Paul Wesley, the vegan actor known for starring in The Vampire Diaries, discussed animal rights on the Plant Based News (PBN) podcast.
He spoke to PBN co-founder Robbie Lockie about a range of issues, including factory farming, the challenges of being a vegan actor, and the truth about dog food.
The two also discussed cultivated meat, with Wesley describing it as “the future.” He said that vegans “have a responsibility” to support the industry.
I need to draw your attention to what statements (in my view) contradict each other:
Quote from the DIT
“the government has made it clear in its manifesto that in all our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards”.
Or
Liz Truss has refused to enshrine animal welfare in trade deals;
Wanting to know what is right or wrong relating to government policy; I have now been sent a reply from my own MP stating that on my behalf, he has now written to the Department for International Trade (DIT) asking for ‘policy statements’ to be given and if ‘anything has changed’ – ie a very recent conversion to the Liz Truss view. Or, do the commitments expressed in their original (DIT) letter ‘remain intact’. ? – yes, that’s what I want to know !
So; a little progress of sorts but I am still not being given the final government approach now of dealing with international free trade agreements (FTA). I now wait to be forwarded the response from the DIT to see, as I originally asked, who is right, and who is wrong.
I will publish their (DIT) response when it is provided to me. In the meantime, I sit twiddling my thumbs and other bits waiting to get ‘a government policy statement’. Depending on how this is worded (change or no change) will then set the agenda for future actions by WAV on the issue.
Once I have had a response about this, I have further questions lined up regarding several things – the live transport of live animals from the UK being one. Here again, Truss appears to be changing the goalposts and giving the AR movement a good kick in the teeth for the years of campaigning it has taken to get this stopped. Read here the great article from Jane who really sums up the situation and attitudes:
The government had a consultation on banning live animal exports and it was clear from the results that the majority of people wanted the trade banned:
We are used to long drawn out campaigns, and we are used to false promises and being shit on by governments on a host of issues relating to animal welfare and the environment. Our movement has tenacity on its side; the government changes and relies on the votes of citizens to remain in power, or not !
I am a big badger fan, so badger culling will be another issue being prepared for future letters.
Personally, I have battled the disgusting live export trade for 35+ years; done undercover trails especially relating to British horses going into Europe for meat, and I sure as hell am not going to stop now. There are too many animals in this sordid trade that require us to be a voice for them. So we will, however long it takes.
Regards Mark
“In the past, Mark worked with television comedy scriptwriter Carla Lane for many years; and had the position of being the investigator for her animal charity (Animaline) throughout the years of the horse export investigations. Through undercover investigation work, port monitoring, visits to UK horse markets, and trails into Europe, it was shown that British horses were being exported from the UK whilst being declared as ‘going for riding’ to Europe. In reality, the animals were being exported to Europe for their meat. What was declared on the export licenses was a complete and utter lie to get around the complexities of exporting sentient animals for one thing when they were actually going to their deaths !
After all the investigative work was completed and documented, which involved a lot of work, Carla and Mark teamed up in London one day and made formal presentations to the UK Government Ministry – DEFRA (previously MAFF) about all the investigation work”.
Wonderful Carla
35+ years of live export tenacity – I do know a little about live exports and hopefully can argue in defence of those who cannot speak.
Under Boris Johnson’s leadership, the government made some important strides in animal welfare that enjoyed enormous popular support. It committed to introducing the Action Plan for Animal Welfare (APAW) which included ground-breaking measures to protect wild and farmed animals; it also promised to protect animal welfare standards in farming post-Brexit and its environmental plan put a focus on redirecting subsidies to pay for public goods including animal welfare.
The Truss government is likely to be less sympathetic to animal welfare issues. As environment secretary, the Prime Minister planned to repeal official guidance on animal welfare standards that would deregulate the farming industry. As Secretary of State for International Trade she prioritised trade deals over animal welfare that will allow imports of meat, produced using farming practices that are illegal in the UK, to be sold to the British consumer.
However, we were pleased that the Prime Minister has committed to pass the long-awaited Kept Animals Bill. The Bill will put an end to the cruel export of live animals for fattening and slaughter and the keeping of primates as pets, among other measures. The new Prime Minister must honour the government’s animal welfare commitments and introduce the Action Plan for Animal Welfare in full. The plan includes several key protections for animals. These are:
A ban on the domestic sale and advertising of unacceptable wildlife practices abroad, such as elephant rides, where elephants are often subjected to repeated beatings with hooks or sticks to learn to submit.
A ban on the importation of hunting trophies into the UK.
A ban on the import and sale of fur and foie gras that would prevent millions of animals being exposed to barbaric ‘production methods.’
What next?
Meaningful change for animals must start with honouring the commitments already made by Boris Johnson’s government. 72% of the British publicwant the Government to pass more laws designed to improve animal welfare and protect animals from cruelty, so our current crises should not be used as an excuse to halt this agenda.
The charity warns that the natural environment is under threat
“NOWHERE will be safe” if the Government goes ahead with plans for investment zones across the UK, a leading charity has warned.
RSPB England, which represents the views of the UK-wide bird charity, issued a scathing response to the proposals – warning that they could “tear up the most fundamental protections our remaining wildlife has”.
As part of his mini-budget, Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng announced plans for the creation of dozens of low-tax, low-regulation investment zones.
Some Conservative MPs have already submitted letters of no confidence in Liz Truss over fears the new prime minister will ‘crash the economy’, a former cabinet member has said.
The anonymous ex-minister reportedly told Sky News Ms Truss was ‘f*****’ following her disastrous handling of last week’s mini-budget, and suggested a number of Tory MPs were already plotting to bring her down.
On 22 September, Latvia’s Saeima passed the final amendments to the country’s Animal Protection Law. Farming animals for the main or sole purpose of fur production will now be prohibited, with the ban is expected to come into effect on 1 January 2028.
Over the last 10 years, the animal rights association Dzīvnieku brīvība has campaigned for the ban on fur farming, backed by 42,000 citizens and 50 NGOs, who have all signed an open letter to the Saeima.
The amendments regarding farming of animals for their fur were submitted to the Saeima on September 9, 2021 by 11 MPs from different political parties. Now the Saeima has adopted the amendments to the Animal Protection Law with an overwhelming majority of votes (70 for, 3 against).
Over the course of the year, the Economic, Agricultural, Environmental and Regional Policy Committee evaluated various proposals and supported the wording of the law, which prohibits the breeding of fur animals and stipulates that fur farmers will not receive financial compensation, subject to a 5-year transition period.
Taking into account previous international cases, the members of the commission recognised this transition period as sufficient and adequate compensation for entrepreneurs, and that, in accordance with the principles of the rule of law, it would give fur farmers sufficient time to gradually end their activities and recover their investments. Accordingly, the ban will enter into force on January 1, 2028.
This is a historic moment for animal rights in Latvia – a huge victory for both animals and the people. By prohibiting the imprisoning and killing of animals for their fur, we, the people of Latvia, affirm our values and respect for animals as living beings. We show that, in our country, compassion and reason are more important than greed and ostentation. After all, our attitude towards the vulnerable – animals – is a mirror of our own humanity.
Katrīna Krīgere, Head of Dzīvnieku brīvība
Currently, at least 300,000 mink, as well as several hundred foxes and chinchillas, are killed for fur in Latvia every year. The number of fur farms operating in Latvia and the number of animals bred in them has been decreasing in recent years. For example, the total number of animals in Latvian fur farms in 2017 was 617,000, in 2020 – 580,000, and in 2022 – 274,000 animals.
Latvia has now become the latest EU member state to ban fur farming, joining Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and most recently Malta and Ireland.
The European Citizens’ Initiative Fur Free Europe is calling for a ban of fur farming across the European Union, as well as a ban on the sale of farmed fur products. Do you support this ban?
On Tuesday afternoon, two animal rights advocates in inflatable shark costumes stood shoulder to shoulder in a small “tank” made of what appeared to be clear shower curtains tacked to a wooden frame outside of City Hall. This scenario, the advocates feared, could represent the fate of whichever sharks the Seattle aquarium decides to put in its new shark tank exhibit, the 325,000-gallon jewel of the new Ocean Pavilion between Pike Place Market and Piers 59 and 60.
At the demonstration, speakers from the Northwest Animal Rights Network and Humane Voters of Washington spoke against the Seattle city council’s recent decision to bail out the Seattle Aquarium’s stalled shark tank project with a $20 million loan, bringing taxpayers’ total contribution to the aquarium’s expansion to a cool $54 million. The $20 million will be paid back with interest, but the advocates would rather put that money elsewhere or use it toward another project.
“Whether it’s animals in cages at the Woodland Park Zoo or marine animals held captive at the Seattle Aquarium, people’s attitudes towards imprisoning wild animals is changing, and we need our leaders to change with us,” said Alyne Fortgang, a founding member of the animal rights group, Humane Voters of Washington.
Councilmember Andrew Lewis argued that the council’s vote last month did not approve the shark tank. Instead, the vote approved more funding so that the aquarium could open the Ocean Pavilion on time in 2024. However, the protesters want the Council to take back the loan and spend it on housing, or else use its leverage to force the aquarium to build a virtual shark tank exhibit instead.
Given that the $20 million comes from the Real Estate Excise Tax, which raises funds from property sales to pay for infrastructure, they argue that spending it on housing instead makes more sense.
But if the City is intent on keeping the Pavilion’s opening timeline, then the animal rights advocates argued that replacing the tank with a virtual exhibit would a good compromise, since it would cut down on energy and water waste and avoid potentially harming live animals. That harm starts, they argued, with the way aquarium sources its animals.
According to an email between Fortgang and the Seattle Aquarium, the aquarium will try to source sharks from “human care,” meaning animals that are already in captivity, but the email did not rule out taking a shark from the open ocean. The advocates worried “yanking a shark” from the wild would disrupt natural ecosystems.
Not only that, but the sharks and stingrays in the exhibit will be native to the South Pacific, which wouldn’t do much to educate tourists or locals about the waters near Seattle.
The Seattle Aquarium did not respond to requests for comment, but it responded to that criticism in a Seattle Timesarticle in 2019.
Tim Kuniholm, an aquarium spokesperson, argued that teaching people about South Pacific sharks would raise awareness about shark conservation everywhere. “It’s one big ocean. What happens on the other side of the planet is just as important as what happens here. We have orcas in peril here. There are animals like sharks that are also in peril over there,” he said.
The protesters called any illusion to conservation disingenuous. Real conservation does not involve profiting from the incarceration of animals under the guise of spreading awareness, they said. The aquarium’s plan is simply a tourist money grab that doesn’t benefit locals, said Hannah Thompson-Garner, director of advocacy and mission advancement for Northwest Animal Rights Network.
“We want to see the houseless crisis solved. We want to see plants planted in South Seattle for green spaces, and we want what everybody else wants for a nice city,” she said. “A shark tank is not a part of that.”
Last month, Councilmembers Kshama Sawant and Alex Pedersen both voted against the measure to loan the money, arguing it was a waste of taxpayer money, so they might find some allies there. That said, since the bill already passed, the Mayor would need to veto it and send it back for an amendment, which would be a heavy lift. The Mayor’s Office did not respond to requests for comment on the animal rights groups’ demands.
SINGER Morrissey has become the latest star to write to Taoiseach Micheal Martin seeking a ban on hare coursing.
Watch on Youtube:
The former Smiths frontman, an ambassador for animal charity PETA and a well-known vegan, has pleaded with the Irish Government to take action as he prepares to take to the stage at the INEC in Killarney on Saturday night,
Tonight I have sent a letter to my MP on the issue of Liz Truss (Prime Minister), animal welfare, the environment and international Free Trade Agreements (FTA).
Being simple, I am a little confused.
First, lets look back at the letter I had from the Department for International Trade (Dated 22/6/22) when I first wrote with concerns about animal welfare issues in the Australia – Uk Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Here are a couple of links which link which allows you read both my original letter of concern, and also the reply from the Department of International Trade (DIT), which forms the basis of my new letter of concern relating to the ‘Truss’ led government.
There appear to be many conflicts between what the DIT and the press (links given in letter) are saying about FTA’s. I hope I have expressed my concerns well enough in the new letter to try and explain this.
So now the letter of concern has been sent and I await a response which I hope will be soon.
As always and as shown in the above links, I will be publishing a response on this confusing subject (?) when it comes my way.
For me, animal welfare and the environment are 2 issues which should be sitting right at the top of the UK government inbox. With Liz Truss working for Shell in the past, along with her record working at UK Defra Ministry (see letter); the environment and animal welfare are both subjects which seem to have vanished from her radar.
The electorate will decide if the environment and animal welfare are important in the lead up to the next UK General Election. Be assured, we will be doing our bit to keep the issues ‘up the tree’ right up until the next voting day.
Regards Mark
With thanks to our friends at ‘The Guardian (London)’ for the write ups in the following links.
Mulesed Sheep n Australia. (Flesh removed without painkillers)
Here is a copy of my (MP) letter dated 21/9/22.
Dear Mr Holloway;
You recently (22 June 2022) sent me a letter from Penny Mordaunt MP; who at the time was Minister of State for Trade Policy – at the Department for International Trade.
It related to concerns which I had for animal welfare in Australia – relating to the UK – Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA).
Ms Mordaunt, who I personally very much wished had become the PM, made several statements in her response.
Sheet 2 – “the government has made it clear in its manifesto that in all our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards”.
She continues:
“As the PM (then Boris) has said, we are proud that we are global leaders on animal welfare
But, now Liz Truss has unfortunately become the PM, I am reading a lot of statements which contradict the above.
George Eustice (was Minster at Defra, now thrown out by Truss) says rival Rishi Sunak has made clear there will be no compromise on welfare standards
George Eustice was speaking at the Conservative Environment Network Tory leadership hustings on behalf of Rishi Sunak, and said he faced “challenges” in trying to get Truss to enshrine animal welfare in trade deals.
Liz Truss has refused to recognise the importance of animal welfare in post-Brexit trade deals, the environment secretary has said.
So, Ms. Mordaunt says “the government has made it clear in its manifesto that in all our trade negotiations, we will not compromiseon our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards”; whilst new PM Liz Truss allegedly fails to recognise the importance of animal welfare in post-Brexit trade deals.
So Mr. Holloway; who is right and who is wrong ? – Mordaunt or Truss ?
The Green Party MP Caroline Lucas accused the pair of “bunking off”, adding: “Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak can’t even be bothered to take to a virtual Zoom stage for an hour on a Wednesday morning to discuss the greatest crisis we face.”
Eustice said: “To be fair to Boris Johnson despite him having many people around him saying ‘dial back the animal welfare, get the barnacles off the boat’, he did press on. This is something which I personally agreed with; unfortunately now, with Truss at the helm, times are a changing !
Quote – “the Government is committed to ensuring that any deal we sign includes protections for the agriculture industry”. It also states that “we have secured ground breaking provisions on animal welfare”.
So why is Liz Truss refusing to recognise the importance of animal welfare in post Brexit trade deals ?. The department for international trade say one thing to me in a letter response a few months ago; and now Liz Truss appears to want to kick these sae words into the long grass with her approach. Confused ? – well yes, sort of !
I am an animal welfare campaigner; and I am confused as to what exactly the current Conservative government policy is regarding animal welfare and future international trade deals; maybe you can clarify the situation for me, or maybe you are just as confused as the majority of people are ?
For me, my future vote will be cast on issues such as animal welfare and the environment rather than getting few hundred quid off an energy bill, which Truss seems to think will have the masses clambering at her feet – how wrong. It is time she woke up and considered animal welfare and especially the environment.
Personally, I consider the appointment of Truss as the PM to be one of the worst moves the Conservative Party have taken for many years. In just a few days, we have seen
Many green campaigners remember Truss as the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs from 2014 to 2016. Privately, they say she made little impact, other than to agree to cuts to the department’s budget that further reduced enforcement of environmental regulation, including of sewage polluting the UK’s waterways.
Truss appears to be handing out top jobs to all of her cronies and supporters, whist ignoring the campaigners and organisations who have provided evidence of their standings in so many important issues over many years including evidences when it comes to animal welfare abuses both abroad and in the UK.
The co-chairman of the Conservatives, who raised tens of millions of pounds for the party’s general election campaign, one Ben Elliot, resigned hours after Liz Truss won as PM.
Ben Elliot announced he was stepping down from the role leaving Miss Truss with the headache of trying to find a powerful replacement. Mr Elliot spearheaded the drive to amass a £56millon war chest in the run-up to the 2019 election, of which £23million was raised in the four weeks before polling day.
You could say that being in the sewage is something close to Liz Truss’ heart in many ways since she was (Defra) secretary of state from 2014 to 2016. Under her current premiership, she will drag the Conservative Party into the stench, and probably lose the next General Election with the ignorance and anti environment stance she takes. It is time for the Truss to wake up to the most important issues.
Regards Mark
Rees Mogg – a new appointment in the ‘Truss’ camp I believe:
In 2014, Rees-Mogg was referred to the Parliamentary Standards regime after he repeatedly spoke in the House of Commons chamber in support of the oil and gas, tobacco and mining industries without first declaring that he was the founder and director of Somerset Capital Management, which then held millions of pounds worth of investments in those sectors.
In Brazil, correspondent Tom Phillips says the mood isn’t so much downbeat as downright violent. Bolsonaro appears likely to lose to veteran former president Luiz Inacio da Silva (nickname Lula, which means ‘squid’ in Portuguese) and his running mate Geraldo Alckmin (known as Chuchu, which is a sort of squash). The ‘Trump of the tropics’ is not giving in without a fight.
“Fact 1 – Bolsonaro doesn’t look like he can win this now,” Tom says, pointing to support ratings of little more than 30%. “Fact 2 – he’s desperate to stay in power because he fears prosecution for mishandling Covid, and for the various corruption allegations that have enveloped his family. So one would imagine he will fight tooth and nail to stay in power.”
That has led to an ugly atmosphere in which political violence is rife. Tom says life is very different for foreign correspondents in Rio these days.
“When I was first posted here in 2005, foreign correspondents didn’t receive hate mail, insults, threats of physical violence on social media,” he says. “I’d never heard of a foreign correspondent being attacked. But now it’s different – and worse for Brazilian journalists and even worse for female Brazilian journalists – with whom Bolsonaro has deliberately clashed.”
He says the murder this year of colleague Dom Phillips is just part of that wretched tendency. “The rhetoric has become so violent and so much hostility has been stirred up against environmental activists and mainstream media journalists that everyone feels on edge.”
Can Lula undo all the damage that Bolsonaro has done in four years? Tom feels it’s a tall order.
“He is not a miracle worker. He would represent a change of direction, away from Amazon destruction and growing authoritarianism though.
“Lula told me recently that he would stop illegal gold mines, tackle deforestation, and set up a ministry for indigenous people. But he will face huge challenges, there’ll be an economic crisis, and you don’t just reverse these things overnight.”
Getting low-quality meat off the streets: Haarlem bans meat advertising in public spaces
20 September 2022
In a historic first, the city of Haarlem in the Netherlands has banned advertising low-quality meat in public spaces, including on buses and billboards. While the finer details of this ban are still being discussed – namely, whether or not it will also apply to more sustainably-sourced meat, such as organic – it’s set to come into effect in 2024.
For the Dutch city, this is a fantastic step towards creating a better food environment, in which high-welfare options and sustainable alternatives to low-quality meat products are encouraged… mirroring the kind of action we’d like to see taken across the EU as a whole. It’s no secret that intensive livestock systems with low animal welfare standards produce greenhouse gas emissions on a staggering scale. In order to align the European food system with the planetary boundaries we should curb animal production and consumption by 70% by 2030 to slow the effects of climate change.
Introducing compulsory animal welfare labelling – or ‘method-of-production labelling’ – in which information about how animals have been reared throughout their lifetime is made clear
By banning the advertising of low welfare animal meat, Haarlem will support its citizens in making better choices concerning the animal products they buy: championing better farming practices while supporting a more sustainable food system.
Haarlem is first… will the EU follow?
Beyond the horrible conditions animals face and the industry’s effects on the climate, intensive livestock systems are also connected to a host of other environmental and public health crises, related to pesticides, disease, food security and resilience, antibiotics, and more.
Its impacts can no longer be ignored. Haarlem has set the mark, and now it’s time for others to meet it. Because if one town can take the spotlight off cheap meat, why not the rest of the EU, too?
Tory peer Zac Goldsmith has been sacked as an environment minister as part of a major overhaul of Government personnel under Liz Truss.
It is understood that Lord Goldsmith, a close ally of Ms Truss’s predecessor Boris Johnson, no longer holds the animal welfare brief.
However, he retains his job at the Foreign Office, where his responsibilities include the Pacific and international environment.
The dismissal comes despite Downing Street saying the reshuffle had been stopped, as politics largely ground to a halt during the period of mourning following the Queen’s death.
The sacking of the long-time environmentalist could add to concerns the new administration could turn away from green issues.
Lord Goldsmith himself warned against such a shift during the contest to replace Mr Johnson.
Speaking in Parliament in July, he said: “My hope … is to try very, very hard to shine a light on these issues and encourage the candidates that eventually make it to the top to just recognise that if they walk away from these issues, they not only will be punished by the electorate, they absolutely must be punished by the electorate.
“It is your duty and our duty, and everyone else’s duty, to punish any leader of any credible party that does not take these issues seriously because they simply do not merit the privilege of government.”
The Guardian reported that Lord Goldsmith said he was “very sad” to be going in a farewell letter to staff at the the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
He wrote: “We have so much more to do to turn the tide here.
“The UK is, after all, one of the world’s most nature-depleted countries. But if Defra continues to get the backing you need and deserve across government, you can and you will turn the tide.”
The appointment of Ranil Jayawardena as Ms Truss’s Environment Secretary has raised concerns among environmental groups including Animal Rebellion.
Dr Alice Brough, 31, a livestock veterinarian from Gloucestershire, recently said: “Liz Truss and Ranil Jayawardena’s attitude of prioritising free trade, no matter the cost, has shown shocking neglect for British farmers, and therefore the rest of us struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.”
Mr Johnson made Lord Goldsmith a life peer shortly after voters dumped him as the MP for Richmond Park in a defeat to the Lib Dems in 2019.
It paved the way for Mr Johnson to hand Lord Goldsmith a job in Government, first in the Foreign Office before making him an environment minister.
Lord Goldsmith’s office has been contacted for comment.
World Animals Voice 