In July 2021, in a special issue of the Global Trade and Customs Journal on sustainable trade, Eurogroup for Animals reacted to the publication of the EU Trade Policy Review, and to the omission of animal welfare in the text, arguing that countries need to better address the impact of trade policies on animal welfare in order to promote resilient and sustainable economies.

The COVID-19 crisis has painfully put the spotlight on the detrimental impact of economic and trade policies that prioritise profits above all. Shortly after the publication of its new strategies on food policy and on biodiversity in the midst of the pandemic, the EU also launched a review of its trade policy.

The new trade strategy published in February 2021 has been described by EU authorities as the greenest ever. The text underlines that EU trade policy will have to “unequivocally support the Green Deal in all its dimensions”. Yet, the document does not offer new proposals on making trade policy more sustainable. It also omits to address animal welfare, and how the impact of trade policy on animals has fuelled several of the challenges the planet is facing, such as the surge in antimicrobial resistance, the spread of zoonoses or the biodiversity and climate crises. 

The Opinion Piece describes the state of play for animal welfare in EU trade policy  and considers tools to improve the situation. To better address animal welfare in trade policy, the EU could pursue two strategies. Firstly, it could increasingly rely on market access tools, either applying more standards at the border or using conditional liberalisation in its trade agreements. Secondly, at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) it should promote the need to be allowed to differentiate, and thus discriminate, products based on methods of production that are invisible in final products, such as animal welfare standards. You can read more here. 

If the EU wants to address the root causes of the costly crises the planet is facing, it will have to consider how to ensure that its trade policy does not stimulate unsustainable production systems. Achieving such a goal will require the adoption of measures bolder than the ones listed in the new EU trade strategy. The review of EU animal welfare standards will be a test case for all who wish to see more standards applied to imports, and, hopefully, these discussions could steer needed debates at the WTO on methods of production. It is high time to transform trade policy into a real enabler of sustainability. 

Regards Mark

Dear all;

In the post I showed yesterday from Stacey called ‘Sweet Earth’, I mentioned that the McDonalds issue has been a very big one with animal activists in the UK for decades.  Here is the sweet earth ink:

Sweet Earth – An Article Provided By Stacey at ‘Our Compass’. – World Animals Voice

Whilst we still have issues with McD; it is at least positive to see that they have finally moved part of their food to plant based; for which the murder of animals is obviously not necessary.

So, as said, I am posting here now a film which shows how McD attempted to silence and get apologies from 2 activists in London; named Helen and Dave; over a range of issues associated with it. They both said ‘NO’; and so it went a long way for many years.

I will leave it until the end of the film for you to see the result.

In passing, the legal ‘helper’, one Keir Starmer, was a young man at the time who gave his support to the two of them.  Now, Keir is the leader of the ‘Labour Party’; the main opposition organisation to the current UK government led by Boris Johnson (we share a surname, nothing else !).

I like this video; as it has positive outcomes and shows that as with Helen and Dave; if you believe in what you are campaigning for; there is never a need to be sorry for your views and statements.

Enjoy the video – simply click on the ‘Watch on YouTube’ link below to see the film

YOU MAY NOT GET IT FROM THE VERY START; JUST GO BACK AND SEE IT ALL..

McLibel

Regards Mark

————————————————————–

From Spanner films who made the video:

Hello. This is the official, full-length (81 min) version of our 2005 documentary, McLibel. This film was made completely independently (no studio/broadcaster backing) over four long years. We’re a tiny independent film company always struggling to make ends meet, so if you watch for free here, please make a donation – http://spannerfilms.net/donate – and also sign up to our email list: http://www.spannerfilms.net/mailing_list . Thanks v much and enjoy the film, Franny & Lizzie from Spanner Films – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

The first documentary from renowned director Franny Armstrong (The Age of Stupid, Drowned Out), McLibel tells the true story of two ordinary people who battle McDonald’s in what became known as “the biggest corporate PR disaster in history” (Channel 4 News). The Seattle Times called the film an “irresistible David and Goliath tale… you can’t help but cheer along” and the Sydney Morning Herald described it as “an often-hilarious exposé of big business arrogance… and an extraordinary example of independent filmmaking”.

McDonald’s often used the English libel laws to suppress criticism. Major media organisations like the BBC, Channel 4 and The Sun had backed down in the face of their legal threats. But then they sue single father Dave Morris (41) and gardener Helen Steel (34). In what became England’s longest-ever trial, the “McLibel Two” represent themselves for three and a half years in court against McDonald’s £10 million legal team.

Every aspect of the corporation’s business is cross-examined, from junk food and McJobs, to animal cruelty, environmental damage and advertising to children. McDonald’s try every trick in the book against the pair, including legal manoeuvres, secret settlement negotiations, a visit from Ronald McDonald and even spies.

Seven years later, in February 2005, the marathon legal battle finally concludes at the European Court of Human Rights – will the result take everyone by surprise?

Filmed over ten years, with courtroom reconstructions directed by Ken Loach, McLibel features the first interview with a McDonald’s spy, as well as in-depth contributions from Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation) and Keir Starmer (then Helen and Dave’s pro bono lawyer, now the Leader of the Labour Party).

The McLibel trial became a cause-celebre in the UK, resulting in changes both to UK law and to McDonald’s itself. It is often cited as influencing works which followed, including Fast Food Nation, Jamie’s School Dinners and Super Size Me.

The producers estimate that more than 26 million people have seen McLibel on TV, cinema, DVD and at local screenings worldwide.

Stacey at ‘Our Compass’ is an animal rights campaigner and friend who regularly supplies us with articles, for which we thank her.

Stacey | Our Compass (our-compass.org)

Here below is the latest article which makes very interesting reading;

Thanks Stacey

Regards Mark

PS: McDonalds has always been a huge campaign issue here in the UK. Many years ago we had the ‘McLibel’ issue where some protestors were attempted to be silenced. I have covered this issue once before I think, but consider the video of the fight is worth showing again on another post which I will publish very soon.

Source Sweet Earth

Source Vox

By Matthew Hayek and Jan Dutkiewicz

Plant-based meat has gone mainstream. The Impossible Burger, which debuted at a single restaurant five years ago, is now on Burger King’s permanent menu. And McDonald’s is testing its McPlant burger, featuring a Beyond Meat patty, in select US locations. Both plant-based startups are now veterans in a product category that did $1.4 billion in sales and grew 27 percent in 2020.

Under the tagline “Eat Meat. Save the Planet,” Impossible Foods claims its soy-based burger uses 87 percent less water, takes 96 percent less land, and has 89 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions than a beef burger. Beyond Meat makes similar claims about its pea-based burgers.

This matters because animal agriculture contributes around 15 percent of global greenhouse emissions, and experts agree that without a major shift away from meat in our diets, we won’t be able to meet the global community’s climate targets. The promise of plant-based faux meats is that consumers will be able to keep enjoying the foods they love, but with a far lower climate footprint.

But an increasing number of researchers, food critics, and environmental groups are casting doubt on these types of claims, warning that faux meat production still relies on industrial farming practices. They claim that we don’t know enough about these relatively new products to say for certain if they’re better for the environment than the meat they are trying to replace.

One recent whitepaper from an environmental NGO states that the above claims from faux meat companies “are unproven, and some clearly untrue.” A sustainability analyst quoted in the New York Times goes further, claiming that the companies’ secrecy about their production methods means that “We don’t feel we have sufficient information to say Beyond Meat is fundamentally different from JBS.” (JBS is the world’s largest meat producer).

But years of research on the environmental impact of food make one thing clear: Plant proteins, even if processed into imitation burgers, have smaller climate, water, and land impacts than conventional meats. Apart from environmental impact, reducing meat production would also reduce animal suffering and the risk of both animal-borne disease and antibiotic resistance. The criticisms against the new wave of meatless meat appear to be more rooted in broad opposition to food technology rather than a true environmental accounting — and they muddy the waters in the search for climate solutions at a time when clarity is sorely needed.

Continued on the next page.