The food sector – and the animal agriculture sector in particular – is a significant and neglected contributor to rapid climate change. Latest estimates indicate that the production of animal-based foods is responsible for at least 20 percent of anthropogenic GHG emissions (though some studies put this figure much higher). This is expected to increase as animal product consumption increases globally.

The environmental impact of pet food

In wealthy nations like the US, dogs and cats consume at least 20 percent of all farmed land animals. Given its relatively high consumption of animal-based ingredients, the pet food sector is associated with substantial environmental impacts. This poses a significant challenge for environmental sustainability. But it also represents a largely untapped opportunity to mitigate the “pawprints” of our dogs and cats.

In this article, we summarise the findings of our forthcoming study, one of the first comprehensive studies exploring the environmental impacts of pet food. We examine the impacts of meat-based pet food, and the benefits of a transition to more sustainable non-animal alternatives. We conclude that the most effective measure we can currently take to mitigate the environmental impacts of companion animal diets is to transition dogs and cats to nutritionally sound vegan pet foods. 

It is now clear that the importance of dietary change to combat the climate crisis is not limited to humans: we must also address what we feed to our companion animals.

Companion animal diets 

The global companion animal population is vast. Over 50 percent of households worldwide have a dog or a cat – the two species which make up 95 percent of pet food sales. Global dog and cat populations have recently been estimated as reaching 1 billion animals. Domestic dogs have a collective biomass of about 20 million tonnes, roughly equal to the combined biomass of all remaining wild terrestrial mammals. Cats have a total biomass of two million tonnes. Such large numbers of animals require a huge quantity of food resources.

What’s more, we can expect these numbers to increase significantly. As countries develop, people tend to have fewer children, and have more disposable income to spend on companion animals. We can see this in pet food sales trends: the global pet food ingredients market is expected to increase from USD $32.2 billion in 2022 to $44.5 billion in 2027.

From the food they eat, to the feces they produce, to accessories and services designed for them, there are a range of environmental impacts associated with caring for a dog or cat. However, the vast majority of these impacts come from pet food, and specifically the type of pet food (i.e. the ingredients) being fed. 

In other words, when it comes to the environmental impact of pets, what matters most is: what are we feeding them? 

What is the climate cost of meat-based pet food? 

Most pet food consumed globally is meat-based, and this comes with significant environmental impacts. Just over half – 53.1 percent –  of all ingredients in pet food are animal-based. These include human grade products such as meat, fish, dairy, and egg products, and non human-consumable products (also known as animal byproducts), predominantly meat and bone meal. Globally, 74.9 percent of animal-based ingredients are animal byproducts (largely used because they are cheap), whereas this number falls to 50.8 percent in the US, where wealthier consumers are more able to afford more premium diets using higher levels of human grade ingredients. 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, such a reliance on animal-derived ingredients leads to significant environmental impacts. In the US, 25-30 percent of the environmental impacts of livestock production within the US have been attributed to companion animal diets. 

While estimates on the impacts of meat-based pet food vary, all studies on this subject agree these cannot be ignored. One found that, in Japan, the environmental impacts of a medium dog’s diet were greater than that of the average Japanese person’s diet. For a large dog, they were greater than the average Japanese person’s entire environmental footprint. 

This is undoubtedly a challenge for environmental sustainability. But it’s also an opportunity. Because the environmental impact of pet food is currently so high, there are significant opportunities to mitigate these impacts. In countries with high rates of companion animals, like the US, the benefits achieved by transitioning dogs away from meat-based diets is equivalent to one quarter to one third of the environmental benefits achievable through human dietary change. 

Read more: Is 2025 The Year Of Ethical Dog Food?

What about animal byproducts?

Until recently, the environmental impact of pet food was dismissed as negligible. Pet food relies heavily on animal byproducts, and it was generally assumed that these ingredients would be wasted if not used in pet food.

Claims like this have been repeatedly criticized. They wrongly assume that animal byproducts would be wasted in landfill if not used in pet food. The argument also assumes – crucially – that animals must be farmed in the first place.

In fact, only 25 percent of animal byproducts produced in high-income countries like the US are used in pet food, and the sector competes with various others for these ingredients. Animal byproducts are used in pet food not because they would otherwise be wasted, but instead because they are cheaper than human grade cuts of meat. The sale of animal byproducts helps prop up slaughtering industry profits. 11.4 percent of the gross income from beef is from byproducts, and 7.5 percent for pork. 

Moreover, as we showed in 2023, animal byproducts are less efficient than human grade meat. This is because animal byproducts only make up a minority of the average animal carcass used for pet food (39.2 percent for dogs, and 31.3 percent for cats). Compared to using human grade meat, using animal byproducts in pet food requires 1.4 times more animal carcasses for dog food, and 1.9 times more for cat food. As a result, more livestock animals are required (and with them, greater environmental impacts incurred) to feed dogs and cats animal byproducts.

Given this, it is more reasonable to view these animal ingredients as coproducts rather than byproducts. In doing so, they are acknowledged as valuable commodities in and of themselves, rather than externalised byproducts that can be excluded from environmental impact calculations. 

In summary, the idea that we can dismiss the environmental impacts of pet food because they use animal byproducts that would otherwise be wasted, is entirely false. It incorrectly assumes that animal byproducts would be wasted if not used in pet food, and it fails to recognise that these actually incur greater environmental impacts, compared to human grade meat. 

In reality, the best way to reduce the environmental impacts of our companion animals’ diets is to transition them away from diets high in animal products, towards nutritionally sound vegan ones, or those based on cultivated meat once they become more widely available. 

Read more: Plant-Based Dog Food Brand Wins Dragons’ Den Backing

Environmental benefits of vegan pet food

Fortunately, a range of alternative pet food protein sources derived from plants, fungi, cultivated meat and microorganisms are emerging, and offer huge potential to reduce the environmental impact of pet food. Various plant-based pet food companies are already widely commercially available in the UK and other countries (a non-exhaustive list is available at www.sustainablepetfood.info). 

If we transitioned all dogs and cats onto nutritionally sound vegan diets, the benefits for environmental sustainability would be game changing. A global transition for pet dogs alone would save 1.5 times the greenhouse gases produced by the UK, as well as vast amounts of land and freshwater. The food energy savings would be sufficient to feed 450 million people – more than the entire EU population. At least six billion land animals would also be spared from slaughter annually, and another billion if pet cats were also transitioned. 

There are also some emerging pet food alternatives that may offer even greater environmental benefits. In February 2025, Meatly, a UK-based biotech company that makes cultivated chicken-based pet food, partnered with vegan pet food company The Pack to launch the world’s first cultivated meat pet food product for retail sales. And Calysta, a company producing animal-free pet food via precision fermentation, offers a product already at commercial scale with environmental impacts reportedly a fraction of those from plant-based ingredients, let alone animal-based ones. The first nutritionally complete pet food using their protein product was launched by Marsapet in February. 

What needs to change

The best thing we can do to reduce our companion animals’ environmental “pawprints” is to transition them to nutritionally sound vegan diets. Dogs and cats fed these diets seem to enjoy them as much as meat-based diets, and modern vegan pet foods are generally of equivalent, if not superior, quality and nutritional soundness to meat-based pet foods. Moreover, as we summarised recently in Plant Based News, there is a strong and growing body of evidence demonstrating that dogs and cats fed nutritionally sound vegan diets experience health outcomes as good as or better than those fed meat-based diets. Given these significant environmental and health benefits, there is no longer any sound reason not to support a companion animal dietary transition. 

Other mitigation strategies include choosing to care for small rather than large animals where possible, adopting instead of buying companion animals, and preventing overfeeding (which is currently common). Importantly, however, gains from reducing overconsumption will quickly be outpaced by rising companion animal populations globally. Hence, these are supplementary strategies that should be pursued in tandem with, rather than in place of, a wider structural transition to nutritionally sound vegan diets. 

Additionally, given the very significant environmental impacts associated with companion animal diets, public awareness on this topic is shockingly low. Along with governments and the mass media, those with large platforms in pet care or adjacent communities should communicate the environmental benefits of a transition towards vegan pet food to their audiences. For those resistant to the idea at first, a gradual transition (say, feeding 50 percent vegan and 50 percent meat-based pet food) would still significantly reduce an animal’s dietary “pawprint.” 

Addressing the impact of companion animal diets on climate change is an environmental imperative. We now have very good evidence demonstrating health and environmental benefits associated with modern, nutritionally sound vegan diets for dogs and cats. In light of this evidence, there is no good scientific reason not to support companion animal dietary change. Given the very significant potential to mitigate climate change and environmental breakdown, support from guardians, government, and industry is clearly warranted. 

Read more: Lewis Hamilton Says Bulldog Roscoe Is A ‘Different Dog’ Since Going Plant-Based

This article was written by Billy Nicholles on the PBN Website.

Read more: ‘What Food History Tells Us About Living Longer’

RFK Jr is a divisive figure. He repeats controversial and widely debunked conspiracy theories on everything from vaccines to fluoride. He has also promoted high-risk fad foods such as raw milk.

RFK Jr’s appointment as the Secretary of Health will entrust him with providing “effective health and human services,” as well as fostering “sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services.”

Many medical professionals have criticized his appointment, contrasting his wild theorizing with the seriousness of the role. One Professor of Paediatric Infection and Immunity referred to the decision as a “slap in the face” of evidence-based health policies, particularly in light of RFK Jr’s repeated criticism of vaccines.

Despite his many unsupported health claims, some professionals have welcomed the opportunity to “galvanize” progress in areas that they, RFK Jr, and much of the American public share ground. In particular, RFK is an outspoken critic of the “heavily processed unhealthy foods” which make up approximately 60-70 percent of the standard American diet (SAD).

Processed foods come with both risks and benefits

Rohini Bajekal, Nutritionist and Communications Lead at Plant-Based Health Professionals UK (PBHP) tells Plant Based News (PBN) that many ultra-processed foods (UPFs) combine fat, sugar, salt, and artificial flavors, eschewing fiber and nutrients.

“They are considered hyper-palatable: this means they are irresistible, easy to overconsume, and are capable of hijacking the brain’s reward system thus provoking powerful cravings,” explains Bajekal. “This can lead to overconsumption.”

There is a growing body of evidence indicating that UPF overconsumption increases the risk of developing diabetes, cardiovascular disease, mental health issues, cancers, and poor gut health. However, the phrase “ultra-processed” is very general, encompassing many different foods with varying nutritional values, degrees of processing, and perceived healthfulness.

Some UPFs are best described as “food-like substances,” a phrase used by Bajekal for items with almost no nutritional value at all, but for other foods, processing can improve nutrient density. For example, cooked, canned, and concentrated tomatoes typically contain more bioavailable lycopene, a “powerful antioxidant” with confirmed anti-cancer properties.

Fermentation, which can also be considered a form of food processing, adds nutritional value to the base ingredients, as in tempeh. Meanwhile, freezer technology enables the year-round storage and consumption of nutritious foods. RFK has been particularly critical of pasteurization, but the pasteurization process kills harmful bacteria in food and drinks like milk, juice, beer, and canned foods, aiding human health and saving countless lives.

“Not all processed foods are created equal,” notes Bajekal. “Canning, cooking, freezing, fermenting, and drying are all processing methods. There are usually both positive and negative implications for nutrition as a result of them.”

Read more: New ‘Ultra-Processed’ Guide Answers All Your Questions On UPFs

Processed foods play an ‘important role’ in many people’s diets

RFK Jr has specifically targeted processed cereals, and said that “kids shouldn’t be eating grains.” But while excessive consumption of refined grain does come with potential health risks, many Americans also rely on fortified cereals to mitigate nutrient deficiencies – a pressing issue for most of the population.

“Processed foods play an important role in many people’s diets. This may be due to time, cost, cooking ability or access, health issues, or any unique nutritional needs,” explains Bajekal. “They can also help certain groups of people such as children or older adults meet their nutritional needs.”

“Some processed foods make eating more enjoyable, convenient, and easier to meet my nutrient needs,” adds Bajekal. She tells PBN that some of her go-to processed foods included fortified plant milks, yogurts, and calcium-set tofu.

Plant-based products like these are some of the most criticized UPFs of all, but studies indicate that even processed options are typically healthier and more sustainable than meat and dairy. Bajekal says that negative narratives around plant foods are used as “an excuse” to promote animal-based foods as “natural,” or “unprocessed.”

Processed animal products and negative health outcomes

In addition to grains, RFK Jr has criticized seed oils, which he says kids should also not eat. He has said that the broader move away from traditional animal fats like beef tallow towards vegetable oils is responsible for rising obesity rates nationwide.

“There is no evidence to reflect this,” said Bajekal. “In fact, the data shows that seed oils or many vegetable oils can benefit human health.”

Plant-based oils are certainly thought to be better for heart health than tallow and dairy butter, and a major 20-year review from earlier this year found that eating a plant-based diet was “significantly associated” with better health markers.

A recent deep dive into RFK Jr’s claims about the benefits of tallow by The Atlantic noted that a national shift from saturated to polyunsaturated fats in the middle of the 20th century was followed by a 56 percent reduction in heart disease deaths. Longstanding medical advice suggests limiting the consumption of saturated animal fats to lower obesity risk and cardiovascular disease risk.

It’s worth noting here that certain highly processed animal-based foods are strongly linked to negative health outcomes but have not been specifically addressed by RFK Jr. For example, bacon, ham, hot dogs, and salami are all group 1 carcinogens, meaning they are known to cause cancer. Red meat is linked to colorectal cancer and diabetes, while dairy products are a major source of salt and saturated fat. (The average American eats approximately 42 pounds of cheese per year.)

‘Make America healthy again’

RFK Jr’s criticism of UPFs undoubtedly reflects the concerns of many medical professionals and American citizens. However, his comments repeatedly fail to acknowledge the need for more scientific research in this area, the complexity of the subject, countless intersecting socioeconomic factors, and the specific role of animal products – both processed and unprocessed – in negative health outcomes.

RFK Jr’s promotion of animal ingredients in place of plant-based ones also does not take into account the way animal agriculture negatively impacts the environment, the climate crisis, and human health, or how all of those outcomes are interlinked.

There is currently a multi-state bird flu outbreak amongst dairy cows in the US. Earlier this year, Robert Redfield, the former director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that bird flu is “very likely” to be the next human pandemic. While RFK Jr has been extremely critical of the CDC, he has yet to comment on the role of animal farming in contemporary health crises.

Approximately 99 percent of all animals raised for food in the US are factory-farmed. The cramped, inhumane conditions of factory farming increase zoonotic disease risk, while the industry’s overuse of antibiotics further undermines public health, causing illness and death. While the impact of processed foods requires immediate further investigation, the role of animal products and factory farming in public health also demands the fullest consideration from the US government’s Department of Health and Human Services, whoever the Secretary of Health may be.

Read more: Plant-Based Diets Nearly 20% Cheaper Than Standard American Diet, Research Finds

This article was written by Liam Pritchett on the PBN Website.

Many would argue that an action like this is a long time coming. At the 2024 Olympic Games, Paris boasted twice the vegan food served, compared to previous Olympics, in order to take climate action. But is this enough to address the urgency our planet currently faces? I wouldn’t be so sure.

We’re at a pivotal moment in history in many ways. Take a look at the headline news stories on any given day, and you’ll likely learn about the impact the climate crisis is already having on the planet. Hurricanes, drought, record-breaking heat waves, to name just a few. While scientists agree that we cannot reverse the devastating damage already done to the planet, its people, and animals, there is still a chance to stop it getting any worse. As the United Nations neatly summarizes: “Doing nothing will end up costing us a lot more than if we take action now.”

So, where does vegan food fit into the equation?

The environmental impact of animal farming

Farming animals for food is one of the key drivers of the climate crisis, accounting for at least 16.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. It’s also a leading cause of deforestation and biodiversity loss. According to the University of Colorado, animal agriculture produces 65 percent of the world’s nitrous oxide emissions, which has a global warming impact 296 times greater than carbon dioxide. Did you know this already? Perhaps not. The National Center for Biotechnology Information says that “Public awareness of the link between animal food consumption and climate change is low.” Countless people are unaware of this connection, but LA now has the perfect opportunity to change this.

A vegan Olympics should be the next logical step to follow the policy announcements that have come out of LA this year. In July, West Hollywood announced its policy to provide plant-based food by default at all council-run events. The resolution cites research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reporting that plant-based meals can, on average, result in a 63 percent “lower carbon footprint” than meals made with meat, dairy, and other animal products. Earlier in March, Los Angeles County passed a motion that requires all departmental food procurement to be plant-based by default, too. Plans are already underway from industries such as LA Metro which is aiming to deliver “the cleanest Games for transportation in U.S. history.” The standard is being set for the LA Olympics, but will this extend to food?

Will the Olympics go plant-based?

There is currently no indication that the LA Olympics will be plant-based. But the call for a vegan 2028 Olympics has begun. Although we’re still just under four years away from the event itself, organizations and individuals – including Olympic medallist Dotsie Bausch – are already leading the charge in calling for a firm commitment. National animal protection NGO Animal Outlook is also sharing the message that we don’t have to wait for the next Olympics to take action by inviting people to take the “Vedge Pledge”, a pledge to eat plant-based for a week or longer to help reduce our individual carbon footprint. Its website states that by eating vegan, even for just one day, we save 1,100 gallons of water, 30 square feet of forest, and one animal’s life. At a time where climate anxiety is at an all-time high, it’s reassuring to know that there is more we can do as individuals than simply ditching plastic straws.

While LA hosting the first fully vegan Olympics won’t solve the complex issue of the climate crisis, it will certainly make a powerful statement and show the rest of the world that we are a city that takes responsibility and sets an example. We made groundbreaking strides with the first-ever LA Climate Week, giving New York a run for its money. Let’s push forward and show the world what a green Olympics really looks like.

Make us proud, Los Angeles.

This article was written by Jenny Canham on the PBN Website.

Read more: Why Are People Quitting Keto And Carnivore Diets?

Sigouin’s candid reflections explore the challenges and insights he gained, aiming to provide guidance for those transitioning to or navigating a vegan lifestyle, and particularly those who are interested in fitness and nutrition. From managing protein intake while training to dealing with criticism, these lessons will help everyone from longtime vegans to newbies to the lifestyle.

You can listen to and watch the full podcast episode, and find a summary of his lessons, below:

Don’t overcomplicate nutrition

Sigouin admitted that in the early days of his vegan journey, he overcomplicated his diet by trying to include an extensive range of foods at each meal. “I was obsessing over trying to get all the little micronutrients to a small detail every single meal and every single day,” he shared. This meticulous approach, while well-intentioned, made the diet difficult and unsustainable. Now, he focuses on keeping things simple by buying a variety of fruits, vegetables, and grains, and rotating them as needed. “If I run out of one grain, I buy another one,” he explained, emphasizing that simplicity can provide the diversity needed for a balanced vegan diet.

Pay attention to protein when training

In his bodybuilding days before turning vegan, Sigouin relied on conventional high-protein foods like chicken and eggs. However, transitioning to a vegan diet, he initially neglected his protein intake, which left him feeling “pudgy and soft.” While veganism is a lifestyle, not a diet, and staying in shape isn’t important for all vegans, this was a wake-up call for Sigouin, who is very fitness orientated. “When I discovered several years after that I needed more protein, it made the world of a difference,” he revealed. By applying basic bodybuilding principles to his vegan diet, he managed to regain muscle definition and improve his overall fitness, an approach he now implements with his coaching clients.

Read more: Doctor Responds To Bear Grylls’ Claim That Farting Isn’t Healthy

Lead by example

Sigouin emphasized the power of leading by example. While initially he was more vocal about his vegan lifestyle, he realized that people responded better when he simply demonstrated its benefits through his actions. “If I can stay fit and healthy, compete at a high level… people started asking me questions,” he noted. By embodying the results of a plant-based diet, he found it easier to inspire others to consider the lifestyle without being overly confrontational.

Handle skepticism with patience

Sigouin acknowledged that in his early days as a vegan, he would get into debates with skeptics about protein sources or nutrient deficiencies. Over time, he learned the value of patience. Instead of aggressively countering every argument, he began offering resources and personal anecdotes to those genuinely curious, emphasizing the importance of planting seeds in people’s minds.

Inspire Change through Patience and Empathy

In his earlier years as a vegan, Sigouin admitted to having an “evangelist phase” where he aggressively tried to convince others to adopt veganism. He quickly realized that this confrontational approach only pushed people away. “I was intense with my family and friends, and it made them not want to talk to me about it,” he shared. Over time, he learned that inspiring change is more effective when approached with empathy and patience. Instead of forcing his beliefs, he now focuses on providing gentle guidance and offering helpful resources to those who express interest. By respecting others’ journeys and planting seeds of curiosity, Sigouin found that people became more open to exploring veganism on their own terms.

Consistency Over Perfection

Sigouin also shared a reminder that being vegan isn’t about perfection but about consistency. Throughout his journey, there were times he inadvertently consumed dairy or eggs due to mistakes at restaurants or in product labeling. He emphasized not beating oneself up over these situations, but rather learning from them and moving forward. “It’s not about perfection; it’s about consistency,” he reiterated.

Keep it simple

Looking back, Sigouin’s most crucial lesson is the importance of keeping things simple. From focusing on whole foods to rotating ingredients for diversity, he encourages newcomers not to overcomplicate their transition to veganism. “Eat whole food plant-based the majority of the time, focus on diversity, stay within your calories, put an emphasis on protein, and work out,” he advised. This approach, he believes, can put anyone on the path to better health without the unnecessary stress of perfectionism.

Read more: What Are ‘Plant Points’ – And Why Is Everyone Recommending Them?

This article was written by Editorial Team on the PBN Website.

Read more: Hot Weather Poses ‘Huge Threat’ To Flat-Faced Dogs, Charity Warns

When you think about meat consumption, you may not naturally think about canine and feline diets. But you have good reason to. Globally, nine percent of all farmed land animals are slaughtered for pet food. In wealthy countries like the U.S., where more people have companion animals, this rises to 20 percent.

This means that seven billion land animals and many (probably billions) more fishes* are killed every year to feed the world’s dogs and cats. And they have an environmental “pawprint” to match. If all the world’s dogs and cats went vegan, we could save more greenhouse gas emissions than all emissions from the UK and New Zealand combined. 

Until recently, it was assumed that we couldn’t mitigate the negative impacts of meat-based diets for dogs and cats, since they couldn’t maintain good health on a plant-based diet. But in recent years, a new, strong, and growing body of research is showing that dogs and cats on vegan diets generally enjoy health outcomes as good as or better than those on conventional meat-based diets. 

Given the benefits for farmed animal welfare, companion animal health, and environmental sustainability, it is becoming increasingly clear that we should transition our dogs and cats onto nutritionally-sound plant-based diets. 

Veterinary organisation criticizes vegan diets for dogs and cats 

But a recent blog authored by veterinary nurse Robyn Lowe of Veterinary Voices UK questions this research and the conclusion that dogs and cats should be fed a vegan diet. In her blog titled “Vegan Diets are Healthier and Safer for Cats and Dogs – Or Are They?,” she criticises many elements of this research and cautions against the use of vegan diets for dogs and cats.

It is worth noting that the veterinary community is becoming increasingly open to vegan companion animal diets. Earlier this year, in response to the weight of evidence supporting nutritionally-sound vegan diets for dogs, the British Veterinary Association ended its opposition to these diets. 

While healthy scrutiny and debate is welcomed in any scientific field, these criticisms are overblown and appear ignorant of the rigour of the research, and the importance of the findings for farmed and companion animals. Lowe neglects the broader literature, and focuses on limitations that were already acknowledged and mitigated in these studies. 

This is problematic. Rapid climate change and the growth of animal agriculture are both urgent global issues. The stakes are high, and avoiding confusion or misinformation is crucial. 

We therefore take this opportunity to counter the criticisms in Lowe’s blog, and clarify the findings of the research on whether we should feed our dogs and cats a vegan diet. 

Read more: UK Issues ‘Snake Warning’ – Here’s Why They Should Never Be ‘Pets’

Veganism isn’t an ideology

Lowe critiques two studies in the literature, both of which were large-scale survey based studies of dog and cat guardians authored by Knight et al. (2022; 2023). She begins by arguing that we should take this research with a pinch of salt simply because the lead researcher follows a vegan diet, which she describes as an “ideological position” which “inevitably introduces a risk of bias”. This claim is inappropriate and misleading. By this logic, if Lowe eats animals herself, should we caveat her critiques as being influenced by her inherent meat-eating bias? 

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that animal farming and fishing causes very significant suffering to trillions of animals annually, and is a leading contributor to the climate crisis. Veganism is not an ideological position – it is the logical scientific solution to the threats that animal agriculture poses. The fact that the lead author is vegan is not a sign of “ideological bias” and does nothing to detract from the rigour or credibility of this research, which is published in PLOS ONE, a leading peer-reviewed scientific journal. 

Lowe also points towards the studies’ funder – ProVeg International – as another reason to dismiss the findings, since ProVeg International advocates for a more plant-based food system. However, commercial funding of nutrition (and broader medical) studies is extremely common. Most research probably would not proceed without such financial support. In this case, the funder’s contribution was explicitly acknowledged, with the authors confirming that “this funder played no role in study conceptualisation, design, data collection and analysis, preparation of resultant manuscript nor decisions relating to publication”.  

Ignorance of the broader scientific literature 

Lowe cautions the conclusion that we should feed companion animals vegan diets by stating that “we are in the infancy of knowledge about these diets.” This reveals a lack of awareness of the other studies in this field. By late 2024 there were 11 studies, including multiple clinical and large-scale survey studies, showing health benefits for dogs on vegan diets, and three studies for cats. More information on all these studies is available here. 

On top of this, there is a systematic literature review on this topic that concluded there is “no overwhelming evidence of adverse effects” for dogs and cats on vegan diets and “some evidence of benefits.” It added that “beneficial findings were relatively consistent across several studies and should, therefore, not be disregarded.”

In reality, we now have more studies showing positive health findings for dogs and cats fed vegan diets than we do for many other commonly accepted diets and veterinary products, which are normally supported by very few, if any, published, peer-reviewed scientific studies. In contrast, by late 2024 there were 14 studies showing health benefits for dogs and cats fed vegan diets, as well as a positive systematic literature review. 

Lowe also briefly references a paper that finds nutritional inadequacies in vegan pet foods. However, this study was limited to the Brazilian market and so is not generalizable to the UK. A comprehensive global study analyzing the nutritional soundness of meat-based and vegan pet foods found that most are fairly well-made, with vegan pet food being slightly more likely to be nutritionally-sound and of good quality. 

What about cats? 

There is some confusion over the dietary needs of cats, and whether they require a meat-based diet.

Lowe states that “cats … are obligate carnivores, and therefore need specific amino acids to survive”. It is worth noting that dogs, and indeed humans, also need specific amino acids to survive (dogs need 10, and humans nine). 

Lowe continues that “cats lack the ability to synthesise (make) a number of important nutrients”. However this statement is applicable to dogs as well, and indeed virtually all species, which rely on obtaining certain nutrients through their diet. 

The key point is that cats (like any other animal) need certain nutrients, not certain ingredients, to survive. As obligate carnivores, some of these nutrients are not naturally occurring in plant-based foods. However, provided a vegan cat food is synthetically supplemented with these nutrients (such as taurine, or vitamin A) to ensure nutritional completeness, there is no reason why cats cannot meet all their nutritional needs on these diets. 

Indeed, to date, three peer-reviewed scientific studies using both large-scale survey and clinical data have found that cats fed nutritionally-sound vegan diets enjoy health benefits as good as or better than those on conventional meat-based diets.  

For those who feel wary about the idea of synthetic supplementation, it is worth noting that meat-based cat foods are also synthetically supplemented with taurine and other essential nutrients. This is because the high temperatures and pressures used during processing can degrade naturally occurring taurine, and other fragile nutrients. Synthetic supplementation is a standard and safe part of pet food formulation and is necessary to meet an animal’s nutritional needs. 

The benefits and limitations of survey-based studies

Lowe specifically criticizes two studies which used large-scale surveys to gather guardian-reported health data on dogs and cats fed meat-based and vegan diets. Many of Lowe’s criticisms relate to this methodology and its limitations. It is worth noting that the limitations of guardian-reported data were covered extensively in the studies themselves. For clarity, though, we address them again here. 

Guardian-reported data is valuable

Lowe argues that it is “expected” that vegan cats will score better on “all health measures” when using guardian-reported survey data. This is another example of sloppy reasoning. 

There were many more animals fed meat-based diets in both studies. If it was the case that you can always expect guardians to report positively about their animal’s health, we would actually expect the bias to skew results in the opposite direction, and show that meat-based diets were healthier. In fact, in both studies the opposite was found.

These surveys also contain very large numbers of respondents, which improves the reliability of the results and often allows for statistically significant results. In addition to guardian views on health (which can be prone to conscious and unconscious bias), more objective data such as reported visits to the vet, and reported veterinary assessment of pet health, were also included. 

Furthermore, in their 2024 follow-up study of health outcomes in 2,536 dogs, Knight et al. actually studied the consistency of guardian opinions with reported veterinary assessments. These proved to be very similar, although guardians were slightly likelier to consider their dogs to be healthy. Overall, 74.9 percent of guardians agreed with reported veterinary assessments, but 15.2 percent felt their dog was healthier, and 9.9 percent felt their dog was less healthy. For the 1,369 cats they also studied, 74.9 percent of guardians also agreed with reported veterinary assessments. However, 12.8 percent felt their cat was healthier, and 12.3 percent felt their cat was less healthy than the reported assessments of their veterinarians.

Respondent profile and sample sizes

Lowe argues that the fact that vegans are overrepresented in respondent profiles is a source of potential bias. But she also argues that the sample sizes for animals on vegan diets is too small. Since animals on vegan diets mostly have vegan guardians, these two points contradict each other: she is claiming that the percentage of respondents who are vegan is both too large and too small at the same time. 

In reality, what matters more here is the quality of the statistical analysis and whether the results are supported statistically. 

Statistical significance is only one part of the picture 

Lowe cautions against the conclusion that cats can experience health benefits on a vegan diet because the findings in this survey-based cat study aren’t statistically significant (as denoted by a ‘p-value’ below 0.05). But this is not the only statistical metric of importance. The study’s statistical analysis was consistent with state of the art statistical practice and the position of the American Statistical Association on the relevance of p-values, which considers the effect size (in this case, the size of the effect of the vegan diet) to be more important. Effect sizes were moderate to large in the majority of cases. For most general indicators of health, cats on vegan diets accordingly had a “tendency” or a “strong tendency” to have a lower odds of illness occurring compared to cats on meat-based diets, supporting the conclusions that “cats fed vegan diets tended to be healthier than cats fed meat-based diets. This trend was clear and consistent.” For more information on p-values, click here.

Does it matter that these cats lived mostly indoors? 

Lowe argues that, because most of the vegan cats were “indoor cats”, they are less likely than outdoor cats to visit the vet (since outdoor cats may sustain more injuries when exploring). However, this neglects the fact that the cat’s primary location was controlled for during the statistical analysis. Indeed, Lowe makes the same critique for the age of vegan cats, who were on average nearly two years younger than cats on meat-based diets, despite the fact that this was controlled for too. This was made clear in the abstract of the paper and elsewhere. 

Also made clear was the point that these cats were not fed these diets exclusively. 41 percent received a variety of treats daily, and 13 percent were regularly offered dietary supplements. Additionally, 42 percent overall (33 percent of vegan cats) had significant outdoor access. The authors noted: “It is possible that some cats, especially those in the latter groups, may have supplemented their diets by hunting. Accordingly, it is important to note that our results indicate health outcomes when cats are fed these diet types within normal households, with normal feeding regimes, rather than when cats are exclusively fed each of the two main diet types, as might occur within a controlled study within a research institute.”

Do dogs fed vegan diets visit vets less frequently? 

Lowe attempts to critique the 2022 study’s conclusion that guardians who feed raw-meat based diets to their dogs are less likely to visit the vet not because their dogs are necessarily healthier, but also because most vets oppose raw meat diets. She argues that, if the researchers acknowledge this, they should acknowledge the same phenomenon for the guardians that feed vegan diets. 

In fact, dogs fed vegan diets were the most likely of any group to be neutered, signifying a strong adherence to veterinary advice, in contrast to guardians feeding a raw-meat based diet, whose dogs were least likely to be neutered. This appears to indicate that guardians feeding vegan diets are more likely to follow veterinary advice and to visit veterinary clinics.

Unfounded health concerns about legume protein diets 

Lowe briefly refers to the occurrence of a health condition called dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) that has been claimed to occur more frequently in grain-free and legume-based dog foods. Little detail beyond this is given, although it is important to state that multiple studies have not found any link between the use of plant-based diets for dogs and DCM. Indeed, in 2022 the United States Food and Drug Administration, which originally suggested the possibility of this link, dropped all research on this question, having not found enough reliable evidence to continue. 

Vegan diets for dogs and cats: the evidence-based position

All good scientific studies acknowledge and mitigate their limitations. In focusing so closely on the limitations of just two out of the 14 studies by late 2024 that had demonstrated health benefits for cats and dogs on vegan diets, Lowe missed the broader, more relevant trends in the research. 

By late 2024 there were 11 studies on the health impacts of vegan diets for dogs and three for cats, all of which demonstrated similar or superior health outcomes for animals fed vegan diets. Only one additional credible study (in dogs) did not support the conclusion that dogs can be healthy on vegan diets, and it is notable that this was the oldest study, with the smallest sample size. 

While any individual scientific study can usually be critiqued, the weight of evidence is clearly in the favour of nutritionally-sound vegan pet food. And while Lowe’s concern for companion animal health is reasonable, her dismissal of the accumulated evidence in this field is not. In the face of this evidence, dismissing the conclusion that nutritionally-sound vegan diets for dogs and cats are a healthy and sustainable option has now become uninformed, irrational, and unscientific. 

If you want to follow along with Dr Andrew Knights’s work on plant-based food for companion animals, please visit the campaign site here. 

*While the English language typically refers to multiple fishes as “fish,” we use “fishes” to emphasize their individuality

Read more: Vegan Diets Reduce Aggression And Gut Issues In Dogs, Study Suggests

This article was written by Billy Nicholles on the PBN Website.

Read more: Longevity Expert Bryan Johnson Describes Moment He ‘Broke’ And Went Plant-Based

Bryan Johnson is a prominent American entrepreneur best known for his ventures in the tech industry and, more recently, his expertise in the field of longevity. Johnson garnered significant attention for his radical approach to reversing aging through what he calls the Blueprint Protocol. He’s previously stated that his “ultimate goal” is “don’t die,” and he follows a strict regimen that he claims has reduced his biological age. 

According to Johnson, who is 47 years old, his health biomarkers have moved into the top one percent since taking on the regimen. For some of his markers – like cardiovascular fitness – he’s reportedly in the top one percent of 18-year-olds. 

Overall, much of his regimen seems largely backed by science. He says that consistent high quality sleep should be a “number one priority,” as well as a plant-forward diet and six hours a week of exercise (incorporating strength, cardio, flexibility and balance). He also states that you should prioritize friendship, family, and community, while avoiding “fast food, junk food, smoking, vaping, excessive alcohol and social media – and anything addictive.” These recommendations, which are part of his “five habits” to achieving a longer life, are widely considered to be good for longevity. Multiple studies have found exercise, plant-based diets, and fostering relationships can increase lifespan, and avoiding junk food, smoking, and alcohol has long been advised by health experts. 

In his new video, however, MacAskill offered critiques of a few aspects of Johnson’s regimen. Johnson claims to take 100 pills a day, and his online shop offers supplements, protein powders, and a “snake oil” (premium extra virgin olive oil). While these may offer health benefits, MacAskill believes that not all of them have scientific backing. 

Read more: USDA Urged To Remove Dairy Category From 2025 Dietary Guidelines

Don’t Die Summit

In a previous Plant Chompers video, health coach Michelle Cen attended Bryan Johnson’s Don’t Die Summit, armed with her camera to capture the essence of the event. Her coverage led to lively discussions in the YouTube comment section, with some criticizing what they perceived to be a slightly promotional slant in favor of Johnson in her video. While many viewers lauded her effort, others expressed disappointment, wishing for more critical analysis.

In response to this, MacAskill decided to post a more critical video on some aspects of Johnson’s protocol. You can watch the full video, and read a synopsis of MacAskill’s views on Johnson, below. 

Please note: the following is MacAskill’s opinion, and you should always speak to your healthcare professional if you have specific questions about your own health and lifestyle.

Questions over protein powders

As part of his regimen, Johnson sells a range of protein powders. MacAskill said he “winced” at some of the ingredients, some of which he says are comparable to those used in junk foods like Doritos. 

For instance, the “Blueprint Nutty Pudding,” one of Johnson’s featured protein powders, has drawn criticism for being an ultra-processed item laden with emulsifiers, flavors, and alternative sweeteners​. Some critics argue that such products may not align with the very health goals the protocol promotes (it’s worth noting that many experts claim that the “ultra-processed” label isn’t necessarily a negative thing).

Supplements

Johnson’s regimen includes a large amount of supplements. While discussing this, MacAskill cited Deborah Kado, a geriatrician from Stanford who conducts studies on supplements. She has previously cautioned against supplements, saying that many people do not require them at all. (Those on plant-based diets should always take a B12 supplement. Always consult your healthcare professional if you have specific questions on supplements). 

Kado’s extensive experience in geriatrics has led her to conclude that, contrary to popular belief, the efficacy of many supplements remains unproven. She has also pointed out that many scientists advocating these supplements haven’t lived long enough to demonstrate their purported benefits​.

The role of olive oil and importance of fiber

MacAskill goes on to say that this third thought was: “Do we have evidence that olive oil is all it’s cracked up to be?”

Johnson’s protocol emphasizes olive oil, which is often touted for its health benefits. However, skepticism remains about whether olive oil alone can deliver these claimed advantages. Some studies have suggested that olive oil may offer health benefits, but MacAskill advises caution, as these benefits aren’t as definite as those offered by fruits and vegetables.

MacAskill then points out that olive oil has no fiber and no protein. Because of this, he adds, people may compensate by “resorting to protein powders, which have little fiber,” to hit protein targets. 

“One of the most important advances of the last decade is the discovery that fermented foods and fiber are essential in creating a healthy microbiome,” MacAskill says. “And the profound effect health gut microbes have on our health. We have an epidemic of gut problems, many of them coming from overuse of antibiotics and growing up on low-fiber junk food.” 

The increasing awareness of gut health underscores the importance of a high-fiber diet, something that Johnson’s protocol may inadvertently undermine by relying on foods like protein powders. 

Exercise and longevity

Another important area of discussion, according to MacAskill, is the type of exercise recommended by Johnson. MacAskill cites a study that suggests that social and enjoyable physical activities, such as tennis, may be more beneficial for longevity than resistance and balance workouts.

“Maybe because they’re more fun, social, and involve coordination, not just strength and balance” says MacAskill. He goes on to point out that Johnson did previously tweet a study’s finding that tennis is optimal for longevity, but that he “hadn’t seen him talk about them much.”

While Johnson does incorporate physical activity into his protocol, there appears to be a lack of emphasis on other – potentially more effective – forms of exercise.

Expert opinions and conclusions

In conclusion, while much of Bryan Johnson’s longevity protocol is undoubtedly backed up by science and well-resourced, it may be best to approach it with a critical mindset. 

The reliance on protein powders, extensive supplement use, and the need for more evidence-based practices raises questions about its long-term efficacy. As with any health regimen, it is vital to consider practical, evidence-based approaches that have stood the test of time. For a more comprehensive understanding, further exploration into studies by other longevity experts – like Dr Michael Greger – might provide additional insights into achieving lasting health.

Read more: Scientists Discover More Sustainable ‘Healthy Chocolate’

This article was written by Editorial Team on the PBN Website.

Read more: Why Isn’t Horse Riding Vegan? Everything You Need To Know

In response to this study, journalists from several newspapers have gone out to determine whether horse’s milk ice cream tastes any good. They visited the UK’s only horse milk farmer, Frank Shellard, to obtain some milk. They then either turned it into ice cream themselves or asked an ice cream company to do it. Journalists have discussed the potential ick factor people might feel about it. They have also explored the milk’s purported health benefits — Shellard claims a glass a day has cut his cholesterol by half.

But not one article has stopped to ask whether we should even be looking for new animals to bring into the dairy farming industry.

The wrong kind of diversity

Why would anyone need to drink mare’s milk? The Polish study explains that people are becoming more health-conscious and are looking for foods with high nutritional content. Horse’s milk could fill that role, the study suggests. But why look for yet another animal to exploit for this purpose when we could be using plant foods we already have? Fortified soy milk, for example, is considered to be a healthy alternative to dairy. It’s comparable to cow’s milk for protein content while being low in saturated fat and containing no cholesterol.

Several companies are also developing new alternatives using plant-based ingredients. One New Zealand company is working on “functional” legume-based dairy alternatives that could replace dairy in food manufacturing. Another based in Sweden is using fermentation to make cheese from legumes that is similar to dairy cheese in texture.

Read more: How Alternative Protein Could Be Key To Tackling Food Insecurity In Britain

Instead of diversifying animal agriculture, we could also be diversifying the kinds of crops we grow and deploying technologies such as precision fermentation to create new foods and boost nutritional value. We have lost around three-quarters of crop diversity in the past 100 years. We get 90 percent of our calories from 30 plant species. Rice, maize, and wheat make up half of that. This threatens our health as well as our food security.

Several of the media stories on the Polish study begin with acknowledging that the thought of drinking horse’s milk might gross people out. (And why wouldn’t you be grossed out? It’s meant for foals, just as cow’s milk is meant for calves). But it seems pointless to try to convince people to accept horse milk, same as trying to persuade them to eat insect burgers instead of meat. If we want to convince them to eat healthier, more environmental alternatives, plant-based foods are the best option. But lately sections of the media have chosen to help stoke panic about “ultra-processed” vegan products instead.

Turning horses into dairy cows

At the moment, Shellard’s horse dairy is small-scale, supplying fewer than 100 regular customers. But what if horse’s milk did become popular?

In order to meet demand for cow’s milk, the dairy industry has become increasingly intensive and mechanized. Dairy cows have been bred to produce around double the milk they did 40 years ago. Incidences of mastitis, a painful inflammatory disease of the udders, is common. So is lameness, partly due to poor hoof care and being forced to stand on hard floors for long periods. The cows give birth to a calf a year in order to keep them producing milk, and have to suffer having their calves taken away shortly after they’re born. Though they could live for 20 years naturally, dairy cows are slaughtered at five years old, once they stop being so productive.

Do we really want to see horses end up enduring the same life? There has been widespread condemnation of plans to start farming octopuses for food, with many media stories questioning its ethical and environmental implications. The same perspective needs to be applied to horses, or any species at risk of being turned into the next farmed animal.

Horses already exploited

Farming horses for their milk would only add to the ways in which these intelligent, sensitive animals are already exploited for commercial gain.

People eat horse meat in countries including France, Mexico, and Japan. They are either raised specifically for meat, or sent to slaughter after being retired from racing or pulling carriages. In parts of the world including South America and Iceland, there is such a thing as horse “blood farms.” Large quantities of blood is taken from pregnant mares to extract Pregnant Mare Serum Gonadotropin (PMSG), a hormone commonly used within industrial pig breeding. Investigations have revealed serious abuse of the horses on these farms, where the horses are restrained and have large cannulas inserted into their jugular veins.

Horses used for entertainment also suffer abuse and can die from injuries as a result of being pushed too hard. Dozens of horses die on racecourses in the UK each year, and it isn’t clear what happens to many of them once they retire from racing. Training methods used in horse “sports” are also questionable. Recently, a famous dressage rider was banned from the Paris Olympics after footage emerged of her repeatedly whipping a horse during a training session. Other horses in Olympic events have been abused too, or suffered serious injuries.

The last thing horses need is yet another way for humans to take advantage of them, to their detriment. The media could do its small bit by not promoting new forms of animal agriculture.

Read more: Is Vegan Food Really Worse For You Than Meat? A Factcheck Of Media Coverage

This article was written by Claire Hamlett on the PBN Website.

Read more: Don’t Believe The Myths: The Horse Racing Industry Is Rotten To Its Core

The 2024 Paris Olympics will see approximately 200 horses used in the equine sports of showjumping, dressage, and eventing. Individual and team riders representing their countries will seek to gain winning advantages which can be at the expense of horse welfare – a reality that causes horses to suffer pain and distress.

It will come as a shock to very few that following the disturbing scenes at the Tokyo Olympics, when a horse was punched in plain sight, the world of equestrian sports has fallen even further from grace. A very quick tap into a search engine and a whole library of tales of abuse surface, including horses being neglected, left bruised and bloody through over-use of painful riding aids, and punished with force when they are exhausted. Earlier this week, it was reported that Team GB dressage champion Charlotte Dujardin has withdrawn from the Paris Olympics, due to an “error of judgement” in a coaching session a few years ago. Video footage shows Charlotte repeatedly whipping a horse on the legs.

Far from isolated cases, these abuses are simply the visible shoots from a deep-rooted cruelty that forms the very bedrock of equestrian sports.

Read more: Why Isn’t Horse Riding Vegan? Everything You Need To Know

Tokyo Olympics 2020 (held in 2021 due to covid)

At the Tokyo Olympics, the world witnessed a coach punching a horse named Saint Boy and shouting orders to whip him harder during the modern pentathlon. Saint Boy had refused to jump for another rider earlier in the competition; it is hard to imagine how bewildering and frightening these experiences must have been for him. Following the outcry from this abuse, the horse riding segment of the modern pentathlon was axed. Whilst it is welcome news that this part of the pentathlon has now been replaced, it does beg the question: if a coach felt able to abuse an animal when the world was watching, what sort of cruelty happens behind closed doors, away from the cameras and the eyes of millions?

The Tokyo Olympics also saw a horse named Kilkenny suffer a horrific nosebleed during a showjumping final, and a horse named Jet Set “euthanized” after being injured during the cross-country. Following these disturbing scenes, international equestrian journalist Julie Taylor wrote an open letter to the International Olympics Council named: “I Can’t Watch Anymore’: The Case for Dropping Equestrian from the Olympic Games.”

Dressage

Dressage has received a huge amount of negative press for animal abuse. In November 2023, a segment on Danish TV exposed horrific cruelty at Andreas Helgstrand’s riding center: a school for dressage. 

Painful riding aids (the bit and spurs) were used so aggressively that horses were seen to be bleeding from their mouths and flanks. The status of the company has been revoked.

Dressage is an intrinsically cruel discipline, in which a horse and their rider must perform a set routine of arranged movements. Terms such as “obedience,” “submissiveness,” and “domination” are rife.

One of the most controversial practices seen in dressage in recent years has been the ‘rollkur’ (hyperflexion of the neck), a now-banned practice which involves pulling a horse’s head into their chest behind the vertical with force (in the belief that it ‘improves suppleness’ – a total misconception). This “warm-up” move can obstruct a horse’s airway, injure a major ligament in their neck, cause nerve damage in their tongue, as well as cause other mental and physical harms we cannot comprehend.

Patrik Kittel, a Swedish competitor, was filmed performing the ‘rollkur’ on a horse in 2009. The video went viral due to the clear cruelty, involving the horse’s tongue turning blue due to lack of oxygen. The FEI banned the use of the rollkur in warm-up at international competitions in 2010.

However, Kittel did not receive any disciplinary action, and has remained a controversial figure. Earlier this year, Kittel was pictured riding in competitions where the horses’ tongues appeared to be blue – implying that again, the horses’ tongues were not receiving enough oxygen and they were in pain. The FEI say they are “actively looking into” this. 

Even though the rollkur has been banned in international competitions, cruelty of this kind continues to happen in equestrian sports, as these sports are centered on “dominance” and “control” of an animal. Indeed, the use of the move “Low, Deep, Round” (LDR) is thought to be very similar to the rollkur in the pain it can cause the horses; yet it is still permitted. Furthermore, whilst the rollkur is officially banned, it is highly likely that some people continue this cruel practice behind closed doors. 

Painful artificial aids (equipment used to maximize a horse’s “performance”) are used to the extreme in dressage. Unyielding “crank” nosebands and tight curb chains deny a horse the ability to move their own jaw, and it is well known that some riders overuse their spurs which can cause bleeding and bruising on the horse’s skin.

Show Jumping & Eventing

Show Jumping and Eventing are also incredibly cruel. 

Show jumping has been entwined with drug and abuse scandals for many years. Violent whipping and overuse of spurs are common – these abuses can cause “swelling and bleeding wounds.”

“Rapping” has long been reported as happening. This is where a horse is hit in the legs to make them jump higher. Severe brits and bridles can cause excessive foaming at the mouth, drooling and painful mouth trauma.

Eventing is a grueling discipline, spanning three days of physically and mentally draining activities including dressage, cross country and show jumping. These are activities in which the horses have no choice to partake, and yet suffer greatly as a consequence.

46 Equine Welfare Recommendations

The French Government has created a list of 46 recommendations for equestrian sports at the 2024 Paris Olympics. These have been made in an attempt to mitigate the animal welfare concerns following the disturbing abuse at the Tokyo Olympic Games, and to try and be a leader for equestrian welfare in sport. 

These suggestions include relaxation areas for the horses, the establishment of a “Welfare Committee” and 24/7 video monitoring. Whilst any improvements to protect horses’ safety and wellbeing are incredibly welcome; these do not deal with the root cause of the suffering, including away from the Olympic stage during training sessions. In order to safeguard horses from abuse and suffering, all equestrian sports must be dropped from the Olympics.

Foie Gras

Additionally, Animal Equality has been campaigning to remove Foie Gras patè from the menu at the Paris Olympics. Foie Gras is made by force-feeding ducks and geese, which enlarges their livers up to ten-times their natural size. The cruelty is barbaric; tubes are forced down these beautiful birds’ throats and they are kept in gruesome conditions. You can take action here.

Cruelty doesn’t belong in the Olympics

Many kind-hearted people may partake in equestrian sports, unaware of the cruelty and enjoying spending time with such magnificent animals. The abuse of horses is an inconvenient truth – and turning a blind eye – in the name of “tradition” and “status quo” is encouraged.

Budding riders are often socialized into thinking that “breaking a horse’s spirit” is justifiable to make them submit. The relationship between horse and rider is sensationalised to be one of harmony and leadership, without questioning that the relationship is only ever focused on the human’s agenda. When animals feel they have no agency, and are continually punished whatever they do, they learn to “shut down.” This can lead to “learned helplessness,” a condition linked with depression in humans. In summation, “learned helplessness is a methodology (often practiced by people who are unaware it’s what they’re doing) that punishes the horse for being a horse”.

Furthermore, forcing an animal to perform a sport which is entirely based on human wants and ideals is unacceptable, and as a result, the social license of horse racing and equestrian sports is starting to diminish. Putting animals in harm’s way, subjecting them to cruel training regimes, and only valuing them for what they can do for us, is not a “sport.” At their best, humans are compassionate and kind. These values are gold-medal worthy – the subjugation of an innocent animal is absolutely not.

To read more, visit Animal Aid’s paper on the history of cruelty in equestrian sports.

With thanks to Dene Stansall – Animal Aid’s Horse Racing Consultant.

Read more: 2024 Olympics Set To Double Its Plant-Based Food Offering

This article was written by Nina Copleston-Hawkens on the PBN Website.

In the last two weeks, barn fires have ravaged two animal farms. One fire, at an Illinois egg farm on May 29, killed an estimated 1.2 million “egg laying” hens. The second, at another egg farm in California the following day, took place in a barn that was, thankfully, empty at the time.

At first glance, it would be reasonable to assume these fires were nothing more than freak accidents. Fires happen, they’re often no-one’s fault, and many people may see the news reports and reason that animals burning to death are just tragic anomalies, a necessary evil in a system built to feed us. 

But these fires increasingly seem to be part of an ever more tangible pattern. It’s becoming apparent that our animal farming system is built in a way that makes fires not just accidents, but inevitabilities. Animals should never be in farms in the first place. And locking them up in them, sometimes by their millions, is not only causing huge suffering and desecrating the planet, but it’s also creating perfect conditions for fires that subject animals to one of the most painful possible deaths. Barn fires have become part and parcel in the broken system of animal agriculture, and the problem is getting worse. 

The ‘worst death imaginable’

Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) is a Washington DC-based nonprofit that’s been documenting barn fires since 2013. It estimates that, in the last decade, more than eight million animals have been killed. Birds, pigs, goats, horses, cows, rabbits, alpacas, dogs, cats, llamas, and more are included in this figure. Any animal farmed by humans is at risk. Exact annual statistics are hard to estimate, and farms are not required to report the death counts of animals who die in fires. On average, though, the number of animals killed around the world in barn fires each year is in the hundreds of thousands. 

“Barn fires are a serious problem that not many people have heard about,” Allie Granger, senior policy associate for AWI’s farmed animal program and leader of the barn fires campaign, tells Plant Based News (PBN). “The number of animals that are impacted is enormous and their manner of death is probably one of the worst imaginable.” 

The vast majority of animals killed are chickens. They are by far the most farmed land animal, and represent around 98 percent of barn fire deaths. Due to the fact they are small in size, intensive farms can house huge numbers of birds at a time. Many farms, including the Illinois egg farm, house more than a million in one barn. When one fire happens, its death toll can therefore be devastating. 

Some animals die of smoke inhalation. But those are the luckier ones. Animals are already suffering terribly in farms, and are more often than not locked up in crates, cramped together, and often immobile due to injuries. When flames spread, animals have no chance of avoiding them. The fire gets to them while they’re still alive, incinerating them in their cages. Some survive being burnt alive, and the only medical assistance they’ll receive is to be put down hours later. 

Barn fires mostly start because of malfunctioning heating or electrical equipment. This means that fires are a particular problem in colder countries and states, and they also tend to happen in winter. Once the fires have started, they spread very easily in farms. Barns are often full of flammable materials like hay, dust, and gasses like methane. Farmers are also often under no obligation to have fire safety measures like sprinklers and emergency exits for animals, and mostly choose not to install these due to costs. “Legal protections for farmed animals—in terms of fire safety and prevention, specifically—​are extremely limited,” says Granger. “This is unsurprising given the lack of protection afforded to farmed animals, both in general and compared to other classes of animals. There are no federal laws in the US specifically designed to protect farmed animals from barn fires.”

A growing threat

While barn fires are allowed to continue unchecked, the number of animals being killed is increasing. According to the AWI’s count, the average number of animals dying annually was over 748,000 in the time period 2018-2021. This is up from 552,000 between 2013 and 2017. 

Barn fires are a growing problem because industrial agriculture is a growing problem. As each year goes by, the number of animals being bred and raised for food worldwide increases by around a billion. The exact number of land animals we kill each year is therefore hard to pinpoint, but the latest figure estimates that around 92 billion are used in our food system each year. The vast majority of these animals are kept in cramped and torturous conditions in factory farms. “The issue of barn fires and the death toll they have caused is just one of the many ramifications of how animal agriculture has evolved in this country,” says Granger. “We have reached a point where confining tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of animals in massive buildings without safety measures in place is not only considered acceptable, but increasingly the norm. All signs point to this trend continuing, and we fear the dire consequences animals will continue to face as a result.”

In the US, 99 percent of animals are intensively farmed, and it’s 85 percent in the UK. Mega farms, which can house more than a million animals at a time, are dotted all over the place, and more are being built all the time. As these farms aren’t built with any sort of fire safety measures in mind, and more and more animals are being kept in a single one at any given time, it’s very likely that the coming years will see many more million animals being killed as more and more farms go up in flames around the world.

Harder to ignore

But despite the huge and growing death toll, barn fires still aren’t really spoken out (aside from the odd news report that focuses on the economic loss of the farmer). Most people abhor the idea of animals being treated badly, so why are they turning a blind eye to them being burned alive in their millions?

Humans have largely taught themselves to not think about animals in our food system. While they dote on their “pets” and loudly criticize dog meat, bullfighting, and other animal abuses happening in other countries, they try their best not to think about the countless animals being tortured for their dinner.

But barn fires are becoming harder to ignore. These fires aren’t just hurting animals, they’re impacting human communities as well. Farming animals is already terrible for the planet, contributing to a huge amount of pollution without the added impact of smoke. And barn fires force humans to breathe in the toxic fumes of an industry they’ve spent their lives trying desperately not to think about. 

Animal farms are unnatural. They’re full of a huge amount of synthetic materials that produce highly toxic chemicals when they burn. Last year, a Texas dairy farm barn fire caused by a methane explosion killed 18,000 cows. The explosion emitted a plume of black smoke into the air that could be seen for miles, and witnesses said that the streets looked like they were filled with fog in its wake. Animal agriculture thrives in secrecy, but barn fires are bringing its reality – coughing and spluttering –  to our front doors. 

A move away from animal agriculture is essential

Barn fires are being seen by many as yet another reminder of the horrific cruelty inherent in the animal agriculture industry. Our farming system is rife with abuse of animals generally, not just those who die in fires, and multiple investigations have detailed animals being mutilated, starved, injured, burned, beaten, and boiled alive. If animals weren’t farmed against their will and trapped in these conditions in the first place, they wouldn’t be at risk of yet another type of painful death.

While increased fire safety measures on farms would be a welcome stepping stone, many animal organizations believe that a move away from farming is the only move forward. Viva! is the UK’s leading vegan campaigning charity. It has conducted multiple undercover investigations into the reality of our farming system. “It is abhorrent that so many sentient beings are being kept indoors in filthy conditions where they are never allowed to see the sun or graze outdoors,” Laura Hellwig, Viva!’s managing director, tells PBN. “This surprisingly common practice is indicative of all that is wrong with modern farming and animal agriculture.”

The animal agriculture industry will have you believe that this sort of farming is necessary to feed the human population, but it’s actually a hugely unsustainable industry that’s one of the leading drivers of the climate crisis and causal of a significant amount of human diseases. Studies have shown that a shift to a plant-based food system would feed an additional four billion people, free up 75 percent of agricultural land, and drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Barn fires are not a necessary evil, but an added horror on an ailing, pointless, and deeply catastrophic industry.

If we are to make sure barn fires never happen, it logically follows that we need to stop subjecting animals to these conditions in the first place. “The number one thing you can do if you are concerned about barn fires is to stop eating meat, dairy, fish and eggs,” says Hellwig. “By going vegan, you reduce the demand for animal products, which in turn reduces production. If you can, educate those around you on the horrors of factory farming and encourage them to adopt a plant-based diet.”  

This article was written by Polly Foreman on the PBN Website.

Read more: ‘Transfarmation’ Stories: The Farmers Switching From Animals To Crops

The furore against almonds can be largely traced back to the exploding popularity of almond milk, which took place in the 2010s. As more and more people went plant-based and became vocal about our food system’s problems, the media and popular culture fought back, deciding to blame vegans for eating almonds, rather than themselves for eating dairy. 

Piers Morgan regularly labels vegans “hypocrites” for eating almonds on his show. Publications often cite almonds in articles claiming that vegans are destroying the planet. A daytime show called This Morning once warned viewers not to drink almond milk if they had an “environmental conscience.” In the hugely popular TV sitcom The Good Place, a running joke throughout the series is that Chidi ended up in hell because he enjoyed almond milk on his coffee, despite knowing its “environmental impact.”

But why are almonds so notorious? And do they really deserve this reputation? Here, we delve into everything you need to know about the ethics of eating almonds. 

The popularity of almond milk 

Variations of almond milk have been around in some cultures for hundreds of years, but its popularity as a plant-based milk alternative started in the 21st century. Around a decade ago, in 2014, almond milk hit headlines when it overtook soy as the USA’s favorite plant milk. It maintains this title today, with soy and oat milk following behind. In just three months in 2021, almond milk sales reached USD $344 million. The global almond milk market is worth around $5.46 billion. 

Almond milk is essentially a blend of almonds and water, and many brands add sweeteners or sugar, as well as fortifications of vitamins and minerals. Almond milk is popular in coffee, breakfast cereal, and a wide range of plant-based recipes. It’s now available at pretty much any cafe, supermarket, or restaurant you go to. 

Read more: Will Eating Chicken Really Save The Planet?

The environmental cost of almonds

The main reason why almonds are controversial is because they use up a lot of fresh water. Around 80 percent of the world’s almonds are grown in California, a state that regularly experiences droughts. Between the years of 2012 and 2016, a time when almond milk was first becoming mainstream, California experienced its worst droughts on record. Blaming almonds for these droughts has therefore been easy, convenient, and commonplace. 

And, to an extent, almonds do deserve this blame. Tree nuts need a huge amount of freshwater to grow, and almond farming uses up nine percent of California’s freshwater. This is a substantial amount, and the fact that almonds have become more popular over the years has worsened the problem. Due to growing demand, growers have started planting almond trees in hot and dry regions, such as the western San Joaquin Valley, where water supplies are fragile. This means that a huge, and growing, amount of groundwater is being irrigated to keep these trees healthy in difficult conditions. 

There is no doubt that almonds are using up water, and people are right to label them as not environmentally-friendly in that regard. The mistake society makes, however, is believing them to be worse than dairy.

Almonds VS dairy 

The vast majority of media reports, segments, and popular culture moments that attack almond milk for its water usage fail to give any mention to the huge water use of dairy. 

While nine percent of California’s agricultural water is used for almonds, around 16 percent is used to grow a crop called alfalfa, which is predominantly grown to feed dairy cows, as well as other farmed animals. A Food and Water Watch report published in 2023 found that dairy farming alone uses 142 million gallons per day. A study published in the journal Nature in 2020 reported that beef and dairy production is “the leading driver” of water scarcity in Western USA. A University of Oxford study published in 2022 found that dairy milk uses 628 liters of water per liter of milk, while almond milk uses 371 liters.

When assessing the environmental impact of a food, it’s not just water use that should be taken into account. The amount of greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, and land use the food contributes to, are all key indicators of how eco-friendly it is. In regards to these three categories, almond milk actually fares quite well. 

According to the Oxford study, almond milk produces the lowest emissions of all plant milks cited, at 0.7 kg per liter. Oat milk produces 0.9 kg, soy milk 0.98 kg, while rice milk emits 1.18 kg. Dairy milk is by far the biggest contributor to greenhouse gasses, producing 3.15 kg per liter.

Almond milk also uses far less land than dairy at 0.5 square meters per liter, opposed to dairy’s 8.95 square meters. It’s worth noting that almond farming uses trees, which help remove carbon from the atmosphere, meaning its use of land is considerably more environmentally friendly than dairy’s. In terms of eutrophication (the pollution of ecosystems with excess nutrients), almond milk is the second least harmful of all milks studied. 

Almond milk and bees

Another highly publicized issue with almonds is that they use bees in their production, as almond trees require cross pollination to grow. 

Migratory beekeeping refers to the practice of transporting hives of bees long distances so they can help pollinate certain crops. Beekeepers often make a significant amount of their income by renting out their honey bees for this purpose. Bees are sentient beings, and making them travel in this way is likely highly stressful for them. Many die on route, and huge numbers are also killed on farms. 

According to a 2020 report by the Guardian, beekeepers renting bees to almond farms were seeing bees die in “record numbers.” High mortality is attributed to pesticide exposure, diseases from parasites, and habitat loss. Using honey bees to pollinate crops also wreaks havoc on native bee populations, as they compete against them for food and resources. They may also spread diseases to other bees. 

There is no doubt that migratory beekeeping is exploitative, and some people have claimed that foods like almonds (as well as avocados, cherries, kiwis, melons, and butternut squash) are not vegan because they are grown as a result of it. 

Are almonds vegan?

The assessment that almonds are not vegan because of migratory beekeeping is not true. Almonds, along with avocados and other vegetables, are suitable for vegans. The definition of veganism, as outlined by The Vegan Society, is about avoiding animal use and exploitation “where possible and practicable.” It would be both impossible and impractical to avoid all indirect harm to animals while living in a non-vegan world. Veganism is about minimizing harm, rather than avoiding it altogether.

That said, that doesn’t mean that vegans support migratory beekeeping. Many strive to buy products that come from farms who do not rely on it, and vegans also fight for a plant-based food system where crops are farmed more naturally, and migratory beekeeping is not viable or needed. 

If you are using the bee exploitation argument as a reason to consume dairy over almonds, it’s worth remembering that migratory beekeeping is also used to grow alfalfa and other crops fed to farmed animals, meaning dairy consumption contributes to bee exploitation too. Animal farming is also the leading cause of biodiversity loss, which is having a significant effect on bee populations.

Drinking cow’s milk directly supports an industry that breeds, raises, and exploits 270 million sentient beings globally. Cows, like all mammals, must give birth to a baby in order to produce milk, and they are forcibly impregnated around once a year to that end. After they give birth, their baby will be taken from them after just a few hours. If the baby is female, she will likely suffer the same fate as her mother. If the baby is male, he will either be shot or sold to the veal industry. Illnesses like mastitis (a painful udder inflammation) and lameness are common on dairy farms due to the conditions in which the animals are kept. Dairy cows will therefore often spend their entire lives in pain. Once their milk dries up, they will be sent to the slaughterhouse. 

The bottom line

There is no doubt that almonds are more water intensive than many other plant foods, and they are far from an environmentally-friendly food. Almond farming also causes harm to animals, contributing to exploitation and death of bees. 

To some, therefore, almonds and almond milk are unethical foods, and should be avoided. This is a reasonable assessment to make, and it is absolutely right that almonds may not be compatible with some people’s lifestyle choices. If you are concerned about almonds but consume meat and dairy, however, it’s very likely that your issues with almonds are eclipsed by the products you are eating. 

Over the last few years, almonds have gained a reputation that they don’t entirely deserve. Our society gives huge emphasis to the environmental and ethical costs of almonds and other plant foods, while largely sidelining or ignoring the significant costs of animal foods. This is misleading, and it gives the entirely false impression that almond milk is worse for the environment than dairy. Time and time again, however, almonds – and other plant foods – have been shown to be more environmentally-friendly, and more ethical generally, than animal products.

Read more: ‘Veganism Is Dead’: Say Media Outlets – Does The Data Agree?

This article was written by Polly Foreman on the PBN Website.

Read more: An Honest Review: The Best Vegan Protein Powders In The UK

These culinary guides celebrate the abundance of vegetables, fruits, grains, and legumes available to vegans — showing that vegan cooking can be diverse and delicious without relying on animal products.

Choosing the right vegan cookbook can transform your cooking routine, whether you’re a long-time vegan or new to plant-based eating. The best vegan cookbooks provide a variety of recipes, from quick and simple dishes to more elaborate meals. 

A good cookbook also ensures that there is something for every skill level and time constraint. They often go beyond just recipes, offering tips for vegan substitutions, pantry essentials, and nutritional advice to help readers understand the principles of vegan cooking.

When looking for a vegan cookbook, consider factors such as the type of cuisine, the complexity of the recipes, and the nutritional balance. A good cookbook should include a mix of recipes that appeal to different dietary needs and preferences, including gluten-free, soy-free, or nut-free options. 

Moreover, high-quality images, clear instructions, and additional information on sourcing uncommon ingredients can greatly enhance the cooking experience. Be sure to keep this in mind when choosing the best vegan cookbook for you.

Read more: What Is Batch Juicing? How The Nama Juicer Takes The Hassle Out Of Healthy Living

Top Vegan Cookbooks

We’ve gathered a collection of the best vegan cookbooks that cater to a diverse range of tastes and skill levels. Whether you’re new to plant-based cooking or a seasoned vegan chef, these books offer a range of recipes to inspire your culinary journey. From quick and easy meals to gourmet dishes, these cookbooks provide all the tools you need to prepare delicious and compassionate cuisine.

The Complete Plant-Based ATK Cookbook

This cookbook is ideal for those who crave variety and innovative recipes.

Pros

• Packed with a diverse range of recipes
• Clear instructions coupled with nutritional information
• Covers how to use new plant-based options such as Impossible and Beyond Meat

Cons

• The paperback cover can be prone to damage in transit
• With fewer images on certain pages, the book can be text-heavy and potentially overwhelming for some readers

Upon flipping through its pages, it’s clear that The Complete Plant-Based ATK Cookbook makes the experience of cooking without meat easy. You’ll find 500 recipes, each offering a new perspective on vegan cuisine. From the aroma of fresh herbs to the sizzle of a stir-fry, its guidance in the kitchen will be a game changer for anyone.

Navigating our way through the chapters, we encountered everything from quick weeknight dinners to how-to recipes such as making your own vegan pesto. You may be fond of the coffee cake, sizzling Saigon crepes, or the shiitake ramen as well. And that’s just a few of the 500 recipes available. 

What’s more, the inclusion of a nutritional breakdown at the back is beneficial for those mindful of their diet. While the surplus of text may daunt the uninitiated home chef, it features a wealth of culinary wisdom.

Even so, we did note that the delicate nature of the paperback edition could suffer damage with rough handling. The Complete Plant-Based ATK Cookbook remains a treasured resource on our bookshelf, guiding us toward wholesome and delightful vegan meals.

Click here to buy

Simple and Delicious Vegan

This cookbook is great for anyone looking to explore a variety of vegan and gluten-free recipes that promise both simplicity and flavor.

Pros

• Recipes are straightforward and practical for everyday cooking
• Includes a diversity of dishes that are flavor-focused and satisfying
• High quality photos complement each recipe, offering visual inspiration

Cons

• It may not be the best cookbook for those very experienced in the kitchen
• The hardcover format is preferable as the text on the digital edition may be difficult to read

Opening Simple and Delicious Vegan by ElaVegan, you’ll be greeted by a plethora of mouthwatering images. Flipping through the pages, the clear instructions made it easy to kickstart your cooking adventure without hesitation. 

It’s refreshing to see a vegan cookbook that emphasizes familiar comfort foods, repurposed to fit a plant-based and gluten-free diet without sacrificing flavor. Some of our top picks from the cookbook include the white bean dip, the fudgy chocolate cookies, and the black bean quesadillas.

While using the cookbook, we felt encouraged by the accessibility of the ingredients. The recipes didn’t send us on a wild goose chase for obscure items — a relief for those of us who juggle busy schedules but still prioritize home-cooked meals. Additionally, having tried a few recipes, we found the dishes not only lived up to their tasty promises but also introduced us to new flavors that we now can’t do without.

We can confidently say that it’s a solid choice for anyone with a love for vegan cooking, especially if you’re just starting. This book is an effective guide that helps navigate the sometimes overwhelming landscape of vegan cuisine with ease, making it a valuable addition to our culinary collection. Its recipes have earned a spot in our meal rotation, and we look forward to trying them all.

Click here to buy

Vegan Africa

This cookbook shows you how to cook a wide range of recipes from the African continent, and it’s a wonderful addition to any kitchen.

Pros

• The book offers insights into plant-based cuisines of 13 African countries
• It has inviting images of recipes with interesting twists on standard vegan dishes
• The recipes are straightforward and simple

Cons

• The recipes don’t feature nutritional information, which some people like to have in a cookbook
• Some of the recipes contain generous amounts of oil which may not suit every diet

We absolutely loved this cookbook, and think it’s ideal for vegans and plant-based enthusiasts who are interested in discovering healthy plant-based recipes based on African cuisine. With 70 recipes from 13 different African countries, you’ll be taken on a tour of flavorful, healthy, and naturally plant-based dishes.

You’ll be delighted by the variety of mains, rice dishes, sauces, snacks, desserts, and drinks. Try the cassava tabbouleh, the Bobotie (South African casserole), and the coconut and lemongrass muffins. In regards to the layout of the cookbook, we enjoyed how simple the instructions and ingredients were.

You’ll also enjoy the additional information such as the prep and cook times as well as the servings per dish. The recipes are paired with high-quality images that give clear direction on how the dishes should look.

The hardcover of the book is also a plus as it’s visually appealing and sturdy making it great for frequent use and display.

All in all, Vegan Africa is a great cookbook to have in your collection.

Click here to buy

The Korean Vegan Cookbook

This cookbook will be a hit with people who love Korean food and want to make vegan versions of Korean staples.

Pros

• The introduction is highly informative and explains each staple ingredient in Korean cooking in detail
• Each recipe is paired with stunning visuals of the dish as well as snapshots of main ingredients littered throughout the book
• Many of the recipes are from scratch and show readers how to make base ingredients for Korean cooking

Cons

• Some of the ingredients are inaccessible if you do not have a Korean grocery store nearby.
• Recipes do not have metric measurements which may leave cooks feeling less confident about achieving the correct result.

When we got our hands on The Korean Vegan Cookbook, we were excited to find that not only does this cookbook have recipes of delicious vegan Korean meals, but it also shows you how to make key ingredients from scratch. It’s clear that the aim of this cookbook is to teach readers the building blocks of Korean cuisine in a plant-based package.

You’ll learn how to make vegan versions of key ingredients as you read. We particularly liked the mushroom dashi and vegetable broth, and sauces like the Korean BBQ sauce and the “fishy” sauce. When it comes to choosing our favorite recipes from this cookbook you can’t go wrong with the Korean pear slaw, the pecan paht pie, and the power bowl.

As for the ease of use, the recipes are easy enough to follow, though they lack metric measurements which may deter newer cooks. Each recipe offers information regarding the quantity the recipe makes, the difficulty of each recipe, as well as possible allergens. We found those tidbits incredibly helpful when choosing which dishes we wanted to make.

The hardcover book is sturdy and is filled with glossy pages full of high quality images of the dishes mentioned as well as ingredients used in said dishes. One gripe would be the size of the font and the color of the text in some sections, which can be difficult to read.

Overall, The Korean Vegan Cookbook would make a great addition to your bookshelf if you’re passionate about Korean cuisine and love the flavors in a plant-based format.

Click here to buy

Vegan for Everybody

This cookbook is a valuable resource for anyone looking to expand their vegan recipe repertoire, with approachable and delicious recipes that are sure to impress.

Pros

• Recipes cater to all skill levels, with clear instructions
• The cookbook provides scientific insights into plant-based ingredients
• The book offers a wide variety of meal options, from breakfast to desserts

Cons

• Recipe pages can be overwhelming to read due to dense paragraphs
• A few recipes may be complex for absolute beginners

After a careful examination of this cookbook, it’s evident that Vegan for Everybody caters to both new and longterm vegans alike. The recipes are incredibly varied, offering taste explosions from breakfast through to dinner, and have been tested rigorously to ensure satisfying results.

The inclusion of tips and a scientific approach to vegan cooking makes this book stand out. Our understanding of plant-based ingredients has deepened, and it’s refreshing to see the “why” behind cooking processes—something that’s often missed in standard recipes.

Here’s what we recommend from the large array of recipes: the banana bread, the Baja-style cauliflower tacos, the fettuccine alfredo, and the chocolate cake, to name a few. This book is not just a collection of recipes but a toolkit for anyone eager to embrace a plant-based diet without missing out on flavor and substance.

Click here to buy

Everyone Can Cook Vegan

We think this cookbook is ideal for cooks of all skill levels looking to follow simple, straightforward, yet flavorful recipes.

Pros

• The cookbook has an easy-to-read layout and straightforward instructions that are great for beginners
• Each recipe has a clearly marked level of difficulty to make choosing meals easier
• The book has gorgeous glossy photos for each recipe to guide and entice readers

Cons

• Experienced cooks may already be familiar with some of the recipes
• The paperback cover may be prone to damage with frequent use

After reading Everybody Can Cook Vegan, it was evident that this cookbook was made with simplicity in mind. The 100 recipes provided in the book offer a range of plant-based creations, from known favorites and staples to new and creative takes on classic dishes. 

Some of the highlights were the sticky toffee pudding, the Prosecco fondue, and the chickpea and mango curry, to name a few. We especially appreciated the focus on how the recipes were incredibly straightforward and not fussy.

An additional benefit to an easy-to-read layout was the large and high-quality images that showcased each recipe. From smoothies to mains to cakes and even snacks, Everyone Can Cook Vegan offers a versatile range of meals home cooks can make, often with ingredients straight from the pantry.

Each recipe highlighted the preparation and cooking time as well as the level of difficulty for each dish, which was undoubtedly a pleasant inclusion. These inclusions may help you when planning meals for the week, especially if you don’t have all day to cook. 

This cookbook allows you to not only plan meals in advance, helping you keep the grocery shopping easy, but it also introduces you to new dishes from across the globe. If you’re a beginner or even starting out on your vegan journey, this book may provide the inspiration to jazz up meals and help you transform cooking from a mundane task into a tasty pursuit.

Click here to buy

Unbelievably Vegan

If you’re aiming to add some delicious and family-friendly recipes to your weekly dinner rotation, this is the cookbook for you.

Pros

• Recipes cater to family-sized portions, making them great for meals together
• The book fosters an easy transition for newcomers to veganism
• Offers innovative twists on classic dishes, appealing to various palates

• Cons
• A few recipes may require more prep time
• Those well-versed in vegan cooking might find some recipes less innovative

In our experience, Unbelievably Vegan lives up to its name by delivering an array of recipes that can surprise even the staunchest meat-eaters with their flavor and texture. The first thing to adore about this cookbook is how the portion sizes accommodate family meals, ensuring there’s enough to satisfy everyone at the table.

The transition to a vegan lifestyle can be daunting, but the guidance provided by this cookbook will make the switch much smoother for you. The variety in the recipes—from hearty entrees to decadent desserts—keeps our meals exciting and new. 

Foodies will love the Creole and Peurto Rican twists that pay homage to the author’s roots. Try the chili con chili, jerk-spiced lentils with coconut rice and mango salsa, and the banana pudding to spice things up.

While some of the dishes can be a bit of a project, the extra effort always pays off in taste. However, do keep in mind that you might need to plan ahead, as not all ingredients might be in your usual stock.

For those just starting their vegan journey or seeking to infuse new life into their vegan meal prep, this book has been a valuable kitchen companion. Yet, for the vegan veterans among us, some recipes might not seem as groundbreaking, considering the wealth of options out there. Overall, the pros definitely outweigh the cons, with the book providing plenty of culinary inspiration.

Click here to buy

Plant-Based Cooking Made Easy

We find this cookbook to be an invaluable resource for anyone looking to explore the benefits of a plant-based diet with fuss-free recipes.

Pros

• Every recipe comes with a corresponding picture, eliminating guesswork
• QR codes included for video tutorials add a modern, interactive touch
• The recipes cater to various dietary needs like oil-free, sugar-free, and gluten-free

Cons

• Some ingredients may be unexpected or surprising, which can be a challenge for beginner vegans
• The focus on simplicity might disappoint those looking for gourmet vegan recipes

Having recently tried Easy Plant-Based Recipes, we understand the appeal. The range of recipes is quite impressive, and they’re all rooted in accessible, whole-food, plant-based cooking — a book for anyone, especially those new to veganism. The instructions are clear, so you won’t find yourself second-guessing at any step.

When we embarked on making dishes from the book, the QR codes linking to videos felt like having a personal cooking guide. This interactive feature bridges the gap for those of us who benefit from visual learning. We recommend you make the caramel apple cake, roasted potato salad, and lentil flatbread for a taste of the delicious gems featured in this cookbook.  

Diving into the variety of meals, we appreciate how the book accommodates different dietary requirements. Whether you’re oil-free, sugar-free, gluten-free, or low-sodium, this cookbook has got you covered. However, it’s essential to mention that while the simplicity of the recipes is ideal for beginners, someone more experienced in the kitchen might desire more complexity and challenge.

Additionally, while having a plethora of healthy options is exciting, some of the ingredients listed in the recipes may be unfamiliar and potentially daunting if you’re not well-acquainted with plant-based fare.

In summary, we highly recommend Easy Plant-Based Recipes for anyone eager to embark on a plant-based journey or expand their vegan cookbook collection. The book’s approachable and user-friendly format scores high on our list, making it a delightful addition to our kitchen repertoire.

Click here to buy

Homemade Vegan Staples

We think this cookbook is a must-have for anyone looking to master vegan home cooking and expand their kitchen skills.

Pros

• Loaded with a variety of recipes
• Focuses on making staples from scratch
• Easy-to-follow instructions

Cons

• Some ingredients might be hard to find
• Recipes may require time investment
• Adjustments are needed for non-U.S. readers

After spending some time with The Homemade Vegan Pantry, it’s clear that it’s more than just a cookbook; it’s a guide to transforming your kitchen habits. The insight into creating vegan staples—such as dairy-free cheeses, vegan condiments, and plant-based meats—is invaluable. These foundational recipes not only augment any dish but also contribute to a sustainable lifestyle by cutting down on packaged goods.

The layout of the book promotes a seamless cooking experience. Each recipe is laid out with clarity, making it simple to follow. Whether you’re a novice or a seasoned chef, the directions are easy to understand and replicate. The tips and tricks sprinkled throughout the pages have been particularly helpful and will allow you to improve your culinary techniques.

We appreciate the focus on whole foods and the push towards self-reliance in the kitchen. Preparing a batch of the “Unribs” showcased not just the potential for plant-based alternatives to satisfy meat cravings but also how simple it can be. Not to mention, the plethora of from-scratch condiments you can make with ease, from classic eggless mayo to fig and lavender jam. 

The book even shows its readers how to prepare milk alternatives such as cashew milk and oil-free melty “mozzarella”. Knowing exactly what goes into your food is empowering and aligns perfectly with the vegan ethos of mindful eating.

The only slight hitch has been sourcing some of the more unique ingredients, which may not be readily available at local stores. It’s also worth noting that those outside of the United States might have to adjust certain measurements or substitute ingredients based on availability. Despite this, the benefits and pleasures of crafting your own vegan staples from scratch cannot be overstated.

Click here to buy

Buying Guide

Assess Your Cooking Level

When looking for the best vegan cookbook, it’s important to consider your cooking proficiency. Are we beginners, intermediate cooks, or seasoned chefs? Look for books that match your skill level, as some might be more complex with advanced techniques, while others guide you step-by-step through basic recipes.

Dietary Restrictions and Preferences

You must also consider any additional dietary restrictions or preferences you have, such as gluten-free, nut-free, or soy-free options. Vegan cookbooks that categorize recipes according to these considerations make it easier to choose meals suited to your needs.

Recipe Variety

A good vegan cookbook should offer a wide range of recipes. You should look for a mix that includes:

• Breakfasts
• Lunches
• Dinners
• Snacks
• Desserts

This variety will keep our meals interesting and ensure that you have options for every occasion.

Nutritional Information

It’s useful to know the nutritional content of the dishes you plan to make. A cookbook with detailed nutritional information can be invaluable.

Layout and Photography

The book’s layout affects how easy the recipes are to follow. You’ll likely prefer books with:

• Clear instructions: Step-by-step guidance that’s easy to follow.
• High-quality photos: Pictures that show the expected outcome of the recipes.
• Readable fonts: Legible typefaces and font sizes.

Reader Reviews

Lastly, it’s wise to consult reader reviews for unbiased opinions on the usability and success of the recipes provided. Look for patterns in reviews that might indicate the reliability and overall quality of the cookbook.

Read more: An Honest Review: The Best Vegan Chocolate To Buy In The UK

This article was written by Editorial Team on the PBN Website.

Read more: Meet The Woman Helping Animal Farms Turn Vegan

As part of my work as CEO and president of Mercy For Animals, I help farms “transfarm” – meaning I work with factory farmers to move away from animals to arable farming. I founded The Transfarmation Project in 2019. The project funds and guides U.S. farmers, whether motivated by economic, environmental, or animal welfare concerns, in switching from raising animals to growing plants.

I empathize with those who can’t imagine collaborating with factory farmers, even in a shared mission to dismantle the system. But I also recognize that this mission is monumental, and we need such alliances if we are to achieve it. 

This Earth Day, I’d like to celebrate three pioneering farm families — the Halleys, the Faaborgs, and the Lims — who repurposed their factory farms and now combat pollution and the climate crisis while growing specialty crops to feed people.   

Read more: Why This Dorset Dairy Farmer Gave His Cows To A Sanctuary And Turned His Farm Vegan

The environmental cost of animal farming

I won’t compare apples to oranges — this is a chickens to strawberries (or hogs to hemp, cattle to mushrooms, and chickens to vegetables or flowers) comparison. Did you know that chicken production churns around 5.4 pounds of carbon  per pound of meat, while strawberry production creates just 0.69 pounds of carbon per pound of fruit? Converting one four-shed industrial chicken farm to a strawberry farm would reduce yearly carbon emissions by 14 million pounds. This is roughly the amount of carbon produced per year by more than 1,300 cars. 

This same conversion would decrease annual phosphate production by 40 million pounds. How are millions of pounds of phosphate a bad thing? Besides making soil less fertile and lowering the crop yields that our species’ survival hinges on, phosphate runoff from factory farms pollutes lakes and rivers, creating scummy green algal blooms that kill aquatic animals, and it creates ghostly expanses of ocean that can no longer support life. Transitioning this industrial chicken farm to a strawberry farm would also generate 134 million fewer pounds of sulfur dioxide per year. This insidious gas often gives rise to particulate air pollution and harms trees and plants — nature’s vital carbon reservoirs.

The Halley family

If a four-shed conversion can go so far, imagine the positive impacts of a 12-shed conversion, like the Halley family’s. The Halleys aren’t growing strawberries, but their farm transition is a beacon of meaningful change in their Texas town and beyond.

As contract chicken farmers, the Halleys had raised over a million chickens a year for 30 years. When faced with the financial duress that often comes with contract farming, they decided to give up raising birds for good. But they didn’t know where to turn for help. Some research led them to Transfarmation. Just weeks after getting in touch with my team in July 2020, the Halleys started their first acre of hemp plants.

In October 2020, they celebrated a thriving first crop. After a proud harvest, they dried and stored the hemp in spaces fashioned from their old chicken houses (feel-good aside: their former cattle pasture is now a dog and donkey rescue).

The Faaborg family

The Faaborg family’s “transfarmation” takes environmental protection to another level, from the trees planted on their property to the solar panel installed to power the entire farm.

The Faaborgs ended their 30-year tenure as pig farmers after working with Transfarmation for one year. Their former pig farm, just north of Des Moines, now offers value-added fresh products across Iowa.

The Faaborgs’ passion had been to create low-carbon farming practices that immediately impacted climate change. The impacts, while immediate, are also compounding — the Faaborgs’ farm transition stands as a model for other farmers to replicate. Now imagine that four-shed chicken-to-strawberry conversion multiplied by hundreds or even thousands of farmers nationwide.

The Lim family

North Carolina farmer Tom Lim had raised chickens for 20 years before his contract was terminated without warning. Tom and his wife, Sokchea, had always nurtured a small plot of vegetables — Ping Tung long eggplants, jujube fruits, Chinese long beans, lemongrass, Thai basil, kaffir limes and more staples of their Southeast Asian diet.

With Transfarmation’s support, they have added specialty mushrooms to their crop production and are now expanding it to include berries, tomatoes, lettuces and other specialty crops. The Lims’ farm transition has reconnected a happier, more fulfilled couple with what brought them to farming in the first place, caring for the land and feeding people.

Plant-based is the future

The plant-based food industry is forecast to be worth USD $85 billion by 2030. Plant-based food producers will need an abundant, dependable source of key ingredients — peas, mushrooms, oats, greens and more. Similarly, the demand for hemp as food, textile fiber, and medicine is skyrocketing. Transfarmation not only partners with farmers to help them transition to plant production but connects them with businesses in need of their products. It’s a win-win-win — for farmers, the planet, and animals. 

This Earth Day, let the Halleys, Faaborgs and Lims be a testament to the power of courageous personal change. We can all be counterforces to climate change and protectors of land, water and air — and of all who inhabit them. We may not have a farm to transition, but we can choose plant-based foods, and we can support farmers by buying plant-based products directly from them. The impacts of plant-based shifts on pollution and climate are tangible; we know they make a difference. Chickens and strawberries have proven it.

Visit us at thetransfarmationproject.org to learn more. 

Read more: New Online Toolkit Helps Farmers Exit Animal Agriculture

This article was written by Leah Garcés on the PBN Website.

The campaign has slick graphics and a new website, but does it have any meaning?

Read more: Why Isn’t Horse Riding Vegan? Everything You Need To Know

Horse Deaths on race courses

Animal Aid has been campaigning to end horse racing for over two decades. This is an industry built upon the exploitation of animals. Any fatalities or injuries are excused by the industry as symptoms of the “inherent risk” involved in the sport – and in life. But whilst people can consent to the risks they take – such as when engaging in a dangerous sport – horses cannot. They are pawns used by the industry to make as much money as possible. And, crucially, would such “inherent risk” be so easily dismissed if 200 humans were dying each year within racing? 

Last year, 175 horses were killed on British race courses. Racing injuries that kill horses include broken legs, broken necks, and heart attacks. This figure does not include the unknown number of horses who die in training or because they did not make the grade.

The aftercare of horses once they leave racing

Approximately 13,000 foals are bred each year across the British and Irish racing industries, in the hope of producing the “next big winner.” Many of these horses will never see a race course; most will not ever win a race.

The overbreeding of horses is a cataclysmic welfare issue. Roughly 7,500 horses leave racing each year – the same number who enter it.

The whereabouts of the horses leaving the industry remains largely a mystery. The results from a Thoroughbred Census, commissioned by the industry, were published last month. These results are being used to suggest that the majority of horses leaving the industry go on to lead “acceptable lives.” This census was voluntary, so again, ultimately meaningless.

It is crucial to note that the many other disciplines that horses may be retrained into post-racing, can also be exploitative and restrictive – from one life of gruelling demand to another.

The last published public record of the fate of horses leaving British racing was a 2008 study, carried out on horses who left racing in 2006. This report used data from Weatherbys (which administers British racing) and was published in Horse & Hound magazine. The results were damning – 43 percent of horses were dead or could not be accounted for.

Currently, money allocated by the Horserace Betting Levy Board (HBLB) and the industry, for aftercare for race horses, equates to a pitiful £130 for each horse leaving the racing industry. This is why Animal Aid is amplifying George Eustice MP’s call for £12 million to be ringfenced by the HBLB for race horse aftercare. You can write to your MP and ask them to support this call here.

Race horses sent to slaughter in abattoirs

In July 2021, BBC Panorama’s The Dark Side of Horse Racing aired, featuring Animal Aid’s undercover footage of race horses being slaughtered. Vyta Du Roc, a race horse who had earned his owners £175,000 in prize money, was filmed being slaughtered just three months after his last race. This documentary caused shockwaves throughout the industry, which promised that, going forwards, no race horse running in Great Britain could enter the food chain, and thus could not be sold for slaughter to an abattoir.

That doesn’t mean that no race horses are being slaughtered, however. Information from the Food Standards Agency, released to Animal Aid through a Freedom of Information request, revealed that 175 race horses were sent to slaughter in England in 2023. Whilst they had passports from Weatherbys, which registers British and Irish bred race horses, we do not know if they ever actually raced in Great Britain. They may have been exported to be bred from, for example, raced elsewhere or never actually raced at all. It also found that 171 of those were killed for their meat. This is an increase compared to 2022 – where 148 race horses were slaughtered: 144 for their meat. Figures show that 1,428 race horses were slaughtered in Ireland in 2023.

Additionally, any spin that this is a form of “euthanasia” is nonsense. Euthanasia is typically carried out by a veterinarian, at the home of the horse in question. In contrast, these horses are enduring a frightening journey to the abattoir, full of alien smells and sounds, before being shot. Importantly, the main difference is that those who send their horses to the slaughterhouse will receive money for the meat. By being sent to slaughter, these horses are being squeezed for every last penny they can earn their owners. Exploited right through from birth to death.

And, if not sent to slaughter, there are countless other ways that horses no longer deemed of use to the industry are disposed of. These methods include: knackermen, who come directly to the horse’s training yard to kill and then take away their carcass; hunts, where young horses that the racing industry deem not suitable for racing are fed to hounds, and “elective euthanasia.”

Final thoughts

With the infamous Grand National race taking place this week – a race which has killed 16 horses since 2000 – the spotlight will be on the industry. The industry’s new campaign illustrates the growing public unease that racing horses is simply not ethical. Despite this slick new initiative, the truth remains that racing is dangerous, and the industry treats horses as expendable commodities. Horses are being killed for trying their best – whether that be on a racecourse, in their yard or in the slaughterhouse. The British Horseracing Authority (BHA), as the regulatory body for the industry, is letting horses down on a monumental scale.

The horse racing industry also echoes the wider prevailing myths that exist within society. A concept that horse racing is an idyllic tradition, one in which the country should be proud of, still circulates. Similar myths exist across all aspects of animal justice – from farming to the pet industry. Fundamentally, these systems of abuse continue because of engrained hypocrisy. We are taught to love some animals and eat others; to sit on some animals’ backs and whip them to a finish line, to welcome some animals into our homes but wear the skin of others. We are taught that an animal’s purpose is only dependent on the value we attribute them as humans. As the Horse PWR website states: “Racing gives these athletes a purpose”.

However, an animal’s purpose is not up to us to decide. All animals have rights which must be respected and protected. Behind the fairy tales, animals are being abused on an incomprehensible scale every day. But this can change.

Don’t believe the myths; the horse racing industry is exploitative, cruel and greedy. This sadistic excuse for a sport must be banned.

Read more: Crufts Cruelty: Why The Show Must Not Go On

This article was written by Nina Copleston-Hawkens on the PBN Website.

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.

This article was written by Daniel Clark on the PBN Website.

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

This article was written by Edie Bowles on the PBN Website.