fur farmers produces about 40 pounds of feces in its lifetime.

When a Washington state mink farm was charged with polluting a nearby creek, the fecal coliform levels measured in the water were as much as 240 times more than the legal limit. Similarly, in Nova Scotia lakes and rivers have been polluted by excess nutrients and phosphorus. In 2014, there were 150 mink farms in Nova Scotia and the industry generated $140 million in 2013, with most of the pelts going to Russia, China, and South Korea. At the time there were few regulations as mink farms expanded in Nova Scotia, and manure, extra feed, and carcasses were thrown into the wetlands, while run-off from farms leaked into the Carleton, Meteghan, and Sissiboo River watersheds. Water quality surveys carried out between 2008 and 2012 showed lakes within the watersheds to be seriously degraded by high nutrient over-enrichment resulting in the development of high algal concentrations. A report from Nova Scotia Environment by Michael Brylinsky of Acadia University, identified mink farms as the likely culprits, as almost all the farms were near headwaters and tests showed that at least 10 lakes and 75 kilometers of the Tusket River had been affected by the pollution, making it hazardous to swim in the water. In 1991, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined six fur processing plants $2.2 million for the pollution they caused, citing them for hazardous waste violations, and stating that the solvents used in fur operations may cause respiratory problems and are listed as possible carcinogens.

The health risks of fur farming

According to the CEO of the International Fur Trade Federation (IFTF), former Liberal Democrat MP Mark Oaten, “...fur is a natural product because it comes from an animal and it is something which can last for many decades,” as he describes how fur often is passed down by generations. But because fur comes from animals, it has the cycle of decay built into it. Fur straight off a dead animal will rot, so manufacturers will fight the decay through the application of chemicals designed to prevent rotting. The main processing chemicals used are formaldehyde, which is linked to leukemia, and chromium, which is linked to cancer. According to the World Bank, this hazardous process has led to fur dressing being ranked as one of the world’s five worst industries for toxic metal pollution.

The main processing chemicals used are formaldehyde, which is linked to leukemia, and chromium, which is linked to cancer.

Although there has yet to be a legal definition attached to the word “natural”, especially pertaining to labeling and marketing by the food, cosmetics and apparel industries, there is a consensus among government agencies that “natural” products are those that have had minimal processing and that no chemicals or substances were added to the final product. The term “natural” is therefore inaccurate when used to describe the origins of most of the world’s fur. The International Fur Trade Federation states that “wild fur represents about 15% of the world’s trade in fur,” leaving the majority 85% of the world’s fur to come from animals raised unnaturally on fur farms.

What can we do as consumers?

The closing of the Danish mink industry leads to many questions moving forward. Does it even

make sense to revive a dead industry, or would it be best to ban fur farming like it has been done in the Netherlands? And how will the closing of the fur farming industry affect the Danish economy? For now, there are not any answers for what is to become of the Danish fur industry, but the attention that the killings of the minks got, has made people more aware of the horrid living conditions fur farming animals live in.

The fashion industry is one of the largest in the world, and consumers need to know where their clothes originate from and how they are produced. The fur industry keeps quiet about the fact that it uses formaldehyde and chromium to prevent the furs from decomposing and focuses on the fact that It has become increasingly clear that industrial fur production is an intensely polluting, energy-consuming, and unnatural process. Thus, fur farming cannot be described as environmentally friendly or as a natural product. The use of toxic chemicals used to process fur garments puts human health and our environment at risk, for a product that is not necessary. Ultimately, there needs to be more transparency so that the consumer knows the harmful ways that the fur industry affects our water, air, and ecosystems, and this should be enough information for the consumer to decide whether to buy fur or not.