What the Fur, Europe?

The European Commission is set the announce its final response to one of the most successful citizens initiatives to date. The one where 1.5 million people asked for a Fur Free Europe. The next episode? Very likely to be ‘The one where the Commission announces ‘welfare standards” – rather than an end to fur in the EU. That is despite the Commission requesting an EFSA Scientific Opinion on the welfare of fur animals – indicating a lack of scientific information to underpin its decision – and that Opinion not only highlighting the severe welfare consequences faced by mink, foxes, raccoon dogs and chinchillas in fur production, but going as far as asserting that these cannot be substantially prevented nor mitigated within the cage systems of the fur industry.

Case closed, you’d think. Especially in light of Directive 98/58 (concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes) which provides in paragraph 21 of its Annex that “No animal shall be kept for farming purposes unless it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of its genotype or phenotype, that it can be kept without detrimental effect on its health or welfare”, what needed to happen seemed crystal clear. The cages used on fur farms haven’t changed since EFSA’s predecessor concluded in 2001- back when pigs could fly- that the welfare of animals kept for fur production is severely compromised. Alternative systems? Don’t exist. Where the law clearly says case closed, the Commission seems to have mistaken it for cage closed.

So, what happened?

The 2024 elections may have had something to do with it. Now in charge of the file: a commissioner who stems from a far-right party (we’re not fully getting rid of Orban’s Fidesz just yet) and one of the five (!) Member States where fur farming is still permitted. Coincidence? We’ll let the facts speak.

In August of 2025 – the new Commission’s first year in office -the chairman of the Finnish Fur Breeders’ Association was quoted saying “From Brussels, there has been a clear message that they will not ban an industry at EU level,..”. A month later the Commission was holding workshops with the Fur industry to develop ‘welfare standards’ and ways for them ‘to adapt while maintaining economic viability’. The standards under consideration? Fully based on cage systems, completely disregarding EFSA’s findings. Remember that scientific evidence the Commission had themselves requested, and indicated it needed to make an assessment?

When the draft Commission Communication was leaked earlier this year, ‘welfare standards’ were no longer a bad dream one could eventually wake up from. They were turning into reality, with the Commission intending to adopt a legislative proposal by the end of 2027.

Internal logic? Completely thrown out of the window. A few examples: the Commission admits the industry employs a mere 2000 FTE’s across the Union and has declined by 75% over the last decade – yet argues that demand will continue in the next decades. The Commission supposedly also supports a One Health approach, focused on preventing and responding to zoonoses, while apparently forgetting that the last global pandemic was caused by one. While many of us thought life couldn’t get worse than being confined between the four walls of our apartments, mink on fur farms – permanently confined in small wire mesh cages – were getting infected by the virus too and killed by the millions. SANTE seems to have similarly forgotten that, just last July, DG Environment added American Mink – the main species still farmed for fur – to the list of Invasive Alien Species of Union concern. At the same time, it proposes to regulate long-term ‘welfare standards’ for a species that EU biodiversity law says must be prevented, detected, and ultimately eradicated. How’s this for simplification, cutting red tape or any other post-2024 buzz word?

When Member states – most of which had already called on the Commission for an EU-wide fur ban not once but twice – were confronted with this incoming reality, some tried to force the Commission’s hand. Austria- FOUR PAWS’ home base and the EU’s champion on the matter- put a powerful card on the table: directly requiring the Commission to propose a ban, a powerful and seldomly used instrument, some member states were keen to use it nonetheless. Others, however, – despite being long-term supporters of the ban – prioritised a smooth first encounter of their new minister with the Commissioner in charge, a touching display of political naϊveté, or may have been beholden to the interests of a certain global luxury house. That’s when optimism started to leave the room. What about the European Parliament, you may ask? The people’s house failed to adopt an official position when discussing the successful citizens’ initiative back in 2023- how ironic. After the 2024 elections turned the place into a circus, optimism didn’t even bother entering that room again.

Doing the maths, that leaves us with Brussel’s favourite villain: the Commission itself. Internal divisions on the file have long been exposed and seem to be the very reason the Commission missed its self-imposed March deadline to communicate their final decision. A good reminder that we shouldn’t always lump the institution together as one big bad bogeyman? Or eventually just another dossier experiencing internal haggling until it’s deemed not important enough to spend political capital on? 6 million animals and 1.5 million citizens on one side of the scale, a shrinking industry on the other. Trying to keep it alive is an odd hill to die on for a Union with democracy among its foundational values. Its flagship instrument of participatory democracy? That would have to be declared dead. As dead as those millions of animals.