October 16, 2025, 3:29 pm | Read time: 7 minutes
For years, the European fur industry has been losing its economic footing. Now studies show: The industry significantly burdens the public—financially, ecologically, and health-wise. A central demand for the end of controversial fur farming is on the table. This is also due to its incompatibility with the EU’s own animal welfare laws.
An ecological overview and an EU study question the economic viability of the European fur industry—not just financially, but also in terms of environmental and health aspects. Research shows: Even without accounting for the immense harm to animal welfare, the societal costs of EU fur farming far exceed its benefits. Particularly alarming: The industry incurs much more cost than revenue. What does this mean for the debate on an EU-wide fur ban?
In 23 EU Countries, There Are Already (Partial) Bans on the Fur Industry
The study “A full-cost account of the EU fur industry” was published in October 2025 by environmental economist Griffin Carpenter, with contributions from Eurogroup for Animals, Fur Free Alliance, FOUR PAWS International, and Humane World for Animals. The report provides the first comprehensive analysis of the actual societal costs of fur production in the EU—including economic, ecological, health, and ethical aspects.
The results were compiled as part of the ongoing discussion about a possible EU-wide ban on fur farming, which is up for debate following a successful citizens’ initiative in 2022. In recent years, 23 of the 27 EU member states have already taken steps against fur farming—through complete, partial, or de facto bans. Only six countries currently plan to continue production until 2028. The EU is now considering a general ban on the farming and trade of fur products from farmed animals.
The aim of this study was to calculate the full societal costs (“Full-Cost Accounting”) of the fur industry. This approach goes beyond mere business accounting and also considers impacts on the environment, public health, and animal welfare. The focus is on four species (mink, fox, raccoon, chinchilla) and eight sectors along the value chain—from feed production to retail. The ecological, health, and economic data come from official sources, scientific studies, and industry reports.
Fur Industry Loses 446 Million
In 2024, EU fur farming produced about 6.3 million pelts (92 percent of which were mink), with an estimated revenue of 183 million euros. However, the economic figures show a drastic decline: In the past ten years, the number of farms decreased by 73 percent, production by 86 percent, and employment by up to 92 percent. A further decline of up to 20 percent is expected by 2028.
Particularly critical: The industry operates at a loss of –58.4 million euros and a negative gross value added of –9.2 million euros. Annual tax revenues (16.6 million euros) are significantly surpassed by public subsidies. These include COVID-19 compensations, avian flu aids, or sanctions compensations because the fur farmers lost the Russian market.
3.22 Billion to Danish Mink Farmers
Thus, EU fur farming is not only economically poor but also a significant net recipient of public funds. In 2024, the entire sector generated only 16.6 million euros in tax revenue, with 95 percent coming from wage taxes (income tax and social security contributions). Corporate profits played hardly any role—the industry was overall unprofitable.
In contrast, there are massive government subsidies and compensation payments. The largest individual items:
- Denmark paid 3.22 billion euros to breeders due to COVID-19-related mink cullings. This is 99 times the annual tax contribution of the entire sector.
- Finland provided a total of 78 million euros to fur farmers: 36 million euros due to COVID-19 and 42 million euros due to avian flu—nine times the annual tax contribution.
- Further payments were made in Sweden, Lithuania, and Greece, among others.
The study concludes: If the taxes paid were offset against the public funds received, the industry would have to pay taxes at the current level for over 100 years just to repay the Danish COVID-19 compensation—and that’s without considering further subsidies.
The Shadow Role of the EU
Subsidies to the fur industry come from both individual EU member states and EU funds themselves. The latter particularly concerns payments under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). However, the exact amount of EU-wide payments to fur farms cannot be quantified due to a lack of systematic recording.
“There is no standardized recording of payments to EU fur farms under the CAP, neither for direct payments nor for rural development programs,” the study states. Nevertheless, examples from individual countries show that CAP funds also flow to fur farms, such as through programs for business development or area premiums.
In one case from Finland, fur farms were supported with EU funds for “Business Development.” The report also points to the lack of exclusion of the fur industry in the CAP, meaning that, in principle, any member state can pass payments on to fur farms.
Thus, the EU plays a financial shadow role, although the majority of direct compensation payments—such as for COVID-19 or avian flu—come from the nation-states. However, the actual total amount of EU funds remains opaque and unquantified, which the authors of the study also explicitly criticize.
Significance of the Results
The results show that the EU fur industry, on balance, makes a negative societal contribution—even when only economic, ecological, and health aspects are considered. Notably, the role of animal suffering was not even included in the economic calculations, as it is difficult to quantify in numbers.
Even from an environmental and health perspective, the balance is negative. Fur farming causes annual environmental damage of 226 million euros and health risks (primarily from SARS-CoV-2) of 211 million euros. Combined, this results in a total societal loss of –446 million euros.
The study offers a previously unique comprehensive account of the EU fur industry, based in part on model calculations and conservative estimates. Some costs—such as zoonosis risks from pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2, environmental impacts of chinchilla farming, or animal welfare—could not be fully quantified. This likely increases the negative value of the industry even further. 1
Dog Tax Has Increased by 39 Percent Over the Past 10 Years
EU Parliament Approves Stricter Animal Welfare Rules
EU’s Own Investigation Reveals Animal Suffering
But what is the real state of animal welfare on European fur farms? This is shown by a comprehensive investigation by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The result: In today’s common cage systems, the central needs of these animals cannot be met, leading to sometimes severe suffering. They examined the welfare of mink, red and arctic foxes, raccoons, and chinchillas, which are kept exclusively for fur production in the EU.
EFSA identified three fundamental problems across all examined species and housing forms:
- Restriction of movement: Animals cannot run or jump, leaving their species-specific movement needs unmet.
- Inability to engage in exploratory and foraging behavior: Basic behaviors like digging, hunting, climbing, or swimming are not possible.
- Sensory under- or overstimulation: Animals are exposed to either a lack of stimuli or overstimulation, without the ability to control or retreat.
These central issues are directly related to cage size and the sparse furnishings of the housing facilities. Additionally, species-specific suffering was identified. Mink often show skin and soft tissue injuries and significant stress when handled by humans. Arctic foxes exhibit lameness, partly due to genetic breeding traits. Raccoons suffer from isolation as they are kept individually. Chinchillas have significant problems resting and increased stress in situations simulating potential predator threats.
Fur Farming Not Compatible with EU’s Own Laws
EFSA’s conclusion is clear: In the vast majority of cases, the identified suffering cannot be prevented or substantially mitigated in the current systems. This serves as comprehensive evidence that today’s housing systems do not meet the basic needs of the animals. The current housing conditions systematically lead to significant suffering in all examined species.
Crucially, even extensive adjustments in detail—such as providing play materials, modifying feed, or changing handling—do not lead to a substantial improvement in animal welfare as long as fundamental parameters like space availability and structural complexity of the habitat remain unchanged. The study also shows that targeted breeding for calmer or less anxious animals does not help. The basic needs of the species would remain unaffected even through domestication.
Substantial improvements would only be possible through a complete switch to a different housing system. However, such a system has neither been established nor tested in practice. From an animal welfare perspective, this raises the fundamental question of whether fur farming in the EU can still be justified. The statement provides a scientifically based foundation for political decisions—up to a possible ban on fur farming at the EU level. 2