List

Reaching millions of people every year.

EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY

SIGN OUR PETITIONS

Recent blog posts

Vegan “challenges” are everywhere now. Veganuary, Meatless Mondays, 22-day this, 10-week that. It all sounds motivational — community-based, bite-sized activism, designed to introduce people to the idea that maybe animals aren’t food. But why are we encouraging people to play at justice for a few weeks at a time?This isn’t to say these challenges are useless — they’re not. But they are tools, not solutions. Tools can be sharp or blunt. They can build movements or dull the urgency. So let’s dig into the science, the strategy, and the reality of vegan challenges — what works, what backfires, and whether this tactic is helping or hindering liberation. Performative or Persuasive?A "vegan" challenge is not veganism. It’s a limited commitment to stop using animals in some or all ways for a short period. It’s an invitation, not a conviction. Think of it as a door held open — but you’ve still got to walk through.Psychologically, that open door can work. People who take part in these challenges often already feel a pull — a tug of conscience or curiosity. That’s a key point: most participants are not militant bacon-worshippers reluctantly changing their fry-up. They’re people who are already halfway out of the burning building, just looking for the exit.That’s why challenges can be effective. Not because they magically deprogram speciesism, but because they give people just enough support to follow through on an itch they already had. Do They Work? Define “Work”Conversion rates for these challenges — meaning someone goes from using animals to not using them — range from 10 to 28%. Not bad on paper. But “conversion” often just means moving from daily meat eater to part-time vegetarian. That’s not nothing — but it’s also not justice.The better news? Most participants don’t go back to eating animals like nothing happened. Even the dropouts tend to eat fewer animals than they did before. The worst news? Without follow-up, even the best pledges lose power. If people sign up, flounder, and get no support, they’re likely to boomerang back to old habits.Retention is our weak spot. You can light a spark, but if you don’t tend the fire, it goes out. That’s true in the research, and it’s true in every failed campaign where people said “I tried veganism once.” Meatless Mondays: Gentle Start or Missed Point?Meatless Mondays has been around for decades. It’s one day a week. One day without flesh. That’s not a revolutionary act — it’s a diet tweak. But data shows ripple effects. People who go meatless on Monday are more likely to eat less meat overall, especially if they stick with it long-term.Does that mean we should praise reductionism? Not exactly. Telling someone to exploit fewer animals still frames animals as acceptable to exploit. And without reinforcement, reduction pledges can actually increase meat purchases on other days. It’s a little like saying “Drive safely on Mondays” — what about the rest of the week?Still, in institutional settings — schools, hospitals, offices — Meatless Mondays can be a gateway. They introduce the concept that animal flesh is not a requirement. But only if you pair them with education. Without that, it’s just menu reshuffling. Veganuary: Brand Boost or Behaviour Shift?Veganuary is a bigger beast. Over 25 million people took part in 2025, whether officially or unofficially. It gets media buzz. It makes headlines. It boosts plantbased food sales — and according to some studies, it reduces animal product consumption for months afterwards.Around 27% of official participants stayed plantbased, while a further 54% cut their meat intake in half or more. Those are strong results — and they beat the unofficial pledgers by a mile. That’s because people who sign up formally get access to recipes, encouragement, community, and accountability. They’re not going it alone.But here’s the issue: most of the Veganuary messaging is health and climate-focused. Animal rights often gets drowned out. Brands push new products, influencers jump on the trend, and the original message — that animals are not ours to use — gets lost in the noise.The outcome? More vegan sausages, fewer liberated minds. Community Over ConversionPeople don’t change in isolation. One of the strongest predictors of sticking with veganism is social support. If your family mocks you, your mates eat wings in your face, and your favourite pub has one sad salad on the menu — you’ll struggle. But if you're doing it with friends, classmates, or co-workers? The odds shoot up.That’s why challenges that target groups — universities, churches, gyms, parenting networks — are more effective than ones aimed at lone individuals. Behaviour change spreads through social networks. It always has.And yet, we keep aiming our messages at individuals instead of communities. Design Matters: Active, Public, ForgivingNot all challenges are created equal. The best ones are:Active: Not just “try to eat less meat,” but “commit to a month-long vegan plan with support.”Public: You tell your friends, your colleagues, your nan. Social accountability works.Flexible: There’s room for imperfection, not punishment.Specific: “Eat no animal products” is clearer than “go plant-based.”Forward-looking: It’s not a test — it’s a start.Forgiving: Because shame kills momentum faster than failure.Good challenges don’t just ask for a signature. They give people tools. Recipes, facts, conversations, reminders, check-ins. And most importantly, they keep going after the month ends. Who’s Left Out?One study found that meat-free challenges made some Black U.S. Americans feel angry toward animal advocates. That should stop us in our tracks. Why? Likely because many challenges are white-coded, middle-class, and culturally tone-deaf. They’re marketed in ways that don’t reflect or respect the communities they target.That’s not just a branding issue — it’s a movement issue. If your challenge alienates the very people you want to reach, it’s not working.The fix? Representation. Collaboration. Context. Challenges should be tailored to who they’re trying to reach, not just what they’re trying to say. A vegan pledge that ignores cultural food traditions, economic barriers, or family dynamics isn’t inclusive. It’s just naive. Not a Magic Bullet — A TriggerThe evidence is clear: challenges don’t abolish animal use. But they can trigger the mindset shift that does. That’s why it matters how and when we deploy them.Best practice? Pair a challenge with a powerful intervention. Show a slaughterhouse documentary, then invite people to commit. Host a street outreach table, then offer a 22-day plan. Hand out free vegan food, then guide people to resources. Don’t let the challenge stand alone — make it part of a chain reaction.The most effective advocates ask, “What’s the next step?” A challenge should never be the end goal. It should be the beginning. It’s Not About Being Perfect — It’s About Getting SeriousVegan challenges aren’t inherently flawed. They’re just misunderstood. When run well, they empower people to try a better way. They dismantle the myth that giving up animal products is hard. They start conversations. They shift norms. But we can’t confuse short-term behaviour change with long-term justice.If your challenge gets someone to stop and think, it has value. If it gets them to act, even better. But if it leaves them thinking they’ve “done enough” — we’ve failed.We owe it to animals not to settle for awareness. We’re not here to raise eyebrows. We’re here to raise hell. So run your pledges with purpose. Say what needs to be said. And always, always point people toward the truth. This article was made possible by research conducted by <a data-mce-href="https://faunalytics.org/tactics-in-practice-the-science-of-vegan-challenges/" href="https://faunalytics.org/tactics-in-practice-the-science-of-vegan-challenges/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Faunalytics</a>.

Are Vegan Pledges Helping or Hindering the Movement?

When most people think of hoarding, they think of teetering piles of junk and television crews poking through broken furniture. What rarely gets airtime is the reality for animals caught in these situations—trapped, breeding, and often dying in invisible pockets of neglect, all while someone insists they’re “rescuing” them.A <a data-mce-href="https://doi.org/10.56771/jsmcah.v3.92" href="https://doi.org/10.56771/jsmcah.v3.92" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">new study</a> out of New York City takes us beyond the tabloid spectacle and into the real-world complexities of animal hoarding—and how simple interventions like spay and neuter programs can stop this quiet disaster from spiralling out of control. Three Types of Hoarders. All of Them Dangerous to Animals.The researchers examined 79 cat-hoarding cases between 2011 and 2023, focusing on situations where the people involved weren’t prosecuted but instead received support through ASPCA’s Community Engagement team. This wasn’t about punishment—it was about trying to get a handle on the root of the problem.Three behavioural profiles emerged:1️⃣ Overwhelmed caregivers: People who genuinely care, but who are living in poverty, ill health, or chaos. 70% of the cases fit this category.2️⃣ Rescue hoarders: People who believe they’re saving animals but can’t—or won’t—recognise the suffering they’re enabling.3️⃣ Exploiter hoarders: People who hoard animals the same way they’d hoard tools or trophies. None were identified in this sample, but they exist.Let’s be clear: good intentions don’t keep animals safe. Cats still starve. Kittens still drown in faeces. And the line between well-meaning and negligent is a bloodied blur when no vet has set foot in the house for years. The Missing Piece: Access to Vet CareIt’s not that most people in these cases didn’t want help. Nearly 9 in 10 were open to spay/neuter services. Over three-quarters were open to giving up some of the cats. The problem wasn’t stubbornness. It was access.These aren’t people living in leafy suburbs with four-figure pet insurance. Over 78% lived in New York’s most socially vulnerable boroughs—Kings, Queens, the Bronx. 43% had a physical or mental disability. In most cases, the people were just as trapped as the cats.The study found that 67% of interventions led to positive outcomes: either the person was left with a manageable number of cats, or all were removed. That’s not just a win for the animals—it’s a win for mental health, housing safety, and public sanitation. Hoarding Is a Community IssueOne of the most revealing stats? A quarter of all referrals came from neighbours.That tells us two things:1. Hoarding doesn’t happen in a vacuum.2. People do notice—but they need somewhere to turn that won’t escalate things into punishment and removal unless absolutely necessary.When support systems are available, people use them. When they’re not, the same story plays out: another flat filled with sick cats, a person further isolated, a quiet crisis nobody wants to touch. The Right Kind of InterventionThis isn’t about patting hoarders on the back. It’s about recognising that if we want to protect animals, we need more than rescue missions. We need infrastructure.Spay/neuter programs aren’t some soft “harm reduction” approach—they’re strategic, effective, and preventative. 58% of people who initially failed to reduce their animal numbers eventually came back asking for help. That’s not failure—that’s a second chance.And that’s the point.Companion animals need us to stop letting them be born into filth, starvation, and isolation under the guise of “love.” If a hoarder has 20 cats, spaying 18 of them will do more than a moral lecture ever could. What Now?This study confirms what many on the ground have known for years: punitive models fail. Accessible veterinary care, community support, and non-judgemental intervention work. They reduce suffering. They save lives.Animal hoarding isn’t a quirk. It’s a form of captivity.And if we’re serious about abolition, that includes the living rooms where dozens of animals silently disappear.

Hoarding Isn’t Just About Humans. It’s About their Animals.

If you're pouring your heart into street protests hoping to wake up the world, brace yourself: the science says you're probably not making anyone go vegan. In fact, you might be pushing them in the opposite direction. But before you throw down your placard in despair, read on — because the truth about protest isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that we’ve misunderstood what it’s for. Protests Don’t (Often) Create Vegans — And That’s Not a FlawLet's start with the hard pill: protests rarely lead to individual diet change. Yes, we've had some amazing success stories, but studies show that both disruptive and non-disruptive protests result in just 4–10% of people reducing their consumption of animal products — and even then, the reductions are minimal. Worse still, almost half of people who see a disruptive animal rights protest feel angry towards the activists and become less likely to support the cause.So is it all a waste of time? No. It just means we’re asking the wrong question.Protests aren’t recruitment tools. They’re pressure tools. They shift conversations, provoke media, rattle institutions, and attract people who are already on the edge of activism — not people firmly inside a steakhouse.Expecting someone to see a milk pour and go vegan is like expecting someone to see a riot and join a political party. That’s not how public psychology works. Who Are Protests For?Protests serve three key purposes:1. To pressure decision-makers – businesses, politicians, or institutions.2. To attract attention – from media, allies, and those already sympathetic.3. To build movement strength – recruiting, training, and emboldening new activists.If your protest didn’t make the news, didn’t cause disruption, and didn’t inspire anyone to get involved — then sure, it might have been a waste. But if it shook a CEO, sent journalists scrambling, or made one activist feel seen and strong? That’s a win. The Radical Flank Effect: Being “Too Much” So Others Can Be “Reasonable”You’ve probably heard someone say, “I support animal rights, but those protestors take it too far.” Good. That’s called the radical flank effect — and it’s one of the most powerful tools we have.Here’s how it works: the more extreme your protest seems, the more reasonable other activists appear. You pour milk, and suddenly the person politely tabling for a plant-based meal option looks like the voice of reason. The public shifts not toward you — but past you, toward change.It's a conversation I had with someone during my short employment with The Humane League. The THL staff member I spoke with hated PETA with a passion. I suggested that maybe PETA's actions make THL seem more reasonable by shifting the Overton Window.Research backs it up. A disruptive protest can make a moderate demand more palatable. A radical action can give legitimacy to a tame one. It’s all part of the dance — and movements that don’t have a radical flank often stagnate.So yes, let them hate us. The aim isn’t to be liked. It’s to move the window. “Backfire” Isn’t Always a Bad ThingPeople love to panic over “backfire effects” — the idea that protests make people hate us and our message. Yes, that happens. But here’s what gets missed: the outrage fades. The media hits remain. And so do the donations, the mailing list sign-ups, and the spike in visibility.The Grand National protest by Animal Rising is a perfect case study. Initial public sentiment worsened. But six months later? The outrage was gone, and all that remained was a stronger, better-known movement with a bigger supporter base.Public anger is a flash in the pan. Organised persistence is the fire. Specific Protests Work Better Than Vague OnesTargeted action wins. The Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign didn’t try to change hearts — it tried to shut down a lab. And it very nearly did. That focus gave it teeth.This is a lesson modern activists forget. Not every protest needs to be about animal liberation as a concept. Sometimes the best use of your protest is to hit a single company where it hurts — reputation, revenue, recruitment. Be precise. Be surgical. Change a policy, cut a supply chain, get a venue to cancel an event. Brick by brick, the wall comes down. Forget the 3.5% RuleYou may have heard the theory that if 3.5% of the population actively engages in non-violent resistance, change becomes inevitable. It’s a nice soundbite. But it’s also misleading.Mobilising 3.5% requires way more than 3.5% support. And let’s be real — we don’t have that yet. Not for ending animal agriculture. Not even close.So no, we’re not there. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be organising. It means we need to start building real political pressure — coalitions, campaigns, consistency. Want to Be Effective? Be Strategic.Here’s what the research tells us about how to make protests actually matter:1️⃣ Never use violence. Obvious? Apparently not. Violence against people alienates everyone and undermines the cause — even when justified by rage.2️⃣ Pick your location wisely. Are you hitting a point of production (a slaughterhouse), a point of decision (a government office), or a point of consumption (a supermarket)? Match the goal to the geography.3️⃣ Time it right. Is there a relevant bill being debated? A local scandal? A national conference? Ride the news cycle.4️⃣ Get the numbers. Seven people on a pavement won’t turn heads. Mass matters. Recruit, coordinate, and show up en masse.5️⃣ Control the narrative. If you can’t write the headlines, at least plan for them. Work with sympathetic journalists. Issue a press release. Decide what the media takeaway should be — or they’ll decide for you.6️⃣ Track everything. Use QR codes. Count website visits. Log donations. Watch trends before and after. If you’re not measuring impact, you’re flying blind.7️⃣ Focus on the problem. Studies show that when you highlight the harm — rather than abstract values or utopian solutions — you gain more public support. People care more about pain than philosophy. Street Outreach: The Quiet Sibling of ProtestNot all street activism is protest. Some of it is conversation — and it works differently.Video outreach (like VR headsets or tablets showing undercover footage) has shown promising results. One study found a third of people reduced pork consumption after watching. That’s a big deal.But leafleting? Meh. Most studies find little to no lasting impact. Pamphlets might plant a seed, but they rarely grow it.That said, these small acts might still play a part. Like social media posts or brief conversations, they nudge people along a path. You just don’t see where that path ends. Grief as ProtestNot all activism is designed to spark change in others. Sometimes it's about mourning. National Animal Rights Day, vigils, and public memorials serve a vital purpose — reminding the world that the animals who died were individuals. Someone grieved. Someone bore witness. Someone said: “You mattered.”Don’t let metrics erase meaning. Not everything needs a conversion rate. Collaboration Isn’t OptionalProtest doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It thrives when movements align.Animal advocates can and should team up with climate activists, water defenders, human rights groups. Factory farming is a thread in many tapestries of injustice. Pull it hard enough, and other systems start to unravel.If you want traction, don’t just talk to the public. Talk to your allies. So... Should We Protest?Yes. But not with false hopes and fuzzy goals. Protests aren’t magic spells. They’re just one tool in a bigger toolbox — best used with precision, planning, and a thick skin.If you’re in it for praise, don’t protest. If you’re in it for comfort, don’t protest. If you’re in it to be liked, don’t protest.But if you’re in it for change — real, structural, confrontational change — then yes. Protest.Loudly. Strategically. Unapologetically.And don’t you dare stop. This article was possible due to research conducted by <a data-mce-href="https://faunalytics.org/tactics-in-practice-the-science-of-protests-and-demonstrations/" href="https://faunalytics.org/tactics-in-practice-the-science-of-protests-and-demonstrations/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Faunalytics</a>.

Do Protests Work?

<a data-mce-href="https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2025/05/15/artificial-ingredients-in-bread-compared-to-meat-alternative/" href="https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2025/05/15/artificial-ingredients-in-bread-compared-to-meat-alternative/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New research</a> comparing ingredient lists found that some of the UK’s most common plant-based meats contain fewer artificial additives than sliced white bread. While vegan meat products typically contain three or fewer additives — usually basic thickeners or stabilisers — white bread can contain four or more, including preservatives and emulsifiers.But only one of those ends up in scare headlines. Because this was never about health. It was about control.The meat industry needed a new weapon. “Ultra-processed food” became the label of choice. Vague, meaningless, effective. Bread, hummus, oat milk, tofu — all technically “ultra-processed.” But somehow, the warning label only sticks to food that doesn’t contain a corpse.The UK government has already said it: <a data-mce-href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/processed-foods-and-health-sacns-rapid-evidence-update/processed-foods-and-health-sacns-rapid-evidence-update-summary#introduction" href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/processed-foods-and-health-sacns-rapid-evidence-update/processed-foods-and-health-sacns-rapid-evidence-update-summary#introduction" target="_blank" rel="noopener">plant-based meats are not associated with negative health outcomes.</a> That risk is firmly with the animal versions — the bacon, the sausages, the deli meats, the hot dogs. The cancer-linked, heart-clogging, cholesterol-loaded products that people still call “real food.”The confusion is deliberate. If you believe vegan meat is just as bad as processed flesh, you’ll stick with what’s familiar. If you think an additive is more dangerous than a slaughterhouse, you’ll keep funding it. If you believe the narrative, you’ll ignore the evidence.And the evidence is clear.<a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/You-Cant-Taste-the-Difference-So-Why-Are-Animal-A0A81DUIJ4" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/You-Cant-Taste-the-Difference-So-Why-Are-Animal-A0A81DUIJ4" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">You can’t taste the difference anymore</a>. You get more fibre and less fat. No antibiotics. No blood. No body count. But you’ll still hear that it’s “too processed.”This isn’t about additives. It’s about addiction — to domination, to denial, to habit.The meat industry isn’t worried about your health. It’s worried about your awakening.Because if people find out that the so-called “fake” meat is better for your body, better for the planet, and doesn’t require anyone to be dismembered for a sandwich — then what’s left?Just lies. Packaged in plastic. Marketed as tradition. Sold as food.&nbsp;

White Bread Has More Additives Than Vegan Meat

Across Europe, <a data-mce-href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/12/research-reveals-24000-megafarms-across-europe" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/12/research-reveals-24000-megafarms-across-europe" target="_blank" rel="noopener">24,000 megafarms</a> have been quietly stamped into the landscape. In the UK alone, nearly 2,000 intensive pig and poultry units now operate — warehouses packed with animals most people will never see, in conditions they wouldn’t wish on their worst enemy. The numbers are growing. The pollution is growing. The destruction is growing.And the question we should all be asking is: why?Why are we <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Burn-Eat-Repeat-S6S71FBX8O" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Burn-Eat-Repeat-S6S71FBX8O" target="_blank" rel="noopener">bulldozing forests</a> to make room for more feed crops, breeding more animals into confinement, and churning out more corpses — while pretending this is sustainable, necessary, or even ethical?Because that’s the real story here. Not that factory farming is out of control (it is), but that it’s still framed as farming at all. These aren’t farms. They’re kill units. They don’t raise animals. They process lives. Norfolk, Capital of CarnageThe UK is now second only to France for intensive poultry farms. Norfolk — often celebrated for its countryside — has become the "megafarm capital of Europe," with over 25 million animals trapped in industrial facilities.In some areas, there are 79 chickens per person. Not per household. Per human.Meanwhile, government inspections reveal that 75% of megafarms breach environmental regulations. Thousands of violations since 2015. Pollution of rivers, destruction of protected areas, illegal overstocking. And when caught? The vast majority receive no prosecution — just “advice.”But the worst part isn’t the pollution. It’s that even if these megafarms were perfectly compliant, the system would still be rotten. Because there is no ethical version of this model. You don’t need to break the rules when the rules themselves break living beings. The “Better” LieSome charities and lobby groups saw the writing on the wall and scrambled for a rebrand: welcome to the era of “high welfare” factory farms. The <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/The-Better-Chicken-Con-When-Welfare-Means-More-Q5Q61G442X" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/The-Better-Chicken-Con-When-Welfare-Means-More-Q5Q61G442X" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Better Chicken Commitment</a>, for example, promises slower-growing breeds and more space.Sounds good?Here’s what it actually means:🔺️ 48% more chickens farmed🔺️ 69% more time in confinement🔺️ More land cleared, more feed grown, more wild animals displaced🔺️ More water, more waste, more lives — all for the same amount of flesh on shelvesAll that suffering stretched over longer lives. A welfare policy that increases the number of individuals being bred, used, and killed. It's not reform. It's expansion in disguise.I asked about this back in 2019 while briefly working at The Humane League — and got silence in return. Now the data is out. And it’s damning.If you ever donated to one of these charities, you might want to ask where your money went. Because it wasn’t to spare chickens. It was to help the industry kill more of them — with a better public image. Manufactured ChickensBroiler chickens are no longer chickens. Not in any meaningful sense. They’re bodies engineered to grow 400% faster than they did 70 years ago. Their legs snap. Their organs fail. Many die before they make it to slaughter. Not that it matters — because profit depends on volume, not survival.Their parents — the “breeder birds” — are deliberately starved to keep them alive long enough to reproduce. Not metaphorically. Literally. They are kept hungry for life. Their entire existence is one long, controlled deprivation.What do they get in return? A shorter, broken existence — sold as “food security.”Slower-growing birds still live in confinement. Still killed in infancy. Still denied the most basic rights: freedom of movement, freedom from hunger, freedom not to be used as a product. There is no “high welfare” version of ownership.Because that’s the core of the issue: ownership.Welfarism tries to sell a story that what matters is how we use animals. Not that we use them. It’s a distraction. A golden cage. The bird is still inside. This Isn’t Broken. It’s Designed.Factory farming isn’t the result of poor planning. It’s functioning exactly as intended — to turn someone into something as quickly and cheaply as possible.The RSPCA can stamp “freedom” on a label. NGOs can parade their “commitments.” Politicians can wring their hands about “balance.” But none of it changes the fact that we are manufacturing sentient lives into commodities. And then disposing of them. Over and over again.You can pad the cage. But it’s still a cage. It’s still a prison sentence — with death as the only release.So the next time someone says we need “better chicken,” ask them this: Why are we breeding chickens at all?<a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/You-Cant-Taste-the-Difference-So-Why-Are-Animal-A0A81DUIJ4" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/You-Cant-Taste-the-Difference-So-Why-Are-Animal-A0A81DUIJ4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">It's not taste.</a><a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Kentucky-Fried-Cancer-B0B11ER3XO" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Kentucky-Fried-Cancer-B0B11ER3XO" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">It's not health.</a> The Only Ethical Commitment Is AbolitionThere is no humane way to forcibly breed, imprison, and kill someone who didn’t want to die. There is no sustainable way to breed billions of animals who were never meant to exist. There is no kind way to dominate another’s body.You can’t reform supremacy.You reject it.This isn’t a call for bigger cages or slower growth. It’s a call to stop. Stop breeding animals. Stop killing them. Because the only way to stop the violence is to stop the use.No more megafarms. No more chicken commitments. No more welfare illusions.No more lies.Go vegan. Reject the system. Choose justice.

Megafarms, Meat Machines, and the Manufactured Myth of Welfare

When a politician puts on a cowboy hat, stands in front of a barn, and <a data-mce-href="https://sentientmedia.org/anti-trans-campaigns-keep-returning-to-the-politics-of-meat/" href="https://sentientmedia.org/anti-trans-campaigns-keep-returning-to-the-politics-of-meat/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">compares transgender children to cattle</a>, it’s not just a bad metaphor — it’s a mirror. The meat industry isn’t just bankrolling the war on trans rights; it’s underwriting a worldview where domination is framed as identity, where masculinity is defined by violence, and where anyone who challenges that is cast as a threat.Welcome to the grotesque overlap of speciesism, gender norms, and political propaganda.In Kansas, a man running for office decided to liken gender-affirming care — which overwhelmingly involves reversible puberty blockers — to animal castration. “Castration is for cattle, not our kids,” said Shawn Tiffany, standing proud in his branded ranchwear, funded by thousands in donations from beef and livestock industry giants. Not one of those donors responded when asked whether they supported the message. Silence speaks.Meanwhile, in Missouri, Kurtis Gregory used the same strategy: reference bulls, demonise trans people, get your campaign cash from livestock and agriculture lobbies, and call it “family values.” Because apparently, nothing says traditional masculinity like mutilating animals and mocking vulnerable children.This isn’t new. It’s the same fragile masculinity dressed up in cowboy cosplay, and it’s exactly what Carol J. Adams wrote about in The Sexual Politics of Meat. Meat isn’t food in these ads — it’s symbolism. It’s gender enforcement. It’s about reassuring voters that boys are boys, girls are girls, and anyone outside that binary can be safely dehumanised — like the animals they breed, control, and kill for a living. This isn’t a cultural coincidence. This is a strategy. And it’s being bankrolled by an industry that depends on domination. Domination of bodies. Of reproduction. Of sex. Of lives.Animal agriculture is built on controlling reproduction through artificial insemination, IVF, hormone manipulation, and routine genital mutilation. It’s so close to bestiality that exemptions have to be written into anti-bestiality laws to keep farmers out of prison. That’s not a smear — that’s law.Somehow, the same people clutching their pearls over LGBTQ books in schools are pumping out ads about slicing off testicles and eating them. They’re not banning “obscenity” — they’re selling it. Just wrapped in patriotism, steak, and supremacy.The irony is suffocating. These men are obsessed with “protecting children” while explicitly describing the castration of non-human animals for food. They claim to stand for truth, while pushing lies about trans healthcare. They posture as protectors, but what they’re protecting is a hierarchy — not a community.And it’s costing us far more than human rights. It’s costing the planet.&nbsp;A <a data-mce-href="https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/working-paper-424-Berland_Leroutier.pdf" href="https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/working-paper-424-Berland_Leroutier.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">new study</a> shows that cis mens diets and driving habits generate 26% more carbon emissions than women’s — not because women starve or stay home, but because men cling to meat and motors like they’re sacred. Even when you adjust for income, job type, and commuting distance, the difference remains. It’s not necessity. It’s identity. Masculinity emits.And what happens in hetero households? The transport gap grows. The man takes the car. The woman disappears from the stats. Not biology — entitlement.The meat industry knows its customer base. Across nearly every country, men eat more meat than women. The exception? Gay and bisexual men. Because their masculinity isn’t tangled up in chewing carcasses. That terrifies a system built on power.So we get this unholy alliance: cattle feedlots funding anti-trans propaganda. Cowboys selling steaks and straightness. Christian nationalists rewriting dominion as destiny. All of it engineered to preserve a myth — that domination is manhood, that violence is virtue, and that killing animals makes you strong.But it doesn’t. It makes you afraid.Afraid of change. Afraid of fluidity. Afraid that without the binary, the hierarchy falls. That’s why they attack trans people. Not because they’re confused — but because they’re not. Trans people expose the illusion. And like any fragile system, the illusion must be defended at all costs.The more insecure the man, the bigger the steak. The louder the truck. The more rabid the politics.So what can we do?We can start by rejecting the myth. Eating animals isn’t strength — it’s learned domination. A muscle memory of supremacy that serves industries, not people. Masculinity doesn’t have to be violent. Identity doesn’t have to mean power over others. And resistance doesn’t have to mean cruelty.If you’re serious about justice — for trans people, for women, for animals, for the planet — then stop reinforcing the system that keeps them all in chains.Reject animal use. Challenge masculinity. Dismantle domination.And for the love of truth, stop calling it tradition. It’s tyranny with a cowboy hat.

Masculinity Has a Meat Problem — and Trans People Are the Scapegoat

The fishing industry has always relied on one thing to survive: distance. Fishes live out of sight, out of mind. They don’t scream in a way we recognise. They don’t look like us. They aren’t people — or so we tell ourselves.But Tom Pickering isn’t having it.The writer and director of I Could Never Go Vegan has returned with a new short horror film, What A Catch, and it’s not for the faint-hearted — especially if you’re still clinging to the idea that stabbing a fish is somehow more acceptable than stabbing a pig.This Victorian-era nightmare follows a fisherman whose solo trip takes a sinister turn — and unlike most horror, this one isn’t metaphor. It’s exactly what happens to fishes every day, dressed in period costume and a fog of denial.Pickering has toured the film across the globe — Frightfest, Chicago Horror Film Festival, HorrorHound and more — racking up awards and praise, but more importantly, reaching non-vegan audiences. “It’s been amazing to have people reach out and say how it’s changed their perspective,” he told <a data-mce-href="https://plantbasednews.org/culture/film/new-horror-film-exposes-fishing-industry/" href="https://plantbasednews.org/culture/film/new-horror-film-exposes-fishing-industry/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Plant Based News</a>. “It’s effectively an activism film they weren’t expecting to watch.”And that’s the catch.The film exposes the blood-soaked absurdity of fishing by simply mirroring it. No exaggeration, no metaphorical monster — just the actual horror of what happens to billions of fishes, scaled up and made visible. Pescatarianism: The Horror Hiding in Plain SightPescatarians like to think they’ve opted for the “kinder” form of animal use. No cows, no chickens — just fishes. As if that makes it better. As if being more particular about your victims is a moral high ground.But fishes aren’t lesser beings. They are just less familiar. That’s it.In a <a data-mce-href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14780887.2024.2328037" href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14780887.2024.2328037" target="_blank" rel="noopener">UK study</a>, researchers explored how pescatarians justify eating fishes while avoiding other animals. The answer? Distance. Social, emotional, physical. One participant even described themselves as a “vegetarian who occasionally eats fish.”&nbsp;Here’s how the rationalisations stack up:The fishy identity – Aligning with vegetarians to feel ethical, while still eating animals.The compromise excuse – “I do it for convenience,” or “My friends still eat meat.” That’s not ethics, that’s peer pressure.Face blindness – “Fishes don’t look like us.” They don’t need to. They have their own lives, their own preferences, their own fears. The Reality Beneath the WaterThe fishing industry is not the lesser evil — it’s the biggest one. Up to 2.2 trillion wild fishes are caught every year. Trillion. That’s more than all land animals killed for food combined. Half of them aren’t even eaten by humans — they’re ground up to feed other farmed animals in an absurd feedback loop of destruction.Fishes aren’t simple creatures either. The bluestreak cleaner wrasse recognises itself in a mirror. Saddled sea bream can distinguish individual humans by their clothes. Some fishes cooperate with octopuses to hunt — cross-species teamwork. And others, when shown a reflection, assess their own body size before picking a fight.These aren’t instincts. They’re choices. They’re cognition. They’re proof.And yet, people still gut them alive and call it a compromise. Horror Is Just the Truth in CostumeWhat A Catch works because it doesn’t sugar-coat. It doesn’t pretend that exploitation needs to be stylised to be scary. The act of catching, stabbing, suffocating, and gutting someone who doesn’t want to die — that’s horror. That’s fishing.This film puts the violence front and centre. Not with the usual industry footage people scroll past, but through a story that pulls you in — and then yanks you under.If we saw land animals treated this way, we’d call it a massacre. But when it’s fishes? We call it dinner. Bring Fishes Into FocusIf the film does one thing, it’s this: it collapses the distance.It forces people to see what they usually ignore. It reminds us that fishes aren’t ingredients. They’re not abstractions. They’re not property. They’re just individuals — ones we’ve made invisible.And it begs the question: if horror films can help people wake up to injustice, why are we still pretending there’s anything ethical about eating animals?What A Catch is now streaming on YouTube. Just don’t watch it before dinner.<figure id="figure-iy45uz1s6tmbtmw04l"><iframe id="iy45uz1s6tmbtmw04l" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nc73OVK_AuE" class="w-full bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowFullScreen="" data-url="https://youtu.be/nc73OVK_AuE?si=aOnPChkqwIwgw3gI" data-corners="default" data-fullWidth="false"></iframe></figure>

What A Catch: A Horror Film That Makes Pescatarians Squirm

Across the United States and the United Kingdom, dairy is falling apart under the weight of its own contradictions. In New York, lawmakers are finally trying to curb the rise of mega-dairies. In the UK, the government is reluctantly considering taxing sugary milkshakes, years too late. And in both countries, the industry’s stranglehold on policy has led not just to environmental disaster and human health concerns, but to the routine, state, sanctioned killing of anyone who gets in the way, cows, badgers, and the truth.Let’s start in the US, where New York, one of the nation’s top milk-producing states, is home to around 500 concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), mostly dairy. These mega-farms lock up more than 425,000 cows in industrial hellscapes where they live short, controlled lives of forced pregnancy, separation, and finally, slaughter. The scale is absurd: 17.5 billion pounds of manure are pumped out each year, polluting air, water, and soil. That’s the sewage equivalent of 12.9 million people.The manure crisis alone should be enough to halt expansion. But that’s just one part of the disaster. In just two decades, New York doubled the number of dairy factories while wiping out over two-thirds of its small family farms. And yet, 95% of these “operations” still get to parade around under the wholesome-sounding label of “family-owned.” As if a prison becomes nurturing just because it’s run by someone’s uncle.This isn’t progress. It’s a full-scale collapse of any moral or environmental framework. Which is why <a data-mce-href="https://sentientmedia.org/new-york-aims-to-ban-new-mega-dairies/" href="https://sentientmedia.org/new-york-aims-to-ban-new-mega-dairies/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a new bill</a>, aimed at halting the creation or expansion of new mega-dairies, is being described as a "first step." Not a solution. Just an attempt to hit the brakes before the industry drives off another cliff.And what’s the defence from the dairy lobby? That limiting herd size “limits their opportunity for success.” In other words, environmental ruin and animal abuse are just the cost of doing business.Across the pond, things aren’t much better.In the UK, the dairy industry is fighting to hold onto its sugary mask. For years, flavoured milkshakes have somehow dodged the government's Soft Drinks Industry Levy, even though many contain more sugar than Coca-Cola. The excuse? “Children need calcium.” The truth? Only 3.5% of young people’s calcium comes from flavoured dairy drinks. Most kids get it from actual food. The exemption was never about health, it was about profit.&nbsp;And now that the <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Will-Labour-Stand-Up-to-Big-Dairy-J3J51EKFBK" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Will-Labour-Stand-Up-to-Big-Dairy-J3J51EKFBK" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Treasury is finally reviewing this loophole</a>, the industry is panicking. But instead of reformulating their products or telling the truth, they’re clinging to the fiction that cow’s milk is a sacred health food. Never mind that it’s high in sugar, cholesterol, and saturated fat. Never mind that it’s been linked to acne, reproductive cancers, and early puberty. Never mind that everything people claim to need from milk is available in plant-based forms without exploiting anyone. Because the dairy industry isn’t selling nutrition. It’s selling nostalgia.&nbsp;But perhaps the most grotesque twist in this global dairy tragedy is <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/The-Badger-Cull-Killing-Badgers-for-a-Cattle-Prob-I3I21G00RB" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/The-Badger-Cull-Killing-Badgers-for-a-Cattle-Prob-I3I21G00RB" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">what’s happening to badgers.</a>In England, badgers have been massacred in their hundreds of thousands under the excuse of controlling bovine TB, an epidemic largely fuelled by how cattle are traded, confined, and tested. Only around 5% of cases originate from badgers. And yet the government keeps expanding culls, even against the advice of its own scientists.Why? Because it’s easier to kill wild animals than challenge the cattle industry. It’s easier to shoot badgers than question why we’re farming cows at all.And it’s easier to keep the public focused on wildlife than admit that the dairy industry itself, this brutal cycle of forced breeding, infant removal, and early slaughter, is the true disease.Because if we stopped farming cows, bovine TB would disappear. There’d be no more endless compensation to farmers, no more blood on badger fur, no more slurry lagoons poisoning waterways. But that would require confronting the unthinkable: that the entire system is the problem.So we carry on. We let dairy farms balloon to unimaginable sizes. We let children drink sugar disguised as health. We let badgers die so we can keep milking cows. And we call it tradition.But tradition doesn’t justify torment. History doesn’t excuse hypocrisy. And subsidies don’t make slavery ethical.If cow’s milk were introduced today as a brand-new product, a sugary animal secretion harvested through forced breeding, infant separation, and slaughter, it wouldn’t just be banned. It would be unthinkable.And yet it’s still in every school, still in every fridge, still being propped up with tax breaks, media campaigns, and dead animals.The dairy industry isn’t just environmentally toxic or nutritionally outdated. It’s morally bankrupt. And the longer we protect it, the more damage it does.This isn’t just about sugar. It’s not just about pollution. It’s not just about badgers. It’s about ending an institution that relies on violence and deceit to survive.Tax the milkshakes. Ban the mega-dairies. Stop the culls. But above all, stop pretending dairy is anything but what it is: exploitation disguised as nutrition.

The Cost of Clinging to Cow's Milk

In 2019, I briefly worked for The Humane League. Their flagship campaign at the time was the Better Chicken Commitment — a set of welfare pledges that many saw as a step forward. Replace fast-growing chicken breeds with slower-growing ones, they said. Give them more space, more time. Make the system “less cruel.”I asked a simple question:Wouldn't slower growth mean chickens live longer, eat more, require more land, and in turn — to meet the same demand — wouldn’t more chickens be bred and killed?The silence was deafening.Now, in 2025, the data is in.A new peer-reviewed <a data-mce-href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00071668.2024.2432926" href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00071668.2024.2432926" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> in British Poultry Science lays out the problem in black and white:Yes, slow-growing chickens suffer less intense pain — fewer broken legs, less heart failure, fewer grotesque deformities. But to keep shelves stocked with the same amount of flesh, producers need to breed and kill far more of them.How many more?🔺 48% more chickens farmed🔺 69% more time spent in captivity🔺 Higher feed use, more land, more faeces, more emissionsIn short: a “welfare” initiative that means more lives taken, more environmental damage, and more chickens confined for longer periods.That’s what was being championed as progress.If you've ever donated to The Humane League, Compassion in World Farming, Open Wing Alliance, or any of the other NGOs proudly pushing the Better Chicken Commitment — you may want to ask where your money actually went. Because it wasn’t to spare chickens. It was to help the industry breed and kill more of them. The Welfare IllusionI’ve already <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/ANIMAL-WELFARE-vs-ANIMAL-RIGHTS-E1E1WM32E" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/ANIMAL-WELFARE-vs-ANIMAL-RIGHTS-E1E1WM32E" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">written</a> about this in depth: the dangerous delusion of animal welfare. How it soothes consumer guilt while propping up the very systems it claims to challenge.The Better Chicken Commitment is the perfect example of what I called The Golden Cage — a well-lit, air-conditioned prison is still a prison.Now imagine packing that golden cage with more birds, keeping them longer, feeding them more, and clearing more land to grow the extra feed.It’s not just tragic. It’s absurd. A System Built on SupremacismWelfarism assumes we have the right to breed others into existence, use them, kill them — so long as we make that experience “less bad.”&nbsp;The Better Chicken Commitment isn’t better for chickens. It’s better for marketing teams. It gives NGOs a “win.” It gives retailers a feel-good badge. It gives consumers an excuse.But for the chickens? It means their numbers go up. Their lifespans stretch just long enough to eat more, shit more, cost more — and then die all the same.And the forest that was bulldozed to grow their feed? The animals shot? The insects, rodents, birds displaced by yet more monoculture crops? The rivers choked with all that bird crap. All victims of “better” welfare. The Ethical Equation Nobody Wants to SolveLet’s be honest. The average chicken in a factory farm suffers immensely. So the solution seems obvious: reduce suffering. But if your answer is to increase the number of individuals subjected to exploitation in order to reduce the intensity of their suffering… you’re not solving a problem. You’re just redistributing it. When did “kinder” killing become more important than less killing? This Is Why We Reject WelfarismTelling people that “better bred” chickens will save the world is a lie. Because painting mass slaughter as progress is a betrayal — of the animals, the planet, and the people who think they’re doing good.Because every welfare reform that props up demand only deepens the exploitation. The Only Ethical CommitmentThere’s no “right” way to breed someone into existence only to kill them. There’s no “humane” way to turn a living being into a product.If you truly care about chickens — or pigs, or cows, or fishes — the answer isn’t slower growth or better bedding.It’s simple:Stop breeding them. Stop using them. Stop killing them.Not a better chicken.No chicken.Go vegan.

Herbivore Club