Blog

The UK’s Climate Change Committee (CCC) wants the public to cut 260g of meat per week - roughly two doner kebabs or two fry-ups - by 2040. The goal? To keep the country on track for net zero by 2050.&nbsp;The <a data-mce-href="https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-seventh-carbon-budget/" href="https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-seventh-carbon-budget/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CCC’s seventh Carbon Budget</a> lays out recommendations for achieving this. Alongside the suggested 25% cut in meat consumption (rising to 35% by 2050), the report pushes for more cycling, better home insulation, and ditching gas boilers. But when it comes to diet, the message is clear: they want less meat, but not too much less.&nbsp;&nbsp;Emily Nurse, the committee’s head of net zero, was <a data-mce-href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/26/uk-urged-to-act-now-on-net-zero-two-kebabs-worth-of-meat-climate-change-committee" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/26/uk-urged-to-act-now-on-net-zero-two-kebabs-worth-of-meat-climate-change-committee" target="_blank" rel="noopener">quick to clarify</a>: “We’re absolutely not saying everyone needs to be vegan.” Because heaven forbid the government acknowledge that rejecting animal use is the most effective step individuals can take for the climate.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Problem With Playing It Safe&nbsp;&nbsp;The CCC’s recommendations don’t go far enough - because they never do. Animal farming is the leading driver of deforestation, biodiversity loss, and species extinction. It generates a third of all human-caused methane emissions, a greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over 20 years. Yet, instead of addressing the root cause, policymakers propose minor reductions in meat intake and hope for the best.&nbsp;&nbsp;A fully plant-based diet slashes climate-heating emissions, water pollution, and land use by 75%. It reduces wildlife destruction by 66% and cuts water use by 54%. The science is conclusive: traditional meat consumption is incompatible with net-zero targets.&nbsp; &nbsp; Carbon Labels: The Power of InformationIf people were shown the environmental impact of their food choices, would they still opt for animal-based meals? Research says no.A <a data-mce-href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666325000637?hss_channel=lcp-3244592#abs0010" href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666325000637?hss_channel=lcp-3244592#abs0010" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new study</a> found that carbon labels drastically reduce the likelihood of people choosing meat. When presented with a choice between a plant-based and animal-based snack, only 19% chose the animal option when carbon labels were included. Without labels, that number jumped to 32%.Previous carbon labelling efforts failed due to poor design - numbers without context, leaving consumers confused. The new approach ranks emissions from A (low) to E (high), with clear icons differentiating plant-based from animal-based foods. The result? Fewer people choosing meat.Small nudges in how food information is presented can lead to meaningful shifts in behaviour. Supermarkets and online grocery platforms have already found that simple interventions - like reordering products or using climate-friendly labelling - make consumers far more likely to opt for plant-based options. If the UK government was serious about tackling climate change, it would mandate carbon labels and make plant-based the default.&nbsp;&nbsp; The NHS: Preaching Sustainability, Serving Up Carcinogens&nbsp;&nbsp;Even the NHS, which claims to be working towards sustainability, fails where it matters most: food.A recent study by Plant-Based Health Professionals UK (PBHP UK) graded 36 NHS hospitals on the sustainability of their menus. The results? Disastrous.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Processed meat, a known carcinogen, was found on every menu.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Less than half of NHS Trusts had any strategy to increase plant-based food.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Climate-wrecking meats like beef and lamb remained menu staples.&nbsp;&nbsp;- 42% of hospitals had zero fully plant-based dinner options.&nbsp;&nbsp;The NHS serves 140 million patient meals a year while pledging to reach net zero by 2045. Yet, it continues to prioritise outdated, climate-damaging menus. Meanwhile, hospitals that outsourced catering performed better in sustainability than those running their own kitchens. So what’s stopping the NHS from taking meaningful action?&nbsp;&nbsp; The Public Wants Change - Where’s the Government?&nbsp;&nbsp;Public demand for sustainable food is growing. A 2024 survey found that over a third of UK residents supported adding more plant-based meals to hospital menus. The Vegan Society and Viva! have urged the government to take real action, from making plant-based meals the default in public sector catering to supporting farmers growing sustainable plant proteins.The UK’s climate strategy can’t afford half-measures. It’s time to move beyond timid targets and outdated dietary habits. The CCC, the NHS, and the government know what needs to be done. The question is: will they have the courage to do it?

Meat, Methane, and Missed Targets

Pescatarians like to think they’re making a moral choice. No land animals, just fishes - because somehow, that’s different. The justification? A mix of psychological distance, personal convenience, and the classic “lesser evil” excuse. But when it comes down to it, eating fishes is just another rationalisation, a way to sidestep the uncomfortable truth that fishes feel, think, and recognise individual humans.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Meat Paradox Swims OnMost people who eat animal flesh tell themselves it’s natural, normal, necessary, and nice - even when they claim to oppose harming animals. This contradiction is called the meat paradox. It’s been widely studied in land-animal consumption, but what about pescatarians? They’ve made a conscious choice to avoid cows, chickens, and pigs. So how do they justify stabbing, suffocating, and gutting a fish?A <a data-mce-href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14780887.2024.2328037" href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14780887.2024.2328037" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> in the UK set out to find out. Researchers interviewed pescatarians about their diet, their thoughts on land versus sea animals, and their understanding of fishing. What emerged were three main ways pescatarians create enough psychological distance to keep eating fishes:1. A Fishy Identity – Pescatarians see themselves as morally aligned with vegetarians and vegans. One participant said, “I’m just a vegetarian who occasionally eats fish.” That’s like saying, “I’m just a pacifist who occasionally punches people.”2. The Lesser Evil Excuse – Some see fish consumption as a compromise, either for social reasons or personal convenience. One admitted, “Some friends feel very strongly about meat, so this was a compromise.” In other words: peer pressure.3. How to Become Invisible – Fishes don’t have the “right” kind of face, don’t live in our world, and don’t scream in a way we understand. One participant explained, “The faces and eyes that certain terrestrial animals make… I just feel more connection because they are more similar to us.” Because fishes aren’t relatable, they’re easier to ignore.&nbsp;&nbsp; Distance Makes Justification EasierThe researchers linked these rationalisations to Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance (CLTPD) - which basically means the further something is from you (physically, socially, or emotionally), the easier it is to dismiss. Fishes are literally out of sight, out of mind. They live in the water, they don’t make the same noises as land animals, and people don’t spend time around them unless they’re on a plate.The study had limitations - participants knew the lead researcher was vegan, which might have influenced their responses. Also, crustaceans didn’t get as much attention as other marine animals. But the overall findings were clear: pescatarians use physical distance, perceived dissimilarity, and lack of visibility to reconcile eating fishes with their supposed ethical stance. The Problem with the “Lesser Evil” ArgumentPescatarians often frame eating fishes as a compromise. But let’s be clear: there’s no ethical “middle ground” in exploitation. The fishing industry is an environmental catastrophe, bottom trawling destroys ocean habitats, and more individual fishes are killed every year than all land animals combined.Not to mention, fishes aren’t the mindless creatures humans assume.&nbsp;&nbsp; Fishes Know Who You Are<a data-mce-href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2024.0558#d1e455" href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2024.0558#d1e455" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New research</a> has found that wild fishes can tell humans apart by their clothing. The saddled sea bream and black sea bream - both species with acute colour vision - could distinguish between divers wearing different gear. This isn’t an isolated discovery.Other research shows:- Fishes recognise themselves in reflections, displaying self-awareness.&nbsp;&nbsp;- The bluestreak cleaner wrasse checks their size in a mirror before deciding whether to fight another fish.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Octopuses and fishes team up to hunt, showing cross-species cooperation.&nbsp;&nbsp;For animals that humans claim to be too simple to matter, fishes are proving they have intelligence, memory, social skills, and can suffer - traits that should make us question our actions. Let's also not forget that our ancestors were fish, and that our cousins didn't stop evolving, they just didn't grow legs and lungs - they have their own equally valid path. Bringing Fishes Into FocusThe good news? There are ways to challenge the psychological distance that keeps pescatarians from seeing fishes as individuals.- Highlight their intelligence. Show people that fishes think, feel, and recognise humans.- Make them visible. Underwater footage makes fishes harder to ignore.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Challenge the “compromise” narrative. Eating fishes isn’t a step toward anything ethical - it’s still using animals.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Redefine pescatarians. They’re not vegetarians who eat fishes. They’re people who eat animals.&nbsp;&nbsp; As researcher Maëlan Tomasek told <a data-mce-href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/19/wild-fish-can-tell-humans-apart-when-they-dress-differently-study-finds" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/19/wild-fish-can-tell-humans-apart-when-they-dress-differently-study-finds" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">The Guardian</a>: “It’s very human to not want to care about them, but the fact that they can care about us, maybe it’s time that we can care about them, too.”

The Fishy Logic of Pescatarians

Mice help their unconscious friends. Scientists test on them anyway.<a data-mce-href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq2677" href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq2677" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Researchers at the University of Southern California</a> found that mice engage in what can only be described as first aid - licking, grooming, and even pulling the tongues of unconscious cage mates to try to revive them. They distinguish between those who are asleep, unconscious, or dead, showing an awareness beyond what many humans would assume.&nbsp;&nbsp;This study only happened because mice are the most commonly used animals in laboratory experiments. They make up around 95% of all test subjects, not because they are the best models for human biology, but because they are small, easy to handle, and cheap to breed. Their lives, as individuals, don’t matter to the system that exploits them.Meanwhile, in Australia, adolescent female rats were subjected to non-fatal strangulation, their tiny bodies crushed under the weight of silicon bands. Some were shot in the head with high-speed projectiles. Others endured both. Then they were forced to walk, perform memory tasks, and, finally, killed.This wasn’t some fringe experiment. It was a government-funded <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 at Monash University and Alfred Health</a>, supposedly designed to improve brain injury detection in human survivors of domestic violence. The justification? A lack of “human-relevant alternatives.” The reality? Human biomarkers for brain trauma are already well-documented. The experiment was pointless.&nbsp;&nbsp; Ethics Committees That Rubber-Stamp SufferingScientific institutions claim that experiments like these undergo “rigorous ethical review.” In reality, ethics committees exist to approve - not prevent - animal testing. They weigh “potential benefits” against “costs,” with the animals’ interests never considered. Approval is granted behind closed doors, with no transparency, no public oversight, and no genuine challenge to the assumption that animal lives are disposable.&nbsp;&nbsp;In the case of the rat strangulation study, there were no public documents explaining why it was necessary. No justification for why researchers ignored existing human-based methods like neuroimaging and computational models. Just another routine approval in a system built on speciesist entitlement.&nbsp;&nbsp;The same entitlement that drives animal testing is found in other forms of exploitation - hunting, farming, fur industries, and blood sports. It’s no surprise that men, <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">statistically, support animal experimentatio</a>n more than women. Studies show a clear link between lower empathy, social dominance, and a belief in human supremacy over other species.But even among those who claim to oppose cruelty, animal testing is often excused as a necessary evil. The reality is, it’s neither necessary nor scientifically valid. The Future of Research Isn’t in a CageMice, like other social animals, show concern for their injured and unconscious friends. They offer help, while humans in white lab coats strap them down, inject them with chemicals, and suffocate them in the name of “progress.” The disconnect is staggering.The world is already moving beyond outdated animal testing methods. Human-relevant research is accelerating, but old institutions cling to the past, funnelling billions into experiments that produce unreliable, inconsistent results.Abolition is the only answer. Not refinement, not reduction - abolition. Because as long as animals are seen as mere tools for human ends, the suffering will continue. And as long as ethics committees exist only to greenlight the next round of experiments, nothing will change.Until speciesism is dismantled, animals will keep suffering in silence behind closed lab doors.

Mice Show Empathy, Science Shows None

Most people don’t think twice about toilet paper. It’s just... there. You use it, flush it, and move on with your life. But have you ever wondered what’s actually in it? Because some toilet paper isn’t even vegetarian.Yes, really 🧻&nbsp;Some brands use gelatin - boiled skin, cartilage, and bones - to bind the fibres together. Others might contain stearic acid, another animal fat. And if that doesn’t put you off, many brands still test on animals. All this, for something you literally flush down the toilet. Does It Matter?I know, I know - another thing to think about. But animal exploitation is so ingrained in society that people don’t even realise it’s in their toilet paper. When Charmin was asked if theirs contained animal ingredients, they gave a vague, non-answer: "may contain." Which basically means: "Yes, but we don’t care if you care."Imagine the headlines if they actually admitted to it: "You’ve been wiping with the hooves and snouts of slaughtered animals."Even if a brand doesn’t contain animal-derived ingredients, that ambiguity alone is a problem. Companies should be transparent. You shouldn’t have to email a toilet paper brand to find out if they’ve managed to keep dead animals out of it. What Are the Options?If you’d rather not wipe with animal fat, there are vegan toilet paper brands available. Here are some of our favourite UK brands, and full disclosure, we both get a discount using these links:<h3><a data-mce-href="https://301bumboo.refr.cc/default/u/herbivore?s=esp&amp;t=cp" href="https://301bumboo.refr.cc/default/u/herbivore?s=esp&amp;t=cp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bumboo</a></h3><h3><a data-mce-href="http://rwrd.io/ref_90E7DDW?s" href="http://rwrd.io/ref_90E7DDW?s" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cheeky Panda</a></h3><h3><a data-mce-href="https://whogivesacrap.mention-me.com/m/ol/ta9ul-adam-shaw" href="https://whogivesacrap.mention-me.com/m/ol/ta9ul-adam-shaw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Who Gives A Crap</a>&nbsp;</h3> Do You Need to Care About This?If you’re new to veganism, this might not be your most pressing concern, and we aren't here to drive you round the u-bend. But if you are already avoiding animal-tested products and choosing cruelty-free options, switching to vegan toilet paper is just another step in rejecting exploitation.And if you can get a brand that’s just as affordable and better for the planet, why wouldn’t you? The Bottom LineVegan toilet paper exists. It’s available in supermarkets and online. Some are fancy and expensive, others are just as cheap as the standard stuff - though you may need to write to the manufacturers to be certain. But one thing’s for sure: there’s no good reason to be wiping your arse with dead animals when you can avoid doing so.Check your brand, or get a bidet.

Have You Been Wiping With Dead Animals?

<a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Wales-Bans-Greyhound-Racing-The-First-UK-Nation-M4M51AU0MU" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Wales-Bans-Greyhound-Racing-The-First-UK-Nation-M4M51AU0MU" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Greyhound racing in Wales is finally over.</a> After years of pressure from campaigners, the government has announced a ban - the first in the UK. The decision follows a petition that gathered over 35,000 signatures and a consultation where nearly two-thirds of respondents supported outlawing the industry. The ban will come into force "as soon as practically possible," with an Implementation Group set up to manage the transition. A step towards justiceGreyhound racing has long been condemned as a brutal industry that treats dogs as disposable commodities. Injuries are common, overbreeding is rampant, and dogs who are no longer profitable are often abandoned or killed. The Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) claims to uphold "the highest possible standards of welfare," but the reality is far bleaker.<a data-mce-href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2e9kk6ed3o" href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2e9kk6ed3o" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jilly</a> is proof of that. She was abandoned by her trainer after breaking her leg on the track. Left behind like trash, she was rescued by Hope Rescue and later adopted by Essex Havard, who has been campaigning for a ban for years. When Jilly first arrived, she was nervous, unaccustomed to life outside a concrete box. But with time, she transformed into a bold, curious, and happy dog.The same story plays out over and over. Beca Brown, a trustee of Welsh Greyhound Rescue, adopted Nel, who had been discarded in Ireland after failing her racing trials. Unsocialised and fearful, she reacted badly to other dogs - because in the racing industry, greyhounds rarely interact with other breeds. "People would be up in arms if this happened to a Labrador," Beca said. "But greyhounds have been othered."The industry’s defenders argue that banning greyhound racing will harm the economy and set a dangerous precedent for outlawing other animal-based sports. (Yes, please.) But public opinion is clear: greyhound racing is done. The global shift 🌍Wales joins a growing list of places rejecting greyhound racing. New Zealand (Aotearoa) announced its ban last December, set to take effect by August 2026. Other countries have already shut down the industry, recognising it for what it is - exploitation dressed up as entertainment.Meanwhile, the UK government remains silent. Herbivore Club submitted a petition request for a UK-wide ban last month, but it has yet to be approved for signatures. The question now isn’t if the rest of the UK will follow Wales - it’s when. What happens to the dogs?With only one licensed track in Wales - Valley Greyhound Stadium in Ystrad Mynach - the number of dogs affected by the ban isn’t massive, but it’s still significant. Greyhound Rescue Wales, which is already near full capacity, expects an influx of discarded dogs. "We are working with other charities so that no greyhound will go without a home," said Lizzie Culpin, who helps rehabilitate ex-racers.The industry claims to have a retirement scheme, where owners and GBGB pay a £420 bond to help with rehoming. But when you breed thousands of dogs each year and discard the ones who don’t make the cut, a few hundred pounds doesn’t go far. As <a data-mce-href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2e9kk6ed3o" href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2e9kk6ed3o" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">Essex Havard</a> put it: "The industry doesn’t care about dogs - only about winning and making money."The end of greyhound racing in Wales is a victory. But until the rest of the UK follows suit, thousands of dogs will continue to be used, injured, and discarded. The demand for racing dogs must end, and that starts with shutting down the tracks for good.

End of the Track: Greyhound Racing Banned in Wales 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

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.

Herbivore Club

ARTICLES

Meat, Methane, and Missed Targets

The Fishy Logic of Pescatarians

Mice Show Empathy, Science Shows None

Have You Been Wiping With Dead Animals?

End of the Track: Greyhound Racing Banned in Wales 🏴󠁧󠁢...

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