The device, which was designed by UK company ZELP, neutralizes methane by catching a cow’s burp and oxidizing it, meaning it’s released into the atmosphere as CO2 and water vapor.

It was named as one of the winners of a £50,000 prize in the The Prince of Wales’ inaugural Terra Carta Design Lab, a competition that recognises “innovative design solutions to the climate crisis.”

The design may be innovative, but the fact that these contraptions are being validated and celebrated as a viable solution to the climate crisis by the press, the public, and one of the most recognizable royal figures in the world is hugely concerning.

The idea that animal agriculture-related emissions can be combated by some quick-fix media-friendly contraption, rather than by a drastic overhaul of our food system, belittles the urgency of the incoming climate catastrophe. The masks are papering over the cracks of the crisis and failing to address the root cause of the problem – that we eat far too much meat.

Animal farming and emissions

Animal agriculture is one of the leading causes of global warming, and is generally understood to be responsible for at least 14.5 percent of the world’s emissions (though one recent study put it as high as 87 percent).

Of all the animals we eat, cows are by far the biggest contributors, due largely to the fact that they emit methane when they burp, fart, and defecate. 

Methane, along with carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, is one of the main greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. It is 80 times more warming than CO2 in its first 20 years in the atmosphere.

A UN report released in August 2021 stated that countries need to make “strong, rapid, and sustained reductions” in methane emissions. Methane has a short half-life, meaning we would see the benefits very soon after reducing the gas.

Cutting these emissions, therefore, is the most effective thing we can do to quickly reduce global warming.

The warming planet

Around a third of the world’s methane comes from cattle, and the only way to sufficiently reduce these emissions is to dramatically cut the number of cows we farm for meat and dairy. Last year, the UN endorsed a report urging world leaders to shift away from animal agriculture and move towards plant-based food systems. Meanwhile, a 2018 study from the University of Oxford found that a 90 percent fall in beef consumption in western countries was “essential” to avoid climate breakdown.

But while senior royal figures and the general public are celebrating cow face masks, the beef and dairy industries are growing, and the planet is getting hotter. Worldwide, people consumed 70.9 million metric tons of beef in 2020, up from 65 million in 2010. Despite making a joint pledge to reduce methane emissions by almost a third in the next decade, neither the US or EU have made any commitments for the farming sectors. 

An IPCC report published in April of this year proclaimed that limiting global heating is a “now or never” issue, so the idea that we have time to flitter about putting masks on a few cows, rather than creating urgent revolutionary new laws to reduce their numbers, is hugely problematic. While the masks do apparently remove around 53 percent of cows’ methane emissions, they fail to address emissions in their flatulence and manure. It would also be pretty unfeasible to distribute them widely enough and persuade a notable proportion of farmers to use them. 

But even if the masks did successfully neutralize all methane from cows, and they were somehow given to every single one in the world, they would still fail to address the other environmental crises caused by these animals.

Resource-intensive cattle farming

Animal agriculture is one of the leading causes of deforestation, which is one of the most critical environmental issues we are currently faced with. Cattle ranching accounts for around 80 percent of deforestation in the Amazon, and beef production uses around half of agricultural land in the US. As well as the farms themselves, a huge amount of deforested land is used to grow soy and other feed for these animals.

Deforestation is responsible for a huge amount of carbon build-up in the atmosphere, which directly contributes to global warming. When trees are cut down to create farmland, the CO2 they were storing is released, and the reduction in the numbers of trees means that less of the gas is removed from the atmosphere. Methane, therefore, isn’t the only greenhouse gas cow farming creates. 

Animal welfare in the farming sector

But putting aside the environmental shortcomings of these masks, the idea that they are some sort of stroke of genius – when they likely inflict more misery on beings that already have a life more painful than it’s possible to imagine – shows how far removed we are from animal suffering. The designers claim that these masks fit “comfortably” and don’t impact their daily lives, but given that cows are sentient beings capable of distress and discomfort just like we are, this is doubtful.

Clearly, it isn’t enough that we forcibly impregnate them, drag away their calves hours after they’re born, hook them up to milking machines, then pack them off to the slaughterhouse where they’re strung up and have their throats cut (often while they’re alive and kicking). Now, humans have decided to force them to spend their lives with a massive piece of plastic attached to their face, all so we can carry on burying our heads in the sand about the fact that what we’re doing to them is killing the planet. 

These masks are just the latest bit of evidence that humans will do seemingly anything to avoid facing up to the fact that we need to urgently stop eating animals to avoid climate catastrophe.

While there is no doubt that they will work to reduce methane in the cows wearing them, they will likely make up a drop in the ocean in a world where meat demand is growing and cow farming continues to expand unchecked. We need urgent intervention from governments to dramatically reduce our meat intake and move us to a plant-based food system. 

The post Putting Face Masks On Cows Isn’t A Solution To The Climate Crisis – Not Eating Them Is appeared first on Plant Based News.

Winter stars in a new PETA campaign, which urges the public to “Show a Bear How Much You Care.” It features the reality star, 26, posing naked in front of a Union Jack while holding a large teddy bear. 

The photo was shot by fashion photographer Ruth Rose and features wording urging the Ministry of Defence to replace bearskin with animal-friendly faux fur. 

“It takes the skin of at least one bear to make a single cap for the Queen’s Guard,” Winter said in a statement.

“It makes me so angry that defenceless black bears are still being slaughtered. … [And] nursing mothers also get killed, leaving behind their young cubs. PETA has already developed a faux-fur cap … so there’s no excuse for it not to be used.”

An ethical faux alternative

The red and black uniforms of the Queen’s Guard have remained mostly unchanged since they were first introduced in the 1800s. They continue to feature a tall black hat made from the fur of Canadian black bears. 

The hats cost around £650 each and have cost taxpayers around £1 million in the last seven years. The bears are either shot or caught in painful traps and are often left to suffer in agony for days before dying. 

Despite repeated calls from animal rights groups and the general public, the government has so far refused to replace the fur with an ethical faux alternative. In 2014, they claimed this was because fake fur caps they’d trialed had become “waterlogged.”

PETA recently developed a vegan alternative in collaboration with luxury faux furrier ECOPEL. It proved to be 100 percent waterproof in a Ministry of Defence copyright test. 

A petition in support of PETA’s campaign has garnered more than 86,000 signatures, meaning it’s fast approaching the 100,000 needed to trigger a debate in parliament. Those interested can add their signature here.

The post Love Island’s Faye Winter Campaigns To Ban Fur From Queen’s Guard Caps appeared first on Plant Based News.

The “Hell of a Steak” commercial – which comes from non-profit organization Vegan Friendly UK – aired during the Eurovision Song Contest in Israel on Saturday night. It’s set to appear on UK screens this week, and it will likely be shown in the US in the coming months. 

The ad features a group of diners pondering what to order at a restaurant named “Meat Out,” with one of them enquiring about a dish called “Hell of a Steak.”

The waiter then tells him: “I’m glad you asked… You won’t believe what we go through just to bring it to your plate.” 

He then goes into detail about the environmental costs of raising just one cow, explaining that it takes a piece of land about the size of three football pitches, 800,000 gallons of water, and 18,000 pounds of feed.

Throughout his explanation, the diners are covered in water and hay, before a single cow enters the restaurant and approaches their table.

The waiter finishes by saying: “Can you believe it? So many resources… And don’t get me started on the greenhouse gases.”

The diner then tells the waiter: “I don’t want to know the price,” to which the waiter ominously responds: “I’m sure you don’t. It’s a heavy price to pay.”

Animal farming and the environment

Noga Bronsky, CEO of Vegan Friendly UK, told Plant Based News that the advert is a “comical and high-level production” that “focuses on the harmful impacts of the meat industry on the environment and its connections to climate change.”

Animal agriculture – particularly cattle farming – is catastrophic for the environment in a number of ways.

Farmed cows produce around a third of the world’s methane emissions when they burp and fart, which is one of the main greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. They are also a leading cause of deforestation and land and water use. 

The advert follows in the footsteps of another highlighting the animal cruelty inherent in meat consumption, which was also released by Vegan Friendly earlier this year. It encouraged viewers to “make the connection” between the food they eat and the animals who suffered and died for it. 

The post WATCH: Vegan Commercial Aired During Eurovision To Be Shown Around The World appeared first on Plant Based News.

The letter – which was sent to the chief executive of NHS Scotland, Caroline Lamb – states that serving plant-based meals would be better for the environment, improve the health of patients, and potentially save the health service millions of pounds. 

As reported by The Times, the letter reads: “At this time of health and climate crises, we, the undersigned, urge NHS Scotland to switch to vegan menus for patients in hospitals.

“Replacing meat, eggs, and dairy with vibrant vegan foods is vital if we are to protect the health of Scottish people and the planet.

“It is a dereliction of duty that meals offered in hospitals are often far from healthy and can even include red and processed meats, which are known to be carcinogenic.”

Benefits of meat-free food

The letter compares serving meat to “distributing cigarettes in the pulmonary-care unit.”

It adds: “Switching to 100 percent vegan menus … would help NHS Scotland improve patient recovery, reduce costs, prevent animal suffering, and meet its commitment to reaching net-zero carbon emissions.”

The signatories go on to state that the NHS could save £30 billion a year if all meals served in the UK were vegan.  

A number of doctors signed the letter, including NHS consultant gastroenterologist Alan Desmond, and GPs Nick Browne, Miriam Maisel, Olga Morton, and Fiona Bullions.

Animal agriculture is one of the leading causes of the climate crisis, while meat consumption has been linked to a number of cancers and other diseases. 

Despite this, the letter has been criticized by some. Rachael Hamilton, the Scottish Conservative’s rural affairs spokesperson, labeled the demand “deeply irresponsible.”

Currently, Scottish government hospital guidelines state that provisions must be made for patients following vegan and vegetarian diets, and that there must be a meat-free option for every meal.

According to The Times, a spokesperson for the Scottish government said: “We expect all patients to be offered good, nutritious food in accordance with their ethical or religious requirements.

“The importance of balanced nutrition is well accepted and emphasized in our guidance on hospital food to ensure all patients get the best possible nourishment.”

The post Doctors Compare Meat To Cigarettes, Urge NHS To Serve Vegan Hospital Food appeared first on Plant Based News.

The bill, which acknowledges that vertebrates and some marine invertebrates are capable of experiencing feelings like pain, was one of a number of the Conservative Party’s promising, yet vague, plans to “lead the way on animal welfare.” And, to “revolutionize” the treatment of animals both here in the UK and abroad. 

Last month, the bill finally passed through parliament and received Royal Assent. Now, lobsters are one of the many animals officially considered capable of feeling emotions. Whether it will lead to any tangible improvements to their lives, however, remains to be seen.

Torture of lobsters

Lobsters are victims to probably the most horrific example of human-inflicted torture of animals, being thrown into pots of boiling water while conscious to be cooked as “food.” It can take them up to 15 minutes to die, and they will desperately attempt to escape until they do.

It had previously been assumed by the press and general public that a recognition of sentience would mean an inevitable outlaw of this method, but this is looking increasingly doubtful. 

The government confirmed that existing industry practices will not be affected by the bill, stating that there will be “no direct impact” on restaurant kitchens or shellfish catching.

In other words: despite the fact they are now legally recognized as able to feel pain, there are no current plans to ban boiling these animals alive. 

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill

Here lies the problem with the bill. While it’s an undeniable victory in the fight for animal rights, it hasn’t (yet) proved itself as the “revolutionary” moment the government would have us believe.

It may be welcome, necessary, and long overdue, but it’s nowhere near enough as a standalone piece of legislation.

For the bill to make a difference to the lives of animals, it should come with proper plans to end cruel practices against those it deems as sentient.

Lobsters were included in the bill on recommendation from scientists from the London School of Economics. It was originally intended for just vertebrates (like mammals, fish, and birds), but the government amended the bill after experts found that cephalopods (including octopuses, squid, and cuttlefish) and decapod crustaceans (including crabs, lobsters, and crayfish) were also capable of feelings.

“It is not simply the capacity to feel pain,” the authors wrote of these animals. “But feelings of pain, distress or harm, broadly understood, have a special significance for animal welfare law.”

Empty promises

The recognition of animals’ sentience coupled with a refusal to put a stop to them enduring probably the worst pain it’s possible to imagine, is a hugely problematic move from the government.

These people are happy to give themselves a pat on the back for accepting that animals suffer, while turning away as they’re thrown – literally kicking and screaming – into pots of boiling water. 

While the bill does bring with it an Animal Sentience Committee, a panel of experts who will give advice on how future policies could affect animal welfare, the government will be under no obligation to act on their suggestions.

This means that – at present – the bill only brings the vague potential to ensure animal welfare is taken into account in future laws, but it doesn’t seem to be offering any concrete promises or solutions. 

In the UK, we love to tell ourselves we’re world leaders of animals rights, but recognizing that animals can feel emotions while continuing to torture them isn’t quite the act of benevolence people think it is.

Animal sentience on farms

Lobsters are a new and extreme case, but they are far from the only victims of this cruel and paradoxical treatment. Mammals like pigs, sheep, and cows have all been offered legal protections since the passing of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but has this really been enough?

Farmed animals are routinely – and completely legally – subjected to unimaginable torture in the UK. Animals like pigs and sheep are castrated and have their tails docked without anaesthetic, while many also have their teeth clipped. Meanwhile, farmers kill sick piglets using a method called “thumping,” which involves picking the young animals up by their feet and bashing their heads against the wall or floor. 

Usually, this torture doesn’t lead to legal proceedings. Prosecutions for animal welfare breaches on farms are exceptionally rare, meaning animals classed as sentient fall victim to all manner of legal and illegal mistreatment in their miserable lives.

For example, when these terrified animals arrive at the slaughterhouse, they are, in theory, stunned before being strung up and having their throats cut, but this is often done improperly.

An Animal Aid investigation into 11 UK pig farms found that the animals were improperly stunned in almost all of them. This means that, while they can’t be legally boiled alive, they are often plunged into scalding tanks while still conscious. 

Meaningful changes for animals

There is no doubt that the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill should be celebrated. Every step forward in the fight for animal rights should be. Nevertheless, we must not forget that this bill could just be the latest in a long line of measures that exist for show, not for all the animals it supposedly protects.

While people across the country are celebrating the news that lobsters are now considered sentient, the lobsters themselves continue to suffer slow and agonizing deaths in our kitchens. 

If the government really wants to position itself as the party for “animal welfare,” lawmakers should take urgent steps to bring in legislation that better protects animals, while properly implementing existing ones too.

The government has undoubtedly done a wonderful job of publicizing itself as a champion of the rights of animals. So let’s hope it becomes just as adept at making a real difference to animals’ lives.

The post If Lobsters Are Sentient, Why Can We Still Boil Them Alive? appeared first on Plant Based News.

The latest announcement comes from down south. The popular Portsmouth Vegan Festival is set to return to the city next month, hosting more than 100 stalls. Visitors will be able to get their hands on plant-based food and cruelty-free toiletries, clothes, shoes, pet products, and more. 

Organizers said it will showcase the “best of the vegan lifestyle,” adding: “Whether you’re vegan, vegetarian or looking to go vegan, this event has everything you could possibly need all under one roof.”

Visitors to the festival will also be able to choose from an incredible array of cuisines, with Caribbean caterer Brownins Food, Greek Vegan Deli, and House of Habesha – known for its authentic Eritrean and Ethiopian food – among the confirmed stockists. 

Attendees can also browse a diverse range of vegan brands, with everything from Mollie and Sky candles to eco-friendly fashion accessories from Vegan Upcycled Craft on offer.  

Portsmouth Vegan Festival will take place on Saturday, May 14, at the Mountbatten Centre. It will run from 10:30am until 4pm. Admission is £4, and free for under 16s.

You can also purchase a VIP ticket, which includes fast track entry and a vegan goody bag, for £15. 

Visit Vegan Events UK for more information

Portsmouth Vegan Festival is just one of a number of plant-based events confirmed for the UK this year. Manchester’s Northern Festival and Bath Vegan Festival will also be taking place in the coming weeks, followed by the hotly anticipated return of Vegan Campout in July. 

The post Portsmouth Vegan Festival Is Back, With Over 100 Plant-Based Stalls appeared first on Plant Based News.

The park later released a statement claiming the incident occurred because the trainer had accidentally scratched the animal. It has since, thankfully, been confirmed that both the dolphin and trainer are recovering well.

The attack was hard to watch, and no doubt horrifying for the trainer who fell victim. While we of course must have sympathy for the staff and audience – for whom it will likely have been a hugely upsetting experience – we must not forget that the incident occurred because of the park itself. 

The dolphin should never have attacked the trainer because they should never have been in captivity in the first place. No animal should be forced to spend their life in an unnatural environment, made to perform tricks for a screaming audience. Just like all captive animals, the dolphin would have experienced years of physical and mental anguish before the incident occurred. 

The problem with animal entertainment venues

Marine parks and aquariums are part of a billion-dollar industry that exists to entertain the public by catching fish and sea mammals, including dolphins and killer whales, and using them as living exhibits. In the natural world, such animals would form close bonds with their pods and spend their days foraging and hunting for prey.

But those kept captive aren’t afforded such enrichments. The animals, many of whom have evolved to travel up to 100 miles a day at fast speeds in the wild, are instead forced to spend their lives swimming endlessly and aimlessly in tiny barren tanks, or being harassed by humans. 

Due to the conditions in which they’re kept, a 2019 report by World Animal Protection found that captive animals exhibited abnormal levels of aggression. This indicates that the attack at Miami Seaquarium was likely a direct result of captivity.

While the park would have you believe this was an isolated incident, attacks on humans in similar attractions are not uncommon. This is just the latest in a long line of reminders that these sentient animals should be urgently removed from captivity. 

Animal attacks

In 2019, a 10-year-old girl was attacked during a “swimming with dolphins” experience in Mexico. The dolphins – who were being held captive in a small closed off section of the sea – bit and dragged the girl underwater in front of trainers and her horrified mother.

Thankfully, the child survived, but was left with several cuts, bruises, and bite marks. 

Injuries like broken arms, cracked sternums, and lacerations, as well as shock, have all been documented at similar attractions. For instance, in 2004, a man required surgery after being attacked by a dolphin, also at Miami Seaquarium.

Attacks from captive animals can also have far more tragic consequences. Writing in the CRC Handbook of Marine Mammal Medicine, Veterinarian Jay C. Sweeney describes aggression by killer whales toward their trainers as “a matter of grave concern.”

Sweeney added: “Aggressive manifestations toward trainers have included butting, biting, grabbing, dunking, and holding trainers on the bottom of pools and preventing their escape.”

In 2009, an orca named Keto, who had been born in SeaWorld and forced to perform at parks all over the globe, carried out a brutal and sustained attack on a trainer named Alexis Martínez, resulting in his death.

Further, in February of 2010, a SeaWorld trainer named Dawn Brancheau tragically died of “drowning and traumatic injuries” after being attacked by a 22-foot orca named Tilikum during a live show. 

Inherently cruel attractions and facilities

The latter death was documented in the 2013 film Blackfish, which caused an unprecedented shift in public opinion against the once beloved and respected attractions. Since its release, parks like SeaWorld and Miami Seaquarium have been falling out of favor with the general public, who have held marches and protests against them.

But it’s unfortunate that the same energy hasn’t been directed toward the industry as a whole. It’s not just the highly publicised controversial parks that are the issue, but every single business where animals are kept in captivity. 

Even the so-called “good” aquariums are still inherently cruel, and deserve as much condemnation as their more notorious counterparts. 

Studies have shown that around 90 percent of public aquariums house animals that display signs of extreme mental distress, including swimming in circles, bobbing their heads, and pacing back and forth.

As well as mental effects, aquariums can also result in physical illness. The copper sulphate and chlorine used to clean tanks can cause blindness and skin damage in dolphins and seals, and many animals have been shown to exhibit signs of stress-induced self-harm, such as chewing on concrete to destroy their teeth.

London Aquarium, a hugely popular tourist attraction that’s typically believed to be one of the best in the world, recently sparked upset over the conditions in which its Gentoo penguins are kept. One visitor proclaimed to have been in “tears” by their tiny underground living enclosure, and noted that one animal was engaging in repetitive behaviour. 

Taking animals out of the wild

Many of the animals at parks and aquariums have been captured from the wild. Each year at the notorious Taiji dolphin hunt in Japan, hundreds of the animals are sold on to aquariums around the world.

Boats will often chase pods of dolphins or whales into shallow waters to trap them, before dragging them on board with a net. Those deemed unsuitable for captivity will be thrown back into the water, and many die of shock or pneumonia. 

It is clear that the issue with marine parks and aquariums isn’t about a few “bad” parks, but the industry as a whole. Animals are not ours to use or abuse in any way; it would be impossible to create an ethical, profitable business built on the exploitation of any animal.

Marine parks and aquariums should take urgent steps to cease the purchase and breeding of animals, while moving their existing ones to appropriate sanctuaries. 

The post The Dolphin Attack At Miami Seaquarium Is Just More Proof: Animals Don’t Belong In Captivity appeared first on Plant Based News.

Meg Long – owner of vegan food page @offtheeatentrack – was one of just 45 applicants selected for the 18th series of the BBC cooking show. She will compete against eight other contestants this week. 

Taking to Instagram to announce the news, Long wrote: “It’s a privilege to be chosen to be on the show from [thousands] of applications and to have the opportunity to cook vegan food on a show I’ve loved for years.”

She added: “Everyone knows how much I love cooking and especially sharing my love of vegan food so I’m really excited to be part of this year’s show.”

MasterChef, which is presented by chefs John Torode and Gregg Wallace, sees amateur chefs compete to win a cash prize, trophy, and the MasterChef title. 

Each week, nine new contestants take part in the “audition stage,” before battling it out for a place in the quarterfinals. The series is now in its fourth week, with Long’s episode airing on Tuesday, April 12. 

MasterChef’s reliance on meat

The food show, notoriously meat-heavy, has attracted some criticism from the vegan and vegetarian community for its excessive use of animal products. 

Richard McIlwain, chief executive of The Vegetarian Society, previously branded the show a “dinosaur” in a society in which many people are cutting down on meat. A report by the Guardian found that during one season of MasterChef, 37 percent of the meals served featured red meat. Meanwhile, 40 percent contained fish, and just two percent were fully plant-based.

In February, a vegan chef walked off the set of MasterChef Romania after being ordered to cook with animal products. Speaking about his decision, he later told Plant Based News: “I can’t cook meat when I believe that it is not normal to kill animals just for our pleasure.” 

The franchise has, however, taken small steps to embrace vegan cooking. Earlier this year, a plant-based chef named Teresa Colaço was crowned winner of the Portuguese version of the program after cooking up a completely vegan menu for the show’s finale. 

She later said her victory was “just the beginning.” And, that she plans to “take plant-based food as far as possible.”

MasterChef UK continues at 8pm on Tuesday, April 12, on BBC One. 

The post New Vegan Contestant To Go Head-To-Head With Meat And Dairy On MasterChef UK appeared first on Plant Based News.

He was adamantly against the idea, explaining: “I have been very clear that, on a personal level, I am someone who very much believes in carrot rather than stick, trying to encourage people to move in the right direction.”

When asked whether people should eat less meat to save the planet, he said doing so was a ‘personal choice’. 

Meat VS the planet

Animal agriculture is catastrophic for the environment, contributing to land degradation, water, and air pollution, resource use, loss of biodiversity, and global warming.

While there’s debate in the scientific community on the proportion of emissions it’s responsible for, it is generally understood to be between 14.5 and 18 percent (though one recent estimate put it as high as 87 percent).

While animal agriculture is of course not the only issue that needs addressing, it should be an essential part of any environmental plan.

A major study from 2018 found that Western countries would need to reduce beef consumption by 90 percent to avoid dangerous climate change, and the UN recently endorsed a report urging world leaders to shift away from animal agriculture and move towards plant-based food systems.

Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, there remains a reluctance from politicians and the general public to accept that we urgently need to switch up our diets. 

Personal choice

This is where the issue of leaving it up to ‘personal choice’ lies.

An IPCC report published in April 2022 proclaimed that it’s ‘now or never’ to limit global heating, indicating that time is running out to leave it to the public to decide whether they fancy cutting down on meat.

We need urgent action from governments to help food systems shift to plant-based if we are to meet climate goals and keep vital ecosystems alive – but is taxing meat the way to go about it? 

A study from the University of Oxford published in January 2022, which looked at the effect taxing meat would have in countries like the US, UK, and Australia concluded that doing so would indeed help the environment.

It found that increasing costs by 20-60 percent (depending on meat type), would reduce the consumption of the most damaging foods.

The study stated that the average retail price for meat in high-income countries would need to increase by 35-56 percent for beef, 25 percent for poultry, and 19 percent for lamb and pork to reflect the environmental impacts of their production.

Disproportionate effects

But it’s undeniable that increases such as these would at first glance seem to be contributing to already sky-rocketing food costs, and critics of the meat tax have argued that it would disproportionately effect the poor.

This is a hugely important point and one that proponents of meat taxes cannot ignore.

If such a tax were introduced, it is arguable that the fall in consumption would be largely due to the fact that some people would no longer be able to afford it, while the richest would continue buying meat unscathed. 

But governments shouldn’t introduce a meat tax and then trot off and leave the public to pick up the pieces. It should be just one of a number of measures they should take to move toward a plant-based food system that creates accessible food for all. 

Researchers in the Oxford study found that, as well as its ability to reduce meat consumption, one of the ‘key advantages’ of meat tax is that it could create revenue to help farmers move to alternative income streams and give support to people from low-income families. 

“There are ways to ensure that meat taxes do not put additional financial pressure on those with low income,” said Franziska Funke, lead author, and researcher in the study.

“That is why we suggest that meat tax revenues should be redistributed to support low-income households or subsidize fruit and vegetables.”

According to this research, most people on low incomes could end up with more money than before a meat tax reform. 

Nutrition

Some people may argue that this system is unfair and would leave people lacking in vital nutrition.

But the idea that meat is an essential part of our diet comes from decades of clever marketing and ignores the numerous studies that have concluded plant-based diets are optimum for humans, as well as the link between meat consumption and disease.

What’s more, the long-term aim should not be that some people continue eating meat while others go without. A meat tax could be a vital step in tackling the meat consumption problem, but it is not the complete solution.

Governments should work to make plant-based diets the norm by making them accessible to everyone.

The reason why meat products are so prevalent in our society is because governments give away billions in subsidies to animal agriculture.

Subsidies are tax-payer-funded grants that governments give to industries to keep down costs, therefore making their products more accessible to the consumer. 

Farm subsidies

It is thought that the tax-payer provides more than $1 million per minute in global farm subsidies. In the UK, around 90 percent of the income of farmers with grazing livestock comes from subsidies.

In the US, tens of billions of dollars are given to farmers each year.

The Trump administration gave a $16 billion support package payout on top of regular subsidies in 2019, while at the same time cutting $5 billion from the food stamps budget.

This level of support has created a system where unhealthy meat products – like cheap fast food – are more accessible than fruits and vegetables.

If crop farming was given this funding, it has the potential to provide far cheaper food for more people than our current system does. Crop farming requires considerably less land and resources than animal farming and would be vastly more efficient at feeding the population if it was prioritized.

We are wasting money that could be used to make widespread cheaper food on ailing industries that are inept at feeding the population and accelerating the world toward environmental destruction.

Not a quick-fix

Governments should stop subsidizing meat and dairy industries, and instead direct money to crop farming while helping existing animal farmers move towards it. 

While a meat tax has the potential to be a positive step in a move toward a plant-based system, it should by no means be a standalone policy.

There needs to be an urgent shift in our food system away from animal agriculture, and governments should allocate funding to reflect this.

After years of marketing campaigns that sold the public the wildly incorrect idea that meat and dairy is an essential component of a balanced diet, they should also take steps to educate the public on the benefits of plant-based eating. 

The post Taxes On Meat – Should We Pay Less For Vegan Food? appeared first on Plant Based News.

The 75-year-old actor and campaigner, who has been a vegetarian since 1970, discussed the cruelty of animal farming while giving a talk on “The True Meaning of Compassion” at Oxford Literary Festival. 

As reported by the Telegraph, she said: ​​”Farming animals is the greatest source of animal cruelty on the planet.

“The magnitude of it, you can’t even imagine it – 80 billion of them are slaughtered every year.”

Lumley was speaking at the event on behalf of charity Compassion in World Farming, of which she is a patron. She said that the organization was urging people to “eat less dairy, eat less meat, it’s bad for you, it’s bad for the animals, and it’s bad for the planet.”

After she had given her speech, a farmer stood up to respond to her words. 

Our fantastic Patron Dame Joanna Lumley will shortly be speaking on ‘The True Meaning of Compassion’ at @oxfordlitfest. She’ll be discussing her love of animals with @philip_ciwf, & how this has led to Joanna being involved with decades of animal welfare campaigning. pic.twitter.com/aM7Jsyg1L2

— Compassion in World Farming (@ciwf) April 2, 2022

“Could I just speak up on behalf of a farming family in Warwickshire who farms so beautifully?” she said. “That’s my experience of over 70 years of being in farming.”

“Everybody I know farms with compassion. Please don’t mark farmers as all bad people because they are not. Without farms, it is a very, very sad world.”

Lumley responded by saying that she hoped her speech had not been “insulting to fine farmers,” adding that her comments had been about factory farming.  

She was also addressed by another audience member from a farming family, who said she had “heard so much negative stuff today,” adding: “Where you all want to walk and enjoy, is farmland.”

Lumley said that her speech had been too short to discuss all farming-related issues in-depth. 

Dame Lumley previously opened up about her decision to go vegetarian in an interview with The Times last year, saying: “I don’t like the idea of any creature having to lose its life to keep me alive.”

She also supported this year’s Veganuary campaign, saying she was “in awe” of those signing up to go vegan for the month of January.

The post Joanna Lumley Confronted By Farmers After Calling Out Animal Cruelty appeared first on Plant Based News.