Blog

Another baby born into captivity, and another round of applause for the people keeping her there.<a data-mce-href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9ygew7yn2o.amp" href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9ygew7yn2o.amp" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">West Midlands Safari Park is celebrating the birth of an Indian rhinoceros calf,</a> calling it a success story for a species pushed to the brink of extinction. But behind the cheery headlines and carefully edited press releases lies a brutal truth: this baby will likely never experience freedom, never know what it's like to live in the wild, and never develop the skills she needs to survive outside the boundaries of her enclosure. She has been born into a life sentence, her existence reduced to an exhibit, not a life.This isn’t conservation. It’s reproduction for display.The Indian rhino, listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List, faces genuine threats in the wild: poaching, habitat loss, human conflict. But this calf wasn’t rescued from any of that. She was bred, on purpose, into confinement. Her half-brother, born at the same park in 2020, is still there. They call this a lineage. Let’s call it what it is: generational imprisonment. Captivity Doesn’t Teach SurvivalSupporters of captive breeding programmes like to talk about "preserving species." But what does preservation mean when the individuals bred into existence never learn how to live independently? Being bottle-fed and born into sterile, artificial environments doesn’t prepare animals for the wild, it prepares them for a life of dependence, boredom, and behavioural dysfunction.Rhinos raised in safari parks or zoos are separated from predators, stripped of foraging challenges, and socially isolated from the complex herd dynamics they would navigate in the wild. They do not learn migration patterns. They do not learn survival strategies. They learn, instead, to wait for humans to feed them, clean them, and medically intervene when nature dares to act unpredictably, as it did here, with a breech birth.If these animals were truly being prepared for release, why aren’t they ever released? The truth is, they rarely are. Reintroduction is expensive, risky, and complicated. Far easier, and far more profitable, is to keep breeding them and call it conservation while raking in the gate fees from visitors snapping photos of a species they’ll never see roaming free.All genuine repopulation efforts for Indian rhinos have taken place in their native habitats, India and Nepal, not in UK safari parks breeding animals with no plan for release. Animals Are Not Museum PiecesLet’s be blunt: a rhino is not a “win” just because she exists. She’s not a product. Her life shouldn’t be measured in PR value or crowd-drawing potential. Conservation without freedom is not conservation at all, it’s stockpiling bodies. Keeping animals in captivity doesn’t honour the wild, it replaces it with a simulation. We’re building a future where animals survive only under our control, for our entertainment.Every time an endangered animal is bred into captivity without a plan to reintroduce them into a safe, wild habitat, we are choosing control over coexistence. We are choosing to manage and manipulate rather than protect and respect. And we are continuing a cycle of supremacism that says animals belong in enclosures if we decide it's safer for them there, even if the enclosure lasts a lifetime. “At Least She’s Safe”That’s the justification, isn’t it? At least she’s safe. But safety without autonomy is a prison. We wouldn’t call it a life worth living if it were us. Would we applaud being born into a room we could never leave, fed on someone else’s schedule, prodded by curious strangers, monitored by CCTV, and used to educate people who will forget our name the minute they reach the gift shop?The choice between death and a caged life isn’t a choice at all, it’s a tragedy disguised as mercy. And it's one we seem far too comfortable making on behalf of others who cannot refuse it. Don’t Confuse Breeding with SavingBreeding animals into captivity without any plan for release isn’t about saving a species. It’s about justifying continued use. If these rhinos weren’t endangered, no one would care about their births. The celebration only exists because the suffering of the species gives the captors moral cover.This calf didn’t need to be born to be saved. She was born because she could be used to make us feel like heroes.&nbsp;There are real solutions to protect Indian rhinos: protecting wild habitats, fighting poaching with technology and boots on the ground, collaborating with communities in India and Nepal who live alongside rhinos and understand their needs. But that kind of work is slow, inconvenient, and doesn’t come with photo ops or press releases.Captive births, on the other hand, are easy wins. Easy headlines. Easy money. A Newborn, Already a CommodityBefore she took her first steps, this rhino calf was a story. A statistic. A justification. Her mother, Sunny, endured a high-risk, human-assisted birth so that we could call this a conservation milestone. But whose milestone is it? Certainly not hers. She’s not free. She’s not wild. She’s not even anonymous, her entire life will be tracked, managed, displayed, and likely used to breed more confined lives.And what if she can’t breed? Will she be moved from park to park? Will she spend her life alone if no "suitable mate" can be found? These are the questions we rarely ask about individual animals because we’re too busy pretending that every captive birth is a step forward for the species. But a species is made of individuals. And if their lives are reduced to spectacle and stagnation, there’s nothing worth celebrating. Freedom Is the PointThis isn’t a rejection of all aid or all intervention. Animals sometimes need help. But if we take them in, it should be with one goal: release. If release is impossible, then we owe them sanctuary, not captivity. Not breeding. Not use. Sanctuary is built around the needs of the individual, not the demands of the public. Captivity is the opposite.We’re facing an ecological crisis of our own making. And our answer to it cannot be to lock animals behind fences and pretend the problem is solved. A rhino born into confinement is not a symbol of hope. She’s a warning. A reflection of just how far we’ve gone in deciding that control is more important than freedom, even for those we claim to protect.She doesn’t need congratulations. She needs justice. And she’s not going to get it at a safari park.

Indian Rhino Calf: Born Into a Life Sentence

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.

Herbivore Club

ARTICLES

Indian Rhino Calf: Born Into a Life Sentence

The Crown, the Clown, and the Whopper

Climate: You Act. Then Make Them Act.

Trump v. Ocean Life

Climate Cowards in Office

Kentucky Fried Cancer