Facts: European consumers and fur products

FACTS: EUROPEAN CONSUMERS AND FUR PRODUCTS

In 2010, Ipsos Public Affairs, the global market research company, undertook a consumer survey about the image of fur farming in Germany, Belgium and The Netherlands. 1,000 respondents from each country participated in the survey.

The European Fur Information Center will generate more consumer surveys through Ipsos or other independent research companies in the future. Until then, here are some results from the 2010-survey:

82% cited at least one negative item (cruelty, luxury, expensiveness, pretentiousness, uselessness) when asked which three of a number of predefined words first came to their mind when hearing about fur.

39% cited at least one positive item (warmth, softness, fashion, quality, sensuality) when asked which three of a number of predefined words first came to their mind when hearing about fur.

56% connected the word 'cruelty' to fur.

In a question defining the level of information on fur farming, 41% of the population in the Netherlands answered that they had never heard it. In Belgium the number was 28%, while 12% of the Germans have never heard information about fur farming.

64% of the respondents in the three countries had the perception that the welfare conditions in their country's fur farms are rather bad or bad. 36% believed that the welfare conditions are good or rather good.

68% thought that the welfare conditions for fur animals in their respective country are rather better or much better than the welfare conditions for fur farmed animals in China. 23% believed the welfare conditions are the same, while 12% thought the conditions in the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium are rather worse or much worse than China.

In a comparison where the welfare of fur animals was compared to animals bred for meat, 24% thought the welfare of fur animals were better than the welfare of animals bred for meat. 26% believed the welfare within meat production to be better than for fur farmed animals. While 50% believed that the welfare was the same.

On a question regarding whether animal rights groups sometimes go too far in their actions, 17% answered 'not at all', and 32% answered 'no, rather not'. 51% thought animal rights groups sometimes go too far in their actions (17% 'yes, absolutely. 34% 'yes, rather').

61% of the respondents in the three countries believed that the carcasses of fur animals are wasted. 39% believe the carcasses of fur animals are recycled.

54% had the opinion that an artificial fur coat has the most limited ecological impact. 46% were of the opinion that of the two, the natural fur coat has the most limited ecological impact.