Blog

There’s a quiet revolution happening in pet bowls across the UK. And it didn’t start in Parliament, or on the streets, or even in the vet’s office, it started in Dragons’ Den.Omni, a vet-founded vegan dog food brand, stepped into the spotlight with a bold pitch: nutritionally complete, allergy-friendly, plant-based food for dogs. What followed wasn’t just an investment, it was a cultural moment. 20,000 new customers. A 130% sales surge. £10 million in revenue. And a lot of uncomfortable questions for an industry built on the assumption that feeding flesh to dogs is normal, necessary, and harmless. Companion Animals, Commodity DietsPet food doesn’t just use scraps. It props up an entire industry of breeding, killing, and dismembering. Research shows just a quarter of animal byproducts in high-income countries end up in pet food, and those byproducts aren’t waste, they’re profit. Cow byproducts alone account for over 11% of the industry’s revenue. In other words, every bag of “meaty chunks” helps bankroll the next slaughter.And the environmental cost? Catastrophic. In Japan, the diet of a medium-sized dog creates more environmental damage than the average human diet. In the US, pet food accounts for up to 30% of the environmental footprint of livestock farming. Globally, switching all dogs to plantbased food could save more land than the <a data-mce-href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0291791" href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0291791" target="_blank" rel="noopener">size of Mexico</a>. For cats, we’re talking Germany. That’s not a tweak. That’s a transformation. Enter OmniOmni wasn’t created in a boardroom by branding execs chasing a trend. It was founded by two men, one a vet, who saw the harm behind conventional dog food and decided to do something about it. Their appearance on Dragons’ Den didn’t just showcase their business. It forced the public to confront a truth they’ve been groomed to ignore: feeding animals to animals isn’t necessary.&nbsp;And clearly, the message resonated. Omni’s post-show numbers blew past predictions. Subscriptions soared. So did trust. Because when your dog’s itchy skin clears up, when their digestion improves, and you don’t have to pump them full of meds to get there, it sticks. You remember. You stay.Omni didn’t just sell dog food. It sold a future, one where companion animals aren’t reliant on suffering and slaughter. Fur BabiesOf course, there's another story here. A shift that’s been building for decades. Dogs are no longer just pets. They’re family. <a data-mce-href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dog-ownership-child-surrogate-fertility-b2756506.html" href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dog-ownership-child-surrogate-fertility-b2756506.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sometimes they’re surrogates</a>. As fertility rates drop across the UK and much of the Global North, dog guardianship rises. It’s not a coincidence.Studies have found people are consciously choosing dogs over children, citing ease, emotional fulfilment, and a manageable life expectancy. A dog, for many, is the baby. The psychology is clear. The ethics? Not so much.Read More: <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Cute-by-Design-How-Selective-Breeding-Has-Warped-G2G71EMPVC" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Cute-by-Design-How-Selective-Breeding-Has-Warped-G2G71EMPVC" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cute by Design: How Selective Breeding Has Warped Cats and Dogs</a>Because the irony is glaring: many who choose dogs as children are still feeding them the literal bodies of actual babies - lambs, calves, chicks. What sense of nurturing, what compassion, allows for that?If we’re going to treat dogs like children, shouldn't we at least stop feeding them someone else’s? Plant-Based WorksLet’s address the scare tactic up front: yes, dogs can thrive on a plantbased diet. Every major study on the subject, including the one published in <a data-mce-href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1569372/full" href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1569372/full" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems</a>, says the same thing. Health outcomes are equal, often better. Dogs like the food. They maintain good energy levels, healthy skin, proper digestion. The fear isn’t rooted in science, it’s in habit.The meat industry clings to the idea that plantbased dog food is somehow “unnatural,” as if scooping burnt “animal derivatives” into a plastic bowl is nature’s plan. What’s unnatural is breeding billions of animals, dismembering them, and feeding the leftovers to our companions while telling ourselves we’re “animal lovers.”It’s not “natural” to feed suffering. It’s normalised. There’s a difference. Omni's and the End of ExcusesOmni’s rapid expansion now includes allergy-friendly wet food, free from common triggers like cow, dairy, soy, and grains. This isn’t niche. Up to 30% of dogs have allergies. Many live with chronic issues, medicated for life while eating food that makes them worse. Omni’s approach, hypoallergenic, plant-based, vet-formulated, isn’t just a nice idea. It’s a solution.And it’s working. 20,000 new customers aren't flukes. They’re people who saw a better option and took it. The Future of FeedingTransitioning companions to plantbased diets is a significant climate change mitigation strategy which warrants immediate implementation. This isn’t a call for further debate. It’s a call for action.Governments are asleep at the wheel. The media is still flirting with clickbait about “forcing veganism on pets.” Meanwhile, the science is screaming. The planet is burning. And the meat industry is laughing all the way to the bank.But thanks to companies like Omni, and the people choosing to feed their dogs compassion instead of corpses, the tide is turning. This isn’t a trend. It’s a turning point.And it started with two people, a big idea, and a few minutes on prime-time TV.Dragons’ Den gave them a stage. Now they’re giving the rest of us a choice.The only question is: what kind of guardian do you want to be?

Dragons Backed the Dog Food Revolution

A new <a data-mce-href="https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/working-paper-424-Berland_Leroutier.pdf" href="https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/working-paper-424-Berland_Leroutier.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">study</a> shows that women emit 26% less carbon than men in food and transport - the two biggest lifestyle contributors to climate chaos. And it’s not because women eat like little or never leave the house. The difference holds even after adjusting for calorie intake, commuting distance, and job status.So where does the extra male pollution come from? Two things: meat and motors. And the researchers aren’t shy about it, these behaviours are “associated with male identity.” In other words, we’re burning the planet so men can feel manly.The average man’s lifestyle in these sectors spews 5.3 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent a year. Women? 3.9. That’s not a rounding error, it’s a crisis of identity. This isn’t about personal choice or food preference. It’s about how deeply consumption has been gendered, and how hard some people cling to behaviours that scream “power” no matter the cost.Masculinity has a meat problem.Across the world, women are more likely to go plant-based. Why? Because they’re less tethered to the myth that eating corpses is some kind of primal performance. A 2023 Vegan Society briefing showed that men face social pressure, nutrition myths, and fragile ego triggers that keep them locked into animal consumption. Apparently, steak is still a status symbol, and being kind is still “feminine.”The transport emissions gap is even more revealing: it only shows up in couples, and gets worse when children are involved. That’s right, once paired up, men commandeer the car and rack up miles while women vanish from the stats. It’s not biology. It’s entitlement.The implications for climate policy are glaring. The people most responsible for the emissions are the least likely to support the policies needed to cut them. Because if your identity is built on control, excess, and resistance to change, giving up meat or the car isn’t just inconvenient, it’s unthinkable. Climate breakdown is bad, but looking “unmanly”? Apparently worse.If climate solutions don’t challenge cultural norms, especially around gender, they won’t land. We need policies that don’t just nudge individuals but interrogate why certain behaviours are seen as normal, powerful, or necessary. Eating animals isn’t just a dietary choice. It’s a learned behaviour, propped up by marketing, myth, and misplaced masculinity.It’s not that women are perfect. It’s that they’re less invested in domination.And that’s the root of the problem. Not just for climate policy, but for any justice movement. Domination, of land, other animals, humans, is the blueprint. And if we don’t dismantle it, we’ll be stuck debating carpool lanes while the world burns.If you're serious about climate justice, start with the basics:Reject animal use. Challenge norms. Stop enabling the fragile male supremacy complex.

Masculinity & Male Emissions

Forests aren’t just burning, they’re being burned down on purpose. Global forest destruction surged to terrifying new heights in 2024, driven overwhelmingly by fires exacerbated by human-induced climate breakdown. But, hidden behind the headlines about wildfires lies a deeper truth: animal agriculture is the fuel stoking this catastrophic blaze.Last year, we watched helplessly as forests from the Brazilian Amazon to the Siberian taiga vanished at record-breaking rates, destroying ecosystems that had stood untouched for millennia. According to alarming data from <a data-mce-href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/21/fires-record-loss-forests-global-heating-agriculture-logging-brazil-bolivia-aoe" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/21/fires-record-loss-forests-global-heating-agriculture-logging-brazil-bolivia-aoe" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">Global Forest Watch</a>, tropical regions, the planet’s most biodiverse and carbon-rich ecosystems, suffered unprecedented fire-induced devastation. An area equivalent to the size of Italy was wiped out in just twelve months.This isn’t nature reclaiming its territory; tropical forests don’t naturally burn like this. These fires are deliberately sparked to clear land for animal agriculture, primarily cattle ranching and crops grown to feed 'livestock', such as soya. Animal agriculture isn't merely a participant, it's the central culprit.In Brazil alone, forest loss skyrocketed, accounting for an appalling 42% of all tropical primary rainforest destruction. More than 25,000 square kilometres of irreplaceable Amazon rainforest vanished in smoke and flame, surpassing even the catastrophic deforestation rates under Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency. Despite hollow pledges by world leaders at climate conferences to halt deforestation, animal agriculture's unchecked expansion ensures forests keep burning.Bolivia, too, has become a grim example. The loss of previously untouched forest surged nearly fivefold since 2020, driven by aggressive government policies pushing cattle ranching and soya farming to destructive new limits. These are the direct consequences of prioritising profit and animal exploitation over planetary survival.In Africa, the Congo basin, the world's second-largest rainforest, is also bleeding out. Countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Congo-Brazzaville hit record forest losses as animal agriculture encroaches, cutting deeper into ecosystems vital for climate stability and wildlife protection. These losses don’t just endanger forests; they accelerate climate breakdown by releasing massive stores of carbon, locking humanity in a dangerous feedback loop that intensifies warming, dries forests further, and ignites even more destructive fires.Despite the alarming data and the visible devastation, governments and industries stubbornly refuse to confront the reality: consuming animals destroys our world. We hear about "global red alerts" from experts like Elizabeth Goldman of Global Forest Watch, yet meaningful action remains absent. Pledges to halt deforestation are meaningless unless we address the primary driver: our use and commodification of animals.Even areas once celebrated for conservation successes, like Indonesia and Malaysia, remain vulnerable. Temporary reductions in forest loss are fragile victories when global demand for animal-derived products, flesh, lactate, skin, continues to rise. The solution isn’t found in incremental reforms or "sustainable" labels slapped onto products of exploitation. The solution demands abolition.If humanity is serious about saving forests, halting climate collapse, and preserving life on Earth, we must dismantle the system that commodifies animals. Ending animal agriculture isn’t extreme, it's necessary. The uncomfortable truth is this: every animal product consumed fans the flames destroying our planet. Animal agriculture isn’t feeding us; it's killing us.We don’t need better ways to exploit animals. We need justice. We need liberation. And we need it now, before the fires burn everything we cherish beyond recognition.

Burn. Eat. Repeat.

Mad cow disease is back in the <a data-mce-href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mad-cow-disease-bse-essex-farm-uk-b2754349.html" href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mad-cow-disease-bse-essex-farm-uk-b2754349.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">headlines</a>, with officials confirming a new case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) at an Essex farm. Predictably, government agencies immediately reassured the public, promising there's "no risk" to food safety or human health. But let's cut through the standard industry script and confront the uncomfortable truth: as long as animals are commodified, disease and death will always be part of the package.This latest victim, described dismissively as a single "atypical" case, was culled after exhibiting symptoms. "Atypical" BSE, officials stress, is spontaneous, naturally occurring, and non-contagious. But what they conveniently gloss over is the brutal reality underlying this event, another animal whose life and death were controlled entirely by human use and profit motives.Chief veterinary officer Christine Middlemiss claims this case proves the effectiveness of surveillance systems. But surveillance does nothing to address the root cause. Animals kept as commodities exist solely to produce flesh, milk, and profit. Disease outbreaks are inevitable because animals forced into unnatural lives of intensive breeding and confinement suffer impaired immunity and chronic stress. To pretend that periodic disease detection somehow represents a successful system is absurdly short-sighted.Historical perspective only underscores the horror. The UK’s 1986 BSE crisis resulted in 180,000 infected cattle and the mass slaughter of 4.4 million others. Thousands of animals' lives ended, not to mention human lives lost through Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), a devastating and fatal condition linked directly to consuming infected animal products. The parallels drawn between mad cow disease and kuru, a disease contracted by humans consuming the brains of deceased relatives, should offer a chilling lesson. And yet, society continues to overlook the stark similarities, remaining wilfully blind to the risks of eating animals.The industry’s assurances are also conveniently silent about the countless other diseases directly tied to animal use and consumption. Coronary artery disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, and severe bacterial infections like salmonella, campylobacter, and E.coli O157:H7, all conditions overwhelmingly linked to diets heavy in animal flesh and excretion. The authorities claim rigorous measures protect public health, but making meat "safe" is fundamentally impossible because the very practice of consuming animals is inherently risky.Ironically, governments ban feeding animal remains to livestock to prevent disease outbreaks like BSE, yet enthusiastically promote the consumption of these very animal remains to humans. It's a grotesque contradiction that highlights the arbitrary, self-serving boundaries drawn by an industry that prioritises profit over life, human and non-human alike.This latest BSE case isn’t just a brief headline, it’s a reminder of the pervasive violence and health risks inherent in the commodification of animals. Surveillance systems, "humane" culling, and food safety protocols are merely symptoms of a deeper moral sickness: the exploitation of animals for human convenience and profit. Until society confronts and dismantles this injustice, diseases like mad cow will continue to emerge, reminding us that animal exploitation is not only morally indefensible but fundamentally dangerous.

BSE: Born, Slaughtered, Erased

When it comes to climate breakdown, methane is the fast-acting accelerant that almost nobody in power wants to talk about, especially not the corporations profiting from animal use. While world leaders mouth empty pledges about staying below 1.5°C, the dairy industry is busy pumping out one of the most potent greenhouse gases we know of, then denying, distracting, or outright ignoring their role in it.According to <a data-mce-href="https://changingmarkets.org/report/running-latte/" href="https://changingmarkets.org/report/running-latte/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">new analysis</a> by the Changing Markets Foundation, some of the biggest names in dairy and retail, including Nestlé, Arla, Starbucks, and Danone, are doing next to nothing to tackle methane emissions. Despite accounting for 32% of global methane output, the animal agriculture industry continues to receive a free pass, protected by PR, voluntary schemes, and an almost religious commitment to business as usual.Methane doesn’t hang around. It’s about 80 times more powerful than CO₂ over a 20-year period, but it breaks down faster. Which means if we wanted to make a dent in the climate emergency quickly, methane would be the target. And yet the companies sitting on this “rare lever” for change are actively avoiding it. Out of 20 major dairy producers and coffee chains surveyed, worth a combined $420 billion, only one (Danone) has set a target specifically for methane. One.Nestlé is notable for at least saying people should consume less dairy, yet still hasn’t committed to reducing its own sales. Starbucks? Their biggest source of emissions in the US is dairy, and they still charge extra for plant-based milks. Dunkin’ scored a perfect zero for its methane denialism. And the UK’s own Froneri refused to even acknowledge livestock as a climate issue.Almost every company surveyed said methane is a problem, but just two claimed to have actually reduced emissions. Not one has pledged to sell less dairy. Instead, they lean on technical tweaks, like feed additives and biogas, to give the illusion of progress, while continuing to breed and exploit animals on an industrial scale. These are not climate solutions. They are delay tactics.This collective cowardice is especially telling considering these companies helped launch the Dairy Methane Action Alliance (DMAA) at COP28, a supposed industry initiative to deal with emissions. But when researchers compared DMAA members to non-members, the difference was marginal. Only three of the eight members have published methane targets of any kind. A PR stunt disguised as progress.Even those who monitor emissions don’t want to share the results. Only six of the 20 companies even track their methane output directly. Just four of them make those figures public. This is what transparency looks like in an industry built on secrecy and control.The report makes one thing clear: voluntary action has failed. Fine words and vague climate targets aren’t reducing emissions, they’re buying time for a dying system to keep profiting. As Changing Markets CEO Nusa Urbancic puts it, “Governments must finally grab the bull by the horns and set science-based methane cuts for the agricultural sector.” But they won’t, because powerful meat and dairy lobbies are actively sabotaging efforts to regulate methane in both the US and the EU. These corporations are pouring more money into public relations than actual solutions.It’s not just climate damage. It’s calculated deception. And the dairy industry’s hands are covered in it, from stolen milk and dead calves to a warming planet and a misinformed public. They’ve sold us the lie of “sustainable dairy” while refusing to make even the most basic changes to their operations.The truth is simple: dairy production is one of the most effective levers we have to cut methane, and the people in charge won’t touch it. Why? Because they’d rather destroy the planet than give up profit.If you're serious about climate justice, start by rejecting dairy. Then demand that governments stop shielding the industry from scrutiny. Don’t get distracted by emissions from transport or recycling tips from billionaires. Methane from animal farming is the fire. It's burning now. And it’s being fuelled by every latte, yoghurt, and cheese sandwich sold under the illusion of normality.We don’t need better dairy. We need to stop using animals. This isn’t about targets. It’s about truth. And the truth is: silence on methane is complicity.

Got Methane?

People love to say “plant-based diets are a trend.” But trends fade. This isn’t a trend — it’s a stalled revolution. Despite all the evidence, public interest, and available alternatives, we’re still dragging our feet. And the fault doesn’t lie with individual consumers. It lies with an industry that resists change, a medical system that fails to educate, and a culture clinging to habits over health, justice, and sense.Let’s break it down. Most People Want to Change — So Why Aren’t They?A <a data-mce-href="https://gfieurope.org/resource/2025-germany-uk-plant-based-dynamics-motivations-consumers/" href="https://gfieurope.org/resource/2025-germany-uk-plant-based-dynamics-motivations-consumers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new study</a> surveying nearly 5,000 adults in the UK and Germany shows a huge portion of the population is actively trying to eat fewer animal-based products. A full 38% plan to eat more plant-based food. 51% want to either reduce their meat and dairy intake, increase their plant intake — or both. These aren’t vegans. They’re just people trying to make better choices.And yet, most of them aren’t succeeding.The data shows that despite wanting to eat more plant-based foods, people fall back into old habits. Why? Because meat and dairy are familiar, and everywhere. Plant-based foods, in comparison, are seen as less convenient, harder to cook, and <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/The-Psychology-Behind-Anti-Veganism-S6S01DYIEJ" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/The-Psychology-Behind-Anti-Veganism-S6S01DYIEJ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">less socially accepted</a>. People say they like the taste of meat and dairy more — if they can honestly <a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/You-Cant-Taste-the-Difference-So-Why-Are-Animal-A0A81DUIJ4" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/You-Cant-Taste-the-Difference-So-Why-Are-Animal-A0A81DUIJ4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tell the difference.&nbsp;</a>It’s not about taste. It’s about trust, identity, and access. If you’ve grown up thinking a proper meal includes meat, it takes more than tofu to change your mind.So here’s the industry’s job: make plant-based food not just available, but normal. Make it feel like everyday food, not an ethical experiment. Until then, even people with good intentions will keep reaching for the same old thing. “Processed” Plant-Based Food Isn’t the Enemy — Misinformation Is<a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Ultra-Processed-Is-Just-a-Distraction-F2F01E4GJ5" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/Ultra-Processed-Is-Just-a-Distraction-F2F01E4GJ5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Now let’s talk about the “processed” myth</a>.One of the most effective ways people get scared away from plant-based food is through the weaponisation of the word “processed.” As if people aren’t already living on processed animal products — sausages, cheese, chicken nuggets, spam, yoghurt, you name it. No one’s checking how processed their bacon is. But throw the word “processed” at a soy burger, and suddenly it’s Frankenstein food.A <a data-mce-href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-025-01148-5" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-025-01148-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new study</a> out of Finland dismantles this nonsense. It shows that the level of processing in plant-based proteins isn’t the problem — it’s how they’re processed and what nutrients remain. For example, tempeh — a fermented soy product — retains tons of beneficial compounds like isoflavonoids. Meanwhile, soy protein isolates, often found in protein bars or mock meats, contain far less.So should we write off mock meats? No. Because even when they’re made with concentrates or isolates, they still remove animal products from the food chain — and that alone is a win for health, animals, and the planet. The real issue isn’t whether a food is “processed.” It’s whether it’s nutrient-dense, ethically produced, and free from animal exploitation.Cooking is processing. Freezing is processing. Making bread is processing. If we want to get real about health, we need to drop the propaganda and look at what we’re actually eating — and who it cost. Doctors Know Plant-Based Diets Work. So Why Won’t They Say So?Here’s where things really fall apart: health professionals know plant-based diets are effective. A <a data-mce-href="https://pcrm.widen.net/s/l2kldfm9gs/pcrm-mc-vegan-prevalence-survey-4.28.25" href="https://pcrm.widen.net/s/l2kldfm9gs/pcrm-mc-vegan-prevalence-survey-4.28.25" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">new US survey</a> shows that half of adults already believe going plant-based can improve their health and reduce disease risk. Two-thirds said they’d consider switching — if they were given the right guidance. And yet, just 1 in 5 primary care providers ever mention it to their patients.Why?Because most doctors aren’t trained in nutrition. In the UK, three-quarters of dietitians wrongly think plant-based proteins are “incomplete.” In the US, plant-based nutrition is rarely included in medical education unless students seek it out themselves.We have a public health system that’s overwhelmed, underfunded, and drowning in chronic disease — and it won’t even tell people about one of the most effective solutions available. Studies continue to show that plant-based diets can lower the risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and even some cancers. They also lower healthcare costs. So why the silence?Because money talks, tradition screams, and animals are ignored. It’s easier to push pills and procedures than it is to challenge a lifetime of steak dinners and “drink your milk” conditioning. What’s Really Holding People Back?People are surrounded by mixed messages and systemic barriers. According to the GFI Europe report, people want to reduce their animal use, but they're confused. One group is focused on weight loss. Another wants more fibre and protein. Another is just trying to cut back on meat and dairy.What unites them all is that they’ve been left to figure it out on their own. And surprise — most people don’t have the time, money, or energy to run a private nutrition investigation while juggling bills, family, and a broken food system.This is where the food industry, health professionals, and policy-makers need to wake up.If you want people to eat differently, stop treating plants like an exotic option and start building them into everyday systems. Put plant-based meals in schools, hospitals, and offices. Train GPs and nurses. Make healthy, ethical food normal — not niche.Stop presenting plant-based sausages like sad imitations and start showing them as what they really are: a future without blood. The Bigger Picture: Health, Climate, and JusticeThis isn’t just about consumer trends. This is about survival.Plant-based diets aren’t just good for individuals — they’re essential for the planet. Study after study confirms that replacing animal products with plant-based foods slashes emissions, land use, and water waste. It's a key solution to climate collapse.But it’s also about justice.Every bite of meat, dairy, or eggs comes from a system that views individuals as property. That forcibly breeds, imprisons, mutilates, and kills them. The fact that these products contribute to disease and environmental destruction is the poisoned cherry on top.So when people want to shift but aren’t supported, it’s not just a public health failure. It’s a failure of ethics, education, and leadership. What Needs to Happen Now:Stop lying about “processed” food. Context matters. Nutritional content matters. The label doesn’t tell the whole story.Train health professionals. If someone’s willing to go plant-based for their health, the least a doctor can do is not sabotage them with outdated nonsense.Normalise plant-based eating. Not as a diet. Not as a lifestyle. As a default.Make plant-based food delicious and familiar. Enough with the sad salads and overpriced chickpea patties. Give people food that feels like food.Use messaging that works. If someone wants to lose weight or build muscle, show them how to do that without contributing to slaughter.Most people already know the truth: plant-based food is better for them, better for the planet, and doesn’t require killing someone else. But until we dismantle the barriers — confusion, stigma, habit, misinformation, and institutional silence — good intentions will keep dying in the supermarket aisle. The demand is there.Now where’s the support?

Herbivore Club

ARTICLES

Dragons Backed the Dog Food Revolution

Masculinity & Male Emissions

Burn. Eat. Repeat.

BSE: Born, Slaughtered, Erased

Got Methane?

Why Aren’t We Eating More Plants?