Blog

Yet again, the government has defied its own scientific advisors and <a data-mce-href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/badger-cull-licence-area-2025-b2761061.html" href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/badger-cull-licence-area-2025-b2761061.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">greenlit</a> another wave of badger culling across England. Ignoring evidence, expert advice, and public outrage, officials are set to expand this failed policy, which is projected to result in the deaths of thousands more badgers. The latest expansion, authorised by Natural England against its own chief scientist’s explicit recommendations, will see supplementary culling commence immediately in nine regions from Derbyshire to Wiltshire, and additional culling in ten more areas beginning in September.This latest move represents not just policy incompetence, but a brazen disregard for both science and morality.Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) is a serious zoonotic disease primarily affecting cattle. While it's true that badgers can contract and spread bTB, the crucial and often conveniently ignored fact is that badgers account for only a tiny fraction of cases, just one in every twenty incidents of bTB transmission originates from badgers. The real culprits in the bTB epidemic are the cattle themselves, particularly the way farmers repeatedly trade and move cattle around the country. Each year, tens of thousands of cows are killed after testing positive for bTB, but the cattle industry conveniently shifts the blame onto badgers, diverting attention from their own practices.Between 2018 and 2021 alone, approximately 40,000 cattle were killed annually in Britain due to bTB. Farmers, meanwhile, receive generous taxpayer-funded compensation, up to nearly £5,000 per animal, for each slaughtered cow. It’s no wonder, then, that powerful agricultural lobbies fiercely resist real solutions like vaccination and tighter biosecurity measures, favouring instead a politically palatable but scientifically indefensible cull of wildlife.Natural England's own science chief, Dr Peter Brotherton, has explicitly stated that there's no scientific justification for this latest cull extension. Brotherton has repeatedly advised against supplementary culling, highlighting compelling evidence that killing badgers does not significantly impact bTB rates in cattle. His expert opinion, that badger vaccination, supported by improved cattle testing and biosecurity measures, represents a practical, humane, and effective alternative, has consistently been disregarded.Badger culling isn’t just ineffective, it actively makes the situation worse. Research has shown culling causes surviving badgers to disperse more widely, potentially increasing the spread of disease across larger areas. This phenomenon, known as the "perturbation effect," has been consistently ignored by the government, despite decades of research indicating that killing wildlife does little to control disease spread and may actively exacerbate it.Since the policy began in 2013, approximately 240,000 badgers have been killed in England, at a staggering cost exceeding £60 million of taxpayers’ money. Despite this massive investment, there has been no tangible improvement in bTB infection rates. In fact, after years of culling, bTB remains prevalent in cattle, proving unequivocally that badger slaughter is a grotesque waste of public funds.The government’s decision to authorise continued culling is transparently political. Successive governments, Conservative and Labour alike, have bowed to farming lobbies rather than standing up for robust science or animal welfare.&nbsp;Prominent voices like wildlife campaigner Chris Packham, veterinarian Dr Iain McGill, and even rock icon Brian May have tirelessly highlighted the moral bankruptcy and scientific flaws of badger culling. Yet their arguments, grounded in rigorous scientific consensus, continue to fall on deaf ears.Badger culling is barbaric. Animals are either caught in cage traps and then shot at close range or pursued and shot free-range in the dark, with thermal imaging and spotlights ensuring the badgers never stand a chance. No matter how competent the shooters, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Many badgers suffer slow, agonising deaths from improperly inflicted wounds. Even those who die quickly have been killed needlessly, innocent victims in a ruthless attempt to appease agricultural interests.This brutality is compounded by secrecy and denial. Culls are often conducted under cover of darkness, with minimal oversight and little transparency. The result: a grim, hidden toll of suffering and death justified by distorted claims of agricultural necessity.Vaccination programmes for badgers and cattle, improved cattle testing, strict biosecurity protocols, and restrictions on cattle movements have proven highly effective in controlling bTB elsewhere. The Welsh Government, acknowledging these realities, has already chosen to abandon badger culling entirely, prioritising vaccination and cattle movement controls as superior solutions.In stark contrast, the English government persists with its policy of mass slaughter. Their promises of phasing out culls have repeatedly been revealed as little more than empty gestures. While the government periodically announces supposed phase-outs and future shifts towards vaccination, these claims consistently mask expansions and licence extensions, as evidenced by this latest disgraceful development.The elephant in the room, conveniently ignored, is the inherent risk and cruelty embedded in animal farming itself. The simplest, cheapest, and most ethical solution to bovine TB is the one agriculture lobbyists and politicians alike stubbornly refuse to acknowledge: ending the farming and exploitation of cattle altogether.Dairy and beef farming creates the conditions for bTB outbreaks, with intensive cattle trade and close confinement amplifying disease transmission. If we didn't farm cattle, we wouldn't have a bTB crisis. The booming plant-based food sector offers abundant alternatives that neither harm animals nor fuel disease transmission, rendering culling obsolete.The government’s decision to continue the badger cull is not just scientifically illiterate and morally indefensible; it represents a profound democratic failure. The vast majority of the public opposes these culls, yet politicians continue to bow to agricultural pressure, wilfully ignoring science, ethics, and public opinion.Now more than ever, public voices must speak louder. Supporting legal actions, contacting MPs, amplifying awareness, and making individual choices that reject animal agriculture are powerful ways citizens can fight this cruelty.Badger culling epitomises the failed, cruel logic of animal exploitation. It is a symptom of a wider injustice, our treatment of animals as disposable commodities. To truly solve bTB, we must confront the real cause: our reliance on animal agriculture.The evidence is clear. The science is undeniable. The morality indisputable. It's time for this cruel, costly, and catastrophic policy to end. It’s time to vaccinate, regulate, and ultimately, liberate ourselves and our wildlife from a harmful system that profits from animal suffering.Badgers deserve better. The public deserves better. It’s high time we demand better, no more badger culls.

The Badger Cull: Killing Badgers for a Cattle Problem

If you thought plants were passive bystanders waiting for bees to show up, think again. <a data-mce-href="https://phys.org/news/2025-05-nectar-production-response-pollinator.html" href="https://phys.org/news/2025-05-nectar-production-response-pollinator.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">They respond to the specific buzzing of their favourite pollinators by pumping out more sugar. </a>Snapdragon flowers, for example, will sweeten their nectar when they detect the wingbeat of a snail-shell bee. Evolution, as usual, favours the efficient.This isn’t some niche botanical footnote. It’s a glimpse into the intricate acoustic dialogue between plants and pollinators, a finely-tuned system developed over millions of years. Plants don’t just rely on scent and colour; they 'listen' for the right pollinators and reward them. The fidelity of these relationships is so precise that even the gene expression of a flower can change depending on who’s buzzing nearby.But while flowers are tuning themselves to the needs of pollinators, humans are stealing what they’re offering.Bees don’t make honey for humans. They make it for themselves, to survive the winter, to feed their colony, to live. Commercial beekeeping rips that resource away and replaces it with sugar water. And while we’re told this is harmless, the science says otherwise: sugar lacks the micronutrients, enzymes, and antimicrobial properties of honey.Worse still, commercial beekeeping isn’t just theft, it’s sabotage. Wild pollinators, like bumblebees and solitary bees, are far more effective pollinators than honeybees. Yet they’re being edged out by managed hives that compete for food, spread disease, and dominate ecosystems that once supported thousands of diverse pollinating species.There are over 20,000 species of bees. Only one is farmed for honey. And that one is helping to wipe out the rest.In this collapsing system, even flowers are changing. Some are becoming less generous, evolving to self-fertilise, shrinking in size, producing less nectar, or producing none at all. As pollinators vanish from landscapes poisoned by herbicides like dicamba, flowers are giving up on the whole deal. The result? Weaker ecosystems. And a feedback loop of decline.Even the plants that do keep producing nectar aren’t always being truthful. Some trick pollinators into showing up with promises of sugar they never intend to deliver. Floral honesty is partly genetic, and evolution is now selecting for cheats. It’s a botanical arms race where everyone’s just trying to survive, because the humans made it hell.Want to know how much damage one puff of herbicide can do? Just ask the milkweed at the edge of a field. A single exposure to dicamba at 1% concentration can warp plant growth, delay flowering, and repel pollinators altogether. That means fewer bees, fewer flowers, and fewer seeds.And what’s it all for? To protect crops destined to feed livestock.The irony is thick: we destroy wildflower meadows to grow monocultures for animals we’ll kill, and in doing so, wipe out the pollinators that keep the entire food web functioning.Some people still cling to the delusion that eating honey somehow helps bees. That’s like saying buying ivory helps elephants. It’s exploitation dressed as environmentalism.Honey production reduces genetic diversity through selective breeding, contributes to wild pollinator decline, and turns sentient, problem-solving animals into machines. It’s not just about food, it’s about control, commodification, and disposability. Bees are drugged, artificially inseminated, clipped, and culled.If we genuinely want to help pollinators, the solution is simple: stop stealing from them. Let bees keep their honey. Let fields keep their weeds.Instead of exploiting bees, we could be supporting them:🌸 Grow native, pesticide-free flowers.🌸 Protect wild spaces.🌸 Avoid herbicides that drift like second-hand smoke through ecosystems.🌸 Reject the farming systems that treat animals as units and pollinators as tools.🌸 Choose sweeteners that don’t cost someone else their freedom. Plant-pollinator coevolution is one of the most beautiful collaborations in nature. But it’s being unravelled by a species too entitled to see itself as the problem.Be vegan. For the bees. For the flowers. For the world they built together.

Plants Whisper to Pollinators. We Drown Them in Pesticides

Justice movements have long fought to dismantle systems of oppression. Feminist, anti-racist, LGBTQ+, anti-colonial, and disability rights activists have demanded recognition, respect, and rights for those marginalised by dominant power structures. Yet there remains a glaring, often wilfully ignored omission in these conversations: the rights of non-human animals. While many activists call for justice for "all," this call routinely excludes the billions of non-human individuals commodified, confined, and killed each year. Their absence from the broader family of justice movements is not accidental; it reflects a deep-rooted supremacist mindset in which the treatment of other animals is not only accepted but normalised and used as the very benchmark of domination. 1. Human Supremacy: The Root of ExclusionAt the core of the exclusion of animals from justice movements lies human supremacy: the belief that humans are inherently more valuable than all other species. This ideology mirrors white supremacy, patriarchy, ableism, and other forms of hierarchical thinking. Human supremacy doesn't merely justify the use of animals; it makes their exploitation invisible. It establishes a world in which it is normal for cows to be forcibly impregnated, pigs to be mutilated without anaesthetic, and chickens to be confined by the thousands in dark sheds - all for fleeting human pleasure.This supremacy isn't just about exploitation; it's about erasure. Non-human animals are so thoroughly commodified that we do not see them as individuals at all. They are reduced to units: kilograms of meat, litres of milk, dozens of eggs, metres of leather. They are denied their identities, families, preferences, fears, and desires. They are things, not persons. 2. The Benchmark of Oppression: "Being Treated Like an Animal"The phrase "treated like an animal" is synonymous with degradation, humiliation, and suffering. To compare a human to an animal is to strip them of dignity, worth, and rights. This linguistic norm reveals a profound truth: the treatment of animals has become the baseline for what is unacceptable, even inhumane, treatment of humans.We see this in the comparisons drawn between slavery and factory farming, between concentration camps and slaughterhouses, between cages used for political prisoners and cages used for hens. These comparisons are not meant to diminish human suffering but to illuminate the severity of non-human suffering and the social acceptance of it. Yet making such comparisons often provokes outrage, not because the parallels are invalid, but because they force us to confront the discomforting truth that we allow a level of violence towards animals that would be unthinkable if directed at humans.To be treated like an animal is to be dismissed, ignored, and brutalised without consequence. This standard of oppression becomes a yardstick by which all other suffering is measured. And yet, rather than interrogate that standard, most justice movements simply accept it. 3. The Problem with Hierarchies of SufferingOne of the most persistent myths in justice discourse is that suffering must be prioritised. This myth insists that human struggles are too urgent to make space for non-human issues. But oppression is not a zero-sum game. Liberation is not a queue.This mindset of prioritisation often masks a deeper discomfort: the refusal to acknowledge one’s own complicity. Many who rail against systemic injustice still participate daily in the systematic exploitation of animals through food, fashion, entertainment, and more. To accept animal rights as a legitimate justice issue is to confront one's own habits and privileges.The belief that animal rights are a "distraction" or "less important" than human rights also assumes that the two are separate. They are not. The logic that justifies enslaving a cow because she cannot resist, or killing a pig because he is considered property, is the same logic that has been used to justify slavery, colonisation, and patriarchal control: might makes right. 4. The Commodification of Life: Animals as ProductsNon-human animals are not merely oppressed; they are transformed. Their bodies are not just controlled but converted into products. They become sandwiches, handbags, cosmetics, entertainment, and experiments. Their very existence is redefined by human use.This is the most extreme form of objectification: to be killed, dismembered, and sold in parts. To have your reproductive system used for profit. To be bred into existence for a single purpose, with no chance of freedom, autonomy, or even survival.Injustice movements often speak about exploitation, coercion, bodily autonomy, and consent. Yet they overlook the billions of sentient beings who have no say in whether they are born, kept alive, or killed. Animals are denied even the most basic right to exist for their own sake. Their value is defined solely by how useful they are to humans. 5. Intersections Denied: The Failings of Inclusive ActivismIntersectionality, as coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, was meant to recognise the overlapping systems of oppression faced by individuals. Today, the term is often invoked as a buzzword, yet animals are rarely included in these intersections.This is a glaring failure. The industries that exploit animals are often the same ones that exploit marginalised humans. Slaughterhouse work is disproportionately done by undocumented migrants, people of colour, and the economically disadvantaged. Communities near factory farms face polluted water, noxious air, and increased disease. Animal exploitation is inextricable from environmental racism and labour injustice.Including animals in justice movements does not weaken the fight for human rights; it strengthens it. It makes our ethical stance consistent. It expands our circle of concern. Yet many refuse this expansion, clinging to the idea that speaking for animals somehow detracts from speaking for humans. In reality, the two are bound together. 6. Veganism as a Justice MovementToo often, veganism is framed as a diet or lifestyle choice. But at its core, veganism is a political stance: a rejection of the idea that animals exist for human use. It is a commitment to the principle that beings should not be bred, used, and killed against their will.When people ridicule or dismiss vegan advocacy as "militant" or "preachy," they are reacting not to tone but to content. They are uncomfortable being reminded that their comfort comes at the cost of another’s suffering. Just like those who once mocked abolitionists, suffragettes, or civil rights activists, they resist change by discrediting the messenger.Veganism, as part of the animal justice movement, is not separate from human rights, it is a natural extension of it. It asks us to reject all forms of domination, to stop ranking lives by usefulness, species, or sentience. It calls for a world where no one is owned, bred, caged, or killed for someone else’s convenience. 7. The Fragility of Human IdentityPart of the resistance to animal rights lies in the fragility of human identity. Many fear that by granting moral consideration to non-human animals, we blur the lines between "us" and "them." This fear is rooted in a need to feel exceptional. To be human, we are taught, is to be above.This exceptionalism allows humans to commit atrocities while feeling morally upright. It allows us to weep over a dog while eating a pig. To fight for reproductive rights while stealing calves from their mothers. To speak of justice while paying for slaughter.But this identity is built on a lie. Humans are animals. Sentience does not begin or end with our species. Morality does not require opposable thumbs. And justice does not stop at the edge of humanity. 8. The Silence of the MainstreamMainstream justice organisations often avoid animal rights altogether. They fear controversy, backlash, or dilution of their "core message." But what is a justice movement if it refuses to acknowledge injustice?Justice cannot be partial. It cannot be comfortable. And it certainly cannot be silent.The exclusion of animal rights from mainstream justice movements is not neutral, it is a political decision that reinforces the status quo. It says: some lives matter more. It says: these beings are beneath consideration. It says: you can care about oppression, just not this one. 9. Toward a Truly Inclusive Justice EthicWhat would it mean to take animal rights seriously within justice movements?It would mean acknowledging that supremacy is not limited to race, gender, or class, it extends to species. It would mean refusing to consume products of violence, no matter who the victim is. It would mean expanding our moral circle to include all sentient beings, not just the ones who look like us.It would mean standing against commodification in all its forms, whether it’s a trafficked human body or a calf torn from her mother to produce dairy.It would mean living by the principle that no one, human or non-human, should be used as a means to someone else’s end. Animal rights have long been excluded from the wider family of justice movements, not because they are unworthy, but because their inclusion would require a radical rethinking of power, privilege, and identity.To acknowledge the injustice done to animals is to confront the foundation of human supremacy. It is to question the sandwiches and shoes, the leather and milk, the cages and collars. It is to reject the idea that anyone exists for someone else’s gain.Until justice movements include the voiceless, the powerless, the commodified billions slaughtered each year, they are incomplete. Real justice has no species limit.Because if being treated like an animal means being used, ignored, or destroyed, then we must create a world where being treated like an animal means receiving the basic considerations we would all expect.

The Unspoken Exclusion: Animal Rights & Intersectionality

Scroll through TikTok for 30 seconds and you’ll find a reel of pastel-coloured pens, hay racks styled like spa shelves, and a bunny doing zoomies across someone’s minimalist living room. It’s cute. It’s calm. It’s curated. What it’s not is honest.Because behind every “aesthetic bunny setup” is an animal who has been misunderstood, mishandled, or eventually discarded by someone who mistook them for a decoration with ears. And what those videos never show is the aftermath: the chewed wires, the medical emergencies, the discarded individuals in cardboard boxes outside rescue centres.The problem isn’t rabbits. It’s us.And it starts with one toxic idea: that rabbits belong in our homes.Rabbits aren’t toys, accessories, starter animals, or low-maintenance companions. They are prey animals. Complex, emotional, intelligent prey animals. And the fact they’re still treated like children’s throwaway entertainment in pet shops and Easter photoshoots is disgraceful.Most people have no clue what they’re doing when they bring one home. They buy a cage, a bag of nuggets, maybe a novelty tunnel, and assume that’s enough. It isn’t. It never has been.They didn’t ask to be commodified. They didn’t ask to be locked up. They didn’t ask to be owned.But the industry sold you a myth. And the TikToks sold you a fantasy.The endless stream of bunny content is a big part of the problem. Those fluffy, clean, carrot-nibbling angels in mood-lit enclosures? They’re snapshots.They don’t show:🐰 The hundreds of droppings left behind every single day.🐰 The half-eaten skirting boards and £80 vet bill for gut stasis.🐰 The depression and lethargy when a solitary rabbit is kept alone.🐰 The fact that most rabbits don’t want to be picked up, cuddled, or dressed up for a ‘cute’ video. What they do show is an idealised version of rabbit guardianship packaged like a lifestyle trend. And people fall for it. Every day.The result? Rescues overflow. Abandonment rates spike after Easter. And yet again, the rabbit is blamed for not being what the human wanted.This is not hypothetical. This happens constantly.We took in two rabbits, Neo and Treacle, who had been dumped in a box outside a pet shop. Someone decided they were “too much trouble” and just walked away. That’s how disposable rabbits are to some people.So we brought them home. And of course we fell in love. We made space to accommodate them. We watched them learn to trust humans again, watched their bond with each other deepen, and saw their unique personalities come through. Treacle, the gentle giant. Neo, the bold explorer who thinks nothing is off-limits, NOTHING!They’ve chewed fixtures, sabotaged furniture, torn apart carefully laid plans, and found ingenious new ways to access places they’re not supposed to go. We’ve adjusted everything again and again. And we do it gladly. Because they’re not a problem to be solved. They’re family now.But here’s the thing: even loving them deeply doesn’t make them easy. And they never should have been dumped. But they’re just two of thousands who are.So let’s get into it. Here’s what you’re actually signing up for:You need (at least) two - Rabbits are social animals. Alone, they wither. But bonding is complicated, time-consuming, and sometimes unsuccessful. You’re not getting one animal, you’re getting a bonded pair, or you’re failing them from day one.They need space. Not a hutch. Not a cage. No corner of a child’s bedroom. Rabbits need space to run, dig, binky, stretch, and rest. That means either a free-roam home or a room-sized enclosure. Not a “3-tier hutch with ramps.” That’s not the freedom they need.They need stimulation Bored rabbits are destructive rabbits. And they’re not “naughty”, they’re doing what any intelligent being does when confined and unstimulated. They’ll chew, dig, and rearrange your life if you don’t provide enrichment, activities, and time.They poop constantly. Yes, they can be litter trained. No, it doesn’t stop the scattered droppings. It’s a form of communication. If a handful of tiny poops on your carpet horrifies you, you’re not ready for rabbits.They will destroy your things. Wires. Rugs. Doors. Plaster. Clothes. Books. Plants. Corners of rooms you didn’t even know they could reach. Rabbits chew. Bunny-proofing your home isn’t optional. It’s the only way to survive.They’re not cheap. They’re classed as exotics. That means fewer competent vets, higher prices, and more complicated care. You’ll need to spay/neuter, vaccinate, monitor their teeth, and keep an eye out for the infamous gut stasis, which can kill in hours. No warning. Just silence and a rabbit that stops eating.They live a long time. 10 to 12 years. Sometimes more. That’s not a “short-term commitment.” That’s longer than most people stay in the same relationship. If you’re not planning a decade ahead, don’t bring them home at all. Why so many end up abandoned. The same story plays out over and over again.“We didn’t realise how much work they are.”“Our child lost interest.”“We don’t have time.”“They smell.”“We’re moving.”“They weren’t friendly.”Translation: We bought a living being without bothering to learn who they are.And so the rabbit, confused, displaced, traumatised, ends up at a shelter, on a classified site, or worse, in a bin or field. Abandoned for being exactly who they are.If you’re still reading, good.This isn’t a lecture. It’s a warning. Don’t bring rabbits into your home unless you are prepared to completely reshape your idea of what a companion animal is. They’re not here to please you. They don’t owe you cuddles. They don’t come “pre-socialised.” They are individuals. They need space, freedom, patience, understanding, and commitment. Most humans aren’t ready for that. And the animals suffer because of it.So what should you do?Don’t buy from breeders or pet shops. Ever.Don’t get rabbits “for the kids.” Rabbits aren’t for children.Don’t trust the TikTok. Ask rescues, not influencers.Adopt if you’re sure, but know what you're taking on.Support rabbit rescues. Share, donate, foster, volunteer.Rabbits aren’t bad companions. They’re brilliant, funny, expressive, curious, stubborn, gentle, chaotic beings. Neo and Treacle remind us of that. Every day with them is work, and every day is worth it to give them the life they deserve.But for people looking for convenience over commitment? You’re not right for them.Rabbits deserve more than a hutch. More than a trend. More than being discarded because someone got bored.If you can’t give them the life they need, don’t bother. Let the rabbits be rabbits. Not projects. Not props. Not purchases.

Don’t Get a Rabbit Unless You’re Ready to Be Outwitted by One

Another meat-apologist headline is doing the rounds, this time from <a data-mce-href="https://www.earth.com/news/meat-consumption-drove-an-evolutionary-leap-in-early-humans/" href="https://www.earth.com/news/meat-consumption-drove-an-evolutionary-leap-in-early-humans/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Earth.com</a>, claiming that early humans took a "giant evolutionary leap" when they started eating meat. The article clings to a <a data-mce-href="https://www.cell.com/cell-genomics/fulltext/S2666-979X(25)00111-9" href="https://www.cell.com/cell-genomics/fulltext/S2666-979X(25)00111-9" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">new study</a> like it's proof that burgers built civilisation. But if you actually read the research, it's clear this isn't science, it's storytelling.Here’s what the study actually found: a genetic variant (rs34590044-A) that boosts expression of the ACSF3 gene, which helps cells process certain amino acids, particularly threonine. This can increase basal metabolic rate (BMR) and potentially contribute to greater height. Mice with the variant grew longer and used more energy, especially on high-threonine diets. That’s it.Nowhere do the researchers claim that meat made humans smart, tall, or socially advanced. In fact, the variant predates modern humans, it arose about 653,000 years ago, before Homo sapiens even existed. What the study suggests is that this gene might’ve helped humans make better metabolic use of certain nutrients, nutrients which exist in both animal and plant sources.Threonine isn’t some meat-exclusive miracle. It’s also found in soy, lentils, peas, quinoa, sunflower seeds, and leafy greens. So the idea that this gene is evidence we evolved to eat meat is about as sound as claiming we evolved to eat tofu.But Earth.com turns this into an evolutionary fairytale. They conjure up a world where meat swept across the globe, carrying tall, energetic humans with it. They point to ancient meat-eating cultures like the Yamnaya as if meat was the sole reason they thrived, ignoring the complex web of social, environmental, and nutritional factors that affect human development. And they conveniently forget that plenty of high-meat cultures had low average height, poor health, and short lifespans.This is classic reverse logic: We’re tall and smart, meat is calorically dense, therefore meat did it. Reality:1. Bipedalism and reduced gut length precede heavy meat consumption and may have been driven by cooking or foraging efficiency.2. Brain expansion aligns more with access to carbohydrates, especially cooked starches (see Richard Wrangham’s cooking hypothypothesis.3. Jaw reduction relates more to food processing, not meat — people eating grains have smaller molars too.4. Longevity and social cohesion are social and environmental developments, not meat-based miracles. Giving mice a human gene variant and a diet high in one amino acid proves only that the gene interacts with that nutrient in energy metabolism and growth. It doesn't prove humans evolved to eat meat or require it now. In fact, this kind of logic would also support the consumption of fortified cereals or legumes, if they showed similar results in trials. Nutrient availability isn't unique to meat.Finding one gene that works better in the presence of certain nutrients doesn’t mean thar those sources are ethically acceptable to produce and consume today.So why the hype?Because this research is being spun by a meat-normalising, clickbait-driven outlet. It cherry-picks one interesting genetic discovery and layers on an evolutionary narrative that supports the idea humans are meant to eat animals.This is how scientific nuance gets weaponised to maintain the status quo. And it’s precisely why animal exploitation continues unchecked — we keep pretending our choices are baked into our biology, even when we know they’re cultural, optional, and entirely changeable.Yes, the study is interesting. It adds to our understanding of how genes and diet interact. But it doesn’t vindicate meat. It doesn’t excuse factory farms. It doesn’t justify turning sentient lives into property just because of one gene.Humans have always been opportunistic eaters. That’s our evolutionary superpower—flexibility, not flesh. Our closest relatives get along just fine on mostly plants. And in today’s world, we certainly don’t need flesh to grow, think, move, or thrive.A gene that works efficiently with a nutrient is not a moral permission slip. The fact that a mouse burns more energy on a high-threonine diet doesn’t mean we’re destined to eat animals. It doesn’t mean it’s ethical, sustainable, or just.Let’s stop rewriting history to excuse present-day violence.Meat didn’t make us. If anything will define the next leap in human evolution, it’ll be learning to stop exploiting others just because we can.&nbsp;

Tall Tales: Earth.com Serves Evolutionary Clickbait

Once hailed as the working-class night out, greyhound racing in the UK has become a national disgrace. What was once passed off as entertainment is now undeniably exposed for what it is: a cycle of commodification, exploitation, and disposal. The greyhound industry doesn’t just “use” animals, it chews them up and spits them out.Between 2018 and 2023, over 26,000 injuries were reported and more than 2,700 greyhounds died. In 2023 alone, 109 greyhounds were killed on the track. These are not numbers from some unregulated underground ring, these are deaths from the regulated industry, overseen by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB). And that doesn’t even account for those who vanish off the books.They call it a sport. But it’s only ever the greyhounds who risk their lives.Around 6,000 greyhounds “retire” from racing each year, if they make it that far. Some are lucky enough to be rehomed. Many are not. Unfit for racing? You’re surplus. Unprofitable? You're gone. The industry breeds more than it can rehome and treats life as a numbers game.Every greyhound born is a product stamped with an expiry date.These dogs are forced to run at speeds of 40mph around tight bends, of course they get hurt. Fractures, head trauma, internal bleeding. Many don’t survive. Even more are killed after the race if treating them is deemed too expensive. Because when an animal is property, their life comes with a price tag.Regulations have done nothing to stop this. The GBGB’s “welfare commitment” is a joke, one they’ve been telling for decades while dogs continue to die under their watch. Independent tracks (the “flappers”) are even worse: no central oversight, no accountability, no transparency. The industry can’t be reformed. It needs to end.No one would accept this for cats or dogs in any other context. But slap on the label of “racing greyhound,” and the public looks the other way. Because they’re seen as resources, not individuals. This is the mindset that allows industries like this to continue. This is the mindset that needs dismantling.Wales has committed to ending greyhound racing. Scotland is considering it. So why is England still green-lighting greyhound deaths every weekend?Because profit talks louder than lives. Let’s change that.👉 <a data-mce-href="https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/709005" href="https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/709005" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">Sign the petition to ban greyhound racing in the UK</a>Don’t wait for more deaths to make it palatable. Don’t wait for more excuses.Sign it. Share it. Help abolish it.

Herbivore Club

ARTICLES

The Badger Cull: Killing Badgers for a Cattle Problem

Plants Whisper to Pollinators. We Drown Them in Pesticides

The Unspoken Exclusion: Animal Rights & Intersectionality

Don’t Get a Rabbit Unless You’re Ready to Be Outwitted by...

Tall Tales: Earth.com Serves Evolutionary Clickbait

Greyhound Racing: Britain's Shame