(15/05/2000) Government challenged over fur farm ban

Concerns at a breach of free trade rules and the precedent they would set within the European Community have prompted five EU countries — France, Spain, Italy, Denmark and Finland — to register their strong opposition to the European Commission over Britain’s plan to ban fur farming in England and Wales.

In the UK the British Fur Trade Association (BFTA) is one of several organisations challenging the Government’s justification that a ban on fur farming is required on ‘public morality’ grounds.

And COPA and COGECA, the pan-Europe farm lobbying organisations representing 10 million farmers, jointly have expressed concern that a UK ban "would be contrary to the general rules of the Treaty…as well as to the general principles of Community Law, particularly those relating to proportionality, non-discrimination, the right of ownership and the freedom to start a business." They submitted a ‘legal memorandum’ to back up their case.

The BFTA says: "As other countries suspect, this proposed ban is designed to make by implication the selling and wearing of fur an issue of ‘public morality’ at a time when interest and support for the natural fur product has never been greater."

The BFTA points out:

the Government’s justification is excessively weak as it is based primarily on alleged public opinion and honouring of a 1997 commitment following a £1 million donation from the Political Animal Lobby. The latest BFTA public opinion research published on Thursday, 11 May 2000, runs counter to the Government’s claim in Parliament that there ‘is a general public interest in removing this particular source of livelihood’ (January 2000);

the justification that the ban is in the interests of ‘public morality’ is a means of the Government trying to circumvent EU harmonisation legislation. It is clear that welfare considerations lie behind the Bill, but they can be convincingly contested under EU law and Treaty;
the ban is unjustified and disproportionate from an animal welfare viewpoint as leading animal welfare experts agree that fur animals can be, and are being farmed successfully without their welfare being compromised;
the ban is unreasonable and totally inconsistent with Government animal welfare policy. It is not reasonable to ban all species from being farmed primarily for their fur, while allowing the same species to be kept for meat or for some other reason, when identical housing, feed and slaughter methods may be used. In supporting the latest EU Directive and Council of Europe animal welfare standards, the Government is following a policy of regulation and the imposition of standards based on scientific information and consultation. To now ban fur farming irrespective of what laws and welfare standards are applied is an unjustified contradiction of this policy; and

the ban will establish a draconian precedent that will enable other farming activities to be banned without proper justification.

-ends-

Issued by the British Fur Trade Association.
Press contact: Andrea Martin
e-mail press@britishfur.co.uk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes to editors:

The 2nd Reading of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill is scheduled for 15 May 2000.

Members of the British Fur Trade Association (BFTA) are responsible for more than 50% of world trade in fur.

More than 240 designers are using fur in their collections this season — a 6-fold increase since 1985 when statistics were first recorded.

Farmed fur is the staple of the fur sector contributing more than 85% to total world trade in fur — 70% of which is produced within the European Union.
In the UK fur farming is a well-regulated sector of agriculture governed by EU Directives, national laws, and the Council of Europe Recommendation concerning fur animals, which was adopted in June 1999. In terms of direct impact on worldwide farmed fur production, the proposed legislation is inconsequential as British fur farmers contribute less than 0.01% to world fur production - except at the local level where 11 fur farmers and their families will lose their livelihoods, rural communities will forfeit export income and taxpayers will fund substantial compensation payments!