Read more: France Just Suspended Its Ban On Words Like ‘Steak’ For Plant Foods

A ban on the use of “meat” words for plant-based alternatives meant that non-compliant products were set to be seized by South Africa’s Food Safety Agency (FSA) in 2022. Following an intervention by the Consumer Goods Council of South Africa (CGCSA), the High Court granted a last-minute order to stop the seizure while the a review of the ban took place.

Now the review has concluded, with the Court has ruled in favor of plant-based proteins. Advocates for plant-based diets are celebrating the ruling. 

“ProVeg welcomes this decision by the Johannesburg High Court,” ProVeg South Africa director, Donovan Will, said in a statement. “We appreciate the efforts by the CGCSA and we hope that this latest development encourages [agriculture department] to meet with stakeholders in the plant-based space to discuss the issue further.”

Plant-based burgers here to stay

South Africa’s Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) argued that its ban on words like “burger” and “sausage” for plant-based products was to save shoppers from confusion.

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

DALRRD ordered the FSA to confiscate any products on sale that used these terms on the packaging. ProVeg urged the government to rethink the ban, and plant-based meat company Fry Family Food (known widely as Fry’s) lodged an a formal objection. 

The CGCSA successfully argued that under South African law it was not clear how the seizures could be legally or otherwise enforced. It described the High Court ruling as a “collective victory for the meat analogue sector, which is a growing source for alternative plant based food products, as well as a source of employment throughout the value chain.”

Plant-based burgers, nuggets, sausages, and other products can now remain on sale in South Africa. 

Failed attacks on plant-based alternatives

South Africa is one of several countries that has tried – and failed – to hobble the growth of plant-based alternatives. 

France has just suspended its ban on using the word “steak” on plant-based food labels. Earlier this year, the Belgian government announced that plans to ban “meat” words on vegan products is now unlikely to happen.

Read more: Plant-Based Meat Is ‘Reshaping Retail’ In Australia

ProVeg’s Will acknowledged the challenges of regulating a relatively new industry such as plant-based protein. But he said that there are “undeniable benefits” environmental and health benefits to the helping the industry grow. “ProVeg would love to work with the South African government to better take advantage of plant-based products for the people of our nation,” he said.

The post South Africa Rules That Vegan Meat Cannot Be Seized From Supermarket Shelves 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.

I have been fighting for farmed chickens for over four years. I have seen hours of horrific footage over these years. Footage of chickens struggling to breathe, let alone walk, I have seen chickens with open wounds and burns where you can almost feel the sting.

I have seen hundreds of chickens picked up and thrown into crates on their way to slaughter. I have seen trucks drive through chicken sheds, where saying the drivers had little regard for the live chickens still in the shed would be too generous; chickens left crushed, with tyre marks and organs spilling out of their bodies.

I have seen the scale of the issue, yet noticed that each chicken was an individual scared and in pain. Armed with video evidence, I have complained on behalf of my clients to the relevant authorities time and time again and have not seen one prosecution for any of these actions.

Chicken farming and ‘frankenchickens’

Chickens are by far the most farmed land animal in the world. In the UK, more than one billion of them are killed for food each year. While the country claims to have “world-leading” animal welfare standards, the suffering experienced by chickens is unimaginable, and hidden behind closed doors. Modern broiler chickens (those used for food) have been selectively bred to grow as quickly as possible. If a human baby grew as fast as they did, the baby would be the size of an adult tiger at eight weeks. These “frankenchickens,” as they’re known, are ready to be slaughtered at just six weeks. The vast majority of these animals are kept in barns with thousands of other birds, with each being afforded an area of space smaller than an A4 sheet of paper. 

I have fought in the court for chickens to have the most basic of protections, not to have their genes manipulated and turned against their wellbeing, just so a meat yield is bigger in a shorter amount of time, all so the profits stack. I have read study after study detailing the lameness and broken legs of these chicks forced to hold adult sized bodies on their fragile 5 week old legs. I have understood how this has prevented them from reaching food and water, causing starvation and emaciation. I have learnt of their organ failure, as they try to keep up with the rate of their growth. I have seen the court be informed that there is not one study that shows they can be kept without welfare issues and seen that same court find that the government is under no obligation to curb any of this.

The rule, not the exception

What if I told you that the above suffering is not the exception, it is the rule? The above is the life chickens will face in their short lives on chicken farms in the UK. Why? Because they are the most mass produced meat animal in the UK and highly profitable. As a result, they are euphemized in subtle ways to ensure they are seen as things, not sentient creatures. In the industry they are “grown” not farmed, they are “harvested”, not slaughtered. They are seen and treated like plants.

It has been a long and difficult four years. The frustration of realizing that asking for the bare minimum to prevent a life of suffering and agony is still too much of an ask when it challenges the bottom line. I have been exhausted at the sheer scale of the task. I would be lying if I said I have always felt strong in this fight, that I haven’t wanted to focus my energies elsewhere; I have questioned whether I am crazy for caring about chickens when most people don’t, at one point I may have even momentarily believed it. What has felt exhausting and unwinnable at times has only been short lived. I know each chicken matters and I truly believe that in their heart of hearts, so does everyone. How could they not, most people like animals and don’t want them to suffer.

A hidden industry

We all know how chickens should live, we have all seen a happy chicken, whether that be on TV or in person. We have seen chickens roaming, we have seen chickens perching and pecking, I even had the privilege of holding a chicken who fell asleep in my arms. We don’t have a compassion issue, we have a visibility issue, at times this is as a result of wilful blindness, but most of the time it is through a distortion of the reality of how animals are mass produced and farmed. We are shown misleading advertisements depicting happy chickens on farms on TV and food labels. People are simply not shown the truth for the overwhelming majority of chickens.

In spite of the frustration and difficulties, I am optimistic. The truth can only ever be hidden for so long, people become aware and demand change. The laws are enforced and interpreted more favorably and the laws themselves change and improve. This will happen for chickens, it’s a question of when. I only hope that part of that change is in the Court of Appeal later in the year when we continue to fight on behalf of The Humane League over the use of fast growing chickens.

Edie Bowles is the founder of law firm Advocates for Animals.

More like this:

• How Many Animals Are Killed For Food Everyday?
• UK Labour Party Plans A Full Ban On Fox Hunting
• The ‘Shocking’ Rise In US-Style Mega-Farms In The UK

The post I’m Taking The Government To Court Over Farmed Chickens – Here’s Why appeared first on Plant Based News.

The Democratic Party of Korea has pledged to change the legal definition of animals from “property” to “living creatures.” In most legal systems around the world, animals are still seen as “things.”

The party has vowed a ban on operating a “factory-like” breeding facility in the country. It has also pledged to expand research into alternatives to animal testing.

South Korea could give animals new legal status

Hong Ihk-pyo, the Democratic Party’s floor leader, reportedly set out his party’s position at a recent media conference.

He said his party “believes a society where animal rights are protected well is also good for human rights.”

Last October, South Korea’s Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs unveiled a plan to boost the country’s plant-based food sector. This included additional investment into plant-based meat research.

Now, the main opposition party has gone further than its political opponents by calling for a new legal status for animals.

Legal status of animals around the world

Currently, animals are legally “property” under the law in most countries. This means that they have no rights of their own. Some limited “protections” do exist in many countries but these fall short of full rights.

In a ruling to ban live animal exports in Brazil in 2023, federal judge Djalma Gomes said that “animals are not things,” adding: “They are sentient living beings, that is, individuals who feel hunger, thirst, pain, cold, anguish, fear.”

Moreover, countries including Spain and the UK have recognized animals as “sentient beings.” For example, the UK’s Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 encourages policymakers to consider the safety, experiences, and wellbeing of animals.

In the absence of rights, however, these bills have little practical value in providing meaningful protection for all living creatures.

More like this:

• Court Rules Child Discriminated Against After School Refuses Her Vegan Meals
• Bullfighting Has Returned To Mexico City – But It Could Still Be Banned
• UK Labour Party Plans A Full Ban On Fox Hunting

The post South Korea Party Pledges New Legal Status For Animals appeared first on Plant Based News.

Maw’s case has opened up the conversation on snares, which are widely used in the UK. Much of the land on which snares are found is owned by the extremely wealthy, including the Royal Family. But how many snares are there in the UK? And are they really legal?

Animal activist acquitted

Maw had been on trial for alleged damage to traps and snare theft. These charges relate to several instances where he openly freed animals trapped on the Duke’s Norfolk estate in 2023. Last month, Maw was acquitted of all charges.

Maw’s case gained attention after he posted on social media videos of him releasing a hare and a young deer.

Maw wrote on X (formerly Twitter): “A hare in a snare who was freed. Listen to the screams. Could you ignore this?”

After a judge dismissed all charges against Maw at a pre-trial hearing at Lewes Crown Court, Maw expressed disappointment that he would not get a full jury trial. Such publicity would have put the estate’s trapping operations into the public eye, he tells Plant Based News (PBN).

Are snares legal in the UK?

A snare is a thin wire noose set to trap certain animals, designed to tighten around an animal’s neck, like a lasso, and hold them for a gamekeeper to kill. Private estates set them to kill species that will interfere with their shooting activities.

Snares are never pain free for the animal caught. Many animals are strangled while struggling to escape, while others endure a slow, painful death. When a snare does not kill its victim, many still die from predator attacks, dehydration, or exposure to the elements.

Maw’s case has brought to light some misconceptions around snares and their usage.

“When talking to the public about snares, most think they are already illegal,” Maw tells PBN. “Because they are set mainly on private estates, it’s rare that the public would come into contact with them.”

In fact, snares are legal in three UK nations, though with some regulations. Last year, Wales became the first part of the UK to make snares illegal. When passing the law, Rural Affairs Minister Lesley Griffiths said: “Many animals will now be spared the most terrible suffering as a result of this ban.” In Scotland, a bill is making its way through parliament that would follow Wales’ example.

Yet, the archaic device remains legal in England, Northern Ireland, and, for now, Scotland. The UK is one of only five European countries where snares are legal.

Snares can catch anyone

Snares are not only cruel to the intended victims. Maw’s case also highlighted the extent to which snares are capturing the “wrong” animals. Officially, snares are used in the UK to capture foxes or rabbits. This means that, under UK law, snares must only be set at sites likely to be used by a fox or rabbit. That is to say, snares must not be set where there is evidence of regular use by non-target species.

The true picture is different. “In reality they are indiscriminate and are placed in areas frequented by non-target species,” says Maw. He lists examples such as badgers, pine martens, deer and hares, all of which he has seen trapped in snares on private land.

When confronted with suffering, most people instinctively want to help animals avoid such pain. Surveys have shown that the public largely supports a ban on snares. Polling ahead of the Welsh ban found that four in five wanted the devices outlawed. However, the interests of private landowners still prevail in England, with the law penalizing anyone who interferes with legally set snares.

Killing foxes (to kill partridges)

For many, the fact that these traps can legally be set is deeply concerning. The reason for the abundance of snares and traps is shooting. Snares are set by gamekeepers on “game” bird shooting estates, many of which have royal connections, to reduce the number of birds caught by foxes.

“Wherever there are shoots you will likely find snares,” says Maw. “Sandringham for example is well known for using snares.” For years, campaigners have pressured the Royal Family to reconsider the use of snare traps on the Sandringham Estate.

Sandringham Estate is an example of private land where little to no scrutiny of set traps and snares is possible. Although the avoidance of suffering of innocent animals could be seen as being in the public interest, it is very difficult to monitor this.

Some evidence of the Royal Family’s extensive exemptions from environmental laws recently came to light. However, it remains unclear exactly how many snares are set on royal land.

Maw’s acquittal is not the end of the story

Maw is not the only person facing criminal charges for trying to save an animal’s life. Last year, Wayne Hsiung, an animal activist in the US, was sentenced to three months in prison for rescuing sick and dying animals from factory farms.

Despite his acquittal, Maw’s ordeal is not over. He is also fundraising to take legal action against Sussex Police. The force, he says, “seized several thousand pounds worth of my belongings” and “have been disproportionate in their actions and obstructive in returning [them].”

The legal battle against the rich and powerful does not intimidate Maw, though. “I will continue to go to the aid of any animal in distress,” he says. “I believe the judge rightly surmised that no jury would convict me after viewing that footage.”

More like this:

• Sharks Are Being Killed For Food And ‘Sold In UK Chip Shops’
• ‘They’re Prisoners’: Why The UK Government May Face Legal Action Over ‘Pet’ Snakes
• Person Shouting ‘Help’ Was Actually A Dairy Goat Crying Out For Her Babies

The post What Are Snares? The Wild Animals Being Killed By The Elite appeared first on Plant Based News.

Currently, hunting with dogs is illegal in the UK. However, the practice continues under the cover of “trail hunting,” where hounds follow a pre-laid scent.

Reports have shown how, despite the ban, illegal fox hunting continues to have devastating impacts across the UK.

Last year, Scotland introduced new legislation to crack down on illegal fox hunting. 

Labour plans to tighten Hunting Act

Hunting with dogs has been illegal since 2004, when Labour passed the Hunting Act. Since then, attempts by the Conservative Party to lift the ban have come to nothing.

Even so, it remains legal to lay trails using artificial scents, which is widely acknowledged to be a “smokescreen” for actual hunting.

Foxes are “still getting killed as a result of those loopholes and we will close those loopholes,” Steve Reed, the shadow environment secretary, told The Times.

“It’s time fox hunting was consigned to the history books,” Labour MP Luke Pollard added in a post on X.

UK public opposes fox hunting

The vast majority of the UK public opposes fox hunting.

In recent years, footage from Hunt Saboteur groups has gained widespread media attention and opened more people’s eyes to the cruelty of this “tradition.”

The UK’s most senior police officer on foxhunting had previously called the current situation unworkable, adding that “the law needs revisiting.”

A change in countryside policy?

A General Election must be held in the UK before January 2025. With Labour comfortably ahead in the polls and expected to form the next government, this could mean protection for foxes and other wildlife within the next five years.

Campaign group Protect The Wild welcomed Labour’s commitment to end fox hunting. However, in a post, the group cautioned against attempts at reform.

“It’s all very well saying they’ll ‘toughen the Hunting Act’ but the Hunting Act is inherently flawed and is enabling hunts to continue killing wildlife undeterred.

“The solution is a new proper ban on all hunting with hounds.”

More like this:

• Hunting Given More Thought Than Domestic Abuse During Covid, Inquiry Finds
• Scotland Cracks Down On Fox Hunting With New Bill
• Bullfighting Has Returned To Mexico City – But Could Still Be Banned

The post UK Labour Party Plans A Full Ban On Fox Hunting appeared first on Plant Based News.

Does Mexico allow bullfighting?

On Sunday, January 28, Mexico City held its first bullfight since May 2022.

For almost two years, the practice – which is widely regarded as extremely cruel – had been on hold after a judge ordered an indefinite suspension in response to a lawsuit filed by animal rights activists. Last month, the country’s Supreme Court revoked the decision and allowed bullfighting to return.

Days later, a judge ordered a new suspension until February 7. A hearing was due to take place to address animal welfare concerns. This was quickly undone, however, and further corridas have taken place since.

Despite the return of bullfighting to the Mexican capital, legal battles continue. Animal rights activists have filed new suits. Meanwhile, Mexico’s President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said in December 2023 that he would hold a referendum to settle the future of bullfighting. Without providing specific details, he suggested this could take place “even if the legal process is ongoing.”

Five of Mexico’s 31 states have already imposed bans. The most recent addition to the list was Sinaloa in 2022 following unanimous agreement in congress.

Mexican bullfighting is a colonial import

Mexico has more bullrings than any other country, besides Spain. It was Spanish colonizers who first imported bullfighting more than 500 years ago. The first bullfight in Mexico took place in August 1529, eight years after the Spanish, led by Hernán Cortés, conquered and colonized the Aztec Empire and other indigenous states.

Debates around bullfighting in Mexico are therefore complicated by colonial questions. While some see the practice as part of their cultural heritage, others associate bullfighting with the brutal colonization by the Spanish. Many simply despise the needless cruelty and the violence it encourages.

In any case, a survey from 2013 showed that three quarters of Mexicans are in favor of a ban on bullfighting in the country.

Where else is bullfighting legal?

Mexico is one of only eight countries where bullfighting still takes place. The others are Spain, Portugal, France, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, and Ecuador. In Portugal, it is illegal to kill bulls in the arena but they are still tortured and slaughtered shortly after.

In Colombia, a bill to ban bullfighting is progressing slowly through the House of Representatives. The House passed one bill last year by 50 votes to 4, but needs to pass two more debates to succeed. Progress has stalled. Ahead of the first vote, polls showed some 85 percent of Colombians wanted a ban on bullfights.

Bullfighting is illegal in countries including Argentina, Cuba, and Italy. Some Spanish cities have also banned bullfighting. The first “anti-bullfighting city” was Tossa de Mar in the Autonomous Community of Catalonia. The city passed a declaration in 1989 to outlaw the practice.

Is bullfighting an art?

Bullfighting is not a sport or a fight because only one participant willingly takes part. The numbers speak for themselves. Approximately 250,000 bulls are killed in bullfights every year. In contrast, around 500 matadors have been killed in three centuries.

Before the matador appears, the bull is subjected to stressful transport and forced into the arena. The bull is then further provoked with large colorful capes before picadors (men on horseback) pierce the bull’s neck with a barbed lance. Only at this point does the brave matador enter to start the “fight.”

Fans of bullfighting sometimes liken the practice to an art. However, it is more appropriate to call it a slaughter.

Ernest Hemingway famously said that “Bullfighting is the only art in which the artist is in danger of death.” As well as wrong – some artists do risk death while performing – this statement misses the point. Bullfighting is not a creative pursuit but a destructive one, a ritual slaughter of which torture and death are the only real product.

More like this:

• Heura Transforms Spanish Bullfighting Ring Into Launchpad For Vegan Meat
• Activists From 43 Countries Joined Together To Memorialize Factory Farming Victims
• Australian Horse Racing Organization Faces Criminal Charges Over Animal Cruelty Allegations

The post Bullfighting Has Returned To Mexico City – But It Could Still Be Banned appeared first on Plant Based News.

A lower court in Hjorring ruled that vegans are protected by the European Court on Human Rights (ECHR).

In the ruling, the court stated that vegans have the right to not be “treated worse than people without vegan convictions who are in a similar or comparable situation.”

Veganism protected by law

The Vegetarian Society of Denmark brought the case on behalf of a young child whose kindergarten had denied her the right to plant-based food.

As well as refusing to provide vegan meals, the kindergarten would not let the girl bring a packed lunch. As such, it discriminated against the family by denying them the chance to practise their way of living.

The ruling drew on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It starts: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

This right corresponds to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

More cases to come

The court awarded the family a symbolic compensation of around €1,500 ($1,616 USD), plus legal expenses and fees.

However, the impact of the ruling could be much larger. Significantly, it establishes a precedent that vegans cannot suffer discrimination under European human rights law.

“It should be noted that Danish courts have to follow the European Court of Human Rights, as do other European countries,” commented Rune-Christoffer Dragsdahl, Secretary-General of the Vegetarian Society of Denmark.

“So, we hope that this win in Denmark, based on a Danish court’s interpretation of the ECHR, might be helpful or encouraging for vegans in other countries.”

In April, another Danish court will hear a separate case brought by the Vegetarian Society of Denmark. This case involves a woman who was denied a plant-based meal at hospital during her pregnancy.

More like this:

• California Student Who Criticized Dairy Milk Wins Landmark Case
• Denmark Unveils ‘Groundbreaking’ Plant-Based Food Roadmap
• Oatly Wins Legal Battle To Use ‘Post Milk Generation’ Slogan

The post Court Rules Child Discriminated Against After School Refuses Her Vegan Meals appeared first on Plant Based News.

The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change made the comment in a new report titled “Towards EU climate neutrality.”

Specifically, the board recommends “better aligning the EU’s common agricultural policy with the EU climate ambitions.”

The common agricultural policy (CAP) has been a key part of the European Union (EU) since 1962. The CAP currently takes up about a third of the EU’s budget. The majority goes to subsidies for animal farmers.

Lucia Hortelano, EU Senior Policy Manager, ProVeg International told Plant Based News (PBN): “We agree with this report that subsidies for intensive animal agriculture should be shifted towards the production of more climate-friendly, plant-based foods. This proactive shift will pave the way for a legacy that future generations will deeply appreciate.”

Animal agriculture holds back EU progress

The report from the European Scientific Advisory Board does not introduce any new targets. Instead, it fills in some gaps from previous documents.

One major gap is meat and dairy. Animal agriculture is responsible for around 16.5 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Despite this, policymakers have ignored food system change as a solution for years. At COP28, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) mentioned “benefits” of cutting meat consumption in rich countries but fell short of calling for a transition towards a plant-based food system.

Calls for a plant-based food system have been getting louder. In a recent letter, 250 scientists and experts urged the US Secretary of Agriculture to “address both production and consumption of animal-based foods.” A growing number of councils and governments around the world have endorsed the Plant-Based Treaty.

Now, the EU’s leading climate scientists have acknowledged that animal agriculture is holding back progress on climate change.

Hortelano added: “By prioritizing funding for a climate-friendly initiative, we can contribute to a healthier planet, cleaner waterways, and improved well-being for countless animals. The EU is in a position to set a powerful example to the rest of the world by channelling its finances into research and development, production and export of plant-based foods.”

Subsidies for plant-based transition needed

The report mentions the lack of financial incentives for farmers to transition towards plant-based food as a key issue to address.

The authors note a need to “strengthen measures to encourage healthier, more plant-based diets,” as well as “develop a strategy for a just transition to a food system consistent with climate neutrality.”

This means updating the CAP to support farmers away from emission-intensive animal agricultural. Elsewhere in the report, the scientists are more blunt. The EU needs “concrete policies for delivering a sustainable food system, reducing food waste and encouraging healthy, plant-based diets,” they write.

Despite the report’s strong conclusions, some campaigners and politicians remain unconvinced that it will lead to anything in practice. Anna Spurek, COO of Green REV Institute, told PBN that the European Commission is “spending public money on meat and dairy advertising campaigns, and shelving the draft regulation on a sustainable food system.”

Spurek added: “Work has now started on the Common Agricultural Policy after 2027. But we are under no illusion. Unfortunately, the climate crisis and the planet will not wait – it is time to veganize the CAP.”

More like this:

• Petition Calling For Food System Upheaval Threatens Future Of EU Meat
• Denmark Unveils ‘Groundbreaking’ Plant-Based Food Roadmap

The post Shift Funding From Animal Agriculture, Says EU Science Board appeared first on Plant Based News.

Farmers groups had called for a ban on vegan products using names of animal products on their labels. However, agreement could not be reached that traditionally “meaty” terms might mislead consumers.

Fien Louwagie, Communications Manager at food awareness group ProVeg Belgium, told Plant Based News: “Whilst the process for developing the guideline has not officially changed, we believe it is unlikely to get any further before the next election.”

Vegan steaks do not confuse consumers

The government established a working group in 2020 to determine whether labels like “vegan steak” could mislead consumers.

The process brought together an array of meat-industry bodies. These included the General Farmers’ Syndicate, the Federation of Meat Producers, Farmers’ Union, and the Union of Butchers. Food awareness organization ProVeg also had a seat at the table.

While industry representatives argued for a ban, there has not been consensus that “meaty” labels risk serious confusion.

Economy Minister Pierre-Yves Dermagne conceded that “there is still great dissonance among the various stakeholders,” according to Nieuwsblad.

Elections are due to be held in Belgium in June this year. It is unclear what will happen with the working group under a new administration.

Louwagie added: “We hope that, post-election, the new Government acknowledges that consumers are simply not confused by plant-based foods carrying ‘meaty’ names and abandons the development of the guidelines altogether.”

A recent survey found that more than half of European meat-eaters are reducing their meat consumption. Last October, Denmark became the first country to plot a pathway to a plant-based food system.

Belgium joins Switzerland in bucking European trend

Despite lower demand for meat, some of the continent’s governments are pushing back against the rise of plant-based alternatives. Belgium is not the only country where “meaty” labels are sparking debate.

In September 2023, the French government submitted a draft decree to ban 21 names, including “steak” and “ham,” from vegan products made and sold in France. Similarly, the Polish Ministry of Agriculture published a draft decree in December that could ban “meaty” words from plant-based labels.

In contrast, a Swiss court ruled in January 2023 that “meaty” labels were not deceptive to consumers.

Debates are ongoing in the European Union over plans to update the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Pro-vegan groups argue that CAP’s ties to the meat, fish, and dairy industries should be weakened.

More like this:

• More Than Half Of Europeans Are Cutting Down Meat, Study Finds
• Denmark Unveils ‘Groundbreaking’ Plant-Based Food Roadmap
• Belgium To Ban Trophy Hunting Imports Of Endangered Species

The post Plans To Ban ‘Meaty’ Vegan Labels On Hold In Belgium appeared first on Plant Based News.

The plant-based blogger and recipe writer discussed the environmental and health benefits of reducing meat consumption in an interview.

Her words come as a report showed that the NHS could save around £6.7 billion a year if everyone in England switched to a plant-based diet.

Last year, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that he was scrapping plans to tax meat. That is despite the fact that such plans have never been official policy in the UK.

Deliciously Ella praises meat tax

Speaking to Cathy Newman on Times Radio, Mills was asked if politicians should consider imposing a meat tax. “I think all these questions should be on the table, I really do,” she replied.

“Ultimately, if we want to be a country that’s leading the way from an environmental perspective, then we do need to eat less meat.”

Mills also spoke about the potential health benefits of a meat tax. “The NHS can’t afford to keep going the way it’s going. So what do you do? And I think you have to start looking at that sort of thing.”

Her words echoed Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Head of World Health Organization (WHO), who recently said that a shift towards more plant-based diets is “essential” for the health of people and planet.

Meat tax to fund plant-based price cut

Mills suggested that money raised through a meat tax could be used to lower the prices of healthy, plant-based food.

“Can you then take some of that funding and channel it into making fruit and vegetables cheaper and more accessible to people?” she said.

In 2023, a report from the Climate Change Committee (CCC) called on the government to make plant-based foods cheaper, more appealing, and more accessible. Doing so could be help people eat less meat and dairy, the report said.

Deliciously Ella’s plant-based journey

Mills turned to a wholefood plant-based diet after she experienced serious health problems more than a decade ago.

“In May 2012 I changed my diet overnight, swapping my standard western diet – lots of quick convenience foods, not much fruit and veg – for a wholefood, plant-based diet,” she explains on her website.

Since then, her brand has launched a wide range of plant-based products into supermarkets. In 2021, Mills opened her first restaurant, “Plants,” near Bond Street in London.

More like this:

• Rishi Sunak Claims To Have ‘Scrapped’ Meat Tax
• 16 Essential Foods For The Healthy Vegan Kitchen
• How A Plant-Based Diet Transformed Ella Mills’ ‘Health Nightmare’

The post Meat Tax Should Be ‘On The Table’, Says Deliciously Ella appeared first on Plant Based News.

Oat milk brand Oatly is known for its extravagant messaging and eye-catching packages. The Swedish company registered the slogan “Post Milk Generation” in 2019.

However, Dairy UK, the trade association of the British dairy industry, soon challenged the trademark. It argued that the term could not be used “in relation to products that are not mammary secretions.”

Now, after a four-year legal battle, the High Court has given Oatly the go-ahead to use “Post Milk Generation.”

The ruling follows similar battles over the use of “meaty” labels on plant-based food and drink products across Europe.

Oatly wins in the High Court

Dairy UK had relied on European Court regulations from 2013 in the legal battle.

It had argued against Oatly’s trademark using a regulation that restricts the use of the word “milk” on food packaging. This regulation also grants protected status to dairy products.

However, lawyers for Oatly successfully argued that “Post Milk Generation” does not breach the regulation because it describes the likely consumer rather than the product.

Justice Richard Smith rejected Dairy UK’s claims that Oatly’s use of the term could cause confusion. Instead, he ruled that Oatly’s slogan makes it clear that the products are “for consumers who no longer consume dairy milk.”

Losing battle for dying dairy industry

Dairy UK describes itself as “the voice of the UK dairy industry.” Its board includes bosses from milk and cheese giants such as Arla and Dale Farm.

The tide seems to be turning on the dairy industry. In the UK, a third of people now consume plant-based milks, with more consumers now shunning dairy for ethical, environmental, and health reasons.

Investigations have revealed “harrowing” abuses at Red Tractor-approved farms. Dairy consumption has also been linked to an array of health problems. Add to that dairy’s significant greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and consumers are choosing kinder, healthier, and more environmentally friendly alternatives.

To fight back, Dairy UK is desperate to drive down demand for plant-based milk alternatives.

Legal challenges across Europe

Elsewhere in Europe, the meat and dairy industry has had more success in blocking plant-based labels.

In Poland, the government recently drafted a decree that would ban “meaty” words from labels of plant-based meat products. The move followed similar attempts to censor vegan products in EU countries including France and Italy.

More like this:

• New Investigation Warns Of Factory Farming’s ‘Silent Takeover’ In UK Dairy
• Oatly Offers To Pay For Dairy Ads – If The Industry Reveals Its Climate Footprint
• Poland Plans To Censor Labels Of Plant-Based Meat Products

The post Oatly Wins Legal Battle To Use ‘Post Milk Generation’ Slogan appeared first on Plant Based News.

The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act passed in the House by 330 votes to 99. It will now be debated in the Senate. The bill would allow the National School Lunch Program to serve whole milk for the first time since 2012.

Whole milk – the fattiest and most calorific form of dairy milk – is associated with several health problems. Dairy products are the number one source of saturated fat in the American diet. They have been linked to increased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, as well as breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers.

As lawmakers try to reinstate these dairy drinks to school lunches, plant-based milks keep growing in popularity across the US.

Dairy is bad for children’s health

Whole milk was phased out from US school cafeterias in 2010. The move was intended to help the country reduce levels of childhood obesity.

Dairy consumption has been associated with an increased risk of a number of chronic health conditions in children. These include acne, eczema, asthma, and type I diabetes.

Consuming soy milk in place of cow’s milk as a child has also been shown to reduce women’s risk of breast cancer by 32 percent.

Meanwhile, research has shown that the supposed health benefits of dairy are overplayed. For example, large cohort studies have revealed no evidence that high dairy consumption reduces bone fracture rates. Fortified plant milks can provide a child’s full vitamin D and calcium needs for healthy development.

The prominence of dairy milk in schools seems at odds with the fact that 70 percent of the world’s population is lactose intolerant. Children who are lactose intolerant but continue to consume dairy regularly experience symptoms including abdominal pain, diarrhea, and fatigue.

Big Dairy has outsized influence in schools

The dairy lobby has long used its influence to secure favorable treatment in schools. 

Despite its associated health risks, 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.

Earlier this year, a California student won a landmark legal case after she was told not to share information about the negative impacts of dairy milk.

With more students choosing plant-based milks, new dairy industry-funded adverts have desperately tried to promote dairy milk and disparage plant-based alternatives.

Representatives risk children’s health for Big Dairy

In the debate over the new act, many representatives voiced their support for giving children full-fat dairy milk.

North Carolina representative Virginia Foxx stated that dairy milk “provide[s] the fuel Santa needs to travel the whole globe in one night.”

Tradition dictates that children leave out milk and cookies for Santa on Christmas Eve. But it is not specified that this must be dairy. Indeed, fuelled by fortified soy milk and vegan cookies, Santa might have better health outcomes and improve his efficiency yet further.

Meanwhile, Wisconsin representative Derrick Van Orden argued that plant-based milks are “not real milk”. This is a line of attack paid for by Big Dairy in a recent advert featuring Aubrey Plaza.

Students know the problems with dairy

Young people are among the most awake to the ethical, environmental, and health issues associated with dairy. Research by dairy company Arla found that almost half of Generation Z feel shame around ordering dairy products.

Cows exploited in the dairy industry are repeatedly impregnated each year until their body gives up. At this point they are sent to the slaughterhouse. Their calf is taken from them each time they give birth so that humans can drink their milk.

The dairy industry is one of the biggest contributors to the climate crisis. It is responsible for at least four percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At COP28, policymakers discussed the impacts animal agriculture is having on the planet. The majority of food served at the summit was plant based.

Moreover, a study from 2018 found that ditching meat and dairy is the “single biggest way” to reduce your impact on the environment. For those looking to swap out dairy, there are dozens of vegan milk varieties available. These range from oat and pea, to soy and even potato.

More like this:

• Is Dairy Bad For You? The Health Effects Of Milk On The Body
• California Student Who Criticized Dairy Milk Wins Landmark Case
• Queen Latifah Takes Aim At ‘Milk Shaming’ In Dairy-Funded Advert

The post Whole Milk Could Return To US Schools Following Vote appeared first on Plant Based News.

Dr Zoe Mayer, an Alliance90/Green Party MP, announced the plan in mid-November. As a result, Germany will see a boost in funding for plant-based, precision-fermented, and cell-cultivated proteins in the 2024 budget.

With the environmental and health impacts of meat becoming ever harder to ignore, Germany is the latest country to invest heavily in the transition towards a plant-based future. In October, Denmark unveiled a roadmap to make its food system more plant-based. Meanwhile, the Swiss government has encouraged its citizens to reduce their meat consumption.

ProVeg, a food awareness organization, described the move as “groundbreaking.” Jens Tuider, Strategic Director of ProVeg International, said: “The German government is setting the stage for a transformative shift in protein consumption.”

A four-step plan for plant-based protein

The new investment in alternative proteins follows a Food and Nutrition Strategy released in December 2022 by the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL).

In it, BMEL stated that the strategy’s primary goal was to “promote healthier, more resource-conserving and more plant-based dietary choices.” Now, with the new announcement, the German government is putting its money where its mouth is. 

Germany’s government outlined how it intends to fund the transition to a plant-based future in four steps:

1. Assisting in phasing out animal husbandry and transitioning to plant-based, fermented and cell-cultivated proteins for human consumption (€20 million)
2. Promoting innovative methods for the production and processing of plant-based, fermented, and cell-cultivated proteins (€10 million)
3. Promoting the production of proteins directly for human nutrition rather than animal feeds (€8 million)
4. Setting up a center to research future proteins and work with stakeholders

“This investment signifies a critical step forward,” Tuider said. “Thanks to this decision, we will finally be able to use proteins effectively in the future.

Prioritizing the switch towards a plant-based food system “puts Germany in an excellent position to maximize the opportunities offered by sustainable protein supply,” Tuider added. Consequently, this will allow Germany to “generate future-proof employment and establish leadership in innovation in a rapidly expanding global market.”

Germans have an appetite for plant-based proteins

Research has found that Germans are eating less meat than at any point since records began. Only 20 percent of Germans consume meat daily. Moreover, 46 percent of people are consciously limiting their meat intake.

To cater to this growing demand for vegan alternatives, farmers in the German state of Lower Saxony were recently offered incentives to move away from pig farming.

Germany would be an unsurprising pioneer of a plant-based future. The country has consistently been voted as one of the most vegan-friendly countries in the world. Indeed, Berlin has long been ranked as Europe’s vegan capital, with hundreds of vegan restaurants sprawling across the capital.

Young people are at the forefront of the growth of veganism in Germany, with a rising awareness of the environmental and ethical problems of meat consumption.

More like this:

• Meat-Eating In Germany Hits A Record Low
• Starbucks Germany Just Dropped Its Vegan Milk Surcharge
• Denmark Unveils ‘Groundbreaking’ Plant-Based Food Roadmap

The post Germany Unveils ‘Groundbreaking’ Investment In Plant-Based Food appeared first on Plant Based News.

In a letter sent to the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra), signatories called on the government to increase enclosure sizes for snakes. Currently, snakes are the only animal in the country who are not legally required to stretch while kept captive. This goes against a huge body of scientific evidence that these conditions significantly impact their physical and psychological well-being.

Edie Bowles from law firm Advocates for Animals wrote the letter, which was sent on behalf of PETA, Born Free, Animal Protection Agency, Freedom for Animals, and World Animal Protection.

“Failing to provide a snake with an enclosure that provides them the ability to fully stretch in all dimensions could constitute a breach under the Animal Welfare Act 2006,” Bowles tells Plant Based News (PBN). “Defra appears to be increasingly blatant in its preference to favour the pet industry and disregards any scientific evidence that counters those interests.”

But how has this been allowed to happen? And Why isn’t Defra doing anything about it? Here’s everything you need to know about the situation facing snakes in England, the government’s apparent disregard for science, and the reasons why snakes should never be kept as “pets”.

‘Pet’ snakes in the England

There are around 400,000 snakes being kept as “pets” in the UK. Many of these snakes are kept in glass enclosures that don’t allow them to fully stretch their bodies. Experts have long argued that snakes need to stretch out just as much as any other animal, and that their conditions have a significant impact on their welfare. Currently, Defra guidelines state that cages two thirds of the length of their body is an adequate length for the case. 

Dr Clifford Warwick, a consultant biologist and medical scientist, is one of the scientific advisors who has told Defra that snakes must be able to stretch. He has written 100 scientific books and articles on snakes.

“There is very little scientific evidence that dogs need to be able to stretch, because it’s obvious,” he tells PBN. “The same for cats, the same for birds. It’s implicit, and it’s common sense, and it’s right. With snakes we have a whole raft of papers, dozens, for peer reviewed scientific reports published in high quality journals that shows snakes must be able to stretch.”

According to Dr Warwick, snakes in these conditions are susceptible to conditions like muscle cramping, arthritis, digestive disorders, and psychological stress. Research has found that around 22 physical, and 20 psychological, conditions are caused by the cages. 

“No other species, no other animals, have that much scientific evidence that they need to stretch,” says Dr Warwick. “And Defra has not only ignored that for five years, but it has left in place the provision that causes all that harm.”

Defra ignores advice

According to Dr Warwick, Defra had initially planned to make it a requirement that snakes must be able to stretch. After a letter from the pet industry, however, the department is said to have changed its guidelines. 

Following pressure from PETA, Defra subsequently commissioned a review of its guidance. Dr Warwick was one of the scientists who took part in the consultation. The pet industry was also allowed in. Despite the pet industry’s presence, the findings of the report concluded that snakes must be able to stretch. Defra has yet to act on the report findings, however, and has been accused of ignoring scientific advice and acting in favor of the pet industry. 

“Defra increasingly appears to demonstrate a preference for evidence provided by the pet industry, while overlooking or dismissing evidence from independent bodies that counter industry interests,” the letter from Advocates for Animals states. 

PBN contacted Defra for comment. A spokesperson said: “We are carefully considering the recommendations in the Animal Welfare Committee’s Opinion paper on the housing of snakes.

“The wide diversity of snakes in the pet trade is associated with a range of natural behaviours and therefore welfare requirements. This creates a complex picture when defining snake selling requirements. We are considering our next steps.”

What impact would increasing space have?

While England has not updated its guidance, neighboring Wales does permit snakes to be able to stretch their bodies. According to Dr Warwick, this hasn’t had a huge impact on the pet trade. 

“The Welsh government has stated that compliance has been good, pet shops have actually accepted this. Larger tanks, and smaller animals to go in them. Not a problem,” he says. “There have been few complaints, and a lot of the bigger producers of snakes do actually use conditions that would comply with this.”

Should snakes be kept as ‘pets’ at all?

While it’s undeniable that an increase in enclosure size is essential to improve their wellbeing in the short term, this does not mean that “pet” snakes would have anything remotely resembling high welfare in larger cages. Dr Warwick, alongside many other experts and animal groups, does not believe that snakes should be kept as companion animals at all. 

“They’re simply not adapted to captivity,” he says. “They are wild animals and they have wild animal needs. They’re incarcerated. They’re prisoners. They’re in many cases taken straight from the wild and then thrust through the horrendous system that is the pet trade.”

PETA, which is calling for the government to increase cage size, does not see this proposed legislation as an end goal. In the long-term, the organization wants to see an end to wild animals kept as pets. 

“In even the best cases – in which people have some understanding of these animals and their needs – a domestic environment can never meet their most basic needs or provide any semblance of a real or pleasant life,” Elisa Allen, vice president of programmes, tells PBN.  ”A ban that prevents people from keeping wild animals in a domestic environment, where they don’t belong or thrive, is long overdue. In the meantime, the least we can do for snakes is make their miserable lives in captivity slightly less so by ensuring, at a minimum, they can stretch to their full body length in a sufficiently large enclosure.”  

As well as the huge impact being kept in their permanent enclosures has on snakes, they are also subjected to brutal conditions prior to being sold. Many are kept in small tupperware-style boxes while being transported to the pet shop, and they can also be kept in a box at the back of the shop for up to three months after arriving. “No animals should be in substandard conditions for more than 24 hours, that I think is a long time, but done in the spirit of trying to be as pragmatic as possible,” says Warwick.

‘Escape artists’

In the summer of 2023, it was reported that snakes across the country had been escaping their enclosures during the hot weather. At the time, the RSPCA issued a warning that the heat was making them eager to ​​“escape a lot more”.

Like they do with most animals, humans have shown time and time again that they appear to underestimate snakes’ sentience and abilities. Snakes want to escape because of the huge psychological and physical impact their cages have on them, and they are successful because they’re intelligent.

“Snakes are famous escapologists, they have many ways of getting out,” says Warwick. “It’s not just a case of pushing on a lid until it opens, they will actually try and work it out… They want out of that entire life. They want to get back to the life that they should be living.”

If you want to join the campaign urging the government to increase the cage size for “pet” snakes in England, find out how to send Defra a message here. 

More like this:

• UK Issues ‘Snake Warning’ – Here’s Why They Should Never Be ‘Pets’
• ‘A Historic Move’: Moulin Rouge Ends Live Animal Performances After 134 Years
• ‘I’ve Tried To Be Polite’: Chris Packham Slams Ant And Dec Over ‘I’m A Celeb’ Animal Use

The post ‘They’re Prisoners’: Why The UK Government May Face Legal Action Over ‘Pet’ Snakes appeared first on Plant Based News.

A new draft decree lists 21 terms that would be prohibited to describe plant-based foods, including steak, spare ribs, ham, and butcher. More than 120 other terms such as cooked ham, sausage, and bacon will still be allowed on plant-based versions, but only if the products contain less than a certain amount of plant proteins, with the maximum being six percent.

The move comes a year after France’s administrative court, the Conseil d’État, put a similar decree on ice over concerns it was too vague. The court doubted its legality in preventing plant-based companies from broadly using “terminology specific to butchered meats, prepared meat and pork products or fish.” The government has clarified exactly which terms it will ban in its new decree to address concerns of the court.

“This new draft decree reflects our desire to put an end to misleading claims… by using names relating to meat products for foodstuffs that do not contain them,” said French Agriculture Minister Marc Fesneau in a statement. He also stated that it’s an “issue of transparency and honesty responding to the legitimate expectations of consumers and producers.” Farmers and meat and dairy companies in France have argued that using “meat” terms on plant-based products confuses consumers.

Veganism in France

Veganism is on the rise in France, with the inaugural French Veganuary taking place in 2021. A range of French vegan start-ups have come onto the scene in the past couple of years, bringing many more plant-based products to supermarket shelves.

In addition, more people are trying to reduce their meat consumption and trying out vegan alternatives. A study by Kantar World Panel revealed that there is at least one flexitarian trying to eat less meat in 49 percent of French households – rising from 25 percent six years ago. Sixteen percent of French consumers also bought plant-based meat alternatives in 2021. In the same year, the market reaching a value of €105 million.

“Complete nonsense”

Many in the plant-based industry have criticized the new decree. “This law is going in completely the opposite direction of two official priorities of the French government: the fight against global warming and the reindustrialization of France,” Nicholas Schweitzer, CEO of French vegan bacon brand La Vie, told Plant Based News when the original decree was put forward. He added that “the fact that this law is only applicable to companies producing in France is complete nonsense. The only products penalized will be those produced locally.”

Vegan products with “meat” names imported from outside France will be unaffected by the ban. This means that vegan “sausages” and “steaks” could still be sold alongside French products that will be required to use different names.

The rule in the new decree states that vegan products can use some “meat” terms if they contain only small amounts of plant proteins will practically ban many products from using those terms. La Vie’s plant-based streaky bacon contains 82 percent soya protein, for example. The meat industry often accuses vegan alternatives of being unhealthy, but the new law will punish brands that ensure high content of healthy plant protein in their products.

Bans around the world

In 2020, the European Parliament voted against a proposal to ban “meat” terms from plant-based products. But it did vote in favor of banning “dairy” terms like cheese and milk for dairy-free alternatives.

The Turkish government banned the production of vegan cheese in 2022, resulting in fines for Turkish plant-based companies. South Africa is trying to ban words like biltong and meatballs from being used on plant-based alternatives. 

More like this:

• ‘World First’: Vegan Brand Unveils Pork Ribs With Edible ‘Bones’
• Meatless Farm Returns To Supermarkets Following VFC Acquisition
• Florida Steakhouse Chain Becomes ‘First In US’ To Sell Vegan Steak

The post French Government Attempts Ban On ‘Misleading’ Meaty Names For Vegan Alternatives appeared first on Plant Based News.