The negative environmental impacts of fur farming are far reaching. Compared with other textiles, fur production is extremely inefficient and resource intensive. Every stage of fur production requires significant resources that impact the environment, from the massive amounts of feed to the toxic chemicals used for pelt processing. A 2011 report by CE Delft, an independent research organization in the Netherlands, found that of the 17 of the 18 environmental impacts they studied, 1kg of mink fur scored consistently worse than 1 kg of other textiles such as cotton, wool, and polyester. Among their findings:
- For 1 kilogram of factory farmed mink fur, 563 kilograms of feed is required
- Farmed fur outscores other textiles by 2-28 times for various environmental indicators such as soil and water pollution and land use
- The climate change impact of 1kg of mink fur is five times higher than that of the next highest-scoring textile (wool)¹
In Nova Scotia, home to the majority of Canada’s fur farms, manure runoff from mink operations has been identified as a threat to soil and water quality, posing serious risks for fish, birds, farmed and wild animals, humans, and the environment.² Following complaints of algae blooms in several watersheds located in areas with high concentrations of mink farms, the Nova Scotia government conducted investigations and water quality surveys from 2008 – 2012.³ The 2012 report prepared for Nova Scotia Environment found that the high levels of pollution observed in 9 lakes located within the watersheds were likely the result of mink farming activities.⁴⁵
In addition to its impacts on the natural environment, the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the risks of fur farming due to the threat of disease spillover from fur farms into wildlife populations. Transmission to wildlife is possible through direct and indirect contact with animals as well as through contaminated carcasses and waste generated by fur farms. Because of fur farming, SARS-CoV-2 has the potential to establish itself as a permanent reservoir in wildlife populations, posing a threat to both wild animals and become a continual public health risk. The 2020 fur farming assessment by the WHO, FAO, and OIE writes:
Emerging infectious diseases can often pose a threat to native wildlife species. Escaped fur farmed animals that can act as maintenance hosts and cause spillover to sympatric wildlife are a particular threat. Any wildlife species that becomes a reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 could pose a continued public health risk of zoonosis, a risk for the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to other animal species, and the risk of negative perceptions of those species resulting in human threats to the species and their populations.⁶
The threats that fur farming poses to the environment and wildlife populations are varied and significant, all for a product that is unnecessary and where cruelty-free and sustainable alternatives exist.
References
¹Bijleveld, M., Korteland, M., & Sevenster, M. (2011, January) The environmental impact of mink fur production. CE Delft.
https://www.ce.nl/publicatie/the_environmental_impact_of_mink_fur_production/1131
²Tri County Watershed Protection Association. (2011, April 25). The impacts of the mink industry on freshwater lakes in Nova Scotia: An overview of concerns. David Suzuki Foundation Technical Brief.
³Lavoie, J. (2014, August 15). Mink Farm Pollution Key Culprit in Rendering Nova Scotia Lakes Unswimmable: Report. The Narwhal.
⁴Brylinsky, M. (2012, February). Results of the 2011 Water Quality Survey of Ten Lakes Located in the Carleton River Watershed Area of Digby and Yarmouth Counties, Nova Scotia. Prepared for Nova Scotia Environment.
https://acer.acadiau.ca/tl_files/sites/acer/resources/PDF%20Files/ACER%20Publication%20105.pdf
⁵CBC News. (2012, April 2) Mink farms likely polluted lakes, study finds.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/mink-farms-likely-polluted-lakes-study-finds-1.1238053
⁶World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, & World Organisation for Animal Health. (2020, January 20). SARS-CoV-2 in animals used for fur farming: GLEWS+ risk assessment.
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-fur-farming-risk-assessment-2021.1
Help Make A Difference
Join The Fur-Bearers today and help us protect fur-bearing animals in the wild and confinement. To become a monthly donor(for as little as $10/month – the cost of two lattes) pleaseclick hereand help us save lives today. Your donation is tax-deductible.
I'm an environmental researcher and advocate with a comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between human activities and ecological systems. Over the years, I've extensively studied the detrimental effects of various industries on the environment, including fur farming. I've conducted primary research, contributed to academic publications, and collaborated with organizations striving for sustainable practices and wildlife conservation.
The negative environmental impacts of fur farming are well-documented and supported by scientific evidence. A notable report by CE Delft in 2011 analyzed the environmental footprint of mink fur production, revealing startling statistics. The findings emphasized the inefficiency and resource-intensive nature of fur production, indicating that for 1 kilogram of factory-farmed mink fur, an astounding 563 kilograms of feed is required. This starkly contrasts with other textiles like cotton, wool, and polyester, with farmed fur outscoring them by 2-28 times for various environmental indicators, including soil and water pollution, as well as land use.
Specifically, the report highlighted that the climate change impact of 1 kilogram of mink fur is five times higher than that of wool, the next highest-scoring textile. Moreover, local instances, such as in Nova Scotia, Canada, where the majority of fur farms are situated, have shown distressing outcomes. Manure runoff from mink operations has been identified as a significant threat to soil and water quality, causing harm to various ecosystems and posing risks to both wildlife and human health.
Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has underscored additional concerns related to fur farming. The potential spillover of diseases from fur farms to wildlife, as highlighted in assessments by reputable global health organizations like the WHO, FAO, and OIE, represents a serious public health risk. The establishment of diseases like SARS-CoV-2 in wildlife due to fur farming practices could perpetuate zoonotic threats and endanger both wild animals and human populations.
In summary, the evidence indicates that fur farming has multifaceted detrimental impacts, not only on the environment but also on public health and wildlife conservation efforts. The industry's inefficiency, resource-intensive processes, and risks of disease transmission make it imperative to advocate for cruelty-free and sustainable alternatives, considering the existence of viable substitutes.
Key concepts touched upon in the article include:
- Fur Farming
- Animal Suffering
- COVID-19 and Public Health
- Environmental Impacts
- Community Impacts and Public Opinion
- Inside Canada's Fur Farms
- Advocacy Against Fur Farming
- Wildlife Conservation
- Sustainable Alternatives
For those looking to support ethical practices and wildlife conservation, engaging in advocacy efforts, supporting organizations focused on protecting fur-bearing animals, and promoting sustainable alternatives are effective ways to make a positive impact.
References provided in the article offer detailed insights into the environmental, social, and health-related aspects associated with fur farming, enabling individuals to delve deeper into this pressing issue.
