Blog

Another raw pet food recall, another warning - this time for bird flu-contaminated chicken flesh. Cats in multiple US households have been infected with H5N1, and some have been euthanised as a result. The common factor? They were fed raw poultry from Wild Coast Pet Foods.&nbsp;&nbsp;The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an alert, urging cat guardians to watch for symptoms - fever, lethargy, eye and nose discharge, breathing difficulties, seizures, even blindness. Meanwhile, nearly 100 US cats have contracted bird flu since 2022, some after drinking raw milk from infected cows.&nbsp;&nbsp;Here’s the kicker: it’s still unclear how contaminated meat is ending up in pet food. Flesh from bird flu-infected poultry farms is supposed to be prohibited from entering the supply chain. But pet food doesn’t face the same scrutiny as flesh for human consumption. While the US Department of Agriculture inspects flesh for humans, pet food often bypasses these checks, making it a dumping ground for low-quality, potentially dangerous ingredients.&nbsp;&nbsp;And yet, despite these risks, people still cling to the idea that feeding cats raw flesh is "natural." But let’s unpack that myth.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Fiction of the “Natural” Cat DietIf cats are "naturally" meant to eat fish and poultry, then somewhere out there is a terrifying apex predator: a creature that swims miles out to sea, wrestles half-ton tuna into submission, and emerges dripping wet, hissing and clawing. This monster? Your house cat.&nbsp;&nbsp;According to this logic, Africa must also be overrun with feral cats hunting cows, sheep, and pigs, nursing their kittens on cows’ milk, because, of course, cats “naturally” drink it 🙄Sounds ridiculous? That’s because it is. Yet millions of cat guardians don’t question the absurdity of feeding their cats canned tuna, chicken, and cow flesh while scoffing at the idea of a nutritionally complete vegan diet for cats.&nbsp;&nbsp;Here’s the truth: cats don’t need specific ingredients; they need specific nutrients. And those nutrients can come from plants and synthetically derived sources, just like they do in fortified commercial flesh-based diets.&nbsp; The Ugly Truth About Flesh-Based Pet FoodIf you’re worried about nutrients, you should be far more concerned about what’s lurking in standard pet food. Flesh-based diets come with a host of risks, from heavy metals to harmful bacteria and diseases. Studies have linked these diets to increased rates of kidney, liver, heart, thyroid, neurological, and skin diseases - conditions that are disturbingly common in older animals.&nbsp;&nbsp;The reason? Pet food is an industrial dumping ground. When you buy standard flesh-based kibble or canned food, you’re often feeding your companion:&nbsp;&nbsp;- Flesh from dead, dying, diseased, or disabled animals.- Expired supermarket meat, complete with plastic packaging ground into the mix.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Rendered dogs and cats from shelters.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Old restaurant grease, packed with trans fats and free radicals.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Spoiled fish containing mercury and PCBs.&nbsp;&nbsp;To make this mess palatable, pet food manufacturers douse it in digest - a soup of partially dissolved intestines, livers, and lungs.Raw feeders like to claim they’re avoiding the dangers of processed pet food. But with recalls like this one, it’s clear they’re just swapping one problem for another.&nbsp; Vegan Pet Food: The Science, Not the HypeIf the idea of a nutritionally complete plantbased diet for cats still sounds radical, consider the science. Multiple studies have found no significant health differences between cats fed plantbased diets and those on flesh-based ones.&nbsp;&nbsp;- A study of 34 vegetarian cats found them just as healthy as their flesh-fed counterparts.&nbsp;&nbsp;- A study on 12 racing Siberian huskies showed they thrived on a flesh-free diet, even through competitive racing season.&nbsp;&nbsp;What matters is not whether a diet contains flesh, but whether it meets all of an animal’s nutritional needs.&nbsp;&nbsp;When properly formulated, plantbased pet food can provide everything cats and dogs require - without the bacterial contamination, disease risks, and ethical implications of animal-based pet food.&nbsp;&nbsp;Of course, any diet change should be gradual, and urinary pH should be monitored to prevent potential issues like urinary stones in male cats. But these are practical considerations - not reasons to dismiss plantbased diets outright. Time to Rethink “Natural”The raw food recall is just another reminder that feeding flesh-based diets isn’t the safe, natural choice many believe it to be. The truth is, flesh-based pet food is a risky, unregulated industry where contamination is common.&nbsp;Meanwhile, science has shown that cats and dogs can thrive on plant-based diets when formulated correctly.&nbsp;&nbsp;Feeding cats slaughterhouse byproducts isn’t “natural.” Feeding them contaminated raw flesh isn’t “natural.” What’s natural is making informed choices that keep our companions safe and align with justice for all animals.

Feeding Cats Raw Meat? You Might Be Feeding Them Bird Flu

Think you’re buying ‘free-range’ eggs? Think again.&nbsp;&nbsp;A legal loophole now allows eggs from hens who have never been outside to be sold as ‘free-range’. The Rule ChangeBird flu outbreaks have led to government-mandated lockdowns for farmed birds. When these orders kick in, millions of hens, turkeys, and ducks are forced indoors - often for months.&nbsp;&nbsp;Previously, after 16 weeks of confinement, eggs had to be relabelled as ‘barn eggs’. Some farmers complied. Others? Not so much.&nbsp;&nbsp;Now, the law has changed. The grace period is indefinite - meaning a ‘free-range’ label can stay on eggs even if the hens never see daylight.&nbsp;&nbsp;So, next time you pick up that ‘ethical’ carton of eggs, remember: labels mean nothing. The Free-Range Myth‘Free-range’ is a marketing term, not a welfare guarantee.&nbsp;&nbsp;Every ‘free-range’ hen starts life in an industrial hatchery. Their brothers? Shredded, gassed, or suffocated at birth because they can’t lay eggs. The industry kills hundreds of millions of male chicks every year - too many to even count.&nbsp;&nbsp;A ‘free-range’ hen will be slaughtered at just 1 - 2 years old - a fraction of her natural lifespan. Her body, exhausted from overproduction, is considered ‘spent’. The industry kills her when she stops being profitable.Even rescued hens often die young due to the toll farming takes on their bodies. Naturally, chickens can live over a decade - but the industry denies them that chance.&nbsp;&nbsp;‘Free-range’ doesn’t mean freedom.&nbsp;&nbsp;Most hens are packed four per square metre, in barns reeking of ammonia and stress. They’re supposed to have access to the outdoors, but:&nbsp;&nbsp;- Many never make it outside. Barns don’t have enough exits, and dominant hens block weaker ones from leaving.&nbsp;&nbsp;- At most, 10% of hens are outdoors at any time. Many never see sunlight.&nbsp;&nbsp;And when frustration builds? They attack each other. The industry’s solution? Mutilation. Chicks have their beaks sliced off at a day old to stop them from injuring each other in these unnatural conditions.&nbsp;Free-range or caged, all hens meet the same brutal end:&nbsp;&nbsp;- Gassed to death in a chamber.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Hung upside down while fully conscious, electrocuted in a water bath, and then slaughtered.All for eggs no one needs.<a data-mce-href="https://ko-fi.com/post/No-Eggs-No-Problem-W7W01BEE59" href="https://ko-fi.com/post/No-Eggs-No-Problem-W7W01BEE59" target="_blank" rel="noopener">No Eggs? No Problem.</a>

Hens Trapped Indoors, But Still Sold as ‘Free-Range’

Whether you’re after a hearty breakfast or a perfectly baked cake, there’s a vegan alternative that does the job - without the cruelty, exploitation, or disease risks tied to the egg industry. Eggs: Cruel and ContaminatedThe egg industry isn’t just unnecessary - it’s built on exploitation. Chickens are selectively bred to lay far more eggs than their bodies can handle, leading to painful conditions like osteoporosis and organ failure. Male chicks, useless to the industry, are killed at birth - usually by grinding, suffocation, or gassing.Egg farms are also breeding grounds for viruses like bird flu, which has already jumped to mammals and poses a pandemic threat. Salmonella is another bonus of keeping birds crammed together in filthy conditions. Even 'free-range' hens suffer from high disease rates - because when profit is the priority. Eggs for Breakfast? No Thanks.If eggs are the main event, swap them for something better:&nbsp;&nbsp;- Tofu scramble: Crumble and season tofu for a high-protein, egg-free breakfast.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Chickpea flour omelette: Mix chickpea flour with water and spices for a perfect egg-free omelette.&nbsp;&nbsp;- JUST Egg: This plant-based liquid scrambles, fries, and folds just like eeggs. Aldi also recently released an off brand version in the UK.No cholesterol, no cruelty, just breakfast.&nbsp;&nbsp; Baking Without EggsEggs in baking add moisture, structure, and binding, but plants do all that too:&nbsp;&nbsp;- Leavening (helping food rise): Use baking soda + vinegar or aquafaba (chickpea water) for light, airy cakes.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Moisture: Mashed bananas, applesauce, or non-dairy yogurt keep things soft and fluffy.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Binding: Flaxseeds or chia seeds mixed with water create a thick, egg-like consistency.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Fat: Nut butters, coconut oil, or vegan butter work just as well.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Skip the guesswork - use tested vegan recipes with positive reviews. No need to ‘veganise’ an egg-heavy recipe when there are already thousands of tried-and-true options out there.Eggs aren’t essential. They’re just a habit. And habits can change.

No Eggs? No Problem

Planet Earth - Sunrise Over Europe - Sun, Space, Clouds, Electricity, Sustainable Resources

For years, the world has been sold a simple story: fossil fuels are the biggest driver of climate change. But a new analysis, published in <a data-mce-href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/adb7f2/pdf" href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/adb7f2/pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Environmental Research Letters</a>, turns that on its head. According to Gerard Wedderburn-Bisshop, a former Australian government environmental scientist, animal agriculture is actually the primary driver - responsible for 53% of global average temperature rise between 1750 and 2020. Fossil fuels? Just 19%.&nbsp;&nbsp;This isn’t some fringe claim. It’s built on advances in greenhouse gas accounting that expose how outdated methods have underestimated the true impact of deforestation and methane emissions.&nbsp;Herbivore Club has maintained for years that widely claimed figures like "<a data-mce-href="https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1634679/" href="https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1634679/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">14.5%</a>" are absurdly low given how big a role deforestation plays. The Numbers Don’t Lie - They’ve Just Been Ignored&nbsp;&nbsp;Traditional emissions accounting lets industries off the hook. Fossil fuel emissions are counted in full, but deforestation is only counted partially, under the excuse that regrowth offsets emissions. Meanwhile, all emissions - whether from fossil fuels or cow burps - are absorbed by growing vegetation, yet only some sectors are given credit for this. Apply a consistent accounting method, and suddenly the numbers shift.&nbsp;&nbsp;Wedderburn-Bisshop’s paper shows that animal agriculture’s emissions from land use change alone put it 19% ahead of fossil fuels. That’s before even getting into the methane problem. Methane’s Real Impact - Not What the Industry Wants You to Believe&nbsp;&nbsp;For decades, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has used Global Warming Potential (GWP) to compare emissions. But Wedderburn-Bisshop argues this metric underestimates methane’s warming power. Instead, his study uses Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF) - the best available science on how greenhouse gases actually heat the planet.&nbsp;&nbsp;Why does this matter? Because the livestock industry has been pushing for alternative metrics that downplay methane. Methane is short-lived compared to CO₂, but its warming effect is intense. When you use ERF instead of industry-friendly accounting tricks, you get a brutally clear picture: methane's cumulative impact has been vastly underestimated.&nbsp;&nbsp; Fossil Fuels Have a Built-In "Cooling Effect" - That’s Disappearing&nbsp;Here’s something rarely discussed: fossil fuel burning actually masks some of its own warming. That’s because burning coal and oil releases cooling aerosols alongside CO₂. These aerosols don’t last long, but while they’re in the atmosphere, they artificially lower the planet’s temperature. When you include this in the numbers, you get:&nbsp;&nbsp;- Fossil fuels: 0.79°C warming, but 0.59°C cooling, making the net warming effect smaller.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Animal agriculture: 0.86°C warming, with only 0.13°C cooling, almost nothing to offset the damage. The Policy Shift We Actually Need&nbsp;&nbsp;So what does this mean for climate action? If we’re serious about stopping global heating, we need to stop pretending that emissions from deforestation are “temporary” and that methane isn’t a huge problem. This means:1. Recognising deforestation emissions as equivalent to burning fossil fuels - because they are.&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Ending land use for animal agriculture, because it’s the biggest driver of land destruction.&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Applying ERF across all climate policies - because anything else is just more greenwashing.&nbsp;&nbsp;Wedderburn-Bisshop puts it bluntly: "The destruction of forests should be seen the same way as burning coal." Why This Matters for Gen Z - and the Future of Climate ActionIf young people are the future, they need the truth. A new study by <a data-mce-href="https://faunalytics.org/exploring-gen-zs-attitudes-towards-animals-and-the-environment/" href="https://faunalytics.org/exploring-gen-zs-attitudes-towards-animals-and-the-environment/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Faunalytics and Good Growth Co</a> shows that Gen Z cares about the environment - but they’re not being told the full story.The research, which surveyed young people in the US, Indonesia, Thailand, and China, found that most believe society isn’t doing enough to protect animals or the planet. But their focus is skewed - companion animals and wild species get some attention, while farmed animals are rarely mentioned.This is a direct result of misinformation. The same system that pushes “14.5% of emissions” is also burying the role of animal agriculture in climate destruction. Meanwhile, studies show that Gen Z is leading the plantbased shift. A <a data-mce-href="https://vegconomist.com/society/majority-gen-z-favor-vegan-diet/" href="https://vegconomist.com/society/majority-gen-z-favor-vegan-diet/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">2023 poll</a> found they are the biggest drivers of the plant-based market, and 14% of Gen Z adults in the US already identify as vegan or vegetarian.That’s double the previous generation’s numbers, and yet, climate policy still centres on fossil fuels while ignoring the biggest climate threat: the food system. The Choices AheadThis debate isn’t just academic. The choices we make now determine the planet’s future. The IPCC has already acknowledged that different emissions metrics lead to different policy outcomes. Governments and industries choose how they frame emissions - and so far, they’ve chosen to shield animal agriculture.&nbsp;Wedderburn-Bisshop’s research makes it clear: if we count emissions honestly, the biggest culprit isn’t oil or gas - it’s the global exploitation of animals for food. Fossil fuels must go. But the future isn’t just about clean energy.The climate crisis won’t be solved in a supermarket aisle, but what’s on the shelves matters. The next generation is ready for change. The question is whether politicians and climate scientists are willing to tell the truth.

Fossil Fuels Are Bad, Animal Agriculture Is Worse

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

Meat, Methane, and Missed Targets

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

Herbivore Club

ARTICLES

Feeding Cats Raw Meat? You Might Be Feeding Them Bird Flu

Hens Trapped Indoors, But Still Sold as ‘Free-Range’

No Eggs? No Problem

Fossil Fuels Are Bad, Animal Agriculture Is Worse

Meat, Methane, and Missed Targets

The Fishy Logic of Pescatarians