The big debate: should the government ban fur?

NO: Frank Zilberkweit, chairman of the British Fur Trade Association

We welcome the opportunity to contribute to the government’s call for evidence on the fur sector. In it we will detail the exacting animal welfare standards, and the extensive laws and regulations that govern the sector, and why fur remains popular with increased year on year sales. We will also set out the many damaging consequences that implementing a ban on the sector would bring and why the majority of people in this county do not support such a step.

Let’s be clear: if the government decides to introduce restrictions on the sale or wearing on natural fur, it would effectively be telling us what we could and could not wear, and what we should have in our wardrobes. We would have the unpalatable prospect of law-enforcement agencies checking whether the coat or hat that someone was wearing was real or fake. These sorts of draconian measures are a step too far and are a significant curtailment of consumer choice.

There is no support for ban on ethically produced fur in the UK, and we strongly believe that individuals should be free to make up their own minds.

It is also clear that restrictions on fur would be the thin end of the wedge, and would simply open the door for restrictions and bans on other animal products, including wool, leather and silk, as well as modern farming methods. Animal rights activists, who have long campaigned for a UK fur ban, want to see an end to the use of all animal products or materials entirely, including for food. Their narrow views do not represent the majority of the people of this country and nor do they care about the consequences.

There are exacting standards and rules in place governing the fur sector, banning natural fur would do nothing to improve standards in animal welfare and is a purely symbolic move pushed by animal rights activists. A ban would also not work and would be unenforceable. It would simply push sales online, untaxed and unregulated and to those who care little about animal welfare.  It would also impact on the indigenous groups who still depend on fur for their survival in places like Greenland and Canada.

It would lead to thousands of job losses and closed businesses in the UK. It would also damage London as a global fashion hub, as many designers and brands use fur, and it would disrupt trade relations with some our closest allies who are fur-producing and manufacturing countries, including Canada and the US.

A ban could not operate in Northern Ireland, which remains part of the European Union Customs Union. We would therefore have the prospect of one part of the UK being free to trade and sell fur but would be blocked from selling or importing its goods into the rest of the UK. This directly contradicts the aims of the Internal Markets Act that was designed to guarantee the free movement of trade between the four nations of the UK.

Fur remains popular: sales increased by more than 200% in the UK over the last decade. It is also a natural, sustainable material, far better for the environment than oil-based synthetic fast fashions. It would be entirely illogical and counter-productive for the government to move forward with restrictions on a natural, sustainable material that would lead to an increase in synthetic materials in the same year as it is hosting the global climate conference, COP 26. It sends out entirely the wrong message for a government that wants to be seen as global leader in tackling climate change, and improving the environment.

Banning fur is a retrograde, damaging step and no sensible government would consider implementing such a draconian step.

YES: Helen Moore, founder and owner of fake fur label Helen Moore

The ban on the sale of real fur is long overdue. Subjecting animals to extreme cruelty in the name of fashion is an abhorrence, and in direct opposition to the animal welfare standards and values held in this country.

The current consent to the sale of fur no longer reflects the opinion of the majority as shown by the support from celebrities from Dame Judi Dench to Gary Lineker and the banning of fur by fashion brands from Gucci to Versace. The refusal of big retailers to sell fur is indicative of the groundswell of feeling.

The fur trade not only has a devastating effect on innocent animals, it creates a risk to human welfare from zoonotic diseases – note the devastating cull of mink in Europe because of Covid-19. Dangerous viruses thrive where animals are kept in filthy, crowded conditions. By allowing the sale of fur in Britain, we are inadvertently supporting a reservoir of deadly viruses.

It is clear that the fur industry itself is questioning its support as demonstrated by the mis-labelling of real fur as fake. For an industry to deny its own provenance suggests that it is acutely aware of its poor reputation.

However, the real fur lobby is very powerful and active, and currently on the defensive. In an attempt to raise its own credentials, the fur lobby has targeted fake fur, which they are clearly determined to denigrate and present as is a contributor to environmental damage. However, when compared with other synthetic fabrics, it has minimal impact. For example, there are vastly greater amounts of potentially harmful synthetic fabrics, one polyester fleece jacket is responsible for releasing 1.7 grammes of microfibres each wash.

It is washing that enables the release of microfibres and although fake fur is washable, it is rarely washed and certainly no more than a real fur item. A quick sponge, brush and shake will usually do the trick. While the fake fur industry is working hard developing the use recycled materials, the fur industry continues the use noxious chemicals to prevent decomposition.

In conclusion, as long as Britain allows the sale of fur from overseas, we remain complicit in an industry that causes immense animal suffering, environmental harm and also presents risks to human health through the spread of deadly viruses.