Environment and Fur Brief

Is fur green?

The fur industry has long attempted to portray itself as a natural, sustainable, and environmentally responsible sector. However, when we closely examine the evidence, this image is revealed to be nothing more than greenwashing.

In reality, fur production is resource-intensive, highly polluting, and has little regard for its impact on biodiversity and the environment.

This page examines the environmental consequences of the fur industry, informed by findings from the 2021 Respect for Animals report and additional evidence of its harmful practices.

Fur farming generates large quantities of waste, including animal urine, feces, and chemicals, which can contaminate nearby water sources if not properly managed. These pollutants can harm aquatic ecosystems and degrade water quality, posing serious risks to human health. Fur farms are a significant source of water pollution, with effluent from these facilities often finding its way into local rivers and lakes. The environmental damage caused by such pollution can last for years, harming both wildlife and local communities that rely on these water sources for their livelihood.

Air Pollution

Fur farms are also major contributors to air pollution, particularly through the emission of ammonia from animal waste. The ammonia levels in mink farms are especially high, with emissions per animal at least twice that of broiler chicken farms. Ammonia is a toxic gas that can severely affect air quality, contributing to respiratory issues for both humans and animals. Additionally, toxic chemicals used in fur processing, such as formaldehyde and chromium, are released into the atmosphere, further polluting the air and endangering the health of nearby residents.

Land Degradation

The environmental impacts of fur farming extend beyond water and air pollution. Fur farms are notorious for causing land degradation due to the large amounts of animal waste and chemicals used in the production process. The accumulation of waste can contaminate soil, making it less fertile and unsuitable for agriculture. In addition, the land used for fur farming often involves the clearing of natural habitats, which further contributes to the destruction of ecosystems. This leads to a loss of biodiversity and disrupts local wildlife populations.

Impact on Biodiversity

The fur industry has had a historically devastating impact on biodiversity, contributing to the extinction of some species and the over-exploitation of many others. In some parts of the world, hunting and trapping of fur-bearing animals are regulated, but this management is often ineffective in poorly regulated regions. The trade in legal furs facilitates the illegal fur trade, which continues to threaten species survival.

The fur industry has also been responsible for the introduction of invasive alien species. The most notable example is the American mink, which has been introduced to Europe through deliberate releases and escapes from fur farms. The American mink poses a significant threat to local wildlife, particularly ground-nesting birds and the critically endangered European mink. Escapees from fur farms are a continuing source of this invasive species, further exacerbating the environmental harm.

Chemical Use in Fur Processing

Fur dressing and dyeing involve the use of many toxic chemicals, including formaldehyde and chromium, which pose significant risks to both the environment and human health. These chemicals contribute to land pollution and bioaccumulate in the environment, creating long-lasting damage. Fur dressing and dyeing are ranked among the highest pollution-intensity industries, with toxic metals being a major concern due to their tendency to accumulate in the food chain.

Potentially dangerous levels of hazardous chemicals have been found in fur products, including children’s clothing, sold in markets across Europe and China. The report highlights that despite claims of sustainability, the environmental toll of fur production is immense, with the chemical footprint alone contributing to long-term environmental degradation.

Environmental Impact Compared to Alternatives

When measured over the life cycle of the product, the environmental impact of a mink fur coat is significantly higher than that of a faux fur coat—often six to fourteen times higher, depending on the materials used. The fur industry often claims that the long lifespan of real fur compensates for its environmental impact, but this claim is unsupported by evidence. In reality, the average lifespan of a fur garment is typically between 5 and 10 years, far too short to offset the environmental costs incurred during its production.

The FURMARK® Labelling Scheme

The recently launched FURMARK® labelling scheme claims to promote more sustainable practices in the fur industry. However, the scheme has been widely criticized for lacking credibility. It does not set any meaningful standards for reducing emissions, preserving biodiversity, or improving resource and energy use. While the scheme includes some audits for animal welfare and chemical residues, these audits are often conducted by the fur industry itself, raising concerns about conflicts of interest and the independence of the process.

FURMARK® generally rewards the status quo, offering no incentive for fur farms to go beyond basic legal requirements or adopt practices that would significantly reduce their environmental impact. The scheme’s focus on minimal compliance with industry norms does little to address the broader environmental challenges posed by the fur trade.

Conclusion

The fur industry’s environmental impact is undeniable, and the claims of sustainability promoted by the sector are misleading. Governments must take action to regulate the environmental damage caused by fur farming, including stricter controls on waste management, pollution, and the use of toxic chemicals. Moreover, supporting ethical and sustainable alternatives to fur will help reduce the demand for real fur products and mitigate the environmental harm caused by the industry.

Respect for Animals urges governments to adopt more robust regulations and to promote alternatives to fur that do not harm the environment or contribute to animal suffering. The fur industry, as it currently operates, is incompatible with sustainable environmental practices and must be reformed or phased out to protect both wildlife and the planet.

Learn More

For further details, including comprehensive evidence and references, download the full executive summary of the Environmental Cost of Fur report:

👉 Download the Executive Summary (PDF)