Blog

The fishing industry has always relied on one thing to survive: distance. Fishes live out of sight, out of mind. They don’t scream in a way we recognise. They don’t look like us. They aren’t people — or so we tell ourselves.But Tom Pickering isn’t having it.The writer and director of I Could Never Go Vegan has returned with a new short horror film, What A Catch, and it’s not for the faint-hearted — especially if you’re still clinging to the idea that stabbing a fish is somehow more acceptable than stabbing a pig.This Victorian-era nightmare follows a fisherman whose solo trip takes a sinister turn — and unlike most horror, this one isn’t metaphor. It’s exactly what happens to fishes every day, dressed in period costume and a fog of denial.Pickering has toured the film across the globe — Frightfest, Chicago Horror Film Festival, HorrorHound and more — racking up awards and praise, but more importantly, reaching non-vegan audiences. “It’s been amazing to have people reach out and say how it’s changed their perspective,” he told <a data-mce-href="https://plantbasednews.org/culture/film/new-horror-film-exposes-fishing-industry/" href="https://plantbasednews.org/culture/film/new-horror-film-exposes-fishing-industry/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Plant Based News</a>. “It’s effectively an activism film they weren’t expecting to watch.”And that’s the catch.The film exposes the blood-soaked absurdity of fishing by simply mirroring it. No exaggeration, no metaphorical monster — just the actual horror of what happens to billions of fishes, scaled up and made visible. Pescatarianism: The Horror Hiding in Plain SightPescatarians like to think they’ve opted for the “kinder” form of animal use. No cows, no chickens — just fishes. As if that makes it better. As if being more particular about your victims is a moral high ground.But fishes aren’t lesser beings. They are just less familiar. That’s it.In 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">UK study</a>, researchers explored how pescatarians justify eating fishes while avoiding other animals. The answer? Distance. Social, emotional, physical. One participant even described themselves as a “vegetarian who occasionally eats fish.”&nbsp;Here’s how the rationalisations stack up:The fishy identity – Aligning with vegetarians to feel ethical, while still eating animals.The compromise excuse – “I do it for convenience,” or “My friends still eat meat.” That’s not ethics, that’s peer pressure.Face blindness – “Fishes don’t look like us.” They don’t need to. They have their own lives, their own preferences, their own fears. The Reality Beneath the WaterThe fishing industry is not the lesser evil — it’s the biggest one. Up to 2.2 trillion wild fishes are caught every year. Trillion. That’s more than all land animals killed for food combined. Half of them aren’t even eaten by humans — they’re ground up to feed other farmed animals in an absurd feedback loop of destruction.Fishes aren’t simple creatures either. The bluestreak cleaner wrasse recognises itself in a mirror. Saddled sea bream can distinguish individual humans by their clothes. Some fishes cooperate with octopuses to hunt — cross-species teamwork. And others, when shown a reflection, assess their own body size before picking a fight.These aren’t instincts. They’re choices. They’re cognition. They’re proof.And yet, people still gut them alive and call it a compromise. Horror Is Just the Truth in CostumeWhat A Catch works because it doesn’t sugar-coat. It doesn’t pretend that exploitation needs to be stylised to be scary. The act of catching, stabbing, suffocating, and gutting someone who doesn’t want to die — that’s horror. That’s fishing.This film puts the violence front and centre. Not with the usual industry footage people scroll past, but through a story that pulls you in — and then yanks you under.If we saw land animals treated this way, we’d call it a massacre. But when it’s fishes? We call it dinner. Bring Fishes Into FocusIf the film does one thing, it’s this: it collapses the distance.It forces people to see what they usually ignore. It reminds us that fishes aren’t ingredients. They’re not abstractions. They’re not property. They’re just individuals — ones we’ve made invisible.And it begs the question: if horror films can help people wake up to injustice, why are we still pretending there’s anything ethical about eating animals?What A Catch is now streaming on YouTube. Just don’t watch it before dinner.<figure id="figure-iy45uz1s6tmbtmw04l"><iframe id="iy45uz1s6tmbtmw04l" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nc73OVK_AuE" class="w-full bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowFullScreen="" data-url="https://youtu.be/nc73OVK_AuE?si=aOnPChkqwIwgw3gI" data-corners="default" data-fullWidth="false"></iframe></figure>

What A Catch: A Horror Film That Makes Pescatarians Squirm

Across the United States and the United Kingdom, dairy is falling apart under the weight of its own contradictions. In New York, lawmakers are finally trying to curb the rise of mega-dairies. In the UK, the government is reluctantly considering taxing sugary milkshakes, years too late. And in both countries, the industry’s stranglehold on policy has led not just to environmental disaster and human health concerns, but to the routine, state, sanctioned killing of anyone who gets in the way, cows, badgers, and the truth.Let’s start in the US, where New York, one of the nation’s top milk-producing states, is home to around 500 concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), mostly dairy. These mega-farms lock up more than 425,000 cows in industrial hellscapes where they live short, controlled lives of forced pregnancy, separation, and finally, slaughter. The scale is absurd: 17.5 billion pounds of manure are pumped out each year, polluting air, water, and soil. That’s the sewage equivalent of 12.9 million people.The manure crisis alone should be enough to halt expansion. But that’s just one part of the disaster. In just two decades, New York doubled the number of dairy factories while wiping out over two-thirds of its small family farms. And yet, 95% of these “operations” still get to parade around under the wholesome-sounding label of “family-owned.” As if a prison becomes nurturing just because it’s run by someone’s uncle.This isn’t progress. It’s a full-scale collapse of any moral or environmental framework. Which is why <a data-mce-href="https://sentientmedia.org/new-york-aims-to-ban-new-mega-dairies/" href="https://sentientmedia.org/new-york-aims-to-ban-new-mega-dairies/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a new bill</a>, aimed at halting the creation or expansion of new mega-dairies, is being described as a "first step." Not a solution. Just an attempt to hit the brakes before the industry drives off another cliff.And what’s the defence from the dairy lobby? That limiting herd size “limits their opportunity for success.” In other words, environmental ruin and animal abuse are just the cost of doing business.Across the pond, things aren’t much better.In the UK, the dairy industry is fighting to hold onto its sugary mask. For years, flavoured milkshakes have somehow dodged the government's Soft Drinks Industry Levy, even though many contain more sugar than Coca-Cola. The excuse? “Children need calcium.” The truth? Only 3.5% of young people’s calcium comes from flavoured dairy drinks. Most kids get it from actual food. The exemption was never about health, it was about profit.&nbsp;And now that the <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Will-Labour-Stand-Up-to-Big-Dairy-J3J51EKFBK" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Will-Labour-Stand-Up-to-Big-Dairy-J3J51EKFBK" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Treasury is finally reviewing this loophole</a>, the industry is panicking. But instead of reformulating their products or telling the truth, they’re clinging to the fiction that cow’s milk is a sacred health food. Never mind that it’s high in sugar, cholesterol, and saturated fat. Never mind that it’s been linked to acne, reproductive cancers, and early puberty. Never mind that everything people claim to need from milk is available in plant-based forms without exploiting anyone. Because the dairy industry isn’t selling nutrition. It’s selling nostalgia.&nbsp;But perhaps the most grotesque twist in this global dairy tragedy is <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/The-Badger-Cull-Killing-Badgers-for-a-Cattle-Prob-I3I21G00RB" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/The-Badger-Cull-Killing-Badgers-for-a-Cattle-Prob-I3I21G00RB" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">what’s happening to badgers.</a>In England, badgers have been massacred in their hundreds of thousands under the excuse of controlling bovine TB, an epidemic largely fuelled by how cattle are traded, confined, and tested. Only around 5% of cases originate from badgers. And yet the government keeps expanding culls, even against the advice of its own scientists.Why? Because it’s easier to kill wild animals than challenge the cattle industry. It’s easier to shoot badgers than question why we’re farming cows at all.And it’s easier to keep the public focused on wildlife than admit that the dairy industry itself, this brutal cycle of forced breeding, infant removal, and early slaughter, is the true disease.Because if we stopped farming cows, bovine TB would disappear. There’d be no more endless compensation to farmers, no more blood on badger fur, no more slurry lagoons poisoning waterways. But that would require confronting the unthinkable: that the entire system is the problem.So we carry on. We let dairy farms balloon to unimaginable sizes. We let children drink sugar disguised as health. We let badgers die so we can keep milking cows. And we call it tradition.But tradition doesn’t justify torment. History doesn’t excuse hypocrisy. And subsidies don’t make slavery ethical.If cow’s milk were introduced today as a brand-new product, a sugary animal secretion harvested through forced breeding, infant separation, and slaughter, it wouldn’t just be banned. It would be unthinkable.And yet it’s still in every school, still in every fridge, still being propped up with tax breaks, media campaigns, and dead animals.The dairy industry isn’t just environmentally toxic or nutritionally outdated. It’s morally bankrupt. And the longer we protect it, the more damage it does.This isn’t just about sugar. It’s not just about pollution. It’s not just about badgers. It’s about ending an institution that relies on violence and deceit to survive.Tax the milkshakes. Ban the mega-dairies. Stop the culls. But above all, stop pretending dairy is anything but what it is: exploitation disguised as nutrition.

The Cost of Clinging to Cow's Milk

In 2019, I briefly worked for The Humane League. Their flagship campaign at the time was the Better Chicken Commitment — a set of welfare pledges that many saw as a step forward. Replace fast-growing chicken breeds with slower-growing ones, they said. Give them more space, more time. Make the system “less cruel.”I asked a simple question:Wouldn't slower growth mean chickens live longer, eat more, require more land, and in turn — to meet the same demand — wouldn’t more chickens be bred and killed?The silence was deafening.Now, in 2025, the data is in.A new peer-reviewed <a data-mce-href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00071668.2024.2432926" href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00071668.2024.2432926" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> in British Poultry Science lays out the problem in black and white:Yes, slow-growing chickens suffer less intense pain — fewer broken legs, less heart failure, fewer grotesque deformities. But to keep shelves stocked with the same amount of flesh, producers need to breed and kill far more of them.How many more?🔺 48% more chickens farmed🔺 69% more time spent in captivity🔺 Higher feed use, more land, more faeces, more emissionsIn short: a “welfare” initiative that means more lives taken, more environmental damage, and more chickens confined for longer periods.That’s what was being championed as progress.If you've ever donated to The Humane League, Compassion in World Farming, Open Wing Alliance, or any of the other NGOs proudly pushing the Better Chicken Commitment — you may want to ask where your money actually went. Because it wasn’t to spare chickens. It was to help the industry breed and kill more of them. The Welfare IllusionI’ve already <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/ANIMAL-WELFARE-vs-ANIMAL-RIGHTS-E1E1WM32E" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/ANIMAL-WELFARE-vs-ANIMAL-RIGHTS-E1E1WM32E" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">written</a> about this in depth: the dangerous delusion of animal welfare. How it soothes consumer guilt while propping up the very systems it claims to challenge.The Better Chicken Commitment is the perfect example of what I called The Golden Cage — a well-lit, air-conditioned prison is still a prison.Now imagine packing that golden cage with more birds, keeping them longer, feeding them more, and clearing more land to grow the extra feed.It’s not just tragic. It’s absurd. A System Built on SupremacismWelfarism assumes we have the right to breed others into existence, use them, kill them — so long as we make that experience “less bad.”&nbsp;The Better Chicken Commitment isn’t better for chickens. It’s better for marketing teams. It gives NGOs a “win.” It gives retailers a feel-good badge. It gives consumers an excuse.But for the chickens? It means their numbers go up. Their lifespans stretch just long enough to eat more, shit more, cost more — and then die all the same.And the forest that was bulldozed to grow their feed? The animals shot? The insects, rodents, birds displaced by yet more monoculture crops? The rivers choked with all that bird crap. All victims of “better” welfare. The Ethical Equation Nobody Wants to SolveLet’s be honest. The average chicken in a factory farm suffers immensely. So the solution seems obvious: reduce suffering. But if your answer is to increase the number of individuals subjected to exploitation in order to reduce the intensity of their suffering… you’re not solving a problem. You’re just redistributing it. When did “kinder” killing become more important than less killing? This Is Why We Reject WelfarismTelling people that “better bred” chickens will save the world is a lie. Because painting mass slaughter as progress is a betrayal — of the animals, the planet, and the people who think they’re doing good.Because every welfare reform that props up demand only deepens the exploitation. The Only Ethical CommitmentThere’s no “right” way to breed someone into existence only to kill them. There’s no “humane” way to turn a living being into a product.If you truly care about chickens — or pigs, or cows, or fishes — the answer isn’t slower growth or better bedding.It’s simple:Stop breeding them. Stop using them. Stop killing them.Not a better chicken.No chicken.Go vegan.

The Better Chicken Con: When “Welfare” Means More Dead Birds

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.

Herbivore Club

ARTICLES

What A Catch: A Horror Film That Makes Pescatarians Squirm

The Cost of Clinging to Cow's Milk

The Better Chicken Con: When “Welfare” Means More Dead Birds

The Badger Cull: Killing Badgers for a Cattle Problem

Plants Whisper to Pollinators. We Drown Them in Pesticides

The Unspoken Exclusion: Animal Rights & Intersectionality