The disgusting research practice known as the animal forced swim test came a step closer to being abolished in the UK, as more labs withdraw support for it – not least thanks to PETA.
PETA: successfully campaigning against the forced swim test
Following campaigning from animal rights group PETA, three independent medical research funding bodies – BMA Foundation, Medical Research Scotland, and the Dunhill Medical Trust – committed to not funding any future experiments that use the cruel and scientifically debunked forced swim test, paving the way for animal-free science.
In the widely discredited test, experimenters force rats, mice, or other small animals into inescapable beakers of water and watch them desperately swim in search of an escape under the erroneous belief that this can reveal something about human mental health conditions. Once the test is complete, experimenters kill the animals.
The Home Office recently announced that it was immediately ending the use of the scientifically flawed test as a model of human depression or for studies of anxiety and its treatment and that it intends to eliminate it in the UK entirely in the near future.
This came after significant lobbying from PETA and other animal rights groups. As the Canary previously reported, Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council recently acknowledged that the procedure has a significant adverse impact on animals.
The council announced that the test must not be used in new projects for modelling human depression or anxiety, the treatment of these conditions, nor other reasons without compelling justification. Those currently using the forced swim test must conduct a review of their project within three months.
‘Cruel and bad science’
PETA senior science policy manager Dr Julia Baines said:
Forcing terrified animals to swim for their lives is both cruel and bad science, and sensible funding bodies rightly don’t want to waste critical time and money on tests that do nothing to advance human medicine.
PETA applauds the many institutions that have dropped this appalling test and urges shameful holdouts like the University of Bristol to follow suit.
Leading institutions – including the universities of Brighton, Exeter, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, and Southampton as well as King’s College London, Newcastle University, and many major pharmaceutical companies – have indicated they neither use the forced swim test nor intend to do so in the future, making those that continue to use the cruel test, including the University of Bristol, outliers.
National animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports renewed calls for greyhound racing to be banned by whichever party wins the general election, after the industry’s governing body published figures last week showing the scale of deaths and injuries sustained last year.
Greyhound racing should be banned
The Greyhound Board of Great Britain figures show 109 deaths at trackside and 4,238 injuries at its 20 tracks in 2023, a high proportion of the 15,000 active racing greyhounds in the UK.
Emma Judd, the League’s head of campaigns, said:
The inherently unsafe nature of racing greyhounds around oval tracks is causing an unacceptable death toll and inordinate number of injuries.
It’s time for greyhound racing to be banned – greyhounds are currently being sacrificed for the profits of the gambling industry and people’s entertainment.
A further 55 greyhounds were found no home or designated unsuitable for homing so were put to sleep as the industry didn’t have a use for them anymore.
The figures, which Defra stipulates the Greyhound Board of Great Britain provides every year, go back to 2018 and show a large number of deaths and injuries every year.
A report conducted by professor Andrew Knight into greyhound racing established in 2018 that racing around oval tracks at great speeds put huge strain on the greyhounds’ bodies and made deaths and injuries inevitable.
Accidents or pile-ups at or approaching the first bend are notorious and the report quotes from another source showing that congestion here accounts for many fatalities.
Shocking deaths and injuries
Emma added:
The scale of greyhound fatalities and injuries we are seeing is shocking and we need to see an end to greyhound racing which flies in the face of animal welfare standards in the UK.
The government’s Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs explains how to keep your dog healthy, but these GBGB figures show a world of pain, suffering and injury among racing greyhounds.
Charity the RSPCA has made the same call – saying in its 2024 general election manifesto that any incoming government must “end greyhound racing”.
Featured image via the League Against Cruel Sports and the Canary
While swapping beef for chicken may lower your impact on the climate, it also means killing more poorly treated animals. The key to balancing the tradeoff is to just eat less meat.
During COP28, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) published an agrifood roadmap to help keep emissions in line with the 1.5°C goal. Thanks to intense lobbying – the number of meat and dairy lobbyists at the climate conference tripled to reach 120 – this strategy failed to include a reduction in meat-eating to tackle the climate crisis and global hunger.
Instead, the FAO suggested you swap from beef to chicken, which relatively emits much fewer greenhouse gas emissions. That is a very simplistic take, and ignores a lot of the side effects of doing so. For one, a group of academics published a comment on the roadmap, suggesting that this move – alongside another suggestion for intensifying animal agriculture in low-income countries – could “maintain or even substantially increase risks of anti-microbial resistance and/or zoonotic disease”.
The trade-off between climate change and animal welfare is hard to balance if you’re a meat-eater. Ideally, what’s good for the planet should also always be good for the animals, but as Our World in Data scientist and researcher Hannah Ritchie writes, this is unfortunately not the case. “These two goals are often in conflict,” she says.
And this is true whether we’re talking about different types of animals, or different ways of raising them (for example, caged versus cage-free).
Chicken burgers have a lower climate impact, but are worse for animals
Courtesy: Our World in Data
If you take the FAO’s advice and swap your beef burger for chicken, you’ve cut your carbon footprint by about 80%. But you’ve also just killed 200 times more animals for your dinner. An average chicken could produce 1.7kg of meat. A cow? 360kg.
The average person in the EU consumes about 80kg of meat annually. If this was entirely chicken, you’d need to kill 40 chickens per person each year. For beef, this would be less than a sixth of a cow.
Generally, bigger animals like cows, pigs and lambs will emit more atmosphere-harming gases, but yield more meat per animal. Smaller creatures like chickens and fish may have a lower carbon footprint, but are slaughtered in higher numbers.
Global calculations by Our World in Data founder Max Roser reveal that every day, 202 million chickens are slaughtered for meat (averaging about 140,000 per minute). While figures for fish are highly uncertain, they are also in the hundreds of millions of fish. In contrast, the number of cows killed each day is 900,000, which rises to 3.8 million for pigs – these are fractions of the number of chickens being slaughtered daily.
But apart from the sheer number, it’s also the conditions that the average chicken is subjected to that bring cause for concern. Ritchie’s previous analysis shows that in the US alone, 99.97% of chickens (that’s 8.9 billion) are factory-farmed, as are all fish raised on farms. “While it is certainly the case that some cattle will also experience poor standards of care, they’re more likely, on average, to have higher levels of welfare,” she writes.
Courtesy: Our World in Data
Chickens can be packed in tiny cages with limited movements and given growth hormones, all of which would limit land and energy use and increase yield as they grow faster. This means they require less feed before they’re ready to be slaughtered and sold, which leads to lower resource use and overall climate footprint. However, all this just makes the lives of the chickens more torturous.
These fast-growing chickens have become more popular – the weight of the most common broiler chicken after 56 days was four times higher in 2005 than in 1957. So while it may make chicken meat better for the environment than beef, it also imparts them with a multitude of health problems.
The climate-welfare tradeoff exists across species
Some flexitarians will prioritise the climate and opt for chicken, some would stress more on welfare and choose beef. Others who want to do both might end up going for pork.
But it’s not that simple. Research has shown that pig farms with better animal welfare standards produce more carbon and use more land. Meanwhile, the study also found that packaging labels like ‘Red Tractor certified’ or ‘organic’ on pork and bacon don’t always guarantee good outcomes. Free-range systems may have better animal welfare than those with no label, but at some farms, the pigs suffer welfare costs, not benefits.
Even some RSPCA farms have welfare costs – the animal rights charity has been under fire recently for misleading consumers with its food labelling scheme. “Buying one of these labelled products might improve the odds of getting a well-treated pig, but it doesn’t guarantee it,” writes Ritchie.
Courtesy: Our World in Data
Similarly, for eggs, caged hens need fewer resources than free-range chickens and thus have a smaller carbon footprint. In the UK, caged chickens actually have a 16% lower climate impact – but then again, they are raised in miserable environments.
As for cows, grass-fed beef can have 20% higher emissions than grain-fed ones, which spend at least part of their lives outdoors. Grain-fed cows also gain weight more quickly, reaching the ‘optimal’ weight sooner. They’re bigger at the end of their lives, which translates into more meat per animal than grass-fed cows, and a lower carbon footprint.
However, they are often transported from the field to a feedlot, which has an associated physical and mental toll, thanks to the noise and vibrations of the journey, the cramped conditions, and the lack of water and food. “A poorly managed transition from grass to grains can cause digestive issues and discomfort. There are ways to reduce some of these negative impacts, but the overall welfare of grain-fed cows is probably lower than grass-fed,” Ritchie states.
How to balance climate change with animal welfare
So what can you do to make sure that your climate impact is lower than the average meat-eater, but also serves animal welfare benefits? Ritchie says it just depends on your own priorities.
You may end up switching to chicken to reduce your footprint, continuing with beef because you feel animal welfare is more important (although 70% of cows in the US are also factory-farmed), or being okay with 15% higher emissions for free-range eggs. Some of these tradeoffs are unavoidable – producers can’t have high-yielding chickens without fast-growing strains, for example.
Ritchie mentions that a small subset of farms may have achieved both lower climate impacts and good levels of animal care, but these are understudied and mostly unidentified examples.
It may sound preachy, but to maximise the twin benefits of climate and animal friendliness, following a plant-based diet would really be the way to go. However, we’ve got to keep things pragmatic: not everyone will or can go vegan, so instead of eliminating meat, focus on reducing it.
Courtesy: UNEP
Even the UN says so, with the UNEP publishing a report during COP28 that endorsed alternative proteins and a cutback in animal intake. “Making room for more and more livestock and fodder crops is driving the loss of tropical forests, while excess animal manure and chemical fertilisers are polluting our groundwater, rivers and seas,” UNEP executive director Inger Andersen said. “As global demand for meat and dairy products continues to rise, their production and consumption pose significant challenges for public health and animal welfare.”
The report suggested that novel foods like plant-based, cultivated and fermentation-derived proteins “show potential for reduced environmental impacts” veruss many conventional animal foods. “They also show promise for reduced risk of zoonoses and antimicrobial resistance, and can significantly reduce animal welfare concerns associated with conventional animal agriculture,” the UNEP said.
Separate research has shown that replacing just half of your meat and dairy intake with plant-based analogues can cut emissions by 31%, reduce land use by 12% (and effectively halt deforestation), and lower water consumption by 10%. So in this case, one of the most ideal ways to have your steak and eat it too is just to consume less of it.
While swapping beef for chicken may lower your impact on the climate, it also means killing more poorly treated animals. The key to balancing the tradeoff is to just eat less meat.
During COP28, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) published an agrifood roadmap to help keep emissions in line with the 1.5°C goal. Thanks to intense lobbying – the number of meat and dairy lobbyists at the climate conference tripled to reach 120 – this strategy failed to include a reduction in meat-eating to tackle the climate crisis and global hunger.
Instead, the FAO suggested you swap from beef to chicken, which relatively emits much fewer greenhouse gas emissions. That is a very simplistic take, and ignores a lot of the side effects of doing so. For one, a group of academics published a comment on the roadmap, suggesting that this move – alongside another suggestion for intensifying animal agriculture in low-income countries – could “maintain or even substantially increase risks of anti-microbial resistance and/or zoonotic disease”.
The trade-off between climate change and animal welfare is hard to balance if you’re a meat-eater. Ideally, what’s good for the planet should also always be good for the animals, but as Our World in Data scientist and researcher Hannah Ritchie writes, this is unfortunately not the case. “These two goals are often in conflict,” she says.
And this is true whether we’re talking about different types of animals, or different ways of raising them (for example, caged versus cage-free).
Chicken burgers have a lower climate impact, but are worse for animals
Courtesy: Our World in Data
If you take the FAO’s advice and swap your beef burger for chicken, you’ve cut your carbon footprint by about 80%. But you’ve also just killed 200 times more animals for your dinner. An average chicken could produce 1.7kg of meat. A cow? 360kg.
The average person in the EU consumes about 80kg of meat annually. If this was entirely chicken, you’d need to kill 40 chickens per person each year. For beef, this would be less than a sixth of a cow.
Generally, bigger animals like cows, pigs and lambs will emit more atmosphere-harming gases, but yield more meat per animal. Smaller creatures like chickens and fish may have a lower carbon footprint, but are slaughtered in higher numbers.
Global calculations by Our World in Data founder Max Roser reveal that every day, 202 million chickens are slaughtered for meat (averaging about 140,000 per minute). While figures for fish are highly uncertain, they are also in the hundreds of millions of fish. In contrast, the number of cows killed each day is 900,000, which rises to 3.8 million for pigs – these are fractions of the number of chickens being slaughtered daily.
But apart from the sheer number, it’s also the conditions that the average chicken is subjected to that bring cause for concern. Ritchie’s previous analysis shows that in the US alone, 99.97% of chickens (that’s 8.9 billion) are factory-farmed, as are all fish raised on farms. “While it is certainly the case that some cattle will also experience poor standards of care, they’re more likely, on average, to have higher levels of welfare,” she writes.
Courtesy: Our World in Data
Chickens can be packed in tiny cages with limited movements and given growth hormones, all of which would limit land and energy use and increase yield as they grow faster. This means they require less feed before they’re ready to be slaughtered and sold, which leads to lower resource use and overall climate footprint. However, all this just makes the lives of the chickens more torturous.
These fast-growing chickens have become more popular – the weight of the most common broiler chicken after 56 days was four times higher in 2005 than in 1957. So while it may make chicken meat better for the environment than beef, it also imparts them with a multitude of health problems.
The climate-welfare tradeoff exists across species
Some flexitarians will prioritise the climate and opt for chicken, some would stress more on welfare and choose beef. Others who want to do both might end up going for pork.
But it’s not that simple. Research has shown that pig farms with better animal welfare standards produce more carbon and use more land. Meanwhile, the study also found that packaging labels like ‘Red Tractor certified’ or ‘organic’ on pork and bacon don’t always guarantee good outcomes. Free-range systems may have better animal welfare than those with no label, but at some farms, the pigs suffer welfare costs, not benefits.
Even some RSPCA farms have welfare costs – the animal rights charity has been under fire recently for misleading consumers with its food labelling scheme. “Buying one of these labelled products might improve the odds of getting a well-treated pig, but it doesn’t guarantee it,” writes Ritchie.
Courtesy: Our World in Data
Similarly, for eggs, caged hens need fewer resources than free-range chickens and thus have a smaller carbon footprint. In the UK, caged chickens actually have a 16% lower climate impact – but then again, they are raised in miserable environments.
As for cows, grass-fed beef can have 20% higher emissions than grain-fed ones, which spend at least part of their lives outdoors. Grain-fed cows also gain weight more quickly, reaching the ‘optimal’ weight sooner. They’re bigger at the end of their lives, which translates into more meat per animal than grass-fed cows, and a lower carbon footprint.
However, they are often transported from the field to a feedlot, which has an associated physical and mental toll, thanks to the noise and vibrations of the journey, the cramped conditions, and the lack of water and food. “A poorly managed transition from grass to grains can cause digestive issues and discomfort. There are ways to reduce some of these negative impacts, but the overall welfare of grain-fed cows is probably lower than grass-fed,” Ritchie states.
How to balance climate change with animal welfare
So what can you do to make sure that your climate impact is lower than the average meat-eater, but also serves animal welfare benefits? Ritchie says it just depends on your own priorities.
You may end up switching to chicken to reduce your footprint, continuing with beef because you feel animal welfare is more important (although 70% of cows in the US are also factory-farmed), or being okay with 15% higher emissions for free-range eggs. Some of these tradeoffs are unavoidable – producers can’t have high-yielding chickens without fast-growing strains, for example.
Ritchie mentions that a small subset of farms may have achieved both lower climate impacts and good levels of animal care, but these are understudied and mostly unidentified examples.
It may sound preachy, but to maximise the twin benefits of climate and animal friendliness, following a plant-based diet would really be the way to go. However, we’ve got to keep things pragmatic: not everyone will or can go vegan, so instead of eliminating meat, focus on reducing it.
Courtesy: UNEP
Even the UN says so, with the UNEP publishing a report during COP28 that endorsed alternative proteins and a cutback in animal intake. “Making room for more and more livestock and fodder crops is driving the loss of tropical forests, while excess animal manure and chemical fertilisers are polluting our groundwater, rivers and seas,” UNEP executive director Inger Andersen said. “As global demand for meat and dairy products continues to rise, their production and consumption pose significant challenges for public health and animal welfare.”
The report suggested that novel foods like plant-based, cultivated and fermentation-derived proteins “show potential for reduced environmental impacts” veruss many conventional animal foods. “They also show promise for reduced risk of zoonoses and antimicrobial resistance, and can significantly reduce animal welfare concerns associated with conventional animal agriculture,” the UNEP said.
Separate research has shown that replacing just half of your meat and dairy intake with plant-based analogues can cut emissions by 31%, reduce land use by 12% (and effectively halt deforestation), and lower water consumption by 10%. So in this case, one of the most ideal ways to have your steak and eat it too is just to consume less of it.
Lidl is under pressure after E-coli was found on nearly HALF of chickens tested by a lab. It comes amid growing concerns over the bacteria in the UK – yet the supermarket chain essentially said ‘nothing to see, here’.
Lidl chickens & E-coli: riddled with superbugs
The results of a microbiological test performed by an independent, accredited laboratory in Germany show that more than half of the fresh chicken products sold in Lidl GB contain antibiotic-resistant ‘superbugs.’
The investigation was commissioned by several animal welfare charities including Open Cages which, alongside leading antimicrobial experts, says that poor animal welfare is one of the biggest drivers of antibiotic resistance and a threat to public health.
The test examined 40 fresh chicken products sold in Lidl’s UK stores under its flagship “Birchwood British” chicken brand. The products were purchased in five different stores across the UK. The lab found:
Multi-resistant bacteria (ESBL or MRSA) on 23 products (58%) – bacteria that no longer respond to antimicrobial treatment, making infections difficult or impossible to treat,
Faecal bacteria E-Coli on 19 products (47.5%) – a strand of which recently caused more than 200 people in the UK to become ill, and Listeria on 12 products (30%).
Resistant bacteria can cause serious infections which might not respond to antibiotics. They can also spread antibiotic resistance to other bacteria in your body, causing resistant sicknesses in the future.
ESBL is a type of enzyme or chemical produced by some germs that most commonly infect the gut and urinary tract. MRSA is a type of bacteria that can cause serious infections and lead to painful and swollen skin, a high temperature, and difficulty breathing if it gets into the body.
As the Canary previously reported, E-coli has been spreading across the UK. It can be found in the gut and faeces of many animals like cattle and sheep, from eating undercooked meat or raw leafy vegetables – yes this includes unwashed salad leaves too.
Timothy Walsh, Professor of Medical Microbiology and Antibiotic Resistance at the University of Oxford, said:
The presence of multi-resistant bacteria in meat is a worrying trend and represents a serious public health concern. People can get ill from processing and consuming contaminated meat, and the use of human antibiotics in animal production can have a profound long-term effect on the effectiveness of antibiotics to treat human infections.
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) occurs when bacteria mutate or acquire genes that allow them to survive exposure to antimicrobials. Over time, bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics can spread, making treatments either more difficult or entirely ineffective. This also elevates risks for surgery, C-sections, and chemotherapy.
Experts estimate that 1.27 million people worldwide died in 2019 from drug-resistant infections with a further 4.95 million dying of antibiotic-resistant associated infections. In the UK, around 58 000 people had an antibiotic-resistant infection in 2022 and 2,200 die from it every year. The scale of the issue led the World Health Organisation to classify antimicrobial resistance as one of the top 10 global public health threats.
Dangerous pathogens from poor animal welfare
According to experts like Professor Walsh, one of the major causes of resistant bacteria in chicken meat is the use of fast-growing breeds – a practice which is criticised by animal welfare charities like Open Cages.
“Frankenchickens” have been selectively bred to produce a lot of meat in the shortest possible time. As a result of their fast growth, these birds have very weak immune systems which makes them prone to contracting numerous infections and diseases. Lidl chickens with E-coli is part of this. As the Canary reported, the supermarket chain has repeatedly hit the headlines over the poor conditions its suppliers keep chickens in.
Walsh said:
Poor animal welfare is one of the major catalysts for the use of antibiotics and subsequent drivers of antibiotic resistance. Improving animal welfare, such as adopting slower-growing breeds in line with the Better Chicken Commitment, can significantly reduce the need for antibiotics to be given to the birds in the first place. UK supermarkets have a responsibility and obligation to ensure that the meat sold is safe for consumption and free from antibiotic-resistant pathogens.
Food safety is a priority for our business and all products are subject to extensive quality controls throughout the supply chain. We work closely with our suppliers and a multitude of industry partners, aligning our policies with the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance (Ruma) and the Food Industry Initiative on Antimicrobials (FIIA) to ensure the responsible and Ruma recommended use of antibiotics, while ensuring animal welfare remains a priority.
Our own testing shows that in the last 12 months there have been no micro-related deviations outside of legal levels, and no concerns have been raised to us by any regulatory bodies on this topic.
A way forward with the Better Chicken Commitment
The Better Chicken Commitment (BCC), a set of welfare measures designed by animal welfare specialists, prohibits the use of fast-growing breeds. Data from the Dutch broiler industry shows that slower-growing chickens require nine times fewer antibiotics. Lidl, who has recently committed to giving more space to chickens in line with one of the BCC requirements, hasn’t voiced any intention to change the breeds they sell yet.
Connor Jackson, CEO of Open Cages, explains:
For years we have asked retailers like Lidl to stop selling fast-growing chickens. These alarming new findings reveal that this is no longer only about animal welfare: we are all paying the price. According to the tests, a Lidl customer has a one in two chance of taking potentially life threatening superbugs into their homes. That’s like flipping a coin. Are we really OK with that? Is cheap meat really worth the risk to our health?
Changes in farming practices could have large-scale implications for reducing the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria: 73% of all antimicrobials sold globally in 2017 were for farmed animals, which makes factory farms a main driver of antibiotic resistance.
Hundreds of companies have already agreed to stop selling fast-growing chickens including M&S, Waitrose, KFC, Nando’s, all French major supermarkets and even Lidl in France, Belgium and Denmark.
Many of the US’s biggest fast-food chains still use caged pigs for pork and have made no commitments to end the practice, according to a new report.
If you thought your Black Forest Ham sandwich at Subway was ethically sourced, I’ve got some bad news for you. Same story if you had a similar thought about your sausage, egg and cheese biscuit at Chick-fil-A.
These restaurants, among 11 other fast-food chains in the US, still use caged pigs for their pork, according to an investigation by the non-profit Animal Equality. While some companies have progressed their efforts to end caged farming, others are lagging behind, with no such commitments outlined, or having walked back on previously announced targets.
This entails KFC, Subway, Chick-fil-A, Taco Bell, Papa John’s, Denny’s, BJ’s Restaurants, Dunkin’ Brands, Sonic, Texas Roadhouse, Red Robin, Qdoba, and First Watch. These chains source their pork products from pigs that have been confined in gestation crates for all or part of their pregnancies, despite the practice now being illegal in 11 states.
Meanwhile, McDonald’s, Burger King, Jack in the Box, Shake Shack, The Cheesecake Factory, and Wendy’s have all made progress towards eliminating the practice, while Chipotle has done so entirely. “Companies like McDonald’s, Chipotle and The Cheesecake Factory are proving the restaurant industry does not need to cage innocent pregnant pigs,” said Animal Equality president Sharon Núñez.
“There is no excuse for this kind of abuse, especially when the majority of Americans are asking for more animal protection,” she added.
Fast-food chains’ lack of cage-free commitments
Courtesy: Denny’s
Gestation crates are metal pens that pigs are moved to shortly after they’re impregnated. These typically measure 2ft wide and 7ft long – only slightly larger than the pig’s body. This means the sows can only take one step forward or backwards, and can’t extend their limbs. The floor underneath is slatted, allowing for urine and excrement to fall into an underlying pit.
In the US, around 60% of pigs are confined to crates for their entire pregnancy (which lasts around 114 days) – in fact, they spend nearly three-quarters (74%) of their lives in confinement. “Gestation crates for pigs are a real problem,” animal scientist Temple Grandin has previously said. “Basically, you’re asking a sow to live in an airline seat.”
Keeping pigs in cages restricts their movement, leading to decreased cardiovascular fitness, muscle strength and bone density, and higher rates of calluses and limb injuries. The crate itself can cause lesions and sores on the pig’s skin, which worsen during the course of the pregnancy. Caged pigs suffer from more urinary tract infections as well, while increased stress levels can extend to piglets’ health and cause compromised immune systems after birth.
These effects have become a major ESG risk factor, but the aforementioned food companies continue to use pork sourced from caged pigs. What’s worse is that they are lacking in commitments to move away from this practice too. For example, BJ’s Restaurants, Chick-fil-A, First Watch and Texas Roadhouse have made no public pledges to do so.
Others have made commitments before, but later backtracked from these policies. This includes Dunkin’, Sonic (both now owned by Inspire Brands), Denny’s, Papa Johns, Qdoba, Red Robin, and Subway – all these companies had publicly announced their goals between 2009 and 2012.
Meanwhile, Yum Brands – the parent company of KFC and Taco Bell – has said it will publish a policy on caged farming in September this year, and noted that it will establish benchmarks for moving pigs from gestation cages to group housing.
Public and legislative support for animal welfare
Courtesy: Animal Equality
The investigation has already made waves in the fast-food industry, with Denny’s facing pressure to end its use of cages. Its shareholder meeting earlier this month had faced a vote to adopt such a policy, after a proposal by the Humane Society of the United States. But in its proxy filing to shareholders a month earlier, its board recommended a vote against the move, saying: “Unfortunately, the pork supply industry has not evolved as expected.”
Denny’s told Reuters that reducing gestation crates is a “complex challenge within our industry”, but acknowledged “the importance of progressing towards more humane practices”. Following the HSUS proposal, Denny’s amended its website language to claim that half of its pork could come from suppliers that limit gestation crates by 2028 – this was said to be a third of its supply in 2022.
“We will continue to speak up for animals and consumers concerned for their wellbeing until Denny’s does what is right and ends this practice,” said Núñez.
In the US, 98% of all pigs are factory-farmed (totalling 71 million). This type of intensive farming can lead to diseases in the animals, which can transfer to humans who consume them. Recently, fears of African swine fever have escalated globally – in Italy, tens of thousands of pigs were culled last year after an outbreak.
Apart from the welfare and health aspects, pig production and factory farming are also highly detrimental to the environment. Swine alone make up 9% of agricultural emissions in the US, according to one estimate. Factory farming, meanwhile, is responsible for 13% of the country’s methane emissions – a gas that is 80 times more potent than carbon.
This is why some states have outlawed the confinement of pigs in gestation crates. Florida – which recently banned cultivated meat – was the first to do so in 2008. Since then, Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Utah have all followed suit.
However, some of these legislations are at risk. California and Massachusetts’ regulations are being challenged in the upcoming Eats Act, a farm bill that could limit states’ ability to regulate agricultural products coming into their borders. It has been described by non-profit Food & Water Watch as “lawmakers’ big gift to Big Ag”.
“This legislation is an opportunity to improve the lives of farmed animals, not dismantle decades of work done to protect them from the cruellest practices in factory farming,” said Maggie Marshall, Animal Equality’s legal advocacy counsel, adding that the bill “puts the wellbeing of animals at risk”.
Voters have demonstrated strong opposition to caged farming. In California, 82% of residents support the state’s cage-free legislation. And a 2018 survey by World Animal Protection found that 80% of Americans were concerned about the treatment of factory-farmed pigs.
Israeli startup PoLoPo has filed for USDA approval of its molecular farming platform, which genetically engineers potatoes to produce egg proteins within the plant.
PoLoPo is pursuing regulatory approval in the US for its molecular farming technology, which transforms potatoes into egg-protein-producing factories.
Its application for Regulatory Status Review (RSR) to the USDA’s Animal and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS) marks the first step of the regulatory ladder for its SuperAA platform. This is expected within six months, and will establish that PoLoPo’s tech poses no agricultural or pest risk compared to conventional potato cultivation.
Following the greenlight from the APHIS, the startup would be able to pursue commercial plans to grow its transgenic potato plants in the US via partners and local growers. It would also need to engage with the FDA as the next step towards commercialisation.
The company says it’s the first Israeli molecular farming player to seek US approval. Asked why it chose to launch here, PoLoPo co-founder and CEO Maya Sapir-Mir told Green Queen: “Although our product does not contain any DNA, GMO-based technology and production (growth of transgenic plants) are still an issue in most geographies. The US is the most suitable market in terms of regulation and customer acceptance for GMO-based products, so we are starting there.”
She added that the country’s potato growing and starch processing industry is big too, and the startup intends to use existing infrastructure for production.
An egg protein suitable for alt-meat, desserts and snacks
Courtesy: PoLoPo
Founded in 2022, PoLoPo’s Super AA platform grows target amino acids within a potato’s tuber, which are harvested when they reach sufficient size. The protein is then extracted and dried into a powder that can be integrated into existing food processing lines and formulations.
Currently deployed at greenhouse scale, the technology can generate patatin (a group of native proteins found in potatoes) and ovalbumin (the major protein found in eggs) through proprietary metabolic engineering techniques. It inserts a DNA sequence into the potato to teach it to produce an egg protein that’s fully functional, and nutritionally and chemically identical to chicken eggs. While this means there’s no animal input and the egg proteins are – by definition – vegan, they’re not suitable for people with egg allergies.
According to PoLoPo, the product has undergone rigorous testing and meets all the necessary food safety standards, deeming it safe for consumption after quality control assessments. USDA approval would set it on the path to actually sell the product to manufacturers, who can use the ovalbumin powder in baked goods, desserts, snacks, meat and meat alternatives, and ice cream.
The highly functional protein can also be used for stabilisation, increasing the nutritional value, and prolonging the shelf life of CPG products. “Our first RSR is for the SuperAA platform itself and not for a specific protein. This step is crucial, as the SuperAA will be the background variety for all our future commercial varieties (for producing different target proteins),” explained Sapir-Mir.
“Once we obtain this approval, we can relatively quickly approve every variety expressing any target protein that we will commercialise (starting with ovalbumin).”
PoLoPo targets 2026 launch via B2B partners
Courtesy: PoLoPo
PoLoPo operates as a B2B ingredient provider, instead of selling its own end products on the market. Sapir-Mir did not disclose whether the startup has signed any agreements with manufacturers, but she outlined that B2C is outside its scope currently, and its ingredient fits perfectly into a B2B model.
“The food industry already uses egg proteins in powder, so working with our functional protein powder will be almost straightforward. Moreover, we want to improve the global food production system as much as we can and make it much more sustainable,” she said. “Therefore, the B2B model is the way to go, allowing for a wide range of possibilities and potential impacts.”
PoLoPo closed a $2.3M pre-seed funding round at the end of 2022, and it’s now raising capital again. “This is the right time for PoLoPo to give another boost in R&D and commercial aspects,” said Sapir-Mir. “We are keen to work with strategic investors, from potato growers to potato processors and ingredient providers.”
It’s targeting a market that is inundated with volatile, unpredictable prices and supply shocks due to frequent avian flu outbreaks. It’s also addressing the cruelty issue – in the US, most (if not all) egg-laying hens are part of concentrated animal feeding operations.
Sapir-Mir is targeting 2026 for the rollout of the first products using PoLoPo’s ovalbumin, via collaborations with CPG companies and foodservice chains. Asked if it had global ambitions, she said the current focus is in the US, a huge market with a ton of opportunities. “Nevertheless, we are keen to see other parts of the world that will understand the opportunity to feed the growing population by using GMO methods, and hope to grow our potatoes in more parts of the world.”
Molecular farming is emerging as one of the next frontiers of alternative protein, thanks to its ability to scale up fast and keep costs down compared to animal cell cultivation or precision fermentation – this is made possible by the use of plants to produce ingredients, instead of expensive bioreactors.
A British wildlife conservation group has said it had uncovered thousands of breaches of animal welfare standards at zoos across Europe, and urged improvements – including UK zoos.
According to the Aspinall Foundation, a Kent-based charity – there were more than 3,000 breaches of standards which are set by the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA). This included 29 different zoos over a 18 month period.
The EAZA has 308 members, including dozens in the UK. Their aim is to ensure its member zoos and aquariums:
maintain the highest standards of care and population management.
As reported in The Times, the EAZA acts as the gold standard to reassure the public that animals are well looked after. However, the report claims the accreditation system isn’t up to scratch.
UK zoos: causing animals to mentally and physically suffer
Only recently, the Canaryreported on the failings of Sea Life in their care of Penguins. Clearly, the problem is far more widespread. The investigation involved 12 European countries and alleges that EAZA failed to ensure compliance, leading to “mentally and physically suffering”.
Researchers saw elephants locked outside their shelters in cold temperatures. They also kept bears in concrete enclosures with no shelter, and unbelievably, a hippo had no access to a pool.
The Timesnoted that of UK zoos, Colchester Zoo had 17 breaches, whilst Chester had 12. At Colchester, a rhino, ostrich, and zebra were all left outside for six hours without shelter, despite guidelines on accommodation. Chester had similar allegations of their treatment of elephants, with them leaving them outside for five hours. The most accommodation issues were with elephants, then rhinos, lions, tigers, and giraffes.
Lack of rigorous enforcement
The report listed numerous shortfalls, including the lack of unannounced inspections. It also cast doubt on how rigorous their enforcement was due to their dependency on membership fees.
However, the EASA denies that membership fees have any influence on its screening. They added that this was standard practice in modern professional associations.
Enclosure furnishings, animal shelter and exercise space ere linked to the majority of breaches. Despite this, member zoos all kept their accredited status.
Significantly, one of the flaws noted was the seven to 10 year gap between the EAZA accrediting facilities, and them renewing them. They noted it “may result in a decline in standards.” Serious concerns were also raised about how much trust the public and zoos are putting in EAZA.
Myfanwy Griffith, executive director of EAZA said in response that the report failed to:
truthfully represent the aims and effectiveness of EAZA’s accreditation programme.
Damian Aspinall, chairman of the Aspinall Foundation, condemned the accused zoos for creating a “myth of conservation” and said the EAZA was a:
pointless organisation unless it’s effective and honest with the public.
Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse
Feature image via กสิณธร ราชโอรส/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1200 by 900, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0
Global entertainment giant, Merlin Entertainment is keeping Gentoo Penguins captive underground, with no natural light or fresh air. This is in its Sea Life centres. Animal rights activists have labelled the conditions as “dungeon-like”.
Freedom for Animals are calling for Sea Life to relocate all their Penguins to suitable sanctuary spaces.
Penguins in captivity
In the UK alone, there are 43 different locations where Penguins are held in captivity. Sea Life own five of these: Birmingham, Great Yarmouth, London Aquarium, Scarborough, and Weymouth.
Both Birmingham and London hold Gentoo Penguins – the world’s third largest. At around 76cm tall, and with bright red-orange beaks, Gentoo Penguins are native to the Antarctic Peninsula and several sub-Antarctic islands. They prefer ice-free areas, including sheltered valleys, cliffs and coastal plains.
They regularly dive up to 600 feet deep in their hunt for food, and can swim up to 22 miles an hour – faster than any other Penguin. Obviously, any Penguin held in captivity – at least in Sea Life facilities does not have the space to do either of those things.
Importantly, the IUCN currently list Gentoo Penguins as of ‘least concern’ on their red list. This means they are currently doing well in the wild and their population levels are not in danger, thanks to steady population increases.
Whilst Freedom for Animals current work is around freeing the Gentoo Penguins in London, they are calling for Sea Life to relocate all their Penguins to suitable sanctuary spaces.
Sea Life profits before conservation
In 2023, Merlin Entertainment, who is the parent company of Sea Life – made £2.1bn in revenue. Of this, £662m was profit, before tax.
Notably, they fail to mention conservation in any of their publicly available financial accounts. Likewise for Sea Life or the Sea Life trust – its charitable arm.
Both organisations undertake important work rescuing injured seals, which are native to the UK. They then release them back into the wild.
Its website states:
Our penguin breeding programmes are some of the most successful in the world with over 20 penguin chicks being born every year!
However, Penguins bred in captivity can not be released into the wild. Scientists agree that releasing captive-bred penguins to mix with wild colonies would put both groups in danger due to the infection risk. In a blog by Freedom for Animals, it states:
Zoos and aquariums know this, so in reality they have no intention of releasing their penguins into the wild, and their breeding programmes are designed to keep a consistent population in captive “collections”.
Additional research by Freedom for Animals showed that just 2.5% of the species held captive at Sea Life aquariums are endangered. Very few of the animals ever return to the wild and most of them the company breeds to restock tanks and exhibitions.
Never seeing the light of day
Sea Life currently keep Gentoo Penguins at both London and Birmingham in captivity in enclosures with zero natural light and no fresh air. As a result of this, it is putting the Penguins health and wellbeing at risk.
As part of its campaign, Freedom for Animals has set up a petition to call on Sea Life to free the Gentoos in its London Aquarium. Notably, the petition states that the company’s
London Aquarium currently has a colony of 15 gentoo penguins who are housed in a basement. Many of these animals have been there for their entire lives and, without compassionate intervention to secure their release, they may never see the light of day.
Gentoo penguins are the strongest swimmers and the deepest divers of all birds, yet their enclosure offers just 6-7 feet of depth in which to dive – a pitiful fraction of the 600ft they can dive to in the wild. They are a small colony, in a tiny enclosure, that does not meet their physical and social needs and does not allow them to enjoy their natural behaviours.
Added to this, the constant public observation and noise has the capacity to cause serious stress and adverse health effects.
The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 states that zoos should implement the following:
accommodating their animals under conditions which aim to satisfy the biological and conservation requirements of the species to which they belong, including—
(i)providing each animal with an environment well adapted to meet the physical, psychological and social needs of the species to which it belongs.
Moreover, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums Penguin care manual clearly states:
Seasonal variation in light cycle, intensity and spectrum are essential for proper breeding and molting cycles.
Back in 2014, one Gentoo Penguin at Sea Life Birmingham died after swimming into an underwater viewing panel. Members of staff at Birmingham have also reported the Penguins showing signs of stereotypic behaviour – which according to Penguins International, usually indicates significant stress.
It is also well known that stress can lower Penguin’s immune systems, contributing to other illnesses.
Sea Life’s response
The Canary contacted Sea Life for comment. A spokesperson for them said:
The welfare of all the animals in our care is of paramount importance to us… and we deliver the highest levels of care through our team of welfare experts.
Our Gentoo penguin habitats were designed with help and advice from specialist vets and provide an excellent balance of water and land for the penguins which enables them to express their normal behaviours, and there is space for them to ensure they have sufficient privacy.
Our colonies of penguins are regularly inspected by independent vets, third-party experts and local and national authority officials, all of whom are pleased with how we look after all the animals in our care and so issue our Zoo Licences to operate.
As part of its overall mission, SEA LIFE has an opportunity and responsibility in sharing the wonders of the natural world in an accessible manner and with the opportunity to influence our guests who visit from all around the globe each year to care for the world’s oceans and the marine life within it, we believe this is a hugely positive thing.
Sea Life’s evasiveness to our specific questions is clear. We quizzed them on the amount they put into conservation each year – to which they didn’t directly respond. They claimed conservation was the “bedrock’’ of the company however they were unable to give any concrete examples of figures.
Freedom for Animals told the Canary:
Breeding penguins in captivity and labelling it conservation is simply false: captive-bred penguins will never be released to the wild and will therefore make no impact on wild population numbers.
Many penguins bred in captivity are not even threatened in the wild at all, such as the gentoo penguins Freedom for Animals are campaigning on behalf of, 15 of whom Sea Life keeps in a small, windowless basement under London’s South Bank.
By creating the false impression that buying an aquarium ticket will help endangered penguins, Sea Life, and zoos and aquariums like it, actually damage real conservation by creating the false impression to customers that they are funding real, effective conservation work.
Penguin breeding programmes, such as those seen at Sea Life are based on false pretences.
It claims to have one of the most successful Penguin breeding programmes in the world. However, they are only breeding them for captivity. This is not conservation – but exploitation for entertainment, and therefore profit. It is clear that Sea Life is merely a money making scheme spearheaded by Merlin.
As Freedom for Animals notes on their website:
Breeding animals for captivity and exhibition is a cruel and exploitative practice that has no place in a modern society.
You can sign Freedom for Animals Petition to move the Gentoo Penguins from Sea Life London, here.
Featured image via CJ Attractions Guide/Youtube, cropped and resized to 1200 by 900, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0
On Tuesday 14 May, the UK House of Lords passed a landmark new bill on animal welfare. Of course, it’s a major win for animal rights. However, it likely could have happened a lot sooner if not for Tory wrangling on previous bills.
Animal Welfare Bill passes through parliament
The Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill prohibits the export of cattle, goats, pigs, and horses for slaughter, and fattening for slaughter.
It aims to improve animal welfare in farming by ending long, arduous journeys to other countries. These journeys regularly put animals through overcrowding, exhaustion, dehydration and stress.
However, on 14 May, the House of Lords passed the new bill that will bring this appalling practice to a close. It will now head for royal assent before becoming law.
Activists have been calling for the ban for decades. Emma Slawinski, director of policy, prevention and campaigns at the RSPCA animal charity, described it as “an extraordinary achievement” that activists had campaigned on for 50 years. She said that:
Back in the 90s we had more than a million animals going out from the UK. It’s an abhorrent trade. The suffering is intense and it goes on for a long time.
Some of those journeys were measured in days, not in hours, and they’re never going to happen again.
Activists launched particularly fierce and dedicated campaigning during this time. Notable among this was a coordinated wave of protests and direct action against the practice at the port of Brightlingsea in Essex in 1995. UK media dubbed the event “The Battle of Brightlingsea”.
In tandem with this, on February 1, 1995, Jill Phipps was one of a few dozen animal rights activists who broke through a police line at Coventry Airport in central England. She was crushed to death under a lorry as she protested against the export of live calves for veal in 1995.
Political “stumbling blocks”
While the bill marked a step forward for animal welfare, it could have come into effect sooner. Compassion in World Farming’s CEO Philip Lymbery noted how:
It has been a very difficult journey to get this policy over the line with many stumbling blocks along the way.
The legislation is part of the Conservatives boon of Brexit branding in which it promised to centre animal welfare. Specifically, the party first proposed the ban in 2017 and touted it as a benefit of Brexit because European Union trade rules prevent member states from banning live exports to other countries in the bloc. As a result, the live exports ban became a pillar of its “action plan for animal welfare” which it launched in 2021.
The Tories first had the chance to put this into action through a Commons bill in 2021. Notably, the Kept Animals Bill previously contained these provisions. In June 2023, the Tories shelved the bill at the final hurdle.
Alongside banning live animal exports, the Kept Animals Bill had offered a range of measures to improve the situation for farmed animals, non-human primates, and other species kept as pets. However, as the Canary’s Glen Black reported, the Tories mothballed the bill. Naturally, they did this to appease their friends in the hunting industry. As Black explained, the government said that instead they would:
unbundle the bill’s various measures and push them through as single-issue legislation. As HSI/UK said, this likely means through private members’ bills (PMBs).
However, as he also detailed at the time:
However, as the Electoral Reform Society recently pointed out, PMBs’ rates of success are low. And it seems it was done to protect the vile ongoing abuse of wildlife.
In other words, the private member’s bills like the Animal Welfare (Live Exports) Bill has laid cover for the Tories pander to an abusive, abhorrent, animal-killing industry.
A “truly momentous day” for animal rights
Despite the delay and diversion, this key facet of animal rights protections will now become law.
Given this, animal rights charities have celebrated the success. Compassion in World Farming’s patron Joanna Lumley said:
Finally, finally, finally, we can celebrate the news that live farm animals will never again be exported on long, horrendous journeys from our shores only to be fattened or slaughtered. For decades, we at Compassion in World Farming have worked tirelessly to bring this campaign to everyone’s attention.
The organisation called it a “truly momentous day” for farmed animals. Moreover, Kent Action Against Live Exports’ (KAALE) Yvonne Birchall hailed it as a testament to the committed work of long-term campaigners. She said:
For 29 years, KAALE and their supporters have demonstrated outside UK ports as live export shipments have been loaded on vessels bound for Europe. It has been truly heartbreaking to witness these animals crammed into trucks.”
Whatever the weather, whatever the time of day, KAALE have attended these sailings, and our members are the last friendly faces millions of animals will have seen before being exported. We are delighted that the law will finally ban this cruel trade and the people of Kent will no longer need to stand up in opposition to it.
Taiwanese hospitality chain Silks Hotel Group has pledged to transition to cage-free eggs across all its sites by 2030, following a partnership with the Environment & Animal Society of Taiwan.
Silks Hotel Group, the largest publicly-listed hotel group in Taiwan, has introduced a 100% cage-free egg sourcing policy, which is set to come into effect at all its locations by 2030.
The announcement comes as part of a partnership with animal rights charity the Environment & Animal Society of Taiwan (EAST) and the Taiwan Mennonite New Dawn Educare Center for people with disabilities, which is centred on promoting sustainable practices in the country’s agriculture sector.
As part of Silks Hotel Group’s corporate social responsibility efforts, all restaurants in the luxury chain Regent Taipei will transition to using only cage-free eggs by the end of 2026, with implementation beginning this year.
The decision to do so was born out of a chance meeting between Silks Hotel Group COO Simon Wu and EAST deputy CEO Chen Yumin in December, where they discussed sustainability-related topics. Wu then assigned sustainability director Sharon Liao to carry the conversation forward, which resulted in the cage-free policy.
Why Silks Hotel Group decided to go cage-free
Courtesy: Silks Hotel Group
In Taiwan, 70% of egg-laying hens are confined in battery cages throughout their lives. This prevents them from exhibiting their natural behaviours, leading to physical and mental health issues. Keeping hens in these cages subjects them to respiratory, digestive, immune system and skeletal problems – and to tackle these issues and avoid economic losses, prophylactic antibiotics are routinely administered in their feed.
This means hens struggle to adapt to climatic changes and disease threats, leading to mass culling due to illness and weakness. That puts Taiwan at risk of prolonged egg shortages, as well as the spread of zoonotic diseases that affect both humans and animals. Avian flu is an ever-growing problem globally, recently being detected in cattle in the US too.
This is why Regent Taipei began using free-range eggs from a nearby farm where hens are cared for by employees living with disabilities. The hotel plans to implement this next at its Gallery Lounge and the Robin’s Steakhouse and Teppanyaki, and estimates total annual consumption of 52,000 kgs across all its restaurants.
But does Silks Hotel Group have transparency and certification checks in place? “As a first step, Regent Taipei’s specialty restaurants are sourcing eggs from farms that have achieved EAST Certified certification,” Wu told Green Queen.
“This means that the farms that supply our eggs are subject to strict annual and unannounced audits by EAST to ensure they adhere to comprehensive, evidence-based animal welfare standards and we can be confident that animals in their care are able to exhibit their natural behaviours,” he added.
Calls for better cage-free policies in Taiwan
Courtesy: Silks Hotel Group
Cage-free eggs have been a topic of discussion in the Taiwanese government ever since a report by the Open Wing Alliance (OWA) in February, which evaluated policy frameworks around this subject. Of the 17 Asia-Pacific countries analysed, Taiwan ranked sixth, scoring 29 out of a possible 140 points on three pillars: the use of cages, policy frameworks, and welfare standards.
It prompted a group of lawmakers from across party lines to call for accelerated efforts to phase out battery cages and build better environments for egg-laying hens, in a press conference co-hosted with EAST, which is a member of the OWA.
The report said Taiwan met six of 11 established on-farm welfare criteria, and is the only East Asian country with both publicly documented enforcement procedures and financial penalties for violators. Its labelling requirements have legal force, with fines up between NT$30,000 and NT$3M ($950-$95,000). And in 2019, the nation’s Food and Drug Administration launched a special operation to investigate the coherence between egg labelling and official laying hen welfare standards.
“We applaud Silks Hotel Group for making a commitment to eliminate the cruel confinement of egg-laying hens in its supply chains,” Noa Limpoco, senior Asia lead at the OWA, told Green Queen. “As a leading hotel management company in Asia and the most profitable group on the Taiwan Stock Exchange, it is encouraging to see Silks Hotel Group align with consumer and investor expectations by embracing ethical supply chain practices and ESG principles.”
Upon announcing the cage-free policy, Silks Hotel Group emphasised its commitment to sustainability and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. A key tenet of such aims is a shift away from animal products altogether, considering that livestock farming alone emits up to 20% of the world’s greenhouse gases.
“As our hotels are hosting international travellers from all over the world, we will still need to prepare food with great varieties to cater [to] our guests,” Wu said when asked if the hotel operator had any plans to cut back on meat or dairy in its offerings.
“However, at the same time, we will be offering more diverse vegetarian cuisines as well as increasing our percentage of using animal-friendly food sources,” he added. For example, in February 2023, the hotel company partnered with Michelin Green Star eatery Little Tree Food to launch a Plant-Based Cuisine venture, with the aim of providing guests with “even more healthy and sustainable meal options”.
This month, Japan is launching a ‘new whaling mothership’ which, shockingly, plans to catch around 379 whales this year.
The new vessel is now the world’s only whaling fleet mothership, owned by Kyodo Senpaku, a seafood company based in Tokyo. It can also both process and store meat on board
Although the Japanese government has set a catch limit of 379 whales for this year within Japan’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), according to some analysts, this is a relatively small quota for a large vessel. This is fuelling concerns that they will expand into Antarctica.
The International Whaling Commission
The International Whaling Commission was established in 1946 and is the global body responsible for managing whaling and whale conservation. The mandate hasn’t changed since its inception, but now has 88 member countries.
However, today there are many new conservation and animal rights concerns and the IWC programme has expanded. It now includes bycatch and entanglement, ship strikes, ocean noise, pollution and debris, and sustainable whale watching.
Only three countries still allow commercial whaling – Japan, Norway and Iceland. None of which are part of the IWC.
Commercial whale hunting was banned by the IWC in 1986, with the exception of scientific research. Whilst Japan did always technically obey this, they continued to kill a whopping 333 whales each year and stated ‘research purposes’.
In 1998 Japan started conducting scientific research on whaling in the North Pacific and Antarctic. Countries within the IWC and conservation groups called it commercial whaling in disguise.
Notably, in 2019 Japan withdrew from the IWC. They then announced the resumption of commercial whaling within Japan’s EEZ – but they never announced catch quotas.
Japan’s history with whaling
Whilst it is a controversial practice, the Japanese government calls it an ‘integral part of Japanese culture’. For example, vending machines selling whale meat are about to open in Japan:
A Japanese whaling company (Kyodo Senpaku) is opening vending machines in Japan to drive up demand for whale meat.
The machines will sell whale; sashimi, bacon, skin, steak, and canned meat.
People have documented whaling as far back as the 12th century in Japan. However, the widespread consumption of the meat did not occur until after world war two. Importantly, occupation forces, led by the United States encourage it and poor people started consuming it.
During the 1960’s it peaked, but as other meat became more available once again the consumption of it declined. In the 1960’s, the country was eating around 200 000 tonnes per year. This figure now sits between 1000 and 2000, suggesting the country’s appetite for it is no longer there.
Whaling companies are also trying to drive up demand, suggesting even further that whale meat is not as popular as they would like us to believe. On 5th May, Blue Planet Society reported via X that:
A Japanese whaling company (Kyodo Senpaku) is opening vending machines in Japan to drive up demand for whale meat.
The machines will sell whale; sashimi, bacon, skin, steak, and canned meat.
Prices range from 1,000 yen ($7.70) to 3,000 yen ($23).
The company also said they had been working with influencers to try and promote the meat, and its place within the country’s traditions.
Aboriginal subsistence
Despite the ban on commercial whaling, the members of the IWC recognise the rights of certain aboriginal peoples to hunt a limited number of whales to meet nutritional and cultural needs.
Currently, there are Catch Limits for Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling in place for the native people of Alaska, Chukotka, Washington State, Greenland, St Vincent and the Grenadines. Crucially though, Japan is not part of this.
However, the Whale and Dolphin conservation (WDC) have some concerns about this.
Their website states:
Over the last few years certain governments and aboriginal subsistence whaling communities have abused the definition by allowing whale meat to enter the commercial exchange chain, with whale meat being sold to tourists and non-native peoples. This has allowed for a blurring of the accepted definition of ASW, which has simply assisted commercial whaling interests to advance their arguments to be allowed to resume commercial whaling.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified several whale species as near threatened of vulnerable. Other are listed as endangered and critically endangered, including the Sei whale which is regularly hunted by Japan.
Friday 3 May marked International Leopard Day. So coinciding with this day of celebration and awareness for the iconic spotted big cat, a global collaboration of organisations has announced the final stages of a enormous operation to rescue two leopards from a life of abhorrent animal rights abuse and trafficking.
On Wednesday, the Born Free Foundation and its international partners succeeded in the tremendous 8,000 mile translocation of two of leopards to their ancestral home in South Africa. There, the pair began their new lives at Born Free’s Big Cat Sanctuary at Shamwari Private Game Reserve.
Born Free’s Leopard rescue
Illegal wildlife traders trafficked mother and daughter Alda and Ginny to a unlawful breeding facility in Śrem near Poznań, Poland. The two are believed to be 14 and eight years old respectively. and traders confined the pair there in dirty, cramped conditions:
That is, until 2017, when authorities raided the animal farm and shut down the facilities.
A team of experts from Belgian wildlife rescue centre, Natuurhulpcentrum (NHC), travelled to collect Alda and Ginny. Alarmingly, they found them with filthy coats and showing signs of malnourishment. Since 2017, the dedicated staff at NHC have cared for the mother and daughter. They have been giving them the specialist care they’ve needed to begin recovering from their ordeal.
An epic journey
Initially intended as a temporary home, NHC has kept Alda and Ginny under their care ever since. During this time, NHC, Born Free and its partners have been working for years to secure all the correct documentation and certificates to rehome them:
Significantly, that re-homing became a reality this week. Alda and Ginny travelled more than 8,000 miles by road and air on international and domestic flights. Eventually, they reached their destination at Born Free’s Big Cat Sanctuary at Shamwari on South Africa’s Eastern Cape.
After their epic journey, on Wednesday the leopards took tentative steps out of their crates into their 2.5 acre bush enclosure. The two began by sniffing the South African soil beneath their paws. Then, they carefully examined their new surroundings:
Within half an hour, the mother and daughter had found each other, and continued enjoying the privacy of the thickets and dense bush:
As a result, Born Free Manager at Shamwari Private Game Reserve Catherine Gillson said:
The dramatic change that Ginny and Alda are about to experience in their lives is going to be a privilege to see. The horrendous conditions that they experienced whilst living in their birthplace of Poland in an illegal breeding centre is going to be a stark contrast to the natural thick vegetation in their enclosures surrounded by their indigenous ancestors on Shamwari Private Game Reserve.
While sadly they can never fully be released to the wild, we hope they will quickly adapt to new environment where they will have natural enrichment, be fed the correct diet and live out their lives in the respectful care of our dedicated Born Free Animal Care Team.
A success for biodiversity and animal rights
The relocation followed Born Free’s similar successful operation in March to rehome two lions rescued from an abusive animal farm in Ukraine.
Notably, Born Free has completed the two momentous relocations in its auspicious 40 year anniversary.
Given this, Born Free’s Head of Policy Dr Mark Jones said:
While the purpose for which these poor leopards and so many other wild animals were illegally bred and kept in the Polish facility isn’t entirely clear, it’s highly likely that, if they hadn’t been rescued, their future would have been very bleak indeed.
The trade in wild animals, both legal and illegal, is a major cause of biodiversity loss, and one of the principal risk factors for the emergence of future pandemics, as well as being devastating for the individual welfare of countless wild animals.
Born Free works tirelessly to end the illegal trade in wildlife, and to ensure any legal trade is robustly regulated to protect the welfare of affected animals and eliminate any associated risks to wildlife conservation and animal or human health.
We were instrumental in the development and recent revision of the European Commission’s Action Plan Against Wildlife Trafficking and are promoting the need for an international agreement to combat the illicit trade in wildlife, always with the aim of keeping wildlife in the wild, where it belongs.
Feature image and in-text images via Born Free Foundation
Content warning: this article contains graphic images and videos of violence and cruelty towards animals which readers may find upsetting
Disturbing footage captured at a mink farm in Poland has unveiled multiple instances of animal rights abuse, including the throwing and striking of animals against wooden and metal components of cages. The farm is owned by the Dutch Van Ansem family who oversee one of Poland’s largest mink farms, with additional operations in Latvia, Romania, and the US.
The investigation was conducted by Anima International who worked with an undercover investigator employed at the farm for five weeks.
The collected footage shows workers engaging in brutal treatment of the animals: minks being struck on their heads and bodies with bare hands, fists, and clubs, as well as being forcibly hit against metal and wooden parts of the cages, and even trampled upon.
WARNING: some viewers will find the below video extremely distressing:
Additionally, workers were observed grabbing the animals by their tails, sometimes twisting them, before forcibly hurling the minks into cages or transport carts. The cages were frequently found to be filthy and covered in fur, with many minks exhibiting severe bleeding:
Bogna Wiltowska, Director of Investigations at Anima International, said:
The brutal treatment of animals on fur farms is not an isolated incident, but rather a systemic issue. Time and time again, undercover footage has brought this fact to light. This time, we have documented violence against animals on a farm belonging to the influential Van Ansem family, which purportedly upholds high standards of animal welfare, as evidenced by certifications like WelFur. However, the reality depicted in numerous recordings from the farm speaks otherwise.
The Van Ansems, a Dutch family with a history in mink farming dating back to the 1960s, established their first farm in Poland as early as 1991:
Since then, they have expanded their operations to include farms in Romania, the USA, and Latvia. The farms owned by the Van Ansems are among the largest in Poland, with each farm housing tens of thousands to several hundred thousand minks on average.
Marta Korzeniak, campaign manager at Anima International, said:
The animal abuse exposed by our activist should be the final push for the Polish government to proceed with the work on the fur farming ban proposal. Similar images have been published countless times over the last 12 years. The animals cannot wait any longer – the fur industry is socially unaccepted and harmful. We urge our Prime Minister Donald Tusk to start working on the fur ban bill proposal immediately.
Poland is currently the biggest fur producer in Europe and the second-largest in the world – after China.
Despite overwhelming support from the majority of Polish people for a fur ban, previous efforts to abolish fur farming in the country have been thwarted by the fur lobby.
However, a new proposal for a fur ban bill is set to be introduced in the coming weeks, which includes a transitional period of five years and provisions for compensation to farmers. Anima International anticipates that the findings of this investigation will serve as a decisive catalyst for the implementation of a fur farming ban in Poland.
Featured image and additional images via Anima International
A veterinary deal would increase agri-food exports from the UK to the EU by at least 22.5%, say researchers in a new study from two universities. This analysis comes as trade in agri-food shows a slump since Brexit.
A new veterinary deal could well be worth it
Agri-food exports overall are worth £25bn to the UK economy, but the two years since the new trading rules were put in place have seen a fall of 5% in exports to the EU from 2019 levels, during a period where the sector has otherwise grown.
A team from Aston University and University of Bristol have analysed trade deals and export figures worldwide to estimate impact of a new veterinary deal on UK–EU exports. A veterinary deal with the European Union could increase UK agricultural and food exports by over a fifth, according to new research.
The team, from Aston University’s Centre for Business Prosperity and the University of Bristol, analysed the agricultural and veterinary aspects of trade deals around the world to estimate their impact on exports. They then modelled the potential impact of different types of agreement on UK exports to the EU.
Post-Brexit issues
Veterinary Agreements specifically focus on regulations and standards related to animal health and welfare, as well as to the safety of animal-derived products such as meat, dairy, and seafood. They aim to align, harmonise, or recognise veterinary requirements and certifications, and reduce the number of inspections between countries to facilitate the safe and efficient trade of live animals and animal products.
The EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), implemented in January 2021, eliminates tariffs and quotas but does not remove non-tariff barriers to trade. These can be particularly burdensome for agricultural and animal-derived food (agri-food) exports, involving complex rules and requirements, production of extensive documentation and veterinary checks.
The UK agri-food sector is a cornerstone of the UK economy, with exports worth £25bn and employing 4.2 million people. Although the sector is growing overall, exports to the EU shrank in 2022 by 5% compared to 2019, in part due to the new trade arrangements.
This has led to calls for an EU–UK veterinary agreement from business and agri-food organisations, including the Confederation of British Industry, British Chambers of Commerce, UK Food and Drink Federation, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, and British Veterinary Association.
Global analysis of veterinary deals
Analysing data from the World Bank on 279 trade agreements and export statistics from over 200 countries, the researchers found that shallow agreements, that went little further than provisions already covered by World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, had significant negative impacts on agri-food exports.
However, where trade agreements went beyond WTO provisions to include more commitments on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures (which aim to protect countries against risks relating to pests, diseases, and food safety) and were legally enforceable, they had a robust, positive impact on exports, particularly exports of animal products and food.
Applying this to the UK–EU relationship, the team estimate that a veterinary agreement that went beyond the existing TCA provisions would increase agri-food exports from the UK to the EU by at least 22.5%. Imports from the EU would also increase by 5.6%.
In the 203 countries studied for the research, positive effects of deep trade deals that included provisions on agriculture took between 10 and 15 years to manifest. But the UK might not have to wait so long.
This shouldn’t be hard – even post-Brexit
Report co-author Professor Jun Du, Director of Aston University’s Centre for Business Prosperity, said:
There is no blueprint out there that mirrors the UK–EU relationship. Most veterinary agreements are agreed as part of a trade deal between countries that haven’t previously had close alignment and it takes a while for the benefits to take effect.
Until recently, the UK had frictionless agri-food exports to the EU, so it’s possible that a supplementary veterinary agreement to reduce some of the frictions created by Brexit could allow trade that previously existed to pick up again quite quickly.
However, it’s clear the economic arguments, the legal and political barriers to a veterinary agreement still remain. The researchers address these in their report, suggesting that the best format for the additional measures would be as a supplementary agreement to the TCA. The key question for the UK government in negotiating such a post-Brexit agreement would be what the EU demanded in return.
Report co-author from the University of Bristol Dr Greg Messenger said:
The closest model is the EU-Swiss relationship, which sees Switzerland largely follow EU law. That’s unlikely to be an option for the UK. As we wouldn’t expect to eliminate all paperwork, we could both agree that our rules meet each other’s standard for phytosanitary protection.
As most of our rules are still essentially the same as the EU, that wouldn’t require any major change, though we’d have to agree a greater level of coordination in relation to the development of new rules.
The report was written jointly by Professor Du, Dr Messenger and Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo, senior lecturer in economics, finance and entrepreneurship at the Centre for Business Prosperity, Aston Business School.
Dr Sarah Ison, head of research at animal advocacy group Compassion in World Farming, makes her case for why simply moving to lower-emitting animals isn’t the climate solution we need from our food system.
In recent years, the agriculture industry has been pushing the ‘sustainable intensification’ of livestock farming to justify the continuous production of high volumes of meat and dairy while meeting self-determined climate targets.
However, this ‘intensification’ – which involves increasing the number of animals farmed and rearing them in closer confinement – will not only cause more animal suffering, it also fails to address many of the environmental problems caused by intensive animal farming such as deforestation and wildlife loss.
A recent Harvard University report, Options for a Paris-Compliant Livestock Sector, shows that an overwhelming proportion of the world’s leading climate, food and agriculture scientists do not see intensification as a solution to tackling the climate crisis.
Published last month, the survey asked more than 210 world-renowned scientists for their view on the role of the livestock sector in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Almost 80% agreed that reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the livestock sector in high-income countries should not be achieved at the cost of animal welfare. The majority indicated little to no contribution of intensification, characterised by “increasing stocking rates of animals, including more animals per shed, or more animals per unit of production”.
Instead, experts ranked reducing the consumption of animal products (90%) and reducing the number of animals (87%) as actions with the biggest contribution. The largest proportion of experts agreed that efforts to reduce emissions from the livestock sector should not result in an increased number of farmed animals – yet this is what would happen if cattle were replaced with chicken and fish.
Crucially, these were not just any scientists. They were the scientists who have contributed to major climate and agriculture reports, including those from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UNEP and the FAO. They’re the experts who provide the guidance and evidence base for policymakers to decide what’s needed to stay within planetary boundaries, and safeguard public health and the welfare of billions of animals.
Nothing but a purposeful distraction
Courtesy: Compassion in World Farming
The consensus of the experts in this Harvard study to reject intensification and consider animal welfare is reassuring. The ‘sustainable intensification’ option is a purposeful distraction and is simply inadequate as it fails to tackle so many other environmental and health problems that confining animals in small spaces creates. These include the increased risk of the emergence of viruses like influenza-A (swine and bird flu), its contribution to antibiotic resistance in people, as well as wildlife loss and deforestation for land used to produce animal feeds.
Almost all of the experts (92%) agreed that reducing emissions from the livestock sector is important to limiting temperatures to a maximum of 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
The FAO’s Global Roadmap, launched during COP28, contains 10 clear actions on healthy diets, starting with improving dietary guidelines to include environmental considerations. These actions will no doubt improve the emissions reduction potential of changing diets than what is currently in the FAO’s Pathways to Lower Emissions report released earlier. This report, as it stands, is unambitious and based on dietary guidelines that lack consideration for environmental sustainability.
Another action outlined in the roadmap is to move from higher- to lower-emitting animals, meaning from cattle to chickens or fish. While this might seem useful in the short term, more focus must be given to changing diets. Increasing the total number of sentient beings – particularly chickens, pigs and fish who endure the greatest suffering on factory farms – must be avoided.
The climate fight needs a radical transformation
Courtesy: Compassion in World Farming
The UNEP’s new Frontiers report, What’s Cooking?, gives a clear indication of the potential benefits of novel alternatives to conventional animal products, including alleviating the suffering of billions of sentient animals in cages and confinement on factory farms. These alternative proteins must be encouraged in favour of intensification and increasing the number of animals if we are to truly transform our food system for the long-term benefit of us all.
At COP28, a declaration was also launched on sustainable agriculture, resilient food systems, and climate action. It now has the support of 159 countries, and over 200 Non-State Actors (including farmers and fishers, businesses, cities, civil society, consumers and all those engaged in food systems) – who signed a call to action for food systems transformation. And, for the first time at the conference, a whole thematic day was dedicated to food, agriculture and water.
While momentum towards action is building, it is needed now to tackle the climate crisis. The approach that not only helps tackle the climate crisis, but also improves human, animal and planetary health, is phasing out factory farming and moving to high welfare, regenerative, nature-positive farming alongside innovative alternatives to conventional animal products. This would improve animal health, reduce the risk of diseases that harm both animals and people, help preserve antibiotics for human use, and substantially decrease biodiversity loss as well as deforestation.
Only a holistic and radical transformation will be enough to tackle the climate issue and secure a healthy future for all, before it’s too late.
Apple has stopped production of FineWoven, its eco-friendly alternative to leather for iPhone and Apple Watch cases after complaints about its performance and durability.
“Goodbye Leather.” This was Apple’s message in a short new ad released last week. The tech giant was promoting its move to ditch the material from its entire product line.
But there was one glaring omission. The ad made no mention of FineWoven, Apple’s first innovation designed to replace leather. You’d think a commercial about scrapping leather would promote an alternative material the company was actively selling.
That’s the thing, though: it doesn’t feel like it’ll be selling it much longer, with the Cupertino-based firm reportedly halting production of FineWoven cases for its phones, watches and accessories, after months of incriminating reviews from dissatisfied customers.
Cardboard-like material with ‘insulting’ price
The tech leader had announced the FineWoven cases at its September event (headlined by the iPhone 15 launch), as part of its efforts to become carbon-neutral by 2030. “Leather is a popular material for accessories, but it has a significant carbon footprint, especially at Apple scale,” Lisa Jackson, Apple’s VP of environment, policy and social initiatives, said at the virtual event. “To reduce our impact, we will no longer use leather in any new Apple products, including watchbands.”
FineWoven was described as a microtwill fabric with a suede-like texture and “significantly lower emissions” than leather. It was made from 68% post-consumer recycled content, though it isn’t clear how much of that was bio-based, and if there’s any plastic involved.
The move was signposted Apple’s strategy for the post-leather landscape, with the company hoping to meet its climate goals alongside some financial gains. But on Sunday, Twitter/X user and known Apple leaker Kosutami posted an update on the new eco-friendly material. “FineWoven is gone. Since its durability were bad [sic],” they wrote.
“All the production line was stopped and removed. Apple would move to another material – again, not the leather,” they continued.
FineWoven has gone. Since its durability were bad. All the production line was stopped and removed. Apple would move to another material—Again, not the leather.
For context, Kosutami had unveiled Apple’s plans to introduce the woven fabric on new Apple Watch bands weeks before they were announced, while they also leaked the first images of FineWoven accessories ahead of the event. Given the account’s previous credibility on this topic, it’s thought that this news is accurate as well.
And for many, it does not come as a surprise. Right from the get-go, the FineWoven cases were panned for their seemingly poor quality. Many questioned the premium price point (they cost $59 for iPhone cases and $99 for Apple Watch bands) for a product that felt much more run-of-the-mill than leather.
One customer compared it to cardboard and another likened it to “a polyester pillowcase sandwiched in a plastic shell”, calling the $59 price “insulting”. FineWoven products reportedly have high return rates, with complaints over dust retention, permanent scratches, the slippery texture, and a general lack of durability.
Apple’s FineWoven represents a missed opportunity
One of the most damning indictments came from The Verge writer and tech reviewer Allison Johnson, who labelled the FineWoven cases “really bad”. “Apple did a decent thing by discontinuing the leather cases, but FineWoven is just not the premium replacement we were looking for,” she wrote, describing how she was seeing signs of wear and bits of lint on newly unboxed cases.
“And then there’s the fingernail test,” she continued. “If I’m putting one of these cases on my phone, I’m inevitably going to scratch it on accident with a jagged fingernail edge, or it’s going to come into contact with my car keys. And when you scratch FineWoven, the results are seemingly permanent.”
The review criticised the high markup of the product, which has turned out to be the camel that broke the straw’s back. Studies show that consumers are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products – especially Gen Z, nearly half of whom would shell out more for something greener. That’s great for Apple, considering its hold on this demographic (87% of American Gen Zers have an iPhone).
Courtesy: Allison Johnson/Threads
But if a sustainable product doesn’t give people the same feel and satisfaction they’re used to, it’s not going to work. People already think eco-friendly products cost too much, and traditionally, they can be perceived as inferior, whether that’s in terms of quality or appearance. As ideas go, FineWoven was a fine one, but the execution has been a sizeable (and loud) misstep, which won’t bode well for how the alternative leather industry is perceived.
So any efforts to remove leather from the consumer cycle are a good thing for the planet. But they need to satisfy people with their quality, especially if they carry a premium markup. While Apple’s FineWoven stock runs out (if the rumours are indeed true), it’ll be interesting to see where it goes next. Is there a new, better FineWoven 2.0? Will the company partner with one of the many market-proven startups making vegan leather? Or is this all just a ruse and FineWoven is – in Apple’s opinion – just fine?
And what of its collaboration with Hermès, which was to make four new Apple Watch bands with climate-friendly materials? A lot of questions remain, but we’re likely to be kept in the dark until September, when the company refreshes its lineup with iPhone 16 and the Apple Watch Series 10.
Veganuary will soon host the first Choose Chicken-Free Week, as part of a wider rollout of mini-campaigns to complement its annual month-long initiative.
On the back of its most successful campaign to date, Veganuary is initiating additional initiatives throughout the year to encourage people to eat fewer animal products and more plant-based food.
It’s starting with the Choose Chicken-Free Week, which will run from April 29 to May 5. For the campaign, Veganuary has already captured the attention of restaurants and brands selling egg- and chicken-free food, including TiNDLE Foods, Next Level Burger, Loma Linda and The Mushroom Hub.
“There are many simple and surprising ways to replace eggs in your favourite recipes,” said Veganuary US director Sandra Hungate. “From everyday ingredients like banana and apple sauce to culinary innovations like aquafaba – the liquid from a can of chickpeas which can be whipped into a beautiful meringue – there’s an egg-free swap out there for everything from breakfast to dessert.”
Why Veganuary is targeting the chicken industry
Courtesy: Getty Images via Canva
Coinciding with Respect for Chickens Day (May 4), the campaign will see several of these brands and foodservice operators unveil new offerings and discounts on their products. Next Level Burger and its subsidiary Veggie Grill will launch limited-edition menu options in May, and Ike’s Love & Sandwiches will promote three vegan chicken sandos.
TiNDLE, meanwhile, will be running a two-for-one offer on its products, Vitacost and FireRoad Foods will provide a 15% discount, PLNT Burger will let consumers buy one chicken sandwich and get another for half the price, Loma Linda will put its starter pack (chicken in broth and BBQ sauce) on sale for $6.49, and The Mushroom Hub will roll out a pulled jerk lion’s mane experience box.
Brands will provide recipes using either plant-based chicken or egg – such as TiNDLE’s vegan garlic parm wings, Vitacost’s deviled eggs, and Atlantic Natural Food’s chicken enchiladas – or do away with chicken-related products altogether (think teriyaki tofu burgers by Nasoya and pulled jerk lion’s mane by The Mushroom Hub).
These efforts are to promote a shift away from the chicken industry, which is associated with intensive farming, health risks, animal cruelty and environmental pollution. Though chicken is the most popular meat of all, over the last few years, bouts of avian flu have led to a chicken shortage and subsequent price hike, which has coincided with the cost-of-living crisis – and this trend is set to continue this year.
In the US, almost all chickens (99.97%) are farmed in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) – that amounts to 8.9 billion birds, versus the 3.6 million that aren’t raised in factories. Globally, as of 2021, over 73 billion chickens are slaughtered around the world each year, according to the FAO. The UN food body has actually advocated for a shift from red meats like beef to poultry, which it argues is less polluting.
While that is technically true, factory-farmed meat has a huge environmental footprint, and poultry meat is still near the top end of the highest-emitting foods, far above plant-based ingredients that are typically used to make analogues.
“For hens used for eggs, suffering is inherent in all methods of egg production – including free-range. Their lives are short, and for male chicks, very short indeed,” Veganuary explained on its website. “They are the wrong sex to lay eggs and the wrong breed for meat, so their lives are deemed to be worthless, and they are killed in the hatchery.”
Veganuary will launch more campaigns after ultra-successful 2024
Graphic by Green Queen
Veganuary has been on an upward trajectory ever since it was launched in 2014. This year, 1.8 million people officially signed up to the campaign – more than doubling the number from 2023. But separate surveys commissioned by Veganuary have shown that in reality, that figure is much, much higher: the campaign estimates that around 25 million people decided to eat exclusively vegan in January 2024.
Its official survey found that the success rate during the challenge was 45%. And of those who ended up maintaining a plant-based diet throughout the month, 30% intended to continue doing so. If you aggregate that with its official signup numbers, this year’s campaign effectively influenced 540,000 people to ditch meat, dairy, eggs and other animal products.
Even among people who didn’t see Veganuary through, 95% said they’ll reduce their consumption of animal products to some extent, with 74% saying they’ll cut this by half or more. And 73% are very or extremely likely to give veganism a go again in the future.
People found eggs the second toughest animal food to part with during Veganuary (only behind cheese, though by a significant distance). Meanwhile, animal welfare was the number one driver of Veganuary participation this year. So it makes sense for Veganuary to introduce a campaign that touches upon a much-loved food in a much-derided industry.
“Veganuary is not a short-term phenomenon that comes to an end in January. With initiatives like #ChooseChickenFree, the Veganuary movement continues to grow as both individuals and businesses embrace plant-based year-round,” said Hungate.
The popularity of Veganuary is pretty apparent if you walk into a grocery store in most countries during January. It’s hard to escape it, and there are numbers to back that up. This year, more than 2,000 new products and dishes were unveiled during Veganuary. But given we need to accelerate our efforts to change how we eat, the campaign says it wants to have a longer-term effect, and has been working with individuals to support them with dietary shifts, and companies and restaurants to increase the number of vegan options across the calendar year.
This is why Choose Chicken-Free Week is just the start. “Over the summer, Veganuary will run additional campaigns such as Choose Fish-Free Week, BBQ Month, and Choose Dairy-Free Week, aimed at educating the public about the benefits of trying vegan,” said Hungate.
Whether these campaigns will have quite the effect of the main show at the beginning of the year, no one knows. But you only need to look at this year’s participation to know that there’s a strong precedent for them to work.
Impossible Foods has invested in transitioning a farm from cattle production for meat to crop cultivation for plant-based meat, all while rescuing the cows in the process.
You’d be forgiven for immediately thinking of a new vegan buttermilk dressing when you hear the words ‘Impossible Ranch’. But that’s not what plant-based pioneer Impossible Foods is doing in South Carolina, where a now-former cattle farm will sport crops like soybeans, sunflowers and coconut trees.
These will support the manufacturing of Impossible Foods’ vegan beef, chicken and pork products, transforming the output of the farm from animal-derived meat to plant-based instead. In addition, the company is rescuing the cows on the property, and documenting the long-term transition project on its social media to allow consumers to follow along.
“Impossible Ranch is a living and breathing educational resource where our commitments to giving back to the planet and supporting animal welfare are front-and-centre, along with the plants representing key ingredients in our products,” said chief marketing and creative officer Leslie Sims. “We want to bring consumers along on this journey and help them understand how choosing meat from plants can be a better choice.”
A safe haven for cattle
Courtesy: Impossible Foods
The 70-acre Impossible Ranch is located in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Having operated as a cattle ranch for decades, the transition to crop farming sees Impossible Foods work in partnership with the family that has tended the land for so long. This, it says, helps it “honour the heritage” while highlighting a “renewed focus on animal welfare”.
In the US, 70% of cows and nearly all chickens and pigs are raised on factory farms – that totals over nine billion animals. But foods derived from industrial production methods come with many health risks. For example, in the US, water pollution from factory farms threatens or impairs over 14,000 miles of rivers and streams and more than 90,000 acres of lakes and ponds. According to the EPA, nitrogen and phosphorous waste from factory farms has been directly associated with aquatic deaths. And, in many parts of the world, animals have been culled for years to prevent the spread of zoonotic diseases.
Moreover, 575 billion lbs of animal waste are generated by a mere 5% of American concentrated animal feeding operations annually. This contains elements that “seriously degrade” rivers and contribute to antibiotic resistance among humans, leading to the American Public Health Association calling for a ban on new CAFOs.
Impossible Foods says its ranch is a “safe haven” for the property’s resident cattle, and is inviting customers to suggest names for the animals – which comprise six cows, two steers and a calf – with updates from the farm being shared on its social channels.
Apart from the health and water pollution aspects, there’s also an environmental benefit to this. Meat is twice as polluting as plant-based foods, and makes up 60% of all emissions from the food system. In fact, one peer-reviewed study last year (which involved inputs from Impossible Foods) revealed that swapping half of our pork, chicken, beef and milk production with plant-based analogues could halt deforestation and reduce agriculture and land use emissions by 31%.
Impossible Foods is ramping up consumer education efforts
Courtesy: Impossible Foods
As part of the launch, which coincides with Earth Day, Impossible Foods is taking over the Oculus Transportation Hub in Manhattan to exhibit the ranch to New York City commuters. The company argues this will help people envision a future where plant-based meat and cattle can coexist peacefully, at a time when the source of people’s food and what it does to the planet is garnering increased attention.
Sims alluded to this, noting: “As a leader of the plant-based category, we saw both a need and an opportunity to demystify meat from plants in a way that feels more approachable for consumers.”
This is the latest step in Impossible Foods’ efforts to educate and engage with consumers. Only last month, the company unveiled a brand refresh with new red packaging (a colour associated with superior taste for plant-based meat). The new look puts a greater spotlight on taste descriptors, visuals, and specific health credentials (like saturated fat and sodium content).
The idea was to lean into the meaty flavour and texture of its products, while pointing to their nutritional superiority over conventional counterparts. “We realised we can get even more consumers in the door by leading with our incredible taste and nutritional quality – then, we can seal the deal with the environmental benefits,” a company spokesperson told Green Queen last month. “With every converted consumer, we’re able to maximise our positive impact on the planet.”
“With every move we make, we want to set the tone that we’re an inclusive brand. We don’t want people to feel judged for loving meat, and we need to show them they don’t have to change their lifestyle in order to help the planet or their health,” the spokesperson said.
The farm transition project will doubtless push its mission further. Other similar initiatives include The Trasfarmation Project, Refarm’d, and the Dairy Farm Transition programme by Miyoko’s Creamery. Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, RESPECTfarms is working on a similar vision for cultivated meat.
National animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports says “one death is one too many” ahead of the Randox Grand National Festival – at which 63 horses have died in the past 23 years.
The death toll includes 16 horses which died during the running of the notorious Grand National race itself. Last year Hill Sixteen was destroyed after suffering a broken neck at the first fence.
A ‘shocking number of deaths’ at the Grand National
Emma Judd, head of campaigns at the League Against Cruel Sports, said:
The shocking number of deaths at the Grand National Festival begs the question as to whether the current horse racing authorities have their house in order when it comes to safety of horses and their jockeys.
A new independent regulatory body with horse welfare as its number one priority needs to be created.
Horses are being sacrificed for people’s entertainment and gambling, and one death is one too many.
The League is also campaigning for the use of the whip to be banned in horse racing, because it causes pain, and pushes tired horses beyond their limits.
An Early Day Motion in 2020 calling on the government to ensure the British Horse Racing Authority banned the use of the whip for ‘encouragement’ was signed by 96 MPs, but no moves have been made to introduce a ban.
A British Horseracing Authority consultation on whips bowed to pressure within the industry and constantly vacillated over the number of times a whip could be used in a race, while failing completely to ban it.
Horseracing kills a horse every three days
It’s not just the Grand National that’s a problem. As the Canary previously reported, Animal Aid launched its website Race Horse Death Watchduring the 2007 Cheltenham Festival. In the 6,239 days since then, it has recorded 2,773 deaths as a result of racing events.
However, Animal Aid states on the website that it believes this number is 30% lower than the true figure.
That number isn’t evenly spread throughout the year, either. The racing season lasts approximately nine months, between March and November – so deaths are concentrated in this period.
Animal Welfare Watch told the Canary:
Sadly racehorse fatalities happen almost daily on the UK tracks and the government continually fails to act despite giving the BHA [British Horseracing Authority] a period of time in which to get their house in order back in 2018 – nothing has happened and that is because the BHA are self governing and this needs to change immediately.
Judd added of the Grand National:
Animals are being beaten to influence the outcome of the contest – in what other sport or public spectacle would this form of cruelty play an integral role in influencing the result?
Urgent steps need to be taken to end the use of the whip for ‘encouragement’ in horse racing as this callous disregard for the welfare of the horse has no place in a caring animal loving Britain.
The World Bank’s private sector arm is facing calls from climate and animal rights campaigners to phase out its financial support to industrial livestock farming.
Friends of the Earth, Compassion in World Farming and other climate and animal advocacy groups are urging the World Bank to stop funding industrial livestock farming operations, which are a major contributor to the climate crisis and undermine animal welfare, according to the Guardian.
The coalition alleges that the International Finance Corporation (IFC) – a World Bank Group member owned by 186 member countries and focused exclusively on the private sector in developing nations – provided $1.6B to factory farming projects between 2017 and 2023.
This creates a mismatch between the World Bank’s climate pledges (it has published Paris Agreement-aligned methodologies alongside other banks) and animal welfare commitments, and its financing of the industrial livestock sector, as well as puts smallholder farmers out of business and promotes greater meat consumption, according to Kelly McNamara, senior research and policy analyst at Friends of the Earth US.
“Expanding industrial livestock production is a threat to climate, sustainable development and food security,” she said.
IFC’s numerous factory farming financing projects
Courtesy: Getty Images via Canva
In June 2023, the IFC finalised a $47.3M loan to China’s Guangxi Yangxiang, which was intended to finance four multi-storey industrial pig rearing complexes (known as ‘hog hotels’) as well as a feed mill. These farms can be 13 floors high, and combine novel tech like AI and cloud competing with traditional pig-rearing practices.
“Yangxiang has created an industrial model with multifloor pig farming as the core and strives to build a high-end intelligent ‘meat factory’,” the company says on its website. One of its managers told Reuters in 2018: “There are big advantages to a high-rise building. It saves energy and resources. The land area is not that much but you can raise a lot of pigs.”
Likewise, in 2017, the IFC invested $50M in Chinese pig farming company GXYX, which has the capacity to breed over 235,000 pigs. A year later, it pumped $23M into Indian Srinivasa Farms to support its broiler and breeding expansion. And in 2021, it provided $50M in financing to expand the pork and poultry operations of Ecuadorian producer Pronaca. The organisation has also funded projects like chicken production in Uganda and dairy production in Pakistan.
And a year before approving the Guangxi Yangxiang loan, the World Bank subsidiary also granted a $200M loan to agrifood giant Louis Dreyfus Company to purchase deforestation-linked soy and corn mostly for factory farms in Europe and Asia. While it was said that these crops would be sourced from farmers committed to zero deforestation, but the coalition says the IFC “stop funding the wasteful use of such crops as animal feed”.
“I’m appalled by some of these developments, which have limited space and barren conditions,” said Peter Stevenson, chief policy adviser at Compassion in World Farming. “They are not just damaging for animal welfare, but also for food security and the environment.”
Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture, 77% of which covers animal agriculture (including feed crops) – but animal-based foods like meat and dairy provide 18% of the world’s calories and 37% of its protein supply. Stevenson explained that since animals convert cereal feed into meat and milk inefficiently, it would be better to grow more crops for direct human consumption and slash the amount of cereals used for feed.
IFC fails to account for financed emissions in climate targets
Courtesy: AI-Generated Image via Canva
Livestock agriculture is responsible for 11-20% of the planet’s total emissions, and a third of the food system’s climate footprint. In fact, meat production generates twice as many greenhouse gases as plant-based foods, while using a lot more water and land – the growing of crops like soy or corn for animal feed is a key reason why.
The IFC knows this, noting that its investments in the livestock sector “seek to replace inefficient production processes with targeted and efficient practices”, calling it “a key step in reducing greenhouse gas emissions”. “IFC is committed to supporting the agribusiness sector to improve livelihoods and help people meet their nutritional needs, while taking steps to improve sustainable production by limiting use of resources, protecting the environment, and supporting animal welfare,” it notes on its website.
The organisation has committed to reducing its own scope 1 and 2 emissions by 20% by 2026 (from a 2016 baseline), but by financing large-scale livestock operations, its funding-related emissions will only increase.
The World Bank reiterated that climate change and animal welfare are central to the IFC’s agricultural investments, stating that large-scale projects can be used to develop more efficient, environmentally friendly practices. Its officials told the Guardian it strives to reduce GHG emissions in each project it finances.
But the coalition of campaign groups will be sending a letter to World Bank president Ajay Banga ahead of this month’s spring meeting, which will say the organisation must acknowledge that factory farming is a “major contributor to the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss” and phase out its funding of these operations.
The EU Commission is facing legal action from a European Citizens’ Initiative group after it failed to uphold a promised ban on caged farming in the region, despite overwhelming consumer support for the move.
End the Cage Age, a seven-member European Citizen Initiative (ECI), has launched legal action against the EU Commission after it went back on its commitment to ban the caged farming of animals like hens, pigs and rabbits.
In 2021, the EU endorsed a resolution promising to deliver proposals to ban caged farming by the end of 2023, following a petition signed by over 1.4 million Europeans and backed by a coalition of 170 NGOs. These included four laws that would abolish acts like keeping farm animals in cages, slaughtering day-old chicks, and the sale and production of fur.
However, a report in September indicated that the EU was thinking about abandoning this proposal, followed by all but one of the proposals being shelved from the EU Commission’s 2024 work programme. The ban is effectively on hold indefinitely now, following consistent pushback from agriculture lobby groups.
This is why End the Cage Age has decided to take legal action and hold the EU Commission accountable, having filed papers at the Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
Why End the Cage Age took the legal route
Courtesy: Getty Images via Canva
“While all farm animals benefit from current legislation on the protection of animals, only laying hens, broilers, sows and calves are covered by rules on caging. In its response to the ECI, the Commission commits to table, by the end of 2023, a legislative proposal to phase out, and finally prohibit, the use of cage systems for all animals mentioned in the Initiative,” the EU stated in 2021.
That has not come to fruition, leaving the futures of the more than 300 million pigs, hens, rabbits, ducks, quail and geese that are kept in cages across the region. According to animal rights charity Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), sows are forced to nurse their piglets in crates that are so small, they can’t even turn around, while rabbits and quail spend their whole lives in barren cages, and ducks and geese are caged and force-fed for foie gras production.
As part of the End the Cage Age coalition, CIWF is funding the legal action, which is described as the “first to hold the Commission to account over its failure to act on an ECI”. The legal filing highlights that ECIs were introduced with the intention of giving EU citizens more influence over decision-making, and that to renege on its promise to ban cages defeats the purpose of this tool.
Consumers’ stance on this issue couldn’t be clearer. In October, the EU Commission’s own Eurobarometer survey found that 89% of citizens supported the ban on caged farming. Its scientific advisory body, the European Food Safety Authority, has also backed a phaseout of cages on welfare grounds for various animals.
“We have launched this End the Cage Age legal action against the Commission on behalf of the voiceless animals and the millions of EU citizens who supported this legislation, believing the ECI to be a genuine democratic tool that would give them more influence over EU decision-making,” said Olga Kikou, our EU head at CIWF and member of End the Cage Age. “We will not rest until every cage is an empty cage.”
If the legal action is successful, the EU’s legislative arm would be mandated by the court to publish its proposals within a “clear and reasonable timescale”, and grant access to its file on the End the Cage Age ECI.
EU Commission ‘caved into pressure’ from ag lobby
Courtesy: Stockbyte via Canva
The EU’s U-turn on the caged farming ban is widely thought to be a response to unprecedentedly aggressive lobbying from the livestock sector. In October, a joint investigation by three media outlets revealed that meat industry interest groups campaigned to “undermine science, co-opt journalists and pressure officials at the EU” to influence the law and decision-making around the proposals.
One EU official described it as the first time in a decade-long career that they felt such intensive pressure from a farming group. Another said that the lobbying had put “really aggressive pressure” on the EU Commission, which “enabled” the delay. Lobbyists targeted senior officials in the organisation, following which, the hierarchy’s viewpoints over the issue became “extremely negative”.
EU members were inundated with backlash via multiple channels, including an influential letter by industrial farming group Copa-Cogeca (which has deep ties with several MEPs), a 60-page report discrediting the EFSA’s proposed legislation, and public speaking engagements questioning scientists.
“Industry fought really hard and dirty on this file,” said Anja Hazekamp, vice-chair of the EU Parliament’s environment committee. “They tried everything they could think of because they know we desperately need animal welfare legislation to make our food system more sustainable and humane, and this was their last chance. They don’t want to change, but see that change is inevitable so they’re getting desperate. They will do anything to save their skins.”
In an op-ed for Euronews, Kikou accused EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen of caving in to pressure from the agriculture lobby. “We simply cannot allow the powerful farming lobby to have preferential access to decision-makers to influence them to backtrack on promises they have made to citizens,” she wrote.
End the Cage Age has received significant support from the EU parliament, where eight out of ten MEPs have voted in favour of a ban on caged farming. The ECI has garnered endorsements from over 170 European organisations representing scientists, farmers, climate activists, health campaigners, as well as the business sector.
“The European Commission promised EU citizens it would deliver a ban on cages,” said Kikou. “Not only has it failed the people, it has clearly failed the 300 million animals still suffering every day in cages. There is no justification for any further delay.”
Copenhagen Fashion Week made headlines last week after announcing it would ban exotic skins and feathers from its runways starting next year. Now, campaigners are calling on other fashion weeks to follow suit with cruelty-free policies.
Two years after announcing it will go fur-free, Copenhagen Fashion Week is now doubling down on its anti-cruelty stance with a ban on exotic skins and feathers, which are derived from animals like crocodiles, snakes, alligators, peacocks and ostriches.
The decision follows similar moves from smaller fashion weeks like Stockholm, Helsinki and Melbourne, plus brands like Chanel and Burberry, but items like alligator handbags, crocodile leather shoes and python heels are still not seen in the same light as fur by many labels and organisers.
This is why Copenhagen Fashion Week’s ban on skins and feathers – which will come into effect in the beginning of 2025 – is significant, becoming the “highest-profile” event to introduce it, according to trade publication the Business of Fashion. It’s part of the event’s broader sustainability initiatives, setting a high benchmark for brands hoping to participate in the show.
Exotic skins and feathers are linked with animal cruelty
Animal rights groups have been campaigning against the use of exotic skins and feathers for years. PETA’s exposés show how snakes are pumped up with air or water while they’re still alive, lizards are “crudely decapitated”, metal rods are rammed down crocodiles’ throats and into alligators’ brains to slaughter them, and baby ostriches have their throats slit and feathers plucked for bags such as Hermès’ Birkin collection.
Similarly, World Animal Protection reports that saltwater crocodiles and ostriches are factory-farmed in confined spaces and electrically stunned before being left to bleed out. It calls these practices unnecessary, noting that 72% of people say they wouldn’t buy clothes derived from wild animals, and 65% say killing them for fashion is unacceptable.
The Collective Fashion Justice – which worked with World Animal Protection to persuade Copenhagen Fashion Week to implement the ban – also sheds light on the crocodile farming industry. It found that in Australia, saltwater crocodiles are factory-farmed and kept in dank, concrete pits – despite being classified by one state government as vulnerable. These practices have endangered crocodile populations in the country.
Likewise, snakes and lizards are kept in cages or rooms piled on top of each other until they are killed in what the Collective Fashion Justice calls “horrific ways” – this includes blowing them up like balloons, stunning them with electricity from car batteries, blunt force through the back of a machete or hammer-like tools, and piercing their heads with spikes to peel off their skins like fruits.
The organisation notes that luxury fashion houses like Hermès and Louis Vuitton have driven such fashion practices – they don’t just source these skins, but now own factory farms themselves.
“Despite fur, wild animal skins and feathers all resulting in animals being killed specifically for fashion, the industry is poorly informed on these issues beyond fur, in part, due to greenwashing and ethics-washing by the industries exploiting animals,” Emma Håkansson, founding director of Collective Fashion Justice, told Green Queen.
“Wild animals like crocodiles and snakes are killed under the guise of conservation, which some brands think they should support, but these conservation claims are bogus – in Australia for example, more native crocodiles live in cages supplying the likes of Hermes and Louis Vuitton than in their natural habitat. They are killed a few years into their 70-year lifespan and cannot contribute to their ecosystem,” she added. “The industry calls that conservation, I call that commerce.”
The animal skin and feather ban is one of a number of sustainable fashion initiatives laid out by Copenhagen Fashion Week. Following on from the first set of guidelines, the updated rules state that brands need to show that at least 60% of their collections are made of preferred materials or deadstock fabric, with a list of restricted materials in place. They also must prove that their innovations are sourced responsibly and designed with repairability, recycability, upgradeability and reusability in mind.
It is now mandatory for fashion labels to establish concrete criteria to ensure and educate consumers about the longevity and quality of their products, with customer service personnel needing to undergo sustainability strategies that can be communicated to customers.
Brands are required to eschew single-use props and packaging for their showcases, instead finding rentals or long-term second life for all non-rentals, and sorting waste according to Danish standards. They also need to engage in emissions reduction strategies and offset any unavoidable emissions, and be signatories of the Danish Fashion Ethical Charter.
“With the updates, we are not only raising the bar for brands on our schedule, but we are also reflecting industry developments and learnings as well as the upcoming EU policy landscape,” said Cecilie Thorsmark, the show’s CEO.
Copenhagen Fashion Week announced last year that it had met 35 out of its 37 sustainability goals from 2020-22, but missed out on its goal of slashing its emissions in half by 2023 (from a 2019 baseline), mainly due to its hospitality programme being responsible for nearly 90% of its total emissions. While it managed to reduce the average carbon footprint per guest by 77%, its total footprint was reduced by 16% in 2022 (chiefly as more events took place that year.
The organisers have said they will lay out a plan for total greenhouse gas emissions reductions this year, which will no doubt be helped by its ongoing policy of only serving vegan or vegetarian food at its shows.
Other fashion weeks should ban animal fashion too
Courtesy: Timothy A Clary/AFP/Getty Images
Campaigners are now calling on other fashion weeks – especially the Big Four of London, Paris, New York and Milan – to adopt similar cruelty-free policies.
London Fashion Week, for its part, announced an official fur ban in December, although the show had been de facto fur-free for years. But its counterparts haven’t done so, and protestors made their discontent obvious. Italian fashion house Max Mara has been a major target, with hot air balloons sporting the words “Max Mara Go Fur-Free” floated above its offices during Milan Fashion Week, alongside social media posts, phone calls and emails across the fashion month.
Also in Milan, a PETA protestor stormed Fendi’s runway with a sign saying: “Animals are NOT clothing.” The animal rights charity also disrupted Victoria Beckham’s Paris runway with protestors in white vests that read: “Turn your back on animal skins” and “Animals aren’t fabric”. They held a “Viva vegan leather” sign while walking alongside models representing her brand, which PETA says has banned fur and exotic skins, but continues to use leather.
Last year, Louis Vuitton’s Pharell Williams-designed Millionaire Speedy crocodile skin bag made waves after carrying a price tag of $1M. It proved the continuing appetite for animal-derived fashion collectables on the floors of elite fashion weeks, but Copenhagen’s move to take a stand against it will hope to spark more positive and actionable conversation.
Companies and fashion weeks can transition away from animal-derived fashion by adopting alternatives already on the market. “BioFluff and Ecopel both offer plastic-free and animal-free fur, as well as recycled and bio-based options,” suggested Håkansson. “Next-generation plant-derived and other animal-free leathers made from Shiringa tree sap, fruit waste, mycelium, microbes and other inputs can be embossed to mimic reptilian textures. Fabric manipulation, rafia and even bio-3D printing can replace decorative feathers.”
“Skål to Copenhagen fashion week for raising the bar for other events,” PETA’s VP of corporate projects, Yvonne Taylor, told the Guardian. “Now all eyes are on other fashion week organisers, who must follow suit.”
Håkansson agreed: “The Big Four fashion weeks have a responsibility to ban the use of all wild animal materials as quickly as possible – this should not be considered progressive, but an essential step towards protecting animals and biodiversity.”
Lawmakers in Kentucky are hoping to amend a law that would effectively criminalise whistleblowing and protect industrial livestock farming companies – but a new investigation into Pilgrim’s Pride chicken farms shows exactly why the ‘ag-gag’ legislation needs to be aborted.
The livestock lobby in the US seems to be in full swing. As several states look to ban cultivated meat, academics are tapped to discredit alternative proteins, and industry groups fund education schemes to influence school teachers and students, there’s a lot riding in a year that has been dubbed the climate election year.
In Kentucky, policymakers are taking a different approach, going on the offensive to be defensive of the industrialised meat sector. In what is called an ag-gag law, both houses have approved a measure that would criminalise unauthorised recording or photography at concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) – essentially dealing a blow to whistleblowers who expose health and safety hazards in the food industry.
But a new investigation from animal rights charity Mercy For Animals shows just how important it is to curtail the legislation. It has released footage displaying the cruelty that goes on behind the scenes at the poultry farms of Pilgrim’s Pride, which supply popular fast-food chains, from KFC (famously also from Kentucky) to Popeyes.
What is Kentucky’s ag-gag bill?
Courtesy: John Schickel
Sponsored by Republican senator John Schickel, SB 16 weeks to amend a trespassing law from 2018, which looked to protect “key infrastructure assets” like energy and drinking water facilities from surveillance by unauthorised drones.
This bill, however, seeks to extend these rules to CAFOs – numbering 150 in the state as of 2022 – and commercial food manufacturing and processing facilities (like meatpacking plants). And this time, it’s not just drones – SB 16 aims to restrict any photography or filming of these sites, making it a Class B misdemeanour sustainable by up to 90 days in jail and/or a $250 fine for a first offence.
“Ag-gag legislation, like Kentucky’s SB 16, draws support from industry giants, like Tyson, who do not want the public to see what goes on in their facilities,” Alex Cerussi, senior state policy manager at Mercy For Animals, tells Green Queen. Schicker has explicitly said that the bill was introduced to protect companies like Tyson Foods – you know, the same company that refused to shut down its meatpacking plants during Covid-19 and led to over 1,000 workers contracting the virus, which spread across the local community.
“The problem is that there’s unauthorized drone access over our facilities,” said Tyson Foods government affairs manager Graham Hall, who testified in favour of the bill. “A narrative can be created that’s problematic for us.” It’s almost incredible how transparent this effort is about safeguarding the business of meat producers. Tyson Foods is concerned about problematic narratives and has spent over $42,000 since January 2023 in lobbying government officials to bat for the company against any scrutiny of its operations.
The bill will now need to be voted on the House and Senate floors before it reaches governor Andy Beshear’s desk for consideration, but critics note that this violates free speech and removes a crucial tool for the press and animal advocates to hold corporations accountable. “Ag-gag laws seek to keep the public in the dark about where their food comes from,” says Cerussi. “The industry does not want the public knowing how animals and farmworkers are often treated.”
Michael Abate, an attorney for the Kentucky Press Association, told the Courier Journal: “We’re very concerned about this bill, which would purport to make it a crime to engage in basic newsgathering activities if there are stories related to food processing companies and their facilities.
Ag-gag laws have been deemed unconstitutional in at least five states – North Carolina, Kansas, Idaho, Utah and Wyoming. “It just doesn’t seem like smart policy to pass something that’s been found unconstitutional more often than not,” Todd Blevins, Kentucky state director of the Humane Society of the United States, told the Kentucky Lantern.
Mercy For Animals’ investigation into Pilgrim’s Pride
Courtesy: Mercy For Animals
An investigator for Mercy For Animals visited 23 contract farms belonging to Pilgrim’s Pride, the second-largest poultry company in the US, whose resulting footage shows why Kentucky’s pro-livestock bill needs to be voted against.
The farms had between three to eight broiler houses, each of which held between 25,000 and 38,000 birds – research has shown that most (if not all) chickens in the US are factory-farmed in such CAFOs. The chickens at Pilgrim’s Pride farms have been described as ‘Frankenchickens’ – they’re selectively bred to grow unnaturally large, and fast. The company raises about a billion of these birds each year.
Hidden camera footage shows the chickens being kicked, stomped on, and thrown against the metal walls of the barns. Many are picked up by their legs, necks or wings and thrown several feet through the air into transport cages while already injured or in pain. Tens of thousands of these chickens are crammed into sheds and forced to live for weeks in their own waste, while severely sick and injured birds are bred to grow so large and so fast, they can’t support their own weight.
The investigation found that workers often carried seven chickens at a time and swung them all into transport cafes together, while in many instances, transport cage doors were slammed shut, trapping chickens’ heads, wings and legs in the gaps. These cages have 15 compartments and employees – who are likely incentivised to catch chickens fast as they’re paid per chicken, not hour – were supposed to put 21 chickens into each, but the footage shows that they intentionally exceeded that limit often.
Even more alarmingly, chickens were mishandled for non-work-related purposes too. Some birds were carried outside the barn and placed on the driver’s seat of a forklift, for example. And in one instance, a worker held two chickens by their necks – one in each hand – slammed them against the wall, and moved their heads as though they were pecking each other.
“Pilgrim’s is falling behind on addressing enormous suffering in its chicken supply chain,” says Cerussi. “The company could significantly reduce the suffering for 1.5 billion birds a year by adopting the Better Chicken Commitment (BCC), a set of industry-leading standards that hundreds of companies have promised to meet.”
The BCC calls for an end to the use of these Frankenchickens, whose rapid growth can lead to organ failure, heart attacks, lack of mobility, as well as muscular abnormalities, like white striping. “The BCC also requires improved living conditions, more space for birds, and a less cruel slaughter method,” says Cerussi. “As the second-largest poultry company in the United States, Pilgrim’s has a responsibility to the birds bred to suffer in its supply chain.”
Can such investigations have public and legislative impact?
Courtesy: Mercy For Animals
This is far from the only investigation into animal cruelty in CAFOs. These have been going on for a long time, and it’s why Kentucky is attempting its ag-gag law. But it does feel that they don’t connect with the masses as much as they intend to – the US still overconsumes meat, and had fewer vegans in 2023 than in the previous decade.
“There is an overwhelming lack of awareness about the extent of animal cruelty in factory farming, and most consumers are unaware of the conditions in which animals are raised and slaughtered in industrial operations,” explains Cerussi.
He says there are a majority of reasons why consumers continue to purchase factory-farmed animal products. First, a lack of transparency into the “horrific conditions” shields the truth and makes it easier to ignore. Then, many prioritise convenience and lower prices over ethical considerations when making food decisions – factory-farmed products are often less expensive and more accessible than ethically sourced alternatives. And finally, most consumers are “disconnected from the source of their food” and “feel less responsible” for things happening to animals that they don’t see.
Mercy For Animals has not been in touch with KFC or Popeyes about the investigation into its supplier yet, but it intends to do so. “We have had numerous meetings with Yum! Brands (the parent company of KFC) and Restaurant Brands International (the parent company of Popeyes), and we remain deeply concerned about their lack of seriousness toward reducing suffering for the millions of chickens in their supply chains,” says Cerussi.
Despite adopting the BCC in the UK and Ireland, KFC hasn’t replicated that in the US or Canada. “Implementing the BCC would address some of the most egregious suffering in the company’s chicken supply chain,” he says. Restaurant Brands International, meanwhile, has embraced the commitment but not reported any progress or shared an implementation path. “As two of the world’s largest restaurant chains, these companies must take responsibility for the cruelty the chickens they source and serve to their customers endure.”
Speaking of large companies, Cerussi argues it’s exactly these corporations – not small family farms – that are being protected from accountability by the Kentucky bill, which he labels “particularly egregious”. “If passed, [it] could set a dangerous precedent for other states,” he notes. “This ag-gag legislation threatens the First Amendment rights of Kentucky residents and would allow cruel and unsanitary practices to run rampant with little oversight.”
He adds: “Undercover investigators go in as the eyes and ears of the public, who are kept largely in the dark about how the animal agriculture system really works, particularly how animals suffer before they reach their plates. If Kentucky’s SB 16 is signed into law, anyone seeking to inform the public about the conditions in factory farms and slaughterhouses – not just Mercy For Animals, but journalists, workers, and concerned citizens – would be in danger of having criminal charges against them.”
As molecular farming gains steam as an alternative protein pillar, Israel’s PoLoPo joins the party with a tech platform that can transform potatoes into protein-producing factories, starting with egg proteins.
Your egg and potato hash could soon be a potato and potato hash. Emerging from stealth this week, Israeli food tech startup PoLoPo is using molecular farming technology to increase the native protein content in potatoes, and produce the main protein found in chicken eggs.
The company has unveiled its SuperAA platform, which it describes as the first step towards producing proteins from common plant crops. This is currently deployed at greenhouse scale, and is capable of generating patatin and ovalbumin via proprietary metabolic engineering techniques.
Molecular farming, which has been described by industry think tank the Good Food Institute as the fourth pillar of the alternative protein world, uses genetic engineering methods to biohack plants and produce functional ingredients and nutrients.
“The SuperAA platform uses plants as living factories, and leverages their natural productivity and storage organs to grow proteins that are identical to protein derived from a chicken’s egg,” said PoLoPo CEO Maya Sapir-Mir, who co-founded the startup with CTO Raya Liberman-Aloni in 2022.
How PoLoPo turns potatoes into egg proteins
Courtesy: PoLoPo
PoLoPo’s Super AA platform grows target amino acids within a potato’s tuber, which are harvested when they reach sufficient size. The protein is then extracted and dried into a powder that can be integrated into existing food processing lines and formulations.
Essentially, the startup inserts a DNA sequence into the potato to teach it to produce an egg protein that is fully functional, nutritionally equivalent and chemically identical to chicken eggs, but without any animal input. The latter is what sets it apart from other alternative egg products. While PoLoPo’s potato-derived egg proteins are vegan, unlike its plant-based competitors on the market, they’re not suitable for people with egg allergies.
The company claims the product has undergone rigorous testing and meets all the necessary food safety standards, deeming it safe for consumption after quality control assessments.
PoLoPo began with potatoes due to their resilience in diverse climates, low growth costs, short maturation time, relatively large storage capacity (in the form of tubers), high yields, and compatibility with existing technologies. Strategically, it is an efficient and sustainable ingredient that offers attractive financial opportunities for established agrifood producers, which will allow PoLoPo to chart a cost-effective course towards scaling its Super AA system.
Patatin is a group of native proteins found in potatoes, and PoLoPo’s powdered version can be used as an allergen-free protein for a host of applications, including plant-based meat and dairy, baked goods, cereals, snacks, beverages, sports nutrition and nutraceuticals. Additionally, it can improve food security in regions hit by malnutrition.
Molecular farming on the rise
Courtesy: PoLoPo
Molecular farming differs from cell cultivation and precision fermentation in that it modifies plant cells – not microbes or animal cells – so they can replicate animal proteins, which can be harvested from leaves or other plant tissues. It’s a process that occurs when microorganisms infect plants, transferring some genes in the process – scientists use similar methods to give plants new instructions to create proteins.
It offers some key advantages over other forms of alternative protein, especially in terms of cost and scalability, given that it doesn’t require bioreactors to produce ingredients – the plants themselves are the bioreactors in this case. Many companies – such as Moolec, Nobell Foods, Mozza, Miruku, Tiamat Sciences, Bright Biotech and ORF Genetics – have identified it as a viable and sustainable solution for producing planet-friendly analogues to animal products, and research suggests it’s a market that could be worth $3.5B by 2029.
“The high-scale production of proteins in plants via molecular farming has the potential to economically transform not only potato farming and processing, but broader agriculture and agtech, for a more resilient and sustainable food system,” explained Sapir-Mir, whose company closed a $2.3M pre-seed investment round last year.
PoLoPo’s proteins will soon be available to food manufacturers for testing. They will appeal to companies looking to diversify their portfolio, make their products more allergy-friendly, and remove their reliance on industrial farming – in the US alone, most (if not all) egg-laying hens are part of concentrated animal feeding operations. Plus, eggs themselves have gone through supply chain issues over the last few years, with avian flu leading to shortages and subsequent price hikes.
Ovalbumin, meanwhile, is a protein widely used in the CPG sector, given its textural and stabilisation characteristics. It also enhances nutritional value and increases the shelf life of products, and is set to hit $36B in market value by 2032.
Other companies working with egg alternatives include Just Egg (which represents 99% of all sales in the US vegan egg market), Yo Egg, Hodo, Simply Eggless, WunderEggs, Oggs, Crackd, Perfeggt, Neggst, and Neat Egg, among others, while The Every Co, Onego Bio and Formo employ precision fermentation.
The Scottish Parliament has now passed a Bill to license grouse shooting to tackle illegal wildlife persecution on grouse moors. The killing of Scotland’s birds of prey has been associated with grouse moor management for decades and campaigners hope that this legislation will tackle the ‘national disgrace’ of raptor persecution.
Grouse shooting: on notice
The passing of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill (by 85 votes in favour to 30 votes against) means that if a wildlife crime takes place on a grouse shooting moor it could lose its licence to operate. It also means that heather burning (known as muirburn) will also be licensed and restricted on peatlands which are considered a vital carbon resource.
Meanwhile, environmental and animal welfare campaigners are celebrating the Bill’s banning of snares: the animal traps which they deem as ‘cruel and indiscriminate’.
Ironically and tellingly, as the Guardianreported:
Hours before the vote it emerged that police were investigating the unexplained disappearance of another satellite-tagged hen harrier, a bird of prey routinely targeted for persecution by gamekeepers, on grouse moors in the Angus Glens near Dundee.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said the bird, called Shalimar, was the fourth hen harrier to go missing, along with a golden eagle and a white-tailed eagle, in an area “notorious” for persecution. It had been tagged at the National Trust for Scotland’s Mar Lodge estate last year.
Cry more
Predictably, those who enjoy killing animals for fun – like grouse shooting – have hit back.
Licensing of grouse shooting represents a seismic change for rural estates and their employees, including gamekeepers and shepherds.
The legislation goes far beyond the stated intention of deterring the persecution of raptors by introducing a broad range of relevant offences under which licences can be suspended or revoked – many of these offences bear no connection to land managed for grouse shooting.
Cry more, hey?
A “significant intervention” into grouse shooting
REVIVE is a coalition of like-minded organisations working for grouse moor reform in Scotland. Coalition partners include Common Weal, OneKind, Friends of the Earth Scotland, League Against Cruel Sports, and Raptor Persecution UK.
Max Wiszniewski, campaign manager for REVIVE, said:
This Bill marks a significant intervention into land management practices in Scotland and finally regulates a controversial industry that’s responsible for environmental destruction, that restricts economic opportunities for rural communities and that kills hundreds of thousands of animals so a few more grouse can be shot for sport.
While it doesn’t go far enough to end the ‘killing to kill’ on grouse moors, banning snares – the cruel and indiscriminate traps that are common on grouse moors – is an important win for animal welfare against an industry that was desperate to keep them.
The extra protection of peatlands is welcome but with three quarters of Scots against moorland burning for grouse shooting, the Parliament still has some catching up to do. Nevertheless, this legislation will hopefully go some way to tackling the persecution of Scotland’s birds of prey, something that our First, First Minister Donald Dewar called a ‘national disgrace’ in 1998.
A collaboration of animal protection non-profits, including Born Free, have succeeded in the monumental rescue of three lions from an abusive animal farm, living under the threat of Russia’s siege in Ukraine.
The Born Free Foundation completed the lions’ two-year 8,000 mile long journey which started in the war-ravaged country. On Tuesday 12 March, three-year-old Tsar and Jamil started their new lives in their ancestral home at Born Free’s Big Cat Sanctuary in Shamwari Private Game Reserve, South Africa.
Born Free lion rescue from abusive ‘tourist attraction’
The pair of lions were born into captivity at a Ukrainian zoo. While cubs, the zoo sold the duo to an animal farm which exploited them as a “tourist attraction”. There, the farm held them in utterly unsuitable conditions. It fed them a poor-quality diet, and without specialist care, the young lions became malnourished and sickly.
Given this untenable situation for the two lions, local animal protection organisations campaigned for the farm to hand them over to a wildlife rescue centre in Kyiv:
On arrival, veterinary examinations revealed the full extent of the farm’s abuse to the pair of young lions. Specifically, they found that both lions had calcium deficiencies, and Tsar had bone fractures:
However, with proper care and nutrition, Tsar and Jamil began to recover from their ordeal – until further hardship came their way.
War brings a new threat
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 put the lion’s at risk once more. Despite Russia’s devastating siege on the Ukrainian people, a brave rescue team worked to evacuate the big cats.
The Ukrainian rescue centre collaborated with a Polish zoo and Natuurhulpcentrum (NHC) to move the lions to safety. First they traveled in crates for a brief stay at a Polish zoo:
Following this, they journeyed onwards to their temporary home in Belgium:
Since March 2022, a dedicated team at NHC cared for Tsar and Jamil:
But on Friday 8 March, Born Free and its partners began their epic re-homing journey. Starting via road, the lions traveled to Luxembourg airport. There, they boarded a specialist flight to Johannesburg, South Africa.
Lions returning to their natural home
After a further 1,000 kilometres to Shamwari, Tsar and Jamil quickly settled in at their endemic home. On arrival to the NGO’s Big Cat Sanctuary, both lions dashed out of their crates into the 2.5 acre natural bush:
Within half an hour, the Born Free Animal Care team located the lions reunited, lying together in the shaded night house of their enclosure. In its press release, the Born Free Foundation said that the lions will now:
take time to adjust to the sights, sounds and smells of the bush, and the space of their expansive new home. The Born Free team will be monitoring the lions closely, and are hopeful they will start exploring their new ‘forever home’ soon, perhaps after being fed lunch in the early afternoon.
Celebrating the successful rescue operation, Born Free’s head of rescue and care Maggie Balaskas said:
After a traumatic start in life, and having already lived in five different homes, it’s a huge relief to know that Tsar and Jamil have arrived safely at their forever home. Born Free is incredibly grateful to each and every person who has been part of Tsar and Jamil’s journey, especially the courageous individuals who moved them out of Ukraine to safety and then from Poland on to Belgium, where the wonderful team at Natuurhulpcentrum have been caring for them.
Born Free manager at Shamwari Cathering Gillson added that she hoped their new home will:
bring them peace and a chance to enjoy a more natural life – a million miles away from the existence they endured in their formative years.
Moreover, she expressed the excitement of Born Free Shamwari team, saying that:
We look forward to providing them with the care and respect they deserve, in an environment that is as close as possible to the wild as you can get
Born Free: saving wildlife for 40 years
Ultimately, co-founder Dame Virginia McKenna lauded the relocation as a story of:
of perseverance, hope and change – a story where every individual animal matters.
Moreover, McKenna said that it was the “story of Born Free”. Notably, the organisation is celebrating 40 years of saving animals from abuse, exploitation, and incarceration. Tsar and Jamil are the 58th and 59th lions the charity has rehomed since its founding in 1984.
Featured image and additional images via the Born Free Foundation.
Revo Foods has today launched the world’s first vegan octopus for retail, using its patented 3D-printing technology to transform fungi into a seafood analogue beloved by many, and one being increasingly unethically farmed.
Six months on from launching its 3D-printed salmon alternative into supermarkets, Austrian food tech startup Revo Foods has introduced a new category in the alternative seafood sector. Its latest innovation is called The Kraken – Inspired by Octopus, and is produced using mycoprotein and 3D-printing technology.
These vegan octopus tentacles are a global first and a limited-edition drop born out of the startup’s ongoing crowdfunding campaign, which has already brought in €1.1M of its maximum €1.5 target. The inspiration to create The Kraken came from the fact that there are no existing alternatives, as well as its “super unique” appearance, which serves as a showcase for what Revo Foods’ tech can do, explained Revo Foods CEO Robin Simsa. “While it’s probably a smaller market than salmon/tuna or other big fish species, it is nevertheless an interesting market opportunity without a lot of competition (yet),” he told Green Queen.
Courtesy: Revo Foods
He added: “Octopus is a very specific product, and in Europe, it is mainly consumed in Spain, Italy and Greece, and much less in northern European countries. We believe this is less a product for retail, and more for food service/specialty vegan shops. However, with this limited edition (several 100 packages), we want to get more information on consumer feedback and also share samples with some restaurant partners as well.
“If the feedback is positive and we see this market opportunity as big enough, then it is possible that we launch this product permanently later this year. Nevertheless, we believe it is already an amazing showcase to show what is possible with new plant-based technologies nowadays.”
The product – which is ready to eat but can be grilled, fried and baked too – is available exclusively at Revo Foods’ e-commerce site and is available for delivery in most EU countries.
A nutrition-packed alternative to global seafood delicacy
Octopus is a delicacy and common food ingredient in many cultures and countries, including Italy, Spain, Japan, Greece, South Korea and Turkey. It’s used in dishes like polbo á feira, meze, sushi and carpaccio, and Revo Foods says its innovation can be used to recreate these dishes, but with a vegan twist.
Apart from the ethical perspective, which we expand on below, Revo’s octopus alternative offers clear health benefits. Octopus heads have high amounts of selenium and can carry a risk of cadmium poisoning, even in small amounts. Some studies have also found the presence of heavy metals like lead in octopus tissue, a direct result of marine pollution.
Revo Foods’ mycoprotein-based octopus avoids all those issues. It also means people with shellfish allergies can consume a version of this popular seafood product. Plus, The Kraken has an A ranking on the Nutri-Score scale and is high in protein, omega-3 fatty acids, and dietary fibre. This will speak to consumers – research by the Aquaculture Stewardship Council in 2022, which covered over 12,000 people in 12 countries, revealed that health is the primary driver for buying seafood, with over 80% agreeing that including fish in their daily shopping is important for health.
Courtesy: Revo Foods
The company, which has reeled in €7M in investment to date, employs a patented 3D-MassFormer extrusion technology, which enables “seamless integration of fats into a fibrous protein matrix”. The startup has developed what it says is the first-ever continuous manufacturing process capable of mass-producing 3D-printed food, and hopes to demonstrate the potential of the tech through whole-cut seafood products.
With the funds from its crowdfunding campaign, it will expand its manufacturing capacities to start production on the second iteration of its whole-cut salmon filet, slated for launch this autumn. “Also, we are working with several partners on customising food products according to their needs (e.g. specific shape/form that stands out), which is one of the main advantages of our 3D production technology,” said SImsa.
It comes at a time when vegan seafood forms a fraction (0.2%) of the overall seafood market, and just 1% of the plant-based meat category as well. Startups like New Wave Foods and Ordinary Seafood have recently ceased operations, but there have been success stories of late too, not least Revo Foods itself. Last month, it landed a legal victory over the City of Vienna after a court dismissed a suit accusing the startup of misleading consumers with its product labels.
“I believe the whole field is simply ‘growing up’,” said Simsa. “Before, there were possibly some inflated expectations, and some investors (or other people) expected food tech companies to grow at the same speed as B2B SaaS companies, which is simply not possible due to the high amount of R&D needed.”
Adding that he doesn’t believe plant-based sales are continuing to decline, citing multiple data points that have shown a year-on-year increase, he added: “Once we hit an infliction point where quality/price is convincing enough, there will be an even accelerated development I believe, and we are not far from that (5 years max. Is my estimation for some product types).”
The mycoprotein market itself, meanwhile, is estimated at $2.85B, with companies like Quorn, ENOUGH and The Better Meat Co all innovating with novel meat and seafood analogues.
Why octopus farming is unethical and bad for the planet
Courtesy: FAO/Compassion in World Farming
According to figures from the UN FAO, the EU consumed about 125,000 tonnes of octopuses in 2018, with Italy alone accounting for 60,000 tonnes. In Asia, meanwhile, this figure was even higher, reaching 190,000 tonnes that year. Overfishing has strained octopus populations worldwide, with global octopus landings on a continuous decline for several years now.
This has been met with attempts to create octopus farms in countries like Spain, Mexico, Chile, China and Japan, which have attracted a great deal of controversy. One Spanish company, Nueva Pescanova, aims to create an aquaculture farm akin to industrial animal agriculture that would yield 3,000 tonnes of octopus per year, equating to about a million octopuses. It has been met with fierce criticism from animal rights activists, academics and climate experts.
Octopuses are thought to be sentient creatures, with the UK government recognising them as such in a 2021 report, which meant the country joined the likes of Switzerland, New Zealand and the US in outlawing the act of boiling these molluscs, which is a common practice in many countries, and another source of scrutiny as these creatures are capable of feeling pain.
And since they don’t have any internal or external skeletons, with fragile skin that is easily damaged, in a farm environment, they’re likely to be injured by handlers or aggressive interactions with fellow octopuses. Plus, there are currently no recognised methods of humane slaughter that would be such large commercial scales.
There are environmental concerns to consider too. As carnivorous creatures, they need fish or other seafood products – like fishmeal or fish oil – in their diet, which are still frequently harvested from the ocean, with some producers being accused of food colonialism too. It takes about 3kg of feed to produce 1kg of octopus, making this a highly inefficient use of resources.
Courtesy: Revo Foods
As Jennifer Jacquet, a professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami, told the Guardian: “We’re not having the conversation of should we eat octopus or not, we’re simply at a crossroads where we can decide whether or not to put octopus into mass production. Do we need to do this? It’s really a luxury good. It’s not for survival. This is a symbol of what humans should not be doing in the 21st century.”
With nine brains, they are a highly intelligent, sociable and complex species. Wild octopuses are masters of camouflage and are known for their proficiency in hiding and escaping from predators. In lab settings, they’ve proven to be adept at solving mazes and other puzzles to acquire food rewards. The intelligibility and curiosity of octopuses was perhaps best documented in the 2020 Oscar-winning film My Octopus Teacher, where filmmaker Craig Foster develops an intimate bond with an octopus, who helps him connect with nature and the Earth in ways he never could have imagined.
“A lot of people say an octopus is like an alien,” Foster says in the documentary. “But the strange thing is, as you get closer to them, you realise that we’re very similar in a lot of ways.” It hits home the moral dilemmas of farming and eating octopuses, and outlines the importance of sustainable, ethical alternatives like Revo Foods’ The Kraken.
“Octopus tentacles, with their intense colour and distinct suckers, are a very special product with an exciting look,” said Revo Foods’ head of food tech, Niccolo Galizzi. “So far, there has been no realistic alternative on the market. The Kraken has the potential to be a real enrichment for octopus fans.”
At every single Cheltenham Festival since the year 2000 – apart from 2001, which was cancelled due to foot and mouth – at least one horse has died as a result of being raced. This year has already been no different.
Just after the 2.50pm Ultima Handicap Chase set off, the horse Highland Hunter suffered a fatal fall.
ITV confirmed: “Highland Hunter has sadly passed away after suffering a fatal injury in the Ultima Handicap. Our thoughts are with connections at this difficult time”.
As the festival gets underway again this year we knew it’s inevitable at least one horse was going to die needlessly for entertainment.
These shocking figures show that tighter safety measures are imperative to protect these animals and their jockeys.
A new independent regulatory body with horse welfare as its number one priority needs to be created.
This is ‘animal abuse’
The League is also campaigning for the use of the whip to be banned in horse racing, because it causes pain, and pushes tired horses beyond their limits.
An Early Day Motion in 2020 calling on the government to ensure the British Horse Racing Authority banned the use of the whip for ‘encouragement’, was signed by 97 MPs.
Its use was banned in Sweden in 2022, and it can now only be used to ward off a dangerous situation.
Iain Green, director at Animal Aid, told the Oxford Mail that “the racing authorities, the breeders, the owners, the jockeys and all equally culpable for putting horses into high-risk situations where their welfare and their lives are endangered.
He added:
This isn’t sport, this is animal abuse.
Judd added:
In what other public spectacle or sport would the beating of an animal play an integral role in influencing the outcome or result?
This callous disregard for the welfare of the horse has no place in a caring animal loving Britain and urgent steps need to be taken to end the use of the whip for ‘encouragement’ in horse racing.
A shocking new animal rights survey has investigated the prevalence of a skin disease caused by chickens being forced to lay in their own faeces and urine. It found that Lidl suppliers were a repeat offender – with 74% of chickens in its stores showing signs of burns.
Lidl chickens are being systematically abused
Analysing 1,964 chicken products from 40 Lidl stores in 21 UK cities from September to November 2023, the charity Open Cages has detected ‘hock burn’ on 74% of the whole birds examined. These painful chemical burns can be seen with the naked eye as a brown ulcer on the back of the leg.
Birds are kept in filthy conditions and are bred to grow unnaturally fast.
As a result 3 in 4 of the whole chickens sold in Lidl are plagued by ‘revolting’ ulcers from the birds laying in their own waste – almost 4x higher than levels reported by rival Aldi.
94% of the discounter’s breast meat is afflicted by a muscle disease that makes the typically lean food 224% higher in fat content.
Diseased meat poses health risks and questions over food quality.
If you are wondering what to look out for on chickens in supermarkets, it’s this:
Andrew Knight, Veterinary Professor of Animal Welfare explains:
Fast-growing chicken breeds and overcrowded conditions are used by some supermarkets in an attempt to maximise profits, but chickens can suffer as a result. This is indicated by meat characteristics such as hock burns and white striping disease, which consumers can see with their own eyes, as shown in this report…
The hocks (ankles) of chickens suffer chemical burns when chickens are forced to rest on urine and faeces-soaked flooring, for weeks on end.
Why do chickens get hock burns?
Lidl typically sources chickens from heavily crowded factory farms in which the birds’ waste drops to the floor and is not cleaned until after slaughter. Chickens can be chemically burned by the ammonia in the excrement, causing a skin ulcer which can still be seen on the meat when purchased in the supermarket in the form of a dark brown lesion.
The charity also detected ‘white striping disease’ in 94% of Lidl’s chicken breast meat packages. This muscle disorder is characterised by white lines across the breast meat. It is a disease that chickens develop in intensive conditions as a result of being bred to reach slaughter weight in just 6 weeks.
Breast meat affected by white striping disease can be up to 224% higher in fat content and lower in protein levels. There is no information available to consumers on the risks of eating meat afflicted by hock burns.
Professor Knight continues:
This report reveals how highly prevalent these conditions are, within UK meat chickens sold in Lidl. The results are chronic suffering for many millions of chickens, and poorer meat quality. The solution is to use slower-growing chicken breeds with more space, as advocated by the Better Chicken Commitment.
Lidl chickens: the store says… ‘meh’
As the Express reported, Lidl has responded to Open Cages’ claims. Predictably, it denied there was a problem. As the Express wrote, a spokesperson for Lidl said:
“The figures provided by Open Cages strongly conflict with our own data, which is lower than industry figures publicly available.”
While the company declined to share its hock burn figures, the spokesperson concluded: “We take animal welfare extremely seriously, and the health of animals in our supply chain is closely monitored, with regular independent audits carried out to ensure that expected standards are being met.”
The Better Chicken Commitment
Open Cages, alongside leading animal welfare charities, is calling on Lidl to sign up to the Better Chicken Commitment (BCC.) The BCC is a set of RSPCA-backed improved welfare standards signed by hundreds of food businesses across the world.
Chickens raised to the standards of the BCC suffer significantly fewer health issues like hock burns and muscle diseases because they are more active, can grow at a more natural pace and live in more spacious and hygienic conditions.
Open Cages founder Connor Jackson comments:
Despite Lidl’s big claims on transparency and the quality of its food, this report reveals that its chicken meat is in fact riddled with revolting diseases caused by filthy farming conditions and poor welfare. It’s not only animals who are paying the price, but we as consumers too.
I hope our report arms consumers with knowledge and helps them make more informed choices about where they shop. Hundreds of companies – from high end retailers to discounters – have signed the Better Chicken Commitment and in doing so have responded to the many problems associated with intensive chicken farming.
But Lidl has refused to act, despite half a million people signing the petition.
As the largest retailer in Europe, Lidl has a uniquely influential voice and should be leading the way on this. Because with great power comes great responsibility.
600+ companies such as Marks and Spencer, Waitrose, KFC, Lidl France, and Lidl Denmark have signed up to the BCC or parts of it. Every French supermarket has signed up, and every Dutch supermarket will stop selling fast growing chickens by the end of the year.
Morrisons, Sainsbury’s and Co-op have committed to adopt improved space requirements for chickens, helping to reduce levels of hock burn.
Lidl has not signed up or taken any meaningful steps to improve the lives of chickens in the UK. Half a million people have signed petitions calling on Lidl to adopt the BCC Europe-wide.
Featured image and additional images via Open Cages
.jpg){kind=link}
