Blog

A <a data-mce-href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/14/rats-strangled-in-part-government-funded-australian-domestic-violence-study-ntwnfb" href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/14/rats-strangled-in-part-government-funded-australian-domestic-violence-study-ntwnfb" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> that strangled rats to simulate domestic violence injuries should never have been approved. But it was. Just like countless other experiments where animals are used as disposable tools, despite the existence of superior, human-relevant alternatives. Strangling Rats in the Name of ScienceAn Australian-led study subjected adolescent female rats to 90 seconds of non-fatal strangulation using a silicon band weighed down by 680g - three times their body weight. Others were subjected to traumatic brain injuries inflicted by a high-speed projectile to the head. Some endured both. Anaesthetic was given before the procedures, but painkillers only after. If that sounds barbaric, it’s because it is.The rats were then subjected to a series of tests, forced to walk and perform memory tasks just minutes after their injuries. And then, predictably, they were killed.The study, backed by Monash University and Alfred Health, aimed to improve detection of brain injuries in survivors of intimate partner violence. The justification? The supposed lack of a human-relevant alternative. The reality? The biomarkers of brain trauma are already established in humans, making these animal-based replications redundant.Despite securing $1.9 million in funding from the Australian government, the study’s ethics approval process remains opaque. No documents were made public. No explanation was given for why this research was necessary when we already have clinical trials, neuroimaging, computational models, and organoid studies that do not involve suffocating rats in the name of progress. The Deep-Rooted Issue: Speciesism and PowerWhy does this continue? Because animal testing is rooted in speciesism - the belief that humans are entitled to exploit other animals for their own ends.<a data-mce-href="https://faunalytics.org/why-men-support-animal-experimentation-more-than-women/" href="https://faunalytics.org/why-men-support-animal-experimentation-more-than-women/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Research shows</a> that men are more likely to support animal experimentation than women, a trend that dates back to the 19th century when anti-vivisection movements began. The reason? Lower empathy, a higher tendency for social dominance, and an ingrained belief in human superiority over other species. Men, statistically speaking, are more likely to engage in other forms of animal exploitation too - eating animal flesh, hunting, supporting bullfighting. Animal testing is just another manifestation of the same mindset that views animals as resources rather than individuals.A recent study of over 1,000 participants confirmed what other research has long shown: the more empathetic a person is, the less likely they are to support animal experimentation. The more they subscribe to the idea that humans have the right to dominate others, the more likely they are to endorse it.And yet, despite overwhelming evidence that animal testing is ineffective and unnecessary, it persists - largely defended by those who stand to gain from maintaining the status quo. The Myth of Ethical ApprovalThe existence of ethics committees does not make animal experiments ethical. Research institutions claim that every project undergoes a "rigorous" approval process. But what does that really mean? It means a handful of people - some of whom are directly involved in the research - decide whether an experiment is "justified" based on a cost-benefit analysis that never considers the interests of the animals being used.In the case of the rat strangulation study, approval was granted because the committee determined the suffering inflicted was outweighed by the supposed benefits. But those benefits are theoretical at best, while the suffering was very real. No member of the public got a say in whether this was acceptable. No transparency exists in these processes. The assumption that these animals' lives are worth sacrificing remains unchallenged within these institutions.The Way Forward: Abolishing Animal ExperimentationThe world is moving away from animal testing. Human-relevant research is advancing rapidly, but some countries lag behind, continuing to pour funding into outdated methods instead of investing in progressive, cruelty-free science.For animal advocates, the path forward is clear: dismantle the belief systems that uphold these practices. Arguments about cruelty alone don’t always resonate - especially with those who justify animal experimentation as a necessary evil. Instead, exposing its inefficiency and lack of scientific validity is a powerful tool. Speciesism, like other forms of supremacy, is learned. Targeting children with education about animals as individuals, <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/How-Language-Justifies-Animal-Testing-Y8Y01A4U21" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/How-Language-Justifies-Animal-Testing-Y8Y01A4U21" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">not as test subjects</a>, could be key to shifting attitudes in the long term.The rat strangulation study is not an isolated incident. It’s part of a broader system that continues to sacrifice animals despite better alternatives. Until speciesism is dismantled, experiments like this will keep happening, with animals suffering in silence behind closed lab doors.

Animal Testing: Unethical, Unjustifiable, and Endlessly Repeated

<h3>The Guardian <a data-mce-href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/15/wwf-helping-facilitate-trade-in-polar-bear-fur-investigation-reveals" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/15/wwf-helping-facilitate-trade-in-polar-bear-fur-investigation-reveals" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reports</a> that The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) loves using images of polar bears to pull in donations. What they don’t advertise is that behind the scenes, they’re supporting the commercial trade of polar bear fur - the very industry killing these animals for profit.</h3><h3> Polar Bears Are in Trouble - And WWF Knows It</h3><h3>Polar bears are fighting for survival. The Arctic ice they depend on is disappearing, forcing them to travel longer distances to find food, leading to declining health, fewer cubs, and earlier deaths. Despite their endangered status, Canada continues to allow polar bear hunting, making it the only country in the world still selling their skins. Up to 400 pelts are exported each year, mainly to China, where a single skin sells for around $60,000. WWF is fully aware of this, and they’ve actively worked against banning this blood trade.</h3><h3> WWF’s Double Game: Conservation or Exploitation?</h3><h3>WWF publicly claims to support conservation but behind closed doors, they advocate for “sustainable use” policies. Their position? That killing a “manageable” number of animals - whether for fur, trophies, or ivory - somehow benefits the species overall. This is the same argument used to justify elephant hunting, rhino horn sales, and now, the slaughter of polar bears.</h3><h3>At international wildlife trade meetings (CITES), WWF has consistently lobbied against full protection for polar bears. When the US and Russia proposed a ban on the commercial trade in 2010 and 2013, WWF urged countries to vote against it, claiming that the bears hadn’t yet met the necessary criteria. Their stance remains unchanged - at a 2022 CITES meeting, a WWF spokesperson confirmed they still wouldn’t push for stronger protections.</h3><h3> Hiding Behind Indigenous Rights While Ignoring Indigenous Voices</h3><h3>WWF claims that banning the trade would harm Indigenous communities. But not all Indigenous voices agree. Robert Thompson, an Iñupiat polar bear guide, pointed out that his people survived for thousands of years without selling polar bear parts. Instead of killing, he suggests sustainable ecotourism as a better way to generate income while keeping polar bears alive.</h3><h3>This argument from WWF is selective at best. When Indigenous groups oppose industries that harm wildlife, WWF is often silent. But when they need a justification for supporting animal exploitation, Indigenous rights suddenly become convenient talking points.</h3><h3> A Pattern of Betrayal</h3><h3>WWF’s stance on polar bears is not an isolated case. They have also opposed stronger protections for elephants, rhinos, giraffes, and hippos. In 2022, they successfully lobbied to downgrade Namibia’s white rhino population from the highest level of protection, making it easier to trade their body parts. While most conservation groups fight to protect animals, WWF uses its influence to ensure their continued commodification.</h3><h3> The Public Deserves the Truth</h3><h3>People donate to WWF believing they are helping animals, not funding an organisation that works to keep them legally killable. A former WWF director admitted that the organisation wields enormous influence - enough to shape global policies. But if the public knew that WWF’s version of conservation includes endorsing fur sales and trophy hunting, their support might not last.</h3><h3>WWF denies lobbying for the polar bear fur trade, claiming that they only oppose “unsustainable” hunting. But actions speak louder than words. If WWF truly cared about these animals, they would fight to stop the trade entirely - not make excuses for its continuation.</h3><h3>Polar bears are running out of time. WWF’s policies aren’t saving them - they’re selling them.</h3>

WWF: Profiting Off Polar Bears While They Disappear

<a data-mce-href="https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2025-02-18/greyhound-racing-to-be-banned-in-wales" href="https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2025-02-18/greyhound-racing-to-be-banned-in-wales" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">Greyhound racing is over in Wales</a>. The country has become the first in the UK to outlaw the industry, following mounting pressure from campaigners who have long condemned it as exploitative and cruel.The ban follows a petition that gathered over 35,000 signatures and a government consultation in which two-thirds of respondents supported a phased ban. Deputy First Minister Huw Irranca-Davies announced the decision in the Senedd, stating:“I believe that now is the right time to move to ban greyhound racing in Wales. I want a ban to come into force as soon as practicably possible.”The government will establish an Implementation Group to manage the transition, ensuring that dogs currently in the industry are protected. Why the Ban? 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿Supporters of the ban cite serious welfare concerns, including injuries, overbreeding, and the routine killing of dogs who are no longer profitable. Greyhound racing has been widely condemned by animal advocacy groups, with Dogs Trust stating:“Greyhound racing is inherently dangerous for the dogs involved, and running at speed around oval tracks causes significant injury to many dogs. In some cases, the injuries are so severe that euthanasia is necessary.”The industry’s defenders argue that the ban will hurt the economy and could set a precedent for outlawing other animal sports like horse racing (YAY). But public opinion is clear - this is a step forward. A Global Trend 🌍&nbsp;Wales joins a growing list of regions rejecting greyhound racing. New Zealand (Aotearoa) announced a ban last December, which will take full effect by August 2026. Other countries have already turned their backs on the industry, recognising it for what it is - exploitation dressed up as entertainment.The question now is: when will the rest of the UK follow? Herbivore Club submitted a petition request to the UK wide government last month and it has yet to be approved for signatures.

Wales Bans Greyhound Racing – The First UK Nation to Do So

Buying a tin of tuna? You might be supporting forced labour.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a data-mce-href="https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/71744/us-tuna-cans-linked-to-reports-of-forced-labour-of-indonesian-fishers-greenpeace-southeast-asia-report/?_ga=2.230804123.548980893.1738954510-923657866.1738954502" href="https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/71744/us-tuna-cans-linked-to-reports-of-forced-labour-of-indonesian-fishers-greenpeace-southeast-asia-report/?_ga=2.230804123.548980893.1738954510-923657866.1738954502" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A new report</a> by Greenpeace Southeast Asia and the Indonesian Migrant Workers Union links Bumble Bee canned tuna to fishing vessels accused of exploiting workers. Between 2019 and 2024, 10 Indonesian fishers filed complaints about 12 Taiwanese-flagged ships. Four of those vessels supplied tuna to Bumble Bee - one of the biggest seafood brands in the U.S.What does that mean? Workers catching the tuna in those cans have reported brutal conditions, deception, and even debt bondage. One fisher described working until he fainted - multiple times. Neither Bumble Bee nor the vessel operators have responded to the allegations.What’s happening on these fishing boats?&nbsp;&nbsp;- Deception and entrapment – Workers were lied to about pay and had their identity documents taken, making it nearly impossible to escape.- Debt bondage – Over 90% of migrant fishers reported being trapped in a cycle of debt and exploitation.- Illegal fishing – Half of the vessels were linked to illegal activities like shark finning, fishing in protected areas, and secret transfers at sea.It’s not just about workers - it’s about the whole industry.&nbsp;&nbsp;The fishing industry isn’t just a disaster for marine life. It’s built on exploitation - of fish, humans, and the oceans themselves. Reports of forced labor, trafficking, and inhumane working conditions are common, especially for migrant workers. And let’s not forget the environmental cost: collapsing fish populations, habitat destruction, and species being pushed to the brink.&nbsp;&nbsp;The solution? Stop funding this mess. Plant-based alternatives exist. The oceans don’t need to be emptied, and no one should suffer - human or nonhuman - for a sandwich.

Canned Tuna and Forced Labour

Labour’s pre-election pledge to ban foie gras imports is already <a data-mce-href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/13/ministers-stay-silent-on-pledge-to-ban-foie-gras-as-eu-talks-approach" href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/13/ministers-stay-silent-on-pledge-to-ban-foie-gras-as-eu-talks-approach" target="_blank" rel="noopener">crumbling</a>. Ministers refuse to comment, dodging questions about whether Brexit negotiations with the EU will derail the ban before it even happens. Meanwhile, millions of ducks and geese continue to be force-fed in industrial torture chambers for a product that would be illegal to produce in the UK. A Ban Britain Won’t Commit ToThe UK has banned foie gras production for nearly 20 years, but still imports tonnes of the stuff every year - because, apparently, British values stop at the border. The current government had promised to end this double standard. Before the election, Environment Secretary Steve Reed said Labour would “ban the commercial import of foie gras, where ducks and geese are aggressively force-fed.” That was less than a year ago. Now? Silence.The problem? A looming veterinary agreement with the EU, aimed at reducing border checks and boosting economic growth. The deal would likely mean recognising EU production standards, making it difficult, if not impossible, to ban foie gras imports. If Labour goes ahead with the ban, it risks trade friction with France, the biggest foie gras producer in the world. The government’s non-response speaks volumes: this promise is on the chopping block. What Is Foie Gras and Why Is It Banned?Foie gras, French for “fat liver,” is made by force-feeding ducks and geese until their livers swell to up to ten times their normal size. This process, known as gavage, involves shoving metal tubes down the birds’ throats and pumping massive amounts of food directly into their stomachs multiple times a day. Their engorged livers press against other organs, making it hard for them to stand or even breathe. Many birds collapse under their own weight.In some cases, the feeding pipes leave holes in their throats. Many birds are left coated in their own vomit and waste, barely able to move. And it’s not just those force-fed who suffer - female ducklings, considered useless to the industry, are tossed alive into electric mincers or grinders within days of hatching.This level of brutality is illegal in the UK. But we import it anyway. The Public Wants It Gone - But Will Labour Listen?Polling suggests most UK voters want foie gras imports banned. A Humane World for Animals survey found that <a data-mce-href="https://www.humaneworld.org/en/news/over-three-quarters-77-uk-voters-want-see-government-ban-fur-imports" href="https://www.humaneworld.org/en/news/over-three-quarters-77-uk-voters-want-see-government-ban-fur-imports" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">77% of people</a> oppose importing products from animals subjected to practices that are already banned here. Yet despite this clear opposition, foie gras continues to be served in high-end restaurants and sold by upmarket stores.Animal rights groups, including Animal Equality UK and Animal Policy International, have warned that failing to uphold the promised ban would be a betrayal. An Industry in Decline - But Not Fast EnoughWhile some chefs and retailers have ditched foie gras, many continue to profit from this grotesque trade. Gordon Ramsay still serves it. Harrods and Fortnum &amp; Mason still sell it. Even eBay, one of the largest online marketplaces, allows its sale. Meanwhile, California has banned foie gras entirely, and countries like Germany, Denmark, and Italy have introduced laws against its production.Vegan alternatives - like Gourmey’s cultivated foie gras and plant-based versions from top chefs - prove that force-feeding is unnecessary. Michelin-starred chef Alexis Gauthier has created a decadent faux gras that removes the cruelty while keeping the flavour. But as long as the UK government stalls, the suffering continues. Time to Hold Labour AccountableFoie gras imports betray British values of compassion. The UK refuses to produce it for ethical reasons - so why is it fine to fund this industry abroad? The government must keep its promise and end foie gras imports once and for all. If it won’t act, we must. What You Can Do:🔹 Contact MPs and demand they support the ban.&nbsp;&nbsp;🔹 Call out restaurants and retailers that still sell foie gras.&nbsp;&nbsp;🔹 Support campaigns pushing for a foie gras-free Britain.&nbsp;&nbsp;🔹 Go vegan, because foie gras isn’t the only product of animal exploitation. Labour said it would ban foie gras. Now they’re backtracking. Let them know we haven’t forgotten.

Foie Gras: Diseased Livers and Broken Promises

The NHS claims to be moving towards sustainability, but hospital menus tell a different story. A new study by Plant-Based Health Professionals UK (PBHP UK) found that most NHS hospitals are failing to align their food offerings with their own net-zero commitments. Sustainability? Not on the MenuThe <a data-mce-href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jhn.70019" href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jhn.70019" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">study</a>, published in the Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, analysed 36 NHS hospitals and their sustainability plans, grading them on the availability of plant-based options versus meat-heavy meals. The findings? Grim.&nbsp;▫️ Processed meat, a known carcinogen, was present on every single hospital menu.▫️Less than half of NHS Trusts had any strategy to increase plant-based food.▫️ Climate-wrecking meats like beef, lamb, and goat remained menu staples.All this, despite the NHS serving 140 million patient meals annually and pledging to reach net-zero by 2045.&nbsp; The Problem: Meat-Dominated MenusOf the hospitals studied, 42% had zero fully plant-based dinner options, while half offered no plant-based lunch choices. Most hospitals made no effort to nudge patients towards sustainable food choices.&nbsp;Interestingly, hospitals that outsourced catering performed better in sustainability than those running their own kitchens. So why is the NHS lagging behind on a problem they could be leading on? Public Support Is There – Where’s the Action?A 2024 survey of 2,000 UK residents found that over a third supported adding more sustainable plant-based meals to hospital menus. The demand is clear, yet hospitals remain stuck in outdated food systems.PBHP UK is now pushing the Plants First Healthcare initiative, working with climate and health organisations to get hospitals to take plant-based meals seriously.&nbsp;Will the NHS listen? Or will they keep serving up carcinogens and climate destruction on a tray?&nbsp; What You Can Do:▫️Mention plantbased meals on hospital feedback surveys.▫️Write to your MP.▫️Choose plant-based whenever you or a loved one are in hospital. Change isn’t happening fast enough. The NHS needs to do better.

Herbivore Club

ARTICLES

Animal Testing: Unethical, Unjustifiable, and Endlessly R...

WWF: Profiting Off Polar Bears While They Disappear

Wales Bans Greyhound Racing – The First UK Nation to Do So

Canned Tuna and Forced Labour

Foie Gras: Diseased Livers and Broken Promises

UK Hospitals Lag Behind on Plant-Based Meals