If the draft guidelines are put into force, then “obvious misspelling, homophonic words, or inserting non-alphabet symbols” to refer to legally protected dairy terms would be prohibited.

This could affect all vegan dairy products in the UK, from milks to cheeses to butters and yogurts. According to the documents, businesses could be banned from using terms like “mylk,” “m*lk,” “vegan cheese,” “plant-based yogurt,” “cheddar-type,” and a host of other descriptors that have historically been allowed in the market.

Our team at Palm has worked in this category since its inception. As plant-based pioneers, we have launched or implemented PR, social media, and influencer campaigns for multiple dairy-free trailblazers, including COYO, Plenish, Rebel Kitchen, Nutty Bruce, Nush, and Freaks of Nature.

So, if you sell a mylk or a sheese or a dairy-free yog, how can you ensure that these changes don’t wreck sales and imperil a hard-fought customer base?

7 tips for vegan brands facing marketing restrictions

1. Master the guidelines

As soon as the official details are published, understand how they will impact your brand, products, marketing strategy, and packaging. And, crucially, when.

The Times reported that “names such as ‘mozzarella alternative’ would not be allowed, but language on packaging such as ‘use as an alternative to mozzarella’ would be.” Establish what you can and can’t do and when changes need to be made, using this information to shape your strategy and response.

2. The importance of name recognition

Invest in building equity and name recognition in your brand and establishing it as a category leader. These changes will naturally favor the market’s biggest players. For example, consumers will have no problem in asking for “a glass of Oatly” instead “a glass of oat milk,” in the same way that people talk of “Googling” instead of “using a search engine”.

To make sure your business isn’t left behind, you’ll need to make your brand as well-known as possible and associated with the category as a whole, so that consumers can still pick out your wares if product labeling changes.

3. Consider third-party marketing

If you can’t use your packaging and owned marketing to communicate your message, then third parties will be crucial. Press and influencer campaigns will be essential as the media won’t be constrained by trading standard guidelines. As such, they will be free to deliver messages direct to consumers that brands are no longer able to themselves.

4. Educational campaigns

Campaigns that educate the market will be a powerful way to build consumer understanding. Activations that showcase how and when to use such products enable brands to show that their ranges are an alternative to traditional dairy, if their labeling isn’t able to.

This can be supported by clever brand collaborations. If you have a dairy-free milk, then strategic partnerships with likeminded cereal or coffee brands can achieve the positioning that you want.

5. Speak to retailers

Work with your retailer to establish the best spot to place your product. If these guidelines don’t enable you to draw the connection to your product and the traditional dairy variety, then placing the products side by side might be just as effective.

6. Proactively challenge the guidelines

Make noise on social media and implement PR campaigns to get your voice heard. This could include opinion pieces*, TV shows, and podcasts. Additionally, use your customer base as an advocate for your position.

Get political. Join forces with other brands and speak to your MP and Defra to ensure you’re counted in the debate.

7. Get creative

Finally, if you have to, harness creativity to develop alternative ways to describe your products. Consider terminology that resonates with your customer base. And at the same time, emphasizes the nutritional benefits, plant-based nature, and unique selling points of your range.

The plant-based industry has been adept at creating new categories for years. Now, it has an opportunity to “own” this change by forging language that enables brands to control their positioning and consumer perception of their products.

—

* Editor’s note: those interested in submitting an opinion piece to Plant Based News can do so here.

The post Vegan Milk And Cheese Is Under Threat In The UK – Here’s What Brands Can Do appeared first on Plant Based News.

News outlets such as the BBC, the Daily Mail, and the Telegraph speculated in their subsequent articles on this topic that this may be due to declining interest in vegan meat. Heck’s managing director, Andrew Keeble, further encouraged these claims by stating to the Daily Telegraph: “We had a huge range of vegan products because, like everyone else, we believed what was being written in the press. The vegan market is really funny.”

But is this claim true? Let’s examine the evidence.

Predictions for a vegan future

According to a forecast report by Straits Research, the UK vegan food market is growing considerably, at a predicted compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 9.1 percent between 2023 and 2031. The report also mentions that the meat substitute segment is the highest contributor to the plant-based market, driven by a high demand in developed economies like the US, UK, and others.

In fact, the UK meat substitutes market is worth around USD $1 billion. One of the biggest UK retailers, Sainsbury’s, predicts that a quarter of the UK population will be meat-free by 2025 in its Future of Food report.

Admittedly, it’s not only Heck that’s been struggling to navigate the competitive alternative meat market. Other big players such as Beyond Meat have sought additional funding after their net revenues showed a decrease in 2022 and stocks plummeted. But, of course, the market is a complex machine. And pointing to the end of the vegan sector is a general, non-analytic, and lazy way of investigating the decline of these sales. Let’s delve a little deeper. 

The Beyond Meat controversy

After Beyond Meat’s chief operating officer Doug Ramsey’s public arrest (for the assault of another man) led to his departure from the company at end of last year, public perception of Beyond Meat took a strong hit. Alongside this, the media continuously questions the nutritional values and hyper-processing of its products – particularly the vegan burger patties – in comparison with meat. This has not done any favors for sales figures. Beyond Meat’s products are also not always the most cost-effective in the freezer.

According to a Seeking Alpha article, Beyond Meat’s market position has never been a truly leading one. It started off as a “younger competitor in a relatively old and stabilized industry with immense competition.” While Beyond Meat manufactures its products using complex ingredients with the aim to make them more meat-like, they are also much more cost – and ingredient – intensive than others.

We can look at news and politics as examples of why markets converge with specificity, instead of generalizing, but let’s also talk about our tightening wallets.

The cost of living crisis

In an ever-increasing global cost of living crisis, it is vital to not only keep up with competition on the pricing of products, but to also give customers value for their money. With Heck, if the customer doesn’t like the product, why would they buy it? Especially in this financial climate. Consumers will naturally look for cheaper products that are the same or better.

Looking at feedback regarding some of the meat-free items Heck is discontinuing, there is a strong indication that customers were simply not blown away by the products. Is it the market’s fault your product could have unfavorable reviews?

Always listen to the market

I also want to call into question the logic of diving headfirst into a brand-new market based on “what the news says.” That’s not exculpatory. A careful and considered analysis of market size, with metrics you produce, proportionate to the product range you intend to create, would surely have been the smarter way of developing a new product line.

What we potentially have, therefore, is bad press for the plant-based market either because of inaccurate analytics, or from piggybacking media hype. In either case, the market isn’t wrong – it’s misunderstood by the manufacturer. What we are seeing is a deflection.

Quickly expanding ranges of low-cost, plant-based supermarket own product lines adds to the competition. Take market specialists whose sole focus is producing quality meat alternatives, such as THIS and La Vie. Not to forget, many people have become more experimental in their own kitchens during the pandemic and chose cheaper, easy-to-make homemade meals with help of sites and apps, such as the UK’s leading vegan campaigning charity Viva!’s Vegan Recipe Club.

In addition, it’s important to keep in mind what it is that brings people to make a switch to vegan products. YouGov data suggests that around 80 percent of people in the UK become vegan due to animal cruelty concerns, 27 percent for their health, and 53 percent for environmental reasons. (The figures exceed 100 since many people go vegan for multiple reasons.)

These reasons will often play into the decision factor about which manufacturers they support. For many, it makes sense to support a fully vegan brand, that has a clear sustainability roadmap, rather than a meat processor that runs a plant-based line alongside their non-vegan products. 

Veganism is not a diet

Veganism is a lifestyle choice and not just about food. Consumers are increasingly making conscious choices about which brands to support based on their ethical, environmental, and health values. Clearly, the demand for meat alternatives is still there, but Heck’s decision to pull its vegan products from supermarket shelves shows that consumers have higher expectations of vegan products. And, that companies need to be able to meet those expectations.

As consumers are placing more importance on the ethical and environmental credentials of their vegan food suppliers, manufacturers looking to compete in the plant-based food market must ensure that their products are quality, and that their production processes are as sustainable and ethical as possible. This is something that I feel Heck failed to do, which is likely why its vegan products no longer appear on supermarket shelves.

The post Is This The Beginning Of The End For Vegan Meat Alternatives? appeared first on Plant Based News.

Marketers love to showcase “innovative” and “groundbreaking” new solutions to marketing. The reason why I admire La Vie is that it isn’t doing that. It’s being humble in the face of decades upon decades of consumer research. It isn’t trying to reinvent the marketing wheel; it’s following a proven method.

I’ve written before on the topic of product innovation within the vegan space. La Vie makes unbelievably good vegan bacon. But whilst the product is fantastic, its marketing strategy is equally brilliant.

You see, what’s great about entering the retail and fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector is that we know the recipe for success. It’s one that has already been concocted. It’s been recreated thousands upon thousands of times, with little variation by many brands before. The main ingredient for that recipe is summed up in one word: availability.

Physical availability

First up, that’s about physical availability. This is all about distribution. Your products need to be in as many locations as possible. They need to be physically accessible and available to buy. Food shopping habits are very baked in. Major studies on habit formation have shown it typically takes life-altering events such as becoming parents or moving house to change when and where you shop. Charles Duhigg’s The Power of Habit highlights just how difficult it can be to alter a customer’s shopping habits.

In short, no matter how groundbreaking your product, people will not upend their supermarket shopping habits and go out of their way to regularly purchase it. You need to bring it to them – be in as many convenient locations as possible, so that you can slot into consumers’ existing habits.

For scale-up brands undergoing growth, as much work should go into securing listings with major retailers and distributors as you put into the product, the brand, the manufacturing. The more listings you have, the more people will see your product, and the more customers you will have simply by being physically accessible.

Often small brands avoid big retailers and distributors. They fear being dictated to when it comes to aspects of their product like manufacturing, pricing and more. But whilst I love small independent specialist retailers, unfortunately your brand will not grow by being reliant on them alone.

So back to La Vie – how has it achieved physical availability? Not only is it now in most major supermarkets, it’s only gone and got itself into Burger King – one of the biggest fast food chains in the UK, making their bacon very easy to get hold of.

Mental availability

The second part to growing a brand is mental availability. Again, consumers will not break their shopping habits – they are unlikely to make a special trip to the supermarket just to buy your product more than once. So instead, a brand needs to resonate with a consumer when they’re in a purchasing situation i.e. are wandering around the aisles on their weekly supermarket shop. Few supermarket shoppers will be actively seeking your product. If you’re lucky, their gaze will pass over your product for half a second before they move on.

How you capture them in that half a second is about being “mentally available.” Your brand – distinctive assets, logo, color schemes etc. – will fire off a few mental connections in their brains. Maybe, just maybe, they’ll do a double-take, and grab your product from the shelf.

There are no secrets or shortcuts to mental availability – it’s all about advertising. We’re not talking hyper-targeted granular digital ads or super-engaging TikTok campaigns… but good old-fashioned mass market, above-the-line advertising. TV, out-of-home, newspapers, digital ad campaigns – it’s about getting in front of as many eyeballs as possible.

This scares many small brands, and rightly so. It’s expensive. But it works. And there’s a certain hubris that comes with assuming your brand will buck the trend – that you’ll be the one to build huge retail interest off the back of more “affordable” marketing channels like organic social media.

To put it bluntly, there’s a reason why Procter & Gamble, Nestlé, Coca Cola, L’Oréal, and Unilever collectively spend more than $42 billion annually on advertising, and are also five of the biggest FMCG brands in the world. Advertising works.

La Vie has understood this perfectly. It has invested heavily into above-the-line advertising campaigns, including huge out-of-home advertising investments.

Earlier this year, La Vie took out seemingly every bus stop shelter ad in the UK. That little bit of brand recognition, teamed with the bold color schemes, fun assets, and the promise of tasty and innovative plant-based bacon sparks something in people’s minds when they are browsing the plant-based aisle in their supermarket, priming them to purchasing and trying the product. La Vie are bringing home the bacon.

A marketing masterclass

This combination blends physical availability and mental availability perfectly. It’s simply making life convenient for the consumer. They will find La Vie wherever they shop, and through mass market advertising it’ll become a curiosity to them, sparking interest and hopefully an intention to buy. This approach is among the single most well-documented routes in marketing strategy, and it’s practically a guaranteed success when combined with a fantastic product offering, which La Vie certainly has.

We live in a world where marketeers will continue to pitch you the latest shortcuts and “little-known secrets” to market traction – social media stunts, AI-generated content, influencers, NFTs, the metaverse. All of this is hypothetical; it’s unproven and risky at best, a complete waste of resources at worst.

As someone who has spent over a decade in marketing and strategy, I’d advise any brand owners to be wary of the marketing snake oil. Put your faith in the tried and true. Physical and mental availability will always be a near guaranteed route to FMCG and retail success.

La Vie will be a household name within the next few years, and a great active case study for marketeers working in the plant-based space. This is how it’s done.

The post Why La Vie Is A Marketing Masterclass For Vegan Businesses appeared first on Plant Based News.

It’s not that I wasn’t worried about the outcome of a trial, especially with the possibility of a sentence that could separate me from my dog. And it wasn’t that I wanted my time in court. It’s that I wanted the two chickens rescued by my friend and me – and the hundreds of thousands we couldn’t rescue that day – to have their time in court. 

The rescue

Our rescue of these two individuals took place in September 2021 during a peaceful protest that was part of the Animal Liberation Conference. The chicken I carried to safety, later named Ethan, was in a crowded cage on a truck just outside a Foster Farms slaughterhouse in Livingston, California. Not only was he minutes away from the terror of being flipped upside down and hung in shackles by his feet, but when I opened the cage door and saw him – unmoving, his head low and legs splayed – he was slowly dying. I know a lot about chickens, because my family has a small sanctuary for rescued animals, but you wouldn’t have to know much to see that Ethan was gravely ill. 

My friend Alexandra also rescued a sick chicken, later named Jax, that day. How did we know we’d find debilitated chickens on the truck? Well, as the driver of this very truck testified at our trial, dying and dead chickens arrive at the slaughterhouse every day. Even though Foster Farms’ business is to breed and sell chickens, the monetary value of a single chicken is so low that dead chickens (who are not supposed to be used for human consumption) are built into the business plan.

At our trial, the maximum value the company was able to place on Jax and Ethan was $16. So when Alexandra and I opened that cage, it took us only a few seconds to see that Jax and Ethan needed our help – immediately.

The cruelty of chicken slaughter

We also knew that the fate awaiting Jax and Ethan wasn’t a quick, painless death – despite Foster Farms’ marketing claims that its chickens “enjoy” freedom from injury, fear, and distress. Footage from a hidden camera, part of an investigation by the global animal rights network Direct Action Everywhere, had just exposed dangerous conditions for both workers and animals in this particular slaughterhouse: Working in darkness, with the assembly-line shackles moving at high speed, workers in the video rush to shackle more than 140 birds each minute.

Under this pressure, they inevitably handle the terrified chickens roughly. Sometimes a chicken briefly escapes human hands and can be seen frantically trying to find a way out. Many chickens judged unfit for slaughter are thrown to the ground or buried under the bodies of other “condemned” chickens.

What’s more, once upside-down in the shackles, chickens often struggle wildly to right themselves and thereby avoid the electrified water that’s meant to stun them as well as the blade that’s supposed to kill them. When this happens, a worker has to cut the fully conscious bird’s neck with a knife. Some chickens are still alive when they reach the scalding tank (meant to ready their skin for defeathering) and are then boiled and drowned. 

The importance of rescue

My focus that day was on Ethan – getting him to a veterinarian for treatment, making him feel safe. But when I learned I was being charged with theft for rescuing him, my focus broadened. Of course I wanted the public to hear Ethan’s story – despite expert veterinary care, he was too ill to recover and passed away – and the story of Jax, who not only got well but is now thriving at a sanctuary where he is loved and respected as the individual he is.

But I also wanted the public to know about all the animals who never get named, whose stories are never told. I figured a jury trial was an opportunity to show what really happens in the places where these animals live and die – how sick and diseased they typically are, the extreme cruelty of everyday husbandry and slaughter practices, the hazardous work of slaughterhouse employees (at high risk of everything from sliced-off fingers to COVID infections to mental health problems). 

The trial

And to my amazement, that’s what happened. A few of the facts revealed during our trial, which took place over nine days in March 2023: 

• Jax and Ethan were infected with a contagious disease that could pose a risk to humans as well as other chickens. 
• Foster Farms routinely transports morbidly ill chickens from farm to slaughterhouse.
• Foster Farms allows diseased birds to be processed for pet food.      

To my even greater amazement – our legal team put our chances of acquittal at 20 percent, at best – the jury found Alexandra and me “not guilty.” 

In post-trial interviews with three of the jurors, they said their decision was based on the openness with which Alexandra and I carried out this rescue, how clearly we knew that we were doing the right thing. 

The truth is that people – people like the members of our jury – don’t want animals to suffer. Knowing this too, a company like Foster Farms goes to great trouble and expense to hide the truth about its operations and to create bucolic images that have nothing to do with how their chickens actually live and die. 

Compassion isn’t a crime

Another truth is that compassion isn’t a crime. Even people who live in areas of the country with intensive animal farming agree: Last October, a jury in St. George, Utah, acquitted two friends of mine – also members of DxE – of felony charges for rescuing two sickly piglets from a massive “pork” operation. Clearly people support the right to rescue. Not only dogs trapped in hot cars, but any suffering animal.  

Increasingly, the “right to rescue” is being discussed globally and the collective work to establish animal rights is being recognized as a legitimate social justice movement. In June, activists from around the world will be gathering in Berkeley for the annual Animal Liberation Conference, featuring distinguished speakers, educational workshops, and opportunities to take bold mass action.

Jax and Ethan’s day in court shows the need for gatherings like this, in which humans come together to change the systems that commodify and abuse animals. For that, I am proud and grateful.   

The post Why I Risked A Jail Sentence To Tell The Story Of Two Desperately Sick Chickens  appeared first on Plant Based News.

The 1.5 degrees Paris climate target is expected to be passed in the early 2030s, I suspect due to manipulative corporate greenwashing, disinformation campaigns, and political lobbying influence from animal agriculture and fossil fuel giants.

What are we doing to prevent this?

Today, food trends still show a big appetite for local and regenerative systems, even though these are largely vague and undefined terms and highly debatable. Data also shows that the corporatized Western diet will continue to aggressively permeate cultures across the globe. That is, unless changes are made now.

Studying and working in the wider conservation and nature-based solutions field for years, when the food topic is brought up, buying local has been the most pervasive and proudly held environmental action. And intuitively, it makes sense. I used to believe it and often bought from local butcher shops for this exact reason.

This approach falls apart when considering animal-sourced foods, revealing a deeply flawed environmental understanding that contradicts our well-meaning intentions.

Teaching children to cherish our planet vs. Old MacDonald’s farm

As soon as parents start reading their children books or play music, young minds are bombarded with content that promotes a bucolic, romanticized, and simplistic view of farm life. This distorted portrayal of food production impedes progress towards needed transformational food system change.

We all hold distorted ideas around animal farming. Partly due to the secrecy of confinement of treatment of animals, but also the early indoctrination of children as unsuspecting meat eaters. I’ve observed this first-hand countless times. My five-year-old daughter was offered a snack from a friend of hers at the park. She’s thrived on a plant-based diet since she was born, and now understands the age-appropriate amount on the topic to ask: “Are there animals in it?”

The friend said no. It was some pepperoni and cheese from a local market.

“The percent of children claiming that hamburgers, hot dogs, and bacon come from plants ranged from 36 percent to 41 percent. Even chicken nuggets, a food that has an animal in its name, were categorized as a plant-based food by more than a third of the children in our sample,” according to Dr. Erin Hahn and other researchers from Furman University. 

The influence of Big Ag

Yet the cultural power of animal agriculture shields it from criticism and regulation. This has resulted in meat production globally increasing by almost fivefold in the latter half of the 1900s. This is the systematic result of subsidies, lobbying, marketing, funded academics, and governments bailing out conglomerates like Tyson, Cargill, and JBS. The top 10 meat and dairy companies and six largest trade associations, in the US alone, have spent over $330M just on lobbying related to the environment since 2000. 

Due to this power and influence, paired with inconsistent early beliefs that continue into adulthood, now almost two-thirds of both urban and rural Americans believe that buying local food is better for the environment. This is far more than those who believe plant-based proteins are better than animal-sourced ones, according to a survey from Purdue University.

The truth behind ‘eco-friendly’ local meat

Many people who support the buy-local food narrative often ignore the fact that there are many other far larger factors than transportation that impact a product’s carbon footprint. Food’s environmental impact comes, in part, from its land use, deforestation, and methane (mostly from cattle). But other factors can impact the carbon footprint of food, too. For instance, massive storage lagoons of manure from confined animals, nitrous oxide from over-fertilized fields, and even the storage of meat and similar products, since animal-sourced foods typically require significant refrigeration. Even food waste’s impacts are dominated by animal-sourced ones.

Research has also shown that transport-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions represent five–six percent of total GHG emissions of global food production, depending on the study method and food products considered. The notable exception where transport can indeed be used as an indicator for a product’s poor carbon footprint is food that is transported by plane. Consumers deserve far more transparency to be able to opt-out of foods that have been air freighted. But luckily, it’s only 0.16 percent of all food.

More on food miles

Another perspective of this debate was covered by a new study by Li et al., (2020). It suggested that “food miles” make up 20 percent of food emissions, which is much higher than previous studies. This study unfairly accounted for all the upstream emissions (from fertilizers to pesticides to machinery), and when accounting for only the transport of food, food miles only account for nine percent of emissions according to their methods. As Dr. Hannah Ritchie from Oxford University put it in a review of the flaws, they also assumed all fruit and vegetables are temperature-controlled, but lots of vegetables aren’t. For instance, onions, potatoes, carrots, turnips, garlic, cauliflowers, broccoli, pumpkins, squashes, and peppers.

Buying local seasonal plant foods makes sense, but it’s still important to understand what the comparison is for the same foods grown elsewhere. For example, oats, similar to wheat, are often irrigated in the US due to being grown in drier regions. On the other hand, winter wheat is rain-fed. By moving these crops to locations with more rainfall, like western New York or Pennsylvania, the need for irrigation can be reduced significantly.

So how do we increase local food security, especially in these days with increased global conflicts and trade restrictions?

National food security

The scientific consensus is increasingly showing that the animal agriculture industry, trade groups, and paid-experts can no longer deny the environmental impacts from animal-sourced foods relative to plant-based options. So instead of denying it, they are creating disinformation campaigns similar to the oil and gas industry. These often justify the expansion of animal agriculture locally to meet national food security goals.

In regions like the United Kingdom, where the capital of Scotland just endorsed the Plant Based Treaty, some are claiming that due to so much land being considered marginal and not productive for plant agriculture, then grazing for cattle and sheep is necessary. This is misinformation. This study showed that the UK as a whole could still feed the current population, with a similar amount of imports, while also allowing for significant rewilding if we shifted to plant-based diets. Dr. Joseph Poore recently showed that 232,000 hectares of land could be spared if Edinburgh shifted to fully plant-based. This would be equivalent to removing 532,000 cars off the road.

Globally, if people shifted to plant-based diets, more food could be produced and all the land held captive by ranching could be rewilded to help draw down carbon from the atmosphere. Globally, this plant-based shift could feed an additional four billion people. But also, free up three billion hectares, an amount of land equivalent to the entire continent of Africa.

Alternatively, if the Western diet continues being centered around animal-sourced foods, and this food system is continually exported to countries as they increase their income, we’d require an additional 3.5 billion hectares for animal agriculture production. This is an area roughly equal to the combined area of Africa and Australia.

Communities left behind

Yet some issues still remain, especially with global volatility over increasingly limited resources and environmental breakdown. There are only roughly 400 million people worldwide who reside in an area where enough food variety within the different food groups is locally produced to maintain their current dietary habits within a radius of less than 100 square kilometers.

Even if food waste is minimized, crop yields are optimized, and dietary habits are modified to include more efficient crop choices, only a fraction of the world’s population – less than one-third – could depend on locally grown crops to meet their food needs.

This shows that international trade and global food products, as unfair as they can be in today’s system, are currently key in meeting the food requirements of the world’s population and safeguarding food security.

What if we could create a local and resilient food system that actually could feed the world without destroying it? What if there’s a way to continue eating the same culturally enjoyed foods, without slaughtering another animal or destroying the planet?

The Future Locavore: the case for a slaughter-free local food system

Now back to the year 2033, but imagine that we not only continued in the 2020s to decarbonize our energy system, but we also transformed our food system. Instead of exporting the Western food system globally and continuing the largest human pressure on the planet, eroding all remaining wild ecosystems, preventing rewilding, and driving a sixth mass extinction of species, we innovated and rallied for positive changes.

Imagine we replicated the taste and texture that people have become accustomed to, with a fraction of the environmental footprint. All this while supporting local economies.

Imagine the world’s protein and fat coming from local breweries, occupying only the land area of a small province or state, instead of half the planet, and powered by clean electricity.

Many would say this is impossible.

But this is all underway. In fact, the US Food and Drug Administration recently gave approval to a company that creates cultivated meat. This is produced using a basic animal cell and ends up being biologically identical to conventional meat, without the slaughter.

What is precision fermentation?

Precision fermentation technology that uses yeast or bacteria to produce molecularly identical animal-free dairy or eggs also isn’t some future innovation. Ninety percent of cheese in the US market is made with rennet produced through precision fermentation.

The process of fermentation is a highly versatile method of using microorganisms to create alternative sources of proteins. For thousands of years, fermentation has been employed in the production of food. Throughout history, microbial cultures have been used by early civilizations to preserve various types of food, as well as to develop alcoholic drinks. Additionally, to enhance the nutritional benefits and digestibility of a wide variety of foods like tempeh and yogurt.

While cultivated (cell-based) meat is new, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) emphasized in a new report that cell-based foods are safe and well beyond the realm of futuristic concepts. Presently, more than 100 businesses and start-ups are working on cell-based food products that are prepared for commercialization, pending approval.

Imagine food markets and grocery stores with their own local systems for cultivated meat, similar to how many stores currently brew coffee and bake fresh bread and cakes on location. Pizza shops will have the ability to produce fresh cheese on-site using their own unique combination of molecular taste, smell, texture, and nutritional qualities.

Is it realistic?

This is a convincing theory of change, although some are skeptical. The size of bioreactors alone created in different areas of the world may pose challenges. The bio-pharmaceutical industry’s largest bioreactors are around 25,000 liters. Large ones, at 100,000-250,000 liters — as proposed by Good Meat which is currently selling cultured chicken in Singapore — don’t exist yet. And they may not be possible for cell-based meat without contamination and waste. In mid-2022, they announced the engineering firm ABEC is currently building ten 250,000-liter bioreactors to try just this.

If we can create the same foods people love in terms of taste, texture, and nutritional value, except without deforestation, manure, extreme food waste with crops grown for confined animals, animal-slaughter, and a host of other environmental and ethical issues, why wouldn’t we try?

Obstacles to change

Public money will likely need to support these companies including the non-profits pioneering this effort, instead of animal agriculture. This shouldn’t be seen as a barrier; a 2021 report found almost 90 percent of global farming subsidies are harmful. Government regulations and licensing stipulations should mandate unionized work environments in cultured meat and precision fermentation labs. And, prioritize hiring skilled workers who have been displaced from the traditional meat sector.

Between 2015-2020, financial institutions gave over $478 billion to meat and dairy corporations globally. Between 2010-2020, plant-based food, cultivated meat, and fermentation companies, all of which would significantly reduce land pressures, received only $5.9 billion in investments. And that doesn’t include subsidies. ​Worldwide, more than US$200 billion of public money is given to farmers every year in direct transfers.

Proteins from precision fermentation produce up to 97 percent less greenhouse gas emissions, up to 99 percent less water use, according to the University of Helsinki VTT technical research centre of Finland. Other reports show these alternative proteins will be 100 times more land efficient than current animal agriculture methods. The innovative process will be 25 times more feedstock efficient, 10 times more water-efficient, 20 times more time-efficient, and will produce minimal waste. Other studies show similar environmental improvements with cultivated meat, although decarbonization of the energy system will be key. 

Bringing food security to more people

Decentralizing precision fermentation and cultivated meat production could bring significant benefits to remote and food-insecure regions. 

“A more decentralized and resilient production model, closer to the consumer, means food production will no longer be at the mercy of geography of extreme price, quality, and volume fluctuations due to climate, seasons, disease, epidemics, geopolitical restrictions, or exchange-rate volatility. PF (Precision Fermentation) foods will also have a longer shelf life and be less vulnerable to contamination risk,” according to Catherine Tubb and Tony Seba in their report on Rethinking Food and Agriculture 2020-2030.

Since this new meat can be made in controlled environments, it could be produced in regions that lack the necessary climate and soil conditions for traditional agriculture.

Decentralized production of this new food system could finally be that piece that solves world hunger and food insecurity by providing a locally produced, nutrient-rich food source globally. This would also stimulate local economies by creating new job opportunities in the production, distribution, and sale of the product. And, finally empower regions of the world that rely so heavily on food imports to feed their population.

A golden opportunity

While this disruption and transformation of our food system won’t come without careful socio-economic considerations, and some increased innovation for scalability, the net benefits far outweigh any potential short-term burdens. It will continue to be important to understand the competition that this will bring amongst organizations, farmers, trade groups, and current dominating food-supplying countries. As such, we must actively engage all stakeholders from the outset for a just transition.  

As some experts have put it, this is the greatest opportunity for environmental restoration in human history. It’s also one that can also improve health, food security, and wellbeing. And meanwhile, reduce pandemic and antibiotic resistance risks and national conflicts. Others believe we should simply advocate for whole food plant-based diets. And while this does align the best with environmental, health, and social implications, the likelihood of this drastic change from current dietary patterns is far less likely.

Shape tomorrow by acting today

Imagine in 2033, a world transformed by humanity’s collective decision to shift towards a plant-based, cultured meat, and precision fermentation food system a decade earlier. Half of the planet was able to rewild and is now showing clear signs of restoration of plant and animal species that were on the brink of extinction just a decade ago. This resurgence of biodiversity has sparked hope and reinforced the importance of living within planetary boundaries.

It all began in 2023 when a global movement emerged, advocating for a massive shift in food production and consumption patterns. The world embraced these societal and technological changes, which paved the way for a more sustainable, compassionate food system. As a result, vast expanses of land previously dedicated to industrial agriculture and livestock farming were freed up, allowing nature to reclaim its rightful place.

In this new world, rivers and streams run clear, teeming with life once thought to be lost forever. Forests, once razed for agricultural expansion, have regrown. They now provide sanctuary to countless species, some of which had been pushed to the edge of extinction. The air is cleaner, filled with the songs of birds returning to their ancestral homes.

In a powerful act of restorative justice, many Indigenous communities were given their ancestral lands back, empowering them to share their wisdom and traditional practices in stewarding the Earth. And some saw this technology as fully in line with their culture. Black communities around the world received reparations for their historical displacement and oppression. This included land redistribution that reignited their connection to the earth and brought harmony and reconciliation. Neither of those were achievable to any scale without this shift.

Living in harmony with planet Earth

Communities around the globe have witnessed the power of collective action, inspired by the positive changes they see in their environment. They have come to understand the interconnectedness of all living beings and the critical role each plays in maintaining the delicate balance of the planet’s ecosystems. In turn, they have developed a newfound appreciation for the land and sea.

Children, like my daughter, grow up knowing the importance of their food choices and their impact on the world. They are taught the value of kind, local, plant-based, and cultivated foods that support the health of both people and the planet. As people walk through rewilded landscapes, they marvel at the beauty of their surroundings and the rich biodiversity that flourishes within them.

This utopian vision of 2033 serves as inspiration to humanity’s capacity to change for the better. Through innovation, compassion, and a deep respect for the Earth, we can come together to create a brighter, more sustainable future for all life on our planet. This is entirely within our reach and a clear area to start is the food we all eat.

The post Can ‘Local Meat’ Be A Part Of A Sustainable Future Food System? appeared first on Plant Based News.

At this point, it should no longer be a shock. 

And yet every time the grocery store cashier rings up the total, it’s a punch to the gut. 

Groceries are far more expensive than they were just a year ago.

And that isn’t changing anytime soon.   

Now before anyone jumps in with, “I told you a plant-based diet is expensive…”  

Inflation has hit meat and animal products at nearly twice the rate of vegetables. 

This isn’t a vegan vs. omnivore issue, it’s across the board.

For those of us that follow a plant-based diet, there’s a silver lining: 

With a few changes in the way we shop, vegans are in a unique position to save drastically on our groceries. 

Below you’ll find some proven techniques for cutting down your grocery budget, without cutting back on flavorful, nutritious plant-based foods. 

Start with a plan (then make a list)  

You’ve heard the saying, “Don’t go to the grocery store hungry.” 

I’ll add to that: 

Don’t go to the grocery store without a plan. 

Taking a few minutes before your trip to the store to map out a meal plan for the week and compile a shopping list will save you both time and money. 

It means: 

• Fewer impulse purchases 
• Less wasted food
• Fewer items you think you might use, but end up throwing in the trash (or cupboard) 

And as a bonus, meal plans result in healthier and less random takeout.  

Tip for shopping lists: Use an app that allows you to sort by store layout or section. I use “Our Groceries” which allows multiple users to update the same list — perfect for couples, roommates, or families. 

Be choosy about where you shop

I dread grocery shopping as much as the next guy, so just the thought of going to multiple stores is enough to keep me from shopping altogether. 

But if done right, you can take advantage of multiple stores without the hassle of multiple stops. 

It starts with getting to know where to shop for what, then rotating where you go each week, stocking up on the items you need from that particular store. 

Here’s my approach, but it may take some time to get to know the stores in your community: 

Budget grocery store

• Dried and canned beans 
• Pasta 
• Grains
• Canned tomatoes or other veggies
• Plant-based milk 
• Frozen veggies 
• Frozen fruit
• Snacks
• Tofu

“High-end” grocery store (think Whole Foods) 

• Fresh veggies 
• Fresh fruit 
• Natural nut butter 
• Nuts and seeds
• Tempeh
• Vegan meats 
• Coffee
• Specialty items

Asian or Latin grocery stores 

• Fresh veggies 
• Fresh fruit 
• Bulk rice and grains 
• Spices
• Sauces 

Specialty stores (bakery, farmers’ market, natural food store) 

• Fresh Vegetables 
• Bread
• Bulk items

Online

• Pantry staples 
• Paper goods
• Supplements 

You’ll notice a lot of overlap, especially around fruits and vegetables. Depending on the season, store, and recipe, some stores may be better for specific vegetables than others. 

Optimize your food choices 

You’ve planned, you’ve strategized on where to shop… now you need to hit the store! 

Here are seven ways to optimize your food choices for budget saving:

1) Buy foods that are in season 

Shopping for seasonal produce is often recommended for freshness and the environment, but it’s also a great way to save money. 

Strawberries in the summer, for example, should be much cheaper than they are in December. 

And if you can shop at a local farmers’ market, you might get even better deals on produce sourced from local farms. 

Tip: Ask your local farmer if they have any “seconds,” or produce that may look ugly, but is totally edible. I’ve saved hundreds on tomatoes with this approach. 

2) Stay away from highly processed vegan meats

The rise of premium veggie burgers, nuggets, and vegan-meat strips have been a welcome addition to my plate. But they aren’t cheap. 

Beans, lentils, tofu, meaty mushrooms, and tempeh, for example, are much cheaper. 

Choosing (healthier) whole foods as your default will save you money, and potentially lead to more creativity in the kitchen! 

Need recipe inspiration? Start here: 

• Orange Tofu And Broccoli
• Fiery Coconut Tofu Masala Curry
• Mushroom Lentil Risotto
• Pulled Pork Style BBQ Mushroom Sandwich
• Black Bean Burgers
• White Bean Chili
• Plant-Based Scrambled Eggs

3) Buy store-brand

The stigma against store-brand products is slipping — and I’m here for it. Many store-brand products are just as good (or nearly identical) to their name-brand counterparts, for a fraction of the price. 

Frozen food, canned food, pasta, and rice are all great items to choose the store-brand option.

4) Buy frozen fruits and vegetables 

Buying frozen fruits, vegetables, and greens will not only provide nutritious out-of-season plant foods, but it can also save you a lot of money.

For example, right now at my local grocery store, fresh organic strawberries are $5.99 per pound, while frozen is just $3.15 per pound. 

Fresh spinach is $0.50 an ounce, while frozen is $0.20 per ounce. 

Of course, there are times (in a salad, for example), when frozen wouldn’t work. But when cooking, making a smoothie, or whipping up a sauce, frozen can be just as nutritious and delicious as fresh, for a fraction of the cost. 

5) Buy dried legumes

Buying dried legumes — especially beans — over a canned or pre-cooked version is undoubtedly more of a hassle. 

So if the option is canned beans over no beans at all, then go with canned. 

But buying dried is a fantastic way to save money and gives you the option to stock up through bulk purchases.  

Tip: instant pots remove a lot of that hassle. 

6) Make your own

Salad dressings, pasta sauces, soups, sauces… 

These are all relatively easy to make, and making your own will often produce a healthier and cheaper version. 

Learning a handful of go-to recipes will cut down on time and allow for more flexibility in your cooking. 

7) Reduce food waste 

No matter how well you plan, sometimes your food will go bad before you can use it. 

Here are a few food storage tips that will keep your produce fresher, longer: 

• Fruits:
  • Berries, cherries, and grapes should be refrigerated.
  • Bananas should be kept away from other fruits since they release a gas that can cause other fruits to ripen too quickly.
• Greens:
  • Wash and dry leafy greens, then store them in a plastic bag or sealed container in the refrigerator. 
  • If they’re starting to go bad, move them into the freezer to use in sauces, soups, or smoothies. 
• Vegetables:
  • Store root vegetables such as carrots, potatoes, and onions in a cool, dark, and dry place like a pantry or cellar.
  • Tomatoes and avocados should be kept at room temperature until they are ripe, then they can be refrigerated to extend their shelf life.
  • Broccoli, cauliflower, and bell peppers should be stored in a plastic bag or container in the refrigerator.

And when all else fails, freeze it!

Groceries are expensive — but as a vegan, you’re better off than you might think

Not to be a Negative Nancy, but chances are these high prices aren’t going away anytime soon. 

It’s time we adjust. 

With a little extra planning and care, a plant-based diet can be a great way to save money at the grocery store. 

Win 6 months of free groceries 

What’s better than saving money on groceries? 

Getting them for free! 

Plant Based News has partnered with Complement, No Meat Athlete, and High Carb Hannah to create the Plant-Powered Grocery Sweepstakes, where we’re giving away six months of fresh groceries for you and your family, plus cookbooks, meal plans, and a massive Complement nutrient bundle. It’s over $7,900 worth of prizes, and could be yours, absolutely free!  

Click here to join the sweepstakes before May 24, 2023 — no purchase necessary! Please note only residents of the United States are eligible.

—

* This content is part of a branded partnership. Funds from this article help Plant Based News continue to provide millions of people around the world with free content they know and love. We only work with brands we support and use ourselves.

The post How To Beat Inflation And Save Money On Groceries: A Guide For Plant-Based Eaters appeared first on Plant Based News.

What started many years ago as just one furniture design expo “Salone del Mobile” in the outskirts, now sprawls over the entire city with multiple satellite shows. It is here that smaller, relatively unknown design studios can be found rubbing shoulders with industry giants like Google, IKEA, and BMW design.

It’s often said, but the more relevant and exciting design shows are more likely to be found in these Milanese cobbled backstreets. Which is exactly why the big brands are choosing old apartment blocks and warehouses to exhibit their designs rather than the more sterile and corporate exhibition halls of Salone del Mobile.

There’s a certain charm to the fact that on these streets money doesn’t necessarily buy you attention (although many try). Casa Blond by James Melia’s Design Studio, for example, was one of the must-see shows picked up by Hypebeast, Designboom, and many others. I spoke to Blond lead designer Greg, and his joy and enthusiasm for creativity was really infectious. They welcomed attendees to sketch design ideas inspired by objects that they would model in CAD and 3D print on the spot. This democratic lack of pretentiousness and focus on design itself rather than the designers was like a welcome breath of fresh air. And, what made their small space a hit.

At the end of our conversation I was urged by Greg to go and see ALCOVA. “It’s like the set of The Last of Us! But with design exhibits dotted around!” he enthused.

ALCOVA repurposes slaughterhouse

Sure enough, this was a popular event, with a queue tailing around the block. I met up with two other industrial designers who are also vegan from Germany. We had heard that this space was an ex slaughterhouse so we were all obviously prepared to feel some sort of emotions.

When I got inside and saw the rusty hooks and blood drains on the floors, to my surprise it wasn’t so much sadness, but optimism that hit me.

I discussed this feeling with a lighting designer who was exhibiting. She had her exquisitely crafted lamps hanging on walls that were once presumably ringing with the screams of pigs and splattered with blood. After enthusiastically explaining the various color options for the lighting system, she whispered to me under her breath: “Do you know what this place was?”

Obviously affected by her surroundings, she told me she doesn’t eat meat either and so we discussed how the space made us feel. Since the ceilings had been broken, shards of sunlight cast down inside giving life to indoor trees and uninvited plants that sprung up from cracks in the stained concrete.

Hope and healing

I felt this phenomenon was almost like a beautiful metaphor, a place that has witnessed so much darkness, violence, and death now becoming a place for light, life, and creativity. Call me a dreamer but I can’t help but feel like I’ve glimpsed the future, where all slaughterhouses will be converted into galleries and museums.

The conversation around the commodification of other animals in design is long overdue. In society we too often focus only on the food industry when it comes to our concern for other animals, but it’s worth noting countless individuals were slaughtered for their skins, feathers, wool, and other body parts for sofas, cars, bicycles, bags, and rugs. It’s a chilling thought that our CMF spec sheets can act as a death sentence for others.

Can animal products ever be ‘ethical’?

I also attended a sustainability event hosted by Design Council at the architecture firm Arup (sadly serving animal products despite the obvious contradiction for a climate-focused event).

To its credit, Design Council now focuses its efforts entirely on design as an enabler for sustainability goals. Here I discussed with one of the speakers, Chelsea Franklin, a senior concept designer from Pangaia, the use of animal materials, green-washing, and the commodification of non-human animals.

It’s worth noting that although doing lots of great innovation in the animal-free materials space, Pangaia isn’t completely animal-free (yet). Chelsea assured me they focus on “regenerative” and “ethically sourced” when using animal products.

Personally, I have to disagree with its stance here. Aside from the obvious animal rights issue of commodifying the bodies of non-human animals, we simply have too many sheep and cows being bred and slaughtered. In a statistic included in a recent speech by Sir David Attenborough, 60 percent of all mammals on Earth are now livestock, only four percent are the remaining wild mammals.

‘Half-truths’

There are rightly major climate concerns here and make no mistake, these are breed-to-slaughter industries. I am not familiar with Pangaia’s specific supply chain, but these so called “ethical wool” suppliers will often sell off retired sheep to be slaughtered by another farm, claiming they don’t slaughter themselves but clearly turning a blind eye to what they know happens under someone else’s watch.

Their climate credentials are also often distorted into half-truths through offsetting emissions and biodiversity losses by pointing to their huge land ownership, with no acknowledgment of the blatant opportunity cost. We know that land would take in even more carbon and have even more biodiversity if it were to be rewilded instead of being used for livestock. Regenerative is only better than conventional animal agriculture, it’s not an improvement over rewilding. So the activity of livestock farming still has a negative impact on the land.

A study from Oxford University estimates that in a vegan world we would be able to rewild 75 percent of current farmland, so the fears of not having enough space to grow crops for us to eat are unfounded. In fact, we would need less cropland than today not more when we just focus on feeding eight billion humans and not the additional 80 billion bred livestock.

Finding solutions to messy problems

I am aware it is all too easy to point out hypocrisy and contradictions as a progress blocker. Chelsea rightly pointed out that many companies are so scared to make progress steps these days because everyone is so eager to find examples of the do-gooders “own-goal” or some unforeseen contradiction. I hope that’s not what I’m doing here. I myself am by no means perfect and have been complicit in designing products that contribute to waste and included animal products. In terms of climate impact, the irony of myself and other designers all flying to Milan to talk about sustainability isn’t entirely lost on me.

I think as designers we have the innate ability to foresee what does not yet exist, to solve messy problems and envision what others can’t imagine until we show it to them. If Milan Design Week is good for something, surely it’s for that. We have the tools, mindset, and audacity to envision a kinder future that others would scoff at as impossible. It’s high time the unspoken violence that goes on in slaughterhouses is excluded and eliminated by design.

The post Milan Design Week Eyes The Future With Slaughterhouses Repurposed Into Galleries appeared first on Plant Based News.

MattJohn02 posted in the r/vegan thread, referencing Vulcans being a vegetarian race and specific episodes that deliver anti-animal abuse themes. He then opened up the discussion, encouraging fellow Redditors to add their own observations and episodes that appear very vegan-friendly.

Multiple comments mention that Star Trek, as a franchise, centers around ethics and the nuances that come with them. As such, many claim that pro-vegan messaging is not a huge surprise. Moreover, one user, tenninjakittens, claims that Star Trek inspired them to “make the switch [to veganism] over 20 years ago.”

A vegan future is predicted by Star Trek

According to the sci-fi franchise, when humanity reaches Stardate 41249.3 (April 1, 2364), animals will not be part of the food system anymore. 

The revelation came in a Next Generation episode, when the Enterprise spaceship’s first officer, Commander Riker, discussed the lack of animal protein at a dinner party. “We no longer enslave animals for food purposes,” the character states bluntly.

When questioned about the fact that humans have been seen eating meat, Riker clarifies that only “replicated” meat is eaten. This is an inorganic food, created by futuristic technology that duplicates the look and taste of animal meat.

A continual distaste for hunting

Later series Voyager also appears to revisit the notion that eating animals is wrong. The Enterprise crew, led by Captain Janeway, are shown to be visibly horrified by another species, called the Hirogen. Still hunting sentient creatures for food and sport, they are viewed negatively. Wanting to be culturally sensitive but also ethical, Janeway offers a “holodeck” (a 3D simulation room) where the Hirogen can “hunt.”

More recently, the Enterprise series (which, confusingly, is the first – chronologically – of the entire Star Trek franchise) included an episode that gave animals an actual voice. Albeit telepathically.

In “Rogue Planet,” the crew meets a species that travels to another planet to hunt the animals living there. Captain Archer communicates telepathically with one of the hunted creatures. They emphatically tell him that they do not want to die for sport.

Don’t forget about Vulcans

Arguably the most enduring vegan messaging Star Trek transmits is through one of its most beloved species: Vulcans.

As a society, Vulcans live by a no-harm ethical code. In fact, non-violence is a key part of their code and as such, most are vegetarian. And while hunting continues, to keep their survival skills honed, no animals are ever killed.

Moreover, Vulcans are predicated on logic. They see food as a necessary source of energy, not something that needs to titilate the tastebuds. This is another reason why they stick to non-animal sources.

In an Enterprise episode called Broken Bow, Vulcan crew member T’Pol finds her choice to be a vegetarian the topic of a dinner conversation with Captain Archer. Frustrated, she delivers the withering blow: “You humans claim to be enlightened, yet you still consume the flesh of animals.”

Live long and prosper

Despite no crew members in Star Trek revealing themselves to be vegan, there is a persistent theme that focuses on humans evolving to remove non-human animals from the food system. This also ties in neatly with one of the show’s most famous quotes.

A growing bank of research is finding that to “live long and prosper” – a Vulcan blessing said by Spock on multiple occasions – we need to ditch meat. Those eating a vegan or vegetarian diet have been found to have a greater life expectancy than meat-eaters. In addition, plant-based meals are deemed cheaper, globally, than their animal-based counterparts.

Given the current global rise of plant-based diets, it is not illogical (sorry Star Trek fans, but we had to get this in) to assume that at least one character might be a staunch vegan in a future series.

The post Live Long And Prosper: Does Star Trek Carry Secret Vegan Messaging? appeared first on Plant Based News.

The good news is we largely know what we need to do. The bad news is some industries are working overtime to keep these solutions under wraps.

IPCC’s AR6 Synthesis Report

The comprehensive document draws on the findings and recommendations of hundreds of scientists from the IPCC’s three working groups. Put simply, the report covers updates on the physical science of the climate crisis (WGI), ways to adapt and be more resilient (WGII), and the state of climate mitigation (WGIII).

Once again, the IPCC report urged for transformational changes to society to avoid passing further climate crisis thresholds. And again, there was one key area that was largely left out of the conversation: the global food system. In particular, meat and dairy production in comparison to plant-based foods.

Meat industry accused of interfering with IPCC report, removing mention of plant-based diet

Over the past five years especially, there’s been an increased awareness that paradigm-shifting food system change will be key. However, the IPCC reports are growingly vague in their outline of what a balanced, eco-friendly diet is:

“Balanced and sustainable healthy diets and reduced food loss and waste present important opportunities for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of biodiversity and human health (high confidence)” (p.74).

What do they mean by balanced and sustainable diets? Hidden in the footnotes they describe it as a plant-predominant diet: 

“Balanced diets feature plant-based foods, such as those based on coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds…” (p.74) 

But according to leaked documents from earlier AR6 reports in 2021, and now from Scientist Rebellion, initial wording here was: 

“Plant-based diets can reduce GHG emissions by up to 50 percent compared to the average emission-intensive Western diet.”

Pressure from beef lobbyists allegedly brought on this change, as well as the inclusion of the recommendation to eat “animal-source foods produced in resilient, sustainable, and low-GHG emissions systems” with little evidence of how or where that’s happening. 

There’s no glaringly new evidence listed in the synthesis report. But here are the five food system takeaways.

Latest IPCC report: 5 key takeaways

1. The importance of methane

Cutting methane is the fastest and most effective way to slow the climate crisis. In fact, it has the potential to reduce global warming by over half a degree. For perspective, we’ve warmed 1.2 degrees Celsius (°C) since the pre-industrial period, and are quickly approaching the Paris Agreement’s limit of 1.5°C. 

Why do these small degrees matter? Even fractions of degree increases over 2°C will result in increased species collapse, more intense droughts, storms, and floods (that increase the number of climate refugees), and war and conflicts over limited resources.

A theme of the IPCC AR6 reports is this urgency to address methane. That’s because the planet will warm equally from methane and carbon dioxide over the next 20 years. And reducing warming quickly will help avoid climate thresholds from being passed, some irreversibly so.

Methane levels have risen to 262 percent above what they were in pre-industrial times. And the pace at which they are increasing each year is now greater than any other period in history. 

Where does methane come from?

There are many sources of human-caused methane. But farming animals for food is the largest, contributing 32-40 percent, slightly above other equally unnecessary sources like natural (fossil) gas. At more than four billion (and counting) farmed ruminants, and animal agriculture now leading in methane emissions, it shows where our first focus should be.

Methane is likely undervalued in a number of ways, too. Firstly, measuring methane on a 100-year vs. 20-year timeline devalues it by 2.5 times. This more relevant 20-year timeline is now being used in New York State, but is a debatable method for long-term use. Secondly, animal methane emissions may be 39–90 percent higher than bottom-up measurement models predict. This is especially true in the United States due to how intensive animal farming is.

Despite these concerns, a majority of countries’ climate pledges do not include methane reduction goals for animal agriculture, a win that’s celebrated by lobbyists in the beef industry. This indicates a major bias towards certain industries at the cost of environmental breakdown.

2. The impact of deforestation

The Amazon is one of the most important climate buffers left on the planet. If we continue to allow it to be deforested for ranching, it’s projected to reverse from an overall carbon drawdown sink to a net emitter. More than three million different species also call the Amazon home, making it one of the most diverse areas on Earth.

Protecting these forests of mature trees is far better than temporary tree plantations, sometimes non-native, that are often part of sketchy carbon credit schemes that are allowing some of the biggest emitters to greenwash.

Cattle ranching is the number one cause of deforestation in every Amazon country, accounting for 80 percent of current deforestation. And this should accompany every IPCC statement related to tropical deforestation.

3. Destruction (and potential) of natural ecosystems

Natural ecosystems are at threat from food system pressure expansion, mostly from ranching, feed crops, biofuels, and fishing. Reducing conversion of natural ecosystems actually has higher climate crisis mitigation potential than wind energy, and almost as much as solar.

We need all of these solutions, but perspective is important. These native ecosystems offer the best and most affordable and achievable methods of carbon removal. While the IPCC lists other approaches (like regenerative agriculture), these are niche, poorly defined, and highly susceptible to greenwashing. They could even result in more emissions, not to mention other environmental trade-offs like a major increase in land use per yield.

“Unsustainable agricultural expansion, driven in part by unbalanced diets, increases ecosystem and human vulnerability and leads to competition for land and/or water resources (high confidence)” (p.15).  

While there’s a spectrum to the impacts of farmland on ecosystems, removing cattle grazing increases almost all types of abundance and diversity of native flora and fauna. Moreover, broadly speaking, there’s 25-75 percent less soil organic carbon in land used for food production vs. wild untouched ecosystems.

While food overall is responsible for at least one-third of all GHGs (25-42 percent) that doesn’t include the opportunity to drawdown carbon with rewilding back to native ecosystems. And, significantly skews policy focus elsewhere.

4. Food waste crisis and meat production

Reducing food waste will be key. By far the largest source of food waste, not technically categorized under IPCC’s analysis of food waste, is the ~90 percent of calories lost when growing crops to feed to animals to produce meat. This feed-conversion loss is the biggest food waste crisis.

Even under technical parameters though, this new research, as covered by Carbon Brief, shows only 2.4 percent of global supply emissions from food waste come from fruits and vegetables. Of the ~19Gt of CO2 from global food loss and waste in 2017, the vast majority (~11.5 Gt CO2) comes from wasted animal products.

As such, authors recommended a 50 percent meat reduction to directly mitigate food waste. 

5. Lack of media coverage

The latest IPCC report installation acknowledges a distinct lack of media coverage surrounding these issues.

“Policy and media coverage is uneven across sectors and remains limited for emissions from agriculture and feedstocks” (p.19).

New research surrounding media coverage and public awareness of the links between animal-sourced food and the climate emergency drives home just how significant the problem is. Researchers found that “in the US, UK, and English-language EU media… only 0.5 percent of articles on climate mentioned meat or livestock as a source of emissions.”

Final thoughts

Without transformational changes to our food and energy, most of which would also increase wellbeing globally, global warming of 3.2°C is projected by 2100. This will be an absolute devastation to children today, and future grandchildren. 

While the nearly 8,000 pages from the IPCC AR6 reports can be seen as bleak, we now know more than ever about what we need to do. While feeling overwhelmed or doomed is a risk, we should be mad and channel that energy to the many real scientific solutions that exist to make life far better for current and future generations.

The post Global Climate Report (IPCC) Accused Of Burying Plant-Based Diet Recommendations: 5 Key Takeaways appeared first on Plant Based News.

A rambunctious entertainer, O’Grady was known for his raspy Liverpudlian accent. That, and his infectious laugh and previous penchant for towering heels and outlandish hairstyles, when dressing as his drag character Lily Savage. He will be greatly missed by global audiences, and not just the human kind.

In both his public and private life, O’Grady was a voracious animal activist. Choosing his presenting roles with care, he was often on screen with one of his own rescue dogs. If not, he was championing those in need of homes. 

Meanwhile, at the Kent farmhouse that he shared with his husband, Andre Portasio, there is a menagerie of animal companions. At last count, O-Grady and Portasio had welcomed five dogs, multiple goats, pigs, sheep, chickens, and barn owls into their lives. Sadly, one of the pigs, Tom Tom, died just two weeks before O’Grady. A grief-stricken farewell post on Instagram would be the last the presenter ever posted.

“He was the cheekiest of the gang and one of the other pigs who was obviously very fond of him is now depressed and gone into mourning. And there’s those who say that animals don’t have feelings,” he wrote.

Animal charities pay tribute to O’Grady

As celebrity friends and fans mourn O’Grady, animal charities throughout the UK have spoken out about their own profound sense of loss.

A number of dog charities, including Dogs Trust and Sussex’s Clymping Dog Rescue, have praised the exceptional lengths the presenter went to, to bring their work to light. 

The RSPCA also specifically recalled the kindness and determined activism that permeated everything O’Grady did. The organization reminded the public that he adopted a lamb, named Winston, after he was dumped in a wheelie bin. It was this, combined with his “tireless campaigning” that saw the RSPCA later present him with an Animal Hero Award.

‘For The Love of Dogs‘

Amongst the numerous public demonstrations of shock and sadness that O’Grady has passed away, the tribute paid by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home arguably carried the most resonance.

O’Grady worked as a “devoted ambassador” for the London charity, which rehabilitates and rehomes dogs and cats, for many years. He worked furiously to promote individual centers and drive people looking for companion animals to their doors. His ambassadorship came shortly after filming the first series of the multi-award-winning show For The Love of Dogs, back in 2012.

As the presenter of For The Love of Dogs, O’Grady told the stories of abandoned animals and put the hard work of Battersea’s staff in the spotlight. Regularly falling in love with furry residents (who can forget Carmine, the loveable white Boxer that he routinely pretended to sneak home with?), he brought a deep and unique empathy to the screen. One that, ultimately, inspired viewers, in their thousands, to reach out to Battersea to adopt animals or make donations.

“Battersea will forever remember Paul as a devoted animal lover with the biggest heart, who fell head over heels in love with every dog he met at our centers,” Battersea chief executive Peter Laurie said in a statement.

“Paul will always be associated with Battersea and we are truly saddened to have lost such a true friend and huge part of our charity. He was a champion for the underdog and would do anything to ensure all animals live a healthy and happy life. He will be dearly missed.”

The legacy must continue

Battersea confirmed that as a result of one TV campaign, O’Grady helped secure the charity 2,163 new regular donors in 2016. He also helped raise £141,460 in one year, to support ongoing animal care, and personally adopted six dogs between 2014 and 2021, five of whom now remain with his widower.

While the passing of someone as irreplaceable as O’Grady is never easy, there is a responsibility to continue his work. Animals still need adopting and overburdened rescue centers need showcasing and supporting. 

The death of a beloved animal activist reminds us all of the importance of adopting, not shopping, for companions. And while the man himself is gone, his legacy remains, passed good-naturedly to the rest of us. It is now, more than ever, as the cost of living crisis threatens to make more pets homeless, that we must all seek to be a voice for those without them. For the love of dogs, cats and Paul.

You can apply to become an animal guardian or make a donation to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, in Paul O’Grady’s memory, here.

The post Paul O’Grady’s Animal Activism Legacy Must Live On As Inspiration To Us All appeared first on Plant Based News.

Getting enough protein in a plant-based diet is not hard. Meat substitutes, especially seitan and tempeh, are very effective, but so too are plenty of vegetables, grains, and legumes. However, for gym-going people on a mission to build lean muscle and better stamina, sometimes a vegan protein powder is the preferred option. And that’s what we’re going to test.

Judging the UK’s best vegan protein powders

Deciding on a rubric for judging vegan protein powders is tricky, as what works for one person might not give the oomph needed to another. With that in mind, we are going to test and rate 10 readily available brands of protein powder against the following:

Taste (we are not looking for artificial sweetener aftertastes here)

Mixability (gritty drinks are not it in 2023)

Flavor choice (not everyone wants vanilla or chocolate only)

Macros (how much protein do you get per serving, compared to fat, carbs, and calories?)

Price (can we find a balance of great macros without reaching unaffordable levels?)

For consistency, each sample will be mixed with water only and tested after a one-hour gym session. During the workouts, no more than one liter of water will be consumed and the protein shakes will be drunk within one hour of leaving the gym (for optimum performance).

On with the reviews.

Honest review of vegan-friendly protein powders in the UK

WelleCo 

Founded by former supermodel Elle Macpherson, WelleCo offers a range of supplements, including organic vegan protein powder.

Claiming to be clean, lean, and developed to support strong muscle growth, the vegan protein powder contains pre and probiotics and all nine essential amino acids, making it more than just a post-gym shake. 

Taste: We tried the chocolate and can’t lie: this was not a good-tasting shake. We had super high hopes, but as the world has told us for decades, beauty is pain. And drinking this was pain. The flavor was not only subtle but also straight-up peculiar. However, we wonder if this might be an acquired taste that eventually we could learn to endure. Macpherson recommends adding fruit, other WelleCo supplements, and almond milk to the vanilla protein, but that’s not a fair representation of a product’s basic taste.

Mixability: A little gritty, which we assume contributed to the not-so-great taste. We tried again with super cold water, and mixing in a blender, but the texture always remained. 

Flavor choice: We’re sorry to say that chocolate, vanilla, and unflavored are the only options. Honestly, something along a coffee theme might have worked a little better with the texture of the product, so perhaps that’s something for Elle to think about. 

Macros: Each serving provides 123 calories, 16 grams of protein, 2.2 grams of fat, and 7.4 grams of carbohydrates. For a protein powder, this is on the lower end of the protein delivery spectrum as most brands seem to aim for 20 or more grams per serving. The carbs could also be an issue for anyone on a strict ‘cut’ but they do provide good energy.

Price: The regular price is £29 for 300g, which gives you nine shakes. £3.20 is a little steep for a prepare-at-home drink, in our opinion.

Overall: Sadly, this is one product that just doesn’t hit the right taste note or protein levels for us. It’s worth saying that we didn’t want to give up on the WelleCo products, so we tried baking with them and this was a bit more successful. Alongside other ingredients, the chocolate flavor popped a little more and added valuable extra nutrition to some energy balls.

Try Elle Macpherson’s protein powder here.

Bioglan 

Bioglan is an Australian company that focuses on producing supplements and powders that put “superfoods” at their core. More unusually, its protein powders are specifically designed to be added to other foods and drinks, to top up the protein levels, while also adding extra benefits.

The Super Protein line that we tried can be added to almost anything. It claims to help with hormonal balance and sustained energy levels.

Taste: Undetectable. Once added to a drink or recipe, the taste is not noticeable at all. When mixed with water, the flavor is inoffensive and neutral.

Mixability: The Bioglan dissolved well in both water and the smoothie that we added it to, after a workout. We followed the instructions, adding just 10g to our drink and it integrated well.

Flavor choice: Not applicable here, but there is also a “Beauty Protein” option which features vegan collagen and is also neutral in taste. 

Macros: This is where things get interesting. A 10-gram serving delivers 37 calories, 7.5 grams of protein, 0.5 grams of fat, and 0.4 grams of carbohydrates. If a standard protein powder portion were used, that would bring the clean protein delivery up to 21.5 grams. with still negligible fat and carb levels. There are no daily serving limits printed on the packet, so we assume you can sprinkle at will.

Price: A 100-gram pouch costs £13.49 and offers 10 servings. £1.35 a serving seems fairly priced, given the versatility of the product.

Overall: An interesting concept and one that we can see working for people who are new to protein supplementing. Just add to existing foods and drinks and you’re done, with none of the dirty shaker debacles that regular vegan protein powders induce. We have to admit that we did have more energy in the afternoon as well.

Find out more about Bioglan here.

Shreddy

And now for something completely different and fun. Shreddy is a technicolor assault on the senses that you might already recognize as a fitness app brand. 

Founded by “fitfluencer” Grace Beverly, Shreddy evolved to include a range of protein powders, pre-workouts, and daily vitamin supplements, alongside the unapologetically fun, yet performance-driven app. And everything is vegan-friendly too.

Taste: Excellent. Sweet, but not sickly and with no artificial tang afterwards, we enjoyed the chocolate cookie dough flavor immensely. In fact, it felt like a cheat day drinking it after a workout. Using only pea protein, the powder avoids the sometimes noticeable taste of soy isolate too.

Mixability: We can’t fault the mixability here. No need for a blender, we managed to get a perfectly smooth and combined drink with a few shakes of a mixer bottle. We were also pleasantly surprised at the consistency of the finished drink, which was neither too watery nor too thick, but felt appropriate for the flavor. 

Flavor choice: Great. Shreddy looks to create fun recipes but also offers a classic profile for those with a more sensitive palate. Chocolate cookie dough and salted caramel ice cream are the more outlandish options, with classic French vanilla added into the mix for good measure.

Macros: A standard 30-gram serving delivers 121 calories, 22 grams of protein, 0.5 grams of fat, and seven grams of carbohydrates. This is a great breakdown for our goals, as we prioritize lower fat and sugars with high protein yield. Carbs are needed for energy and seven grams for 22 of protein feels like a very good trade-off.

Price: A 510-gram bag contains 17 servings and costs £20. This makes each protein shake cost around £1.17 which is exceptionally good value. 

Overall: This is a vegan protein powder we will buy again. The macros are great, the value for money is impossible to ignore and we got a good energy boost from using it too. Tasting great feels like the ultimate cherry on top at this point and we are seriously considering trying the pre-workout now. 

Shreddy gets extra bonus points for being sustainably minded. In addition to going scoopless in its pouches, the packets themselves are fully plant-based and home compostable. We love to see it.

Try Shreddy yourself here.

Hush & Hush

Easily one of the fanciest-looking protein powders we have ever seen, Hush & Hush’s PlantYourDay claims to not only give you a protein hit, but also nourish the gut and support healthy skin. That’s a big claim, but the ingredients do lend themselves to some sorcery.

Featuring a blend of organic pea and pumpkin protein, alongside pro and prebiotics, and “clean clinical vitamins,” the powder can be mixed as a simple protein shake or a full meal replacement, when boosted with plant milk, fruits, and veggies. 

Taste: The initial smell had us excited. It reminded us of proper hot chocolate and promised a big, deep chocolatey hit. The taste, while not disappointing exactly, was a little less decadent and more healthy in vibe and was very palatable. No sickly aftertaste here and a cheeky feeling that you’ve just nourished your body appropriately.

Mixability: No complaints at all. A swift and smooth mix that didn’t surprise us with any dry powdery chunks mid-glug.

Flavor choice: It’s a bold move to only offer one flavor (chocolate vanilla) but it works, so why complicate the process? However, for anyone who isn’t a choccy fan, this could get old every day. A fruitier option would probably be well received. 

Macros: One 33.5-gram serving delivers 110 calories, 17 grams of protein, two grams of fat, and five grams of carbohydrates. It’s not the biggest protein hitter but given that it is designed to be an optimal health product, not just a muscle builder, it’s not too bad.

Price: The pricing here is scary. One jar contains seven servings and costs, wait for it, £48.30. That makes each shake cost around £7. It’s a formidable price bracket, especially if you intend to drink a protein shake each day, but if you subscribe for regular deliveries, you do get 20 percent off. 

Overall: A good idea and a nice flavor but we are not able to recommend something so expensive. It would be cheaper to add other superfood additives to a regular vegan protein powder, while probably gleaning similar results. Even the gorgeous packaging doesn’t warrant the cost for us here.

Make up your own mind about PlantYourDay here.

Arbonne

Arbonne is an all-rounder when it comes to offering products designed to improve health and wellbeing. As such, it came as little surprise that they have a range of protein powders. It was, however, a pleasant shock that they are vegan-certified and that Arbonne itself is B-Corp. Who knew?

We tried the FeelFit protein, which boasts less than one gram of sugar per serving but more than 20 vitamins and minerals essential for health.

Taste: We sampled the strawberry vegan protein powder and found it very pleasant. It didn’t have that unfortunate artificial strawberry tang that leaves you reaching for a glass of water and nor did it feel like a watered-down milkshake. Just a refreshing, balanced flavor that was very inoffensive.

Mixability: You have to either mix and drink quickly or master a swirl and sip technique to prevent any “settling” of powder at the bottom here. That being said, once mixed, the drink was smooth and no grittiness was detected. It mixed perfectly well in a simple hand shaker too.

Flavor choice: Just as we assumed the safe route had been chosen, with strawberry, chocolate, and vanilla options, in swoops coffee to mix things up. And what a welcome addition it is, as it makes a post-morning workout shake feel somehow more appropriate. 

Macros: A serving is two scoops or 31 grams. This will give you 127 calories, 20 grams of protein, four grams of fat, and three grams of carbohydrate. Though the fat instantly looks a little higher than some, it is a gentle reminder that our bodies need fat to survive and thrive. 

Price: It’s another yikes moment, or is it? At first glance, £74 per bag seems like a hefty outlay but each pouch contains 30 servings. This makes each shake come in at just under £2.50. Plus, if you join Arbonne as a “preferred client,” the price drops to £59.20.

Overall: The convenience of having a month’s supply in one bag is hard to beat, as is the addition of a coffee option. We’re fans, but it doesn’t quite excite us. Maybe some limited flavors that hit a more adventurous note could cure that.

Try Arbonne for yourself here.

Foodspring

A fitness food company based in Germany, Foodspring doesn’t just sell protein powders. A quick look around the website brings a whole new world of protein-infused goodies to the table, though not many are vegan as whey protein seems to be a favorite here.

Nonetheless, there is a vegan protein powder range and we tried it. The cookie dough flavor to be exact, and we have some thoughts.

Taste: We couldn’t put our finger on what the taste reminded us of for so long that when we finally did, we couldn’t be annoyed, just amused. It’s Play-Doh! Unfortunately, the artificial notes were just too strong for this to be an easy sip, which is a shame as the packaging is lovely and sustainable. 

Mixability: Again, a little disappointing. Still quite powdery even after a hefty shake. We popped it in the blender and this seemed to solve the problem, but there isn’t always time (or inclination) to dirty an appliance. 

Flavor choice: Chocolate, vanilla, and cookie dough feel like a familiar trio but a comforting one. Perhaps the vanilla is a little more neutral (other customer reviews appear to imply this). Or maybe it would be a good base for some fruit and other additions that would mask a less palatable taste.

Macros: The macros are pretty good. Each 30-gram serving delivers 116 calories, 21 grams of protein, 2.9 grams of fat, and 0.6 grams of carbohydrates. This would make it very suitable for anyone trying to marry plant-based and keto dietary approaches. 

Price: For £29.99, you get a 750-gram container, which gives 25 shakes. They, therefore, cost £1.20 a piece, which is very reasonable. 

Overall: We have to admit that the cost and recyclable packaging go a long way to overcoming our taste issues and make us willing to try other options. If the vanilla can be appropriately pepped up with some spinach, berries, and a little agave, we could definitely recommend Foodspring.

See what you make of Foodspring here.

Ultimate Performance

A no-nonsense fitness brand, Ultimate Performance is uniquely positioned to create protein powders, as it provides personal training as well. This is a company that knows what the body needs to fuel itself and how to unlock more potential, so we were excited to try a no-frills product.

And perfunctory it is. As you’ll see, the macros are great, but flavor choice? Not so much. 

Taste: We tried the salted caramel protein and it was fine. Not nasty, not exciting, and easily drinkable. In fact, we got in the spirit of Ultimate Performance and chugged it, then went out for a bike ride. 

Mixability: Great. As you’d expect, this powder mixed quickly and easily in a hand shaker, needing no other finessing to produce a smooth drink.

Flavor choice: What choice? It’s salted caramel or nothing, guys. We’re glad it wasn’t just good old chocolate though.

Macros: Here’s where Ultimate Performance shines. Each 32-gram serving gives you 118 calories, 24 grams of protein, 1.5 grams of fat, and 2.1 grams of carbohydrates. It’s unlikely that these stats wouldn’t fit with anybody’s nutrition goals. 

Price: For £32.99 you get a one kilo bag, containing 31 servings. That brings each shake in at around £1.06. Frankly, that’s a staggeringly affordable price for a daily protein supplement.

Overall: Honestly, the flavor could have been awful and we would still come back to this protein, just for the macros and sheer good value. The fact that it is genuinely pleasant (weirdly, the flavor has grown on us over a few days too) is an added bonus. If the company ever makes a mint choc chip flavor, it will be unbeatable. We will die on this hill.

Try Ultimate Performance here.

jrny

jrny has set out to do something different. As such, it has created a female-specific protein shake that it says tastes superior, even when mixed only with water and replaces the need for a daily multivitamin pill. That’s a big claim.

The company also says that a daily shake will improve energy levels within seven days and support women as they embark on their “jrny.” But can it do all this and taste good too?

Taste: We wanted to hate the raspberry ripple and we don’t know why. It sounded as though it would be sickly, but in reality, it was a delight. So fresh and natural tasting, it was a huge shock and leaves us in no doubt that the other flavors are just as pleasing. 

Mixability: Nothing to complain about, though the pouches can be bothersome to open. We inhaled as much as we drank the first time around. However, the prepared shakes feel smooth and well combined.

Flavor choice: Raspberry ripple is the most outlandish on offer, but Madagascan vanilla, and chocolate will no doubt be favorites for many. 

Macros: Given the deliciousness, we had low expectations for protein yield. How wrong we were. A 30-gram serving delivers 122 calories, 21 grams of protein, 1.3 grams of fat, and 6.6 grams of carbohydrate. 

Price: Each pouch costs £29.95 and contains 30 servings. This brings the individual serving price to just under £1. Plus, if you subscribe, the cost drops to £26.96. We were honestly floored by the value here.

Overall: jrny is a great name for this company as we went for a ride. At first, we expected the trendy name to give way to a sub-par or aesthetically driven product, but in reality, it was one of the best protein powders we have ever tried (and we’ve tried a lot!). Ethical, sustainable, and geared entirely towards plant-based women, we cannot say enough positive things about this brand and its vegan protein powder.

Try jrny for yourself here.

Hux

While not a vegan protein powder in the traditional sense, Hux has developed a superfood blend designed for daily use, which also happens to be high in protein. The product itself is intriguing, promising a wealth of health benefits, including better immunity and hormone regulation, so we wanted to give it a try. 

Containing 17 organic superfoods, B12, and organic pea protein, it’s a bold move to limit the flavor choices but as you’ll see, it paid off (mostly).

Taste: Earthy. That’s the only word we can accurately use for this protein drink, but that’s not meant to be a negative. The first sip takes your senses by surprise but they quickly adapt and once the smugness that you’re drinking something healthy kicks in, you’re away and enjoying it. We tried the vanilla option but can imagine there is little to differentiate between this and the original, as the vanilla is very subtle. 

Mixability: A little granular but that feels like acceptable territory somehow. Perhaps the overarching health focus makes us expect a less polished texture? It reminded us a little of wheatgrass powder when added to water and it’s just as green!

Flavor choice: Very limited with just two. Vanilla is a safe bet but the devils inside us want to see how we would fare with the original too. Are we hardcore healthy enough though?

Macros: Each 25-gram serving delivers 81 calories, 13 grams of protein, 0.7 grams of fat, and 5.2 grams of carbohydrate. Again, not the biggest protein hitter of the bunch but with 500 percent of the daily recommended dose of vitamin D and 625 percent of vitamin C requirements, there seems to be some valuable compromise at play.

Price: Let’s be honest: you know this one is not going to be cheap. Everything about it looks and sounds expensive and it is. Each container weighs 500 grams and comes in at £58, making individual drinks £2.90. That’s not the worst, but considering the smaller protein dose, you might think twice. If you commit to a three-month subscription, the price comes down by 30 percent.

Overall: We wanted to hate this vegan protein powder just because it looked too fancy for us, but it’s great. A truly beneficial drink that offers more than just some protein and artificial flavor, it tastes and does good. And if we win the lottery, we might consider a subscription. 

Check out Hux here.

MYVEGAN

Offering a wide range of vegan protein powders and supplements, MYVEGAN has become a go-to resource for cost-conscious active vegans. We’ve used their standard vegan protein blend before and found it to be great value for money and effective, but it’s the clear protein that we wanted to try this time around.

Clear drinks are a good option for anyone that finds the thicker element of traditional vegan protein powder hard to get down. However, there’s that fear in the back of your mind that they will taste weird, right?

Taste: We tried the apple and elderflower clear protein and what a revelation! It was like drinking a nice glass of squash instead of chugging a shake and offered great refreshment after the gym.

Mixability: Make sure you give this one a good shake, as we had a couple of lumps. Once these were dealt with, the drink itself was a nice, smooth, and fast-running consistency. Pay attention to the instructions and let the drink settle for a few minutes before drinking too. Trust us.

Flavor choice: Excellent. There’s something for everyone, from tangy lemon and lime to blackcurrant and everything in between. The watermelon sounds extra refreshing.

Macros: The serving size is 16 grams, so half the normal protein portion. Bear this in mind! Each drink provides 51 calories, 10 grams of protein, zero fat, and 2.5 grams of carbohydrates. If you were to have a couple of drinks, you’d soon hit very competitive macro levels.

Price: Two container sizes are available, with either 20 or 40 servings inside. Buy the larger tub for £44.99 and you’ll get the best value, with drinks coming in at £1.12 each. 

Overall: This is going to be a must-have in our cupboard. On hot summer days, when the post-workout thirst hits, this will be a welcome treat and still help us to reach our goals. 

Try MYVEGAN clear vegan protein powder here.

The post An Honest Review: The Best Vegan Protein Powders In The UK appeared first on Plant Based News.

This ecocide brought widespread objections, including from more than 3.5 million people who signed this petition. Opponents of the project also sent 5.6 million letters to the White House and the Department of the Interior.

The Willow oil project

ConocoPhillips used $8.7 million to exert its influence on federal agencies and Congress. One of the beneficiaries of this spending was Lisa Murkowski, a senator from Alaska who strongly supports the Willow Project. ConocoPhillips gave her more than $37,000 during the last election cycle.

This all occurs on the largest undisturbed public land area in the United States, spanning 23 million acres. It will cause significant harm to wild animals and burden the health and wellbeing of Alaska Indigenous communities situated nearby. Biden has approved three drilling sites in this area. This is down from the original proposal of five, but still including up to 199 total wells. 

Broken campaign promises

The backlash comes from a place of betrayal. Biden had pledged that he’d be “banning new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters.” He was one of many leaders to finally acknowledge the urgency of the climate crisis, and largely agree that there should be no new coal power plants. Yet this project will emit more than 270 million metric tons of greenhouse gasses (GHG) to the atmosphere over the next 30 years. This is roughly equivalent to emissions from 72 coal-fired power plants in one year, according to the EPA’s GHG calculator.

So what happened?

Amidst a recession, nation-to-nation instability, and war, the pressure got to Biden. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the president proclaimed “we’re going to need fossil fuel.” While other countries took this as an opportunity to free themselves from the price and climate volatility of fossil fuels and stepped up urgency to decarbonize, Biden became scared. Fear-based leader reactions tend to close down borders, increase conflicts, and bring claims that we need energy security through business-as-usual.

This approval of the largest oil development on US federal land, in the vast expanse of Arctic tundra, shows Biden has no interest in being the climate president we need.

In Biden’s defense, he can’t easily stop oil companies from drilling on land they’ve already leased. And many would consider his recent Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) a win for the climate emergency, since it’s projected to cut climate pollution by 660 million metric tons of CO2. Some, however, would question this green growth narrative. Investing billions in clean energy, energy efficiency, and electrification without behavior and societal changes only leads to the Jevons paradox of ever-growing consumption. 

Biden’s priorities under the spotlight

Biden did have full authority to reject the oil and gas drilling of the Willow project on federal land. The president is required to weigh in on the environmental impacts and could choose to push the legal fight.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other reputable agencies have stated from many angles that existing and currently planned fossil fuel projects are already more than the climate can handle. More projects will lock in even greater emissions and lead to increased societal disruption. This will first, and mostly, affect the global marginal and often racialized and Indigenous communities.

Can’t we offset this?

While there’s now unprecedented attention to address the climate crisis, many corporate and governmental actions are greenwashing and attempting to offset their damaging practices. This includes some of the worst possible partnerships. For instance, the Canadian-funded pipeline in Canada paying to offset emissions through fake carbon credit beef and ranching scams.

In anticipation of backlash from environmental groups, the White House revealed that President Biden intends to restrict or prevent oil drilling in 16 million acres of land and ocean in Alaska and the Arctic. It would prohibit drilling in almost three million acres of the Beaufort Sea, effectively ending oil exploration in the area, and restrict drilling in more than 13 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve. 

As reported in Vox, Indigenous advocates against this project don’t see these concessions as adequate. “The true cost of the Willow project is to the land and to animals and people forced to breathe polluted air and drink polluted water,” said a statement from Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic, an Indigenous grassroots group. “While out-of-state executives take in record profits, local residents are left to contend with the detrimental impacts of being surrounded by massive drilling operations.”

Energy security claim

One of the main justifications for fossil fuel expansion is the claim that it increases national security. The reality is, nothing will provide more energy security than shifts away from hungry-for-profit fossil fuel companies. These are the same companies that hit record profits in 2022 – $40 to $161 billion – off the backs of underprivileged communities experiencing the worst of the climate breakdown. 

This is incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5C by 2030. And ultimately, will create far more global issues and contribute to the rise of climate refugees. Billions of those in the future will struggle to reverse the damage done in this current extractive economic-growth obsessed era.  

Wider considerations and solutions

We need to take leadership by scaling back and banning all new extractive industries. That especially includes fossil fuels when there are viable clean alternatives like solar and wind. In many parts of the world, renewables are also a cheaper option that can employ more people. 

It also includes redesigning our transportation system. Specifically, away from car-dependent cities full of smog and traffic, and towards communities centered around wellbeing, with plenty of active transportation options. For example, walkable neighborhoods and bicycle paths.

Food as a tool to fight climate breakdown

It also includes redesigning food systems, adopting a plant-based approach over animal-focused diets. The latter are responsible for significant deforestation, water use and pollution, and GHG emissions.

This problem lies primarily with wealthy countries in the West. Extending the current diet of wealthy industrialized countries (OECD) to the wider global population would require an additional 35 million km2 to support livestock production alone – this is roughly equal to the combined area of Africa and Australia.

Land use is one of the most important environmental metrics often forgotten in the climate debate. A fully plant-based diet is, based on conservative estimates for carbon sequestration, able to draw down the equivalent of 16 years of fossil fuel emissions by 2050. The loss of forests and natural vegetation dating back to the Agricultural Revolution has released an extreme amount of CO2, equivalent to ~1400 billion tonnes, or 40 years worth of current fossil fuels. 

Same with our needed shift to renewables for energy security, a transition to a plant-based food system brings far more food security, all without destroying the planet.

The cost of inaction

As the world shifts towards renewable energy sources and a plant-based food system, demand for fossil fuels and animal-sourced foods will inevitably decline, making these industries increasingly obsolete. This poses significant financial risks for investors, and ultimately for the broader economy.

But the social, environmental, and economic cost of inaction, delay, and deflecting from the transformational change we need will be far higher, to the tune of trillions of dollars.

Despite claims that expanding fossil fuel initiatives, such as the Willow oil project, will increase national energy security, the reality is that continuing to rely on these polluting sources of energy poses a grave threat to our security and wellbeing. In order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees celsius, we must stop investing in new fossil fuel projects immediately. And, phase out existing ones by 2050 or sooner.

Another uncomfortable truth many have a hard time accepting is that we cannot continue with the current obsession of endless economic growth. Advocates for degrowth (a term needing a rebrand) argue that by reducing the production of less necessary items like SUVs, fast fashion, beef, and planned obsolescence, high-income nations can decrease their energy demand. And, facilitate a significantly quicker transition to far more sustainable alternatives.

Of course, all this requires many people who care, paired with some political will. Investments are also needed. The cost of inaction will be far greater. The time for bold action is now. The future of our society on this planet depends on it.

The post Biden-Backed $8 Billion Oil Project Spells Disaster For Planet Earth appeared first on Plant Based News.

Going vegan is about more than just food, and shopping for suitable cosmetics can be a challenge. Without some prior knowledge, it can be difficult to know what is and isn’t vegan-friendly.

While many companies – including the likes of Kylie Cosmetics, Ariana Grande’s God Is A Woman, and Stella McCartney’s STELLA – are fully vegan, many brands offer just a few animal-free products.

Just to add to the confusion, some ingredients which can be derived from plants or animals have the same name – without the source identified (i.e. stearic acid). The only option here is to look up the manufacturer and see if it has gone into more detail on its website.

Below is a list of some of the most common animal ingredients, and their vegan alternatives.

Non-vegan ingredients in beauty products

1. Lanolin

This emollient is derived from sheep wool. It is a common ingredient in lip products (balms, sticks, glosses), as well as hair products. 

It’s used to soften and moisturize. Synthetic (and plant-based) lanolin exists, but be wary of so-called “cruelty-free” lanolin, which may be still be derived from wool. 

Alternatives include plant oils (i.e. coconut, olive) and butters (shea and coconut).

2. Shellac

A resinous product, obtained from lac bugs, shellac is used in nail products, as well as some hair lacquers. Shellac producers kill hundreds of thousands of these insects to create small amounts of this product.

3. Glycerine

This often comes from animal fats, and is commonly used in a range of products including soaps, hair care, makeup, and moisturizers. Some products use vegetable glycerin, which is suitable for vegans. 

It can be derived from soy, coconut oil, or palm oil (which some vegans choose to avoid).

4. Casein aka sodium caseinate or caseinate

Casein – used in conditioning hair products and face treatments – is usually derived from cow’s milk, and is therefore a non-vegan ingredient. Some vegan alternatives are made from plant-based milks, and will usually be labeled as a vegetable protein.

5. Squalene

Squalene producers extract this chemical from shark liver oil. It is commonly used in lip balm, deodorants, and moisturizers, among other products. 

It is considered a powerful ingredient with anti-ageing properties. Vegan squalene exists, and can be derived from olives and wheat germ. However, it is not always labeled as such, so you may have to do further research to establish whether it is plant-based.

6. Guanine

Created by scraping the scales off dead fish, guanine is sometimes used to make sparkly nail polish, eyeshadow, highlighters, bronzers, and blushes.

7. Oleic acid – aka oleyl stearate, oleyl oleate, or tallow

Companies use this animal fat as a softening and conditioning emollient in nail polish, soap, moisturizers, and makeup. Oleic acid can be plant-derived from a number of sources, including coconut, olives, and nuts. These forms may be labeled as vegan.

8. Animal hair

This can be found in brushes – even ones listed as “cruelty-free” – and is often sourced from fox, sable, horse, goat, mink, and squirrel. 

Animal hair – particularly mink – is also sometimes used in false eyelashes. Synthetic options are available.

9. Stearic acid

Generally derived from pigs’ stomachs (as well as cows and sheep), stearic acid is often found in deodorant, soaps, hair products and moisturizers. A vegan alternative (also called stearic acid) can be derived from plant fats. 

As well as being cruelty-free, the vegan version is also less likely to irritate the skin.

10. Carmine – aka cochineal, natural red 4, E120, and C.I. 75470 

This red colorant, which is often used in lipsticks, blushes and nail polish, is derived from insects. The cochineals are crushed and the color is extracted, with tens of thousands of the creatures killed to produce mere grams of dye.

11. Collagen

Used in lots of anti-ageing products, as well as lip plumping items, this fibrous protein is derived from animal tissue, bone, skin, or ligaments – often from cows. The efficacy of collagen, in terms of whether it can even penetrate the skin, is questionable. 

Plant-based alternatives include soy protein and almond oil.

12. Elastin

Often used in the same kind of products as collagen, elastin is also a protein extracted from the muscles, ligaments and aortas of animals. Vegan alternatives include hyaluronic acid and MSM.

13. Keratin

Keratin comes from the hair and horns of animals, and is often found in strengthening nail and hair products. Soy protein and almond oil are used as vegan alternatives.

14. Beeswax

Sometimes labeled as cera alba, this wax is often used in cosmetics to keep emulsions from separating into its oil and liquid components. Beauty brands use it in mascara too. 

Alternatives exist in the form of plant and soy waxes.

—

This article was originally published on February 7, 2018. It was last updated on March 21, 2023.

If you buy something through a link on our site, Plant Based News may earn a commission, which helps us to provide our free services to millions of people each week.

The post 14 Non-Vegan Ingredients To Look Out For In Makeup And Beauty Products appeared first on Plant Based News.

Vegmama Salon is a vegan group founded by Yumi Koshigai Powell (@Veg_Yummy of Veg Life Design LLC.). She wanted to create a community that would focus and support Japanese mothers who are interested in learning about and practicing a plant-based lifestyle while raising their kids.

After completing T. Colin Campbell’s “Plant Based Nutrition Course,” Yumi had trouble finding vegan communities geared towards people whose first language is Japanese. Seeing this type of void within our vegan community, she decided to become the conduit of providing camaraderie and a support system for Japanese moms who might feel anxious, curious, hesitant, or even overwhelmed about the idea and possibility of becoming vegan in Japan (and beyond). 

Conceptualized six months after having her second child, Yumi decided to start by sharing her knowledge on the Vegmama Salon Instagram account.

Enter… Natsuko Bosaka

Yumi (who currently resides in Colorado) met Natsuko @PlantNats through social media. Natsuko, a mother of two (who also is a graduate of T. Colin Campbell’s “Plant Based Nutrition Course” via e-Cornell University), was searching for a plant-based Japanese mom in NYC and started her own plant-based account. 

Natsuko is committed to not only veganizing Japanese food but also making it fun and appealing for her kids to enjoy at lunchtime amongst their peers at school.

Introduced through a mutual friend, both women totally hit it off after a Zoom chat. Inspired by synergy and a vision of making vegan knowledge more available to Japanese parents, Yumi and Natsuko agreed to put more time and energy into expanding the presence of Vegmama Salon. As a support member of Vegmama, Natsuko gives lectures on various topics including classes geared towards kids.

Who are Vegmama Salon?

Vegmama Salon is a subscription-based private group that meets six to eight times a month (on Zoom). The group’s aim is to create a safe and encouraging space online for Japanese mothers who want to learn more about their food choices. And ultimately, pivot into a vegan lifestyle, which can benefit the environment, health, wellness, animal welfare, and more. 

The Zoom meetings include cooking lessons, yoga, and Q&A sessions all centered around transitioning into a vegan lifestyle. There’s also the nutrition-focused Vegmama Academy, for members wanting to improve their health and quality of life. In addition, special guest speakers, reiki sessions, healing sessions, and cleaning tips. Past guests include:

• professional vegan chef Yukari Mitsushita
• plant based food Master Mako Matsuda
• plant based doctor Harue Suzuki 
• vegan child activist Ao
• and vegan activist @Still A Vegan

Members are able to watch archives at any time via the Vegmama Salon Youtube channel. The videos are unlisted archives that are shared privately with the Vegmama Salon members. To date, the Vegmama Salon has 60 active members in Japan, the USA, Singapore, and Europe.

Together, the group recently tried something new.

Enter… the Potekoro Project

As we all know, veganism places a strong emphasis on animal liberation, protection, and welfare. In a move that defies convention and fully embraces veganism, Yumi created the Cowpassion NPO jumpstart The Potekoro Project – a cow rescue initiative.

This Potekoro Project began in January 2022. This is when Yumi teamed up with a Vegmama Salon member who was in charge of a dairy farm. Together, they aimed to transform the dairy farm into a cow sanctuary. They started by supporting Potekoro, a retired dairy cow set to be sold to a market in Hokkaido, Japan.

Yumi helped fund Potekoro’s feeding cost to try and protect her. The original plan was to rescue Potekoro, and gradually take in more and more cows who needed homes. And eventually, transition the dairy farm into an actual cow sanctuary. Unfortunately, due to the struggling Japanese dairy industry, Potekoro’s caretakers had to close their facility at the end of 2022. This resulted in Yumi’s inspired action to leverage the power of social media and the internet to connect with Animal Rights Center Japan to assist in quickly finding a new home for Potekoro.

Enter… Ms. Tani of Moo Mow Garden.

Sustainable co-prosperous farming

Animal Rights Center Japan introduced Yumi to Ms. Tani, the Director of Moo Mow Garden to assist.

Moo Mow Garden in Northern Japan, is a sanctuary for 11 cows who survived the devastating Tohoku earthquake of 2011. Ms. Tani discovered the resilience of cows after the tragic earthquake, as many quickly adapted to living in the wild. Sadly, the wild cows reside in areas that Japanese citizens were not allowed in after the devastating natural disaster.

Empathetic to the cows’ plight, Ms. Tani committed to the challenge of caring for the cows who were sadly victims of one of the toughest tragedies we have seen in recent times. 

Ms. Tani decided to create an animal co-prosperous farming plan in which cows can survive by consuming natural vegetation in abandoned farmlands. In return, the cows naturally fertilize the land. This allows for vegetables and fruits to grow back and be easily harvested by people relying on natural farming methods.

Fully activated, this cost-effective animal co-prosperous farming plan now fosters significant environmental conservation benefits. Chiefly due to the mutually beneficial relationship between the land, cows, and people.

Fully aware of Ms. Tani’s expertise in this area, Yumi coordinated with transferring Potekoro into Ms. Tani’s care who, in turn, found a brand new location for Potekoro to live. Realizing that cows can be very communal and that Potekoro would eventually become lonely, Ms. Tani worked with Yumi to coordinate the relocation of Potekoro’s old friend (Bun) from the old dairy farm to the new location.

Today, both Potekoro and Bun live together under Ms. Tani’s care.

‘One animal at a time’

To quote the women of The Potekoro Project: 

“We believe that many people wish for animals to live fulfilling lives. Across the world, more and more animal farmers are transitioning their businesses, and the number of farm sanctuaries is increasing. In Japan, there are still very few places that can take care of large animals, and a drastic change may not be possible right away.

“But if we can, we will rescue one animal at a time. In this way, we will continue to take steps towards coexisting with animals.” 

These women are gently challenging the status quo of Japan and demonstrating that there is a better way to live in harmony with nature. The Potekoro Project is a trailblazing initiative that is the first of its kind in Japan, and it is a beacon of hope for a future where animal sanctuaries are the norm. And, all animals are treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. 

Unity in the vegan movement

Both the Vegmama Salon and The Potekoro Project are a testament to the transformative power of veganism and the importance of working together to create a more just world for all. My hope is that this story empowers us all to realize we too can jumpstart our own niche initiatives to have a bigger impact as vegans. 

I sincerely appreciate the courageous and motivating actions of Yumi, Natsuko, and Ms. Tani for living their lives in this capacity – their efforts are truly nothing short of phenomenal.

If you feel moved or inspired to support Potekoro and Bun, please visit The Potekoro Project’s website to learn more and/or make a donation. All donations will assist in the welfare of both cows.

The post Meet The Japanese Moms Challenging The Status Quo, And Rescuing Cows On The Side appeared first on Plant Based News.

“Suppose a person is very concerned about the ethical issues around food and farming, especially animal welfare, but for whatever reason finds that a wholly plant-based diet does not work for them. What is the most defensible step away from veganism – the best compromise to make, if it is a compromise at all?” says Godfrey-Smith.

The three options he has in mind are humanely farmed meat (especially beef), wild-caught fish, and conventionally farmed dairy products. He proposes that if a plant-based diet isn’t working, adding in one of these options would only be “one step away” from a wholly vegan diet.

Aligning actions with values

Godfrey-Smith is a professor of history and philosophy of science at the University of Sydney. He spent a lot of time studying questions about animal minds and wrote a book about the intelligence and consciousness of the octopus and other sea creatures. He says this prompted ethical questions for him about food and animal welfare. 

As a vegan, and a nutritionist, I actively encourage people to try a plant-based diet. I applaud Godfery-Smith for attempting to address his conscience and unease around eating animals. Many people don’t think about this, or try not to think about it, having become accustomed to meat and dairy as foods. 

However, while Godfrey-Smith’s intentions are encouraging, the reasoning in his article is contradictory. Further, it highlights the cognitive dissonance of mainstream society. Cognitive dissonance is a state of inconsistent thoughts and beliefs, especially relating to behavior or attitudes. For example, claiming to be an animal lover while eating a steak.

Godfrey-Smith notes that while comparing the three options, “incommensurability” should be acknowledged. This philosophical term, he says, means you can’t measure or compare alternatives using a common standard that is fair to all of them.

He then goes through the moral and ethical aspects of meat and dairy farming, trying to come to a conclusion about which choice a person should make if their “constitution resists veganism.” At the end of the article, he’s left with an indefinite conclusion and asks the reader what they think.

An uncomfortable truth

Here’s what I think. Killing is killing. It may be a harsh fact to some, and not one that sits comfortably while they tuck into their meat. But however “humane” farming methods claim to be, the animal is still slaughtered at the end of it. Godfrey-Smith arguing that humanely farmed animals “have a good life overall” and wild-caught fish would die naturally at some point anyway is not a good reason to carry on eating them. 

Ask yourself how you would feel if people started killing their dogs and cats to eat, with the reasoning that they’d given them a good life and they would die naturally someday anyway. Animals who are considered pets highlight society’s speciesism, believing that one kind of animal is more important than another. Just as we shouldn’t discriminate against gender, race, disability, or sexual orientation, we shouldn’t discriminate against animals who are considered food and deny them the right to live.  

The Guardian author is concerned that if plant-based foods dominate human diets, the result will not be a “happy cow” scenario as promoted by some animal rights organizations. In contrast, he anticipates a “no more cows” scenario. “If we want there to be happy cows, in any numbers, that entails a continuation of farming of some kind,” says Godfrey-Smith. To use veganism as a possible reason for species extinction is ironic. Namely because animal agriculture and eating meat is the single biggest threat to the world’s biodiversity. 

Godfrey-Smith does highlight the appalling and cruel conditions in dairy farming. But he states that the “body count” for dairy is lower than the other two options. Further, he notes that calves are killed quickly, and their bodies are put to some use. Does that make it okay then?

Is ‘seafood’ ethical?

While discussing fish and other “seafood,” Godfrey-Smith notes cruel practices such as boiling lobsters alive and the huge numbers of fish who are killed each year. But he maintains that “deaths involved in commercial fishing are probably not especially awful.” And, that fishing is our “historic position in natural food webs.”

Fishing is considered a peaceful pastime by some people, but fish are able to recognize themselves and feel pain. Additionally, some nutritionists are quick to point out the benefits of eating fish. But there are excellent vegan omega-3 supplements available now that provide the same beneficial nutrients. Just because we have killed animals historically, it doesn’t mean that we should still do that. Should we really be basing our morality on the actions of our primitive ancestors?

It may not happen in my lifetime, but I truly believe that my vegan kids will live in a society one day that considers the atrocities of animal farming and non-veganism in the same light as previous atrocities humans have been capable of. 

Is a plant-based diet healthy?

Let’s address Godfrey-Smith’s claims that eating vegan didn’t agree with him. Over the years, I’ve seen countless clients benefit from my plant-based dietary recommendations as a nutritionist. Research indicates that an animal-free diet has health advantages for weight management, energy metabolism, and systemic inflammation.

Further, experts agree that well-planned vegan diets are adequate for all stages of life and may help prevent diseases. 

Godfey-Smith’s experimental diet was not, in fact, vegan. It was near vegetarian, with fish oil supplements included. He states that he experienced symptoms such as headaches and feeling cold. And, that he was reluctant to continue this (nearly) plant-based diet during the Covid pandemic. However, some of his symptoms may have been due to a virus and not the switch to plant-based. (In fact, some research suggests that plant-based diets are protective against the severe effects of Covid.)

Nutritionally complete diet

By his own admission, Godfrey-Smith suggests that he should have stuck with a mostly plant-based diet to allow his gut ecology to make a shift and for his body to get used to it. It’s difficult to determine the reasons why consuming only vegan food didn’t suit him without knowing exactly what he ate and more about his overall health. However, it’s always important to plan a vegan diet to include all the essential nutrients the body needs to thrive. And this is easy to do as long as you do your research first. 

I encourage anyone to adopt a more plant-based way of eating, even if they are not planning on becoming vegan. There’s a general consensus that plant foods such as vegetables, whole grains, beans, pulses, and nuts have numerous health benefits. People can speak to a Registered Nutritionist to help them plan a healthy vegan diet. There are also plenty of online resources for extra support, such as The Vegan Society website.

Final thoughts

In summary, the attempts of Godfrey-Smith and anyone else who wishes to try veganism or mainly plant-based are encouraging. People may wish to do this for environmental or health reasons. However, if, like Godfrey-Smith, they are motivated by animal welfare issues, then there are no half-measures. 

At the end of his article, Godfrey-Smith says he doesn’t know where the discussion leaves him, and that he lacks a definite conclusion. I would suggest that’s because there is no defensible ethical choice apart from veganism. 

The post There Are No ‘Ethical Alternatives’ To A Plant-Based Diet – Here’s Why appeared first on Plant Based News.

But anyone who truly cares about dogs won’t be tuning into the controversial canine beauty pageant. What’s promoted as a celebration of man’s best friend actually glamorizes everything that is wrong with the dog breeding industry. Far from being desirable, the exaggerated aesthetic standards the participating animals are judged on cause dogs immense pain and suffering.

Flat-faced dogs in Crufts 2023

Among the victims of this designer-dog pageant are flat-faced breeds. These animals are prized by the industry for their snouts, which are shortened and pushed so far back against their skulls there isn’t enough space to accommodate their normal anatomical features. Pugs, English and French bulldogs, Pekingese, Boston terriers, boxers, Cavalier King Charles spaniels, shih tzus, and others known as breathing-impaired breeds (BIB) often suffer from a debilitating and often fatal condition called brachycephalic syndrome. 

At best, they struggle to breathe. This means that going for a walk, chasing a ball, running, and playing – things that make dogs’ lives joyful and fulfilling – are impossible. But the condition also causes dogs to endure an array of distressing and painful symptoms. From labored breathing, coughing, and vomiting to collapsing and fainting, and even heart failure from the strain of constant breathlessness. Dog shows like Crufts encourage people to go out and buy these unethical “must-have” breeds. In turn, breeders continue to selectively breed dogs for this flat-faced look. This, at a great expense to the animals’ health and wellbeing. And it needs to stop.

‘These dogs are struggling’

Subjecting dogs to these deformities for human vanity is so cruel that it is illegal to breed certain BIBs – known as “tortured” breeds in Germany – in Austria, Germany, and Norway. The Netherlands, which banned breeding BIBs in 2014, is now considering also prohibiting ownership of these breeds. After Norway passed its law last year, ITV veterinarian Dr Scott Miller called on kennel clubs around the world to take responsibility for setting “insane” breeding standards. “These dogs are struggling,” he said. “They’re in pain, they’re uncomfortable and in a lot of cases, they need surgical correction to be normal.”

PETA has written to Kennel Club Chair Tony Allcock OBE urging him to “realize that the tide is turning.” And, “to take a stand against promoting dogs who spend their lives in misery.” Additionally, tens of thousands of PETA supporters and hundreds of veterinarians have written to Channel 4 asking it to drop the show. The BBC did so in 2008 after an investigation revealed the suffering caused by genetic diseases from years of inbreeding.

Promoting animal cruelty

Indeed, it isn’t only BIBs who are affected. All animals paraded around the arena in front of thousands of purported dog lovers are dangerously inbred for “purity.” But let’s take a beat to look into what that means. Dog “breeds,” far from being pure or natural, are a human construct. The breeding industry artificially produces dogs who’d never exist in nature to meet vain and arbitrary aesthetic standards.

A recent study conducted by the Royal Veterinary College found that the pug has diverged to such an extent from mainstream dogs that it can no longer be considered a typical dog from a health perspective. And bulldogs have been bred to be so deformed they can’t mate or give birth unaided, as the puppies’ oversized heads would likely kill the mother passing through the birth canal. There’s nothing pure about that.

Given the wealth of evidence showing how vulnerable flat-faced breeds are to chronic health issues, it’s unconscionable to promote them. Therefore, Crufts is not a celebration of the nation’s love for dogs. But a promotional campaign for the greedy dog-breeding industry, which churns out litter after litter of dogs as fashion accessories despite knowing that their extreme features are painful and deadly. It sells these genetically disadvantaged dogs to anyone. And, in full knowledge that their deformities will lead to sky-high vet bills, leading many people to abandon them at already over-burdened shelters or on the roadside.

Anyone who truly cares about animals will never perpetuate their misery by buying these – or any – “pedigree” dogs from breeders. If you love dogs, adopt, don’t shop. And tell everyone you know to turn off the telly when this sordid spectacle comes on.

The post Crufts Cruelty: Why The Show Must Not Go On appeared first on Plant Based News.