List

Reaching millions of people every year.

EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY

SIGN OUR PETITIONS

Recent blog posts

George Monbiot has done what industry-funded spin merchants hope no one will: actually read the reports. His latest piece in <a data-mce-href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/07/cattle-sheep-farming-sustainable-food" href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/07/cattle-sheep-farming-sustainable-food" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">The Guardian</a> takes aim at two new attempts to dress up cattle and sheep farming as climate solutions. One is funded by McDonald’s. The other is backed by King Charles’s dairy advisor. Both are padded with vague language, dodgy numbers, and a generous helping of rural romanticism.Monbiot dismantles them both, line by line. And he’s right to. Because when “net zero” claims rely on three poorly sampled fields and a bunch of missing data, they’re not environmental reports, they’re marketing campaigns.The first study, from FAI Farms, makes the grand claim that the operation is “beyond net zero”, that it absorbs more carbon than it emits. But scratch the surface and there’s nothing underneath. Just three fields were sampled out of 105, and one had its sample locations changed partway through. One brought in hay from elsewhere, carbon imported. One was ploughed and reseeded, introducing unaccounted-for variables. And one didn’t even bother measuring soil bulk density the first time round, so you can’t compare results. By the time you remove all the statistical noise, there’s nothing left. No usable data. Just headlines.Even the authors admit, buried in the full report, that the tests aren’t representative. But of course that bit doesn’t make it into the glossy executive summary or the PR push. Because this was never about accuracy, it was about optics. McDonald’s needed something to point to when people asked uncomfortable questions about climate destruction. FAI Farms obliged.The second report comes from the Sustainable Food Trust (SFT), run by Patrick Holden, King Charles’s farming advisor and a long-time promoter of “regenerative” livestock systems. Their pitch? A nationwide transition to grazing cattle and sheep on “temporary meadows” (leys), rotated with crop production. Eat less pork and chicken, they say, and more beef and lamb. The most climate-damaging flesh available, in other words.This model, they claim, will help fight climate change, restore biodiversity, and deliver social benefits. It just happens to require permanently higher food prices, a prescriptive national diet, and a fantasy 50% reduction in food waste. But don’t worry, they’ve “assumed” that all of this will work out just fine. No need to think too hard about it.Holden himself admits food prices would soar under this model. The report’s solution? Everyone in the UK should simply eat less, waste nothing, and embrace a whole new set of dietary rules. Grain output would drop dramatically, yet they claim no extra imports would be needed. Meanwhile, cows and sheep, some of the least efficient converters of plant calories into food, would somehow need only “a small amount” of supplementary feed. No numbers. Just vibes.It’s the same tactic we’ve seen time and time again: present a fantasy, bury the problems in footnotes, and hope people are too tired, too confused, or too nostalgic to notice the sleight of hand.Monbiot calls it what it is: lobbying. Dressed up in green. Promoted by billion-dollar fast-food chains and members of the royal family. All pushing the idea that animal farming isn’t just harmless, it’s helpful.The reality is the opposite. Cattle and sheep are two of the most environmentally destructive animals humans farm. They require vast amounts of land, emit methane, degrade ecosystems, and block rewilding. Their grazing prevents the return of native forests and wetlands, critical carbon sinks that could actually help slow climate collapse. Dartmoor, recently set ablaze in a fire that never should’ve been possible, is just one example of a landscape degraded by centuries of grazing. Without the animals, it might be temperate rainforest. Instead, it’s kindling.But this isn’t about science. It’s about storytelling. “Regenerative” is the new buzzword, the latest rebranding of the same old violence and destruction. It appeals to a public desperate for good news, especially if that good news tells them they don’t have to change.The meat and dairy industries know exactly what they’re doing. Monbiot references Brandolini’s law, the idea that it takes ten times the effort to debunk lies as it does to spread them. These industries exploit that. They flood the media with soft-focus images of cows in green fields and reports filled with technical-sounding nonsense, knowing it’ll be shared long before anyone reads the methodology.This is greenwashing, plain and simple. Just like the fossil fuel industry that told us climate change could be solved with better lightbulbs and clean coal, the animal agriculture lobby wants us to believe that the solution is more of the same, with slightly different branding.Monbiot has flaws, and we’ve called him out before. But credit where it’s due: this article cuts through the nonsense. It names the industries, names the tactics, and names the damage.And it reminds us of the truth that needs repeating: you don’t graze your way out of ecological collapse. You don’t solve a crisis by clinging to the very thing that caused it. And you don’t “regenerate” a planet by breeding animals into existence, feeding them crops, slaughtering them, and pretending the grass grew back fast enough to make it all okay.This isn’t sustainability. It’s delay. It’s distraction. It’s derailment.The climate can’t afford more “solutions” that rely on nostalgia, denial, and wishful thinking. It’s time to stop pretending that the answer lies in better animal use. The answer is obvious. We just need the will, and the honesty, to say it: End animal farming.

The Crown, the Clown, and the Whopper

The climate is collapsing, and everyone’s still arguing over who should go first. Is it up to individuals to change their habits, or should governments and corporations lead the charge?Here’s the answer: yes.Both. Always both. And the longer we pretend it’s one or the other, the worse it gets.<a data-mce-href="https://www.wri.org/insights/climate-impact-behavior-shifts" href="https://www.wri.org/insights/climate-impact-behavior-shifts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New research</a> from the World Resources Institute spells it out: individual actions matter — but without systemic shifts, they’re a drop in the carbon-soaked ocean. And without individual pressure, those systems never change. It’s not a choice between recycling and revolution. It’s the realisation that real change needs both. This Time it's Personal&nbsp;Let’s start with what we were sold: the “personal carbon footprint.”Sounds empowering, right? But it wasn’t invented to empower anyone. It was a PR stunt by BP — yes, the oil giant — to get people pointing fingers at their own shopping habits instead of fossil fuel companies. It worked. For twenty years, we’ve been arguing over plastic straws while oil rigs drill, forests fall, and the beef industry belches methane into the sky.Now we’re seeing the legacy. Governments delay action. NGOs talk about emissions without naming animal agriculture. Environmentalists refuse to mention meat. And everyone’s still asking what individuals can do — as if this mess was made by someone forgetting to compost.Meanwhile, the biggest driver of deforestation, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and biodiversity loss is treated like a taboo. Animal agriculture is the methane-belching elephant in the room. And still, most campaigns are about banning balloons. Yes, Your Burger Is the ProblemYour lunch matters. The UN says it. So does WRI. Plant-based diets use less water, less land, less energy, and produce fewer emissions — massively fewer. cow and lamb flesh are the worst offenders. Cutting them from your diet makes a bigger difference than switching to local or organic food.The numbers don’t lie. Fully plantbased can save nearly 1 tonne of CO₂ a year per person. That’s 1/6 of the average global citizen’s emissions. Even reducing meat catches 40% of that impact. Now multiply that by billions. Now imagine if institutions — hospitals, schools, governments — made plant-based food the default. That’s not wishful thinking. That’s climate strategy.But instead, we get greenwashed nonsense about “regenerative” beef and “sustainable” slaughter.There’s no such thing. Grass-fed beef isn’t a climate solution — it’s a marketing scam. It uses more land, emits more carbon, and destroys more habitats. The beef industry has known this since the 1980s. And like the tobacco industry before them, <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/The-Grass-Fed-Lie-C0C01DAHR0" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/The-Grass-Fed-Lie-C0C01DAHR0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">they chose to lie.</a>They lobbied. They funded denial. They silenced the science. And it worked. Today, 74% of Americans still believe eating less meat won’t help the climate. That’s not public ignorance. That’s decades of corporate disinformation. Systemic Change Isn’t Coming — Unless We Force ItLet’s talk about governments.Politicians love buzzwords like “net zero,” “future innovation,” and “green investment.” What they hate? Changing their own behaviour.<a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Climate-Cowards-in-Office-H2H81ETX3X" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Climate-Cowards-in-Office-H2H81ETX3X" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A new UK study</a> found that even MPs who accept the science won’t model low-carbon habits. Why? Because they’re scared of looking “judgemental.” Scared of being mocked. Scared of the Prince Harry effect — being called a hypocrite for flying while talking about climate.Instead of learning the obvious lesson (“Don’t fly private”), they’ve chosen a different one: stay quiet, do nothing, let the planet burn.Only two MPs interviewed were willing to publicly talk about their own attempts to cut carbon. The rest stayed silent. They’d rather be seen doing nothing than risk being seen doing the right thing imperfectly.This is cowardice dressed up as caution. And it’s costing us everything.Imagine if health ministers refused to eat fruit in public in case it offended crisp lovers. Or if transport ministers were scared of trains. That’s where we are. And it’s pathetic. NGOs Are Scared of the Truth, TooYou’d think environmental NGOs would be braver. <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Why-Are-Environmental-NGOs-Still-Silent-on-Animal-K3K51E3C80" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Why-Are-Environmental-NGOs-Still-Silent-on-Animal-K3K51E3C80" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">Think again</a>.A study of over 100 organisations found that 92% of their staff agree animal farming is key to climate collapse. But only 11% make it a campaign priority. Just 2% actively promote plant-based diets.Why? Because it’s “not their job.” Because they don’t want to offend donors. Because they’d rather fight over solar panels than touch the sacred cow of flesh.It’s not ignorance. It’s cowardice. They know the science. They just won’t say it out loud.Some even admitted they’d speak up if someone else “made it easier.” You know, with pre-packaged graphics and standard messaging. In other words: “We’ll do something when it’s trendy and risk-free.”Meanwhile, forests are razed. Oceans are emptied.&nbsp; This Isn’t About Being Perfect. It’s About Being Honest.The WRI’s report gets one thing exactly right: you can’t unlock the full potential of climate action with personal change alone. At most, you get 10%. The other 90% is systemic. And systems don’t change unless we pressure them.That means campaigns, petitions, protests, school menu reforms, political demands. It means doing more than swapping a steak for tofu — it means helping others do the same. It means normalising it.And that starts with visibility. Because right now, silence is killing us. When politicians, NGOs, and public figures avoid the issue, it sends one message: eating animals is normal. Anything else is fringe.That’s a lie. It’s also a choice. And it can change.So eat plant-based. Speak up. Demand plant-based meals at your school, your hospital, your workplace. Join groups. Start campaigns. Back the companies making alternatives. And never let cowardice go unchallenged.We’ve wasted decades waiting for someone else to act. We’ve been sold distraction, delay, and deflection. But the science is in. The tools exist. The future’s on the line.So stop waiting.

Climate: You Act. Then Make Them Act.

The U.S. Senate rarely throws a bone to the nonhuman world, but right now there’s a bill that deserves more than a nod — it deserves a rally. The Keep Finfish Free Act isn’t just a speed bump for fish farming corporations. It’s a direct challenge to the systemic exploitation of marine life and the industrialisation of the ocean.Co-sponsored by Senators Cory Booker and Dan Sullivan, this bill would stop the federal government from rubber-stamping industrial fish farms in U.S. coastal waters. Instead, it would force any such project to pass through Congress — a slower, harder process that could stall or stop the expansion of aquaculture in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). And that’s exactly what we need.Because what the aquaculture industry wants is clear: total control. Their goal is to turn the ocean into a floating feedlot. And if we let them, they will. Factory Farms in the SeaLet’s drop the illusion that fish farming is anything but a watery extension of land-based animal agriculture. The conditions are disturbingly similar: mass confinement, poor health, extreme stress, a complete denial of natural behaviour. This isn’t “sustainable seafood.” It’s captivity, exploitation, and death — scaled up, sanitised, and sold as a climate solution.In fact, if you replaced the word “fish” with “pigs” or “chickens,” most people would see these farms for what they are: morally bankrupt. But because fish don’t scream like mammals or gaze back like dogs, they’re still treated as disposable units of protein.That convenience — emotional detachment — is exactly what the industry banks on. The Disease ProblemPack hundreds of thousands of animals into a confined space with limited movement and poor hygiene and you’ll get disease outbreaks. It happens in pig barns, it happens in battery cages, and it happens underwater.Fish farms are hotspots for pathogens and parasites. What’s worse, these don’t stay contained. Water flows freely between cages and open seas, carrying diseases to wild populations and decimating ecosystems. The industry likes to pretend fish farming protects wild fish — but it’s actively harming them.And when fish get sick, there’s a predictable fix: antibiotics. Lots of them.This isn’t just bad for fish. It’s bad for everyone. A Breeding Ground for ResistanceThe overuse of antibiotics in fish farms is accelerating antimicrobial resistance. Bacteria are learning to survive the drugs meant to kill them, and that spells disaster. One million people die every year from drug-resistant infections (the author of this articles grandmother died of one). Industrial aquaculture is helping to drive that figure up.Then there’s the chemical warfare on parasites like sea lice. Pesticides are dumped into the water, killing lice — until they don’t. Just like insects on land, parasites in fish farms are developing resistance. That means more chemicals, stronger doses, more collateral damage. All for the sake of keeping sick fish alive long enough to slaughter and sell them.It’s not a solution. It’s a cycle. One that feeds off suffering. Feeding Farmed Fish Means Killing Wild FishHere’s a little-known horror: the majority of farmed fish — like salmon and trout — are carnivores. They don’t eat plants. They eat other fish.So where do their meals come from? The ocean. Wild fishes are caught in massive quantities, ground into fishmeal and fish oil, and fed to their captive counterparts. The industry calls this “efficient.” It’s anything but.It takes up to 6.24 pounds of wild fish to produce just one pound of farmed salmon. That’s a net loss of protein. That’s ecological looting. And it’s not a byproduct — it’s deliberate slaughter.Worse still, the industry inflates its sustainability credentials by labelling these wild-caught animals as “trimmings” or “byproducts.” But many of these fishes are whole, healthy, and very much targeted. The lie is slick, but the blood is real. A Land Grab Disguised as ProgressWhen cornered on their oceanic destruction, aquaculture proponents pivot: “We’re moving toward land-based feed.” Great. Now instead of stripping oceans, we’re bulldozing forests and draining rivers.Between 1997 and 2017, the use of terrestrial crops in aquaculture feeds increased by 468%. The industry has shifted its burden from sea to land, piling on pressure to already collapsing ecosystems.&nbsp;Farming herbivorous fish like tilapia doesn’t solve the problem either. It simply swaps wild fishmeal for soy monocultures, freshwater depletion, and pesticide-laced agriculture. Exploitation doesn’t disappear — it changes costume. Stress, Suffering, and SentienceIndustrial fish farming isn’t just a numbers game. It’s a moral failure.Fishes are not floating vegetables. They are sentient. They feel pain. They experience fear. They remember, navigate, socialise, and, under stress, suffer from conditions akin to depression. Yet they are denied the most basic freedoms: space, stimulation, autonomy.Every tank, every cage, every pen is a prison. The term “farmed fish” already strips them of individuality — they are property, inventory, units to grow and kill. Their lives are measured not by experiences, but by weight and market value.This isn’t just about pollution or overfishing. It’s about justice. And justice doesn't begin when a fish becomes a human concern — it begins when a fish exists. The Corporate Grab for the OceanTrump’s push to loosen federal restrictions and allow commercial aquaculture in protected waters wasn’t about food security. It was about control.Corporations want federal waters — the so-called “exclusive economic zone” — to be exclusive to them. If they succeed, public ocean space becomes private profit space. And fishes become test subjects in a cruel experiment that’s been failing for decades.The 2021 permit that allowed industrial fish farms was struck down as unlawful for good reason. It overstepped authority. It ignored environmental consequences. It erased any notion of precaution. The Keep Finfish Free Act would stop this kind of fast-tracking in its tracks. A Bill That Actually Draws a LineThis bill doesn’t ban fish farming outright. But it does make it harder. That’s the point.It forces transparency. It slows expansion. It demands accountability. And it sends a signal that the ocean isn’t open for business-as-usual exploitation.It’s not perfect — but it’s a start. And in a political landscape that rarely considers animals at all, let alone marine ones, that matters.Because aquaculture isn’t “the future of food.” It’s the past, repackaged — industrial-scale breeding, confinement, mutilation, and commodification of lives we barely understand.And let’s be clear: this isn’t about “improving welfare standards” or “certified humane” labels.&nbsp;You can’t reform injustice.&nbsp;You abolish it.

Trump v. Ocean Life

When it comes to climate breakdown, politicians love to talk about “net zero by 2050,” “future innovation,” and “green investment.” What they don’t love? Actually changing their own behaviour. You know — not flying, not driving, and god forbid — not using animals.A <a data-mce-href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103717" href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103717" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">new study</a> interviewed 19 UK Members of Parliament across parties and found a very clear theme: even when they agree with climate science, most of them won’t lead by example. Why? They’re scared. Scared of being mocked, called a hypocrite, or — worst of all — making people feel “judged.”It’s hard to imagine MPs wringing their hands this much over other policy areas. Imagine if public health ministers refused to model healthy behaviour because it might offend someone eating crisps. Or if transport ministers never took the train because it would seem “elitist” to people who drive. But when it comes to cutting carbon — especially if that means cutting out meat or flights — suddenly it's all too "radical."The truth is, atmospheric carbon is the key driver of climate destruction. High-carbon behaviours — like flying, driving, and eating animals — are a massive part of the problem. Low-carbon behaviours — like train travel and plant-based diets — are the obvious alternatives. But instead of using their platform to normalise those choices, most politicians keep quiet. A full two-thirds of the MPs interviewed said they try to reduce their carbon footprint, yet only two were willing to publicly say so.Why the silence?Because modelling low-carbon behaviour makes people feel things. Things like shame, insecurity, defensiveness. The researchers reference “do-gooder derogation” — that all-too-familiar backlash where people attack those doing the right thing just for daring to expose the wrong thing. It’s why people who post about plant-based eating online are accused of “virtue signalling,” while people posting about bacon for the hundredth time are seen as relatable.So what do MPs do instead? They aim not to be caught doing high-carbon things, rather than seen doing low-carbon things. They don’t want to be called out for flying, but they also don’t want to be seen taking a train in case someone asks why they aren’t perfect all the time. It’s cowardice disguised as caution.A few cited the Prince Harry effect — backlash when he spoke about climate while flying private. But instead of learning the obvious lesson (don’t fly private), MPs internalised it as: “Say nothing, do nothing, stay out of sight.”Some even worried that being seen modelling low-carbon behaviour would alienate voters who fly once a year. As if once-a-year fliers are the problem — not the wealthiest frequent fliers and industries doing the most damage. These same MPs showed no apparent concern for modelling behaviour that might inspire those wealthier constituents to cut back. Apparently, asking ordinary people to consume less is patronising, but letting elites destroy the planet is just good politics.And of course, many leaned on the usual excuse: “We’ll wait for technology.” That mythical future where carbon capture saves us all without needing to change a thing. It's always some silver bullet around the corner. Never the uncomfortable truth in your lunchbox.What’s worse is that this self-censorship reinforces the very stigma they’re afraid of. The more people with influence avoid openly rejecting high-carbon behaviours, the more those behaviours stay normal — and sustainable choices stay niche, fringe, or mocked.This is exactly why activists — especially those promoting animal-free diets — have to stop waiting for politicians to lead. The public needs to see people rejecting high-carbon behaviours proudly and publicly. Not in a smug, moralising way, but in a “this is normal now” way. Because let’s be clear: adopting a plant-based diet is not extreme. Destroying the planet for a fleeting taste is.Instead of obsessing over whether the poorest can afford oat milk, the conversation should be about how the richest must be held accountable for their choices — and how those with power must use it. Politicians need to be pressured to lead by example, not just legislate from the sidelines. That means writing to MPs, calling out double standards, and shifting the media focus from finger-pointing to system-changing.Because yes, individuals matter. No, you can’t recycle your way out of a climate emergency. But when every person in power refuses to model better behaviour, we all get dragged down into the same carbon-soaked abyss.Stop pretending this is about not being “relatable.” It’s about protecting your image at the cost of the planet. And we’re all out of time for that.

Climate Cowards in Office

You’ve probably heard it a hundred times: “Red meat is bad, but white meat is healthier.” Chicken has had a golden health halo for decades, gobbled down by people who think swapping beef for birds is some kind of upgrade. But <a data-mce-href="https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/8/1370" href="https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/8/1370" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new research</a> just blew that halo to pieces — and it should force us to ask: why are we still eating animals at all?According to a 20-year study by Italy’s National Institute of Gastroenterology, people who eat more than 300g of chicken or poultry per week — that’s about four portions — are twice as likely to die from gastrointestinal cancers. Not just a little bump in risk. Double. And we’re not talking about one rare cancer here. Stomach, bowel, pancreas — eleven different types. All linked to what the industry still dares to call “lean protein.”And it doesn’t stop there. That same study found that eating more than 300g of chicken a week raised overall mortality risk by 27%. That’s a death sentence most people are still queueing up to buy — grilled, fried, or rotisserie-style.The researchers weren’t entirely sure whether the risk was due to the chicken itself, how it’s cooked, or the pharmaceutical cocktail farmed animals are pumped with. Spoiler: it’s probably all of the above. This is a system that turns living beings into cheap meat as fast as possible, with no regard for long-term consequences — not for them, and not for you.So why isn’t this headline news?Because chicken is the world’s most consumed meat. It’s big business. It’s everywhere. It’s branded as clean, convenient, and modern. Meanwhile, cancer rates are climbing — particularly in young people — and we’re acting like that’s some kind of unsolvable mystery.Red meat was demonised years ago. Everyone knows about its links to cancer and heart disease. But chicken? Chicken still gets a pass. And the industry knows it.But the science is catching up, and it’s not just about cutting out flesh — it’s about what we replace it with.Plant-based diets aren’t fringe — they’re the solutionA <a data-mce-href="https://pcrm.widen.net/s/l2kldfm9gs/pcrm-mc-vegan-prevalence-survey-4.28.25" href="https://pcrm.widen.net/s/l2kldfm9gs/pcrm-mc-vegan-prevalence-survey-4.28.25" target="_blank" rel="noopener">survey</a> from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine found that half of US adults already know that eating a plant-based diet can reduce chronic disease risk. And 65% of people said they’d be willing to try it — if they had the right information.So what’s the problem?Only 1 in 5 people say their doctor ever mentioned plant-based eating. That's a massive failure from a healthcare system that claims to be evidence-based.Instead, we have a public slowly waking up to the truth, while institutions and advertisers keep dragging their feet. Most adults still think they need animal products for protein — even though the same <a data-mce-href="https://pcrm.widen.net/s/hr22fss2fq/pcrm-mc-plant-protein-study-2.3.25" href="https://pcrm.widen.net/s/hr22fss2fq/pcrm-mc-plant-protein-study-2.3.25" target="_blank" rel="noopener">survey</a> showed 57% believe you can build muscle on a plant-based diet. (Which, of course, you can — ask any number of vegan athletes.)People are ready. They just don’t have the support. No one’s holding their hand when they walk past the meat aisle. No one’s in their kitchen showing them how to throw together a lentil curry instead of reheating some processed chicken breast.And yes — we’re going to talk about processed food.One of the most common knee-jerk excuses against plant-based eating is: “But those fake meats are ultra-processed!” Meanwhile, nobody blinks at the shrink-wrapped, chemical-soaked, drug-laced carcass they’re about to grill.Let’s be clear: not all processing is created equal.A <a data-mce-href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-025-01148-5" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-025-01148-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">new study</a> from the University of Turku, Finland, dismantles the anti-vegan “processed” argument. Researchers found that current food classification systems are wildly inadequate when it comes to evaluating plant-based products. They focus on how a food is made, not what’s in it or how it affects your body.Some tofu and tempeh products — made with minimal processing or beneficial fermentation — are lumped in with junk food simply because they’re not sold in their raw, natural form. Meanwhile, the microbes in fermented plant foods can enhance nutrient absorption. They make the beneficial compounds more available to your body. That’s the kind of processing we should be celebrating.Compare that to the processing behind a chicken nugget — made from animals bred to suffer, fed a cocktail of antibiotics, and then deep-fried in saturated fat. Yet somehow the chicken gets a pass, and tempeh doesn’t?The study also pointed out that ingredients like spices — often added to plant-based products — are health boosters, not liabilities. Yet the more ingredients something has, the more likely it gets slapped with the “ultra-processed” label. The whole classification system is backwards.Let’s drop the double standards.It’s time to stop pretending that chicken is a health food. It's not. It's just the latest lie from a long line of lies meant to keep you hooked on animals as food — no matter the cost to your body or your conscience.It’s also time to stop attacking plant-based alternatives with one-size-fits-all health criticisms. Not every meat alternative is perfect — but we know what actually causes disease. We know what fuels cancer. We know what clogs arteries. And we know what kind of diet offers the chance to prevent and even reverse chronic conditions.If more than half of people say they’d go plant-based with the right support, then the next step is obvious: give them the support. Demand doctors tell the truth. Demand schools and hospitals serve real food. Stop selling death as a healthy lifestyle. Because you can keep pretending chicken is a health food. Or you can face the facts — and finally put the bird down.

Kentucky Fried Cancer

If a low-cost vitamin could significantly reduce your risk of colorectal cancer, you’d expect it to be front and centre in every health campaign. But that’s not the case with vitamin D. Despite compelling data connecting low vitamin D levels with higher colorectal cancer risk, most people are still left in the dark – literally and figuratively.Colorectal cancer rates are climbing, particularly in younger adults. At the same time, vitamin D deficiency is widespread, especially in countries like the UK where sunlight is limited for half the year. Coincidence? Increasingly, research suggests not.One study involving over 12,000 people found that low blood levels of vitamin D were associated with a 31% higher risk of developing colorectal cancer. Another study linked high dietary vitamin D intake with a 25% lower risk. Data from the long-running Nurses' Health Study found that women with the highest vitamin D intake had a 58% lower risk. These are not small numbers.Vitamin D works by binding to receptors throughout the body, including the colon, influencing how cells grow, divide, and respond to threats like inflammation or abnormal mutations. Preclinical studies show it can reduce inflammation, inhibit tumour growth, and support immune surveillance. In short, it helps keep the system in check.So why isn’t this better known? Because the gold standard of evidence – randomised controlled trials (RCTs) – haven’t produced consistently strong results. The VITAL trial, which gave 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D to over 25,000 people, found no reduction in overall colorectal cancer incidence. But a meta-analysis of seven RCTs found a 30% improvement in survival rates among colorectal cancer patients taking vitamin D.This tells us something important: vitamin D may not stop cancer from appearing in everyone, but it might help you survive it. That alone makes it worth taking seriously.Still, questions remain. Does low vitamin D contribute to cancer development, or does cancer lower vitamin D levels? Does sunlight exposure play a bigger role than we think? These are legitimate unknowns. But while we wait for science to catch up, the public health advice is clear: get enough vitamin D.For UK adults, that means 10 micrograms (400 IU) per day, especially during autumn and winter. For many people, that means taking a supplement, since the average diet only provides 2–4 micrograms per day. Sunlight in winter doesn’t deliver enough UVB to trigger vitamin D production, and those with darker skin, those who cover up, and those who spend most of their time indoors are even more at risk.Signs of deficiency include fatigue, low mood, muscle weakness, bone pain, and in children, rickets. The long-term impact of chronic deficiency is even more serious, from osteoporosis to compromised immune response. And possibly, an increased cancer risk.Plant-based eaters need to be especially mindful. Many fortified foods and supplements still use vitamin D3 derived from lanolin (from sheep’s wool). That makes them unsuitable for vegans. But there are alternatives: vitamin D2 (always vegan), and newer forms of vegan D3 derived from lichen, algae or UV-exposed mushrooms.Companies like Kellogg’s still use animal-derived D3 in most of their cereals. It doesn’t change the taste or function of the product – just its accessibility. A simple swap to a vegan source would open their range to a growing market and align with public health advice that encourages supplementation.Vitamin D is not a cure-all. But it is a low-risk, cost-effective tool with huge potential. It won’t replace screening or treatment, but it could complement them. And it’s something most people aren’t getting enough of.Whether or not it ends up being the key to preventing colorectal cancer, ensuring adequate vitamin D is a smart move. It supports immunity, mental health, bone strength, and possibly cancer resistance. Ignoring that because the evidence isn’t perfect yet is a mistake.And allowing companies to continue using animal-based D3 when vegan alternatives exist? That’s a choice. One they don’t have to keep making.<a data-mce-href="https://www.change.org/p/kellogg-s-please-make-it-vegan" href="https://www.change.org/p/kellogg-s-please-make-it-vegan" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">Sign the petition urging Kellogg’s to switch to vegan vitamin D3. Because accessibility, ethics, and health don’t have to be mutually exclusive.</a>

Vitamin D and Colon Cancer

A Persian cat and a pug have nothing in common—at least not at first glance. One’s a feline, the other a canine. Fifty million years of evolution between them. But when scientists scanned their skulls, they found something strange: they’re starting to look eerily alike. Not by coincidence. By human design.We’ve selectively bred animals into extremes—flattened their faces, widened their eyes, shrunk their noses—until entirely different species now share the same distorted blueprint. Not because it helps them survive. Because we find it cute.This isn’t evolution. It’s interference.<a data-mce-href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cats-dogs-evolution-b2744251.html" href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cats-dogs-evolution-b2744251.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">New research</a> led by evolutionary biologist Abby Grace Drake scanned over 1,800 skulls from cats, dogs, and their wild relatives. The findings? Skull shapes in domestic animals are diverging wildly from their natural counterparts—but converging across species. That means Persian cats and pugs now share more in common, structurally, than a pug does with a wolf or a Persian does with a wildcat.We’ve overridden millions of years of divergence with a few decades of preference.And the price? They’re paying it with their health.Flat-faced breeds—called brachycephalic—can barely breathe. They suffer from chronic pain, neurological issues, and birth complications. All in service of a face that mimics our own infants.Because that’s the real trigger here. Human brains are hardwired to respond to ‘baby’ features: round heads, big eyes, tiny noses. These traits are called *social releasers*. They spark caregiving instincts—useful in a human baby, deadly when artificially imposed on other species.So we breed pets to mimic babies. Then act surprised when they break under the weight of our delusions.And yes, this has gone beyond dogs. Today, cats are being bred to resemble XL bully dogs—an entirely different species, now sharing similar flattened faces, bulging eyes, and compromised airways. We’re cross-pollinating suffering.This isn’t about companionship. It’s about control.We control how they look. How they function. How they reproduce. We choose cuteness over anatomy, aesthetics over life expectancy. And when they collapse under the pressure of our tastes, we breed more. Worse. Flatter. Sicker.Meanwhile, the UK government's own Animal Welfare Committee has issued warnings: these breeding practices are not just unethical—they’re indefensible. And they call for regulation. Restrictions. Reform.But reform is only a halfway measure when the whole foundation is rot.Because breeding animals is exploitation, full stop. You can dress it up with words like “pedigree” or “standard,” but it’s still commodifying sentient beings. Still twisting their bodies into unnatural shapes to satisfy human desires.This isn’t love. Love doesn’t suffocate.Love doesn’t knowingly pass on genetic misery for a “desirable trait.” Love doesn’t value a flat face over functional breathing. Or a curled tail over a working spine. Or blue eyes over basic health.Love respects animals for who they are—not who we can make them become.We did this. We shaped them. We shrunk their snouts, squeezed their skulls, stretched their spines. We manufactured suffering. We called it beauty.And now they can’t even breathe without help.We can stop. Right now.Stop buying from breeders. Stop praising “cute” deformities. Stop supporting the industries that profit from animals warped into caricatures.It’s not evolution. It’s exploitation. And it ends when we say enough.Because animals don’t exist to please our eyes. They don’t owe us beauty. They don’t owe us anything. What we owe them is freedom from this obsession with control.

Cute by Design: How Selective Breeding Has Warped Cats and Dogs

A new <a data-mce-href="https://doi.org/10.1177/27000710251321367" href="https://doi.org/10.1177/27000710251321367" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">study</a> surveyed nearly 21,000 people across 23 countries and found exactly what many in the vegan movement have known for years: most people know animals feel, think, and want to live—yet they keep using them anyway. The justification changes depending on geography, gender, politics, or religion, but the outcome is always the same: exploitation disguised as normality.And the main takeaway? People aren’t lacking information—they’re manufacturing excuses. Speciesism: The Global DefaultThe study examined three things: how people justify using animals, what they believe about animals’ inner lives, and whether they think it’s OK to treat other animals as objects. Unsurprisingly, speciesism—the belief that humans are superior and more deserving than other species—was the loudest signal across borders.Eastern countries scored higher in speciesist attitudes. But before anyone gets too smug, Western countries only appear less speciesist because the lies are dressed up better. “Humane” slaughter. “Ethical” farming. “Happy” eggs. At least when a person in the East says animals are here for humans, they’re being honest. In the West, people say the same thing, but with PR padding.Whether you kill a cow while saying a prayer or gas her to death with a welfare label slapped on the package, you’re still killing someone who wanted to live. Cultural variation doesn’t change that truth. The 4 Ns: Four Excuses That Rot Fast in the SunlightResearchers also tested how widely accepted the “4 Ns” are: the idea that eating animals is natural, normal, necessary, and nice. These aren’t reasons; they’re rationalisations. No one says rape is okay because it’s been “natural” or “normal” in human history—yet somehow this lazy thinking gets dragged out to excuse stabbing pigs.The study found that belief in the 4 Ns varies across countries but is still common. This isn’t shocking when industries spend billions reinforcing these lies. “Nice” gets pumped into every advert. “Necessary” gets pushed by lobbyists. “Natural” gets paraded on packaging. And “Normal”? That one’s baked into childhood before kids can even ask who they’re eating. Sentience: The Uncomfortable Truth Everyone Already KnowsOne of the more revealing parts of the study was that most people do believe that animals feel pain and emotions. They know chickens aren’t machines. They know pigs care for their young. They know cows grieve.So why do they keep funding the system that kills them?Because belief in animal sentience is often correlated with stronger justification for using animals. That’s right. The more people admit animals feel, the more they scramble to defend their continued use. This is cognitive dissonance at work. “I believe animals suffer—but I also enjoy cheese.” Something has to give. Instead of ditching the cheese, many just double down on denial. Liberal and Still ComplicitPeople with more liberal political views were more likely to reject speciesist thinking. Women were too. But don’t confuse correlation with commitment. You can vote progressive, talk about rights and equality, and still pay for baby cows to be killed for your cappuccino.&nbsp;Being slightly less speciesist isn’t a badge of honour. Morality isn’t a spectrum—it’s a principle. India’s Outlier Status: Religion Isn’t the Answer EitherIndia stood out as a country where people were less able to justify eating animals. This is often linked to the cultural prevalence of vegetarianism among some religious groups. But let’s not romanticise this too quickly. Milk is sacred in many Indian traditions, and the dairy industry in India is just as brutal as anywhere else—maybe worse.Worshipping cows while torturing them isn’t respect. It’s a contradiction. If religion teaches compassion, it shouldn’t be used to prop up systems that violate it. What Animal Advocates Can Learn (and What We Should Ignore)The authors suggest that animal advocacy should “speak to the audience’s 4 Ns.” Translation: instead of challenging the excuses, we’re supposed to work within them. If people say meat is necessary, show them plants have protein. If they say it’s nice, make a tastier burger.This may sound strategic, but it’s not revolutionary—it’s marketing. And marketing doesn’t dismantle injustice; it just sells around it.Yes, context matters. Yes, culture shapes habits. But no amount of tailoring should dilute the core message: using others as resources is wrong, full stop. It’s not about finding the “right way” to ask oppressors to please stop. It’s about rejecting the idea that oppression is negotiable in the first place. Speciesism Isn’t a Personal Preference. It’s a Global Power Structure.What this study ultimately reveals is that animal use isn’t some quirky habit—it's a global system of domination, reinforced by culture, politics, advertising, and convenience. People don’t eat animals because they have to. They do it because they can—because the victims don’t have a voice.But being born into a system doesn’t mean you have to obey it. Every major injustice has been normalised until it wasn’t. Slavery. Child labour. Women as property. They were all cultural. They were all defended with “natural,” “necessary,” and “normal.” Sound familiar? Final Thoughts: This Isn’t About Who’s Better. It’s About What’s Right.Too often, studies like this end with calls to “respect cultural differences” or “engage people where they are.” Fine. Respect people, yes. But don’t respect systems that treat someone else’s life like a commodity.Not all traditions deserve to be protected. Not all norms deserve to survive. If a culture, community, or individual belief demands another being’s life, then that belief isn’t sacred—it’s supremacist.It doesn’t matter if you were raised eating animals, taught that they don’t matter, or surrounded by people doing the same. You still have a choice. Every day. Every meal. Every product.And no culture, no tradition, no excuse, changes the fact that someone else always pays the price. This is a rejection of speciesism in all its forms—not a judgment of any race, religion, or culture, but of the global mindset that treats others as property.

The Universal Language of Exploitation

Let’s start with the obvious: cow’s milk is sugary. Not just the strawberry-flavoured, whipped-cream-topped dessert drinks parading as “milkshakes,” but plain old milk from a cow. Unflavoured. Unsweetened. The stuff people still insist is a “health food.”Per 100ml, cow’s milk contains around 4.8g of sugar, similar to the soft drink formerly known as Lilt. That’s more than the 4g per 100ml threshold <a data-mce-href="https://www.theguardian.com/food/2025/apr/28/sugar-tax-could-be-applied-to-milkshakes-under-treasury-proposals" href="https://www.theguardian.com/food/2025/apr/28/sugar-tax-could-be-applied-to-milkshakes-under-treasury-proposals" target="_blank" rel="noopener">proposed under the UK government’s new plans</a> to tighten the sugar tax. Under the logic of this tax, cow’s milk should already qualify. And under any honest logic, it should’ve qualified a long time ago.But of course, it hasn’t. Until now, dairy drinks have enjoyed a cushy exemption from the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL), supposedly to protect children’s calcium intake. Never mind that most kids get their calcium from food, not sugary drinks. Never mind that only 3.5% of young people’s calcium comes from flavoured milks and milkshakes. That fig leaf has finally withered.Now, the Treasury is consulting on ending this ridiculous exemption, and good. Because the idea that dairy is automatically “healthier” than its non-dairy alternatives is a relic. It’s propped up by lobbyists, not science.The dairy industry is desperate to keep its halo on straight.But that halo is a lie.Cow’s milk is full of naturally occurring sugar, and then—if you're drinking the flavoured stuff—more is dumped in. Chocolate milk often contains more sugar than Coca-Cola. The sugar in milk might be lactose instead of high-fructose corn syrup, but the pancreas doesn’t care. Excess sugar is excess sugar. The human body doesn’t award points for origin stories.And that’s just the nutritional side. Let’s talk about where milk really comes from.It doesn’t just appear in the fridge like a magic white liquid of health. Milk comes from exploitation. Always. No exceptions.Cows don’t give milk. It’s not a gift. They’re mammals. They produce milk after pregnancy. Which means in the dairy industry, cows are forcibly impregnated—routinely, repeatedly—so their bodies stay in a permanent cycle of pregnancy and lactation. Their babies are taken away within hours. Mothers bellow. Babies cry. They are separated because the milk isn’t for the calf. It’s for the market.That alone should be enough to end the conversation.But we live in a world where profits matter more than principles, and so the cycle continues. Until her body gives up—usually after about five years—the average dairy cow is pushed past her biological limits. Then she’s sent to slaughter. Her spent body becomes cheap meat.Let’s stop pretending this is some wholesome process.There is nothing wholesome about reproductive control, infant removal, confinement, and early death.If this were being done to dogs, the public would riot. But cows? We brand it as breakfast.And what do we get in return? A nutrient cocktail designed to turn a newborn calf into a half tonne cow in weeks. A drink linked to early puberty, obesity, and reproductive cancers.Everything people claim to need from milk is already available without enslaving anyone.Calcium? Available in leafy greens, fortified plant milks, tofu, tahini.Protein? There’s no shortage in beans, nuts, seeds, legumes, soy.Vitamin B12? Most people—including meat eaters—get it from fortified sources or supplements.Iodine? Seaweed, iodised salt, and again, fortified plant milks.The dairy industry has always relied on two things: misinformation and exemption.It markets itself as essential, natural, even compassionate. It positions itself as the humble underdog, while pulling in billions in subsidies, PR campaigns, and political favours.Now, with the sugar tax under review, dairy will cry foul. But what is it actually fighting for? The right to sell sugary drinks to children without scrutiny. The right to avoid reformulation. The right to keep profiting from a lie.Let’s call it what it is: hypocrisy.The moment oat and rice drinks entered the conversation, the industry flipped. Suddenly, we need to “protect consumer choice” and “avoid punishing families.” But where was that energy when it came to taxing cola? Or taxing fruit juice? Those products were fair game.This isn’t about sugar. It’s about clinging to a dying reputation.If cow’s milk came onto the market today as a brand-new product, it would never be approved. A bodily fluid extracted from pregnant animals. With significant sugar. With cholesterol and saturated fat. Linked to acne, cancers, and heart disease. Packaged as a must-have for kids. It would be laughed out of the room.But history gives it a pass. And nostalgia keeps it in our fridges.Meanwhile, the very drinks that offer an escape—plant-based milks, often fortified, free from cholesterol, free from forced breeding—are taxed, scrutinised, or mocked. It's backwards.Tax them for their sugar. Tax them for their dishonesty. Tax them for hiding behind outdated ideas of health. If plant-based drinks are being held to account, then dairy must be too. Fair is fair. But don’t stop there.Challenge the entire myth that dairy is necessary. Expose the cruelty it depends on. Condemn the idea that anyone needs to be enslaved, impregnated, and killed just so humans can drink a glass of something sweet.Cow’s milk isn’t magical. It’s not essential. And it’s certainly not ethical. So yes, tax the milkshakes. But let’s not forget: the real problem isn’t how much sugar is in them. It’s how they were made in the first place.

Herbivore Club