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.

Specifically, it is targeting Tennessee, which recently became the first US state to ban drag shows, including brunches, in public spaces.

The state passed a bill at the start of March that prohibits drag shows, cited as “adult cabaret performances,” from occurring in public or in the presence of children. Drag is also no longer allowed to be shown within 1,000 feet of places of worship, public parks, or schools.

More than 15 other states, including Texas, Idaho, and Nebraska, have also introduced anti-drag bills.

As a result of the new legislation proposals, Eat Just (the maker of Just Egg) has launched its “Brunch Is For Everyone” campaign. It sees the food manufacturer sponsoring drag brunches in Tennessee and supplying them with its vegan egg products. 

Eat Just will also match customer tips given to drag performers at sponsored brunch events.

“We usually stay out of politics, but when you mess with brunch, you mess with us,” Tom Rossmeissl, head of global marketing for JUST Egg, said in a statement.

“Our brand is committed to building a more just, more inclusive world. And we know this wave of anti-LGBTQ legislation is doing the opposite. We want to help, and we’re pretty damn good at brunching, especially for a good cause.” 

A temporary reprieve for drag brunches

One day before the anti-drag legislation was due to come into effect in Tennessee, district judge Thomas Parker granted a two-week injunction.

In his ruling, Parker stated that the new law was too broad. Furthermore, he said that sponsors had failed to adequately demonstrate the need for such legislation. Parker even suggested that the bill was at odds with the US’s treasured First Amendment, which protects freedom of expression.

The timing of the injunction was fortuitous, as it allowed Eat Just’s first “Brunch Is For Everyone” drag event to proceed legally on April 2. The all-ages daytime performance, called Rainbow Brick Brunch, was held at the Atomic Rose club in Memphis. Members of the Eat Just team traveled from California to attend.

It is reported that the event was hugely popular, leaving room for standing patrons only. Eat Just’s vegan breakfast sandwiches are also understood to have sold out.

Sending a message to drag fearmongers

Eat Just maintains that the legislation proposals in Tennessee and elsewhere are attempts to divide communities. This, while trying to smear talented and expressive performers by painting them as predatory and a threat to family values.

Responding to this rhetoric, Eat Just reiterated that it wants to help create a “healthier, more sustainable, and more just world.” As such, it has committed to a multi-platform fundraising effort that will donate funds to the Human Rights Campaign. Local LGBTQIA+ charities, including the Tennessee Equality Project, also stand to benefit.

In addition, Eat Just pledged to raise money to fight the prospective new laws filtering out to multiple US states.

“This law sends a clear and concise message to queer Tennesseans that we are not valued here. Its chilling effects should outrage every American who believes in free speech,” Bella BuBalle, show director and host at the Atomic Rose, said in a statement. 

Global drag superstar RuPaul also commented on the issue, posting an Instagram video that accused politicians of bully tactics and distraction. 

Stating that moves to restrict drag performers and gender-affirming care are simply ploys to take attention away from administrative failures to provide equitable healthcare, education, housing, and jobs, “Mama Ru” ended by reminding people to vote and to donate to the ACLU’s Drag Defense Fund.

The post Vegan Egg Brand Takes On Anti-Drag Laws In The US appeared first on Plant Based News.

The decision was made following campaigning by the animal rights organization PETA and fellow animal advocates, including veterinarians.

Campaigners warned Moonpig that documenting breathing-impaired breeds (BIBs) in cute or humorous scenarios helps normalize their suffering. As such, it risks contributing to the cultural demand for flat-faced dogs.

“By banning images of pugs and French bulldogs, Moonpig is acting responsibly and helping put an end to the promotion of dog breeds with painful, life-threatening deformities,” said PETA director of corporate projects Yvonne Taylor in a statement.

Although PETA is “celebrating this compassionate first step,” it plans to continue applying pressure on Moonpig. The aim is for Moonpig to extend its policy, so that BIBs are not used to sell cards at all. This means that Boxers, Boston Terriers, and more would be removed.

Dogs suffering for aesthetics

BIBs are bred to have flat, squished faces that align with a popular canine aesthetic. However, this look causes a great deal of suffering to the animal, and they often have significantly shortened lifespans.

Dogs with flat faces struggle with labored breathing, gagging, and snorting in an attempt to get enough oxygen into their bodies. As a result, many BIBs have poor temperature regulation, and are susceptible to heatstroke. Additionally, eating problems and early deaths are common.

New research from the UK’s Royal Veterinary College states that the health of pugs is largely worse than that of other breeds, and are prone to a range of serious health complications. As such, the college says pugs can no longer be considered a “typical dog.”

Despite their health issues, pugs have seen a surge in popularity in recent years. The Kennel Club reported that registrations of pugs increased five-fold between 2005 and 2017. However, this only represents registered breeders’ litters. Consequently, many more dogs are likely being unaccounted for.

Elsewhere in Europe, restrictions are in place that make the breeding of flat-faced dogs illegal. Austria, Germany, Norway and the Netherlands have all taken such action. Furthermore, steps are being taken to ban the ownership of such dogs and their use in advertising campaigns.

Crufts promoting BIBs

While Moonpig taking pugs and French bulldogs off its roster is being celebrated as a step in the right direction, flat-faced breeds continue to face another hurdle: high-profile dog shows.

Crufts, an annual beauty pageant for dogs, was held yet again this month in the UK, and continued to showcase BIBs. PETA is now calling for the removal of flat-faced breeds from the competition. It also staged a protest at Crufts as pugs were being pulled around the exhibition ring.

The post Moonpig Stops Selling Cards Featuring Pugs And French Bulldogs appeared first on Plant Based News.

Being vegan is about more than diet, and there are many everyday products that we’d never guess weren’t suitable for those following the lifestyle. 

Of course, going vegan is always going to be a learning curve, and it’s completely understandable that many people will make mistakes and use products they had no idea contained animal products. 

Here’s what we know about Crayola markers and crayons. 

Why aren’t Crayola crayons and markers vegan?

Crayola is a hugely popular company specializing in art supplies. It was established in 1885, and, according to research, around 99 percent households recognize the brand’s name. 

It is thought Crayola markers contain animal ingredients, meaning they are not vegan-friendly. 

Plant Based News (PBN) reached out to Crayola for more information on its ingredients. A spokesperson confirmed that Crayola uses “animal byproducts” in “some” of its products. 

Crayola doesn’t make the exact ingredients of its markers public, but reports have suggested that they may contain milk casein, insect shells, beeswax, gelatin, or bone char, which could be used to bind or preserve the markers. 

Crayola crayons are thought to contain stearic acid. While stearic acid can come from both plant and animal sources (usually beef tallow), Crayola reportedly confirmed it uses animal-based stearic acid. 

According to World of Vegan, it is this ingredient that gives the crayons their distinctive smell. 

Are Crayola markers and crayons cruelty-free? Or have they been tested on animals?

Speaking about its animal testing policy and whether its crayons are “cruelty-free,” Crayola told PBN: “Crayola does not perform animal testing on its products. In lieu of these types of tests, we utilize alternative resources such as toxicological reviews and historical databases.”

It is unclear whether Crayola uses ingredients tested on animals. 

Are there any vegan Crayola markers and crayons?

Thankfully, there are a number of brands that sell vegan markers and crayons.

Azafran crayons are not only free from animal-derived ingredients, but are also non-toxic and paraffin-free. They are available to buy on Amazon.

If you’re after markers, you can buy Chartpak Spectra AD Markers, which are alcohol-based.

—

If you purchase 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 Are Crayola Markers And Crayons Vegan? Everything You Need To Know appeared first on Plant Based News.

It was announced in July that, after successful opposition from PETA and Wolfsburg’s veterinary office, Damien Hirst’s artwork “A Hundred Years” would be removed from the Kunstmuseum, Germany. 

The piece, a large glass vitrine divided into two sections, saw maggots hatch into flies in the first compartment. In the second, they were attracted to the UV light of an electrocuting device, where they were zapped to death. 

The gallery’s director, Andreas Beitin, argued that the work was supposed to highlight how insects die constantly from artificial lighting at night, the work of humans. And yet Hirst did this by continuing to kill endless insects. This is not art, nor clever artistic expression. This is another entrance to the list of animal abuses Hirst’s artistic career has facilitated.

Damian Hirst’s use of animals

Hirst first entered the public consciousness in 1988, when he was included in the exhibition “Freeze.” It was in 1990 when his piece “One Thousand Years” shot him into artistic revelry.

This piece was perhaps the maggot to Hirst’s fly – the original stimulus that would later inspire “A Hundred Years.” In the 1990 installation, a glass cabinet contained the decomposing skull of a dead cow. Breeding maggots would feast on the animal’s carcass before evolving into flies and getting fried by another killing device.

Art critics like to think this portrays the perfunctory routine of life, death, and decay. Not stopping to consider if it is ethical to condemn creatures to death simply to satisfy this creative expression. Indeed, according to Artnet, Hirst has killed close to one million creatures throughout his career. Mainly insects. He was criticized for having sentenced 9,000 butterflies to death in his exhibition at the Tate Modern in 2012.

Hirst is probably most famous for his installations of dead animals (such as calves, sheep, baby horses, a bear, and a zebra) preserved in looming formaldehyde tanks.

Speaking about his Natural History series, Hirst said that he “just wanted to do a zoo that worked… because I hate the zoo, and I just thought it would be great to do a zoo of dead animals, instead of having living animals pacing about in misery… I never thought of [the works] as violent. I always thought of them as sad.”

This statement is dripping in hypocrisy.

If Hirst despised zoos so much because they impinge upon an animal’s freedom, why pluck – for instance – the famous tiger shark out of their home in the ocean – and use them for artwork which eventually made him $5.7 million?

You cannot be on the side of animal freedom, and then kill animals for your own benefit. Using animals in such a way, and hanging them from exhibitions as lifeless canvases, serves to only perpetuate the idea that animals are commodities, disposable, and expendable. Here only as tools for humans.

Artists using animals in their work is widespread

Sadly, Hirst is not alone.

There are countless artists who have condemned animals to death or to lives of misery. Guillermo Vargas received international criticism in 2008 when he shackled a starving dog beneath (out of reach) words made from dog food. These were “Eres Lo Que Lees” (You Are What You Read). 

The gallery director claimed that the dog was untied and fed during non-exhibition hours. But why subject a sentient being to such cruelty in the first place? Even more horrifically, artist Tom Otterness adopted a dog from a rescue shelter in 1977, before tying them to a fence and shooting them to death for an exhibition. There aren’t adequate words for this brutality.

Animals used for ingredients

Before it was discovered that pigments could be made synthetically, animals were exploited to create certain colors for paints and dyes. Indian Yellow, for instance, was made using cow urine. The cows were only fed mango leaves to enrich the yellow color. This led to the cows being severely malnourished, and most experienced issues such as jaundice or kidney stones.

The pigment was banned in 1908. Tyrian purple, the color of nobility and royalty, was made from the glands of snails. Cochineal and Carmine were made red from beetle blood. The list goes on.

Nowadays, art materials are much more animal-friendly. Even most glues now opt for synthetic products, rather than the earlier use of animal collagen.

However, the use of animals in artwork has not yet been banished to the past. Whilst exhibitions exploiting animals often receive outrage and protests from activists, American law is often not adequately equipped to protect animals from harm. American courts have previously defended the first amendment right of free expression over the rights of a sentient animal.

Is artistic expression really more important than an animal’s life?

This is where the core of the issue lies. The very fact that artistic expression may be viewed as more important than protecting an animal from abuse highlights how animals are still recognized as morally inconsequential. 

But animals have been accepted – last year by the UK government – to be sentient beings that experience pain, joy, and fear. They may not be able to solve a math problem or vote in an election, but they are similar to us in all the ways that matter. 

To excuse an animal’s mistreatment in the name of art is wholly unethical. Animals are not art supplies to be used at whim, they are conscious creatures worthy of moral treatment.

If a bystander is horrified at the use of an animal in artwork – say, Tom Otterness shooting a dog – could they not extend this compassion to the slaughter of billions of animals each year for food? Cows hung upside down, throats slit, and bled to death? Pigs gassed to death in toxic chambers?

Animals are not paintbrushes to express human issues. And neither are they cling-filmed meat in the fridge aisle. They are living, breathing, conscious beings who deserve to live lives free from human exploitation.

The post Creativity Or Abuse? Inside The Art World’s Complicated Relationship With Animals appeared first on Plant Based News.

Prolific teen climate-change activist Greta Thunberg is the latest cover star of Teen Vogue magazine. 

Thunberg, who recently featured on TIME’s list of women who will change the world, talks to Teen Vogue about protesting, her Asperger’s syndrome, the upcoming global climate strike, and why ‘people who are different are so necessary’.

‘Walk the walk’

“Without [my Asperger’s syndrome], I wouldn’t have noticed this crisis,” Thunberg tells journalist and activist Naomi Klein. 

“I think it has something to do with we walk the walk and we don’t have the distance from what we know and what we say to what we do and how we act… And without my diagnosis, I also wouldn’t have been such a nerd, and then I wouldn’t have had the time and energy to look through the boring facts and still be interested.”

‘This is the day’

Speaking about the next global climate strike on September 20, Thunberg says people need to think about it from a ‘bigger perspective’. 

“If you can’t be in the strike, then, of course, you don’t have to,” she adds. “But I think if there is one day you should join, this is the day.”

You can read the full interview here

*This article was updated on September to correct the date of the Global Climate Strike 

The post Vegan Climate Activist Greta Thunberg On Cover Of Teen Vogue appeared first on Plant Based News.