Blog

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

The Unspoken Exclusion: Animal Rights & Intersectionality

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

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

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

Tall Tales: Earth.com Serves Evolutionary Clickbait

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

Greyhound Racing: Britain's Shame

Monarchy is sold to us as tradition. As culture. As harmless pomp and pageantry. But it’s not harmless, it’s a blueprint. It’s the prototype for every hierarchy that tells someone they matter more than someone else. And it’s not just bad for humans. It’s bad for every other animal we share this world with.Because at the root of monarchy is a lie. A lie we’ve been fed since birth: that there are “higher” beings and “lower” beings, and that some lives naturally belong on pedestals while others are stepped on. That’s the logic behind monarchy. It’s also the logic behind animal use.Monarchy says, “Some people are born to rule.” Animal use says, “Some beings are born to serve.” Neither is true. Both are supremacism.Royalty doesn’t earn power. It inherits it. The concept of “royal blood” is a myth so entrenched many don’t stop to ask how absurd it is. Power passed down through bloodlines is nothing more than glorified nepotism wrapped in velvet.And this idea, that birth determines worth, is the exact same lie that props up speciesism. If someone is born human, they’re seen as worthy of rights, protection, and freedom. Born a pig? You’re property. Born a cow? You’re a resource. Born a sheep? You’re wool on someone’s back. Just as monarchy ranks humans above each other based on recent lineage, speciesism ranks lives by distant lineage and grants or denies rights accordingly. One hierarchy justifies the next.We’re taught to bow. To curtsy. To address monarchs with titles like “Your Majesty,” to walk behind them, not speak before them, not look them in the eye unless permitted. It’s easy to laugh this off as old-fashioned theatre, but it trains us, from childhood, to see hierarchy as natural. To accept inequality. To internalise the idea that some people deserve more than others by default, and once you’ve accepted that some humans are more important than others, it’s a short step to believing that some lives don’t count at all.You don’t abolish animal use without abolishing the mindset that enables it.Monarchy is always defended as a source of stability. But stability for who? For the elite? For the institution? It certainly doesn’t provide stability for the lives opressed to uphold the illusion, whether they’re humans working under exploitative systems or animals confined, commodified, and killed by those same structures.Animals are displayed in royal zoos and murdered on royal estates. The British royal family alone is tied to blood sports, horse racing, trophy hunting, and gamebird shooting, all carried out in the name of tradition and prestige. Every royal parade, every wedding, every coronation is a ceremony of human superiority. Not just over other humans, but over all beings. It’s a celebration of power acquired by birth and maintained by obedience. It says, “Some lives are meant to be worshipped. Some lives are meant to serve."To those who claim that monarchy is “just symbolic,” ask yourself what it symbolises. You can’t separate the crown from the concept. And the concept is this: there is a natural order. And in that order, some beings are born to be served, and others are born to serve.&nbsp;That’s the same mindset that drives every form of domination. Patriarchy. Racism. Ableism. Classism. Speciesism. Monarchy doesn’t challenge those systems, it reinforces them. It’s the royal stamp of approval on injustice.And if you think it ends with humans, you’re not paying attention.To believe in monarchy is to believe in hierarchy. And to believe in hierarchy is to accept that freedom isn’t universal. That some deserve it, and some do not. That belief spills over into everything: how we treat animals, how we treat the planet, how we treat each other.The cost of obedience isn’t just a bowed head or a silent voice, it’s a blind eye. It’s the belief that because something has always been done, it should continue.Obedience is not peace. It’s suppression.You can’t dismantle supremacism selectively. You can’t say you believe in justice while defending a monarchy. You can’t say you oppose oppression while still categorising lives into worth and worthlessness. Emancipation doesn’t stop at humans. It doesn’t stop at classes. It doesn’t stop at borders. It stops when no one is property.A world with true justice has no throne.

Monarchy: No One Is Born to Kneel

The beef industry doesn't just pollute our atmosphere, it pollutes young minds, quietly rewriting climate science to sustain its own destructive agenda.Food production is a major source of global greenhouse gas emissions, and cow flesh sits atop this environmental disaster. Cattle generate massive amounts of methane, a potent climate pollutant, while consuming vast swathes of land, water, and feed. Scientists overwhelmingly agree that reducing cow flesh consumption is essential to mitigating climate catastrophe. Yet the meat industry continues to shape public perception by manipulating educational curriculums, misleading children about sustainability, and ensuring discussions around eating less meat remain off the table.Since the 1990s, industry-funded campaigns like the U.S. Beef Checkoff program have strategically targeted classrooms, carefully curating "educational" materials that frame beef production as both environmentally responsible and nutritionally indispensable. Under the guise of teaching science through "the lens of beef production," these materials omit any genuine solutions involving reduced beef consumption. This manipulation reaches students as young as kindergarten, embedding industry propaganda early and often.Jennifer Jacquet, professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami, <a data-mce-href="https://sentientmedia.org/beef-industry-is-rewriting-climate-science-for-kids/" href="https://sentientmedia.org/beef-industry-is-rewriting-climate-science-for-kids/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reveals a disturbing history of the meat industry intervening in childhood education on climate issues</a>. Industry documents dating back to 1989 show deliberate strategies to influence educators and media, ensuring public opinion stays favourable, or at least neutral, toward beef.Today's classroom materials actively suppress scientifically validated climate solutions. High school activities addressing methane emissions from cattle fail to mention dietary reduction, a measure repeatedly identified by Project Drawdown and climate scientists as crucial. Instead, students encounter a deceptive binary: eliminate cattle entirely or accept beef as unavoidable. This framing intentionally portrays dietary changes as radical rather than sensible and essential.Further misinformation argues that without cattle, Earth’s land would be unusable for agriculture, citing manure's role in fertilisation. Reality starkly contrasts this claim. Animal agriculture in the U.S. generates a staggering 940 billion pounds of manure annually, far more than cropland needs, resulting in widespread pollution and documented health crises in surrounding communities.Even purported technological solutions promoted by the beef industry, like improved cattle genetics or dietary feed additives, offer minimal environmental benefits. These methods might slightly reduce per-animal emissions, but scientists confirm they're wholly insufficient without significantly cutting beef consumption. Alleged carbon sequestration through cattle grazing is temporary, limited, and unreliable, inevitably overshadowed by substantial methane emissions.Meanwhile, the climate emergency escalates. <a data-mce-href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/28/global-temperatures-break-annual-heat-record-next-five-years-world-meteorological-organization" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/28/global-temperatures-break-annual-heat-record-next-five-years-world-meteorological-organization" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">A recent report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) forecasts an 80% chance that global temperatures will break annual heat records within five years</a>, amplifying extreme droughts, floods, and wildfires. Astonishingly, there's now a small but shocking probability that global temperatures could briefly surpass 2°C above pre-industrial levels before 2030, a scenario previously considered impossible in such a short timeframe.The urgency of immediate climate action is undeniable. Yet, rather than guiding students toward responsible dietary choices, the beef industry's manipulative curriculum seeks to foster trust and secure future beef consumption. These materials infiltrate classrooms quietly through direct mailings, teacher training programs, and industry partnerships, often escaping thorough oversight.This calculated indoctrination poses a profound threat. Children are taught to view minor technological tweaks as genuine sustainability solutions, while effective, science-backed measures like eating more plant-based foods are systematically sidelined.It’s clear: the beef industry's interference isn't about education, it’s about preserving profits at the expense of our planet's future and children's understanding of reality.The path forward demands rejecting industry manipulation in education and embracing real, evidence-based climate action. Eliminating cow flesh consumption isn't radical, it's rational, urgent, and necessary.

Herbivore Club

ARTICLES

The Unspoken Exclusion: Animal Rights & Intersectionality

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

Tall Tales: Earth.com Serves Evolutionary Clickbait

Greyhound Racing: Britain's Shame

Monarchy: No One Is Born to Kneel

Grade A Propaganda