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.

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.

Whilst reviewing the footage, I saw terrified cows who were desperately trying to escape the knock box. One bellows out in fear, and another tries to avoid the bolt gun for nearly 40 seconds, tearing off their horns in the process. One cow even knocks the bolt gun off the shelf, in what seems like an attempt to hide the weapon.

An angry, frustrated slaughterhouse worker comes in to take revenge on that same cow, who apparently hurt his hand whilst he was herding them in. We hear the man swearing and threatening the cow, before aggressively grabbing them by the nostrils, pulling their head downwards, and bolting them in the head.

The cow bellows out in shock, yet appears to still be conscious. This is made even more evident when the man begins to cut the cow’s throat. The animal’s legs are still moving around and the cow is heard gasping for air through the hole in their neck. The man then proceeds to decapitate the cow, throwing their severed head, which slides across the floor.

Confronting the facility

After seeing this footage, I took a camera crew down to speak to the slaughterhouse staff, who were not aware I had already seen footage from inside. The woman who owned the facility was a grandmother, and her son was the main slaughter worker who had been aggressive towards the animals. This was truly a family-run operation. 

The grandmother was polite and well spoken, but was a bit spooked when she saw the cameras. She proceeded to reassure me that nothing bad was going on inside and that no animal there was mistreated. We began to discuss the methods at her slaughterhouse, and she told me that no animal sees another animal be killed; they are completely oblivious.

The footage paints a completely different picture, as you can clearly see cows witnessing other cows being dismembered, and that is what understandably freaks them out and prompts their subsequent cries for help and escape attempts.

She also told me that the animals inside are treated with respect. If that is the case, her son has a very warped idea of respect, as shown in the damning investigation footage. It seems as soon as her son is frustrated, he takes his anger out on the innocent animals who cross his path. I asked her if it would be “respectful” to put me in her slaughterhouse, a question she preferred to avoid.

The main thing that frustrated me about my conversation with the slaughterhouse owner, was not the fact that she constantly lied, denied reality, and gaslit me – that part I was ready for. It was the fact that when a pig rolled in on a truck while we chatted, ready to be slaughtered, she insisted that I didn’t scare the pig and that the pig could get afraid easily if I approached them.

The audacity of a slaughterhouse owner telling an animal protector not to “scare” the animal she’s about to send inside, to be decapitated by her violent son. What a sick joke. 

Are local farms actually ethical?

You may often hear people say, “I only buy meat from my local butcher, and the animals are from local farms.”

Well, the animals who were killed at C.J. Byford & Son were from the surrounding local farms. And, the business supplied only to local butchers, not supermarkets. This place was about as local and family-run as you can get. But look at what our cameras uncovered there!

When people speak about “local meat,” it can sometimes be hard to understand what they really mean by it. Do they mean that just because a facility is in your general proximity, there isn’t any cruelty happening there? I have a large factory chicken farm 30 minutes away from me – it’s local, does that mean it’s ethical? Or when they say “local” do they mean a family-run place like C.J. Byford & Son, that only kills animals from nearby small holders?

‘Humane slaughter’

When people hear that a farm or abattoir is local and family-run, they automatically think that it means it is humane. When I analyze the concept of “humane slaughter,” I always break it up into two categories: practical and principle. 

The practical point is that when these “higher welfare” facilities are investigated, animals are often found in fear, struggling to escape, incorrectly stunned, or most notably in the case of pigs, stunned using the most “humane” method available, which is CO2 gas.

Research has shown that the CO2 method is aversive to pigs and causes them fear, pain, and suffering. So from a practical viewpoint, the industry’s current humane slaughter methods are not even humane by its own standard, and definitely not by the standard of the average meat consumer.

Can meat be ‘humane’?

But for me, we don’t need to spend time debating the practical point. Because the principle point overrides it and is by far the most important.

Even if the animals weren’t terrified or tortured before their death, even if we could isolate and solve every single welfare issue involved in the mass killing of animals for food, it will still always be fundamentally wrong to kill someone against their will.

You see, if it is not in the best interests of the animal to die (for example, in the case of euthanasia for a suffering animal who can’t be helped), then to take away the animal’s experience of life can only be described as an injustice.

Content warning: the following video contains graphic depictions of animal abuse and may disturb viewers.

In principle, humane slaughter is a myth, a fairytale. It only serves to make the killer feel more comfortable about killing. It has nothing to do with the rights of the victim, because if the animals’ rights were truly being respected, then so too would their right to continue living.

When navigating these moral issues, I’ve found it helpful to put yourself in the victims’ position. Would X be humane if it were done to YOU?

C.J. Byford & Son is a very good example of how a quaint little family-run slaughterhouse might not necessarily meet the animal welfare expectations it promotes. The fact is, these slaughterhouses, whether local and family-run or not, are nothing more than killing factories. Animals go into them against their will and come out hacked into pieces. Why would we believe that something humane happens to them along the way?

The post OPINION: Are Small, Family-Run Slaughterhouses Really More Ethical? 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 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.

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.

Well, one company has stepped up to provide such a service:

Introducing Texan company ViaGen Pets — a world leader in animal cloning that has been developing cloning and reproductive technology for more than 15 years, The Mirror reports.

Cloning process

ViaGen Pets creates an “identical twin of the donor pet” by using a tissue sample from the original animal. The sample, taken during a biopsy, is then used to create new cell cultures with the same genetic makeup.

The sample is then frozen until the owner gives the green light to begin the process.

Next, specialists fuse the nucleus of a donor egg with the frozen cells to produce an embryo and put it in a surrogate animal.

Criticism from welfare advocates

So far, this sounds pretty good if you can muster up the cash — it would cost up to £40,000 to clone your dog and £25,000 for a cat.

But cloning technologies have been heavily criticized by animal welfare organizations such as the RSPCA. The organization states that cloning is a “serious concern” and highlights that your pet would have to suffer through painful and distressing scientific procedures to get cloned.

Furthermore, the animal created will never be a true copy of your original pet.

An RSPCA statement reads:

“Cloning techniques are used to try to produce exact ‘copies’ of a particular animal.

“The use of cloning technology is often justified by statements that the research could lead to cheaper methods of producing medical treatments and food products.

“Cloning never creates a true copy of the original animal. All animals are individuals, with their own personalities.”

Cloned animals prone to disease

A growing number of scientific studies show that cloned animals are more prone to disease and that a large number of clones are not born fit and healthy.

A 2018 report by Columbia University in New York says that the average success rate is just 20 percent. This means that you would need numerous surrogate mums to allow for multiple attempts.

Penny Hawkins, an animal welfare expert at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, says it can be painful and distressing for the female animals that have their eggs removed for donation, and for those that are prepared for surrogate pregnancy.

Dr. Hawkins says:

“We would recommend anyone looking for a new pet to become part of their family to adopt one of the thousands of animals in rescue centers looking for their forever home.”

Why not rescue instead?

Elisa Allen, director of the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), wants people to consider getting a rescue dog instead of a clone.

“Animals’ personalities, quirks, and very essence simply cannot be replicated,” she says. “And when you consider that millions of wonderful, adoptable dogs and cats are languishing in animal shelters every year or dying in terrifying ways after being abandoned, you realize that cloning adds to the homeless-animal overpopulation crisis.

“PETA encourages anyone looking to bring another animal companion into their life to adopt from their local shelter instead of fuelling cloning, a cruel moneymaking fad.”

The post People Are Cloning Their Pets, Here’s Why It’s Wrong 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.

Counties such as Sierra Leone, with eight million people and where malaria, Ebola, TB, and HIV have caused such devastation, have registered very few cases and barely any covid deaths; 123 in total, with Kamakwie district having reported just 11 cases and no deaths since the pandemic began. 

Why could this be? Have the sick simply not been counted? The Beta variant ravaged South Africa, as did Delta and Omicron, yet much of the rest of the continent did not report similar death tolls. A lack of consistent record keeping is relevant; and yet research has shown that about two thirds of the population in most Sub-Saharan countries do have antibodies to Sars-Cov-2 (78 percent in Sierra Leone) with only around 14 percent vaccination rates. This means most people will have been infected, but not have been unwell.

Diet and disease

There has been speculation that a younger average age could be playing a part (only three percent of people are 65 or older in Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as high temperatures, outdoor lifestyles, and limited public transportation infrastructure.

But in India, with similar amounts of young people and high temperatures, the Delta variant caused millions of deaths – far more than the 400,000 officially reported.

It seems that lower rates of chronic disease has also been an important factor in sparing the African sub-continent – in countries where dietary patterns are whole foods and predominantly plant-based, conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and asthma are far less prevalent.

Surgeon Denis Burkitt who lived and worked in Uganda, was the first to discuss the “fiber hypothesis.”

He noted that middle-aged people (40-60 years old) had a much lower incidence of diseases that were common in similarly aged people living in England, including colon cancer, diverticulitis, appendicitis, hernias, varicose veins, diabetes, atherosclerosis, and asthma, all of which are associated with lifestyles commonly led in high-income countries.

Burkitt attributed these diseases to the small quantities of dietary fiber consumed in places like Europe and the US, due mainly to the over-processing of natural foods. Nowadays, dietary fiber intake is around 15 g/day, which is well below recommended amounts (30g/day) and the amount of 50g/day that Burkitt advocated for, which is associated with diets from rural, southern, and eastern sub-Saharan Africa.

Fiber deficiency

Since Burkitt’s death in 1993, his hypothesis has been verified and extended by large-scale epidemiological studies, which have reported that fiber deficiency increases the risk of colon, liver, and breast cancer and increases all cancer mortality and death from cardiovascular, infectious, and respiratory diseases, diabetes, and all non-cardiovascular, non-cancer causes. 

Gut health and the microbiome is an area of research that has further verified Burkitt’s initial observations – we now know that products of fiber fermentation in the colon, called “short chain fatty acids” (SCFAs) suppress mucus excess, inflammation, and cancer risk in the gut.

SCFAs also have receptors outside of the gut which can affect our metabolism and reduce obesity, diabetes, atherosclerosis, allergy, and cancer.

A new approach

My hope is that moving into our third year of the pandemic, epidemiologists and public health physicians will be free to focus on ways to reduce mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa in ways that are most relevant to their biggest causes of mortality; through public health programs designed to combat malaria, HIV, TB, Ebola, and cancers that are linked to communicable diseases. 

In the Western world, Covid-19 has brought us face to face with our vulnerability as a society. We have endured isolation and disruption and for many, long term illness and tragic deaths.

I believe the impact of Covid could have been reduced both by an effective vaccination program, and a collective focus from government, public health campaigns, and industry on making active and healthy lifestyle choices easier for everyone.

Access to healthy whole plant foods and green outdoor spaces without air pollution should not be a luxury, they are a necessity. We have a lot to learn from the experience of the African sub-continent with Covid, especially as factory farming practices globally leave us vulnerable to the next viral epidemic. Let us make changes now, to prioritize healthy plant foods and call for an end to factory farming. Before we have to live through another Covid-19.

This article was written by Dr. Gemma Newman of Orchard Surgery Medical Clinic, author of The Plant Power Doctor. Dr. Newman has worked in medicine for 17 years and is the Senior Partner at a family medical practice where she has worked for 12 years.

The post Are Africa’s Low Covid Death Rates Really A Mystery? appeared first on Plant Based News.