Senator Marty Klyne formally introduced the bill, called the Jane Goodall Act, yesterday.

The proposed legislation seeks to completely phase out elephant captivity in Canada, including the import and breeding of the species.

This move could have a far-reaching impact, given elephant populations are struggling. In part, due to human interference, such as ivory trading.

Last year, the African savanna elephant and African forest elephant were classified as endangered and critically endangered, respectively. The Asian elephant is also classified as endangered, with its population halving in the last 75 years.

The Jane Goodall Act, if implemented, would also outlaw the ownership, breeding, and possession of a multitude of other exotic animals, thwarting the business models of many zoos.

The number of zoos operating in Canada today is unclear, but Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA) – a private organization representing animal entertainment facilities – has 26 animal parks, aquariums, and other attractions on its accreditation list at the time of writing.

Additionally, under the proposed act, private individuals who attempt to keep wild animals in captivity would also be greeted with legal obstacles.

Big cats, bears, great apes, whales, dolphins, coyotes, wolves, seals, sea lions, alligators, crocodiles, and several types of exotic lizards and snakes all receive protections under the act.

Further, the bill would allow the federal government to more easily restrict the captivity of additional species in the future.

“The Jane Goodall Act would protect a broad array of large, sentient animals like lions, tigers, bears, and apes from suffering unnatural conditions inside tiny enclosures,” said Camille Labchuk, lawyer and executive director of Animal Justice .

“Polls show that most Canadians are opposed to confining animals in zoos and aquariums, and this important new law takes a giant leap toward improving saving countless animals from a lifetime of suffering in captivity.”

Indeed, a poll conducted by Research Co. in 2019 found that more than half (52 percent) of Canadians were against keeping animals in zoos or aquariums. Moreover, 59 percent said they oppose animal involvement in rodeos.

A ‘global leader’ in animal protection

Labchuk continued: “The bill would also offer animals limited legal standing to animals in some court proceedings. If adopted, this precedent-setting move would make Canada a global leader in ensuring the courts are able to consider the best interests of individual animals.”

The bill, backed by Dame Goodall herself, was first introduced in November 2020, and has since been updated to include more species.

The proposed legislation takes inspiration from the Free Willy Act (Bill S-203). That act, passed in 2019, aimed to phase out the captivity, breeding, and trade of whales and dolphins.

Staff lawyer at Animal Justice, Kaitlyn Mitchell, expects that the Jane Goodall Act will move through the legislative process in the coming months. Amendments may be made during the committee stage, she said to Plant Based News, and if all goes to plan, the bill will then be considered in the House of Commons.

Mitchell told us: “We believe that just like the ‘Free Willy bill’ before it, which aimed to phase out whale and dolphin captivity across Canada, the Jane Goodall Act will have the support of the Canadian public, and are optimistic that it will ultimately become law in Canada.”

Those interested can show their support for the Jane Goodall Act by signing this online petition.

The post New Bill Seeks To Protect Wild Animals From Captivity In Canada appeared first on Plant Based News.

The organization maintains that the government’s current system promotes the breeding of “Frankenchickens.”

These birds are selectively bred for rapid growth for economic reasons, resulting in a myriad of health complications.

Ninety percent of chickens raised for meat — or around 900 million chickens — grow unnaturally fast and to unnaturally large sizes, according to The Humane League.

This leaves the animals struggling to hold up their own weight, often suffering from high blood pressure, broken bones, muscular diseases, and cardiac arrest as a result.

“For decades the animal industry has selectively bred chickens to grow faster and faster — these animals grow 400 percent faster than they did in the 1950s,” commented The Humane League UK senior public affairs lead Amro Hussain.

“Today they reach slaughter weight at only five weeks old – they’re just babies. The results are huge, often immobile birds, who struggle to walk, get burned by their own waste, suffer heart-attacks and whose flesh is streaked with fat.

“We call them ‘Frankenchickens’ because we have created a genetic monster, animals who live lives of inescapable misery,” Hussain stated.

Harmful selective breeding is not exclusive to the meat industry. A recent study found that 97 percent of laying hens in the egg industry have broken bones. On average, each chicken had three, while others had up to 11.

Breach of the law

The Humane League says this concept violates the UK’s own animal welfare regulations.

The Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations 2007 states that animals can only be kept for farming if their genetic makeup does not have a detrimental impact on their health or welfare.

As such, The Humane League has filed a judicial review against Defra. The initial hearing will take place on March 22, 2022.

Edie Bowles, a solicitor at Advocates for Animals, is representing the animal protection group for the case.

“The law clearly prohibits the keeping of farmed animals who experience detriment to their health or welfare due to their genes. The science shows that fast-growing chickens slaughtered for meat cannot be kept without such detriment. As such it is our position that keeping these birds is unlawful,” Bowles said.

“We hope a ruling will force Defra to take responsibility and stop allowing these birds to suffer.”

The post UK Government Taken To Court For Turning Meat Industry Chickens Into ‘Genetic Monsters’ appeared first on Plant Based News.

Consumer clarity has been touted as the main reason for the legislation. But with the vegan leather market projected to hit almost $90 billion by 2025, the enormous growth provides a problem for the Portuguese government, which is under pressure to protect the country’s leather industry. 

War of the words 

Portugal is not the first country to ban so-called ‘misleading’ terms. Belgium, France, Italy, and Spain have all made moves to initiate similar laws, with consumer clarity always cited as the primary motivation.

However, last year a new study busted the myth that consumers are confused by labels such as “meat’” and “milk’” on plant-based products.

Attempts to suppress the vegan market have not always been successful. In 2020, European farmers lost in their attempt to ban terms such as “veggie burger,” and last year an Australian senator failed to enforce a ban on meat-like terms used on vegan product packaging.

Traditional leather is bad for the environment

Conventional leather has come under heavy criticism in recent years for its detrimental environmental impact, not to mention the obvious animal welfare connotations. 

The Livestock sector is the world’s biggest user of agricultural land, primarily through grazing and the use of feed crops. As a result, real leather plays a significant role in climate change.

Many of the plant-based alternatives hitting the market are significantly more sustainable.

For example, a peer-reviewed life cycle assessment of Modern Meadow’s Bioleather1 material family found that Bioleather1 produces 80 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than bovine leather and 20 percent fewer than PU-based synthetic leather alternatives. 

Furthermore, The Environmental Profit & Loss tool developed in 2018 by Kering states that the impact of producing vegan-leather can be up to a third lower than traditional leather.

Recent years have seen a boom in manufacturers releasing more and more types of vegan leather as global demand surges. From utilizing floral waste in India to the fique plant in Colombia, the industry is not slowing down any time soon.

Vegan leather drawbacks? 

Despite vegan alternatives having a lower impact on the environment than the real thing, they also have some drawbacks, mainly when they include plastic. Leather-like materials often rely on fossil-fuel-derived synthetics that mimic the desired effects of animal leather. 

Plant-based materials are sometimes mixed with PU plastic which can end up in water or landfill. It takes many years to degrade and releases toxic chemicals into the environment. 

However, over the past few years, innovators have pioneered ways to make vegan leather without plastic, making it the most environmentally sound choice. 

The post The Term ‘Vegan Leather’ Has Been Banned In Portugal appeared first on Plant Based News.

Iceland’s current quota – which expires in 2023 – allows for 217 minke whales and 209 fin whales to be hunted annually, despite the latter being an endangered species. With only one whale killed by Icelandic hunters in the last three years, however, this quota may not be renewed.

On February 4, Svandis Svavarsdóttir, the fisheries minister, wrote in Morgunblaðið newspaper: 

“Why should Iceland take the risk of keeping up whaling, which has not brought any economic gain, in order to sell a product for which there is hardly any demand?”

Activists welcome the change

Iceland is one of the few countries in the world – along with Norway and Japan – that hunts whales commercially despite the United Nations’ international ban. When Japan, the largest market for whale meat, lifted its 30-year commercial whaling ban in 2019, the profitability of Icelandic whaling dramatically decreased.

Animal rights and climate activists welcome the change. Vanessa Williams-Grey, of UK charity Whale and Dolphin Conservation, said: “Icelandic whalers have killed hundreds of whales in recent years, despite almost zero domestic demand, and declining interest from tourists and the Japanese market.”

She added: “Killing fin whales, an endangered species and the second largest creature on our planet, is nothing short of ecocide, especially given the essential role these gentle giants play in the battle against climate change.”

Whales key to oceanic ecosystem

Whales, particularly baleen and sperm whales, store carbon in their bodies and play a large role in shaping the ocean ecosystem.

A 2010 scientific study found that, before industrial whaling, whales would have sunk 190,000 to 1.9 million tonnes of carbon per year to the bottom of the ocean, equivalent to the annual emissions of 40,000 to 410,000 cars. 

Whaling on the decline

Under the UN’s International Whaling Commission (IWC), only subsistence whaling is permitted where it is considered an indigenous activity, as is the case in Canada, the United States, Denmark, and Russia. 

Iceland has been a member of the IWC since its creation in 1949. However, since the 1986 international whaling moratorium, Icelandic whalers have hunted more than 1,700 whales.

In 2018, Icelandic whalers controversially hunted and killed a blue whale. Although the current quota window, which began in 2019 and will end in 2023, allowed for over 2,000 whales to be hunted legally, only one whale has been killed in this time period – a Minke whale in 2021.

In 2020, IP-Utgerd, one of Iceland’s two main whaling licence holders, ceased whaling entirely.

The post Whaling Could Be Banned In Iceland Within 2 Years, Says Fisheries Minister appeared first on Plant Based News.

According to The Guardian, Karl and Victoria Shellard face 24 months in prison if they refuse to pay the fines, after their business – PosherBulls – was found to have broken regulations.

‘Puppy farm’ breach

The couple made female dogs deliver more than one set of puppies a year, breeding a total of 67 litters, Cardiff Crown Court heard. 

Additionally, one pup, named Coco, was forced to produce six litters in a four-year period.

Through PosherBulls, the Shellards made £372,000 illegally from 2014 to 2020.

This was obtained by selling bulldog puppies via website adverts and social media – at between £1,500 and £20,000 per pup.

Judge David Wynn Morgan said: “You were running a puppy farm and doing it to make money. And you made a great deal of money indeed.

“You could have run an extremely profitable business if you were properly registered but you’re going to pay the price for that folly.”

Broken animal welfare laws

The couple pleaded guilty to breeding dogs without a license, as well as nine counts of failing to ensure the needs of a protected animal for which they were responsible.

They were “repeatedly” told by their local council to apply for a license for PosherBulls. But they proceeded to ignore those requests, the court was told.

Under The Animal Welfare (Breeding of Dogs) (Wales) Regulations 2014, a person intending to breed dogs must obtain a license if they keep three or more female dogs on their premises. 

They must also hold a license if they advertise a business that breeds or sells puppies from those premises.

The Puppy Contract advises potential customers to “walk away” if a business does not have a license. It states that you should also ask to see the breeder’s license number. 

And, that if you are concerned it could be a puppy farm, to contact your local trading standards. You can also report it to the RSPCA.

Ethical issues of puppy breeding

According to PETA, there is “no such thing” as a responsible dog breeder, as it involves profiting at an animal’s expense.

This is because it means dogs at animal shelters lose their chances of finding a home, and are often euthanized as a result.

Moreover, many breeders do not require puppies to be spayed or neutered, meaning the animals are soon able to reproduce. And this results in “exacerbating the overpopulation crisis.”

It is especially relevant as many organizations are reporting soaring pet acquisition numbers amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Rise in demand for puppies amid COVID-19

The Pet Food Manufacturers’ Association (PFMA) conducted a survey about this. It ascertained that 2.1 million people in the UK had collected a new pet over lockdown.

PFMA’s chief executive Nicole Paley said: “With millions working from home or furloughed from their jobs, many have clearly considered the numerous benefits of pet ownership.

“…Owners need to consider their pet when thinking about return to work plans, any possible future hit on finances, less time available, and the possibility of separation anxiety for their pet.

“…Sadly, there are unscrupulous breeders out there who are willing to take advantage of the rising demand.”

The post ‘Puppy Farm’ Charged For Animal Welfare Breach After Forcing Dogs To Have 67 Litters appeared first on Plant Based News.

Mazatlán is the only town in the state that still holds the fights.

Campaigners are celebrating the decision, which was agreed upon unanimously by the Congress of Sinaloa. 

Sinaloa joins Sonora, Guerrero, Coahuila, and Quintana Roo in outlawing the cruel practice. There’s still a long way to go though — bullfighting is still legal in 27 Mexican states.

‘Important’ reform to animal welfare

Animal welfare has ramped up in recent years with law changes and higher fines now imposed for acts of cruelty.

Humane Society International/Mexico sent a statement to PBN on the news. Animal cruelty program manager Felipe Marquez explained: 

“This is an important reform in Mexico.

“Because it reflects the views and sentiments of the majority of Mexican citizens who believe that bullfighting should be banned. 

“We cannot hope to tackle violence in our society if we still allow animals to be stabbed to death for our entertainment.”

The comment came in light of an almost decade-old study that revealed 73 percent of Mexicans are in favor of banning bullfighting.

Bullfighting around the world

Globally, around 250,000 bulls are still killed in bullfights every year.

Alongside much of Mexico, the industry still operates in Spain, France, Portugal, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, and Ecuador.

As part of the “fights,” the human “bullfighter” or matador is tasked with killing the animal in front of a crowd.

According to Humane Society International, this is an “agonizing death.” 

The matador often misses the target (a tiny area between the bull’s shoulders) with his sword, resulting in injuries to the bull’s lungs and bronchial tubes, causing blood to flow through the injured animal’s mouth and nose.

Fortunately, the industry appears to be in its final days. This latest ban comes two years after Spanish bullfighters asked the government for €700 million to save the “sport” amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The post Bullfighting Banned In 5th Mexican State As Part Of Animal Welfare Reform appeared first on Plant Based News.

In total ASA received 109 complaints about the environmental claims made in Oatly’s 2021 ad campaign. Along with complaints from the general public, A Greener World, which promotes sustainable solutions in agriculture, complained about Oatly’s advertising.

The complaints focussed on claims made by Oatly in a number of press, social media, and TV ads that used the slogan: “need help talking to dad about milk?”

Not enough evidence for environmental claims

The ads compared the carbon footprint of Oatly’s milk with dairy milk and also compared vegan to omnivorous diets in general. But the ASA ruled that there is not enough evidence to back up most of the ad’s claims.

One of the TV ads subject to complaint, which was broadcast on January 21, featured a man sneaking into his home and putting a bottle of traditional milk in the fridge. He gets interrupted by his son, who questions his choice of milk, followed by an on-screen text that read: “Oatly generates 73 percent less CO2 vs. milk, calculated from grower to grocer.”

The ASA said the ad was misleading because Oatly based the claim on comparing one of its products, Oatly Barista Edition, with full cream milk. They claimed that consumers would understand the claim to include all Oatly products.

A related Tweet a few days later included the caption: “The dairy and meat industries emit more CO2 than all the world’s planes, trains, cars, boats, etc., combined.”

The ASA said that consumers would understand this to mean that worldwide, the transport industry had a lower environmental impact than the meat and dairy industry. They said the claim overstated emissions from the meat and dairy industry compared to the transport industry.

As such, ASA said that Oatly didn’t compare like for like in terms of the lifecycle of agriculture and transport. 

‘Misleading’ claims

A third issue investigated by ASA related to complaints about a national press ad. In the ad, Oatly stated: “Today, more than 25 percent of the world’s greenhouse gasses are generated by the food industry, and meat and dairy account for more than half of that”.

The ASA said this claim was misleading because Oatly held meat and dairy to include fish and eggs, whereas consumers might assume it referred to a narrower definition.

A further issue related to Oatly’s claim that: “Climate experts say cutting dairy and meat products from our diets is the single biggest lifestyle change we can make to reduce our environmental impact.” 

This was found to overstate the evidence and the ASA said the claim was misleading.

ASA did not uphold complaints about a fifth claim. It read: “If everyone in the world adopted a vegan diet, it would reduce food’s annual greenhouse emissions by 6.6bn metric tons (a 49 percent reduction).” The regulator said this was substantiated by a report from the Institute for Climate Economics.

Oatly’s advertising

The company is well known for its outspoken approach to marketing. This is seen with ads often referencing the negative environmental and health impact of animal products. 

The alt-milk brand has also used unusual tactics for TV ads. Such as hypnotic spirals, pendulums, and subliminal messaging, intended to keep its oat drinks in the mind of consumers.

Most recently Oatly’s advertising has centered on a mini-series called The New Norm&al Show. This features oat-drink carton puppets trying to transition to a plant-based diet.

The post Oatly Adverts Banned By Watchdog Over ‘Misleading’ Environmental Claims appeared first on Plant Based News.

But the debate also noted steps backward, with voices sparking from The Conservatives on maintaining the hunting and shooting of animals.

“It is one thing to recognize the feelings of animals, but another to act on this knowledge and actively improve their lives for the better,” McCarthy said.

Here is what she outlined to the government on how it can better support animals, and what other MPs had to say on the issue.

What is the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill?

Last year, the UK government announced it would recognize crabs, lobsters, and octopuses as sentient. The cephalopod and decapod mollusks formed part of the bill as it was introduced into parliament.

By recognizing these beings as sentient, the government is accepting that they can experience feelings and emotions. This has been the case for animals with backbones, aka vertebrates, for more than a century.

This means they have the capacity to feel joy, pain, anxiety, and warmth, which is backed by a host of scientific studies.

The bill is currently in the committee stage, meaning it is close to becoming enshrined in law – with just four steps to go.

MP Kerry McCarthy

McCarthy welcomed the bill and stressed the importance of recognizing animals as sentient. 

She reminded her peers that while people in the UK often “boast about how good we are” in terms of animal welfare, “there are still many examples of where animals are abused and exploited.”

Here, she cited the suffering heavily recorded within factory farming and live animal exports. 

And, paid homage to the organizations working to expose the misery these animals endure: namely Animal Equality and Viva!.

She said: “We have seen reports of overcrowding, filthy conditions, and even cannibalism among pigs on Hogwood Pig Farm. 

“We have seen pigs being killed by having their heads slammed to the floor on Yattendon pig farm, chickens dying in heatwaves at Moy Park farm. And, chickens dying of thirst, suffering ammonia burns, or resorting to cannibalism on multiple chicken farms that supply Tesco. 

“All the farms I have mentioned were Red Tractor-approved, with supposedly higher animal welfare. We have a long way to go.”

Her speech continued: “If we truly respect animals, we must do a lot more than just pay lip service to sentience.”

McCarthy insisted we have to end the exploitation and abuse of animals on factory farms.

She said we must also:

• End the exploitation and abuse of animals on factory farms
• Stop treating animals as commodities
• Ban hunting and shooting animals for sport
• “Reverse” the damage caused to the natural world

Elsewhere in the debate

Labour MP Jim McMahon agreed: “Animals are capable of bringing us huge joy, and it is right to ensure that they avoid avoidable suffering.”

Luke Pollard voiced concerns about how the bill would be implemented, criticizing Defra along with it. He also questioned how animal welfare was to be addressed within trade deals.

But for the Conservatives’ Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, things were different.

He proclaimed shooting and angling as being “highly important” for the UK economy.

“Shooting contributes about £2 billion to GDP and supports the equivalent of 74,000 full-time jobs,” he said. Moreover, angling – aka fishing for sport – is estimated at being worth £4 million to the economy, he added. And, it provides upwards of 40,000 jobs.

This is why Clifton-Brown says the government must ensure the bill is not enshrined in law on the basis of being “a public relations exercise to meet the demands of activist groups and the tabloids.”

He also claimed that there is “no scientific proof” that invertebrates are sentient. 

And yet, the government bore witness to an 80-page report which contained hundreds of studies providing significant evidence of animal sentience.

You can view the debate in full via Hansard here

The post MP Kerry McCarthy: ‘We Need Action Not Words On Animal Welfare’ appeared first on Plant Based News.

Animal Justice Project openly deplored the move, proclaiming that the vote provided a “real opportunity” to end such “immense suffering.”

The region is the largest exporter of live animals, from young calves to pregnant mothers – who are frequently put through grueling journeys overseas.

European Parliament votes on live animal exports

In anticipation of the vote, The Committee of Inquiry on the Protection of Animals during Transport (ANIT) put forward a report offering recommendations to improve animal welfare. 

The unit has been investigating transport regulations over the past two years after it came to light that many animals were left without food or water on the long voyages. ANIT observed “systematic failures” and pushed for tighter regulations as a result.

According to PETA director Elisa Allen, this “sordid business” involves extreme conditions where animals are “caked in their own waste” and denied basic medical care. Additionally, Allen told PBN that many animals are transported from the EU to unregulated slaughterhouses. Here, many are killed without being stunned.

EU animal welfare

Under previous EU rules, pigs, cows, and sheep can be transported for 24 hours with just an hour’s “rest.” All are subjected to potential injuries and even death, from stress and exhaustion. In 2019 alone, around 1.4 billion animals were forced to endure this.

Recommendations for change included the establishment of journey time limits for all animals and the halting of exports for animals that are less than 35 days old. MEPs voted in favor of imposing such a ban, but only for unweaned calves less than four weeks old. Moreover, journeys will be limited to up to 50km.

Equally, the committee called for an end to the transportation of pregnant animals in their third trimesters. It was decided by parliament that journeys may go ahead, but not for longer than eight hours.

The “improvements” received 557 votes in favor, 55 against, and 78 abstentions.

Uproar among campaigners

Allen adds: “The move to limit their time in transit is a pitiful measure to protect animals and continues to risk spreading zoonotic diseases that could cause another pandemic. 

“The EU must ban long-distance transport and transport by sea altogether. And anyone horrified by all this cruelty and suffering must take personal responsibility by going vegan.

Further, Animal Justice Project revealed it is “appalled” by the decision. 

In a statement sent to PBN, a spokesperson expressed: “Despite a 900,000 strong European citizen petition and years of undercover investigations showing the horrific suffering animals endure on road and sea journeys, MEPs ignored the public who they supposedly represent and bowed instead to animal farmers and exporters.

“…The parliamentary vote was a lost opportunity. And anyone who opposed real progress now has blood on their hands. 

“Animal Justice Project will be stepping up pressure on animal ag to end the farming and transportation of animals, particularly unweaned calves, under its Expired campaign.”

The post EU Vote To Improve Animal Welfare Within Live Exports Dubbed ‘Pitiful’ By Campaigners appeared first on Plant Based News.

The draft was presented to cabinet on January 10 by the Sri Lankan agriculture minister. It aims to protect animals from cruelty and torture.

Sri Lanka’s animal welfare bill

The Animal Welfare Bill was drafted 15 years ago to replace a century-old law but was delayed for a number of reasons.

One of the most significant parts of the bill is the legal definition for “animal.” The old law defined an animal to be a domestic or captured animal.

But the new draft has widened the scope to mean any living being other than a human. The punishment for cruelty will also change if the bill goes through parliament.

Existing punishment is a fine not less than Rs 100 ($0.5) or a jail term that can’t exceed three months. The new law provides fines up to Rs 150,000 ($740) and longer jail terms.

Some of the proposed new offenses include abandonment of animals, willful deprivation of food and water, and castration or sterilization unless completed by a veterinary surgeon. 

Cher calls out elephant orphanage on Twitter

Sri Lanka regularly makes headlines over animal cruelty. The week before the bill was passed, a video of two baby elephants in a river at the Pinnawala elephant orphanage went viral. 

The video posted on Twitter by Rally for Animal Rights & Environment (RARE) received thousands of views after Cher commented on the baby elephant’s treatment.

Cher said: “Does this look right, humane to anyone? These babies look terrified, they want their mother.”

The same day, Cher tweeted about the treatment of elephants at a sanctuary in Thailand.

There’s still a lot of work to do…

Approval of the bill was welcomed by PETA Asia. Its senior vice president for Asia, Jason Baker, notes that it signals progress for the animal rights movement across the country.

Baker added that work still needs to be done. “The bill does little to protect typically farmed animals, such as chickens, who are perhaps the most abused animals on the planet,” he said.

The bill still has to go through a number of stages before being implemented.

The post Sri Lanka Passes Animal Welfare Bill Amid Cher’s Comments On Elephant Mistreatment appeared first on Plant Based News.