Blog

Elementary school student making disgusted face at cafeteria food

Let’s get one thing clear: flesh is already the default. At schools. At hospitals. At government buildings. At City Hall. And Zack Polanski - deputy leader of the UK’s Green Party - <a data-mce-href="https://plantbasednews.org/culture/politics/green-politician-plant-based-meals-default/" href="https://plantbasednews.org/culture/politics/green-politician-plant-based-meals-default/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">just suggested flipping that script</a>.He called on Sadiq Khan to introduce plant-based meals by default at City Hall. Not banning flesh. Not removing choice. Just making the animal-free option the starting point -&nbsp; just like meat is now.And Khan’s response? "We’ve got a good balance."Good balance for who, exactly?Because it’s not working for animals. It’s not working for the climate. And it’s definitely not working for the one in five children in the UK who can’t afford to eat properly. Default Isn’t Neutral - It’s PoliticalRight now, walking into a public canteen means being served flesh, milk, and eggs by default - unless you speak up and request otherwise. That system doesn’t feel political because it's the norm. But it is. Every default is a choice, and it says something.It says who matters. It says what kind of future we're planning for. It says whose interests get protected - and whose lives get overlooked.Polanski’s ask was simple: let’s make the default kind. Let’s make it just. Let’s make it plant-based. Default Shapes the WorldYou don't need to ban everything to create change. You just need to change what’s assumed. The default. The path of least resistance.Right now, the path leads to cages, slaughter, emissions, and inequality.Polanski offered another way forward. One that saves money. One that protects children. One that doesn’t rely on killing.It’s time to stop defending outdated habits as if they’re sacred. They’re not. They’re just defaults. And we can choose better ones. No One’s Taking Your Pig BapThe fear-mongering over “plant-based by default” plays out like clockwork: they’re coming for your cheese toastie. But that’s not what’s happening.Under this proposal, flesh and dairy don’t disappear. They’re just no longer assumed. If someone wants to eat animals, they still can - but they’ll have to say it out loud. They’ll have to opt in.And that small shift matters. Because normalising plant-based meals changes public perception. It tells the truth: it’s not radical to eat plants - it’s radical to keep killing when we don’t have to. Let’s Talk About the ChildrenFlesh is currently compulsory on school menus in the UK. That’s not a joke. By law, animals must be served to children in public schools - even when cheaper, healthier, and more sustainable options exist.So while kids are going hungry, while parents can’t afford fruit, while 20% of families are in food poverty, schools are legally obliged to serve flesh.Polanski pointed out that plant-based meals could save the NHS £54.9 million a year - money that could go into better produce, local growers, and meals that don’t come with a side of saturated fat and suffering.Why are we force-feeding inequality and animals to children, when there’s a better option? The Climate Crisis Isn’t Waiting“A third of human-caused emissions come from food,” Polanski reminded us. And the number one contributor? Animal agriculture.If we want serious climate action, we can’t just swap plastic straws and call it a day. We need systemic change - and food is one of the easiest places to start.A plant-based default in public institutions isn’t just symbolic. It sends a clear message: the era of endless animal use is over. The future is plant-based - and we’re building it now. The Cruelty-Free ManifestoThis isn’t some fringe fantasy. Polanski and Viva! gathered over 100 experts in food justice, sustainability, and health to draft a Cruelty-Free Manifesto for London. Among its recommendations:- Make public catering plant-based by default- Adopt a cruelty-free supply chain- Promote plant-based living through education and campaigns- Fund local food growing initiatives- Work with London’s vegan health professionalsThis isn’t about restriction - it’s about liberation. From climate destruction. From corporate welfare. From a food system that treats animals as units and children as afterthoughts. Khan’s Missed OpportunityFaced with this practical, evidence-based proposal, Khan defaulted to - well - the default.Choice, he said. Balance, he said. But the current system isn’t balanced. It’s skewed. It protects the status quo at all costs, even when that status quo involves killing sentient beings and underfeeding schoolchildren.This was a chance to lead. To prove London takes climate justice, food inequality, and compassion seriously. Instead, he shrugged it off. What’s Actually Radical?Serving corpses to schoolchildren like it's normal.Serving cows’ milk out of every public coffee machine like we don’t already have better options.Funding the industries most responsible for environmental breakdown with public money, while pretending it’s about “choice.”Plant-based by default isn’t radical - it’s overdue.

Serving Animals by Default Is a Political Choice

Angora wool doesn’t fall off trees. It’s not shed naturally and gathered with care. It’s stolen - torn from the backs of rabbits who are caged, mutilated, and treated as nothing more than wool-producing machines.These rabbits don’t get to run. They don’t get to dig. They don’t get to live. What Is Angora Wool?Angora wool comes from Angora rabbits - gentle, social individuals with complex personalities and strong bonds. But you wouldn’t know that from the way they’re treated.Their ultra-soft coats have been twisted into a commodity. Found in everything from high-end fashion to fast fashion, Angora wool is sold as a "luxury fibre", lumped in with cashmere and mohair. But there's nothing luxurious about what these rabbits endure. Live PluckingThe most common method of harvesting Angora wool is live plucking. That means restraining a terrified rabbit and ripping the fur from her skin — without anaesthetic, without mercy. This happens up to four times a year. Imagine your hair being yanked out in clumps, over your entire body, while you scream. That’s Angora.The fur is pulled from every part of the body except the head. The rest? Torn away, leaving the rabbit bald and defenceless against the cold.Workers have been filmed tying rabbits down, bending them into unnatural positions, and yanking their hair out by hand. The animals scream. They bleed. They don’t understand why. The Cages Are Just as BadAngora rabbits are kept in tiny wire-mesh cages. Alone. Not enough room to stretch, let alone hop. Their natural behaviours - digging, foraging, socialising - are impossible.The cages are so small they can barely move. The wire cuts into their feet. The floors become soaked in urine, and the ammonia burns their eyes.Some die from stress. Some go mad. And when their fur yield drops? Their throats are slit. Their bodies are sold for meat. Male Rabbits? Killed at BirthFemale rabbits produce more wool. That makes them more profitable. So most male Angora rabbits are killed as soon as they’re born - discarded like trash because they’re not profitable enough to be kept alive.Sound familiar? It should. The egg industry does the same thing to male chicks. The Death Toll Is StaggeringAt least 50 million Angora rabbits are bred in China every year alone. Around 90% of the world’s Angora wool comes from China — where no animal protection laws apply. None. Zero. These animals can be, and are, abused without consequence.But the problem isn’t just China. So-called “high-welfare” farms in France, for example, were exposed doing the exact same thing: tying down rabbits and ripping fur from their bodies. No matter the country, no matter the label, “humane Angora” is a marketing lie. Bred for ExploitationAngora rabbits have been selectively bred to produce unnaturally thick, fluffy coats. This isn’t how rabbits evolved — this is how humans made them.The consequences? They can’t groom themselves properly. They go blind from matted fur. They ingest so much hair they get fatal blockages. They overheat easily and suffer from eye infections, skin disease, and stress-induced illness.Their bodies aren’t built for their own coats. They’ve been genetically manipulated into suffering. Rabbits Are Individuals, Not Raw MaterialsIn the wild, rabbits are clean, curious, social animals. They dig burrows, forage for food, and maintain strong social structures. They cover a square mile of territory and clean themselves constantly.On Angora farms, they’re treated like nothing. They live in filth. They go insane from isolation. They are not seen as someone, but something.The average Angora rabbit could live up to 12 years. On farms, they’re usually killed at 2 or 3. The second their fur production dips, they’re deemed worthless and killed. Their lives cut short not because they’re dying — but because they aren’t profitable. Environmental DestructionAngora wool doesn’t just kill rabbits — it damages the planet. These farms are environmental disasters, consuming land, water, energy, and feed to prop up a niche luxury market.The Fur Free Alliance rightly calls out the fashion industry’s lies: promoting animal-derived materials as “sustainable” is false and misleading. Just like leather. Just like cashmere. Just like fur. The Industry Knows and Still Chooses ProfitHundreds of fashion brands have banned Angora after seeing the footage. They’ve seen the cages. They’ve heard the screams. They’ve watched the fur being ripped out of living, breathing rabbits.And yet Angora products still make it to store shelves. Someone still signs off on that. Someone still shrugs and says, “It’s just wool.”But it’s not just wool. It’s someone’s coat. Someone’s body. Someone’s life. There Is No Ethical Angora. Full Stop.It doesn’t matter how many labels you slap on it. “Responsibly sourced,” “high welfare,” “humane” — none of it changes the fact that fur is forcibly taken, rabbits are killed, and profit is put above life.If the word “fur” is on the label, there’s blood on it too. Your Choice MattersThis isn’t about personal taste. This is about justice.Every time you pick up a product with Angora, you’re holding the suffering of a rabbit who didn’t want to die. You’re supporting an industry that slaughters gentle beings for fashion.But it doesn’t have to be this way. There are countless cruelty-free, plant-derived fabrics — cotton, linen, bamboo, Tencel. There are brands committed to using only vegan materials. The alternatives are here.We don’t need Angora. Rabbits do. Demand Abolition, Not ReformThis isn’t a call for “better” standards. There is no ethical way to farm individuals for profit. There is no such thing as kind exploitation.The answer isn’t higher welfare. The answer is freedom.Freedom from cages. Freedom from plucking. Freedom from being born into a system that sees you as nothing but a product.Don’t settle for “not as bad.” Don’t compromise someone’s life for a slightly softer jumper. Reject the entire system.Angora rabbits are not resources. They are not sweaters. They are not mittens. They are not accessories.They are someone. And they deserve to be left alone.

What is Angora Wool?

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;

Herbivore Club

ARTICLES

Serving Animals by Default Is a Political Choice

What is Angora Wool?

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