Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 26 March 2026

Background

This document summarises the main points raised by respondents to the call for evidence on the fur market in Great Britain (GB). The call for evidence was conducted under the previous government as a joint GB-wide consultation undertaken by Defra on behalf of the Scottish Government and Welsh Government. The consultation ran from 31 May 2021 to 28 June 2021. The purpose of the call for evidence was to gather evidence to help better understand the fur trade and its impacts, along with views in relation to fur sector activity.

As set out in the UK Government’s animal welfare strategy, published in December 2025, we are publishing this factual summary of responses to the call for evidence, as part of  our commitment to continue exploring stakeholder concerns relating to the trade in fur and the different ways in which they could be addressed.

The findings summarised in this document represent a snapshot in time. Responses received to questions asked in the call for evidence relate to the GB fur market in 2021. As such, they will not reflect any changes that may have occurred in the fur market in the five years since the call for evidence was undertaken.

The call for evidence was published on the online digital platform Citizen Space which recorded responses through an online form. Responses were also received by email. Responses received by email have been analysed separately from the responses received via Citizen Space, and are summarised in a separate section of this document.

Some questions which were intended to be answered only by businesses directly involved in the fur trade were answered by individuals or organisations not directly involved in the fur trade. We have included these responses in this summary for completeness.

Overview of respondents

Defra received 28,706 responses via the Citizen Space platform, including from members of the public, industry organisations, animal welfare groups and their supporters, who submitted model responses provided by those groups. In addition, around 700 emails were received, which were analysed separately and are not included in the breakdown of respondents provided below.

Around 99% of respondents stated they were responding as individuals and around 1% stated they were responding on behalf of organisations.

Where a respondent submitted multiple responses, only their final submission was included in the closed question data analysis, on the basis that respondents who submitted additional responses had done so to rectify previous responses.

Questions 1 to 8 and 13 to 14 asked a number of demographic questions. Key points from these are summarised below.

Question 13: Is your organisation directly involved in the fur sector?

Of the respondents who responded on behalf of an organisation, 49 reported being directly involved in the fur sector. These respondents are referred to as “fur-trade organisations”, with all respondents categorised into the following two groups for the purpose of analysis and reporting:

• individuals and non-fur-trade organisations, of which there were 28,657 respondents
• fur-trade organisations, of which there were 49 respondents

Base sizes provided for each question indicate how many respondents from each group answered each question.

Question 5: Where are you based in the UK?

A breakdown of all respondents by location is provided below.

Table 1: Question 5. ‘Where are you based in the UK?’

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base size: 26,352)	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 40)
England	68%	33%
Scotland	6%	0%
Wales	4%	3%
Northern Ireland	1%	0%
Not UK-Based	21%	65%

Question 7: What type of organisation are you responding for?

A breakdown of organisation type is provided below.

Table 2: Question 7. “What type of organisation are you responding for?”

Organisation type	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 49)
Government Body	0%
Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO)	10%
Local Authority	0%
Charity	0%
Consultancy	0%
Small or Micro Business (Less than 50 employees)	61%
Medium Business (50 - 249 employees)	2%
Large Business (250 or more employees)	8%
Industry Association	14%
Other (please specify)	4%

Question 14: What stage of the supply chain do you operate at?

There were a total of 1,136 responses to this question, as summarised in the table below. Respondents were able to select more than one option.

Table 3: Question 14. “What stage of the supply chain do you operate at?”

Stage of the Supply Chain	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base size: 1,214)	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 117)
Importing Raw Fur	2%	7%
Tanning / Dressing	1%	2%
Apparel / Clothing	4%	18%
Manufacturing	4%	21%
Retail	7%	21%
Specialist Services	2%	8%
Legal Hunting or Conservation	3%	2%
Exporting Fur Outside of GB	1%	7%
Broker / Trader	1%	5%
Other	77%	10%

Summary of responses

Attitudes towards the fur trade

Questions 9 to 11 sought views on different areas of fur sector activity. Responses to these questions are summarised in the following section.

Question 9: Is it wrong for animals to be killed for the sake of their fur?

Table 4: Question 9. “Is it wrong for animals to be killed for the sake of their fur?”

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base size: 28,569)	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 48)
Strongly agree	97%	4%
Agree	1%	10%
Neither agree nor disagree	< 1%	8%
Disagree	< 1%	19%
Strongly disagree	2%	58%

Individual respondents and organisations not directly involved in the fur trade overwhelmingly agreed that it is wrong for animals to be killed for the sake of their fur, with approximately 97% (27,870 respondents) agreeing or strongly agreeing. 2% (618 respondents) disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement.

37 (77%) of the 48 organisations who indicated that they were directly involved in the fur sector disagreed or strongly disagreed that it is wrong for animals to be killed for the sake of their fur.

Question 10: What are your views on whether any of following methods are acceptable ways to produce fur products?

The following Tables 5 to 10 summarise the views of respondents on whether various different methods are acceptable or unacceptable ways to produce fur products.

Table 5: Question 10.1 Views on whether farming animals primarily for their fur is an acceptable way to produce fur products

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base size: 28,336)	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 46)
Strongly agree	2%	63%
Agree	< 1%	17%
Neutral	< 1%	13%
Disagree	1%	4%
Strongly Disagree	95%	2%
Don’t Know	< 1%	0%

27,369 (96%) of the individual respondents and organisations not directly involved in the fur trade disagreed or strongly disagreed that farming animals primarily for their fur is an acceptable way to produce fur products. 37 (80%) of the 46 organisations who indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.

Table 6: Question 10.2 Views on whether farming animals primarily for their fur but only if subject to an assurance scheme is an acceptable way to produce fur products

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base size: 28,250)	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 47)
Strongly agree	2%	72%
Agree	1%	17%
Neutral	1%	4%
Disagree	2%	2%
Strongly Disagree	94%	4%
Don’t Know	1%	0%

27,163 (96%) of the individual respondents and organisations not directly involved in the fur trade disagreed or strongly disagreed that farming animals primarily for their fur, but only if subject to an assurance scheme, is an acceptable way to produce fur products. 42 (89%) of the 47 organisations who indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.

Table 7: Question 10.3 Views on whether trapping or hunting animals for their fur is an acceptable way to produce fur products

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base size: 28,297)	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 45)
Strongly agree	2%	44%
Agree	< 1%	20%
Neutral	< 1%	20%
Disagree	1%	9%
Strongly Disagree	96%	7%
Don’t Know	< 1%	0%

27,466 (97%) of the individual respondents and organisations not directly involved in the fur trade disagreed or strongly disagreed that trapping or hunting animals for their fur is an acceptable way to produce fur products. 29 (64%) of the 45 organisations who indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.

Table 8: Question 10.4 Views on whether trapping or hunting animals for their fur but only if as part of a conservation scheme is an acceptable way to produce fur products

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base size: 28,244)	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 47)
Strongly agree	2%	66%
Agree	1%	17%
Neutral	2%	15%
Disagree	4%	2%
Strongly Disagree	90%	0%
Don’t Know	1%	0%

26,511 (94%) of the individual respondents and organisations not directly involved in the fur trade disagreed or strongly disagreed that trapping or hunting animals for their fur, but only if as part of a conservation scheme, is an acceptable way to produce fur products. 39 (83%) of the 47 organisations who indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.

Table 9: Question 10.5 Views on whether producing fur as a by-product of legal farming (where fur is not the primary value and purpose of animal production but is a component part, for example meat) is an acceptable way to produce fur products

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base size: 28,244)	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 46)
Strongly agree	3%	72%
Agree	5%	17%
Neutral	9%	4%
Disagree	7%	2%
Strongly Disagree	74%	2%
Don’t Know	1%	2%

22,938 (81%) of the individual respondents and organisations not directly involved in the fur trade disagreed or strongly disagreed that producing fur as a by-product of legal farming (where fur is not the primary value and purpose of animal production but is a component part, for example meat) is an acceptable way to produce fur products. 41 (89%) of the 46 organisations who indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.

Table 10: Question 10.6 Views on whether producing fur as a by-product of legal hunting or population control (where fur is not the primary value) is an acceptable way to produce fur products

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base size: 28,209)	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 47)
Strongly agree	3%	70%
Agree	3%	21%
Neutral	6%	4%
Disagree	6%	2%
Strongly Disagree	82%	2%
Don’t Know	1%	0%

24,782 (88%) of the responses from individuals and organisations not directly involved in the fur trade disagreed or strongly disagreed that producing fur as a by-product of legal hunting or population control (where fur is not the primary value) is an acceptable way to produce fur products. 43 (91%) of the 47 organisations who indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.

Question 11: What is your attitude towards the import, sale or export of fur or fur products in GB?

There were 26,460 responses to this question. The free text responses to this question overwhelmingly did not support the import, sale or export of fur or fur products.

Reasons given by respondents who did not support the import, export or sale of fur and fur products included:

• fur production is inherently cruel, and animals have the right to be treated with respect
• faux fur alternatives exist and could replace the value created by the fur industry
• allowing imports of farmed fur while banning domestic fur farming outsources cruelty
• Great Britain should be world-leading on welfare and set precedents for others
• fur production creates zoonotic disease risks, including Coronavirus

Reasons given by respondents who support the import, sale or export of fur and fur products included:

• fur is sustainable and synthetic alternatives take longer to degrade
• people should be able to exercise personal choice
• jobs and businesses relate to fur, including indigenous communities abroad
• fur supports traditional practices or lifestyles, including of some religious groups
• some respondents pointed to surveys which show there is some level of support among the public for humanely produced and ethically sourced fur
• industry assurance schemes provide welfare and sustainability standards
• restrictions would lead to unregulated sales online or to business moving out of Great Britain
• a ban may disrupt trade relations with some of the UK’s closest allies

Scale and trends of the fur industry

Question 12: Other than for clothing and apparel, what uses of fur should we be aware of?

There were 14,917 responses to this question. Common responses included beauty products (including shaving brushes and fake eyelashes), soft furnishings, accessories, toys (for both children and pets), paint brushes, fly fishing lures, insulation, religious and cultural uses (including bearskin hats), taxidermy and trophies from hunting.

Questions 13-22 asked respondents directly involved in the fur sector questions about their involvement in the fur sector. These responses are summarised in other sections. 

Question 23: How has the overall domestic market for real fur products changed over the last 5 years?

Note that this referred to the 5 year period prior to 2021 (2016 to 2021)

Table 11: Question 23. “How has the overall domestic market for real fur products changed over the last 5 years?”  

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base size: 6,791)	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 45)
Greatly Increased	8%	20%
Significantly Increased	13%	20%
Stayed the Same	13%	31%
Slightly Decreased	25%	27%
Greatly Decreased	40%	2%

Among the responses from individuals and organisations not involved in the fur trade, 4,468 (65%) reported that the domestic market for real fur products had either greatly or slightly decreased over the prior five years. A further 905 (13%) indicated that the market had stayed the same, while 1,418 (21%) stated that it had greatly or significantly increased.

Of the 45 organisations that indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector, 18 (40%) reported that the domestic market had greatly or significantly increased over the prior five years. A further 14 (31%) responded that the market had stayed the same, and 13 (29%) reported that the market had slightly or greatly decreased.

The British Fur Trade Association stated that the UK has had the highest relative growth (per cent) from 2010 to 2018 among the 20 biggest fur-importing countries in the world, citing a paper (Hansen, 2020) from the University of Copenhagen. 

Humane Society International UK (now named Humane World for Animals) reported that demand had decreased and noted that some retailers had stopped selling fur within the previous 5 years. Their response pointed to a YouGov poll from 2020 which found that 10% of the British public have worn real fur in the past but no longer do so and 3% currently wear real fur (YouGov website).

Question 24: Please provide any evidence of the scale and trends of the GB market in faux fur.

There were 2,864 responses to this question. Individual respondents largely did not provide evidence to support their responses. The British Fur Trade Association and International Fur Federation stated that faux fur accounted for a tiny share of the market with imports of around $4 million in 2018 (around £3 million on average 2018 exchange rates). The British Fur Trade Association stated that its members do not deal in faux fur.

Question 25: Please provide any evidence on the number and size of companies and the number of jobs, supported by fur trade in GB.

There were 1,595 responses to this question. Estimates of the number of jobs supported by the trade ranged from 500 to 10,000; however, limited evidence was provided to support these estimates. The British Fur Trade Association estimated that around 4,000 jobs relate to the UK fur sector directly or indirectly. Humane Society International UK suggested that some businesses directly involved in the fur sector provide services (such as cleaning and insurance) which would not be immediately or terminally affected by a ban.

Question 26: Please provide any evidence on any specific geographical regions where the fur supply chain is concentrated within GB. If possible, please describe the significance this would have on those communities and the extent of local employment within these areas.

There were 1,391 responses to this question. Many referred to London and some referred to Edinburgh.

Question 27: What do you consider to be the total value (in £ sterling) of imports to and exports from GB in relation to (i) raw fur skins; (ii) tanned or dressed fur skins; (iii) articles of apparel and clothing; (iv) artificial fur?

There were 1,562 responses to this question, few provided separate estimates for the four categories and those that did provided large ranges with limited supporting evidence. Some responses gave specific estimates of the total value of imports, in the high tens of millions or low hundreds of millions, in some cases referencing HMRC data. Some respondents suggested that the value in 2020 would be exceptionally low due to disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

The British Fur Trade Association stated that imports of fur and fur products in 2018 amounted to approximately $100 million USD (around £74 million GBP in 2026), and that European countries’ exports to the UK in 2018 amounted to $62 million USD (around £46 million GBP). Exchange rates are based on February 2026 exchange rate of: 1.00 USD = 0.741 GBP.

Humane Society International UK stated that it was not aware of facilities in the UK which process raw skins and suggested that any such imports may therefore be re-exported ‘as-is’. They also suggested it was likely that a proportion of real fur which is sold as fake fur is also declared to HMRC as fake fur.

Question 28: What do you consider to be the total weight (in tonnes) of imports to and exports from GB in relation to (i) raw fur skins; (ii) tanned or dressed fur skins; (iii) articles of apparel and clothing; (iv) artificial fur?

Of the 1,388 responses to this question little concrete evidence was supplied and this did not provide a consistent picture of the trade volumes in these categories.

Question 29: Explain your response to Question 27 and 28, and please provide any additional evidence relating to the type of fur (animal species) and to the assurance schemes or standards applying, at aggregate level.

There were 1,116 responses to this question. The evidence provided in response to this question was largely anecdotal.

The International Fur Federation stated that the UK is a particularly important player in a European context. Humane Society International UK estimated that the fur from around 2 million animals is imported per year, and that the UK accounts for in the region of 2% of the global fur market.

Question 38: We are interested in finding out more about other countries’ existing or planned restrictions on fur. Please provide any information or evidence that you are aware of.

There were 1,600 responses to this question. Information provided here largely focused on listing countries with active restrictions. These included:

Trade restrictions:

• Israel
• United States (California)

Production restrictions:

• Austria
• Belgium
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Croatia
• Estonia
• France
• Ireland
• Japan
• Luxembourg
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• Norway
• Republic of Macedonia
• Serbia
• Slovakia
• Slovenia
• United States (California, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Oregon)

Question 39: Please provide any other relevant evidence you would like to include to inform decisions on the GB fur trade.

There were 8,789 responses to this question.

A wide range of points were raised in response to this question:

• evidence was provided on the economic scale of the European fur sector, including employment estimates and data on UK–EU trade flows
• many respondents pointed to opinion polls of the British public, in particular a YouGov opinion poll which indicated that 95% of respondents reported that they would never wear real fur. Others pointed to older polls as evidence that public attitudes on fur have not changed significantly in the past two decades. These included a 1999 Mori poll commissioned by the RSPCA which found that 86 percent of the public would not wear real fur, a TNS poll carried out in 2007 which found that 93 percent of the public say they refuse to wear real fur, and a YouGov poll commissioned by HSI in 2020 which found that 73% supported a ban on the sale of fur
• a published statement from ethicists and philosophers was cited, arguing in favour of ending fur farming on ethical grounds
• many respondents raised environmental concerns, citing research, including a study on the environmental impact of mink farming which showed the impact of pollution from fur production, as well as evidence of environmental prosecutions of fur processing plants
• several respondents referred to outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 on over 400 mink fur farms and a scientific study on the susceptibility of raccoon dogs to SARS-CoV-2, as evidence of public health risks associated with fur farming. Others raised concerns about health risks to workers in fur processing plants
• several respondents shared video footage and reports from undercover investigations of fur farms, referring to findings of stereotypical behaviours indicative of poor psychological wellbeing, injuries, cannibalism and animals being beaten to death
• investigations into trapping practices were also summarised, including evidence of drowning, suffocation and the use of illegal traps
• historical evidence was provided highlighting that certain species kept on fur farms retain essentially wild characteristics. A review of the WelFur scheme, published in 2015, was also shared. One response cited evidence from the American Veterinary Medical Association that non-target species can account for up to 67% of total trap catches. Others raised concerns around the possibility that fur production could support the spread of invasive species or disrupt ecosystems through trapping
• some respondents pointed to 1522 brands and retailers that have committed not to stock products containing fur. Some retail organisations expressed concerns about the reliability of assurance and traceability of standards in fur supply chains, and referred to the British Retail Consortium Voluntary Guidelines on Artificial or Faux Fur as raising awareness for buyers and aiding identification of real fur versus artificial or faux fur for buyers
• one contribution highlighted concerns around mislabelled products, including reports of cat fur being sold as faux fur, and called for stronger enforcement and clearer textile labelling requirements

Type and activity of organisations

Questions 14 to 22 were intended to be answered only by organisations directly involved in the fur sector; however, responses were also received from some individuals and organisations not directly involved in the fur sector. All of these responses have been summarised in the following section for completeness.

Question 15: Where do you source your inputs from?

There were 904 responses to this question. Respondents were able to select more than one option.

Table 12: Question 15. ‘Where do you source your inputs from?’

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base Size: 860)	Fur-trade organisations (Base Size: 44)
Imported from outside of GB	5%	36%
Sourced Domestically	6%	11%
Both	10%	23%
Other	79%	30%

Of the 44 organisations that indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector, 16 (36%) reported that they sourced imports from outside of GB, 5 (11%) indicated that they sourced inputs domestically and 10 (23%) indicated that they source inputs both domestically and from outside the UK.

The British Fur Trade Association and International Fur Federation said that around 90% of British fur imports come from the European Union, with other sources including Canada, the USA, Namibia, and Türkiye. The British Fur Trade Association also cited Comtrade data showing that 41% of the Italian European export of fur garments ends up in the UK, and that 30% of the French European export of fur garments ends up in the UK.

Question 16: Where do you send your outputs?

There were 792 responses to this question. Respondents were able to select more than one option.

Table 13: Question 16 ‘Where do you send your outputs?’

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base Size: 750)	Fur-trade organisations (Base Size: 42)
Exported outside of GB	3%	10%
Traded Domestically	7%	12%
Both	10%	48%
Other	81%	31%

Of the 42 organisations that indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector, 4 (10%) stated that they exported their outputs, 5 (12%) reported that they traded them domestically and 20 (48%) reported that they traded them both domestically and exported.

Of those respondents who stated they were directly involved in the fur trade and who responded with ‘other’, most either stated that the question was not applicable, or named specific countries and regions including Finland, New York, Toronto, Russia, Denmark, Italy, Canada, the USA and China.

Question 17: How long is the lead time from contracting any fur or fur products till that fur is placed on the market?

There were 236 responses to this question. The British Fur Trade Association response noted that its members carry a ‘significant amount’ of stock.

Table 14: Question 17. “How long is the lead time from contracting any fur or fur products until that fur is placed on the market?”

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base Size: 201)	Fur-trade organisations (Base Size: 35)
0 to 3 months	47%	37%
3 to 6 months	17%	23%
6 to 12 months	14%	26%
12 to 24 months	6%	9%
Over 24 months	15%	6%

Of the 35 respondents that indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector, 13 (37%), stated that the lead time for contracting any fur or fur products is 0-3 months, 8 (23%) stated 3-6 months, 9 (26%) stated 6-12 months, 3 (9%) stated 12-24 months and 2 (6%) stated over 24 months.

Question 18: What type of fur (animal species) do you mainly deal in?

There were 845 responses to this question. Respondents were able to select more than one option.

Table 15: Question 18. “What type of fur (animal species) do you mainly deal in?”

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base Size: 520)	Fur-trade organisations (Base Size: 43)
Mink	10%	28%
Fox	10%	23%
Rabbit	7%	13%
Chinchilla	4%	15%
Racoon Dog	5%	11%
Other	63%	11%

Of the 43 respondents that indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector, 37 (28%) stated mink was the main type of fur they deal in, 30 (23%) stated fox, 17 (132%) stated rabbit, 20 (15%) stated chinchilla and 14 (11%) stated racoon dog.

Other species which received multiple mentions included sable, sheep and karakul, muskrat, deer, lynx, wolf, beaver, otter, and squirrel.

Question 19: What origin, or production method, is the fur you deal with derived from?

There were 658 responses to this question. Respondents were able to select more than one option.

Table 16: Question 19. “What origin, or production method, is the fur you deal with derived from?”

Note that respondents could select more than one option here.

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base size: 505)	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 43)
Farmed Production	13%	51%
Trapping	10%	19%
Animal By-Product	7%	18%
Other	69%	12%

Of the 43 respondents that indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector, 37 (51%) stated the origin, or production method, the fur they deal with is derived from farmed production, 14 (19%) stated trapping and 13 (18%) stated animal by-product.

A small number of those who selected ‘other’ specified shooting, hunting, or the sourcing of vintage or second-hand fur. One business stated that they sourced fur from vermin control and road casualties.

Question 20: What assurance schemes or standards, or other criteria apply to the fur you deal with?

There were 590 responses to this question. The most common answers were Furmark (an umbrella certification and traceability scheme) or WelFur (a large programme, approved under Furmark, primarily operating in Europe).

The British Fur Trade Association and other fur industry associations provided further detail on these schemes, and stated that programmes such as WelFur are science-based, developed by independent scientists, and incorporate inspections from third-party assessors, which evaluate the whole fur production cycle using species-specific animal welfare criteria.

Responses from industry associations also pointed to regulations governing trapped fur, including the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS).

Other answers included: Saga Fur certification, the Code of Practice set by the National Farm Animal Care Council, and accreditation by the Canadian National Mink Animal Care Standard.

Question 21: Have you made any recent changes in how you source or trade in fur products?

There were 551 responses to this question. A significant number of responses from businesses indicated the proportion of ‘certified’ fur that they source has increased. These included specific references to Furmark, WelFur, the Origin Assured label, and traceability provided by auction houses. One auction house stated they were introducing traceability on ‘skin level’ which would include data on third-party certification assessments.

Question 22: How has the demand for real fur products changed over the last 5 years for you or your member’s organisation(s)?

There were 654 responses to this question; however, the majority of these responses were from respondents not directly involved in the fur trade.

Note that this referred to the 5 year period prior to 2021 (2016 to 2021).

Table 17: Question 22. “How has the demand for real fur products changed over the last 5 years for you or your member’s organisations?”

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base size: 745)	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 45)
Significantly Increased	8%	38%
Slightly Increased	2%	18%
Stayed the Same	11%	20%
Slightly Decreased	9%	18%
Significantly Decreased	70%	7%

Of the 45 respondents that indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector, 17 (38%) stated that demand for real fur products has significantly increased over the last 5 years, 8 (18%) stated that it has slightly increased, 9 (20%) stated that it has stayed the same, 8 (18%) stated that it has slightly decreased, and 3 (7%) stated that is has significantly decreased.

The British Fur Trade Association response cited research from the University of Copenhagen which found that during the period 1999 to 2019 imports in current value increased by a factor of 7. Humane Society International UK suggested that demand for real fur has fallen, pointing to fashion houses that have become fur-free.

Question 30: What is the mark-up generated from fur products sold by your business?

There were 375 responses to this question.

Table 18: Question 30. “What is the mark-up generated from fur products sold by your business?”

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base size: 344)	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 31)
Under 50%	52%	42%
50 - 100%	23%	42%
Above 100%	25%	16%

Of the 31 respondents that indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector, 13 (42%) stated that the mark-up generated from fur products sold by their business is under 50%, 13 (42%) stated it is 50-100%, and 5 (16%) stated it is above 100%.

Question 31: If not a seller, are you aware of the level of mark-up that is placed on fur products in retail sales?

There were 7,881 responses to this question.

Table 19: Question 31. “If not a seller, are you aware of the level of mark-up that is placed on fur products in retail sales?”

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base size: 7,851)	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 30)
Under 25%	1%	7%
25 - 50%	1%	10%
50 - 100%	3%	37%
Above 100%	6%	20%
Don’t Know	89%	27%

Of the 30 respondents that indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector, 2 (7%) reported the level of mark-up placed on fur products in retails is under 25%, 3 (10%) reported it is 25-50%, 11 (37%) reported it is 50-100% and 6 (20%) reported it is above 100%.

Question 32: On the scale below, what proportion of the value of your or your members’ final products does fur account for (for example, a fur trim on a coat)?

There were 553 responses to this question; however, the majority of these were from businesses not directly involved in the fur sector.

Table 20: Question 32. “What proportion of the value of your or your members final products does fur account for?”

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base size: 520)	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 33)
Under 25%	62%	9%
25 - 50%	13%	6%
50 - 75%	13%	27%
75 - 100%	12%	58%

Of the 33 respondents that indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector, 3 (9%) reported that fur accounts for under 25% of the value of their final products, 2 (6%) reported that it accounts for 25-50%, 9 (27%) reported that it accounts for 50-75% and 19 (58%) reported 75-100%.

The British Fur Trade Association stated that fur accounts for 75 to 100% of the value of its members’ final products.

Question 33: What proportion of your organisation or your members’ organisations is dependent on the import, sale or export of fur?

There were 444 responses to this question; however, the majority of these were from individuals and organisations not directly involved in the fur sector.

Table 21: Question 33. “What proportion of your organisation or your members’ organisations is dependent on the import, sale or export of fur?”

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base size: 405)	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 39)
Under 25%	75%	13%
25 - 50%	4%	3%
50 - 75%	6%	10%
75 - 100%	14%	74%

Of the 39 respondents that indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector, 5 (13%) reported that under 25% of their organisation or members’ organisations is dependent on the import, sale or export of fur, 1 (3%) reported that 25-50% is dependent, 4 (10%) reported 50-75% and 29 (74%) reported 75-100%.

The British Fur Trade Association stated that 75 to 100% of its members’ organisations are dependent on the import, sale, or export of fur.

Question 34: What country(ies) do you source your fur from, if originating from outside of Great Britain?

There were 1,272 responses to this question. Common countries and regions listed included:

• Denmark
• Finland
• the United States
• Canada
• Russia

Less common countries which were mentioned multiple times included:

• China
• Greece
• Poland
• Italy
• Spain
• France
• Norway
• Greenland
• Lithuania
• Namibia

Other countries or regions mentioned included:

• Australia
• Ukraine
• the Netherlands
• South America

Question 35: Which types of product do you primarily import?

There were 229 responses to this question.

Table 22: Question 35. “Which types of product do you primarily import?”

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base size: 194)	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 35)
Raw Fur	16%	17%
Tanned Fur	14%	46%
Semi-finished Product	13%	3%
Finished Products	57%	34%

Of the 35 respondents that indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector, 6 (17%) stated that they primarily import raw fur, 16 (46%) stated tanned fur, 1 (3%) stated semi-finished product, and 12 (34%) stated finished products.  

Question 36: What sourcing method does your answer to Question 35 primarily involve?

There were 357 responses to this question.

Table 23: Question 36. “What sourcing method does your answer to Question 35 primarily involve?”

Response	Individuals and non-fur-trade organisations (Base size: 324)	Fur-trade organisations (Base size: 33)
Farmed Production	24%	41%
Trapping	11%	19%
Animal By-Product	9%	20%
Conservation Activity	8%	9%
Indigenous and Cultural Communities	7%	9%
Other	41%	3%

Of the 33 respondents that indicated they were directly involved in the fur sector, 28 (41%) stated that farmed production is their primary sourcing method, 13 (19%) stated trapping, 14 (20%) stated animal by-product, 6 (9%) stated conservation activity and 6 (9%) stated indigenous and cultural communities.

Question 37: What assurance schemes or other standards apply? Please specify the country which applied the assurance scheme or standard.

There were 554 responses to this question. Common responses included WelFur, Furmark and auction house certifications (Saga and Kopenhagen furs). Other schemes or programmes mentioned included: Origin Assured (International Fur Federation), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards, Fur Commission USA, the National Code of Practice (for mink farming in Canada), We Prefur (in Germany), and references to state or provincial regulations.

Responses received by email

We received around 700 responses expressing views on the fur trade to our contact email address over the time period of the call for evidence. Some of these responses were submitted via the Citizen Space platform as well as via email. Email responses were analysed separately from the responses received via Citizen Space (which are summarised in the preceding sections) and are summarised below.

Of the responses received by email, a large majority did not support the fur trade or expressed support for restrictions on the fur trade, while a minority expressed support for the fur trade. 

Respondents supportive of a ban on imports of fur to Great Britain raised concerns about the welfare of animals used in fur production, highlighting the pain caused by traps and snares and the conditions on fur farms, including the use of cages and unsanitary environments. Respondents also raised concerns about potential risks that fur‑farming practices pose for disease transmission and public health.

Several emails were received from those directly involved in the fur sector, including from organisations or individuals based in the UK, US, France, Greece, Denmark and Germany. These included concerns from individuals who rely on the fur industry for their income, who stated they would find it difficult to move into other specialisms.

Responses supportive of the fur trade raised issues around consumer choice, impact on the economy, cultural tradition and the sustainability of faux-fur products.

Next steps

In the UK Government’s animal welfare strategy for England, published in December 2025, we committed to bringing together a working group on fur, with involvement from both industry experts and those who support restrictions on the trade in fur, to explore concerns and the different ways in which they could be addressed. We will consider the evidence presented in this summary of responses as part of this work, along with other relevant evidence.