Fur still flying between activists and farmers

Date: 09/01/03

By Mary Donovan

AN EU report into the welfare of animals kept for fur farming, and which is now being described by animal rights activists as an "authoritative" work, does not have the support of the scientists who wrote it. Claims of more "fiction" than "science" have been made against the report, The Welfare of Animals Kept for Fur Production which was adopted by the EU's Scientific Committee of Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW).

Six of the eight scientists who formed the working group preparing the report to the EU Scientific Committee and who are all highly qualified and experienced in the field of fur animals, have issued a protest letter to SCAHAW stating that, "The report is politically slanted against fur farming. Large numbers of references have been removed and it contains several errors of fact or interpretation, some of which are potentially important for animal welfare and others which are so ridiculous that they compromise the report's credibility."

Ironically, SCAHAW's chairperson, Professor Donald Broom, and vice-chairperson, Professor Per Jensen, who were instrumental in ignoring the scientists' protest and publishing the report, have been discredited in two important European court cases concerning farming. In Norway, the judge noted: "Neither Professor Broom nor Professor Jensen have personally done any research into the conditions of fur animals and the Court therefore can not place any weight on their testimony." Also, in Belgium, the judge suggested that the foreign "expert", Professor Broom, was more an "animal rights activist" and deemed his report "unworthy of an expert".

The discussion over the welfare of all farmed animals will continue and, rightly so, when the aim is to improve welfare standards. Wim Verhagen, chairman of the European Fur Breeders' Association (EFBA), said: "SCAHAW has chosen to downplay the vast amount of studies showing positive aspects of welfare. European fur farmers are at the forefront of scientific research on animal welfare and have always embraced new scientific evidence which can improve our day-to-day practices in the interests of both the animals and the fur farmers. As long as we can agree with the European Commission on that, I am confident about the future. We always have been, and will continue to be, open for dialogue."

Fur farming is already controlled by EU Directive 98/58, Directive 93/119, Regulation 827/68 and a Council of Europe recommendation concerning fur animals. EFBA has adopted its own code of practice, based on this recommendation, which contains provisions on housing, stockmanship and inspection, management, research, killing methods and equipment. It is designed to ensure the health and welfare of the fur-farmed animals.

The concept behind the latest report was to provide future guidelines for fur farmers across Europe based on scientific evidence, a concept presumably welcomed by all those involved in animal welfare - whether farmers or animal rights organisations.

Unfortunately, with the confusion around the credibility of the report, which was intended to provide the basis for future legislation, the way forward is no clearer. Animal rights activists will continue to claim that welfare standards are not good and fur farmers will answer that their profession is one of the most controlled forms of modern- day farming.

Article says an EU report into the welfare of animals kept for fur farming, and which is now being described by animal rights activists as an 'authoritative' work, does not have the support of the scientists who wrote it.