Read more: EU Making Animal Diets ‘Artificially Cheap’ With Subsidies, Report Finds

KlimaSeniorinnen (Swiss Elders for Climate Protection), a collective of around 2,500 Swiss women with an average age of 73, told the court that several of their basic human rights had been violated. For example, because older women are more likely to die during severe heat waves, the group argued that Switzerland has not done its share to mitigate global warming.

KlimaSeniorinnen spent several years unsuccessfully battling Swiss courts before escalating the case to the ECHR, found that the Swiss government had not prepared a suitable plan to cut emissions and that applicants had not had access to justice in national courts.

“This ruling is a landmark in the struggle for a liveable climate for everyone,” said Anne Mahrer, Co-President of the Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection, in a release. “We have been fighting for climate justice for nine years with the support of Greenpeace.”

“After the Swiss courts refused to hear us, the ECHR has now confirmed that climate protection is a human right,” added Mahrer.

Read more: Switzerland Votes Against Ban On Factory Farming

ECHR rules that Swiss inaction on climate change breaches human rights

Two other climate cases were unsuccessfully brought to the ECHR – one by a group of 32 young Portuguese people against 32 European countries, and one by a French mayor against France. While cases are notably different, all three were based on the question of whether government inaction on climate change violates human rights. The ECHR also rejected four cases brought by individual applicants from the KlimaSeniorinnen.

The decision to hold the Swiss government accountable has been described as a historic one by many observers, and the ECHR, which refers to itself as “the conscience of Europe,” has still set a precedent for all 46 member states moving forward.

“The significance of this decision cannot be overestimated,” explained Cordelia Bähr, the lead lawyer for the Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection.

“It will be of great importance for further climate lawsuits against states and companies worldwide and increase their chances of success. The judgment shows citizens, judges, and governments across Europe what is needed in terms of climate protection,” added Bähr.

Read more: I’m Taking The Government To Court Over Farmed Chickens – Here’s Why

The post Switzerland’s Inaction On Climate Crisis Breaches Human Rights, Says Landmark Court Case appeared first on Plant Based News.

Read more: Plans To Ban ‘Meaty’ Vegan Labels On Hold In Belgium

The country’s top administrative court has now suspended a decree initially issued by France’s government in February to ban the word steak from plant-based meat labeling. (In French, a meat-free burger patty might be described as a “veggie steak”.)

If successful, the decree would have been active from May 1, 2024, just a few weeks away. In addition to the word steak, it included 20 additional terms typically associated with cuts of meat and animal proteins, such as “spare rib,” “ham,” “escalope,” and the phrase “butcher.”

In 2022, France’s administrative court, the Conseil d’État, suspended a similar decree following public pressure exerted by plant-based companies based in France, and due to concerns it was too vague to be practically enforceable – or even legal.

On Wednesday, the state council said once again that there was “a serious doubt over the legality of such a ban,” and that it would remain suspended until the European Union’s Court of Justice could review the decree and rule one way or the other.

Read more: More Than Half Of Europeans Are Cutting Down Meat, Study Finds

France’s ban on meaty words for plant-based foods ‘complete nonsense’

Meat and dairy companies have long complained over the plant-based sector’s use of words traditionally associated with animal products, citing potential confusion for consumers. However, there is little evidence to support this, and critics suggest that removing familiar words like steak, sausage, and burger would actively confuse shoppers.

Belgium recently put a similar ban on hold, and in 2021 the European Parliament voted against a proposal to ban meaty terms from plant-based products. More than half of Europeans are now cutting down on meat amid continent-wide and national pushes towards sustainable, healthy, and equitable food systems via plant-based diets.

Nicholas Schweitzer, CEO of French vegan bacon innovator La Vie previously told Plant Based News (PBN) that any national ban on labels using such words – which would by definition only apply to companies producing foods within France – would be “complete nonsense.”

“This law is going completely in the opposite direction of two official priorities of the French government: the fight against global warming and the reindustrialization of France,” said Schweitzer.

Read more: Meat-Eaters Prefer Not To See Animals On Meat Labels, Research Finds

The post France Just Suspended Its Ban On Words Like ‘Steak’ For Plant Foods appeared first on Plant Based News.

Read more: 81% Of USA Sandwich Bags Contain Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’

Dr Benjamin Droguet, Professor Silvia Vignolini, and a group of fellow Cambridge scientists founded the UK-based company in 2022 in order to replicate the vibrant colors found in nature sustainably. Sparxell’s star compound is cellulose, a plant-derived sugar.

Sparxell can extract its plant-based, renewable, and biodegradable cellulose from waste streams, all while achieving vibrant, high-performance pigments for use in sectors as diverse as cosmetics, fashion, packaging, crafts, food and beverage, and automotive care.

“Our plant-based materials can be grown and sourced locally in a complete rethink of how colors are currently being manufactured while reducing transport emissions,” explained Sparxall founder and CEO Droguet, in a release published by BusinessWire.

The company says it will use the backing to accelerate the development and commercialization of its products. Prominent participants in the seed funding include the L’Oreal-founded Circular Innovation Fund and SpaceX-backer Future Communities Capital.

Read more: Flora Unveils ‘World First’ Plastic-Free Paper Tubs For Vegan Spreads

Traditional colorants cause ‘major environmental harm’

According to Sparxell, its product is the “world’s first” 100 percent natural, high-performance, and biodegradable color platform, free from child labor, health risks, and minimal pollution. 

“Traditional chemical colorants are causing major environmental harm through every stage of their lifecycle, from manufacture to degradation,” continued Droguet.

A recent report by Precedence Research predicts that the global colorants market will more than double between 2022 and 2032, but specifically highlights toxic elements and associated health risks – including cancer – impact both workers and customers.

“The textile industry is a well-known emitter of dyes and microplastics, with over 1.5m tonnes entering the environment every year, while paint has recently been recognized as the largest source of microplastics in the ocean,” added Droguet.

Read more: The UK’s Plastic Waste Crisis: 100 Billion Pieces Of Packaging Discarded Every Year

Sparxell’s ‘plastic-free and toxin-free pigments’

A 2022 study published by the Swiss scientific research firm Environmental Action (EA) found that of the tens of millions of tonnes of microplastics leaked into the ocean each year, approximately 58 percent comes from paint particulates.

The researchers reported that 1.9 million tonnes of paint end up in oceans and waterways annually, many of which contain plastic polymers, contributing to ubiquitous microplastics. Furthermore, common volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in paint include formaldehyde, benzene, and ethyl acetate, exposure to which can cause a range of serious health issues.

In contrast, Sparxell makes its plant-based cellulose completely biodegradable, and the company notes that model studies confirm that its “plastic-free and toxin-free pigments” have “some of the lowest impacts on flora and fauna at the end of life.”

Sparxell expects to launch a Series A funding round in the coming months to upscale production capacity and accelerate commercialization.

The post Company Raises $3.2 Million For Plant-Based Pigment Development appeared first on Plant Based News.

Read more: EU Making Animal Diets ‘Artificially Cheap’ With Subsidies, Report Finds

An international group of academic experts has described the omission as “concerning” in a commentary in Nature. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) published the roadmap during the COP28 Climate Summit in December 2023. It lays out how to achieve zero hunger without breaching 1.5°C of global temperature rise.

“The FAO roadmap neglects one of the most obvious and urgent interventions to reduce emissions from the food system: shifting away from the production and consumption of animal-sourced foods,” the authors write.

The roadmap has already received criticism from environmental organizations for urging an intensification of animal farming to make it more efficient.

Ignoring a key solution

The FAO roadmap acknowledges the climate impact of animal agriculture and that diets “absolutely must” change “for human and planetary health.” To address this, it sets a goal of a 25 percent reduction in methane emissions from the sector by 2030 compared to 2020. But it doesn’t “offer measures or milestones for lowering production and consumption of animal-sourced foods,” the academics write in the commentary.

Read more: Meat Industry Fights To Use ‘Alternative Metric’ To Measure Methane Emissions

This is despite the mounting evidence that a shift to plant-based diets, particularly in wealthy countries, is a key way to bring down global emissions. 

The commentary also criticizes the roadmap for “dismissing plant-based meats as “hav[ing] nutritional deficiencies” without providing any evidence to support this claim.”

One Health

The roadmap does encourage a reduction in the production of meat from large ruminant animals – mainly cows – which cause the majority of emissions in animal agriculture. But it recommends replacing them with chickens instead, along with the intensification of animal farming.

Read more: Denmark Unveils ‘Groundbreaking’ Roadmap Towards Plant-Based Food

The commentary warns that such a move would come with a range of other negative impacts on the environment and human health. These include a potentially big increase in the risk of antimicrobial resistance and the emergence of zoonotic diseases such as bird flu.

The authors argue that the FAO’s focus on intensification of animal agriculture means it fails to consider how plant-based diets also entail “public health and sustainability co-benefits.”

They support a “One Health” approach, which addresses the health and welfare of humans, animals, and the environment holistically. The roadmap does not mention One Health, despite the FAO being part of a coalition of organizations advocating the approach.

Lack of transparency

The commentary highlights other problems with the roadmap. These include no explanation of how proposed actions were selected, nor a list of authors and reviewers or what review process was used.

The need for transparency in this regard is clear. In 2023, former FAO officials claimed that senior figures in the organization had censored and undermined them for reporting on the climate impact of animal agriculture. Some blamed lobbying of the FAO by powerful meat producers.

As the FAO roadmap is the first of three instalments, the commentary calls for the subsequent ones to be more upfront about how the reports are produced, and who is writing them. 

The post Academics Call Out FAO For Leaving Meat Reduction From Food Emissions Plan appeared first on Plant Based News.

But as the realities of the climate and biodiversity crises get ever more serious, the impact of food is becoming impossible to ignore.

Read more: Think Free Range Eggs Are Ethical? Investigation Exposes Reality Of ‘Cage-Free’

Faced with uncomfortable truths about the impacts of different foods on the planet, one response has been denial. This trait is evident amongst supporters of “regenerative” farming, who claim that animal agriculture can be “carbon positive.” A recent study put another nail in that coffin.

Another response has been deflection.

It’s very easy to point the finger at cows. Besides the fact that that finger should be aimed firmly at the humans who farm and eat cows, rather than the animals themselves, such simplification is potentially very problematic.

House on fire

Beef has far and away the highest contribution of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of everything humans eat.

The amount of land and water needed to farm cows is astronomical. The amount of crops grown to feed them is enormously wasteful. The waste and deforestation that cow farming causes make it one of the most destructive activities on the planet.

In response to concerns about beef’s environmental impact, some have put forward chicken consumption as a climate solution. A recent article even suggested that being a “chickentarian” could be a viable alternative to veganism. 

But two wrongs don’t make a right.

Over-emphasizing the unique harms of beef production risks letting another ruinous meat industry off the hook. Worse, beefing up chicken slaughter could exacerbate several key environmental, ethical, and health risks.

As Nicholas Carter, an ecologist and data scientist, puts it: “Choosing chicken over beef for the claimed environmental benefits is like turning down the thermostat in a burning house.”

Room for improvement

Removing ruminant meat (cows and lambs) from menus has been touted as a climate policy by some forward-thinking institutions and restaurants.

While the intention is admirable, the consequences can be alarming if all that beef is replaced with chicken meat.

Read more: EU Making Animal Diets ‘Artificially Cheap’ With Subsidies, Report Finds

That’s because the argument for eating more chicken is usually based solely on GHG emissions. Although lower than for some other meats, chicken has higher emissions than plant-based proteins such as tofu, lentils, chickpeas, and beans.

“Chicken does have a lower carbon footprint than beef or pork,” Carter tells Plant Based News (PBN). “But it’s still three times higher than even the highest emitting plant protein, like soy, and almost ten times higher than peas.”

Mega mess 

Worse, scaling up chicken production usually means even greater intensification.

Intensification is a long-standing answer to how to reduce the climate impact of meat. The result can be seen in the spread of Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in the US and mega-farms in the UK.

Intensive farming comes with serious problems. 

Read more: How Many Animals Are Killed For Food Everyday?

Carter points to the extreme risks of zoonotic diseases from mass confinement of animals as one leading concern. Studies have shown that intensive farming poses a major risk of antibiotic resistance, disease spread, and pandemics.

This echoes the warnings of Matthew Hayek, Professor of Environmental Studies at New York University, who has warned of the “zoonosis trap” that results from chicken farming. This trap involves a cycle of intensifying existing facilities (which enhances disease transmission and antimicrobial resistance) and expanding into new regions (where humans will come into contact with the new diseases).

There’s also chicken poo to contend with. Keeping huge numbers of birds in one place inevitably leads to huge amounts of waste. Excessive manure runs off into local waterways and can bring about ecological collapse, as has happened recently in the River Wye and Lough Neagh.

It’s not the how, it’s the who

If the environmental and health risks are not enough to turn people off chicken meat, the ethical arguments are overwhelming.

Chickens, being smaller, are farmed in significantly higher numbers than cows. Indeed, more than 200 million chickens are slaughtered for food every day. That’s 140,000 deaths every minute.

For the birds stuck in factory farms right now, ever more intensive farming methods means ever less space and ever more suffering.

Eat beans, not birds

Mark Zuckerberg’s recent announcement that he had started raising cows was rightly condemned by climate scientists as an “obnoxious luxury.”

Sticking it to Zuck for raising cows while tucking into a chicken dinner, however, is not the climate solution that some seem to think it is.

Study after study shows that the best response to the ills of animal agriculture is to transition towards a plant-based food system.

“Continuing to farm chicken is one of the riskiest ways of attempting to feed the world,” Carter adds. It’s time governments stop gambling and start following the science.

The post Will Eating Chicken Really Save The Planet? appeared first on Plant Based News.

Read more: 51% Of German Consumers Reduced Their Meat Intake In The Last Year

A new study reports that over 80 percent of the public money invested in farming via Europe’s “common agricultural policy” (CAP) supported animal products, even though countless scientists and industry experts back a shift towards more plant-based foods.

The new study, published earlier this month in the journal Nature, notes that 82 percent of the EU’s agricultural subsidies support (38 percent directly and 44 percent for animal feed) animal-based foods. The same animal-based foods are responsible for the vast majority (84 percent) of EU food production’s embodied greenhouse gas emissions.

These subsidies are provided via various mechanisms, including direct payments to farmers, commodity support for livestock products such as border tariffs, and general support linked to either the production or consumption of animal products, as in school milk schemes.

“The de facto subsidizing of livestock production may lead to animal-rich diets becoming artificially cheap,” note study authors Anniek J. Kortleve, José M. Mogollón, Helen Harwatt, and Paul Behrens, thereby “supporting unsustainable patterns of production and consumption.”

Read more: ‘Groundbreaking’ Vote To Ban Factory Farming To Be Held In US County

EU animal agriculture: subsidization and artificially lowered prices

Industrialized animal agriculture – including its negative impact on the environment, human health, and animals themselves – has arguably produced both the modern demand for incongruously cheap meat and the industry’s current dependence on subsidization.

A kilogram of chicken cost 39p per kilogram in 1967, and, accounting for inflation should cost nearly £9 today. Instead, you can purchase a “small” chicken – around 1.1 kg – from Sainsbury’s for just £2.70. An “extra-large” Waitrose chicken (2.3 kg) costs £6.79.

Intensive chicken production has a particularly devastating impact on water quality and environmental degradation, in addition to its contributions to the climate crisis. Countless poultry farms have also been subject to repeated investigations of animal cruelty in recent years, many of which revealed shocking living conditions and animal abuse.

“The CAP holds the potential to steer the food system towards addressing environmental issues including climate change, biodiversity loss, disturbed nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, water and land degradation,” say Kortleve, Mogollón, Harwatt, and Behrens.

Read more: Think Free-Range Eggs Are Ethical? Investigation Exposes Reality Of ‘Cage-Free’

‘Perverse outcomes for food transition’

The CAP was established in 1962 as a “partnership between agriculture and society,” and it currently receives approximately one-third of the entire EU budget. However, it has repeatedly failed to make farming more climate-friendly despite plans to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, leading to widespread criticism of the scheme.

The more land a farm occupies, the higher its rate of subsidization, and because animal agriculture is so resource-intensive and inefficient, livestock farms get more support. (Globally, animal agriculture occupies 83 percent of all farming land despite providing just 18 percent of the world’s calories.)

“Although the CAP does not designate animal-based commodities as desirable, by disproportionally supporting livestock farming, especially when accounting for animal feed subsidies, the CAP presents an economic disincentive for transitions towards more sustainable plant-based foods,” add Kortleve, Mogollón, Harwatt, and Behrens. This results in what the study authors call “perverse outcomes for food transition.”

Back in 2021, the WWF European Policy Office’s Senior Policy Officer for Agriculture Jabier Ruiz commented that the EU needs “A CAP that is compatible with the aims of the European Green Deal, helping farmers adapt to the adverse effects of climate change and address agriculture’s impact on the environment.”

The post EU Making Animal Diets ‘Artificially Cheap’ With Subsidies, Report Finds appeared first on Plant Based News.

On Wednesday, March 27, the Sonoma County Registrar of Voters officially confirmed that a citizen-led petition to ban factory farms qualified for the ballot. Volunteers from the Coalition to End Factory Farming (CEFF) submitted over 37 thousand signatures earlier this month.

The Registrar of Voters will now deliver the initiative to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, which will then decide when it will actually go to a vote. The CEFF believes that this will likely be in November of this year. This means that Sonoma County will become the first in the nation to vote on such a ban, with potentially huge implications for the rest of the US.

The measure, if adopted, would impact around two dozen local agricultural businesses which are classed as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), or factory farms, per federal guidelines. (The USDA defines a CAFO as confining more than 1,000 “animal units.”)

The proposed measure would also take into account the species of the confined animals, the duration of animals’ confinement, and how significant its pollution of the local environment, including where two or more operations could be together considered a CAFO.

Existing CAFOs would be required to register, and would have three years to phase out operations before facing increasingly severe financial penalties: USD $1,000 for the first day, $5,000 for the second, and $10,000 for the third and all subsequent days spent in violation.

The measure would also require a phase out process developed in collaboration with a California-based humane society or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, along with a job-retraining program for CAFO workers created by the Agricultural Commissioner.

Why end factory farming?

CEFF is a coalition of over 30 organizations including various environmental advocacy and animal protection groups along with several small animal farms and even local businesses. They are as diverse as the Organic Consumers Association, Farm Sanctuary, the Food Animals Concerns Trust (FACT), and Direct Action Everywhere (DxE).

“Sonoma County is a beautiful place with strong values around protecting animals and the environment. Unfortunately, dozens of factory farms are operating counter to the public’s values,” DxE communications lead Cassie King told Plant Based News (PBN). “Now, ordinary people are uniting and utilizing a form of direct democracy to end factory farming in Sonoma County.”

Factory farming’s impact is felt far and wide. Extensive scientific studies combined with repeated undercover investigations depict the myriad of ways factory farming impacts the environment and wildlife, public health, and CAFO workers, as well as the animals themselves.

In fact, several years of factory farm investigations in Sonoma County specifically have exposed shocking cruelty, including three separate investigations (2014, 2019, and 2023) into the Reichardt Duck Farm in Petaluma which each found diseased and dying animals.

“Cheap food has come at the cost of our local economy and rural landscape,” said Roy Smith, operator of a Sonoma-based diverse animal farm and vocal supporter of the CEFF’s measure, in a release sent to PBN. “The first step in rebuilding our food system, and making family farms viable again, is to level the playing field.”

“There is no playing field for small farmers as long as CAFOs occupy it,” added Smith. “And they won’t leave without an eviction notice.”

More like this:

• How Many Animals Are Killed For Food Everyday?
• Amazon Rainforest Faces ‘Unprecedented Stresses’ As Tipping Points Near
• Antibiotic Overuse On UK Factory Farms ‘Could Kill Over 52,000 Humans By 2050’

The post ‘Groundbreaking’ Vote To Ban Factory Farming To Be Held In US County appeared first on Plant Based News.

The analysis, which was commissioned by the Mamavation blog and carried out by an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certified lab, found that nine out of 11 (81 percent) of the most popular sandwich bags showed high levels of a PFAS marker.

While the USDA allows for much higher levels of individual PFAS in plastic packaging than those found by this new analysis, Environmental Defence Fund researcher Maricel Maffini told the Guardian that the FDA is still basing regulations on “outdated science.”

“The more we look into PFAS, the more we know there is not a safe level, and the [FDA’s limits] don’t correspond with the science and knowledge we have of these chemicals,” said Maffini.

What’s the problem with PFAS in plastic sandwich bags?

According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances) are a large and complex group of synthetic chemicals that have been used in everyday household products since the 1950s.

PFAS do not degrade easily, with some taking over 1,000 years to break down, hence the nickname “forever chemicals.” Like microplastics, they are now ubiquitous.

Over time, PFAS leaks into the water, soil, and even the air. Repeated human exposure can cause blood levels to increase, and potential negative health impacts include liver damage, a compromised immune system, and certain cancers.

Studies have notably found PFAS in the blood of more than 97 percent of Americans, and in just the last week multiple lawsuits over PFAS contamination have reached the news.

Also within the last week, New Scientist published a new analysis on the presence of PFAS in cookware and food-related products, and Japan’s Hokkaido and Hyogo universities announced new studies on the health impacts of PFAS, as reported by Japan Times.

Mamavation, described by founder Leah Segedie as a blog for “empowering women through eco-wellness,” has previously covered some of the other common household sources of PFAS such as water, contact lenses, dental floss, and non-stick cookware.

According to Mamavation’s summary of the new analysis, sandwich bag brands containing PFAS included Boulder, Complete Home, Great Value, If You Care, Lunchskins, Meijer, Target, and Walgreens. However, both Ziploc brand sandwich bags and Debbie Meyer green bags did not show any PFAS markers.

To cut down on PFAS exposure, environmental and health advocates suggest using glass containers instead of plastic, replacing non-stick pans with steel or cast-iron alternatives, and swapping single-use plastic bags for reusable ones wherever possible.

More like this:

• Rainwater Everywhere Is Now Unsafe To Drink, And Here’s Why
• Microplastics Are In Meat, Milk, And Farm Animal Blood, Says New Study
• Vegan Brands To Remove 27 Million Plastic Bags’ Worth Of Waste From Nature Every Year

The post 81% Of USA Sandwich Bags Contain Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ appeared first on Plant Based News.

Since the Paris Climate Agreement (a treaty aiming to limit global heating to 1.5C) was signed in 2015, global banks and financiers have handed over USD $615 billion to 55 companies including JBS, Tyson, and Marfrig. The report shows that this financing has been going up, increasing overall by 15 percent in the years 2019 and 2022 compared to the 2015 to 2018 time period.

Banks are “fuelling the expansion” of polluting meat and dairy companies, said Martin Bowman, senior policy and campaigns manager at Feedback, which produced the report. This is “despite the science being clear that to avert climate crisis, we urgently need a just transition to lower production and consumption of meat and dairy, particularly in higher-income countries,” he said in a statement.

The report, Still Butchering the Planet, is an update to 2020 report which first mapped the flow of money to the world’s biggest meat and dairy producers.

UK and US banks top list

Bank of America and Barclays are the worst offenders among the banks, the report says, each having poured $28 billion into meat and dairy companies between 2015 and 2022.

The report found that Barclays is the largest global creditor to meat giant JBS, providing the company with credit of $6.7 billion since 2015.

US banks have also provided billions to some of the most polluting of the meat and dairy companies. Morgan Stanley is the largest global creditor to Tyson Foods. Cargill’s top five creditors include JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citigroup, which provided Cargill with a combined $11 billion since 2015.

Banks are not the only ones funding the growth of meat and dairy production. Investment companies have pumped even more money into the industry. BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, provided a total of $37.8 billion between 2015 and 2022. Meanwhile, Vanguard and Capital Group each provided more than $20 billion.

Funding at odds with policies 

The report shows that by financing companies such as JBS, banks and investors may be breaching their own environmental policies. Several of the largest meat and dairy financiers have policies on supporting “sustainable agriculture” and reducing emissions. 

For example, HSBC’s Agricultural Commodities Policy states that the bank will “not knowingly provide financial services to high-risk customers involved directly in or sourcing from suppliers involved in deforestation” including those involved in “cattle ranching.”  

But HSBC gave more than $2 billion in total to Marfrig and Minerva, two of the biggest beef companies in South America, between 2015 and 2022. Both companies were linked to thousands of hectares of deforestation between 2019 and 2021. 

“Without matching their words with action, financial institutions are simply greenwashing,” Feedback says in the report.

Funding at odds with climate science

The increase in financing for meat and dairy companies is also at odds with climate science. The meat and dairy industry is responsible for about 16.5 percent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions globally. Most climate scientists agree that meat and dairy production needs to decrease in order to stop humanity from breaching dangerous temperature rises.

Yet, according to the Feedback report, total global meat production increased by 9 percent between 2015 and 2021. Dairy production also increased by 13 percent in that time period.

The report says that credit from banks and investors “is designed to help companies expand.” As such financing from banks like Barclays and investors like BlackRock “has helped drive a huge and unsustainable increase in global meat and dairy production.”

“Industrial livestock companies are incompatible with a safe future for our planet,” said Bowman. “So it’s time for banks and investors to turn off the taps and stop providing the finance that is enabling them to grow.”

More like this:

• New York State Sues Meat Giant JBS Over ‘Greenwashing’ Claims
• UK Banks Provide Billions In Funding For Meat And Dairy Corporations, Study Finds
• These UK Banks Have The ‘Worst Animal Welfare Policies,’ Says Study

The post Meat And Dairy Companies Given Over Half A Trillion In Funding Since Paris Agreement appeared first on Plant Based News.

New York’s attorney-general, Letitia James, filed the lawsuit against Brazilian meat giant JBS in February. James says JBS must be held accountable for “misleading consumers and endangering the planet.” 

In 2021, JBS announced it was committed to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040. But it also plans to increase its meat production, which the attorney-general’s office says will increase its carbon footprint.

The company is already facing opposition from US senators and British MPs for its bid to be listed on the New York stock exchange. If it becomes a public company, JBS would have access to more capital, which the senators and MPs warn will allow it to do even more environmental harm.

Huge emissions and deforestation

As a major beef producer, JBS is responsible for a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions. The Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy (IATP) estimates they reached 421.6 million metric tons in 2021.

According to analysis by IATP, JBS’s emissions rose by 51 percent between 2016 and 2021. This was because of the significant increase in the number of animals in its supply chain. IATP says animals account for 90 to 97 percent of the emissions of meat producers.

JBS has also been repeatedly linked to deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. According to Mighty Earth, JBS is directly and indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest being razed for grazing pastures.

But JBS has made multiple public claims about the sustainability of its products while failing to accurately calculator its emissions. James alleges that the company has used “fake sustainability claims to boost sales.” Her office further said that JBS’s emissions calculations didn’t include those from Amazon deforestation. JBS’s current size and expansion plans also mean its “net zero” commitment “is not feasible.” 

JBS backlash

Skepticism over JBS’s sustainability goals are growing. In 2023, the company was forced to pull several marketing claims after IATP flagged them to the US National Advertising Division. 

In the wake of the New York state’s lawsuit, the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi), which evaluates companies’ net-zero targets, withdrew its approval of JBS’s 2040 target.

More like this:

• After Just Two Years, JBS Is Ditching Its US Plant-Based Division
• How Meat Emissions Can Lead To More Intensive Animal Farming
• Meat Lobby ‘Plans To Sell Itself As Sustainable’ At COP28

The post New York State Sues Meat Giant JBS Over ‘Greenwashing’ Claims appeared first on Plant Based News.

Student representatives voted for the Cambridge SU to “serve fully plant-based food in all of its internal operations, and at all events and meetings.”

The motion was proposed by members of Plant-Based Cambridge (PBCam), a student-led environmental group that is working with the University of Cambridge to transition towards accessible, plant-based catering.

Last year, Cambridge students passed a motion to support a similar move within the University Catering Services (UCS), which manages a handful of cafeterias around the university.

William Smith, a campaigner with PBCam, said in a statament: “After last year’s vote, it’s only logical that the SU should make their own catering fully plant-based too. It’s only a small change but the precedent it sets is important for climate action and environmental justice.”

Students lead the way on climate action

Plant-Based Cambridge runs local campaigns with involvement from students, academics, and catering managers in colleges and departments across the University.

Since last year’s vote, PBCam has been working with the UCS on transitioning its outlets towards being fully plant-based.

One branch of the PBCam campaign is focused on helping the University align its investments with its ethical and environmental principles. This involves fully divesting from animal agriculture, which will help “erode its social licence,” according to students involved with the campaign.

In the past few years, dozens of institutions, including the University of Stirling and London Metropolitan University, have taken steps towards 100 percent plant-based catering. Meanwhile, more than 650 academics signed an open letter calling for universities to transition away from animal agriculture.

Plant-based catering for environmental justice

The motion passed by the Cambridge SU argued that fully plant-based catering will help combat environmental injustice and “dismantle [the SU’s] connections with industries that profit from the death and destruction of communities across the globe.”

One student who spoke in favor of the motion said that a shift to plant-based catering represented “institutional boycott and divestment from the most egregious harms in our food system” and would “send a powerful signal to industrial livestock corporations that they cannot continue to inordinately harm communities through their violence, brutality, and disregard for human and animal life.”

Haley Huang, a campaigner with PBCam, said: “All communities should have access to clean water and air, safe shelter, and freedom from exploitation.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Plant Based University of Cambridge (@plantbased_cam)

Plant-based menus follow climate science

Peer-reviewed research from leading universities has repeatedly shown that switching to a plant-based food system would have dramatic climate benefits. For example, animal agriculture is responsible for around 60 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions from food production.

Farming animals also causes an array of other environmental problems, including water pollution and deforestation.

Dr Chris Macdonald, Fellow at the Institute of Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability, said: “Animal agriculture is inefficient (global land use for livestock is as large as the land area of the Americas), harmful (it is one of the leading sources of greenhouse gas emissions), and unethical (unnecessarily artificially breeding, confining, and slaughtering more than 80 billion land-based animals every year).”

University of Cambridge’s climate commitments

The latest vote in the Cambridge SU is part of a significant shift in the University of Cambridge’s catering.

Earlier this year, CamEATS ZERO, a university-wide working group on sustainable food, made “increasing the proportion of plant-based meals” its number one priority. 

As a first step, the initiative aims to make at least half of all college meals plant-based. Their work so far has included chef training programs in plant-based cuisine from award-winning plant-based restaurant Stem & Glory and the Tipsy Vegan. 

Andrew Balmford, Professor of Conservation Science and a member of the CamEATS ZERO Working Group, said in a statement: “Shifting to largely plant-based diets is critically important for mitigating the catastrophic consequences of climate change and the extinction crisis. Very few other actions can yield such dramatic benefits in a short span of time.”

Since its founding in October 2022, Plant-Based Cambridge has worked closely alongside CamEATS ZERO, Cambridge Zero, the Cambridge SU Ethical Affairs campaign, and the Cambridge SU Black and Minority Ethnic Environmental Justice campaign, as well as the wider Plant-Based Universities movement. In 2023, PBCam’s Coordinator was awarded the Vice-Chancellor’s award for Social Impact in Sustainability. The campaign was also shortlisted by the Cambridge SU in that year’s Campaign Impact Awards.

More like this:

• More Than 650 Academics Urge UK Universities To Go Plant-Based
• ‘So Much More Efficient’: David Attenborough Promotes Plant-Based Diets
• Denmark Unveils ‘Groundbreaking’ Plant-Based Food Roadmap

The post University Of Cambridge Students’ Union To Serve 100% Plant-Based Food appeared first on Plant Based News.

The avian flu crisis and fluctuating egg prices have got some educational institutions and food businesses interested in replacing eggs in their baking, according to Mercy For Animals (MFA).

Through its project ChooseVeg, MFA worked on new plant-based recipes with the executive chef of the school district. The vegan baked goods, including cowboy bread, cinnamon rolls, and fruit bread, made their debut in the district at the start of the current school year in September 2023.

Through the initiative, the school district has removed the 3,450 pounds of milk powder and 3,930 pounds of eggs it used each year from its supply. It is now using applesauce and soy oil instead.

The benefits of plant-based

According to ChooseVeg, the switch from animal to plant-based ingredients in baked goods means the school district will save 22,517kg of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) a year. That’s the same amount of emissions as driving round the earth twice in a gasoline-powered car.

The school district expects to save around USD $13,600 per year with its new recipes. Eggs in particular became significantly more expensive in the past two years, though prices have since come back down a little. By the end of 2022, the price of a dozen eggs had almost tripled compared to the previous year, up to as much as $18 for a dozen. This was due to factors such as increasing costs of labor, feed, and fuel, which had impacts across the agricultural sector. 

Food allergies are another benefit of the switch. “Cow’s milk and eggs are the two most common allergens in children,” Jennifer Behr, Senior Corporate Relations Specialist for MFA, told Plant Based News. “So by removing both, the school district has made their baked goods more allergen-friendly.”

Avian flu

Avian flu has also contributed to the fluctuations in egg prices in recent years. Nearly 82 million chickens, ducks, and turkeys have been killed in the US alone since 2022 in an effort to contain the virus. This has at times caused egg shortages and added to their expense.

The mass killings of birds due to avian flu has been devastating for the animals, particularly as “ventilation shutdown” has become a normal way of “depopulating” entire flocks. Animal advocates have described the suffering of birds killed this way as “extremely profound.”

The upheaval of the egg industry has encouraged workplaces to think about plant-based substitutions. “We’re seeing a growing interest from all types of institutions in removing eggs from baked goods to make them more affordable, inclusive, and sustainable, and to avoid headaches from avian flu-related supply chain disruptions,” Katie Cantrell, CEO of Greener by Default, told PBN.

Plant-based shift

The willingness of the school district to start replacing animal products with plant-based ingredients in its catering is unusual in the US. The meat and dairy industries in particular have an outsize influence on nutritional policies in schools.

In December 2023, the House of Representatives passed a bill to reintroduce whole milk into school canteens again. It was phased out more than a decade ago to help address child obesity in the US.

In 2019, The Guardian revealed how the Trump administration worked with dairy lobbyists to get flavored milk in schools. Republican politicians claimed this would benefit kids’ health, even though flavored milks are packed with added sugar.

Though there are some changes being made in other US public institutions. In February, Los Angeles County unanimously adopted a new policy requiring the county to promote plant-based diets and to buy more plant-based foods and fewer animal-based foods. MFA helped to develop the policy with county officials.

“This is a significant and impactful win for the plant-based movement, as Los Angeles County is the largest U.S. county and spends about $23 million on food purchases each year,” Alex Cerussi, Senior State Policy Manager for MFA, told PBN.

In 2022, public hospitals in New York City announced they would be serving plant-based food to patients by default. NYC’s vegan mayor Eric Adams has also introduced more plant-based food into schools, hospitals, jails, and community events throughout the city.

More like this:

• Uganda’s ‘First Vegan School’ Scoops International Compassion Award
• Court Rules Child Discriminated Against After School Refuses Her Vegan Meals
• LA Student Sues High School Over Right To Promote Plant-Based Milk

The post US School District Ditches Eggs Due To Avian Flu appeared first on Plant Based News.

The watchdog and consumer advocacy organization says that its new report “offers a deep dive” into how the animal agriculture industry uses misinformation and disinformation to shape public opinion and influence policies, frequently “undermining” sustainability efforts. Misinformation refers to inaccurate information that is produced by error, while disinformation refers to that produced with intention to mislead.

“Animal agriculture giants are waging a disinformation war, threatening public health and the planet,” said the study’s lead author Nicholas Carter, the Director of Environmental Science at the Game Changers Institute and co-creator of Plant Based Data, in a release shared with Plant Based News (PBN).

Carter added: “Our report exposes their tactics of denial and delay and underscores the need for urgent action. We call for robust legislation, an end to greenwashing, and strict accountability for these major polluters.”

Environmentalist and Ecotricity founder Dale Vince welcomed the new report, and also compared the animal agriculture industry’s use of “denial, distraction, and deception” around the environment and health to Big Oil and Big Tobacco.

‘Scientists and journals face serious challenges’

Titled Harvesting Denial, Distractions,& Deception: Revealing Animal Agriculture’s Disinformation Strategies and Exploring Solutions, the new report’s key findings include:

A detailed analysis of online campaigns like #YesToMeat; how AI can manipulate social media narratives in the food sector; how corporate-funded science can propagate misleading information; and how all of the above impact policy-making decisions and public understanding of the meat industry.

In just one example of this, the report explains how digital astroturfing (a nickname for fake grassroots efforts typically co-ordinated by corporations or those with a political interest in undermining a movement) derailed public opinion on an Eat Lancet Commission Report. It did this by downplaying the long-known negative impact of animal agriculture on the environment.

This coordinated online backlash from pro-meat parties was also discussed and analyzed in The Lancet itself soon after. Article authors David Garcia, Victor Galaz, and Stefan Daume wrote: “Scientists and journals face serious challenges in a rapidly changing media landscape that is susceptible to the intentional dissemination of misleading content.”

The authors also note that health communication campaigns are particularly susceptible to polarization, online content pollution, and calculated disinformation online. (In fact, in early 2020, another study described how misinformation was worsening disease outbreaks.)

‘The essential shift to sustainable, plant-based diets’

Despite backlash from the animal agriculture industry, the science has backed up a reduction in meat and dairy for years, both for planetary and personal health. The animal agriculture industry is responsible for 16.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. It’s also driving deforestation and harming biodiversity.

“Without decisive and collective action, we stand on precarious ground, especially as we navigate the controversies surrounding alternative proteins,” Robbie Lockie, The Freedom Food Alliance’s CEO and founder, told PBN. “Disinformation campaigns could seize on consumer fears, further muddying the waters. Yet, our report also sees a silver lining—an informed public and stronger regulatory frameworks could significantly dampen the impact of these campaigns, fostering a more transparent dialogue around our food choices and their impact on the world.”

More like this:

• The ‘King’ Of Carnivore Diet Admits He Doesn’t Know The Long-Term Effects
• Beyond Meat Announces Major Recipe Shake-Up With ‘Healthier’ Ingredients
• What Are The Best US States For Vegans?

The post ‘The Hidden Battle In Our Food System’: New Report On Meat Industry Disinformation appeared first on Plant Based News.

Among other stark findings, the report reveals that no single stretch of river in England or Northern Ireland is in good overall health.

Animal agriculture is a leading cause of water pollution in the UK. Farming contributes towards nearly two thirds of river failures, the report notes, impacting 2,337 river stretches.

Earlier this month, the charity River Action took the Environment Agency to court for failing to stop chicken manure polluting the River Wye.

“Desperate” times for UK rivers

As well as no English rivers being in good overall health, the report found that 85 percent of river stretches fall below good “ecological standards.” More rivers got worse than better since the last report in 2019.

Animals suffer from the UK’s poor water quality too. Some struggle to find food or the right habitat because of “cloudiness.” Moreover, excess sediment from soil erosion “can clog the gills of fish.”

Water pollution part of animal agriculture’s destructive legacy

The rise of “mega-farms” has increased the amount of manure polluting the UK’s rivers. Animal agriculture is causing environmental woes around the world.

From deforestation in the Amazon to environmental racism in the US, farming animals has devastating impacts on people and planet.

Animal agriculture is responsible for at least 16.5 percent of GHG emissions. It is also a major drain on water and other resources.

More like this:

• How Meat Emissions Can Lead To More Intensive Animal Farming
• Amazon Rainforest Faces ‘Unprecedented Stresses’ As Tipping Points Near
• World’s First Year-Long Breach of 1.5C Limit: What Does It Mean?

The post New Report Reveals ‘Desperate State’ Of UK Rivers appeared first on Plant Based News.

This year-long breach does not mean that the world has broken the Paris Climate Agreement limit, but it does bring it closer to doing so in the longer term. The 1.5C limit is a legally binding 2015 treaty with 195 signatories to set out a path for dealing with climate change.

Europe’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) reported its findings earlier this month after measuring temperatures between February 2023 and January 2024.

Over this period, the program recorded the highest average 12-month global temperature ever documented, 1.52C above pre-industrial levels. Furthermore, January 2024 was the warmest January on record, which made it the eighth consecutive month in a row to be the warmest on record.

CS3 also reported that the world’s sea surface is at its highest-ever recorded average temperature, surpassing the previous records from August 23 and 24, 2023.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme, British chemist and eminent environmental scientist Sir Robert Watson noted that “this far exceeds anything that is acceptable.”

Referencing the numerous extreme weather events of 2023 and even 2024 so far, he added, “Look what’s happened this year with only 1.5C – we’ve seen floods, we’ve seen droughts, we’ve seen heatwaves and wildfires all over the world.”

‘Another record-breaking month’

According to CS3’s data, January was a significant 1.66C warmer than estimates of the January average for 1850 – 1900, which is the designated pre-industrial reference period used when measuring catastrophic, human-caused global warming.

“2024 starts with another record-breaking month,” notes Samantha Burgess, Deputy Director of C3S, in a press release to announce the program’s findings. “Not only is it the warmest January on record but we have also just experienced a 12-month period of more than 1.5°C above the pre-industrial reference period.”

What is the significance of the 1.5C limit?

Taking into account the damage already done, keeping below 1.5C is widely considered the ideal scenario as it would moderate some of the most severe effects of global warming.

Officially, the Paris Agreement sets out to keep warming “well below” the harder limit of 2C, but recent studies indicate that even a fraction of a degree over 1.5C could lead to a significant snowballing of additional climate disasters and extreme weather events.

With that in mind, while this first 12-month-long breach of the 1.5C warming doesn’t violate the Paris Agreement itself, it does indicate that further heating is likely. And for low-lying and island nations who are already experiencing warming-related hardships, a multi-year rise to 1.5C – which many scientists believe is now inevitable – could represent an existential threat.

As noted by Watson to the BBC, the last year has seen unprecedented extreme weather events in the form of wildfires, storms, floods, droughts, and changing rainfall, all of which have caused catastrophic environmental destruction, crop failure, disease, and deaths.

Is it too late to stop global warming?

According to a UN report published in October last year, the world could pass the point of no return for a 1.5C breach (as an overall rather than a year-long average) as soon as 2029, due in part to the record CO2 emissions documented over the last three or so years.

“Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems,” said Hans-Otto Pörtner, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II and co-author of the UN’s 2023 report.

Once a 1.5C average is surpassed, extreme weather events will continue to increase, which could lead to further rises in temperature. (As with El Niño and La Niña – named climate patterns in the Pacific Ocean which have impacted the weather worldwide.)

C3S’s publication of these latest records notably coincided with the news of Britain’s Labour Party officially rolling back its GBP 28 billion green investment pledge – a core aspect of Labour’s manifesto of the past few years – and comes soon after the currently governing Conservative Party scrapped and softened many of its own environmental commitments.

Both announcements were met with immediate backlash from environmental campaigners and the scientific community, while around 80 percent of the British public in general remains either “very concerned” or “fairly concerned” about climate change. It is of the utmost importance that governments continue to prioritize their environmental policies.

“Rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are the only way to stop global temperatures [from] increasing,” says CS3’s Burgess.

Animal agriculture and the climate crisis

Farming animals for food is a leading cause of the climate crisis. As well as being responsible for at least 16.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, it’s a a key driver of land use, biodiversity loss, species extinction, freshwater use, and pollution.

Experts have long stated that the world needs to see a dramatic change in our food system if we are to have hope of avoiding climate collapse. A University of Oxford study published in 2023 found that plant-based diets lead to 75 percent less heating emissions than their animal counterparts. “Our dietary choices have a big impact on the planet. Cutting down the amount of meat and dairy in your diet can make a big difference to your dietary footprint,” study author Professor Peter Scarborough at Oxford University said of his findings.

Despite this, the vast majority of global leaders are ignoring – or sidelining – the impact of farming. It has barely been on the agenda at COP conferences, and the UK environment secretary actively endorsed meat on a number of occasions last year.

There have been some glimmers of hope in parts of the world, however. In December 2023, Denmark became the first ever country to unveil a roadmap towards a more plant-based food system. The country’s minister for food described plant foods as “the future,” and the government recognized that increased vegan food production was essential to meeting its climate goals.

More like this:

• Shift Funding From Animal Agriculture, Says EU Science Board
• Completed Veganuary? How To Live Vegan All Year
• Swiss Government Encourages Reduced Meat Consumption In Climate Strategy

The post World’s First Year-Long Breach of 1.5C Limit: What Does It Mean? appeared first on Plant Based News.

Faced with such enormity, part of the solution, according to Doug Evans, founder of The Sprouting Company, is to think small. Really small.

“Sprouts are nature’s first food,” Evans tells Plant Based News (PBN). They are “baby vegetables that are multiple times more nutritious than their grown-up counterparts.”

What are sprouts?

Not to be confused with the Brussels variety, sprouts are fast-growing baby vegetables with an appealing nutritional profile.

According to The Sprouting Company, which sells the kit and seeds needed to start growing, sprouts are “superfood versions of already healthy vegetables like broccoli, leafy greens, peas, lentils, and more.”

The biology is simple. Seeds contain densely packed sources of energy, mostly in the form of lipids and complex carbohydrates. When seeds take in water, they use that stored energy to expand and create leaves, roots, and stems. The result is a plant packed with phytochemicals that humans have evolved to derive health benefit from.

Conventional “adult” vegetables are nutritious. Sprouts, says Evans, are even more so.

Eat your greens

“Sprouts are the most efficient delivery system for the heroic amounts of veggies we need to eat to maintain or regain our health,” Evans tells PBN.

Sprouts contain all of the naturally occurring compounds, antioxidants, and micronutrients within plants. But “these can be as high as 20 to 100 times the nutrition of mature or garden-stage vegetables,” he says.

Research studies back up these claims. One extolled sprouts as a “novel food source for healthy diets.” It noted their “low environmental impacts and a broad acceptance among health-conscious consumers.”

Moreover, this nutritional benefit is readily bioavailable and easy to digest.

“They also grow very fast,” says Evans. “You can get a fully edible crop in under a week, versus many weeks or months for mature vegetables.”

As such, sprouts could offer a compelling answer to current agricultural shortcomings on health, environmental, and economic grounds.

Why is a new food system needed?

Few people would dispute that the global food system is in major need of reform.

Around one in 10 people worldwide are malnourished; while people in rich countries eat an abundance of unsustainable foods. Food contributes around one quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Animal agriculture is the main culprit. Farming animals is responsible for at least 16.5 percent of global GHG emissions, as well as deforestation, soil degradation, and biodiversity loss, among other environmental ills. Meat and dairy also cause grave human health consequences.

A plant-based food system could provide enough food for a growing global population. It would save money for healthcare systems and help right other systemic injustices such as environmental racism.

Sprouting efficiency

Swapping animal agriculture for plant-based food would make food productions vastly more efficient. Could incorporating sprouts into the picture help improve efficiency even further?

Compared to conventional vegetables, Evans says that sprouts are “more efficient from every aspect.” He lists water, space, energy, and overall GHG emissions as four key benefits.

“Countertop farming is portable and uses a fraction of the water that conventional farming does. It doesn’t rely on the seasons and is impermeable to outdoor uncertainties such as droughts and flooding,” he adds.

In a rapidly changing world, food security is near the top of policymakers’ priorities.

Ancient roots

Sprouting was popularized as part of the hippie food movement of the seventies, notes Evans. “But sprouted seeds have been documented as items of sustenance and traditional medicine as far back as 3000 B.C.,” he stresses.

“Sprouts are an ancient food, but they have just what our bodies are craving today.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The Sprouting Company (@thesproutingcompany)

Sprouts represent a return to ancient knowledge. “Nature knows best,” says Evans. “I sincerely believe the future of food goes back to the basics of fresh fruits, vegetables, and sprouts.”

Such a claim seems striking amidst the technological battlegrounds for the future of food.

Innovations such as 3D-printed eel and precision-fermented dairy are exciting consumers and investors that a more sustainable and ethical alternative to meat is possible through technology.

Evans has other ideas. “Simple methods of farming and cultivation are effective,” he says. “The more ‘advanced’ technological farming methods, genetic modifications, and pesticide use are proving to be precarious.”

Sprouting in a food desert

Evans’ own journey into sprouting came from his experience of moving to a “food desert.”

“After decades of living and working in New York, LA, and San Francisco, I moved to the Mojave Desert near Joshua Tree,” he tells PBN. “All the comforts and conveniences of urban life were gone. No vegan restaurants, no fresh vegetables. I gave my predicament some thought, and the solution was obvious: sprouts.”

He ordered some seeds and started to sprout. “Within 30 days about half of my calories were coming from sprouts that I was growing in one cubic foot of my countertop,” he says.

As soaring inflation has pushed food prices ever higher in the past year, many have sought cheaper ways to feed themselves and their family. Eating more vegetables and whole foods plant-based meals can drastically reduce costs.

However, for some people, these products are not easily available. “I see sprouting as key to making veganism more accessible,” says Evans.

“Growing your own food is a fantasy for most because it typically takes a lot of time, expertise, land and money. Sprouts grow into edible food in days without soil, sunshine, fertilizer or expertise. In fact, you can grow sprouts indoor, year round for pennies a serving.”

Will sprouting become mainstream?

Evans says he has spoken to a wide array of people, from plant-based doctors to paleo advocates, on the topic. “What they all could agree on is the value of supplementing our diets with sprouts.”

Yet, this “perfect solution” remains, for now, a niche.

“Although sprouting has been around since the beginning of time, it hasn’t yet become mainstream,” Evans admits.

The Sprouting Company is trying to change that. “Sprouts can transform your relationship with the food you eat. I consider sprouts the pinnacle of plant-based cuisine in both nutrition and versatility.”

Evans’ ambitions are huge. “Our intention is to put sprouting on the map globally,” he tells PBN. “Sprouts have the potential to feed the world, enabling us to eat locally in any season, and increasing the reach of fresh food in food deserts and actual deserts for millions of people.

“My mission is to see sprouts move to the center of the plate and a daily part of our diet.”

More like this:

• 8 Protein-Rich Vegetables To Add To Your Meals
• Amazon Rainforest Faces ‘Unprecedented Stresses’ As Tipping Points Near
• Scientists Tell US Agriculture Secretary: Address Our Meat-Heavy Diets Now

The post What Is Sprouting? How To Grow Healthy Food ‘For Pennies’ appeared first on Plant Based News.