I grew up in Gateshead in the northeast of England, which is still known as the whitest area of the country. This was the early ’80s when the word “Paki” was used as abundantly as “Hello.”

The racism started on my first day at school. Up until that point, the only language I spoke was Bengali. I was quickly shunned as some weird brown girl who didn’t make sense. I learned to hide in the corner library in the nursery to get away from the looks, laughs, and taunts.

An outsider in my own community

However, the truth is that these feelings of being an outsider started long before my first day at school. I was an outsider within my own community and even my own family.

When I was eight months old, my parents took me to Barcelona. Within a day, I developed a terrible fever. Once it died down, my skin was several shades darker than my family’s.  

I was in my 30s when I discovered my mother had left me in the sun too long on that fateful day, and I’d suffered heatstroke. In her defense, most people were not aware of the dangers of the sun back then.

Now much darker than the rest of my family, my parents would hear comments from various “aunties” and “uncles” about how difficult it would be for them to get me married. By the time I was a toddler, I already felt like I didn’t belong in my community or family. 

Looking back now, I’m astounded by the cognitive dissonance. If you’ve watched the 2006 movie This Is England you’d have an accurate depiction of what life was like in the ’80s for ethnic minorities who were routinely targeted by white skinheads.

You’d think my own community, who knew what it felt like to be outsiders, taunted and intimidated by natives for attributes they cannot control, would be sympathetic to me. Unfortunately, they didn’t make the connection – in the same way a vet doesn’t see any hypocrisy in saving a dog’s life while eating a bacon sandwich.

Eating meat to fit in with white people

My family and I were Hindu and therefore vegetarian. The school canteen had no vegetarian options. My siblings and I were the only children who went home for lunch. The food itself made me feel like an outsider.

When I turned 13, my parents felt I was old enough to decide whether I remained vegetarian or chose to eat meat. Within an hour, I’d eaten a Big Mac. 

I don’t remember being curious about the taste of meat. I ate that burger because it made me feel less of an outsider. Eating meat made me feel like I could fit in with white people. 

Addicted … to drugs and to fitting in

That feeling of “achievement” would become my downfall. I’d become obsessed with fitting in. When I left for university and fell in with a group of students who liked taking recreational drugs, I’d inevitably join in.

As with the burger, I don’t remember any desire for speed or ecstasy. I still get asked if I ever feared the consequences of drugs. I didn’t. All I saw was my route to fitting in.

I used recreational drugs so often that my university kicked me out and I lost my place in the halls of residence. I ended up on the streets and then in a homeless shelter. But I was too ashamed to go home and face my parents’ disappointment.

None of this mattered. The sad reality was I was addicted to something far more addictive than drugs – the feeling of belonging. 

Getting clean was tough, not just because of the physical withdrawals, but the reappearance of those old feelings of being an outsider that the drugs masked. 

Rescued by a cat called Isha

In 2010 I rescued a cat called Isha from a local shelter. When Isha came into my life for the first time, I could see the connection between my experiences and what she had experienced in her short life. 

As a non-pedigree tabby and the runt of her litter, her market value was low. She was abandoned for attributes that she had no control over, much like I had no control over my skin color or race.

I also realized how lucky she was as a cat in a country where she was classified as “pet” and not “food,” much like how my race worked for me when quotas needed filling.

This cat had such a profound effect on me. Over the next couple of years, she helped me open my eyes to the speciesism inherent in our society and turned me vegan. I may have rescued her, but she also rescued me.

Writing my way to success

Books have always been a solace for me. Those times hiding in the library as a young child seeded my love of reading and writing. When I was 16, I won a scriptwriting competition and co-wrote an episode of Brookside. 

Due to my addiction and losing my place at university where I was studying media, my professional journey has been diverse, including working in the National Health Service and Her Majesty’s Prison.

But I found my way back to writing and have forged a successful career as a content writer, copywriter, ghostwriter of seven nonfiction books, and now as a book consultant and publisher. 

Turning racism and colorism into opportunity

Unlike in my childhood, I’ve witnessed how my skin color and race could sometimes be advantageous throughout my career. Twice I was informed that my race – not my abilities – was why I was selected for top positions. I’ve also lived in communities where I was relatively light-skinned compared to others and therefore deemed attractive. 

Ten years ago, after becoming vegan, I finally started to appreciate my experiences with racism and colorism. They were designed to help me intimately understand how it feels to be boxed up, labeled, and reduced to one or two attributes.  

I learned to love my most painful experiences as they set me on my current trajectory as The Vegan Publisher with a mission to empower vegan experts, influencers, C-suite executives, and entrepreneurs to end the exploitation of animals, humans, and the environment, one book at a time.

So thank you to all those who called me “Paki,” who advised me to use whitening creams and gleefully informed me I’m only there as a box-ticking exercise. You’ve unleashed a vegan monster. 

Now, I don’t need to fit in, because, in the wise words of Dr. Seuss, I was born to stand out.

Mitali Deypurkaystha is a book consultant and founder of The Vegan Publisher specializing in business books for vegan and plant-based entrepreneurs, experts, consultants, and C-suite executives. Her new book, The Freedom Master Plan: Put Your Mission, Movement, and Message on the Map, details proven book writing and leveraging strategies that dramatically increase profits and build additional income streams so vegan businesses thrive.

The post I Started Eating Meat To Fit In With White People 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.

Britain’s intensive animal protein sector is, perhaps surprisingly, tied to Russian industry. In rearing cattle and producing animal-based proteins like eggs and milk, British farmers currently rely on Russian and Belarussian exports for a high percentage of the fertilizers and animal feed additives, which are essential components of intensive animal agriculture.

A third of all crops grown in the UK are used to feed animals. Farmers use fertilizers, including ammonium nitrate and potassium, to produce greater yields. According to the government’s Food Security Report, we import around half of our ammonium nitrate, “with 75 percent of imports for fertilizer use coming from the EU and the remaining 25 percent from Georgia and Russia.”

The UN estimates that the UK imports over a third of its nitrogenous fertilizer from Russia and Belarus. And the International Food Policy Research Institute estimates we rely on these countries for almost two thirds of our potassium fertilizer.

We also depend on Russia and Belarus for animal feed; currently they account for 33 percent of all global potassium hydroxide exports, which are used to boost the nutrients in animal feed. And whilst a quarter of the food Brits eat comes from Europe, Europe’s reliance on Russia for energy is having knock-on effects on UK food prices. 

Plant-based solution

There is a solution to this food security issue, and a growing number of British consumers are starting to choose it. Indeed, instead of depending on intensively reared animals for food, which rely on these fertilizers and additives, more and more people are consuming protein-rich ingredients sourced from plants instead.

A recent science journal study found the number of Brits eating plant-based alternative foods nearly doubled from 6.7 percent in 2008 to 13.1 percent in 2019. It’s better for our planet, our health, our animals, and can provide long-term opportunity for British farmers.

Food security and alternative protein

Alternative proteins are foodstuffs made from plants, fungi, or tissue culture that provide a genuine different choice to conventional intensively farmed animal proteins. They rely on what British agriculture does best: crops. Britain is the second largest pea producer in Europe, and so self-sufficient in wheat that we are a net exporter. 

According to the Food Security Report, “the UK is a net importer of dairy and beef” but is “largely self-sufficient in production of grains” (producing 100 percent of its own oats and barley, and 90 percent of wheat). And, it “produces over 50 percent of vegetables consumed domestically.” Supporting alternative proteins means backing more British produce and greater food security at home.

By 2025, one in four of us could be vegetarian or vegan, according to a recent Global Food Security Programme report.  And if we include flexitarians – those who follow a primarily plant-based diet – it could be as many as one in two of us.

Dietary change is coming, British consumers are leading the way and we need a world leading regulatory framework and forward-looking investment so that British industry can lead and guarantee UK food security long into the 21^st century.

Supporting the alternative protein sector is urgent if we want Britain to secure a world-leading position in a long-term market that AT Kearney research predicts could take up to 60 percent of the global meat market by 2040.

Instead of using vast amounts of land to produce food for animals, we can produce the same amount of food on 93 percent less land, using 95 percent less water and with far less Russian fertilizer – safeguarding British farming through more efficient use of arable land. And it’s greener too: alternative proteins produce an average of 88 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than animal proteins, helping us on our way to Net Zero by 2050. 

Boosting Britain’s economy

And as well as giving us food security, this could reduce the cost of living through lower food prices and create tens of thousands of jobs. Henry Dimbleby’s National Food Strategy estimates that UK alternative protein manufacturing could create 10,000 new factory jobs and 6,500 farming jobs. And the Department for International Trade has identified that “companies in the North East will be in a prime position to take advantage of the growing demand for plant-based and alternative protein products” as a result of their world-class universities, abundance of land, and manufacturing cluster.  What a great way to deliver on the government’s leveling up agenda!

So as we await the government’s National Food Strategy, it’s our sincere hope that alternative proteins are put right at its heart. That’s why British businesses, academics, scientists, investors, and NGOs have joined forces to create the Alternative Proteins Association, which we recently launched in Parliament.

Let’s support our homegrown industries, back British farmers, go green, lower food prices, create thousands of jobs, and most of all, safeguard Britain’s food security.

The post How Alternative Protein Could Be Key To Tackling Food Insecurity In Britain 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.

“We are for good quality, proper milk…we’re talking whole milk. Full fat milk,” it wrote. “We don’t use skimmed milk powder in any of our foods.”

The brand went on to describe cow’s milk as “the perfect balance of protein, good fats and natural sugars (lactose),” concluding that they “live life to the full, with full fat dairy products.”

These words didn’t come from a dairy milk or cheese company, but a supposedly progressive plant-based milk brand named Rude Health, which had, until then, been hugely popular with vegans. 

The post understandably sparked outrage from vegans, most of whom had adopted the lifestyle because of the cruelty in the dairy – and other animal – industries. The situation was made worse when one of the brand’s founders called veganism “modern madness,” and described vegan films like What the Health as “propaganda.” 

THIS controversy

It was truly shocking to see a company seemingly actively try to alienate its consumer base, but Rude Health was just one of the first of a number of brands to do so. 

Last week, plant-based meat alternative company THIS came under fire after posting an advert that claimed to show a number of “vegans” eating what they were told were real meat products (they were actually the company’s vegan alternatives). 

The video diluted and miscommunicated what veganism is, and THIS was heavily criticized in the comments. By showing a group of alleged vegans who are willing to eat meat, it sent a message that veganism is nothing more than a diet that can be dipped in and out of, rather than a movement seeking to end animal exploitation.

Things, again, were made worse after one of their staff members posted a picture of a bacon meal she was eating on her personal profile in response to the criticism the company had received.

She wrote: “After 24 hours as a vegan punching bag, I enjoyed every mouthful of these cheesy, creamy, bacon covered pierogi.” In its subsequent apology, THIS said that they were “genuinely, really sorry for undermining veganism with our silly marketing vid.”

THIS has since taken steps to amend and atone for this misfire in marketing, issuing a public apology.

Ethical veganism

Non-vegan companies have also used similar tactics to promote their plant-based food. When Subway released its “Meatless Marinara,” a plant-based version of its famous Meatball Marinara, it released an advert showing a group of meat-free members of the public taking part in a taste test.

As a ‘”joke,” the woman hosting the event then told the group that she’d accidentally given them the meat version. After a few moments, during which the people were shown looking understandably appalled, they were told that they were in fact the vegan versions. 

These kinds of marketing tactics feed into the narrative that veganism is nothing more than a fad and something to poke fun of, which is a commonly held belief in our society. Adverts like these are likely created because of the prevailing idea that veganism is a trend, something that people are into now but probably won’t be soon. There is an assumption that vegans would be able to easily laugh off eating meat, rather than being deeply upset at the thought that their ethics had been compromised.

Flexitarianism in the vegan food scene

A decision to prioritise more occasional plant-based eaters over vegans is another reason why brands could be getting their marketing so wrong. There are thought to be around 23 million “flexitarians” in the UK, as opposed to around 600,000 vegans.

Oatly, an oat milk brand valued at $13 billion last year, recently shied away from the vegan label in a paid-for article in the Guardian. The piece included a quote reading:  “As more of us move towards a plant-based life, our labels may need to shift to reflect a whole spectrum of new ‘normals’”. It said that “all or nothing” labels like vegan can be a “disincentive for us to make plant-based choices we’d otherwise be open to.”

It’s true that veganism is all-encompassing, but the article’s attempt to present that as a problem undermined the fact that it’s a movement to end animal cruelty and exploitation, rather than a simple dietary choice.

Oatly also caused controversy after promoting the label “part-time vegan” on its Instagram. This was criticized by many of its customers on the basis that ethical vegans cannot be “part-time,” and that being vegan means rejecting animal exploitation in every aspect of your life (where possible). Oatly later apologized, saying it was committed to bringing “as many people as possible into the plant-based camp,” but acknowledging that the post was a “failure.”

Veganism as a philosophy

These marketing misfires expose a deep rooted misunderstanding in our society of the fact that veganism is a philosophy and movement, not a fad or trend. It also seems that some brands are trying to attract the increasing number of flexitarian and plant-based consumers at the expense of the vegan customers who built the foundations for their success.

While it’s of course great news that more people are making small steps to eat less animal products, that doesn’t mean the vegan message should be undermined. Brands should find ways to promote their products without biting some of the hands that feed them.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Plant Based News.

The post Plant-Based Food Has Gone Mainstream – But Why Are Brands Still Alienating Vegans? appeared first on Plant Based News.

They’re the social media posts we scroll over, the back of the cereal box we absentmindedly read, the advertising we walk past, the sports games we watch, the conversations we overhear, the brand of clothes we wear, our workplace’s mission, the inner voice in our head.

Stories are everywhere, and they shape how we understand the world, how we understand each other, and how we understand ourselves.

They’re hardwired into us from when our ancestors sat around the campfire, telling each other stories not merely for entertainment but to share knowledge.

It’s why children will understand and remember the moral behind stories like The Boy Who Cried Wolf more than the parental command: “Don’t tell lies”. 

Stories give our lives meaning

Stories help us anticipate what might happen next, and in turn, help us navigate the world around us. There’s a growing consensus among scientists that the brain is essentially a prediction-making machine. Without our storytelling brains, sports games couldn’t even exist. 

Stories guide our lives and give them meaning. But the power of narrative is often used as a way to divide and control us.

It’s because of stories that countries go to war, corrupt politicians get elected into office, and billionaires keep getting richer from the ‘must-have’ products they market to us. As the well-known Native American proverb says: Those who tell the stories rule the world. 

The power of storytelling

We are surrounded by stories that normalize injustice and violence in order to benefit the few. It is because of such dominant narratives – of human supremacy; of fellow animals being ‘other’ and ‘non’ and ‘less than’; of their exploitation being ‘normal’, ‘natural’, ‘necessary’ and even ‘nice’ – that we live in a world where the killing of individuals in their trillions is seen as morally neutral.

Toxic narratives of superiority and otherness underpin all oppressions, whether it’s speciesism, racism, sexism, heterosexism, or ableism.

These narratives continue to persist because they are intertwined and mutually reinforcing. Yet there is cause for hope. While stories got us into this mess, stories can help lead us out of it, too. 

Because we make sense of the world best through stories, they create empathy in a way that facts and politics can’t.

They can help us identify with those who don’t automatically fall within our ‘in-group’, pulling back the curtain on whole communities who are often invisibilized or otherized by showing the world through their eyes.

Popular culture

The anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which was the first major US book to feature a Black protagonist, had a profound effect on attitudes towards African Americans and is often cited as the catalyst for the American Civil War.

Even Harry Potter has been shown to reduce children’s prejudice towards stigmatised groups. 

Despite societies being indoctrinated by harmful, oppressive myths for centuries, even millennia, these are steadily being challenged and overshadowed by healthier narratives rooted in unity, love and freedom.

As social changers, one of the questions we need to ask ourselves is: what are the narratives that could drastically shift public perception around fellow animals and show that Animal Freedom is an issue that affects all of us? 

Narrative is one of our main workstreams at Animal Think Tank, where we’re exploring which messages, stories, and narratives can connect most with others and cut across the political noise, and in turn help create lasting social and legal change for fellow animals in UK society.

It will be an extensive research project across a number of years, but what continues to inspire and motivate us is seeing how narrative change in other movements has resulted in huge leaps forward in social change.

Freedom to marry

On 26 June 2015, American history was made. The US supreme court ruled in favour of marriage equality across all 50 US states. Finally, same-sex couples had the freedom to marry. But how did this momentous change happen in a country as conservative and religious as America? 

A huge driver of the movement’s victory was in changing their narrative. After a decade of pushbacks in the courts and lackluster polling, the movement realized that the public didn’t understand that same-sex couples wanted to get married for the very same reason all couples do: love.

It was then campaigners realized that they needed to shift away from their current narrative around ‘rights’ and ‘justice’ to a narrative rooted in the heart-held values of ‘love’ and ‘freedom’.

And so the Freedom to Marry campaign was born in 2003, telling positive and moving stories of conservative fathers wanting to walk their lesbian daughter down the aisle, of religious parents wanting their gay son to marry the love of his life, of children wanting their parents to be able to celebrate their love.

These stories forged the in-roads to making marriage equality relevant to voters, taking what was once deemed a side issue and reframing it to show how it affected wider society.

Within just six months of launching the new narrative, the campaign achieved its first historic win: Massachusetts became the first state to rule in favor of the freedom to marry.

With the precedent set, it took just 12 years for the remaining 49 states to follow suit. 

Shifting the narrative

Just like the tide turned for marriage equality when the movement stopped talking ‘rights’ and started talking ‘love’, the immigrant rights movement made substantial headway when they too shifted away from ‘rights’ and centered their narrative around ‘family’ and ‘freedom’, platforming the first-hand experiences of undocumented storytellers. 

A similar narrative shift happened in the pro-choice movement in Ireland, which used the positive, inclusive framing of ‘Together for Yes’ to repeal the eighth amendment, and moved away from ‘rights’ and ‘choice’ to one of ‘care’ and ‘compassion’.

The MeToo movement flipped the narrative around male sexual violence through women reclaiming it, telling their stories in their own words, and framing themselves as survivors united in solidarity, not isolated victims who had stories told about them.

Social change

Looking further back, changing the narrative has helped usher in social change for countless historic movements.

Part of the success of the abolition of the slave trade was not just stories like Uncle Tom’s Cabin, written by white abolitionists, but first-person stories of freed slaves (such as The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano).

These stories allowed others to see the world through former slaves’ eyes, evoking empathy for fellow people, rather than pity for ‘slaves’, helping to break down the us/them barrier. 

Martin Luther King understood the power of storytelling more than most, and it was his iconic I Have a Dream speech that reframed the dominant narrative of the American Dream, widening who was considered worthy of being ‘American dreamers’.

His speech crafted a story of a different tomorrow, and his vision was so vivid and urgent in its depiction, it made others yearn for this fictional future over their current reality. 

Building a network of strategic storytellers

Other social justice movements show us not only that narrative matters but that movement collaboration matters. It is when a diversity of voices unify behind a shared narrative that it can begin to have traction.

To create an inclusive society that respects everyone, we need an inclusive approach to our narrative strategy. We don’t believe one organization can come up with all the answers.

That’s why, alongside our narrative research, ideation, and testing, we’re collaborating with other creative thinkers and communicators across the movement to explore how, collectively, we can accelerate narrative change for Animal Freedom. 

In February 2022, 27 of us (from faith groups to grassroots groups, to NGOs, to design agencies, to media, to think tanks) gathered in one space to discuss how we could more positively frame fellow animals in our discourse.

We explored how language and images convey meaning, and how the way in which we communicate affects how others think, feel and act. 

While this first workshop only scratched the surface of the deep work involved in narrative change, this and future collaborations will help inform the messages, stories, and narratives to be developed and tested.

Just as crucially, it has laid the foundations for building a network of communicators to bring in the very best ideas and insights from across the movement, empowering all of us to be more effective storytellers for Animal Freedom.

If this sounds like something you or your organization are interested in being part of, or just want to learn more about narrative change for social change, we want to hear from you. 

From Jaws to My Octopus Teacher

When thinking about how we can add to the narrative landscape around fellow animals, it’s useful to reflect back on how previous stories have already informed the wider narrative.

For all the damage that the likes of Moby-Dick and Jaws inflicted on our aquatic cousins by otherizing and demonizing them (which the author of Jaws now deeply regrets), there have been countless other stories that have challenged this stereotype.

Such as the recent Oscar-winning My Octopus Teacher, which centered a female octopus and showed her unique personality, curiosity, and ingenuity. (We’ll need many more stories like this to help challenge plans for commercial-scale farming of octopuses.)

Or, going further back, National Geographic’s 1979 album of whale songs, distributed to all of its 10.5 million subscribers (which still remains the biggest single pressing in recording history).

This dramatically reframed whales so they were no longer seen as ‘monsters of the deep’, but as beautiful, musical, cultured beings who inspired awe and reverence in us, not terror. This seemingly small shift in narrative saw a huge rise in public support for banning the hunting of whales.

There are countless other stories that show fellow animals as the diverse individuals they are, from the cinematic beauty of Gunda, to the heart-breaking realism of Green, to the cute-ified animation of Bambi (whose mother’s killing, by a hunter known only as ‘Man’, also increased public anti-hunting morality). 

And there are, of course, the many stories and narratives we bring as a movement. We shine a light on the dark industry secrets, we show fellow animals’ resisting their oppression, and we offer hope by showing survivors living free or in sanctuary. 

As a movement, we continue to change the narrative around veganism, steadily bringing it into the mainstream by reframing what is normal, natural, necessary, and nice.

Yet while veganism and plant-based eating continue to increase in popularity, the number of fellow animals being killed also continues to rise.

And while we win occasional policy battles, these wins are always under attack and in danger of being reversed (or completely ignored, as with the UK ‘ban’ on hunting foxes).

We want to discover if other narratives can bring us closer to Animal Freedom by shifting away from ‘welfare’, ‘rights’ and ‘veganism’ to more universal values, like ‘freedom’, ‘love’, and ‘community’.

After all, it is values like family and love that the animal exploitation industry knows to draw upon when selling products that are the very antithesis of this.

How do we change the narrative?

While a story can be told, a narrative has to be understood and felt. Narratives are the deep, often invisible, ideologies that stories and messages stem from. They exist as an interconnected system of stories that reinforce the underlying ideology.

Part of our work as communicators is revealing how the dominant narratives that are currently seen as ‘common sense’ are in fact just myths that we have been force-fed for centuries.

But narrative change is not just about challenging and dismantling the toxic narratives that surround us; it is about offering a vision of a better future for everyone. At their core, that’s what popular narratives are.

Whether it’s the spin of oppressive narratives like Make America Great Again and the American Dream, or the hopeful narratives of Gandhi’s Beloved Community, King’s dream, same-sex couples’ Freedom to Marry, a future where Black Lives Matter, or people coming Together For Yes, all narratives are about inspiring hope for the future. 

With crisis comes opportunity

The old narrative – of individualism, competition, extraction and ‘progress’ – has failed us. It’s been fractured by the pandemic, the climate crisis and increasing inequality. Right now, we are in between narratives. We’re living in a time where new narratives can begin to take root in the void. 

We are at a crucial point in our history when the stories we tell matter now more than ever. People are primed for a different, more hopeful story – one of love, connection, cooperation and unity. 

While narrative is only part of the social change work that is needed, it’s a vital part. It isn’t a magic pill that will quickly topple speciesism or any other oppression; it’s a process – one that will most likely take decades.

It needs all of us to discover the narratives that will most move society towards Animal Freedom. It needs all of us to show that a different future is not only possible, it is essential.

And it needs all of us to keep our vision of the future in circulation, reinforcing it through countless different stories and via countless different messengers, until that vision becomes reality.

Those who tell the stories rule the world – that is the power of storytelling. And it’s time the story represented all of us.

If you’re interested in learning more about narrative change for Animal Freedom, want to be a part of a growing network of communicators focused on this work, or would like to volunteer with Animal Think Tank, we’d love to hear from you. 

The post Can Changing The Narrative Change Society? appeared first on Plant Based News.

Advocates of the initiative encourage the public to align with it in place of Veganuary. Why anyone would want to dismantle a movement that seeks to prevent suffering, avoid another global pandemic, and keep our planet habitable is anyone’s guess. Perhaps the trillion-dollar meat industry could enlighten us.

Unperturbed by the spectacular “marketing misfire” that was “Februdairy,” animal agriculture enthusiasts are having another go with their latest campaign. And while there are some environmental benefits to regenerative agriculture, scientific researchers question just how significant these are. And, whether we need domesticated animals to achieve them.

What is regenerative grazing?

Supporters of Regenuary say that by mimicking the grazing patterns of wild animals, “livestock” can feed off the land while fertilizing it.

Their nibbling encourages plants to put down deeper roots, and their movement tramples plants, mixing their manure with the soil, which does the same. Deeper roots are beneficial because they can sequester more carbon in the soil. It all sounds good, doesn’t it?

Almost too good to be true…

Do we need manure for fertilizer?

Currently, the world’s farmed animals produce so much waste that it cannot be absorbed by the land. It gets stored in delightful-sounding lagoons from which it leaches out.

Or, it is deliberately discharged, polluting the air, earth, and waterways. It is responsible for algal blooms that kill aquatic life in rivers, lakes, and oceans. It also exacerbates respiratory illness in people who live near farms.¹

Animal waste is a health and environmental catastrophe, and it’s not as if we need the manure as fertilizer. An increasing number of farms are growing produce without any animal input at all.

These “stock-free” farms use cover crops, crop rotation, and green manures to fertilize and protect soils. And, to avoid emissions and sequester carbon. They work with nature to enrich the soil, not against it by pushing it to its absolute limits.

Do we need grazing animals?

It’s interesting that Regenuary proponents insist we need grazing farmed animals to stimulate plant roots. Because we already have wild grazers, including deer, beavers, rabbits, and boar – millions of whom are shot by farmers for being pests.

However, should domesticated grazing animals such as horses, sheep, or cows still be required in some areas, it’s entirely possible to accommodate them without killing and eating them.

They could help us, and we could look after them. Living in harmony can never involve slaughterhouses.

Do grazing animals help sequester carbon?

Yes. But do they sequester enough to offset the emissions from rearing the animals themselves? Well, that’s a question animal farmers and Regenuary advocates would prefer you didn’t ask.

In a report called Grazed and Confused, Oxford University’s Food Climate Research Network revealed: “Only under very specific conditions can [grazing] help sequester carbon. This sequestering of carbon is even then small, time-limited, reversible and substantially outweighed by the GHG emissions these grazing animals generate.”²

They found that, at best, grazing animals could offset between just 20 and 60 percent of the emissions. In other words, a net rise. This figure will also reduce over time. After a few decades, the soil will have sequestered all it was able to. At that point, carbon storage drops to zero.

Regenerative agriculture’s big “success” story

In 2019, the results from a study³ at White Oaks Pastures, a beef farm in Georgia, USA, was released. This farm is hailed as a regenerative farming success story, and it has claimed for years that its beef is carbon negative.

As we might expect, the farm is responsible for reduced carbon emissions compared to conventional cow meat production. However, it is not carbon negative.

As environmental researcher Nicholas Carter and Dr Tushar Mehta observed: “The study has significant lapses that grossly exaggerate or misrepresent the true soil organic carbon sequestration capacity of their farming techniques. [And] there are serious potential problems with studies funded by large industries, and this study by General Mills shows typical patterns.

All studies require critical review, but industry studies even more so.”⁴

One of the key issues with White Oaks Pastures’ claims is that it uses a 100-year timeframe for accounting for methane. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and all other credible bodies examine methane over 20 years because that is when most of the damage is caused.

Does methane matter?

Methane really matters. Over a 20-year timeframe, it has a warming effect 80 times that of carbon dioxide. It is for this reason that climate scientists say cutting global methane emissions is the quickest way to slow down global heating.

According to the Executive Director of the United Nations Environmental Programme, Inger Andersen: “Cutting methane is the strongest lever we have to slow climate change over the next 25 years.”

Sixty percent of the methane in the atmosphere comes from human activity.⁵ And cows and other grazing ruminants are the main source of it.⁶

Land use

Currently, animal agriculture uses 77 percent of global farming land⁷. But even more land would be needed for regenerative farming than for conventional farming.

That is not in dispute. Even the White Oaks Pastures study admits that its grazing methods require two and a half times more land than standard meat production. Two and a half times more!

Already the vast amount of land used for meat production has driven a devastating decline in wildlife as land is taken from nature to be used for farmed animals. Just since 1970, 60 per cent of wild animal populations have been wiped out.

Moreover, scientists declaring the sixth mass extinction is underway. Meat is cited as a leading cause.⁸ Regeneratively farming would only drive further deforestation and even greater wildlife losses.

Despite what Regenuary supporters might say, regenerative grazing is part of the problem; it isn’t the solution. We should be careful about being drawn into futile discussions on how much carbon might be offset by stimulating plant roots when we know for certain that removing farmed animals from the land is the fastest way to reduce agriculture’s overall GHG emissions.⁹

Regenerative grazing is a con, a classic case of conjurors’ misdirection. Because while we waste time debating this point, methane levels are rising fast,¹⁰ the atmosphere is warming, and our planet is dying.

We already know the answer

We know from Poore and Nemecek’s 2018 meta-analysis of our global food systems, that almost all animal-based foods have a higher climate impact than almost all plant-based foods.¹¹

We know that, if the world were to adopt a plant-based diet, our total agricultural land use would shrink from 4.1 billion hectares to one billion hectares. This marks a reduction of 75 percent.¹²

Further, this would free up vast amounts of land that could return to natural habitats and ecosystem. It would also prevent further deforestation – the biggest wins for biodiversity and carbon sequestration.

We know from 2019 IPCC research that a fully vegan diet is significantly better for the climate than eating meat, including fish, even just once a month.¹³ And we know that beef and lamb are so damaging that cutting them out of our diets would save seven gigatons C02e every year.

Meanwhile, a fully plant-based diet would save double that.¹⁴

Putting it into practice – without Regenuary

We have the data, and we know the fastest way to bring down emissions and to mitigate the worst effects of climate breakdown.

Now, we need an urgent and concerted effort from governments, businesses, and investors to help farmers transition away from animal agriculture. They need incentives and support for growing veganically and for protecting both the climate and the environment through land restoration.

In the meantime, Veganuary will continue to inspire, help, and guide hundreds of thousands of people who wish to reduce their own impact.

I am confident that Veganuary will continue to grow and to succeed. And that’s partly because people know greenwashing when they see it. And the stench of industry bullsh*t around regenerative grazing is overpowering.

Matthew is the founder of Vegan Fried Chicken (VFC) and the director and founder of VegCaptial – an investment fund that provides early-stage capital to companies striving to replace the use of animals in the food system.

References

1. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-farms-neighbors-idUSKBN18X2E4
2. https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf
3. https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/hubfs/WOP-LCA-Quantis-2019.pdf
4. https://plantbaseddata.medium.com/the-failed-attempt-to-greenwash-beef-7dfca9d74333
5. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/methane
6. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11066-3
7. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
8. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds
9. Sun, Z. et al. (2022) Dietary change in high-income nations alone can lead to substantial double climate dividend, Nature Food, doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00431-5
10. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/
11. https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
12. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
13. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-5/5-5-mitigation-options-challenges-and-opportunities/5-5-2-demand-side-mitigation-options/5-5-2-1-mitigation-potential-of-different-diets/figure-5-12/
14. https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food

The post ‘Regenuary’: Animal Farmers Take Aim At Growingly Popular Veganuary Campaign appeared first on Plant Based News.

She replied by sending me a story in yesterday’s Express. Its headline is: ‘The popular diets linked to higher risk of breaking and fracturing bones’.

Mid-eye-roll, I realized it rang a bell…

‘Exaggerated’ news coverage

The study it described was published last year. And, Viva! posted a review of it back then, pointing out the flaws in the exaggerated news coverage.

In a nutshell, this study found a higher risk of fracture among mainly slim older vegan women.

But, there were a number of concerns about the study. And, the results weren’t by any means as straightforward as the Express headline implies.

For example, the higher fracture risk of vegans compared to meat-eaters was relatively small – equivalent to just 20 more cases per 1,000 people over 10 years.

Moreover, women were most affected. In particular, postmenopausal women with low physical activity and a low body mass index (BMI).

Debunking the diet study

Because vegans tend to weigh less, it was difficult to match vegans and meat-eaters with a similar BMI to make meaningful comparisons.

It is also worth remembering that a bit of extra weight may protect your hip from breaking if you fall.

But being overweight carries many other significant health risks. Also, there was no information on the causes of the fractures. So, this study couldn’t tell if fractures were the result of fragile bones or significant trauma.

It’s also worth pointing out that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) protects against menopausal bone loss. And only 5.6 percent of the vegan women reported taking it, compared to 26.7 percent of the meat-eating women.

HRT was accounted for in the analysis, but may still have been a contributing factor.

I spoke to the lead author, Dr. Tammy Tong.

They said that because food intakes were based on what the participants self-reported, there was a possibility of error among all diet groups.

She also said vitamin D may have influenced the results, but was not measured. The study authors acknowledged that more research is needed to get a clearer picture of what is going on.

Cancer risk in vegans

The study came from a group initially set up to examine how diet influences the risk of cancer.

In 2014, they found that compared with meat-eaters, cancer incidence was 19 percent lower in vegans.

The results of the US Adventist Health Study II were similar. Vegans had a 16 percent lower risk and vegan women experienced 34 percent fewer female-specific cancers.

This article was originally posted by Viva! here

The post OPINION: Doctor Hits Back At ‘Exaggerated’ News Report On Vegan Diet appeared first on Plant Based News.

The possibility of a vegan world is something everyone reading this article has probably dreamt of. Sometimes it feels like a distant, even delusional fantasy; other times, the possibility of it feels more palpable. We can envisage what a vegan world might look like. But what’s harder to imagine is how we make it a reality.

This is the question that inspired the creation of Animal Think Tank back in 2018. It prompted us to look at animal freedom in new and strategic ways. Specifically, through the lens of social movement theory.

Do we need a social movement for animal freedom?

The purpose of mass social movements is to organize and empower people to bring about cultural and political change by strategically campaigning for the rights and liberties of oppressed groups.

But does the animal freedom movement need its own mass movement? Aren’t we making enough progress through our current tactics? By encouraging individuals to go vegan and ensuring plant-based eating is more desirable and convenient. And by alleviating as much animal suffering as possible through welfare reforms.

Yes, we’re making progress. But is there a quicker shortcut to reach a vegan world?

Perhaps we need to look to the past in order to shape the future. Because history shows us that morally forceful and disruptive social movements are a key driver of cultural and political change. Yet mass civil disobedience has rarely been implemented in the animal freedom movement.

Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion

When we think of recent examples of social justice movements, like Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion, they have one major commonality: they cause economic, political and social disruption. They halt business as usual, all the while challenging society’s commonly held beliefs. They create and surface conflict that pushes the urgency of the issue into the public consciousness.

George Floyd’s murder caused a swell of mass protests that saw millions of people take to the streets in 2020. But these were the result of a smaller, strategically organised movement that began years earlier in 2014, and was informed by the learnings from other movements.

Likewise, the founders of Extinction Rebellion (having witnessed how even the most well-funded, respected environmental groups had failed to generate anything beyond superficial government and industry measures) understood that mass civil disobedience was necessary to bring about the drastic cultural and institutional change needed. It was only by reframing a message that had been ignored for decades that the climate crisis actually became a crisis.

The impact of mass nonviolent protests

The BLM protests have had a huge impact on society’s (slow) progression towards racial justice. They, among other things, prompted numerous state and local police reforms. Meanwhile, Extinction Rebellion not only transformed public perception about the climate emergency, it also provoked the government – and hundreds of local councils – to declare a climate emergency and convene a national citizen’s assembly.

What BLM and XR achieved in a short space of time is unprecedented. Yet there’s every reason to expect that utilising civil disobedience in our own movement would result in similar leaps forward for animal freedom.

People power

While we often view institutions as the power-holders in society, their power only comes from the approval and legitimacy the public grants them. In other words, people hold the power, not institutions. And this is why protesting – specifically organised mass civil disobedience – is the most effective way to directly pressure decision-makers. By provoking a crisis they can no longer ignore.

The importance of people power cannot be overstated. Nonviolent social movements have succeeded in everything from legislation reforms to bringing down entire regimes. One of the biggest misconceptions about mass disruption is that we need huge levels of support to achieve our goals.

The BLM protests saw millions of people taking part. Contrastingly, XR changed the narrative around the climate crisis and forced political action with around only 20,000 people. And yes, in both cases, the struggle is far from over. But these movements have paved the way to keep on pushing for more radical change.

A vision of the future

Social movements challenge power structures and educate the public about the issue. But they also provide viable alternatives to the status quo, laying the foundations for a better world.

For a vegan world to seem possible, we must present the vision of a future that benefits both humans and other animals. People are more likely to engage with our cause if we spend less time on why animal exploitation is a problem, and more time on the benefits of solving it.

This is about activating society’s core values. And making them see that animal freedom is not just a moral imperative, but that it’s desirable, too. In this way, a vision can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Without an appealing alternative to the status quo, we cannot expect public support for a directionless cause that offers no solution, only problems, no matter how morally urgent they are.

The importance of shared values

Many animal advocates feel that our movement has more hurdles to overcome. This is because we are an ally movement that acts on behalf of, and in solidarity with, another species. In contrast, a human rights movement can more directly connect with human self-interest. But it’s important to remember that the UK, like many countries, considers itself a nation of animal lovers.

Most Brits detest animal cruelty, many are opposed to factory farming (hence the reason why the industry hides behind terms like ‘free-range’, ‘high welfare’ and even ‘happy’), a surprising number of meat-eaters support the closure of slaughterhouses (even if they don’t recognise their own cognitive dissonance), and in 2019, animal charities received 26 percent of all donations (more than any other cause).

We don’t need to win people over to the idea of animal freedom. We just need to connect with the values they already hold. And, importantly, show them the opportunity to live by those values.

Controversy

Whether it’s police brutality, the climate crisis, or animal freedom, the biggest guarantee for moral issues to capture media headlines and attention in the public sphere is mass civil disobedience. And in a world of information overload, it’s often the actions that seem most controversial that engage the public the most. It may sound like a paradox, but conflict and controversy are necessary in nonviolent mass protests.

We’re not just courting controversy through our actions – we must create it if we are to gain enough attention and seize the cultural narrative around animal freedom. After all, protest is, in essence, dramatic storytelling, and drama isn’t drama without (strategic) conflict and controversy. We know how high the stakes are: the suffering and killing of trillions of animals each year, not to mention the precarious future of all life on this planet. So, we need to raise the stakes to make the rest of society take notice. We know that what is happening to animals is an emergency. But if we are to convince the public that it is an emergency, we need to start acting like it’s one.

One of the key facets of controversy is that it’s polarising. Yet this can be a good thing. Forcing people to take sides on a moral issue, rather than sit on the fence, in turn forces a shift in the status quo.

The reality of animal exploitation is hidden from public view. It’s our job to centre it through disruptive protest and provoking public debate. And ultimately, forcing people to decide which side they’re on – animal freedom or animal oppression.

Challenges

The most impactful social movements throughout history were the result of meticulous research and planning. For instance, Gandhi spent years developing the strategies, narratives, organisation, and culture necessary to build a broad-based movement to achieve Indian Independence. 

Building a mass social movement that is strong enough and resilient enough to endure is a lot of work. No matter how much you prepare, organise, and strategise, all movements face backlash and resistance. But this is not only inevitable (and an indicator that your demands are far-reaching enough), it’s a key part of the change process, which further fuels the movement.

The challenges the animal freedom movement faces are the same challenges faced by all social justice movements: we don’t have the capital of our opponents, or the political ties, or the hierarchical power. Yet the history of social movements already holds the key to overcoming these challenges. Our most powerful force is people and their intelligence, defiance and determination to bring about the change that animals, human animals and our planet so desperately need.

Mass civil resistance is not the only missing piece of the jigsaw in the animal freedom movement, but it’s a big one, and one that has been absent from the movement for too long.

Ecology of the movement

At some point, the system of animal oppression will end. And it won’t happen because of one individual, one organisation, or even one social movement. It will happen because of the combined efforts of all of us – activists, NGOs, educators, lobbyists, entrepreneurs, artists, sanctuaries, chefs, and even our unlikely allies.

Different organisations are needed to challenge and transform the issue from different angles; it’s not about one strategy but multiple strategies working together and feeding into each other. And the most powerful movements throughout history recognised this. They developed solid coordination between their efforts, which tended to the health of the whole movement.

Central to a healthy ecology is diversity – we need a vibrant, varied movement that not only reflects the diversity of vegans but reflects the full spectrum of society. People can only connect to a movement or an organisation if they can in some way identify with its members. (This is just one of the reasons why Animal Think Tank wants to ensure its team is as diverse and representative as possible.)

Just like it takes a whole village to raise a child, it takes an entire movement, in all its multifaceted, beautiful complexity, to bring about lasting transformation. This is why, alongside Animal Think Tank’s approach of building a mass social movement, is our continued support of the wider animal freedom movement. We assist with its strategic direction, capacity and innovation, as well as build alliances across groups and other movements, and seed any needed organisations. For example, we launched Animal Rebellion in 2019 as an ally movement to XR, to ensure the animal emergency became a part of the wider narrative of the climate emergency.

‘Ambitious, but not delusional’

Since launching in 2018, we’ve trained hundreds of change-makers through Movement Building workshops in the UK, US, and Canada. Further, we will soon be offering in-depth training in other areas, such as: Strategy; Narrative Framing; Organising Structures; Culture; Nonviolence; and Leadership Development.

At Animal Think Tank, we believe the current climate is ripe for a disruptive mass movement for animal freedom. But we also know that a movement of this scale needs careful planning and strategic thinking. That’s why we’re actively looking for creative, open-minded and motivated people from all walks of life to expand our diverse team. If you think that could be you, we want to hear from you.

Yes, our mission is bold and ambitious, but it’s not delusional. We only have to look at history to know that it’s the controversial, seemingly ‘delusional’ movements that have brought about transformative cultural change. All of us joined Animal Think Tank because we believe that a world where animals’ rights to life, liberty and security of person are protected in law and respected by society is achievable. We certainly don’t have all the answers for how best to get there. But we think we’re asking a lot of the right questions.

A vegan world is possible – but only if we think it is. We have to be strategic, visionary, and audacious in communicating to the rest of the world a future that benefits all animals – human and nonhuman. Because if we’ve learnt anything from history, it’s that playing it safe poses more of a threat to animal freedom than taking risks does.

The post Is A Vegan World Even Possible? appeared first on Plant Based News.

Think tank Blue Horizon suggests that by 2035 ‘every tenth portion of meat, eggs, and dairy eaten around the globe is very likely to be alternative’.

Questions remain about the technology. Is it artificial? Will people accept it? Is it better or worse for the environment?

Some answers are becoming clearer every day. Not only in terms of the food we eat.

Yes, most ‘lab-grown’ tech companies are working to produce animal-derived agricultural products (‘meat’, ‘leather’, ‘milk’, ‘eggs’ etc.). But, there’s a whole world of innovation in other areas. 

That is good news for animals and the plant-based community. It helps make ‘lab-grown’ an acceptable idea. Let’s begin with diamonds.

Diamonds are forever?

Earlier this year, Pandora, the world’s largest jewelry company, announced that, going forward, it would only use lab-created diamonds, and not mined diamonds.

Lab-grown diamonds have been around since the 1950s. But high energy costs and a lack of ability to create ‘pretty’ diamonds meant they were mainly used in industry, such as drill bits on heavy machinery.

But as with lab-grown meat, technology has advanced and costs have come down. Now lab-grown diamonds are helping consumers avoid the environmental and ethical problems associated with the ‘natural’ product.

Human rights abuses

The charity Human Rights Watch reports that even today most jewelry companies can’t assure its customers that its diamonds are free from human rights abuses. These are particularly child labor, and punitive amputations for villagers who mine in surrounding areas and ‘steal’ company property.

For many mine workers, COVID-19 also worsened conditions and exploitation.

Environmentally, lab-created diamonds still use a lot of energy. But they are up to 10 times more efficient than the fossil fuels, explosives, and heavy machinery used in diamond mines.

It is much easier to source renewable energy for lab-created diamonds. Pandora’s commitment is that they will use 100 percent renewables by 2022.

Choosing sustainability

As with plant-based meat and dairy alternatives, the switch in purchasing power is being driven by young people. They are prioritising sustainability when choosing expensive jewellery. 

Perhaps that’s why a lab-grown diamond company has become the first ‘Certified Sustainable’ and ‘Certified Climate Neutral’ diamond producer, with attention also give to water consumption, traceability, and diversity in its workforce production.

Mined diamonds can no longer be marketed as ‘natural’ in contrast with lab-created. The jewellery industry now recognises both as ‘real’ diamonds.

Lab-grown is cheaper

What is really driving change in consumer habits is cost. Lab-created diamonds are around 30 percent cheaper than mined diamonds. That means more people can purchase them for different reasons. (It’s another reason why price parity in the alternative meat and dairy sector is so important.)

That’s perfect for a company such as Pandora, which prides itself on creating affordable accessories for people. Up to 77 percent of people in Europe are aware of lab-grown diamonds.

“The roadblock to the success of this category has never been the consumer,” research company MVEye reported in 2020. “It has been the trade.”

Artificial and fake?

That is, Big Diamond companies such as DeBeers have always controlled the mines and the industry. Change is a threat to their business model. So for the last 20 years, they have spent a lot of effort labeling lab-grown diamonds as ‘artificial’ and ‘fake’. (Sound familiar?)

But the writing is on the wall. DeBeers has launched a lab-grown diamond collection for fashion jewelry. Signet, the largest US jewelry retailer, now also sells lab-ground diamonds alongside traditionally mined diamonds.

Fabric of future

There are decades of research and practice behind the emergence of lab-created diamonds. The same can be said of the fabrics used to make clothes.

Back in 2015, Erin Smith, an artist, grew a wedding dress from mycelium, the thread-like fibers that hold mushrooms together.

Now that kind of technology is reaching mass scale, as the answer to environmental and ethical problems in the fashion and textile industries.

Fashion ecocatastrophe

The UN has reported the fashion industry is responsible for 20 percent of global wastewater, and 10 percent of global carbon emissions. That’s more than all international flights and maritime shipping. Cotton farming uses a quarter of all insecticides.

But with production moving to the lab, these ecological issues are vastly reduced—as are the concerns surrounding hazardous working conditions.

Reshaping fashion’s footprint

The Future Tech Lab has helped establish 150 new start-ups and over 350 new lab-grown products and technologies to ‘reshape fashion’s footprint’.

For vegans and plant-based fashionistas, one of Future Tech Lab’s companies may hold the key to wearing silk again—this time, lab-grown rather than from silkworms.

Vegan silk

Fashion innovator Bolt Threads has launched a beauty company, Eighteen B, that uses bioengineered and lab-grown silk protein. It’s a key ingredient for clothes and beauty products, including moisturizers.

Bolt Threads are also the company behind an ‘unleather’ called Mylo (marketed as ‘All of the Leather; None of the Animal’) which is already being used by adidas, lululemon, and Stella McCartney.

A mushrooming industry

And there are more. MuSkin is created from the caps of mushrooms. Reishi is a fungus-grown leather that debuted at New York Fashion Week.

Piñatex is a leather alternative from pineapple leaves. Italian-based VEGEA is making leather from wine! (from its waste grape skins, seeds, and stalks.) And Modern Meadow is using collagen from yeast instead of from animals to make vegan leather. It really is a mushrooming industry (sorry!).

Lab-grown trees?

And the lab-grown plant-based revolution is not limited to food or fabrics, either. Researchers at MIT in America have grown structures of wood-like plants in their laboratories—’growing a table’ as the future of forestry and construction materials.

That’s a long way off yet, but the research is heading that way. And it may end the massive environmental impact of forestry.

Fake blood?

No, not the stuff you get in a joke shop for Halloween. The lab-grown movement is also active in human blood developments—and that’s good news for people who love animals.

As ‘lab-grown’ or ‘lab-created’ becomes more accepted in other areas, the more likely it is that society will welcome lab-grown meat and dairy products.

Human blood cells were first made ‘in vitro’ and injected back into the donor during an operation in 2011.

In 2017, human blood stem cells were grown in the lab for an NHS trial. The benefit is that, if a sick person’s blood stem cells can be grown, they don’t need to look for a match through bone marrow donation. It could save thousands of lives a year.

Bristol-based researchers in the UK have used CRISPR gene-editing technology working with the NHS to get closer to the ultimate goal of producing ‘lab-grown red blood cells’ especially for patients with rare blood requirements.

Is ‘fake’ blood natural?

There ethical questions here around the ideal of ‘naturalness’. Gene-editing technology has been questioned for its potential uses in making animals in agriculture more pliant and pain-free.

Yet these developments in science are pushing further the boundaries of how lab-created or lab-grown products can reduce pain and suffering for humans. Why not for animals, too, if it means removing animals from intensive agriculture?

Dog and bone

Lab-grown technologies also have the potential to achieve the 3Rs, the holy grail of medical research campaigning: improving human health at the same time as reducing or ending animal models of experimentation and vivisection.

For example, researchers at the University of Sheffield have developed a technology using lab-grown mini-scaffolding capable of growing human tissue and bone.

It could revolutionise testing by producing ‘bone on a chip’ resources, and so reduce the need for testing on animals—perhaps, we hope, altogether.

This technology is already underway in commercial applications. In the US, this is led by Altis (creating lab-grown guts!) and in Germany by bi/ond (for organoid medical testing). 

Again, this could change the world, not least with lab-grown organs bringing an end to the transplant crisis—and sparing pigs from ‘donating’ their hearts to humans, too.

Meat the future?

But of course, where the biggest news has been in the past decade is around lab-grown alternatives to animal products.

Organizations such as the Good Food Institute are leading the way in investing in companies who create meat from plants and cultivating meat from cells.

Perhaps the biggest development in the last 12 months was the news of the first lab-grown meat to go on sale in Singapore last December.

The ‘chicken bites’, produced by the US company Eat Just, passed a safety review by the Singapore Food Agency.

And just this week, Nestlé announced that it is exploring emerging technologies for cultured meat. The food giant reported that it is working with several external partners and start-ups, including Future Meat Technologies Ltd, ‘to explore the potential of cultured-meat components that do not compromise on taste or sustainability’.

This changes everything

Over time, it could change everything for animals. Daily, around 130 million chickens are slaughtered for their meat.

It’s been estimated that lab-grown meat and dairy could see the end of animal-derived food sectors, such as the American ‘beef’ industry, by 2030.

This will be driven largely by cost. According to the group Rethink X: “The cost of proteins will be five times cheaper by 2030 and 10 times cheaper by 2035 than existing animal proteins, before ultimately approaching the cost of sugar.”

And it’s not only cost. Lab-grown products will be “superior in every key attribute—more nutritious, healthier, better tasting, and more convenient, with almost unimaginable variety. By 2030, modern food products will be higher quality and cost less than half as much to produce as the animal-derived products they replace.”

End of ‘fake’ news?

There’s a lot to learn—and be hopeful for—in the lessons from these other industries.

Let’s go back to what the CEO of Pandora Alexander Lacik told Forbes. He’s talking about diamonds, but he could easily be talking about lab-grown meat.

“Diamonds have been a business that have been purely mined for centuries,” said Lacik. “Then all of a sudden, there’s an alternative. It constitutes a threat and people start dressing up arguments to deal with the threat. But it’s safe to say that lab-created diamonds are here to stay.”

Lab-grown meat and dairy are here to stay, too. It may just see the end of animal agriculture, like mined diamonds, forever.

The post Is The Future Lab-Grown? From Meat To Diamonds: Meet The Companies Leading The Way appeared first on Plant Based News.