Blog

It’s probably the most common excuse in the book: “I could never go vegan - I just love the taste too much.” As if tastebuds are some divine moral compass.But let’s be honest: many people used to love the taste. I did too. That’s not the point.The question isn’t whether you enjoy bacon. The question is whether your taste preference is more important than someone else’s life. Because that’s the deal: fifteen minutes of flavour in exchange for a lifetime stolen. Would you apply that logic to a dog? A dolphin? A child? No? Then why does it magically work when the victim is a pig or a chicken? Your tongue isn’t an ethical argument.We require more than sensory pleasure to justify something morally. If someone in another country said, “I just love the taste of dog meat,” would you accept that as a good reason to kill dogs? No? Then you’ve already agreed that taste isn’t a defence - it’s just an excuse. And a lazy one at that.Here’s the uncomfortable truth: if you use taste to justify killing some animals, you have to use it to justify killing any animal. Cats. Whales. Pandas. Golden retrievers. You’ve built a moral system where pleasure justifies slaughter. Good luck sleeping with that one.Meanwhile, the only thing standing between you and a world where you stop treating sentient beings like flavour sachets is… buying a different product. That’s it. You swap cheese for vegan cheese. You buy oat milk instead of cow breastmilk. It’s not some heroic sacrifice. You’re not storming Normandy. You’re picking the plant-based option in Tesco.And for that minor inconvenience - a different choice in the supermarket - you’re sparing someone the terror of transport trucks, gas chambers, throat slitting, and electrocution baths. Does that still sound like a fair trade? A cheese toastie for a life?We always say, “I couldn’t hurt an animal.” Then we pay someone else to do it for us because we like the result on our plate. That’s the entire justification: taste. Not survival. Not necessity. Not lack of access. Just taste.Let’s stop pretending this is a complex ethical dilemma. It’s not. You just enjoy how they taste, and you’re not ready to let that go. But here’s the kicker: you don’t even have to.Going vegan doesn’t mean giving up flavour, texture, comfort food or guilty pleasures. It just means your meals stop being graveyards.I still eat pizza. Spaghetti bolognese. Lasagna. Roast dinners. Burgers. Hot dogs. You name it. The difference? Nobody had to die for it.You can have all the flavour and none of the blood. And it’s never been easier. Supermarkets are packed with plant-based alternatives. Restaurants have dedicated vegan menus. You can Google how to veganise literally any dish. You could veganise your nan’s shepherd’s pie if you really wanted to.Yet people cling to this idea that vegan food is boring and bland, as if they’ve only ever eaten raw tofu and wilted lettuce. Spoiler alert: tofu is delicious when you know what you’re doing with it. But even if vegan food were bland, that wouldn’t justify slicing someone’s throat open.Because here’s what the anti-vegan “flavour” argument boils down to: “I wouldn’t murder someone, but I’d hire someone else to do it if it meant I could eat something I enjoy.”If that logic makes you squirm, good. It should. Now apply it to the animals being used, abused, and executed because you “could never give up cheese.”They are individuals. They feel fear. They experience pain. They want to live. They are not commodities. They are not ingredients. They are not here for us.We always say, “Animals can’t speak for themselves.” But the truth is: they do. They cry out. They tremble. They run. They resist. We’re just too busy chewing to listen.So here’s the final test: put yourself in their place. Imagine it’s you in the farm, in the truck, in the kill room. Would “they like the taste” justify your death?No?Then stop using that excuse to justify theirs.

Their body isn’t yours to enjoy

"It's my personal choice"One of the most common defences for funding animal exploitation. A phrase thrown out like a mic drop, as if it shuts the whole conversation down.But let’s be clear: personal choice ends where someone else’s body begins.That’s not controversial. It’s ethics.We don’t accept “personal choice” as a defence for harming dogs. We don’t accept it for harming cats, or children, or anyone else. And yet somehow, when it comes to pigs, chickens, cows and fish - suddenly, everything’s a “choice.” You Can Personally Choose Anything. That Doesn’t Make It Ethical.People personally choose to do all sorts of things: lie, cheat, abuse, even kill. The fact that a choice is “personal” doesn’t make it morally valid.If someone said, “Don’t judge me, it’s my personal choice to drown puppies,” would you nod and move on?No. You’d call it out. Because personal choices that harm others aren’t morally neutral - they’re violent, selfish, and indefensible.So let’s stop pretending that “eating what I want” is just a private matter. The animals being bred, used, and killed didn’t choose to be part of your lunch. The Victims of Your ChoiceWhen people say “respect my personal choice,” what they really mean is “ignore the victims of my actions.”Let’s name them:- 56 billion land animals and up to 2.7 trillion marine animals killed each year.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Slaughterhouse workers with sky-high rates of PTSD, substance abuse, and injury.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Humans across the globe facing environmental collapse, antibiotic resistance, and food scarcity.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Children and adults suffering from preventable diseases caused by animal products.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Entire ecosystems destroyed to make room for grazing, slaughter, and monocrops for animal feed.That’s who you’re asking us to ignore. Not just a pig, or a chicken, or a fish - but an entire web of victims spanning species, industries, and continents. Imagine This Logic Elsewhere“Don’t force your beliefs on me. It’s my personal choice to hit my dog.”&nbsp;“Don’t judge. It’s my personal choice to burn the rainforest.”&nbsp;&nbsp;“I personally believe stealing is fine, so don’t push your ethics on me.”We don’t accept this logic in any other context. Because it’s nonsense.We don’t get to opt out of morality when it suits us. “Choice” isn’t a trump card. It’s a smokescreen. This Isn’t About YouThat’s the point most people miss. When you say “it’s my choice,” you’re only considering yourself.What about the animals who don’t want to die? What about the people living near factory farms, inhaling toxic waste and drinking polluted water? What about the future generations inheriting a planet scorched by deforestation, emissions, and desertification?What about the people working jobs that cause trauma, injury, and despair because someone demanded “cheap meat”?Veganism isn’t about control. It’s about consequences. And the truth is: your “personal choice” is paid for by someone else. If You Think You Deserve Respect, Try Giving ItWe’re often told: “Respect my choice.”But here’s a thought: respect the animal’s choice not to be killed.Respect the calf’s choice to stay with their mum.&nbsp;&nbsp;Respect the hen’s choice not to be bred into a lifetime of laying until her body gives out.&nbsp;&nbsp;Respect the fish’s choice not to suffocate on a boat deck.&nbsp;&nbsp;Respect the worker’s choice not to slit throats for minimum wage.&nbsp;&nbsp;Respect the Earth’s choice to exist without being drained and defiled.Veganism respects more choices, not fewer. And If You’re Still Clinging to Culture, Religion, or Tradition...Plenty of cultures have defended slavery, female genital mutilation, and honour killings.&nbsp;&nbsp;Plenty of traditions involve violence, exclusion, and exploitation.&nbsp;&nbsp;Plenty of religions have evolved - because compassion is not a fixed thing.The truth? You don’t have to hurt animals. You choose to. And you can choose something else. Right now. Today. So, Let’s Ask One Final QuestionWhen you say “it’s my personal choice” to consume animals,&nbsp;&nbsp;Whose choice are you actually respecting?The animal’s?&nbsp;&nbsp;The worker’s?&nbsp;&nbsp;The planet’s?Or is it just your own?Because if your “personal choice” depends on ignoring the suffering of others,&nbsp;&nbsp;It’s not personal.&nbsp;&nbsp;It’s political.&nbsp;&nbsp;It’s violent.&nbsp;&nbsp;It’s cowardly.And it’s time to stop pretending otherwise.

Your Personal Choice Ends Where Someone Else’s Body Begins

Society loves animals. Or so it claims.It posts photos of adorable cats in and dogs. It weeps when a whale washes ashore. It celebrates wildlife documentaries and raises money for rescue centres. It even has a day dedicated to hugging your dog.But this same society also pays for pigs to be gassed. It buys the corpses of cows. It eats chickens selectively bred to grow so fast their bones collapse. It funds trawlers that drag marine animals to a slow, suffocating death.This isn’t love. This is delusion dressed up as devotion.Let’s get one thing straight: you cannot love animals and pay for their exploitation.We hear it all the time: “I’m such an animal lover.” Said while biting into a bacon sandwich.&nbsp;&nbsp;“I care so much about animals.” Said while wearing a leather jacket.&nbsp;&nbsp;“Animals are better than people.” Said while pouring cow lactations into a coffee. Maybe they have a point on that one.Every year, this “animal-loving” world slaughters billions of land animals and trillions of marine animals. Trillion. With a T. That’s more death than we can comprehend. For what? For sandwiches. For snacks. For five minutes of taste.These are animals who think, feel, form bonds, experience fear, and want to live - just like the dogs and cats we protect.You wouldn’t call someone a dog lover if they stabbed a dog.&nbsp;&nbsp;You wouldn’t call someone a cat lover if they paid to have cats skinned.&nbsp;&nbsp;So why do we call people “animal lovers” when they pay others to kill chickens, cows, sheep, and fish?This is moral confusion. And it’s everywhere.We know what love looks like. Love is protection. Love is respect. Love is care.&nbsp;&nbsp;Not forced impregnation. Not separation from children. Not mutilation. Not confinement. Not throat-cutting. Not gas chambers.Put it this way: if a parent said they loved their child, but beat them daily, would we believe them?&nbsp;&nbsp;If a partner said they loved their spouse, but controlled and abused them, would we nod and accept it?&nbsp;&nbsp;Of course not. Because you can’t claim love while inflicting suffering. That’s not love - it’s ownership, control, and harm.So why do the rules change for other animals?Because society teaches us that some animals matter more than others. That harming a dog is monstrous, but harming a pig is breakfast. That skinning a cat is sick, but skinning a cow is fashion. That love has limits, drawn not by logic or compassion, but by habit and convenience.Being an animal lover means loving all animals. Not just the ones we find cute or convenient.A chicken doesn’t want to die any more than your golden retriever.&nbsp;&nbsp;A cow doesn’t want her children taken away any more than you do.&nbsp;&nbsp;A fish doesn’t want to suffocate any more than a hamster does.We don’t get to pick and choose who deserves not to suffer.&nbsp;&nbsp;We don’t get to fund slaughterhouses with one hand and post animal memes with the other.&nbsp;&nbsp;We don’t get to pretend it’s love when it’s actually violence with a smiley face.If their flesh is on your plate, it’s not love.If their milk is in your mug, it’s not love.If their skin is on your back, it’s not love.If their suffering is behind your choices, it’s not love.It’s convenience. It’s conformity. It’s comfort. But it’s not love.Because real love doesn’t exclude. Real love doesn’t exploit. Real love doesn’t kill.If you truly love animals, you must reject the systems that treat them as things. You must be vegan.Not plant-based. Not trying your best. Vegan.Because this isn’t about you. It’s about them.It’s about removing the knife. Breaking the cycle. Ending the contradiction.So the next time someone says, “I love animals” while tucking into someone’s leg, ask them what kind of love that is.Because if paying for someone’s suffering is love, then love has lost all meaning.

Exploitation Isn’t a Love Language

Supermarkets love to talk about their climate commitments - net zero by 2050, reducing plastic, using renewable energy. But when it comes to the elephant (or rather, the cow) in the room - methane emissions from meat and dairy - they suddenly go quiet.&nbsp;&nbsp;A damning new <a data-mce-href="https://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Clean-Up-on-Aisle-3_-The-methane-mess-supermarkets-are-hiding_March-2025.pdf" href="https://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Clean-Up-on-Aisle-3_-The-methane-mess-supermarkets-are-hiding_March-2025.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> from the Changing Markets Foundation and Mighty Earth exposes how the world’s top 20 food retailers, including Tesco, Lidl, Walmart, and Carrefour, have completely failed to tackle methane in their supply chains. Not a single one monitors, reports, or sets reduction targets for their methane emissions - despite the fact that meat and dairy production accounts for a third of their total emissions.&nbsp;&nbsp; MethaneWhen people think of greenhouse gases, they think of carbon dioxide. But methane is 80 times more potent at trapping heat over a 20-year period. Unlike CO₂, which lingers in the atmosphere for centuries, methane is relatively short-lived. That means cutting methane emissions could slow global heating faster than almost anything else.&nbsp;&nbsp;The <a data-mce-href="https://www.ccacoalition.org/resources/global-methane-assessment-full-report" href="https://www.ccacoalition.org/resources/global-methane-assessment-full-report" target="_blank" rel="noopener">UN’s Global Methane Assessment</a> says we need a 40-45% drop in methane emissions by 2030 to stay within 1.5°C of warming. Supermarkets are in a prime position to make that happen - but instead, they’re ignoring the problem entirely.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Numbers Don’t LieThe Methane Action Tracker, which scores retailers on 18 key factors, including acknowledging methane’s impact, emissions reporting, and promoting plant-based proteins, paints a grim picture:- 19 out of 20 retailers scored below 50%- Tesco performed best, but even then, it only managed a pitiful 51 out of 100 points- US supermarkets were the worst offenders, showing a “stark lack of climate accountability and ambition”&nbsp;&nbsp;Despite nine of these companies pledging to reach net zero by 2050, their lack of action on methane makes those promises meaningless PR fluff.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Loophole Supermarkets UseMost of these retailers proudly announce efforts to cut their Scope 1 and 2 emissions - things like switching to renewable energy for stores or improving refrigeration efficiency. But they conveniently ignore the real problem:&nbsp;&nbsp;Scope 3 emissions - the indirect emissions from their supply chains - make up a staggering <a data-mce-href="https://mightyearth.org/article/supermarkets-failing-on-meat-and-dairy-emissions/" href="https://mightyearth.org/article/supermarkets-failing-on-meat-and-dairy-emissions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">93% of European supermarkets</a>’ climate impact, with meat and dairy accounting for almost half of that. Yet, only six out of 20 retailers even have Scope 3 emissions reduction targets.&nbsp;&nbsp;Companies like Walmart and Kroger proudly promote their net-zero plans while completely dodging any responsibility for the methane spewing from their supply chains.&nbsp;&nbsp; A Problem That Can’t Be Ignored Any LongerThe consequences of this inaction aren’t just hypothetical. If meat and dairy emissions remain unchecked, they could increase global temperatures by an additional 0.32°C by 2050 - a disaster for an already overheating planet.&nbsp;&nbsp;Some retailers do acknowledge the impact of animal agriculture. Eleven out of 20 supermarkets admit that meat and dairy contribute significantly to climate change. Eight even mention methane - but not a single one is actually tracking and reducing those emissions.&nbsp;&nbsp;The hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. While European supermarkets are at least investing in plant-based options, US retailers are dragging their feet. Most American supermarkets have no own-brand plant-based lines, despite rising demand for alternatives. Meanwhile, Dutch retailers are leading the way, with a target of 60% plant-based protein sales by 2030 - a goal most other countries should be aiming for.&nbsp;&nbsp; Consumers Are Being Misled&nbsp;Retailers hold immense power in shaping food choices through pricing, marketing, and availability. Just as they’ve driven awareness around single-use plastics, they could be just as transparent about the climate impact of their products.&nbsp;&nbsp;But they won’t.&nbsp;&nbsp;Because if consumers realised that half of a supermarket’s emissions come from meat and dairy, they might start making different choices. They might start questioning why the highest-emission products still get the biggest promotions and subsidies. What Needs to Happen NowThe report calls on supermarkets to:&nbsp;&nbsp;✅ Set methane reduction targets - at least 30% by 2030&nbsp;&nbsp;✅ Publicly report methane emissions annually✅ Shift to 60% plant-based protein sales by 2030✅ Stop pretending that net-zero plans mean anything without tackling Scope 3 emissions Supermarkets can drive real change. They dictate supply chains, negotiate with producers, and influence what people buy. If they actually cared about their climate impact, they would prioritise plant-based foods and phase out the most damaging animal products.Instead, they’re burying the problem - hoping consumers won’t notice.&nbsp;

Supermarket Silence on Methane

Your gut is not just yours - it's home to trillions of bacteria. How you treat them matters.<a data-mce-href="https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(24)01477-6" href="https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(24)01477-6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New research</a> is clear: the more plants you eat, the healthier your gut microbiome. What your gut bacteria crave is fibre-rich, whole plant foods. Think broccoli, lentils, nuts, pulses, and fruits - foods loaded with fibre, complex carbohydrates, and beneficial compounds that feed your microbial community, protecting you from chronic diseases like inflammation, heart disease, and colorectal cancer.Scientists from Italy <a data-mce-href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-024-01870-z" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-024-01870-z" target="_blank" rel="noopener">studied</a> nearly 22,000 people and found clear microbial signatures distinguishing vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores. While omnivore microbiomes showed bacteria linked to inflammation and disease - thanks, animal eating - vegans and vegetarians cultivated gut bacteria associated with healthier cardiometabolic systems and beneficial fatty acid production. But here's the catch: simply dropping meat isn’t enough. A diverse range of quality plant foods is essential. It’s not just what you avoid, it’s what you embrace.Diversity isn’t automatically beneficial if the bacteria themselves aren’t. A diverse microbiome filled with harmful bacteria helps no one. So, the focus isn't just on diversity - it's about cultivating the right bacteria through nutrient-rich plant foods. Why are plants so powerful?1. Fibre is your microbiome’s fuel. Animal flesh and ovulations have zero fibre. Plants - particularly prebiotic fibres from garlic, onions, beans, and chicory - feed beneficial gut bacteria, producing short-chain fatty acids that fight inflammation and maintain your gut barrier.2. Complex carbohydrates matter. Sweet potatoes, bananas, and other plant foods contain resistant starches fermented by gut bacteria, which produce protective compounds essential for gut health and cancer prevention. Skipping complex carbs or relying on simple carbs harms your gut, creating damaging by-products.3. Plant diversity boosts microbial diversity. Gut health expert <a data-mce-href="https://zoe.com/learn/30-plants-per-week" href="https://zoe.com/learn/30-plants-per-week" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tim Spector</a> advises eating 30 different plant foods a week to foster a rich microbial environment. More variety equals more protection.4. Plants encourage beneficial bacteria. Polyphenols - bioactive compounds found abundantly in plants - promote beneficial microbes with anti-inflammatory and immune-boosting effects. Eating plants of different colours means more polyphenols and better gut protection.5. Industrialised diets damage your gut. A non-industrialized diet trialled in Ireland (the <a data-mce-href="https://theconversation.com/why-we-should-all-try-to-eat-like-people-in-rural-papua-new-guinea-new-study-248064" href="https://theconversation.com/why-we-should-all-try-to-eat-like-people-in-rural-papua-new-guinea-new-study-248064" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NiMe</a> diet), based on rural Papua New Guinea eating patterns - high plants, low meat, no processed foods - reduced cholesterol by 17%, blood sugar by 6%, and inflammation markers significantly, all in just three weeks. Participants even lost weight without cutting calories. The benefits aren’t just personal. Adopting plant-rich meals in schools and hospitals could save the NHS nearly <a data-mce-href="https://feedbackglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Feedback-2024-Serving-Up-public-procurement-briefing.pdf" href="https://feedbackglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Feedback-2024-Serving-Up-public-procurement-briefing.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">£55 million</a> annually in procurement costs alone - money better spent supporting British crop farmers and healthier children.The outdated School Food Standards still mandate meat multiple times a week, limiting healthier options. Experts argue it’s time for change, calling for plant-based meals to become standard practice in schools and hospitals. This isn't just about saving money - it's about investing in health, sustainability, and future generations.Bottom line: your gut microbiome thrives on plants, and so do your health and the planet. Embrace plants, feed your microbes, and demand better from institutions serving our communities. It’s not complicated - it’s common sense. Read more: <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Plantbased-Diets-Key-to-Weight-Loss-and-Longevity-D1D11BXRL3" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Plantbased-Diets-Key-to-Weight-Loss-and-Longevity-D1D11BXRL3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Plantbased Diets Key to Weight Loss and Longevity</a>

Feed Your Microbiome

Bird flu has now infected sheep for the first time. In Yorkshire, UK, a sheep has been killed after testing positive for the H5N1 virus - a virus once confined mainly to birds.<a data-mce-href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/influenza-of-avian-origin-confirmed-in-a-sheep-in-yorkshire" href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/influenza-of-avian-origin-confirmed-in-a-sheep-in-yorkshire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Defra confirmed</a> the infection was identified through repeated positive tests of the sheep's milk. This sheep lived at a site previously affected by bird flu among captive birds. Due to bird flu <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Bird-Flu-Confirmed-In-Nevada-P5P81AG1BS" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Bird-Flu-Confirmed-In-Nevada-P5P81AG1BS" target="_blank" rel="noopener">spreading to dairy cows</a> in the US, UK authorities have increased monitoring of farmed animals. No other sheep in the flock tested positive, but biosecurity measures are now in place.The growing list of infected species highlights a serious issue. Recent outbreaks among dairy cows in the US alarmed experts because cows were thought unlikely to catch bird flu.While human risk remains "very low," according to UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), authorities still caution the public against touching sick or dead birds. Multiple farm workers globally have contracted bird flu, including one in the UK this past January.At least one recent infection - of a teenager in Canada - occurred without direct contact with farm animals, further raising concerns about bird flu's potential reach and unpredictability.As bird flu continues spreading, it underscores yet another reason animal agriculture poses serious risks - not just for the animals exploited, but for public health as well. Read more: <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Feeding-Cats-Raw-Meat-You-Might-Be-Feeding-Them-B-W7W01BKDWN" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Feeding-Cats-Raw-Meat-You-Might-Be-Feeding-Them-B-W7W01BKDWN" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">Feeding Cats Raw Meat? You Might Be Feeding Them Bird Flu</a>

Herbivore Club

ARTICLES

Their body isn’t yours to enjoy

Your Personal Choice Ends Where Someone Else’s Body Begins

Exploitation Isn’t a Love Language

Supermarket Silence on Methane

Feed Your Microbiome

Bird Flu Infects Sheep: Another Animal Agriculture Disaster