Day: February 24, 2022

UK: Petition – Make the use of free-running snares illegal for trapping wildlife. Please add your signature now !

Here is the petition link for you to add your signature – so please get on and do it.

Make the use of free-running snares illegal for trapping wildlife – Petitions (


Make the use of free-running snares illegal for trapping wildlife

The Government should prohibit the sale, use and manufacture of free-running snares under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, putting them in the same category as self-locking snares, which are already illegal.

We believe that people setting free-running snares cannot ensure animal welfare as required under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, that such snares cause unnecessary suffering to mammals, are indiscriminate and should be banned.

Currently 74,144 signatures

So lets get it past 100.000 for a debate in Parliament.

Government responded

This response was given on 13 January 2022

The Government recognises that some people consider snares to be an inhumane and unnecessary means of trapping wild animals and will launch a call for evidence on the use of snares.

At 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament

Get signing folks !


Come on you Heroes, sign !!

Regards Mark

Yes, Cultivated Meat Is Real Meat. 

Cultivated meat is real meat but more beneficial for public health

24 February 2022

In a series of 5 videos, we will address and debunk the most important myths surrounding cultivated meat. In today’s video we explain why cultivated meat is real meat and why it is beneficial for public health.

Yes, cultivated meat is real meat. 

As long as cultivated meat has the same characteristics and nutritional value as conventional meat it is real meat.

The name ‘meat’ is culturally and individually determined. In the past, meat used to be rather a general term for simply food. And, even today, asking consumers living in the same region whether certain products are meat or not, would provide a variety of answers. A steak is definitely meat, but nuggets and hybrid products could be a matter of debate. Some people do not even consider chicken meat as true meat.

On the question about cultivated meat, the American Meat Science Association (AMSA) came to the following conclusion:

Ultimately to be considered meat, in vitro meat must be originally sourced from an animal cell, be inspected and considered safe for consumption, and be comparable in composition and sensory characteristics to meat derived naturally from animals. In particular, the essential amino and fatty acid composition, macro- and micronutrient content and processing functionality should meet or exceed those of conventional meat.’

Yes, cultivated meat is beneficial for public health.

The cultivated meat production process has a great advantage over livestock: it is performed under sterile and closed conditions, so the risk of pathogens is far less. This is important because of the concerns about antibiotic resistance and infectious diseases.

After all, current meat production is by far the largest consumer of antimicrobial agents. 

Moreover, industrial farming is a breeding ground for pathogens and COVID-19 has made very clear to the wide world that zoonoses pose an existential risk.

Studies in other sectors show that in sterile and closed conditions, the incidence of contaminations via bacteria and fungi is very low. This aspect is also important considering foodborne illness. Due to the lack of enteric food pathogens, the risk for foodborne diseases is much lower and it potentially increases shelf lives and reduces spoilage (which means less food wasting).

A final advantage of cultivated meat concerning public health is the absence of trace chemicals. Pesticides, antibiotics, veterinary drugs, heavy metals, among others, are a matter of concern for conventional meat.

These residues are unlikely to appear in cultivated meat. 

Regards Mark

EU legislation on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence misses out on animal welfare.

23 February 2022

Press Release

Eurogroup for Animals welcomes the Commission’s proposal aiming at further embedding sustainability into corporate governance. However, we call on the European Parliament and Member States to explicitly include animal welfare within the scope of the future legislation.

The Commission’s proposal lays down obligations only for big companies with more than 500 employees and a turnover of €150 million. The obligations and potential sanctions are about how the companies’ operations and value chains can have an “actual or potential human rights and environmental adverse impacts”.

The proposed mechanism would nevertheless apply to medium size companies (i.e. between 250 and 500 employees and more than €40 million worth of annual turnover) operating in high risk sectors. Interestingly, the high risk sectors, which are based on existing sectoral OECD due diligence guidance, cover among others “leather, […] agriculture, fisheries (including aquaculture), the manufacture of food products, and the wholesale trade of agricultural raw materials, live animals, food, and beverages”. 

Eurogroup for Animals welcomes the recognition of the above animal-based sectors as high-risk for human rights and environmental concerns, and calls for the introduction of a comprehensive due diligence mechanism explicitly encompassing animal welfare. 

Indeed, animal welfare is closely linked to environmental protection and human rights as suggested in the annex of the proposed legislation mentioning the violations to human rights (i.e. Annex part I A, point 18 and 19). For instance, highly industrialised and intensive farming systems have devastating effects on the welfare of farmed animals, but they also lead to high levels of water, air and ground pollution, to deforestation and biodiversity loss. 

Poor animal welfare is also linked to systemic human rights abuses troubling the global animal agriculture industry, including the abuse of farm and meat industry workers, child labour, and human slavery within the commercial fishing industry.

The upcoming legislation should explicitly recognise that the health and wellbeing of humans are inseparable from those of animals and the planet. Improving animal welfare by helping to reduce the risk of food-borne diseases and zoonoses and to lessen the use of antibiotics in animal productions, would benefit the right to health, which is a fundamental part of our human rights as recognised by the WHO. Improved animal welfare is also a leverage to fight the violations of human rights in the animal agriculture industry, and is a key element to deliver on the EU Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy, which calls for an urgent need to “improve animal welfare to achieve a fair transition towards sustainable food systems.

Stephanie Ghislain, Trade and Animal Welfare Programme Leader, Eurogroup for Animals

Finally, including animal welfare in the scope of the future Corporate Sustainable Due Diligence legislation would be relevant and consistent with actual trends. Existing international standards already recommend companies faced with animal welfare risks to address them in their due diligence policy, and many companies – especially in the food and textile sectors – already include animal welfare in their due diligence efforts. 

All eyes are now on the European Parliament and Member States to adopt a comprehensive Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence legislation responding to the high expectations of EU citizens and consumers. 

Regards Mark

MEAT IS MURDER! A message from Mexican ALF

Claim of responsibility for the sabotage action against a McDonald’s restaurant in Barrio de San Antonio, Puebla, during the night of the 3rd of February 2022.


We claim responsibility for this action.

We oppose ourselves politically and morally against a system of intensive production that for long enough has exploited animal bodies, human and non-human, and that has oversaturated us with the death it produces, covering the stench with artificial aromas and bright colours, making us unable to choose or imagine an alternative that doesn’t involve exploitation and death.

We oppose them with direct action because it directly confronts the system, because it creates and strengthens complicity and because it brews political rage in more people, so they also start taking action.

This is not an isolated action.

We add to the hundreds of actions taken every year around the world with the aim to harm and threaten businesses that build their economic empires on death and suffering. Those actions also aim to liberate non-human persons enslaved and systematically tortured.

Those individuals, violently born in this world with the only purpose of being a consumer product, or entertainment, or work, are never recognised for the key role they’ve played in the evolution of the human society. For that reason we believe this violence against animals cannot be analysed or combated without understanding it as systemic violence.

The animal question is a social problem, deeply rooted to colonialism and capitalism, specially in countries contaminated by neoliberalism like Mexico is.

Since its inception, McDonald’s has been part of every imperialist war that the USA has taken part of around the world.

Its political, economic and cultural connections to the wars add to the pillage and exploitation of nature, humans and animals in all the territories oppressed by imperialism.

It has also contributed to the destruction of culture in most countries around the world, imposing and influencing towards a lifestyle of aggressive consumption.

For all those reasons we believe it is completely legitimate to attack and sabotage McDonald’s as an act of resistance; human and non-human alike.

And I mean…McDonald’s helped start this whole killing industry.

McDonald’s uses around 40,000 tons of beef every year for its burgers in Germany alone.
This meat comes from various slaughterhouses that work with devastating conditions.
The animals are mistreated there every day, up to 170 electric shocks in a few minutes, even in the face and anus.
Disused skin-and-bone cows are McDonald’s preferred burger meat.

Footage from 12 chicken farms owned by a McDonald’s supplier in Germany shows shocking footage of chickens deliberately bred to grow as big as possible as quickly as possible, suffering horrific leg injuries as a result.
Her legs are simply unable to support the weight of her oversized body.

In the US, where there are no federal laws regulating chicken farming, much of this cruelty to animals is not only standard, but legal.

Yet as one of the most recognized brands in the world, McDonald’s has the power to improve the lives of the hundreds of millions of chickens raised for its restaurants every year.

But McDonald’s hasn’t done anything for too long and remains indifferent to animal suffering.

We show solidarity with the courageous animal rights activists in Mexico and say thank you very much.

My best regards to all, Venus