The lawsuit claimed that the company’s “Revo Salmon – 100 percent plant-based with pea protein” might mislead customers into believing it contained traditional, animal-derived fish. Revo Foods denied the allegation, and the court rejected Vienna City Council’s claim.

“Our packaging declares that only 100 percent plant-based ingredients are used and clearly labels the products as vegan,” said Revo Foods CEO Dr Robin Simsa, in a release sent to Plant Based News. “Many consumers are specifically looking for these types of products, and it is important to give guidance of the product taste with descriptive names.”

Labeling restrictions show ‘distortion of competition’

According to Revo Foods, the case is the first of its kind brought against a plant-based seafood company, although complaints have been made about other, similar products such as oat milk and vegan sausages, particularly across mainland Europe.

The French government, for example, has banned 21 words like “steak” and “ham” that are traditionally associated with animal products from vegan foods made and sold in France. Meanwhile, the Polish government published a draft decree in December that could lead to similar restrictions nationwide, preceded by a similar bill by Italy the month before.

 “It seems that these naming regulations primarily affect plant-based products,” added Simsa. “A clear one-sidedness or distortion of competition is recognizable here.”

The debate over plant-based labels

Restrictions at a Europe-wide level have generally been unsuccessful so far, including the failed Amendment 171 which sought to ban general descriptive words like “creamy” along with “milk,” “butter,” “cheese,” and “yogurt.” But the overall debate continues, and generally centers around the idea that using these types of phrases on plant-based labels will mislead consumers.

In contrast, analysis actually suggests that removing familiar words from plant-based labels will decrease rather than increase transparency, and surveys report that European citizens overwhelmingly back the continued use of meaty and other comparable phrases on plant-based products.

Revo Foods, along with many other plant-based companies and environmental lobby groups, believe that legislative crackdowns on vegan and meat-free foods are revealing of the way governments prop up animal agriculture – despite its significant environmental impact and the increasing efficacy of alternative proteins.

“Meat and fish farms are heavily subsidized by the public sector through lower tax rates or by agricultural subsidies,” explained Simsa. “However, meat is by far the biggest climate driver in food production. Is this approach in line with the ‘European Green Deal,’ with which Europe wants to promote more environmental protection? We don’t think so.”

Vegan food is a ‘serious contender’ to animal products 

In contrast to France and Poland’s stance on plant-based labels, a Swiss court ruled in January last year that using “meaty” words did not mislead consumers, while Belgium is unlikely to introduce legislation ruling one way or the other in the immediate future.

In Germany, the government recently unveiled a huge $41 million USD (€38 million) investment in the promotion of plant-based foods and alternative proteins, and Denmark has announced a 40-page plan to shift towards plant-based food production.

Revo Foods believes that the court’s dismissal of Vienna City Council’s lawsuit is a “win for plant-based innovations in general.”

“The ongoing lawsuits against plant-based companies show that vegan products are already serious contenders to their animal-based counterparts in the food market,” says Simsa. “We will continue to challenge biased regulations that favor meat.”

More like this:

• Shift Funding From Animal Agriculture, Says EU Science Board
• Meat-Eating In Germany Hits A Record Low
• Oatly Wins Legal Battle To Use ‘Post Milk Generation’ Slogan

The post Vegan Salmon Company Sued For ‘Misleading’ Shoppers – Court Dismisses Case appeared first on Plant Based News.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario made the “surprising and troubling decision” to rule against Adam Knauff. Knauff argued that ethical veganism counts as a non-religious “creed” – a set of beliefs protected under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal agreed that a creed could be a non-religious belief system. But it decided that ethical veganism didn’t satisfy all the criteria for what constitutes a creed. Knauff and his lawyers will seek review of the decision. 

“This case is important, not just for ethical vegans, but for the ground of creed and the protections that will be afforded to other, important belief systems that are not directly connected to religion,” Wade Poziomka, Knauff’s lawyer, said in a statement. 

Discriminatory treatment

Knauff, a veteran of Ontario’s provincial forest firefighting force, has been vegan for over 25 years. In 2017, he was working long hours in tough conditions fighting wildfires in British Columbia. According to non-profit Animal Justice, which campaigns for stronger animal laws, Knauff’s employer failed to provide appropriate vegan meals for him at the basecamp where he was stationed.

He was often served meals containing animal products, or nutritionally inadequate meals containing no source of protein. Sometimes no food was provided for him at all.

Despite repeated attempts to work with management to improve the situation, nothing changed. 

After Knauff was disciplined and suspended without pay after expressing his frustration, he sued his employer.

A nonsensical decision

Tribunal adjudicator Karen Dawson said that ethical veganism satisfied the first two criteria of a creed. These are that it is “sincerely, freely and deeply held” and is “integrally linked to a person’s identity, self-definition and fulfilment.” 

But she decided the evidence presented by Knauff’s team didn’t meet the third criterion. It “failed to demonstrate how ethical veganism addresses the existence or non-existence of another order of existence and/or a Creator,” she said.

Rejecting Knauff’s case on these grounds “makes no sense,” Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice, told Plant Based News (PBN).

“The criterion doesn’t require a deity or higher order,” she explained. “It merely says ethical veganism should address whether a Creator or higher order does exist.” She said it does this “by not having a deity,” the same as religious belief systems like Buddhism. 

Dawson’s decision “seems to imply that a Creator is required but this simply can’t be the case,” said Labchuk, “otherwise non-religious belief systems would require a deity but religious ones would not, which makes no sense.”

The decision is also unexpected because Canada’s human rights laws protect vegans from discrimination for reasons other than for the sake of animals. “A person who was vegan because of a meat an dairy allergy would be covered,” said Labchuk. So would someone “who is vegan for religious reasons” such as being Buddhist or Hare Krishna.

Anti-vegan discrimination

Animal Justice regularly has vegans asking for help because they have been discriminated against. Labchuk said recent cases include a hospital failing to provide appropriate food to a patient and a daycare that wouldn’t accommodate a vegan child. This was in spite of the daycare willingly accommodating allergies and religious dietary requirements.

But Labchuk believes things are improving for vegans. This is partly the result of the creed policy of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Knauff’s case, which made global headlines. 

“There are many, many blogs from employment lawyers advising clients that even though it was still an open question whether vegans are included under creed, that they should respect the belief systems of vegans and ensure they are accommodated,” said Labchuk. “So despite this loss, I think Adam’s case has already had an impact.”

Laws protecting vegans

In 2020, a UK tribunal ruled that ethical veganism was a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010. The judge in the case said that ethical veganism was “important” and “worthy” of respect in a democratic society.

One of the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights is applicable to vegans. Article 9 states that everyone has the right to live according to their own ethical convictions free from interference.

In Canada, ethical vegans are protected from discrimination under the freedom of conscience provision in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But it only applies to government actions, such as feeding incarcerated people appropriately. Provinces such as Ontario have their own human rights codes that cover employment and other non-governmental contexts.

More like this:

• Cedar The Goat: Why A 9-Year-Old’s Companion Animal Was Slaughtered By Officials
• California Student Who Criticized Dairy Milk At School Wins Landmark Case
• Denmark Unveils ‘Groundbreaking’ Roadmap Towards Plant-Based Food

The post Vegan Firefighter Loses Bid To Protect Ethical Vegans From Discrimination appeared first on Plant Based News.

In 2022, Shasta District Fair sent law enforcement after Jessica Long and her nine year-old daughter for refusing to hand over Cedar the goat to be killed and barbecued. Long’s daughter became attached to Cedar, whom they had purchased at the livestock fair to raise as part of a youth program called 4-H.

After Cedar was seized, Long filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming that her daughter’s constitutional rights had been violated.

Now the fair and other claimants have filed a countersuit through the California Attorney General’s Office. They claim that the girl violated the terms of her contract, which stated she must return the goat to be auctioned at the fair. 

Here’s what you need to know about the case and the 4-H program.

Cedar’s story

Cedar, a white Boer goat, was seven months-old when he was purchased in April 2022 by Long for her daughter. He had the floppy brown ears that are typical of his breed. Boer goats, who are generally calm and gentle, can live as long as twenty years. 

The family registered Cedar in the Junior Livestock Auction at the Shasta District Fair as part of 4-H – more on this later. Up until June 25, when he was auctioned off to Republican Senator and farmer Brian Dahle for USD $902, Cedar lived at the Long’s property. 

The little girl fed and walked Cedar every day for three months, forming a close bond with him. By the time of the auction, she had already changed her mind about parting with Cedar.

Jessica Long offered to pay back any financial losses for removing Cedar from the auction. Dahle agreed to let Cedar live if he was sent to a farm where he would help with grazing back vegetation that posed a wildfire hazard.

But fair officials insisted Cedar had to be returned and slaughtered. To save his life, the Longs took him to a rescue farm in a different county. Fair officials and eventually officers from the Shasta County sheriff’s office drove hundreds of miles to track down Cedar.

They finally seized him on July 8 from from a property in Sonoma county. Long’s attorney Ryan Gordon has said that the seizure was illegal because the sheriff’s deputies only had a search warrant for an animal sanctuary in Napa where they originally believed the goat to be. 

The deputies took Cedar back to Shasta county, where they had him killed. It isn’t known what happened to his body. 

Why are Cedar’s owners suing the state?

Following the seizure of Cedar, Long filed a federal lawsuit against Shasta District Fair and Shasta county. The suit argued that tracking down Cedar was an “egregious waste of police resources.”

It also alleged they violated Long and her daughter’s 4th Amendment and 14th Amendment rights. These rights protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, and ensure they are treated with due process.

Minors can back out of contracts without penalty, a right which Long’s daughter exercised. At the time that she decided she didn’t want Cedar to die, she still “owned” him.

As well as law enforcement allegedly seizing Cedar illegally, Long’s attorneys say that the county went against its duty to keep and care for Cedar. This duty was based on Cedar’s ownership still being in dispute. Instead of waiting for a legal resolution to this question, the county had a third party slaughter Cedar.

Long’s attorneys say that the county circumvented “the civil process” and killed Cedar in order to put an end to the issue.

What is the countersuit about?

The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta has asked for Long’s lawsuit to be dismissed. It said the federal court does not have jurisdiction over the matter. 

In the countersuit, Bonta’s team argues that Long should have to cover the legal costs of the officials she is suing. This is due to an indemnification clause in the contract Long’s daughter allegedly entered. Indemnity is supposed to provide protection from legal liability for damages or harm caused. 

But one of Long’s attorneys, Vanessa Shakib, told Plant Based News that the indemnity clause is nothing more than standard language in the entry form to participate in the fair. “A simple kids club entry form is not carte blanche for government actors to violate the Constitution,” she said.

Gordon and Shakib believe this amounts to a “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (known as SLAPP). A SLAPP suit is intended to frighten someone into dropping their own lawsuit. “These baseless counterclaims have one purpose: to intimidate Mrs. Long and her daughter to either drop their case or face a hefty price tag,” said Shakib.

This goes against California’s anti-SLAPP legislation, intended to ensure citizens have the right to their day in court. 

What is 4-H?

The 4-H program in which Long’s daughter initially participated is a national “youth development” initiative run by the US Department of Agriculture. The youth livestock program involves kids taking home an animal and raising them for auction and slaughter.

4-H was founded in 1912 for rural youth. It has always had a focus on equipping children with farming and homemaking skills – and the values that go with them. It has since grown to offer many different programs, including engineering, fitness, and financial literacy. 

Why 4-H is problematic

Critics have pointed out that a key aspect of the program is to teach kids to see animals as products. This quashes the moral intuitions that children have about animal lives having value for their own sake. “By suggesting that animals may deserve mercy and that the people who raise them might not want them killed, the family broke a social contract,” wrote political philosophers Jan Dutkiewicz and Gabriel Rosenberg in Vox.

This is clear in the words of Mike Albiani, who advises the Future Farmers of America program in Elk Grove, California. “There are tears, but the tears are short-lived,” he told the Sacramento Bee. “We talk about that all through the process. It starts early at the parent meetings. As long as you reinforce that this is the purpose of the animal — if you reinforce that, and your peers give you support, it’s OK.”

The Sacramento Bee also reported that Ryan Gordon, who cofounded the nonprofit law firm Advancing Law for Animals with Shakib, said there are actually many cases like that of Long’s daughter. “Every year, the firm I work at gets calls from kids that want help, that are in these 4-H programs and they want out and are told they can’t,” he said.

Surrendering to sanctuaries

Not all of the stories of children who want to save their 4-H animals end as tragically as Cedar’s did. Increasing numbers of sanctuaries in the US are taking in animals surrendered by 4-H kids who have grown too attached to have them killed.

Rowdy Girl Sanctuary in Texas runs a Families Choosing Compassion (FCC) program. Families can seek sanctuary for the animals at Rowdy Girl or get help placing them in another sanctuary. This isn’t always possible, as not all local 4-H chapters allow children to surrender animals. The other purpose of FCC is to bring together families who regret giving up their animals for auction.

“We aim to instill a deeper awareness and appreciation of farm animals as unique individuals, worthy of our love and respect,” Rowdy Girl says on its website.

More like this:

• An Animal Activist Was Found Guilty After Rescuing Farmed Animals – Here’s Why He Did It
• Rescued Pigs Killed By Authorities At Italian Sanctuary
• Person Shouting ‘Help’ Was Actually A Dairy Goat Crying Out For Her Babies

The post Cedar The Goat: Why A 9-Year-Old’s Companion Animal Was Slaughtered By Officials appeared first on Plant Based News.

In a legal settlement, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) acknowledged the right to speak out against dairy as a matter of free speech.

The claimant Marielle Williamson had been told she could not hand out leaflets explaining that the dairy industry harms human health, animals, and the environment without also distributing pro-dairy propaganda.

As part of the settlement, the school district also said it will support giving soy milk to students who request it.

“This is a huge win for free speech advocates and for critics of dairy in schools who, until today, had been silenced by the threat of censure if there was a perceived criticism of dairy products,” said Deborah Press, associate general counsel at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Speaking out against dairy is a First Amendment right

The settlement acknowledges students’ right to criticize dairy in school.

Williamson, who is 17 years old, was a senior at Eagle Rock High School when she tried to distribute information about the harms of dairy. She was told by her school that she could not share information about plant-based milk or be critical of the dairy industry unless she also provided pro-dairy content.

In response, Williamson sued her school district and the U.S. Department of Agriculture for violating her First Amendment right. She brought a lawsuit against the LAUSD in May 2023, supported by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a non-profit medical ethics organization.

After the settlement, Williamson said in a statement: “I am very grateful we were able to reach an agreement with LAUSD that enshrines the free speech rights that led to challenging school policies. The changes ensure that other students who want to speak openly about dairy have the ability to do so.”

What’s wrong with dairy?

Dairy products have a range of negative impacts on human health and the environment, as well as ethical concerns around the treatment of animals.

Experts such as the American Heart Association (AHA) and the NHS in the UK recommend that people reduce sources of saturated fat to avoid heart disease. Dairy products that are high in saturated fats include cheese, cream, ice cream, sour cream, and butter. 

A 2021 review found that casomorphins in dairy could be linked to diseases including type 1 diabetes and heart disease. Moreover, studies have suggested that contaminated milk with antibiotic residues is an emerging public health problem worldwide.

Big Dairy’s political might

Despite the problems dairy causes to humans and animals, a federal law dictates that cow’s milk must be offered at every school lunch and breakfast served under the USDA’s National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program.

“One of the biggest things we’re trying to do is to spread awareness to this information that is overshadowed by dairy industry propaganda,” Williamson previously told Plant Based News.

Dairy promotions are commonplace in schools. As well as being the compulsory drink, “Got Milk?” ads were played during morning announcements at Williamson’s school. School cafeterias also cannot promote drinks other than dairy milk in a way that may detract from dairy milk sales.

The settlement sets a precedent for students’ right to speak out against the harms of dairy.

Deborah Press added: “While the dairy industry may have used its political might to force milk into school meals, schools can’t silence students who want to speak out about a product they see as bad for health, animals, and the planet.”

More like this:

• Is Dairy Bad For You? The Health Effects Of Milk On The Body
• Doctors Urge UK Government To Add Dairy-Free Milk To Programs For Disadvantaged Families
• Queen Latifah Takes Aim At ‘Milk Shaming’ In Dairy-Funded Advert

The post California Student Who Criticized Dairy Milk At School Wins Landmark Case appeared first on Plant Based News.

The students, from Plumpton College in East Sussex, were arrested on suspicion of “causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal and criminal damage” after a sheep was attacked and killed on the South Downs in Sussex.

In a statement to Plant Based News (PBN) last week, a college spokesperson confirmed that they had been permanently excluded and would never study at the college again. Two other students, who are being treated as significant witnesses, have both withdrawn from their course.

“We remain appalled by this incident and saddened by the impact that this has had on our other students, our staff and the wider community,” the spokesperson said. “We have always understood and mirrored the depth of feelings triggered by this incident which in no way represents our values and the high standards that we strive to achieve on a daily basis.” 

The incident

Earlier this month, Sussex Police told PBN they had arrested two men, aged 18 and 20, from Kent. Two other individuals were being treated as “significant witnesses.” All four were thought to be from the Agriculture department of Plumpton College.

The incident took place on the night of Thursday, 2 November, according to police. It came to light after other Plumpton students told a farmer called Michael Lunn, to whom they are apprenticed, about what happened.

Lunn, who runs Coopers Farm on Hadlow Down, described the reported incident to Sussex Express. “The four picked up the sheep which was grazing on the Downs and kicked its head,” he said. “It was still alive. Then they split it open, stuck a [firework] inside and blew it up.” He called the act “the most horrific example of animal cruelty.” The police did not confirm to PBN how the sheep was attacked.

Investigation underway

“A thorough investigation is underway into this disturbing report, which we are treating extremely seriously,” said superintendent Rachel Swinney at the time. “Anyone with information that could help with the investigation can contact police online or via 101, quoting Op Chelmsford.”

Plumpton College issued a statement after the incident, saying that “All four students will remain suspended whilst the police investigation is ongoing, and any permanent sanction issued by the college will be determined as a part of this process.”

College Principal Jeremy Kerswell said in the statement: “I am appalled by this incident, which in no way represents the high standards of behaviour we expect of our students nor the standards we hold so dear with regards to animal welfare. I know that our staff and student body are shocked and saddened to hear of this allegation from within our college community and it is completely unrepresentative of our culture and values.  

“Please be assured that I have, and I will continue to take suitable action with the students involved at the appropriate time.” 

More cases of animal cruelty

This isn’t the first incident of animal cruelty involving agricultural college students. In 2017, Hartpury College in Gloucestershire expelled one student and suspended another after they posted videos of their acts of cruelty to Snapchat. 

The reports concerned a fox cub, a badger (a protected species), and a cat who belonged to a college staff member. Other students said the killings were part of a competition to kill the largest animal and post evidence on social media.

“None of these individuals have had any real consequence and will go on to work in the animal industry. Really ashamed to have been associated with this college,” said one former student. 

Gloucestershire police denied that the video of the fox cub showed animal cruelty. “The fox had been struck in a collision and the student, who is training to be a gamekeeper, acted to dispatch the animal to end its suffering,” the police said.

In February 2023, students from the Royal Agricultural University in Cirencester strapped the corpse of a dead fox on top of a car during a rodeo-themed charity event. Students also strapped the head and skin of a dead stag to a Land Rover bonnet. Again Gloucestershire police did not believe any crime had been committed.

This story was originally published on November 14, 2023. It was updated on November 27 to add in information about the students being expelled from the college.

The post Agricultural Students Expelled Following ‘Disturbing’ Sheep Attack appeared first on Plant Based News.

The 40-page plan outlines the government’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by boosting plant-based food production. 

As well as making Danish dinners greener, it also sets out how the country can become a leader in plant-based food exports. 

The plan was described as “internationally groundbreaking” by Rune Christoffer Dragsdahl, the general secretary of the Vegetarian Society of Denmark. Jasmijn De Boo, CEO of ProVeg International, told Plant Based News: “We expect other EU member states to be inspired and emboldened by Denmark’s action and to start drawing up their own Action Plans on plant-based foods. Denmark holds the presidency over the European Council in the latter half of 2025 which will be a great time for member states to aim for publication of their plans.”

Plant-based boost from farm to fork

The plan contains measures focused on every part of the supply chain from producer to consumer.

A key proposal involves giving chefs training on how to prepare more plant-based meals. It also emphasizes the role of research and innovation in helping Danish food companies become leaders in plant-based food production.

Denmark was already leading the way after investing 1.25 billion kroner (USD $177 million) in the sector in 2021. This money helped create a new Fund for Plant-Based Foods, which received 101 applications in the first round.

By positioning itself as a global leader, Denmark could bring in 13.5 billion kroner from plant-based food production, according to the plan. This could also create some 27,000 jobs.

Moreover, a study from the University of Copenhagen found that by switching to a more climate-friendly food system, Denmark could save 12 billion kroner per year in healthcare costs. 

Eating more plants essential for climate targets

The Danish government recognizes that switching to more plant-based food production is crucial to meeting its climate goals. 

In 2021, the Danish Council on Climate Change found that the country was falling short of its 2030 target. Denmark is aiming to reduce GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 70 percent by 2030.

At the launch of Denmark’s new roadmap, Jacob Jensen, Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, called the move towards plant based a “necessary transition.”

“There is no doubt that a more plant-rich diet – in line with [Denmark’s] Official Dietary Guidelines – helps to reduce our climate footprint,” he added. 

Researchers have repeatedly shown that switching to plant-based food systems could bring huge environmental benefits. Animal agriculture contributes around 14.5 percent of total global human GHG emissions, according to the United Nations. 

The future is plant based around the world

Writing in the Foreword to the new action plan, Mr Jensen states that, “Plant-based foods are the future.”

In stark contrast, the UK government is refusing to prioritize the switch towards plant-based food. As a result, the UK is missing out on the related environmental and health benefits.

Earlier this month, at the Conservative Party Conference, environment secretary Thérèse Coffey launched an attack on “green zealots who think our farmers should stop rearing livestock.” This is despite the scientific consensus for years pointing to the need to reduce meat consumption. 

Indeed, in 2021, the UK government published a research paper that recommended switching towards plant-based food to meet climate targets – before quickly deleting it.

Elsewhere, other governments are doing more to encourage a switch to plant-based food. For example, the Swiss government recently launched a new climate strategy that suggested reducing the country’s meat consumption. 

Likewise, Germany introduced a National Nutrition Strategy in June 2022, with increasing plant-based food one of its central goals.

More like this:

• Swiss Government Encourages Reduced Meat Consumption In Climate Strategy
• More Than 650 Academics Urge UK Universities To Go Plant-Based
• Irish EPA Deletes Tweet Encouraging People To Cut Down Meat

The post Denmark Unveils ‘Groundbreaking’ Roadmap Towards Plant-Based Food appeared first on Plant Based News.

The New York Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act was signed into law on December 15. It prevents the sale and manufacturing of cosmetic products tested on animals. 

Governor Kathy Hochul made the move official, with the law taking effect next month (January 2023). The motion is reported to have received “almost unanimous” bipartisan support, meaning that Democrats and Republicans agreed with the bill.

Companies will now be unable to produce or sell any cosmetics which use animal testing in their supply chain. This will apply throughout the entirety of New York state. Such restrictions are already in place in New Jersey, California, Louisiana, and Nevada, alongside Illinois, Virginia, Maryland, Maine, and Hawaii.

Cosmetics manufacturers will now have to ditch painful testing procedures in favor of cruelty-free experiment methods and ingredients. Both are increasingly uncomplicated to source.

“Research methods have evolved, rendering unnecessary the requirement that animals undergo inhumane tests to help companies create a new mascara or shampoo,” New York State assembly member Linda Rosenthal said in a statement.

New York zeros in on animal welfare concerns

The Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act announcement comes shortly after another win for animal rights in New York.

Just last week it was revealed that the state had banned the sale of cats, dogs, and rabbits in pet stores. The move came about to force better control of commercial breeding operations. Again, Hochul signed the act into law.

Though not coming into effect until 2024, the ban is being hailed as a significant victory for animals.

Will the rest of the US ban animal-tested cosmetics?

New York’s new legislation lends weight to ongoing calls for a nationwide ban on cosmetics animal testing. The Humane Cosmetics Act, which is currently passing through the US judicial system, would implement such restrictions.

“Now it is up to Congress to pass the Humane Cosmetics Act to bring about a consistent standard for ending cosmetics animal testing across the country,” Brian Shapiro, New York State director for the Humane Society, said in a statement.

The act has garnered endorsement from more than just politicians and public opinion. To date, close to 400 (377) companies have pledged their support. Among them are large organizations including Unilever, the Body Shop, and Walgreens.

The post New York Is Now The 10th US State To Ban Cosmetics Tested On Animals appeared first on Plant Based News.

The US-based medical company, founded by Musk in 2016, is in the process of developing a controversial brain implant. The company states that it hopes to help paralyzed people walk again. Musk has also claimed that he is “confident” that Neuralink will cure blindness and other conditions. 

“Even if someone has never had vision, ever, like they were born blind, we believe we can still restore vision,” he said during an event last month.

Despite the potential benefits, Neuralink is under fire for reportedly putting progress ahead of animal welfare and prioritizing speed over safety. There have been complaints from former and current employees that animal testing procedures do not align with animal welfare legislation. 

According to a report, the animals who died include monkeys, sheep, and pigs. 

The number of fatalities is not indicative of welfare violations. But damning accounts from Neuralink staff point to rushed procedures and a disregard for animal lives.

Neuralink has been accused of animal cruelty before, with the company denying abuse claims in February this year.

Avoidable animal testing deaths at Neuralink

Musk has stated that he hopes to see the first human brain implants happening in 2023. 

To make this possible, the US Food and Drug Administration has to grant permission for human trials. This will only come once the government agency is satisfied that animal testing has demonstrated requisite safety levels.

Neuralink employees claim that they were consistently hurried and pressured to conduct animal testing that resulted in needless deaths.

One example highlighted in the report saw 25 pigs die after being fitted with implants of the wrong size. Staff claimed that this would not have happened had they been given enough time to prepare properly. In another incident, multiple monkeys were said to have been killed as a result of using a substance called BioGlue, to affix chips to their brains.

‘We are simply not moving fast enough’

Reports of Musk pressurizing staff to produce faster results are numerous. Earlier this year, he allegedly emailed Neuralink staff, saying: “In general, we are simply not moving fast enough. It is driving me nuts!”. This was accompanied by a news article about a Swiss tech development that helped a paralyzed man to walk.

The US Department of Agriculture’s Inspector General is now in charge of a formal federal investigation that could see Neuralink prosecuted under the Animal Welfare Act.

The post 1,500 Animals Died Under Elon Musk’s Watch – Now, Neuralink Faces Federal Investigation appeared first on Plant Based News.

The Industrial Agriculture Accountability Act will, if passed into law, require farms to submit to stringent new rules surrounding disaster mitigation and treatment of animals.

Vegan Senator Cory Booker introduced the act, which targets inhumane food production processes. Particularly, factory farms that rely on regulatory loopholes to push products through production lines more quickly, and with maximized profits in mind.

The act stands to end self-inspection programs in slaughterhouses. It also calls for higher welfare for livestock being transported over long periods of time.

In a bid to lessen cruelty at the point of slaughter, the act calls for improved equipment as well as an increase in inspectors visiting smaller factory farms. Traditionally, such locations have flown under the radar.

Mass animal slaughter in US farms

If legalized, the act will force industrial farming operations to register with the United States Department of Agriculture. In addition, they will have to submit detailed emergency plans to avoid inhumane mass slaughter of animals in the face of future emergencies. These will include pandemics and natural disasters.

A fee will also be payable, to build a “High-Risk AFO Disaster Mitigation Fund.” This will facilitate humane “depopulation” techniques, when essential.

During the COVID-19 outbreak, millions of animals were killed due to slaughterhouses being closed. This was referred to as a “depopulation effort.” Many fell victim to barbaric executions – like being suffocated with a layer of foam – because they could no longer be processed properly. 

Exact figures remain unclear, due to production companies being under no obligation to release them. Nor was there any reporting of the conditions under which their animals were destroyed.

Senator Cory Booker takes on factory farming

The Industrial Agriculture Accountability Act is another attempt by New Jersey Democrat Booker to improve the US food system.

Booker, who maintains that factory farming should be banned, links the industry to the spread of zoonotic diseases and serious threats to human health.

“We’ve seen multiple recent crises that have shined a light on the threat that corporate meat producers and their web of factory farms represent to workers, animals, the environment, and rural communities,” Booker said in a statement.

When disasters, including avian flu outbreaks, pandemics, and extreme weather conditions strike, industrial farming operations are impacted. However, they are also propped up by the US government. A prominent subsidizer of the meat sector, the government has continued to put measures in place to secure the future of industrial-scale meat production in the US. 

However, Booker and supporters of the new act want this subsidizing to stop.

“It’s time we stop allowing multibillion-dollar corporations to externalize the cost of their high-risk operations. The Industrial Agriculture Accountability Act shifts the burden to where it belongs: the backs of Big Agribusiness,” Craig Watts, field team operations director of the Socially Responsible Agriculture Project said in a statement.

More than 60 organizations support the act, including prominent animal rights campaign groups. The Humane League, Humane Society of the United States, Compassion in World Farming, and Animal Equality are all named.

Factory farming as a public health threat

Research indicates many people do not understand the role of intensive animal agriculture in the spread of diseases. This is despite scientific evidence that details how cramped factory farms can create breeding grounds for deadly virus strains. Still, consumers tend to assume governmental failures or the wild animal trade to be more at fault. 

Last year, non-profit organization Farm Sanctuary asked President Joe Biden to phase out factory farming in favor of safer alternatives. In a letter that detailed how slaughterhouses are known to be hotspots for disease transmission, the group implored the president to consider plant-based alternatives.

Biden failed to comment on the request. However, he recently included cultivated meat in a new executive order. This potentially paves the way for an environmentally superior and less cruel alternative to factory-farmed meat.

The post US Factory Farms Face Scrutiny Under Vegan Senator’s ‘Accountability Act’ appeared first on Plant Based News.

The Jane Goodall Act (also known as Bill S-241) has been reintroduced to the Canadian Senate. It aims to offer better protection for captive animals. It would also zero in on the country’s many roadside zoos.

First submitted in 2020 by Senator Murray Sinclair, the bill initially focused on great apes, specific marine mammals, and elephants. The revised act seeks to expand its legal protection to more than 800 species.

New animals to be covered by the bill include bears, big cats, wolves, seals, and reptiles including crocodiles and giant pythons.

While the act won’t completely close all zoos, it will ensure that organizations require permits to keep and breed the animals it covers. They will have to meet a list of criteria, including supporting their conservation.

The updated act has been dubbed one of the strongest pieces of animal protection legislation in the world, and it comes at a timely moment. Animal legal rights organization Animal Justice has recently unveiled data from a large-scale investigation conducted by World Animal Protection (WAP) into Canadian zoos. Findings revealed widespread suffering, which the Jane Goodall Act would put an end to.

The Canadian zoo crisis

Thanks to inadequate local laws and unreliable enforcement, Canada’s zoos, particularly roadside varieties, have been allowed to keep animals in conditions that are deeply unsuitable and pose a threat to human safety. A total lack of federal laws and mandatory inspections has further exacerbated the issue.

Ontario is named by Animal Justice as the main offender, due to its lack of licensing and regulation of zoos. Regardless of how much animals are found to be suffering, law enforcement is unable to close any zoo in the region.

In its investigative report, WAP documents the atrocities being perpetuated at Canadian animal attractions. Entitled Nothing New at the Zoo, the report details how enclosures are too small to allow natural behavior. In addition, it details that the solitary confinement of sociable animals, including elephants, is commonplace, and that little or no shelter from the weather is provided.

Animal Justice states that the report demonstrates a clear need for tougher legislation. As such, it is heavily promoting the new amendments to the Jane Goodall Act.

Can the Jane Goodall Act close roadside zoos?

The act cannot enforce immediate closures. However, if passed, it will make it illegal for roadside zoos to breed or acquire the new animals it covers. This means that many would eventually close. 

Alongside sounding the death knell for roadside zoos, the act would prevent many animals from being exploited for entertainment. This means that wild species petting events would be ceased, as well as swimming with dolphins, and meet and greets. 

Elephant captivity would also be ended, and the remaining 22 of these animals in captivity would also receive elevated care. The exotic pet trade would be significantly limited as well. 

A survey conducted by WAP in 2019 revealed that at least 1.4 million wild animals are being kept as exotic pets in Canada. Species vary, but many, including wild cats and crocodiles, would be protected by the new Jane Goodall Act amendments. This means that they could be removed from private residences. It is thought that this would apply to around 195,000 animals.

Animal Justice is asking for support to ensure that the bill amendments get signed into law. You can help by sending a letter here.

The post ‘Jane Goodall Act’ To Protect Over 800 Species Kept Captive By Canadian Roadside Zoos appeared first on Plant Based News.

The 19th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) will be held in Panama from November 14-25. In addition to increasing protection for multiple species, trophy export quotas are expected to be interrogated.

Representatives from Humane Society International (HSI) will be present. They will lobby for increased sanctions to prevent certain species from facing the risk of extinction. It will also fight against proposals to reduce the safeguarding of known at-risk animals.

“CITES Parties have the opportunity to give these species the necessary protections and oversight to avoid overexploitation, and we urge them to act with prudence before we reach a point of no return,” Sarah Veatch, director of wildlife policy for HSI, said in a statement.

Protecting endangered animal species

Among the species that could see increased protections are hippos, glass frogs, and sharks. All are currently at risk of overexploitation from commercial trade, some of which remains legal despite dwindling animal population numbers. 

In the case of hippos, 10 African countries are proposing a blanket ban on the international trade of hippo parts and products. Already threatened by significant natural habitat loss, hippos are declining further due to permitted hunting and illegal poaching. Both profit from hippo ivory and trophies, as well as skin sales.

“We urge CITES Parties to adopt this proposal to ensure that this commercial trade ends. This pointless industry of selling animal parts, along with other threats facing hippos, is pushing these incredible animals to the brink of extinction,” said Adam Peyman, director of wildlife programs for HSI.

Shark parts, primarily fins, are similarly popular – especially with illegal poachers. However, low reproductive rates of key species, including requiem and hammerhead sharks, are causing concern. Permitted hunting quotas are now impacting overall population numbers. 

It is estimated that more than 100 million sharks are slaughtered each year, many just for their fins. Due to many being indistinguishable from each other, it is being proposed that specific shark families and related species be protected by sustainable quotas.

Glass frogs are also up for better protection laws by 14 countries from Central and South America. The request comes as it is reported that at least 12 species are significantly threatened. This is complicated by them being almost impossible to tell apart from other, less endangered variations. 

Interested parties want to bring about sustainable pet trade quotas that will leave enough glass frogs to continue the species. Presently, the amphibians are sought due to their clear skin, which has made them a target for exploitative pet traders.

Trophy hunting putting animals at risk

Alongside supporting proposals for stricter sanctions, HSI plans to step in and advocate against suggested reduced protection levels. In particular, for endangered white rhinos, alongside other animal species. It will also voice concern over the large quotas of permitted leopard trophy hunts.

White rhinos face significant threat from poachers, which seek to kill the animals for their horns. A proposal has been submitted to loosen the control of international trade of white rhino trophies. This includes items made from their horns. HSI claims this will put the entire species under extreme duress. 

Along the same lines, HSI is calling for smaller quotas of leopard trophies due to the cats already facing extinction.

Previously, CITES agreed on an annual export quota for 12 countries, including Kenya and Malawi, of up 2,648 leopard trophies or skins per nation. HSI states that these figures are not predicated on any scientific data and pose serious threats to population numbers.

Kenya and Malawi have both asked for their quotas to be removed entirely. Meanwhile, Ethiopia asked for a reduction from 500 to 20 cats per year. However, nine nations, including Tanzania and Zimbabwe, still seek to use their quotas to the full.

“As highly sought-after trophies, it is imperative that members take a precautionary approach here. Quotas based on outdated data, unreliable data or inaccurate methods are unacceptable and should be invalidated,” Veatch said. 

Will trophy hunting ever end?

HSI seeks to reduce trophy trade quotas as an initial meaningful step and is also joining a coalition of 136 other non-governmental organizations to call for a total worldwide ban on trophy hunting imports.

Despite trophy hunting being linked to biodiversity crises and by proxy, the climate emergency, the US and EU remain keen import markets. This is presented as the reason for the proposed ban, after previous ethical concerns failed to gain the necessary traction. 

Public support appears to be leaning towards a trophy hunting ban, with US, EU, and South African disapproval rates revealing that a majority of global citizens want to see an end to the practice.

The post The Fate Of 600 Animal Species Will Be Decided In Panama This Month appeared first on Plant Based News.

The horses were being transported aboard a Spirit of Tasmania ferry in a converted refrigeration trailer. Most were found dead on the morning of January 29, 2018. But two horses – named Scarlet and Delilah – survived. 

As reported by the Guardian, the ponies had been “competing” in a tournament in Tasmania, Australia. They were traveling from Devonport to Melbourne.

TT-Line was found guilty of breaching 29 animal welfare laws. It was ruled that the company made no effort to ensure the horses were individually stalled, or that they had adequate ventilation. 

Court findings

The hearing began in August of this year. The court heard from an expert in live animal exports who inspected the trailer after the horses died. The expert reported that conditions may have caused the horses to “cook.”

“[It was] a warm evening where there was a clearly inadequately ventilated transport unit stationary for 10 hours,” said Tasmanian magistrate Leanne Topfer.

“There were too many horses in the unit and 16 horses were exposed to the risk of acute heat stress and asphyxiation and died from … respiratory failure.”

According to the magistrate, Scarlet and Delilah were towards the back of the trailer with better airflow. They were also apparently the only horses in stalls. 

Former Australian polo captain Andrew Williams was involved in the horses’ transportation. According to Topfer, TT-Line relied solely on his declaration that ventilation was adequate. 

TT-Line had pleaded not guilty to one charge of using a method of management reasonably likely to result in unreasonable and unjustifiable pain and suffering. It had also pleaded not guilty to 28 counts of failing to ensure a horse was individually stalled.

Sentencing

TT-Line is due to return to court on December 21 for sentencing.

Williams is also awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to 16 counts of failing to ensure a horse was individually stalled.

He pleaded not guilty to one count of using a method of management reasonably likely to result in unreasonable and unjustifiable pain and suffering.

The post Ferry Operator Accused Of ‘Cooking’ 16 Ponies During Transport Found Guilty appeared first on Plant Based News.

The unnamed male activist was serving time in a facility in Geneva after breaking into and damaging a number of slaughterhouses, butchers, and restaurants. 

After a few days of incarceration, he complained to prison authorities that he wasn’t being provided with sustainable plant-based meals. It is thought that he was only able to eat burger buns, rice, and side salads. 

He also refused to take a B12 supplement until the prison supplied one of plant-based origin. B12 deficiency can lead to nervous system damage, and it is vital that vegans get the recommended dose either via supplementation or fortified food. 

The activist was later diagnosed by a prison doctor as suffering from iron deficiency, constipation, and hemorrhoids.

Prison response

According to the Guardian, the prison rejected a written request for him to be provided with appropriate vegan meals. The facility responded by saying that measures had already been put in place for the activist to eat a diet as close as possible to his beliefs. 

In June 2020, an appeal was deemed inadmissible by Switzerland’s federal court. The prisoner’s lawyer then took the case to the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The ECHR consists of 46 judges from a number of countries – including the UK, Norway, and Turkey – which signed the European Convention of Human Rights.

The appeal 

Another vegan who was refused appropriate meals while in a psychiatric ward in a hospital also joined the appeal.

The Strasbourg court has now admitted the appeal. Notably, it rejects around 95 percent of appeals, indicating a major turning point in veganism being recognized as a protected belief. 

The court has asked the Swiss state to consider whether the prison had violated article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which states that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

Veganism is seeing a surge in popularity in Switzerland. It’s thought that around four percent of the population now follow the lifestyle. 

In June of this year, an independent think-tank in the country predicted that Switzerland would be entirely meat-free by 2050. 

Veganism as a protected characteristic

This isn’t the first time someone has launched a legal case on the grounds of their veganism. 

In the UK in 2020, an employment tribunal ruled that veganism was a philosophical belief protected by law against discrimination. 

The decision came after a vegan named Jordi Casamitjana claimed he was unfairly fired by an animal welfare organization — League Against Cruel Sports — after he raised concerns that its pension fund invested in companies linked to animal testing.  

The post Animal Activist Takes Switzerland To Court After Not Being Provided Vegan Meals In Prison appeared first on Plant Based News.

Contacting both companies, the BVA revealed that it had been made aware of certain products being marketed as suitable for puppy tail docking and dew claw removal.

These procedures are considered to be animal mutilation offenses under England and Wales’ Animal Welfare Act (2006). Scotland and Northern Ireland have similar laws in place to protect animals from unnecessary suffering.

The original purpose of some of these products was for lamb castration, which is permitted by law within the UK.

Dew claws can be removed in exceptional circumstances, but only by qualified vets, as it is a surgical procedure. DIY dew claw removal kits were also apparently recently discovered on eBay UK. These encouraged users to cut off entire toes with large nail scissors, to get rid of claws.

Amazon and eBay have reportedly removed all product listings flagged by the BVA. Furthermore, both claim to have put extra measures in place to prevent new items from being listed in the future.

“We’re pleased to see swift and positive action by the two major retailers and will continue to work collaboratively with them to strengthen checks on products, or their marketing, that can harm animal welfare,” Malcolm Morley, BVA president, said in a statement.

“I’d encourage vets and members of the public to raise concerns with retailers if they come across similar listings online in the future.”

Why are animals mutilated?

Tail docking was previously allowed on the grounds that it could prevent injury in working dogs. However, it is now illegal in the vast majority of cases. Exceptions include specific breeds of working canines and when a valid medical reason presents itself. In both cases, docking must be carried out by a licensed vet.

Docking consists of cutting or constricting the muscle, bone, and nerves in a dog’s tail with no anesthetic. This is done to remove a large portion of it, all before a puppy reaches five days old.

The BVA maintains that docking is an outdated practice that can result in chronic pain for dogs. Reduced quality of life is also a risk. It also states that it should be a last resort and carried out only for medical reasons. It has been very vocal about its disapproval of docking for cosmetic purposes.

Similarly, kitten declawing and dog ear cropping are deemed entirely unnecessary and potentially life-altering. Outmoded reasons for ear cropping include the prevention of ear infections and injuries. Both of these are “completely untrue”, according to the RSPCA.

The animal rescue organization goes further and states that ear cropping, in particular, can result in significant behavioral, health, and wellbeing changes in animals.

Continued efforts to protect animals

Referring to the partnership with the BVA, an Amazon spokesperson said: “We are proud to work in partnership with the British Veterinary Association. Amazon is relied upon by thousands of pet owners every day in the UK and we do not take this responsibility lightly.”

They went on to state that all products sold on the Amazon platform must conform to relevant laws and legislation. To prevent sellers from falling through the net and listing illegal items, the e-commerce giant has apparently created ‘industry-leading tools.” It also promises to take action against those that attempt to circumnavigate them.

Similarly, eBay UK has initiated automatic block filters to prevent illegal items being listed for sale. It will follow up with manual checks to ensure animal welfare.

“We will also continue to work closely with the BVA to make sure that we stop the sale of any product that may harm any animal,” Murray Lambell, eBay Uk general manager said in a statement.

The post Amazon And eBay Crack Down On Sale Of Equipment Used For Animal Cruelty appeared first on Plant Based News.

Peter Gordon appeared on the South African investigative TV show Carte Blanche, which is watched by around 200,000 people. He appeared as part of a segment that discussed the planned ban on plant-based product labels that use “meat” terminology.

It was announced earlier this year that the Department of Agriculture Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) had banned plant-based products from being labeled with descriptors like “meatball,” “sausage,” or “biltong.”

These products were set to be stripped from the shelves in August, but the plans were put on pause after the Johannesburg High Court intervened. 

“I think there are certainly some products where people would pick up a pack, think they’re buying a beef sausage or a lamb sausage, and actually get home and find they haven’t got what they wanted,” Gordon told host Derek Watts. “And that’s what we’re trying to prevent.”

But, at the start of the segment, Watts said: “At a time of significant global pressure for us to cut meat consumption to reduce our global footprint, many have questioned the department’s timing and motives.”

Watts also discussed the changes with Natalia Kostanova Fernandez, who owns Meraki Plant Based Food. She spoke of her fears that the new rules could put her out of business.

“Should it go forward and we have to remove all products from the shelves, it will be a considerable financial loss for us,” she said. “Especially for us being a very small company. So, it could essentially make us close our doors, which would be devastating.”

The backlash to the ban

Vegan organizations, including Pro Veg South Africa, have been vocal in their criticism of the ban and have expressed fears that product seizures could take place at any moment. 

“Although we welcome the decision by the court, we would like to reiterate our call for further dialogue as we still believe that this matter should be settled through discussion between the plant-based food industry, DALLRD, and the meat industry,” ProVeg country director Donovan Will said in a statement.

According to Business Insider South Africa, both those who support and oppose the ban will reconvene in court later this year. 

The post South Africa Meat CEO Says Plant-Based Products Could Confuse Consumers appeared first on Plant Based News.

Carmina’s mooing apparently reached 74 decibels, almost 20 decibels above the maximum noise limit of 55. The limit applies when in close proximity to residential properties.

The fine was issued after neighbors in Siero were unable to put up with Carmina’s grieving any longer. An anonymous resident stated that the mooing had continued for weeks in December 2021. This was disputed by the farmer, named Robert Pandiello, who has claimed she could be heard for just “a few days.”

‘We never thought this could happen’

Pandiello responded to the fine with incredulity. He claims that Carmina was mooing due to an expedited weaning process, following her mother having to be “put down.” Pandiello made the statement to local television channel RTPA. However, he did not offer any explanation as to why the mother cow was killed.

Speaking about the fine, he said: “We thought this could never happen because it’s ridiculous; it’s a joke.” 

“We had no idea that this could happen. We can justify it from the circumstances, although it seems ridiculous to have to justify the mooing of a cow.” 

He went on to state that there have always been farm animals in the rural region. Pandiello is currently considering an appeal.

Cows have ‘unique souls’

Carmina’s noise levels may have been unusual for the area, but grieving cows on farms are not uncommon. 

Cows are sentient animals who are thought to be able to remember events in their lives for extended periods. Moreover, they have been shown to be emotionally intelligent, exhibiting behavioral and physiological changes when affected by external stimuli.

PETA reported that cows are able to grieve the loss of loved ones. Alongside mournful mooing, they can cry tears of sadness. The mother-calf bond is thought to be especially strong, with both parties becoming visibly upset when separated. This applies even when the two are apart for a very short period of time.

The individual personalities of cows have been witnessed by many involved in farm animal rescues, including actor Joaquin Phoenix. After helping to rescue two cows from a slaughterhouse in 2020, he commented: “there was clearly a unique soul in there.”

The post The Mournful Moos Of A Grieving Cow Just Broke Spanish Noise Laws appeared first on Plant Based News.