Day: May 18, 2020

‘Happy Cows’ and ‘Humane Dairy’ Ruled Unacceptable.

A calf straining against a chain from his veal crate. Canada, 2014.



With thanks to Stacey at ‘Our Compass’ for sending this data over – Mark.


Source Medium


We, the complainants (Fairbrother, Kemp, others) welcome the decision made by the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) Appeal Committee regarding the ruling Fair Cape Dairies vs Kemp, Fairbrother, others on 30 April 2020.

The conclusion in the appeal decision makes the order:


22.1 The use of the phrases/words “#HappyCows” and “humane” by Fair
Cape in its advertising is in breach of clause 4.1 and 4.2.1 of the Code [of Advertising Practice].

22.2 Fair Cape is instructed to withdraw the phrases/words “#HappyCows” and “humane” from its advertising in accordance with clause 15.3 and 15.5 of the Procedural Guide.


We are in agreement with the statement by the ARB Appeal Committee that


”In our view, humane treatment means more than freedom from violence, pain and disease; it means treatment characterised by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy. It does not include many of the practices complained of, such as the forced impregnation of cows, the forced separation of calves from their mothers immediately after birth, and the slaughter of male calves thereafter.

It follows then, in our view, that the cows cannot be described as happy, or as humanely treated.”


We would like to thank the Advertising Regulator Board for their commitment to fairness and transparency during the course of our complaint and appeal. We also applaud their commitment to responsible and honest advertising. In addition, we would like to thank Animal Law Reform South Africa for their assistance with this matter, including the provision of research, compilation of information and points of issue and review of the Code and documents submitted.

Consumers care about their food choices and many care deeply about animals. For these reasons consumers are increasingly demanding transparency from these industries. To meet these demands it is unfortunate that green-washing and humane-washing advertising techniques are extremely common and heavily on the increase. These advertising techniques are designed to purposely manipulate and exploit the good faith of well meaning consumers.

Fair Cape Dairies has a history of misleading consumers with so-called ‘free-range’ claims and their use of the terms ‘humane’ and ‘#happycows’ in their advertising is no exception. Fair Cape Dairies do not only directly misinform consumers, but they actively conceal many of their practices while creating an illusion of transparency.

Unfortunately, the majority of people in South Africa are not aware of the many horrific standard practices in the dairy industry. The dairy industry thrives in obfuscation. They have an interest in omitting and obscuring the facts about dairy, and it is done through ‘omission and silence and in the presentation of an incomplete and idealised picture’ (¹).

We encourage all those who value truth and justice and who abhor cruelty to animals to investigate the dairy industry and to inform yourselves. This cruelty is not an anomaly, but is standard practice inherent in the industry. To be informed, is to be empowered. When we are informed we can make consumer choices that are authentic and genuinely in line with our values.

We believe we have extensively covered many of these standard practices in our appeal (Section d. Facts and Research). In our appeal we also address many of the claims made by Fair Cape Dairies, we provide multiple facts on the dairy industry, and we provide information on consumer awareness of dairy practices in in South Africa.

While our original complaint was dismissed by the ARB, we felt confident that the ruling had grounds to be challenged and we subsequently submitted an appeal. Our complaint then found itself in front of the ARB Appeals Committee which ruled in our favour.

In our commitment to transparency we have provided all documents relating to the initial complaint, appeal, supporting documents and final rulings, ordered by date below.


ARB Ruling Documents

Appeal Documents

Final Ruling Document

Written by Joanne Fairbrother on behalf of the com


Click HERE to go Dairy-Free

Take the Dairy-Free Challenge HERE

Order a FREE vegan kit:

Take PETA’s Cruelty-Free Shopping Guide along with you next time you head to the store! The handy guide will help you find humane products at a glance. Order a FREE copy HERE

Searching for Cruelty-Free Cosmetics, Personal-Care Products, Vegan Products, or more?
Click HERE to search.

Click HERE to find out How to Wear Vegan!

Want to do more than go vegan? Help others to do so! Click below for nominal, or no, fees to vegan literature that you can use to convince others that veganism is the only compassionate route to being an animal friend:


Vegan Outreach:

Get your FREE Activist Kit from PETA, including stickers, leaflets, and guide HERE

Have questions? Click HERE





Germany: German federal states further limit live animal transport.



German federal states further limit live animal transport

18 May 2020

Four Paws


Four Paws announced that Lower Saxony and Saxony will no longer approve live animal transports to and through the Russian Federation, while Lower Saxony will also prohibit transports to North Africa, particularly to Algeria and Morocco.

Part of the joint call for a national ban and an EU-wide ban on the export of live animals to third countries, it is a success to see two German federal states expanding the list of those countries.

This is due to animal welfare violations since, according to official information, there are no supply stations for the animals in the Russian Federation. Federal states Hesse and Bavaria have included Russia in their list of banned third countries last year.

We welcome this decision, but there should a nationwide ban in place. The cattle is still being transported to the high-risk countries concerned via other federal states. It is obvious that the animals are exposed to the worst agonies and an unimaginable torture during transport and also at the destination. In Lebanon, Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Iran, among others, the animals are killed under the cruelest conditions.

Rüdiger Jürgensen, Managing Director FOUR PAWS Germany

The post ‘German federal states further limit live animal transport’ is modified from an article published by Four Paws in their original language.



Europe: We don’t want another strategy. We want meaningful change for animals.

Tiertransport-Kaelber-AA`s pg


Pro-Brexit supporters burn an EU flag during a UKIP demonstration in central London


We don’t want another strategy. We want meaningful change for animals

9 April 2020





The European Commission has called on citizens and organisations to take part in an online consultation to gather information and views on the EU Animal Welfare Strategy 2012-2015.

The consultation goes hand-in-hand with the Commission’s evaluation on the strategy, which will assess the extent to which it delivered on its objectives, and whether they are relevant and consistent today. It will also look at efficiency and whether the strategy usefully complements national efforts in this field. This has to be done before any new actions are brought forward.

This evaluation of the Animal Welfare Strategy will inform the actions that come after, so it’s vital that the animal movement contributes its opinion to the consultation with a unified voice, even though we may want to stress different aspects of policy or different priorities.

However, we can all agree on some things. The Animal Welfare Strategy resulted in no demonstrable overall improvement for the welfare of animals. Instead of meaningful progress for animals on the ground, we are left with no ‘foundation’ on which to build, and eight years have passed by in the meantime.

The strategy should serve as a lesson: strategies in themselves don’t lead to anything. We need actions, not words, and we hope that this new Commission will deliver real improvements to the lives of animals through the revision of existing legislation as well as the introduction of new law to adequately protect all species.


You can participate in the consultation here.


To help you formulate your responses, Eurogroup for Animals has put together some detailed information to help us all come across with a unified voice and call for legislative changes instead of a new strategy.

We trust that the Commission’s evaluation – and the accompanying consultation – will lead to concrete actions focused on the improvement of existing legislation, as well as the introduction of new laws to adequately protect other species.

Taiwan: Whale shark added to protected species list.



Aquarium of the Pacific | Online Learning Center | Whale SharkPhoto – Aquarium of the Pacific.


Whale shark added to protected species list


The whale shark has been added to the nation’s list of protected species, the Ocean Affairs Council said on Tuesday, adding that offenders face fines and imprisonment.

The whale shark, along with the giant oceanic manta ray and the reef manta ray, were on Tuesday last week added to the list, making the disturbance, abuse, slaughter or capture of any of the three species punishable by up to five years in prison, and a fine of NT$300,000 to NT$1.5 million (US$10,033 to US$50,164), the council said.

Whale sharks have been sighted in waters near Hualien for a few years now, and in March this year a roughly 6m whale shark swam into the Port of Hualien looking for food, it said.

The capture of the three species has long been prohibited by stipulations in the Fisheries Act (漁業法), which require fishers to return the animals to the sea if accidentally caught, alive or dead, Hualien County Bureau of Agriculture Director Lo Wen-lung (羅文龍) said, but changes were made to enhance protection of the species by increasing the severity of punishments for offenders.

People who have whale sharks or manta rays in their care, or possess products made from any of the three species before Tuesday last week, must register them with the county government between June 1 and Aug. 31, according to Article 31 of the Wildlife Conservation Act (野生動物保育法) or face a fine of between NT$10,000 and NT$50,000, Lo said.

The three species are popular pets among fish enthusiasts due to their gentle temperament, Lo said. Whale sharks in particular are an oddity among sharks as they swim slowly, and feed on small fish and plankton, he said.

Vietnam: A woman jailed for illegal trade in wildlife has her prison sentence increased from two to five years.

viet nam flag


A woman who was jailed for illegal trade in wildlife in Vietnam had her prison sentence increased from two to five years this week.

Pham Thi Thuan, 58, was given more jail time following a hearing by an appeals court on 12 May in the central province of Quang Nam.

She had originally been sentenced to two years and a fine of 60m Vietnamese Dong ($2,560 USD). However prosecutors pushed for a harsher sentence.

Ms Thuan was found in possession of 13 king cobras, eight Bengal monitor lizards, nearly 300 turtles and other rare species without any documentation at her home in August 2018. The home was registered as a wildlife breeding facility, according to Vietnam Plus. The 58-year-old had been subject to administrative sanctions twice before in 2011 and 2013 for the unlawful possession of wildlife, the site reported.

The case was first reported by the Education for Nature Vietnam (ENV), a non-governmental organisation which has tackled the illegal wildlife trade in Vietnam for the past 20 years.

ENV Deputy Director Bui Thi Ha commended the investigation while urging authorities to revoke Ms Thuan’s wildlife breeding licence.

The conservation group also reported that on 13 May, Tran Quy, director of company Hai Dang Ltd, received 13 years in prison and a 100m VND ($4,283USD) fine by the Provincial People’s Court of Ca Mau for operating a pangolin trafficking network through the ruse of an ecotourism business. Several accomplices also received jail time.

A recent report by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) found that Vietnam faces a huge wildlife trafficking problem ”with large-scale consignments of ivory and pangolin scales from Nigeria and other countries continuing to enter the country and vast quantities of tiger products available for sale”.

The country is taking steps to address the illegal wildlife trade.

In 2018, penalties were increased for trafficking in endangered species. Criminals now face up to 15 years in prison and fines up to US$660,000, WildAid reported.

Vietnam’s Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc has ordered a directive on banning wildlife trade and consumption in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

Slaughterhouse: “they go from being alive to being in pieces”.

‘It’s horrible killing cows when you see how they do it,’ admits slaughterhouse worker
‘You see the blood, and they go from being alive to being in pieces’.


A slaughterhouse worker has admitted that killing cows is ‘horrible when you see how they do it’.
The worker made the admission to the “Guardian”, who changed his name to Florin in a bid to retain his anonymity.

He was speaking to the outlet for a report about how meat industry workers in Ireland are seeing high rates of COVID-19 infections.

The report follows news that U.S. slaughterhouses are ‘hotspots’ for outbreaks.

Hängende Kuh im Schlachthof_o


“It’s horrible killing cows, when you see how they do it,” he said.
“They kill it – shoot it, cut the neck, cut the legs. I don’t like it. The cow is slow, an emotional thing. And you see the blood, and they go from being alive to being in pieces. That’s the way. When you see the conditions – it’s a dirty and nasty place, nobody is happy.”

The “Guardian” adds that the ‘ job is repetitive and tough; workers take painkillers to get through their shifts’ and the temperature are kept very low (4°C) to ‘keep the meat free of microbes’.

Schlachter mit Kuh Kopf_n

Slaughterhouse work
Many animal advocates have spoken out about the horrors of working in slaughterhouses.

A piece published in January this year by vegan charity PETA discussed the work.

It said: “Animals are tortured and butchered in slaughterhouses, but they’re not the only ones who suffer. While it may be hard for kind people to feel sympathy for someone who is paid to kill animals, many slaughterhouse employees become mentally unwell, even suicidal, not long after working at the ghastly places”.

schlachter mit kälbern
And workers often become sick or are injured because of the unsafe and unsanitary working conditions of these gruesome facilities. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) records show that about 17 ‘severe’ accidents occur each month in U.S. slaughterhouses.

“Approximately two slaughterhouse workers have a limb cut off by slaughterhouse machinery each week. It’s not uncommon to hear of workers losing an eye, fracturing their fingers, or suffering from head trauma.”

Schwein unter Stiefel des Schlachters_n


And I mean…Did I understand it correctly, that we should keep the slaughterhouses alive so that some people can continue to process living “things” into pieces?

Do slaughterhouse workers expect us to feel sorry for those who, unlike animals, have a way of avoiding exploitation and poor working conditions because they can look for another job?
Should we also feel sorry for a matador losing an egg or an eye during bullfighting?

It is the case with such professions that they always have a risk.

We are for animal rights and animals have no unions or associations to defend them.

We wonder what is the purpose of this article.
If it is intended that the “horror” conditions for slaughterhouse workers have priority and should be improved urgently, so that torture and murder in slaughterhouses continue as before, then we can realize a well-known media propaganda for a system that is the most cruel of human history.

Best regards to all, Venus