On the one hand, the RSPCA does great work in terms of pet and wildlife welfare. It states: “Everything we do is focused on achieving our vision to live in a world where all animals are respected and treated with compassion”. In 2020, the RSPCA investigated over 57,000 complaints of animal cruelty.

However, there is a major disconnect between its goals and its stance on meat and dairy. I often had to defend my involvement with the RSPCA (the branch did excellent work locally), particularly when talking to others who, like me, have adopted a plant-based diet. 

The criticisms typically centred on the RSPCA’s unwillingness to align its policies and actions with the climate crisis and the welfare of farmed animals. 

I was one of a three-person Animal Rebellion delegation to visit the RSPCA’s headquarters at the end of April. One of the others was Jane Tredgett, a former national trustee of the RSPCA, who had been trying to get the charity to reform for more than a decade, alongside our wonderful Animal Rebellion spokesperson, Harley McDonald-Eckersall.

The three of us were calling on the RSPCA on behalf of Animal Rebellion to publicly acknowledge that our food system cannot protect or respect animals and is a major contributor to the climate crisis, as a result of which millions of people and animals are already suffering. 

The RSPCA clearly knows there is a problem here. 

One of those to meet with us was the RSPCA’s director of advocacy and policy, Emma Slawinski. In a COP26 blog, Emma wrote: “Reducing the number of animals being farmed globally – and the amount of meat, eggs and dairy being consumed – should be a key focus of any discussion on climate change.”

She noted that the topic of livestock reduction was almost totally absent at COP26. She continued: “Animals are majorly impacted by the changes in the environment caused by human activity. Alongside the alarming figures around the extinction of species, we see individual suffering writ large in the destruction of habitats, water scarcity and extreme weather events.”

So where are the RSPCA policies that align with this?

Unlike the RSPCA, our position is clear.

From a moral and logistical perspective, meat, dairy and fishing are no longer justifiable. Meat and dairy are the third largest emitters of greenhouse gases and fishing (particularly industrial fishing) is largely unregulated and responsible for species extinction and enormous amounts of waste and pollution. 

And clearly the climate emergency is upon us – if we don’t make significant changes in the next few years then the level of warming we’re facing in this generation will be catastrophic, not to mention what comes after that. 

What We’re Asking

The RSPCA has a significant platform and trust from the public. It is also nearing a major milestone, its 200^th anniversary. When it was formed, it was on the cutting edge of animal protection, founded by brave people who put themselves on the line to do what was right and just. 

Somewhere during those 200 years, the RSPCA lost its boldness. Its culture became one of conservatism, not wanting to upset people, not willing to come out and do what is right, and reluctant to challenge the meat and dairy industry. 

Far from advocating a fair transition to a plant-based food system, it provides a cover of respectability to the meat, egg and dairy industries through its pretty woeful RSPCA Assured scheme. The RSPCA Assured scheme website even includes chicken, egg, pork, turkey and other recipes – https://www.rspcaassured.org.uk/recipes/ The RSPCA’s staff canteen isn’t even plant-based. 

The Assured logo – producers have to pay to be accredited – lulls consumers into thinking the food they are buying is farmed to high animal welfare standards. In fact, the bar set by the RSPCA is incredibly low (e.g indoors, farms can have 19 chickens/m2 of available floor space) and the accreditation criteria are peppered with worthless words, such as “encouraged to”. You can read the whole sorry lot of criteria here: https://science.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/farmanimals/standards The argument is that an Assured scheme is better than nothing. As ambitions go, that’s pretty lame.

If we made a fair transition to a plant-based food system then there would be no need for the Assured scheme. 

We believe that the RSPCA can recapture the bravery of its founders. The crises that we face mean large, influential entities such as this need to lead, be bold and speak the truth.

Unfortunately, after two weeks of waiting, all we had back from the RSPCA were woolly words, with absolutely no commitment to take action to shift its policies. We are now planning next steps in this campaign – watch this space.

At the heart of rebellion is a belief that change is possible. It’s time to stand up. And Animal Rebellion’s stance is clear: will take action until there is climate and animal justice and a transition to a fair, sustainable plant-based food system. The RSPCA must join this movement for a better world. 

The post The RSPCA: What’s not to like? first appeared on Animal Rebellion.

The plant-based universities campaign is a decentralised push by students across the UK; students are demanding their university transition to 100% just and sustainable plant-based catering by the 2023-24 academic year. Why? It’s quite simple, industries like meat, fishing, and dairy are destroying the environment, humans, and animals. 

Universities are where a great deal of this research comes from, and therefore these institutions have an obligation to listen to themselves. All roads lead to Rome (or in this case just and sustainable plant-based catering!) 

At the University of Warwick a vote to begin the transition was only narrowly lost, despite constant sabotage and underhand tactics from university committees and student union officers. Meanwhile the campaign made waves in Lancaster, garnering the attention of national student newspaper The Tab. At the University of Sussex campaigners even wiped the floor with their opponents in an organised debate on the topic!

In an interview with Sentient Media Nathan McGovern underscored the intersectional justice the campaign is dedicated to; the just and sustainable plant-based food system the campaign aims towards is part of the greater push for human, animal, and climate justice.

On the 25th of March the campaign rocked the boat London-wide, after the teams at University College London, King’s College London, and London Metropolitan University orchestrated simultaneous banner drops! The banners read “meat & dairy = climate crisis.” This very simply spells out the situation to these institutions, who are oftentimes the source of the conclusive data on the matter! Students decided to take direct action due to the unresponsiveness and lack of engagement from their universities and student unions.

Speaking at the action, Sofia Carolina Fernandes Pontes, a student at London Metropolitan has said 

“It’s simple, universities have to act on the climate crisis and that begins with their menus. We know that meat, fish, and dairy are driving climate collapse, deforestation, and ocean dead zones. This is all whilst we produce enough to feed ten billion people, yet have hundreds of millions starving all over the world because of our woefully immoral food systems. Universities must transition to fully just and sustainable plant-based catering by the 2023-24 academic year in order to secure a livable world for the students they are educating.“

Meanwhile, at the University of Exeter, Emma de Saram is tirelessly pushing for climate, animal, and social justice in the South-West! Speaking to us she said:

At Exeter, while we have a passionate group of students and incredible academics pushing for a plant based campus, we are repeatedly halted by bureaucracy and the University system that places profit over the planet. We launched our campaign in February with a stall and online talk with activists and researchers, and have had small successes like a week-long price reduction for veggie options, but we still have a battle to fight.

With the campaign set to have upwards of 20 universities involved by the start of the 2022-23 academic year, the future is bright! We’re still looking to support and help as many students across the UK as we possibly can, so fill out our interest form here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdI88OPSTQ76if-ip32HoDwVXEA1Ua3SOzZ1ztTd0w_5YwP7Q/viewform !

The post Plant-Based Universities: Taking The UK By Storm first appeared on Animal Rebellion.

Reflections on Rebellion – How People Power can Take the World By Storm

The recent documentary Rebellion tells the story of how Extinction Rebellion went from a vision to a global movement. This blog post reflects on the theory of change behind both Extinction and Animal Rebellion and how we can build transformative people power. 

What if I told you that one book held the answers to achieving positive social change? Would you believe me? When I first picked up a book that claimed to do just that, I was sceptical. I was at a stage of my life where, after becoming aware of the scale of injustice affecting animals, humans and our planet, I was increasingly desperate for any glimmer of hope that change could happen. 

I remember spending hours and days thinking and talking to friends about what we could do to make change when, one day I stumbled upon a book in a bargain bookshop that changed everything. Years later as I dedicate my time to helping grow Animal Rebellion, it seems almost unbelievable that this very book, which came into my hands so coincidentally, is the very same book that inspired the creation of XR and the subsequent birth of Animal Rebellion. So, what is the research that lies behind Animal Rebellion and Extinction Rebellion and how can one book be so influential?

The book I found that day was ‘This is an Uprising: How Nonviolent Revolt is Shaping the Twenty-First Century,’ written by two brothers: Mark and Paul Engler. The Engler brothers are writers, organisers and social movement researchers who explore the recent history of protest across the world and present a model of social change based on strategic nonviolence and momentum organising. Momentum is a form of social movement which combines structure-based organising with the goal of creating mass moments of mobilisation, where millions of people rise up to demand change. 

In their book, the Engler brothers use examples from movements such as the Indian Independence Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the Serbian ‘Otpor’ Movement and the Arab Spring to show how innovative, creative tactics can topple the ‘pillars of power’ of a corrupt or unjust regime and inspire enough people to take action for change. How much is enough? The book quotes research by political scientist Erica Chenoweth which finds that no movement which has mobilised 3.5% of the population in sustained, active participation has failed to achieve its aims. 

Not only that, ‘This is An Uprising’ makes a case for strategic nonviolence, again citing research by Chenoweth showing that nonviolent movements are twice as likely to be successful in their aims as violent ones, a figure which is illustrated by examples from movements which have acted nonviolently for both morally and strategic reasons. 

These movements have managed to be more inclusive than their violent counterparts and, importantly, have been able to build public sympathy for the cause and highlight the unjust nature of state violence and repression. For me, this book opened up a whole new world, one which was filled with people who were asking the same questions that I was about how we can make change happen. And, it wasn’t long before the lessons in the book were playing out right in front of my eyes.

For many, the early days of Extinction Rebellion were a transformative and incredible experience. The urgency of the climate crisis paired with the conviction that, as the popular chant goes, the people united could never be defeated inspired thousands of people to take to the streets and hundreds to face arrest. 

I watched from the other side of the world and was stunned to see the blueprint laid out in books like ‘This is an Uprising’ come to life. Active popular support + nonviolent action → government declaring a climate emergency within a few months! 

It was at this point that Animal Rebellion began, as a small group of people who realised that the same lessons could be applied to the struggle for animal and climate justice. With the same dream of mobilising 3.5% of the population and the same understanding of tools like mass mobilisation and nonviolent action, Animal Rebellion was formed from a plan with impressive proof of design. But, is social change really something that can be planned in advance?

Chenoweth’s research and the conclusions drawn by Mark and Paul Engler have inspired a flurry of groups who are using the model of Momentum-driven organising to create movements for change. From training organisations like Momentum and the Ayni Institute, to grassroots movements such as the Sunrise Movement; the ‘cycle of momentum’ blueprint – which suggest that large-scale change can be achieved through escalating nonviolent action, active popular support and absorption of volunteers – is proving to be enormously popular around the world. Yet, at the same time, there are a number of challenges that arise when putting the ideas in practice. 

Cycle of Momentum

Research Context/Liberal Democracy Challenge

One of the most common critiques of the application of Chenoweth’s research in the Momentum organising model is the recognition that the context of the research is notably different from the type of movement it is being applied to. The dataset used in Chenoweth’s research focused on movements seeking to ‘overthrow oppressive regimes, resist foreign occupations, and to secede from a state.’ This is a different context from the one movements like Animal Rebellion and Extinction Rebellion find themselves in, leading to questions about the relevance of the findings and, particularly, the 3.5% rule. In a 2016 interview, Erica Chenoweth stated: “if a nonviolent campaign is aiming for… economic and social justice reforms… Do we see the same types of success rates of violent and nonviolent action? The answer is we don’t know yet because those types of data collection procedures are not yet fully developed.” 

What this tells us is that, while this research can provide us with valuable knowledge and insight, we’re yet to see whether the roadmap that has proved so effective for movements to overthrow dictators and oppressive regimes will have the same results with our mission for system change in a liberal democracy. 

Additionally, some key features of momentum organising relate to generating public sympathy and support (pg. 18). In previous movements, a key contributor to gaining this kind of support has been the effect of ‘repression backfire,’ where state violence and repression have had the backfire effect of increasing support for the movement. In liberal democracies, repression to protest movements is generally a lot less visible than in oppressive regimes. Violent responses are rare (although not unheard of and are a frequent reality for marginalised communities and, particularly, LGBT+ and BIPOC individuals). State repression often occurs behind the scenes, including through an incomprehensible legal system which has the effect of tying up protestors in endless court proceedings, which often end up with cases being dropped or thrown out. 

The tactics that work so effectively against oppressive regimes can fall flat in the political context of the UK. We can see this in the changing of policing tactics following April 2019, which led to significantly decreased media coverage for following rebellions and a large number of unlawful arrests.  

Mobilisation Challenge

Another challenge that arises is one of mobilisation. When movements are focused on ending a repressive regime or bringing down a corrupt dictator, this is something that generally affects almost the entire population. Srdja Popovic, one of the leaders of the Serbian Otpor movement, talks about creating a ‘line of division,’ where your messaging clearly speaks to the vast majority of the population, with only the clear villains being on the other side of the line disagreeing with you. The effects of a repressive regime are immediate and visible, they are being felt right at that moment by the people the movement is trying to mobilise. A challenge for movements operating in other contexts is trying to replicate that same sense of personal investment, often without the corresponding direct impacts. 

While movements like Occupy and Extinction Rebellion achieved this to a certain extent, mobilising vast amounts of people to demand change, an ongoing struggle for groups like these has been in sustaining this kind of active participation. In the West, we’ll often see a surge of climate action surrounding extreme weather events, particularly ones affecting other Western countries such as the 2019-2020 Australian bushfires. 

Between these upsurges of interest however, social movements mostly ‘operate on the margins of success with burnout a common companion to mobilisation’. Momentum organising talks about manufacturing ‘moments of the whirlwind,’  ‘explosions’ where many people suddenly care about your issue. However, it seems obvious that these moments are more likely to take root when people are being directly effected by the focus of your movement. Without the direct effects of a repressive regime being observable to everyone, the challenge of reaching 3.5% active participation is a significant one. This only becomes more challenging when movements seek to advocate for other-than-humans, including movements for animal and climate justice. 

The Frontloading Challenge

A final challenge I’ll touch on is the focus that movements following the Momentum Model place on ‘frontloading.’ Frontloading is defined as “engaging in serious, strategic planning,” and “visioning our future while anticipating problems that will come up, so people can make aligned decisions without command and control.” This refers to organisations taking a period of time, generally 12 months or so, to plan out their story, structure, strategy and culture, with the understanding that this will enable the movement to build rapid momentum, mobilisation and escalation while maintaining strong processes, organisation and support structures for people and the organisation. 

If we look to current understandings of social change however, we can see that a dominant model of social movements is the ‘framing’ model which regards ‘creating a movement… (as) a cultural enterprise: an idea only ‘moves’ a group if it has cultural resonance.” What will have this resonance is difficult, if not impossible to predict. 

Additionally, in a fast-changing environment and media landscape, something which is relevant and important to people will be out of date six months later. This runs the risk of organisations investing a significant amount of resources (time, money, people) into building a movement which may entirely fail to capture the energy and attention of the public. 

So is there a golden rule for social change? Theories on social change have evolved over time. Early on, sociologists believed that social movements arose out of discontent which evolved into a belief that a successful movement depended on who could mobilise the right resources (money, people and time) to achieve a desired aim. In the last decade, a body of work referred to as ‘new social movement theory’ has attempted to explain the occurrence of recent social movements by understanding social movements as a “cultural enterprise” which succeed by creating an “injustice frame” which highlights a problem, a solution and a way that people can be part of change. 

Current understanding in sociology is that we can’t predict when a social movement will form or if it will be successful. This tells us that, while theories like Momentum are useful models, ultimately there is no golden rule or blueprint for change which will be successful every time. However, drawing together knowledge from a range of sources, there are some things we can say with some confidence:

• The best people to mobilise are closer than you think! A theme across social movement research is that movements succeed in mobilising when active participants are inspired and engaged enough to then mobilise their own friends and families. We can learn from this and focus on giving our base the skills and, importantly, the passion to show those around them why change is needed and why what we’re doing is important. 

• A strong, unified vision and messaging that connects to shared values is how we can unite people behind a common goal. Movements with a clear vision and that connect to people’s values, fears and desires are the movements that succeed in overcoming challenges and adapting to change.

• If you want to achieve mass mobilisation and create lasting change, nonviolence is the best way to go.

• There are many theories of change and many ways we have seen change happen over time. By learning from a variety of sources and movements and by remaining flexible, adapting to current situations and not being afraid to innovate, we can learn from the past and build new methods of change that are the best fit for the society we’re living in. 

Books like ‘This is an Uprising’ give us important insight which we can use to inspire our campaigns and strategy. What can be even more important though is what we learn when we take these theories and see how they play out on the streets. The relationship between activism and academia can be one of symbiosis where each group grows and thrives alongside one another. While there might not be one silver bullet solution for social change, what does exist is an incredible passion, determination and an extraordinary amount of skills and knowledge. All the movements written about in books like this weren’t following an exact blueprint. They, like us, were learning as they went and using tools and lessons from history to shape pathways forward that made sense in the context they were in. If we come together, aren’t afraid to try new things and learn from our mistakes and successes, what can’t we do? 

You can watch the Rebellion documentary on Netflix 

Keen to start rebelling and be part of a movement for change? Actions will be happening in London from the 9th – 17th April. Find out more and say you’ll be there by joining our Facebook event here: https://fb.me/e/2lLxYQmBO

You can join our telegram broadcast: https://t.me/joinchat/s17vhYFQ3qY5YTBk

Or our https://chat.whatsapp.com/HYcMc8iZ140BPOxE6yhp09

The post How Change Happens first appeared on Animal Rebellion.

So what’s wrong? Well, where do you start? The need to transition to a plant-based system to counter the climate crisis applies to the oceans as it does to the land. For 20+ years, the MSC has been propping up and providing a sheen of respectability to the fishing industry. The MSC’s “blue tick” certification label now spans 400+ fisheries, representing around 15% of all global fish landings.

There is plenty of money sloshing around this scheme. Fisheries pay fees of $20,000 to $500,000 for an assessment from Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs). Indeed, the cost of certification ironically often excludes small-scale fisheries from applying. The MSC also charges retailers royalties of up to 0.5% of the net wholesale value of seafood sold, for using its label. Around 80% (£23.6m) of MSC’s funding comes from licensing income.

It’s not difficult to see a glaring conflict of interest. And there have been plenty of people who have pointed out the flaws in the MSC model. If the nets of MSC-certified fisheries had as many gaping holes as the MSC scheme itself, then no fish would be caught in them at all.

Scores of organisations have highlighted that the MSC’s certification process does not properly account for by-catch, particularly of sharks and cetaceans.

For a long while, MSC allowed vessels to catch both certified and non- certified fish in the same fishing trip, with this only dropped after intense pressure from advocacy group, On the Hook. The 2021 documentary, Seaspiracy, particularly had MSC in its sights and the response by the charity was woeful. The film’s director, Ali Tabrizi, questioned the NGO’s independence owing to its funding and is shown repeatedly failing to secure an interview with MSC to answer the criticisms.

There was a backlash to the documentary from the MSC and other industry interests after it was aired. But Seaspiracy wasn’t making up the criticisms. One contributor to the documentary was Callum Roberts, professor of marine conservation at the University of Exeter. He accused MSC of certifying fisheries that had “astounding levels of by-catch” and said the MSC label was not “worth a damn in some cases”.

The fishing industry hides behind the certification, as do the supermarkets, with consumers duped into thinking there is such a thing as sustainable fishing and that the certification means they are doing the right thing.

The MSC needs to actually take the word in its title – “Stewardship” – seriously. It needs to extract itself from the hopelessly flawed symbiotic relationship with the industry. It must accept that sustainable fishing is a contradiction in terms. And it needs to pivot to supporting a fair and just end to fishing as a vital component of a plant-based food system. Until then, Animal Rebellion will expose its hypocrisy at every opportunity.

The post The Marine Stewardship Council: A flawed sheen of respectability for an industry in denial first appeared on Animal Rebellion.

For those of us in the UK, we may wonder how buying a burger from a McDonald’s outlet halfway across the world from South America has anything to do with the deforestation taking place in the continent. Here’s how. 

McDonald’s buys most of their chicken from Cargill, an American global food corporation founded in 1865, now one of the largest privately held corporations in the United States. Cargill has evolved into a food-product empire and has enormous power, with a vast proportion of the world´s main agricultural commodities passing through its hands. 

There is no reason any British consumer tucking into a Chicken Burger or McChicken sandwich would ever know that an American company is involved in almost every step of their foods’ production. Or, more importantly, that areas of rainforest have been flattened in the process. 

In the early 2000s, deforestation rates in the Amazon were shocking. Following campaigns from environmental groups and retailers, companies like Cargill agreed not to buy soybeans grown in newly deforested areas of the Amazon in the 2006 landmark Amazon Soya Moratorium. This worked, and from 2004 to 2012  the clearing of trees in the Amazon fell by 84%. But of course, it didn’t work for long. Cargill and McDonald’s put profit before the planet, and simply found loopholes in the moratorium to ensure they could continue buying soya grown on deforested land. 

Companies like Cargill simply began buying from soya plantations in the Bolivian Amazon and the Brazilian Cerrado according to a Mighty Earth report. The cerrado is a crucial ecosystem containing 5% of the world’s plant and animal species. More than half of its native vegetation is already gone due to deforestation.  In addition, with the moratorium applying only to soya in particular, farmers have been able to sell their crops as deforestation-free as they continue to clear land for cattle, maize and other commodities. Consequently, deforestation has continued and reached an all time high last year.

Efforts to extend the soy moratorium to the Bolivian Amazon and Brazilian Cerrado have long been opposed, despite calls to do so by local NGOs, scientists and the Brazilian environment minister. Retailers have so far not used their leverage over Cargill to compel it to support a soy moratorium expansion. Being Cargill’s biggest customer in Europe, McDonald’s would have huge influence. The company however, would appear to care far more about soy reaching Cargill´s chicken processing plant here in the United Kingdom Hereford. Cargills’ Hereford site slaughters over a million birds per week, many of which will go on to be sold in McDonald’s branches across the United Kingdom.

Brazil is the biggest producer of soy consumed in the United Kingdom, and 70 percent of it is imported into the UK by Cargill, the vast majority of it to become animal feed. Only about two percent of the world’s soy crop is processed into plant-based alternatives such as meat alternatives, tofu and soy yoghurt . It is  mostly grown in Europe and does not drive deforestation.

With their poor track record on deforestation becoming increasingly obvious to consumers, McDonald’s announced a series of ‘’ambitious’’ sustainability initiatives in October 2021. The company explain on their website: ‘’We want to make sure the beef in our burgers contributes to a sustainable food system in which communities, animals and the planet thrive.’’ Animal Rebellion has a very different idea of a sustainable food system. In our eyes, flattening rainforests, slaughtering millions of animals, and selling a ludicrous quantity of largely unhealthy products is in no way sustainable. 

McDonald’s sells more than 75 hamburgers per second. Each year McDonald’s buys 1.9 billion tons of cow flesh to be used for patties in outlets across the world, producing more than 53m metric tonnes of greenhouse gases. The fast food giant stresses its burgers sold in the UK come from British and Irish farms, but have been accused of feeding animals with feed  coming from deforested areas in Latin America. Glenn Hurowitz, chief executive of Mighty Earth highlighted that ‘’everything we know about their suppliers suggests they’re still chock full of deforestation.”

Despite McDonald’s massive and ongoing role in the destruction of primary forests, it has gained several certification labels. For example, there is evidence that the Rainforest Alliance, who certifie McDonald’s coffee, uses child labour in their farms. In addition, the RSPCA has given its stamp of approval on McDonald’s chicken factories, instead of telling the truth and highlighting that captivity and death can never be aligned with good welfare standards. Instead of standing up for the animals, RSPCA complies with the big business. The labels on meat and dairy do little but confuse and greenwash. They are certified lies. 

McDonald’s recognises their own complicity in deforestation by stating on their own website:  ´´We’ve set an ambitious goal to eliminate deforestation from our global supply chain by 2030.´´ It is difficult to take this, and all of McDonald’s other sustainability targets seriously, as not only is the breeding of cows the largest driver of deforestation in the world, with beef potentially being the single most environmentally destructive food in existence. 

According to landmark environmental documentary Cowspiracy, cows are the world’s largest source of methane, which is up to 100 times more destructive to the climate than CO2. Cows around the world produce 150 billion gallons of this gas per day. Raising cows is incredibly resource draining with a staggering 2,500 gallons of water needed to produce just 1 pound of beef. This means that the production of one hamburger requires 660 gallons of water – the equivalent of the average person’s showers over a period of 2 months.

Raising cattle also requires a huge amount of land, which is why so many forests are being cleared to make room in the first place. According to the Cowspiracy, 1.5 acres of land can only produce 375 pounds of beef as opposed to 37,000 pounds of plant-based foods. Rearing livestock and their feed already occupies up to 45% of the earth’s ice-free land. With the demand for meat being so large, there is still not enough space to raise the animals to feed our appetite and more forests are having to be cleared. Where will this end, with the whole planet being deforested and devoted to meat production?

By selling huge quantities of these catastrophically polluting foods, at the expense of both animal and human kind, we believe McDonald’s to be running one of the most polluting and morally corrupt operations underway in our world today.  

Animal Rebellion calls on McDonald’s to stop this madness and transition to a fully plant-based menu by 2025. After all, this is the only hope the company has at meeting their climate goals. Climate experts who reviewed McDonald’s targets say: ´´The company is largely dodging the one bold step it must take to slash emissions: dramatically reducing the amount of beef it serves. Not moving boldly on their menus suggests motivations might not be to mitigate climate change but to manage investors.”

Gidon Eshel, an environmental and urban studies research professor at Bard College says: ´´The naked truth is McDonald’s is in a business that is fundamentally at odds with the Earth’s integrity. The culture of beef is not consistent with Earth’s wellbeing, and we have to choose: do you eat beef and let Earth incinerate, or do you forgo beef and give Earth a fighting chance?”. 

The answer is simple. McDonald’s must cease to sell products which cause deforestation and pollution and transition to a fully plant-based menu, now. The introduction of one or two plant-based products is, at this point, a drop in the ocean. We need a complete and thorough reinvention of the McDonald’s menu and we need it now. 

Join Animal Rebellions campaign No Love In It for McDonald’s to transition to a fully plant-based menu by 2025. Take a look at some of our previous actions here including the blockade of McDonald’s UK burger factory for 3 days, the overnight occupation of McDonald’s Leicester Square and sit-ins across the country. Please fill out our Volunteer Form to get involved with what we´re planning next! 

The post Amazon Deforestation for McDonald’s Profit first appeared on Animal Rebellion.

Veganuary is more than a challenge. It is a direct catalyst for food system change.

Around the world we face grave climate catastrophes and huge animal injustices. Data has shown time and time again that a plant-based food system is the best way to reduce our impact on the climate (Poore and Nemecek, 2018). Food can hold a lot of cultural value. However, culture is dynamic and as a society we are already showing that we are ready to align ourselves with the planet. We have been actively creating a shift in culture! 

In 2014, Veganuary began as the first annual challenge for people to take a one-month pledge to go plant-based. The aim being to educate and promote veganism. Only eight years later and the global pledge to try plant-based for 31 days has risen to 2 million. In the UK, over 75 companies signed the Veganuary 2022 pledge. The rise in pledges is a true reflection of how we collectively wish to move forward. It is a powerful and active protest against our current system which unapologetically contributes to environmental degradation and animal injustices.

Veganuary is Depicting Food System Change

A core principle of Animal Rebellion is to focus on system change and not individual change.

The staggering uptake in the pledge to go plant-based around the world shows how Veganuary is enacting and facilitating system change. It is acting as a catalyst to change attitudes, behaviours and even the global relationship with food and its connection to the environment. Public behaviours and demands shape what companies create and sell to us. The popularity of Veganuary has led every supermarket to create their own plant-based line of food and fast-food restaurants to increase or add plant-based meals to their menu.

This is definitely a food system change heading in the right direction. However, it is not enough. Large food corporations like McDonald’s, Burger King, Subway and Papa Johns hold the economic resources to make impactful and substantial change in the way that we need to see. Their current changes are hopeful but these companies need to see entire food menus change to plant-based. 

NO to “Less But Better“

Big corporations have felt the tide of scientific evidence piling up against meat, fishing and dairy. And some try to fight back to save this obsolete and injust meat and dairy system. 

We can mitigate this climate crisis if we listen to the science and adapt. We ask for a just transition to a 100% plant-based food system, because no meat or dairy products are sustainable or just. Since 2020 we have seen an increase in the sales for plant-based products and as a direct retaliation we have also seen environmental organisation such as “A Greener World” promote meat and dairy consumption as environmentally friendly and just to animals.

The absurdity in this lies in the fact that countless studies have shown that meat and dairy is not sustainable for our planet (Mason and Lang, 2017) – so why are “green” organisations diluting the matter by redirecting our energy towards meat again? Plant-based is not only a simple solution, but a necessary one to build a positive future for everyone on this planet.
In addition to the environmental destruction caused by meat and dairy farming, we can not ignore that animals are sentient (Kumar et al., 2019). There is no humane way to kill a non-human animal just as much as there is no humane way to kill a human animal. All animals exploited can feel pain and joy. They want to live with their families and be free, just like us. It is unjust to separate a mother from a baby as is inherent to the dairy industry. To kill one individual is not justified when abundant nutritious food that can feed the world is available.

What are companies and organisations doing NOW?

It might have seemed unbelievable 10 years ago, but here we are: full organisations and companies are paving the way to a food system revolution. Where plant-based businesses led and innovated, big companies are learning from their mistakes and becoming part of the solution to the problems they are causing. Here are some food-system change highlights: 

1. Veganuary saw a jump from 57 major companies in 2021 to 75 in 2022: encouraging employees to go plant-based and displaying the benefits for the planet, health and animals.
2. Supermarkets go plant-based: a supermarket commits to increase by 300% sales of meat alternatives by 2025
3. Fast-food and restaurant chains are cooking and baking more plant-based food: Two major restaurant chains have decided to make half their menu plant-based by the end of 2022 to battle the climate crisis. 

We disagree with the exploitation of animals (humans included) that these organisations continue to take part in with meat and dairy still on their agenda; however, we want to recognise these first positive steps being taken towards a fully plant-based food system. Whilst making plant-based more accessible and affordable, we can’t wait for them to transition to zero meat, fish and dairy!

Reasons to be hopeful

These days, the media is filled with this overarching sense of doom: that we have no hope because these industries have gone too far. However, if we zoom out and take into account all the above, we are already making an incredible impact. 

Firstly, over 2 millions animals were not exploited and killed in January 2021, Veganuary estimated. This number is based on the Vegan Society’s Veganalyser calculator and Veganuary participant data including geographical location and pre-pledge diet.

Second, we estimated the environmental impact of the 580,000 participants in Veganuary in 2021. We based our calculations on the lowest quantity of resources saved from switching from a UK meat-eating diet to a plant-based one (scientific papers and organisations in sources). In 2021, Veganuary may have cut emissions by 15,777 CO2 tons, saved 48,000 metre square of forest and 72,442,000 cubic metres of water. Besides, eating plant-based food directly saved 31,552 tons of grains, which can feed people.

Thirdly, our movement is growing and a cultural shift is taking place before our eyes. Whereas before the media consciously kept meat and dairy out of the news, they are now increasingly joining the dots between meat, dairy, fishing and the environmental crisis. Their change in approach is a no-brainer when scientific studies show that a plant-based food system would use 4 times less land cover. Any plant milk emits at least 3 times less carbon emissions than dairy milk. 

Lastly, as a consequence of the above companies recognise the role they can play by offering nutritious, plant-based food. They are taking steps towards increasing plant based options, but we have to keep the pressure on to ensure this only goes further. 

Energy Secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, said plant-based food is helping to cut UK’s emissions. “I think that there is a lot of societal change that will actually help us and drive the progress to 2035, where hopefully we will hit the 78 per cent reduction target.”

Our demands ?

1. Food retailers and restaurants should keep their delicious plant-based products all year long. 
2. Corporations continue to fully transition their food production to 100% plant-based.

A JUST, PLANT-BASED WORLD IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE,

IT IS ALREADY WITHIN OUR GRASP.

References:

BBC (20/10/2021) Climate plan urging plant-based diet shift deleted https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58981505

These estimations are based on research provided by the following organisations and articles:

1. Hamerschlag, K., & Venkat, K. (2011). Meat Eater’s Guide to Climate Change & Health.

2. Peter Scarborough, Paul N. Appleby, Anja Mizdrak, Adam D. M. Briggs, Ruth C. Travis, Kathryn E. Bradbury, Timothy J. Key. (2011, June 11). Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK.

3. Earth Talk. (n.d.). Measuring the Daily Destruction of the World’s Rainforests.

4. Fair & smart use of the world’s fresh water. (n.d.). 

5. The true impact of animal agriculture.(2018, October 4).

Kumar, S., Choudhary, S., Kumar, R., Kumar, A., Pal, P. and Mahajan, K., 2019. Animal Sentience and Welfare: An Overview. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 8(08), pp.635-646.
Mason, P. and Lang, T., 2017. Sustainable Diets: How Ecological Nutrition Can Transform Consumption and the Food System. Taylor and Francis.

Poore, J., & Nemecek, T., 2018. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992.

The post Veganuary, Food System Change and the Responsibility of Corporations first appeared on Animal Rebellion.

It’s a pretty obvious no, and yet this is almost exactly what is happening right now. But it’s not just one community that is being affected, it’s the whole world and the system that’s causing this destruction hasn’t had just one year to prove that it works. It’s had centuries. Meat and dairy have been the dominant part of a Western diet for a long time now, with increasing industrialisation following WW2 giving us the food system we are used to today. Right now, animal farming contributes at least 18% of global emissions, 70% of agricultural emissions and up to 80% of global deforestation. Even with all this, these industries fail to be profitable, with £1.5 billion of government subsidies coming straight out of taxpayers pockets and into those of livestock farmers. This industry was entrusted with the job of feeding the world. It’s failing. So why is there so much resistance to building something new?

A Deceptively Simple Solution

In recent years it has felt like there has been a shift, with campaigns for reducing the amount of meat and dairy we consume becoming more common. With reports like the 2019 EAT Lancet report which called for a 90% reduction in meat and dairy consumption as well as documentaries such as Cowspiracy and Seaspiracy, the recognition that what we eat impacts the planet has gained mainstream acceptance. A 2021 poll of 2,095 UK adults run by the ‘Eating Better Alliance’ found that 21% of respondents were eating less meat than a year ago, with 38% doing so because of carbon emissions and 37% because of other environmental concerns. In the face of a changing industry, however, we have seen a new story being told by the meat industry,  that we can keep our current food system and focus on eating less meat, but better quality.

For many people, this was the ideal answer. The idea that they didn’t have to drastically change our lifestyle or eating habits but could also have a neutral, or even positive effect on the planet while doing so. Yet, when you dig a little bit deeper into what the industries are telling us, some holes start to form.

Is Less But Better Enough?

Before we answer this question, it helps to look at a completely different industry and investigate how it dealt with rising information that was saying their product may be causing harm: the tobacco industry. In the book Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway show how the big businesses behind cigarettes developed a playbook for dodging the science that showed that the product they were selling was killing people. This formula has gone on to be used to talk about everything from global warming to pesticides and, more recently, animal agriculture. The basic tactic is, cast doubt on the science through paid ‘experts’ and false claims and spark controversy to derail the conversation from what the harm that is being caused.  

It can be hard to believe but by looking at the industries’ own messaging we can quickly find examples of where meat, dairy and fishing are already doing this. And they all tell one story: that we can fix the problems of the industry by eating less and ‘better’ animal products.

They bring up food miles and promote buying locally sourced meat and dairy whenever questions around the climate impact of animal products are raised. While the idea of buying local in and of itself is a positive one, the reality is that transport is an extremely small part of food emissions, making up less than 10% and as low as 0.5% of GHG emissions when it comes to animal products’ contribution to emissions. So essentially, even if all animal products consumed were locally sourced, they would still be contributing far higher emissions than plant-based products. 

They say that switching to grass-fed systems for cows and sheep will be better for the environment than intensive farming and even plant-based options. If we look into this though, we find that the opposite is the case. Research shows grass-fed systems produce more emissions than intensive farming, while also using more land! On top of that, it would take a rainforest three-quarters of the size of South America to sequester the carbon produced by livestock.

Let’s not forget that every year in the UK approximately 2.6 million cattle, 10 million pigs, 14.5 million sheep and lambs, 80 million fish and 950 million birds are slaughtered for human consumption. It’s pretty clear that a food system where no one has to die is a better one. 

They say that there is no other option and that this food system is the only one that works. But we know that isn’t true.

A Plant-Based Food System

With more and more evidence showing us that we need to change what we eat to help the planet heal, it seems obvious that we need a big change and that it’s a change that can’t just be achieved through individuals making small shifts to their diet. The whole system is set up in a way that harms the planet. Luckily though, we have an alternative which would take destruction off the menu.

A study from Oxford University that looked into the viability of a plant-based food system showed that if we were to convert all the land currently used to graze animals to natural vegetation it would remove the equivalent of 15% of the world’s total GHG emissions. Only a small fraction of pasture land would be needed to grow food crops to replace the lost beef. Another report showed that if we were to shift to a plant-based food system, food-related emissions would drop by 70% by 2050, saving £440 billion in the process.

But it wouldn’t just mean less carbon and more wild spaces. A plant-based food system is a system of abundant and affordable food as plant-based food is not only better for the planet, it also takes far less land to produce and is rich in variety, culture and flavour. Although this world may feel far away, it is already happening. Organisations such as the UK-based Refarm’d are working with farmers to transition from a struggling dairy industry into sustainable and profitable oat milk farming while the Good Food Institute is supporting transitions to pulse farming.

Conclusion – Meat and Dairy is Bankrupt

With a plant-based food system we can feed the world, provide much needed green jobs and build a world where humans and animals alike are treated with respect and dignity and have access to an abundance of food and choice. Urgent change is needed but we have an alternative that is just and fair for everyone. All we need to do is work together and achieve it.

The post Doubt and Lies: the tactics of a struggling meat and dairy industry and why we won’t fall for them first appeared on Animal Rebellion.

The meat, dairy and fish industries are under threat so are desperately lashing out and it isn’t pretty. There is nowhere for those with vested interests to hide, given the science is now so clearly stacked against them. So they are going on the offensive. All 10 largest meat and dairy companies in the USA “have contributed to efforts to undermine climate-related policies” (Lazarus et al., 2021).

In an interview published on Boxing Day in The Guardian, a Spanish government minister, Alberto Garzón, in charge of consumer affairs, explained that factory farming is damaging the environment and leading to the export of poor-quality meat. Mild stuff and clearly factually correct. 

The backlash has been furious, from the meat industry and politicians, forcing the government to distance itself from his comments.

Fortunately, Garzón has stood his ground. In a subsequent radio interview he said: “I’m not saying anything new. I’m just relaying what scientists say. Everyone knows that the factory farming of meat causes pollution … and emits greenhouse gases.”

In the UK this month, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) has launched a £1.5 million campaign featuring an inquisitive little girl ‘Nancy’ along with her grandad. Being broadcast on Channel 4, ITV and Sky as well as on-demand services, the new TV advert focuses on the supposed goodness within red meat and dairy. Poor ‘Nancy’.

The AHDB describes itself as “a statutory levy board, funded by farmers, growers and others in the supply chain to help the industry succeed in a rapidly changing world”.

“Survive” might be a more appropriate word than “succeed”. The rapidly changing world is what scares corporations that for so long have trashed the environment, contributed massively to the climate crisis and put out disinformation, while making huge profits and raking in massive taxpayer-funded subsidies. 

That misinformation is nowhere better epitomised than in the Red Tractor consumer logo for pork and pork products. It is not hard to understand the problem when you know that the “standard” behind this logo is from the British Meat Processors Association (BMPA). Talk about marking your own homework.

For mass misinformation under one roof, you can’t beat the industry’s WeEatBalanced website, with its sheen of respectability and faux concern for health and the environment. 

In fact, the weaknesses of the arguments shine through. For instance, in a piece entitled “What would happen if the world converted to veganism” there is basically nothing that can be said to counter all of the benefits of a plant-based diet. 

Here’s the first of five pathetic straws that are clutched at: “Livestock produce much more than just food, from medicines and cosmetics to glue and waterproofing agents, they are in a huge number of products. Consideration hasn’t been taken on the impact of these production processes or the impact of animal-free replacements.” 

Is that the best you can do?!

If the world switched to a plant-based system, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world (Poore & Nemecek, 2018). This was according to a study, published in the journal Science, based on a huge dataset from almost 40,000 farms in 119 countries and covering 40 food products that represent 90% of all that is eaten. It assessed the full impact of these foods, from farm to fork, on land use, climate change emissions, freshwater use and water pollution (eutrophication) and air pollution (acidification). Oddly, this and the many other benefits, don’t feature on the website. 

The global meat industry leaves a trail of destruction all over the world, including climate change, deforestation, forest fires, human rights abuses, land grabs from indigenous people and traditional communities, increased risk of future pandemics like coronavirus, and damaging health.

Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research, said: “A fully plant-based food system “is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use. It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car.” 

There are echoes within the industry fight-back of other sectors that have ended up on the wrong side of history – tobacco and fossil fuels. If the food industry bodies wanted to be useful, they would put all of their efforts into bringing about a fair transition that protects independent farmers and supports the urgent shift to plant-based models. 

Instead, they shout, rant, misinform, and spend millions on lobbying, websites and advertising, as the sun starts to set on them. As Mr Garzón found recently, those that speak out will be attacked but these are the wayward, flailing punches of industries that are down and on their way out. 

What you can do:

Join Animal Rebellion and help us call out the hypocrisy and lies as we have done time and time again in our actions against the likes of McDonald’s, Arla, Red Tractor and others. 

Make a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (in the UK, this is at https://www.asa.org.uk/make-a-complaint.html)

References:

Lazarus, O., McDermid, S. & Jacquet, J. The climate responsibilities of industrial meat and dairy producers. Climatic Change 165, 30 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03047-7

Nemecek. T and Poore. J, “Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers,” Science 360, issue 6392 (June 2018): 987-992. 

The post Industrial farming: Fighting for its survival first appeared on Animal Rebellion.

Activists, experts and a renowned human rights lawyer are in court today in London seeking an end to factory farming in the UK. Animal Rebellion stands with them and congratulates them on their unprecedented and urgent action.  

Today, Animal Rebellion is standing alongside Scrap Factory Farming as an unprecedented case against the UK government is heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. We are outside the court to show our support for this world’s first ever legal action to end factory farming.

The case has been brought by the Humane Being and is fronted by Dr Alice Brough and Humane Being co-founder, Jane Tredgett, represented by renowned human rights lawyer, Michael Mansfield QC. Their case includes over 1200 pages of content detailing the risks and dangers of factory farming. Dr Brough was a vet on UK pig farms. After seeing the unhygienic and stressful conditions for the animals and the appalling environmental damage done on-site, she quit to campaign for animal justice.

The case focuses on the threat to public health from factory farming, including antibiotic resistance and the significant risk of increasingly deadly zoonotic diseases such as bird or swine flu. 

Animal Rebellion recognises that dismantling factory farming is a key part of our demand for a fair and sustainable transition to a plant-based food system. We cannot address the climate crisis and achieve animal and climate justice without it. This is why we stand in solidarity.

Animal Rebellion spokesperson, Dan Kidby, says: 

“Removing the incredibly inhumane system of factory farming, that destroys the health of the planet and people, is an essential part of the move to a plant-based food system. We congratulate and support all of the volunteers and experts that have worked so hard to bring this urgent and unprecedented court case. Scrapping factory farming and ensuring a rapid, sustainable and just transition to a plant-based system has to happen if we are to reverse climate crisis.”

The Climate Impacts

The impact of animal farming on the planet is well understood.

At its most fundamental, we know that meat, fish and dairy industries, and the resources needed to support them, contribute 18-23% of all greenhouse gasses and are responsible for around 70% of all global agricultural emissions.

Scientists are clear: we don’t need these systems to feed the world. Meat, fish, eggs and dairy industries use around 83% of global farmland, but provide only 37% of our protein and 18% of our calories. Better use of this land could remove 8.1 billion metric tons of CO2 from the atmosphere per year.

Methane gas is one of the largest contributors to global warming and can trap up to 100 times more heat in the atmosphere than CO2 over a five-year period. Most methane comes from cows that are fed low-quality grains that their bodies cannot digest, causing high levels of indigestion and flatulence. 

Water pollution

The current system is so bad on so many fronts, including the health ones highlighted by this week’s action. 

The meat and dairy industries also drain the world’s water supplies. From watering the crops that farmed animals eat to providing them with drinking water, and cleaning away the filth from farms, lorries, and slaughterhouses, the meat, egg, and dairy industries put a serious strain on the world’s water supply.

It is a double whammy in that the sector also pollutes the world’s waterways and seas. For instance, a study by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, highlighted a new class of agricultural pollutants in the form of veterinary medicines (antibiotics, vaccines and growth promoters), which move from farms through water to ecosystems and drinking-water sources. 

And only last week, alongside the decimation of fish populations and destruction of their habitats, the polluting effects of the fishing industry were exposed. Scottish fishermen were so incensed by what they see in the seas off Scotland that they went to a longstanding critic of their industry, Guardian journalist, George Monbiot. They exposed the deliberate and widescale disposing of nets and longlines at sea. This “ghost gear” drifting through the oceans presents a mortal threat to whales, dolphins, turtles and much of the rest of the life of the sea.  

Taking action

Monbiot concludes that, like the fictional US president in the recent movie, Don’t Look Up, here is yet another instance of the world’s governments, faced with ecological collapse, deciding to “sit tight and assess”.

The current failure of authorities to tackle the myriad issues from meat, dairy and fishing is why brave protestors have to step up, why court cases need to be brought, and why whistle-blowers need to be heard. 

The targets for curbing carbon emissions won’t be close to being met without a transition to a fair and sustainable plant-based system and, in parallel, so many other benefits would accrue. Our health would be better, the air would be cleaner, the planet’s water would be conserved and cleaner, and billions of creatures would avoid indescribable suffering. 

The post Animal Rebellion supports those taking the UK government to court today over factory farming  first appeared on Animal Rebellion.

So how have the stakeholders in our current, archaic, and destructive food system reacted? Supermarkets, restaurant chains, and producers alike have come up with a desperate lie: less but better. Telling us, the public, “less but better” ignores the simple fact that no meat, dairy, or fish is sustainable. Case in point: even the supposedly least sustainable plant-based milk is still more sustainable than the supposedly most sustainable dairy one!

The need to go beyond the less but better agenda is glaring. So why is it that less but better exists? Simply put, it is the death throe of a losing industry. It echoes the sheer fantasy of the tobacco industry in decline that “falsely marketed and promoted low-tar and light cigarettes as less harmful” than regular cigarettes to keep people smoking and sustain revenues”. The industries driving deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate breakdown are using the same tactics to maximise profits at the expense of people, animals, and the planet.

The parallels are undeniable. Meat, fish, and dairy industries are clamouring to deceive the public and not do what is necessary to safeguard the future. How can less but better work when every observable plant-based alternative is more sustainable than one coming from meat, fish, and dairy industries? 

The greenwashing of the meat industry is an emerging scandal, with a DeSmog investigation shedding light on the sustainability sham. They’re not alone in highlighting the underhand practices rampant throughout meat production, that harm workers, animals, and the planet. Underreporting emissions, making false promises, and manipulating sustainability labelling are just a few tactics used to give the illusion of sustainability. 

Why would these industries be working so hard to cover up their practices if they were actually sustainable?

Plant-based options are less land intensive, more productive, and infinitely repeatable. Adopting them will allow us to nourish the world’s population for generations to come, rewild land, end the suffering of billions of farmed animals, and allow for adequate carbon capture! None of this is possible with any food-system reliant on meat, fishing, and dairy.The stories that the likes of McDonald’s want to tell us about “Sustainable Agriculture & Beef“ are laughable in the face of swathes of evidence to the contrary. The only way to achieve sustainability is through a just transition to a plant-based food system. Our planet is on the brink of collapse, and already millions of people are experiencing the deadly impacts of climate breakdown.

Now is not the time for governments and corporations to lie to the world; now is the time for real change, real action, and a just and sustainable plant-based food system.

How?

• Volunteer with us!
• Demand McDonald’s and Arla go plant-based by 2025. 
• If you’re a student and want to make the change with the Plant Based Universities campaign at your university, please contact us using the details, or fill out this form now!

The post Why 100% Just and Sustainably Plant-Based? first appeared on Animal Rebellion.