Blog

Everyone knows land animals are exploited in the food system, but what about the billions of fishes, crabs, and lobsters who never get a second thought? <a data-mce-href="https://faunalytics.org/understanding-perspectives-on-aquatic-animal-welfare-in-europe/" href="https://faunalytics.org/understanding-perspectives-on-aquatic-animal-welfare-in-europe/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A new report</a> looks at how people in the EU view aquatic animals and their so-called “welfare.” Spoiler: They don’t know much. Do People Think Fish Feel Pain?&nbsp;71% of respondents said fishes can feel pain. Good start. But when it comes to intelligence and emotions, people weren’t so sure, only 51% agreed fishes are smart, and just 45% thought they could feel pleasure. Younger women were the most likely to recognise their abilities. People Support "Welfare" - But Keep Eating The Victims&nbsp;&nbsp;91% of respondents said fishes deserve the same level of “welfare” protections as land animals. They also backed policies like stunning fishes before slaughter (70%) and ensuring live crustaceans aren’t mistreated in transport (79%). Support was highest in France and Italy, while Sweden, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic lagged behind.When it came to banning live animal sales, people were more willing to protect fishes (61%) and lobsters (61%) than mussels (48%). The countries most in favour? Germany, Italy, Poland, France, and Greece. The ones least concerned? Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the Czech Republic. Fish Farming: People Have No Idea What’s Happening&nbsp;&nbsp;The public wants transparency in how tax money funds fish farming, but they don’t actually know much about the industry. Only 37% realised that farmed fishes are fed wild-caught fishes, fueling even more death. Just 34% were aware that more farmed fishes die during rearing than farmed land animals. France, Poland, and Germany had the highest awareness; Spain, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic had the lowest. People Still Fund The Industry&nbsp;&nbsp;47% of respondents said they eat all kinds of animals, and 39% eat fish at least once a week. Spain, Italy, and France had the highest fish consumption, while the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, and the Netherlands ate the least. Freshness, quality, and price were top concerns, but 61% claimed that "welfare" influenced their choices.&nbsp;Despite all this, 90% said they would pay extra for “higher welfare” fish products, with nearly 25% willing to pay significantly more - without defining what that means. The "Sustainable" Scam&nbsp;&nbsp;Many respondents assumed “sustainable” labels meant fishes were raised in good conditions, 56% thought it meant they could perform natural behaviours. But consumer knowledge about labelling was poor, and most believed current certification schemes actually enforce strong welfare standards. They don’t.69% of respondents were open to labelling that discloses farming practices, including how the fish was killed. But awareness of what’s already happening is minimal. The Bottom Line&nbsp;&nbsp;People like the idea of treating aquatic animals better, but their lack of awareness about the realities of fish farming, sentience, and misleading labels keeps them complicit. The takeaway? Consumers aren’t driving change - they’re just buying into comforting illusions. Fishes don’t need “higher welfare.” They need freedom.

Fish Are Killed By The Trillions - And Most People Don’t Even Know How

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

The world is heating faster than expected. <a data-mce-href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/04/climate-change-target-of-2c-is-dead-says-renowned-climate-scientist" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/04/climate-change-target-of-2c-is-dead-says-renowned-climate-scientist" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A top climate scientist just declared the 2°C target “dead,”</a> with extreme weather events already devastating lives. Governments talk about solutions while emissions keep rising. Frustration is understandable - but waiting for politicians to fix the problem isn’t a strategy.&nbsp;&nbsp;The reality? Change starts with what we normalise. And right now, most people still treat using animals as inevitable. That’s a problem, because the way we produce food and clothing is a climate disaster.&nbsp;&nbsp; Food Production is Driving the CrisisAnimal agriculture is a leading cause of deforestation, water pollution, and methane emissions. A large-scale study found that going plant-based significantly reduces environmental damage:&nbsp;&nbsp;- 75% fewer emissions- 75% less land use- 75% less water pollution- 93% lower methane emissionsFood systems matter. And while shifting away from using animals won’t solve everything, it’s one of the most immediate and effective actions individuals can take.&nbsp;&nbsp; Your Choices Shape AccessibilityOne common excuse for inaction is that plant-based options aren’t accessible to everyone. That’s true in some places. But what’s also true is that accessibility improves when demand grows. The more people who make the switch - especially those with the means to do so - the easier and cheaper it becomes for others.&nbsp;&nbsp;This is how change happens. The things that are becoming normal today - electric cars, plant-based milks, reusable bags - were once niche, expensive, or inconvenient. Early adopters create the shift that makes ethical choices easier for everyone.&nbsp;&nbsp; Change Yourself, Then Push for MoreExpecting governments to take bold action while personally funding the industries they should be regulating sends mixed signals. It’s not about blaming individuals, it’s about recognising that normalising plant-based choices pressures policymakers and businesses to act faster.&nbsp;&nbsp;Leaders follow public demand. If the world still looks like it’s clinging to the past, they’ll be in no hurry to change. But when enough people reject industries built on exploitation, policies follow.&nbsp;&nbsp;The climate crisis is urgent, and every action counts. The most effective approach? Stop waiting. Do what you can today, and then demand more from those in power.

Want Climate Action? Start With Your Plate

Avian flu is now infecting humans across the U.S. At least 67 people have tested positive, and one person has died. The ones most at risk? Poultry and dairy workers - people in close contact with infected animals. But if the virus mutates, everyone could be at risk.&nbsp;Tracking this outbreak should be a priority, but the response is a mess. Testing is inconsistent, left to individual states with no clear federal oversight. Some states are actively looking for cases. Others? Not so much.&nbsp;&nbsp; No Clear Plan, Just Chaos&nbsp;&nbsp;The U.S. is tracking bird flu through wastewater testing, symptom-based testing, and random sampling of influenza A cases. But there's a glaring issue: not everyone who tests positive for the flu is checked for H5N1. In Iowa, a state dominated by factory farms, testing only happens if patients meet certain criteria. If a doctor doesn’t ask the right questions, cases slip through the cracks.&nbsp;&nbsp;California, where most human cases have been found, follows a similar pattern. Doctors are told to consider bird flu in patients with respiratory symptoms and recent exposure to infected animals or raw milk. That sounds responsible - except it assumes workers can access medical care in the first place.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Workers Most at Risk Are the Least Protected&nbsp;&nbsp;The humans most exposed to this virus - migrant and immigrant farmworkers - often don’t have access to healthcare. Many fear authority, worry about their immigration status, or simply don’t have time to see a doctor. If symptoms are mild, like a runny nose or conjunctivitis, they’re unlikely to get tested at all.&nbsp;&nbsp;So even when doctors do test for H5N1, they’re only seeing part of the picture. The real number of human cases could be much higher.&nbsp;&nbsp;Amy Liebman of the Migrant Clinicians Network says frontline workers need better education on bird flu, more personal protective equipment (PPE), and access to healthcare. But so far, there's little effort to make that happen.&nbsp;&nbsp; Trump’s Return Could Make Things Worse&nbsp;&nbsp;As Trump begins his second term, expect even less transparency and action. His first move? Silencing government agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If history repeats itself, tracking bird flu will become even more difficult.&nbsp;&nbsp;During his last term, Trump forced meatpacking plants to stay open during the COVID-19 pandemic. The result? Nearly 60,000 workers got sick, and 269 died. He put profits over people then, and there’s no reason to think he’ll do any differently now.&nbsp;A proposed Occupational Safety and Health Administration rule could have provided stronger protections for workers against infectious diseases. But now, it’s in limbo - just when it’s needed the most.&nbsp; The Bottom Line&nbsp;&nbsp;This virus has pandemic potential. If it mutates to spread between humans, we’re in trouble. Right now, we’re failing to track it properly.&nbsp;&nbsp;The government should be stepping up, protecting workers, and ensuring consistent testing across all states. Instead, they’re stepping back. And as long as animal farming continues, so will the risk of deadly outbreaks.&nbsp;&nbsp;Ignoring this won’t make it go away. It just ensures the next pandemic catches us unprepared - again.

Bird Flu Is Spreading - And the USA Is Failing to Track It

<a data-mce-href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/05/east-anglian-farms-breach-environment-regulations-700-times-in-seven-years" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/05/east-anglian-farms-breach-environment-regulations-700-times-in-seven-years" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Guardian</a> reports that East Anglia’s industrial farms have been caught breaching environmental regulations over 700 times in seven years. That’s twice a week, every week. Yet, just days ago, farmers were clogging up roads in protest - not over their own destruction of land, air, and water, but because they don’t want to pay their fair share in tax.&nbsp;&nbsp; 700 Breaches and CountingFreedom of Information (FoI) data reveals that intensive pig and poultry farms in Norfolk and Suffolk have violated environmental laws at least 776 times since 2017. That includes:&nbsp;&nbsp;- Contaminating waterways with slurry- Dumping dead animals outside instead of sealing them in containers&nbsp;&nbsp;- Packing in more animals than legally allowed- Polluting the air with unbearable stench&nbsp;&nbsp;Some of the biggest offenders? Cranswick plc, Crown Chicken Ltd, and Wayland Farms Ltd, all pushing for even bigger industrial farming operations despite their track record of pollution and non-compliance.&nbsp;&nbsp;Now, Cranswick wants permission to expand a farm in Methwold into a mega-factory farm producing millions of chickens and tens of thousands of pigs annually. Residents and campaigners are furious. They know the proposal means even more pollution, more emissions, and more destruction - but will local councils actually listen?&nbsp;&nbsp; The Hypocrisy of Farmer ProtestsMeanwhile, these same farmers - some of the biggest polluters in the country - just staged a mass protest against tax reform.&nbsp;&nbsp;Hundreds of tractors crawled along the A14 at 20mph, bringing traffic to a standstill. Their outrage? The government wants to end their decades-long exemption from inheritance tax, meaning wealthy landowners will finally have to contribute like everyone else.&nbsp;&nbsp;They cried about their "family farms" - the same "family farms" that pump waste into rivers, ignore regulations, and treat animals like machines. One farmer sobbed about possibly losing 20% of his farm. But what about the rivers lost to toxic run-off? The wildlife poisoned by ammonia emissions? The people forced to live next to these stinking, polluted sites?&nbsp;&nbsp; Factory Farming: A Disaster in Every WayFarming in the UK isn’t about food security or tradition - it’s industrialised animal exploitation on a mass scale, with massive consequences:&nbsp;&nbsp;- Climate impact – The proposed Methwold mega-farm alone could pump out 120,000 tonnes of CO₂ annually, wrecking national climate targets.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Biodiversity loss – Overuse of land, pollution, and waste dumping devastates ecosystems.&nbsp;- Public health risks – Intensive farming breeds disease and contaminates water supplies.&nbsp;&nbsp; Yet, instead of addressing their own industry’s devastation, farmers play the victim and demand more tax payer handouts.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Bottom LineThe farming industry in East Anglia has violated environmental laws hundreds of times - yet when asked to pay tax like everyone else, they block roads in protest.&nbsp;&nbsp;No sympathy. If they can afford endless expansion, they can afford to clean up their mess.

Farmers: Destroying the Environment While Playing the Victim

Cultivated dog food is hitting the UK market in what’s being hailed as a "world first." Pets at Home is now stocking Chick Bites, a treat made from lab-grown chicken by Meatly, in collaboration with THE PACK. Unlike conventional meat, this cultivated chicken is grown from a single sample of cells, meaning no slaughter.&nbsp;&nbsp;Sounds progressive, right? But while headlines celebrate this as a breakthrough, it raises bigger questions about how we view our relationships with other animals - both those we call "pets" and those we exploit.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Meat Problem We Created&nbsp;&nbsp;There are 13.5 million dogs in the UK. Most eat meat-based diets, some neglect to feed dogs anything of plant origin, and pet food accounts for around 20% of meat consumption in high-income nations. Studies suggest that if the world’s dogs went plant-based, we’d save more emissions than the entire UK produces.&nbsp;&nbsp;Meatly claims its cultivated chicken uses 65% less land, emits half the CO₂ of farmed chicken, and is no slaughter. But if we’re trying to cut meat’s impact, why not focus on feeding dogs nutritionally complete plant-based diets - which multiple studies have shown can be healthier?&nbsp;&nbsp;The answer? Because cultivated meat still normalises the idea that meat is necessary.&nbsp;&nbsp; A Meat-Free Future for Dogs&nbsp;&nbsp;Despite the backlash from some in the animal agriculture industry (and the people who refuse to question their habits), vegan dog food isn’t new - and it’s backed by science. A 2022 study found that dogs on nutritionally complete plant-based diets needed less medication, fewer vet visits, and had fewer health disorders than those eating conventional meat. Even the British Veterinary Association, which once opposed plant-based diets for dogs, has now dropped its objections.&nbsp;&nbsp;Instead of encouraging people to transition their dogs to proven, sustainable, and ethical plant-based food, we’re now celebrating a lab-grown version of the problem we should be moving away from.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Bigger Ethical Question: Keeping Animals as "Pets"&nbsp;&nbsp;Cultivated meat for dogs is just one part of a much larger issue - our treatment of animals as property. Vegans should be working toward a world where no animal is bred, bought, or kept in captivity for human benefit. The the pet industry thrives on selective breeding, exotic animal trade, and the sale of living beings for profit.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Selective Breeding: Many dogs are bred to look a certain way, often at the expense of their health. Pugs and bulldogs struggle to breathe, dachshunds suffer spinal issues, and other breeds face genetic disorders, all because humans decided how they should look.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Exotic Animals: Birds, fish, reptiles, many are taken from the wild or bred in captivity, denied the space and freedom they would naturally have. Even in the best enclosures, they are prisoners.&nbsp;&nbsp;- Pet Shops and Breeders: Every animal bought from a breeder or pet store fuels the cycle. The demand ensures more are bred, while millions sit in shelters or face euthanasia.&nbsp;&nbsp;If we genuinely care about animals, we shouldn’t be buying them. We should be rescuing the ones who already exist due to human interference and giving them the best life we can. Where Do We Go From Here?&nbsp;&nbsp;Dogs don’t need meat. They need nutrients. Feeding them a well-balanced vegan diet is not only possible, but scientifically supported. If we want to move towards a world without animal exploitation, we need to stop justifying unnecessary harm, even when it’s dressed up as “progress.”&nbsp;&nbsp;Cultivated meat may be a technological marvel, but it’s also a distraction. The future of dog food isn’t in a lab - it’s in breaking free from the mindset that animals are resources.

The Future of Dog Food?

Call a rabbit a rabbit, and people see a thinking, feeling individual. Call a rabbit a “test subject,” and suddenly, their mind disappears. That’s the unsettling conclusion of a new study showing how language shapes how we view animals - especially when they’re used in laboratories.Every year, an estimated 125 million animals are locked in labs worldwide. Many people are against testing cosmetics on animals, but when it comes to drug testing, household cleaners, and skincare, the moral line blurs. People don’t want to think about animals suffering, so they find ways to justify it - just like they do with eating animals. Labeling animals as lab subjects is just another way to keep that discomfort at bay. Seeing, But Not SeeingResearchers conducted four online studies with over 3,400 participants to test how people perceive animals in labs. The first experiment compared reactions to three images: a rabbit in the wild, a rabbit in a lab with mild suffering, and a rabbit in a lab with severe suffering. Participants rated the rabbit’s mental abilities - whether they could feel fear, pain, or think.The results? Rabbits in the lab were seen as less mentally capable than those in the wild. This wasn’t because people thought science had somehow drained their intelligence - it was a psychological trick. By stripping these animals of their perceived sentience, people could justify their suffering. The severity of suffering didn’t matter. Once an animal was labeled a test subject, their mind was diminished in the eyes of the participants. The Personal Responsibility LoopholeAnother experiment explored whether personal responsibility changed how people viewed lab animals. Participants listed their shopping habits - specifically their use of animal-tested products - before being shown an image of a beagle. Some saw the dog in the wild, some in a lab where they were told their choices played a role, and others in a lab where they were distanced from the responsibility.The findings were consistent: once labeled a test subject, the beagle was seen as less sentient. Even when people were reminded that their purchases funded the suffering, it didn’t change their perception. The idea that animal testing is just “how science works” seemed to absolve them of any personal guilt. A Hierarchy of VictimsThe study also tested this effect across different species, comparing hamsters, beagles, and macaques. The trend held - the moment an animal was associated with a lab, people saw them as less intelligent. However, the shift was weaker for macaques. Being genetically closer to humans seemed to make it harder to strip them of their mental abilities.But that raises an uncomfortable question: Why does an animal have to look like us for people to acknowledge their mind? If sentience is the reason we claim to protect some animals, why does it suddenly disappear when it’s inconvenient? What This Means for the Animal Justice MovementThis study confirms what advocates have long suspected: language shapes perception. Call an animal a test subject, and people stop seeing them as individuals. That’s why the industry clings to terms like “research models” and “specimens.” It’s the same linguistic trick used to justify other forms of animal exploitation - cows become “beef,” pigs become “pork,” and rabbits become “test subjects.”If people are conditioned to see lab animals as mindless tools, the solution is to shift the narrative. Advocates need to highlight their individuality, intelligence, and emotions. Instead of showing animals as passive victims in sterile cages, we should emphasise who they are outside of those cages. A rabbit exploring a meadow. A beagle playing with a toy. A macaque nurturing their baby. The more people connect with animals as thinking, feeling beings, the harder it becomes to justify using them as disposable test subjects.Language has power. The industry knows this. It’s time advocates used it to expose the truth. The post Labeling Animals As Lab Subjects Changes Perceived Sentience appeared first on <a data-mce-href="https://faunalytics.org/labeling-animals-as-lab-subjects-changes-perceived-sentience/" href="https://faunalytics.org/labeling-animals-as-lab-subjects-changes-perceived-sentience/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Faunalytics</a>.

Herbivore Club

ARTICLES

Fish Are Killed By The Trillions - And Most People Don’t ...

Want Climate Action? Start With Your Plate

Bird Flu Is Spreading - And the USA Is Failing to Track It

Farmers: Destroying the Environment While Playing the Victim

The Future of Dog Food?

How Language Justifies Animal Testing