Category: Farm Animals

Commoditization of animals

“Can you imagine if the day of your execution was planned the moment you were born?

This is a reality for every animal killed in the meat, dairy, and egg industries”.

Speaker: Gary Yourofsky


And I mean…Meat is a big business.
More precisely, a very big business.

Wherever we look, meat is practically everywhere.
Obviously you need a lot of animals to produce as much meat as is bought, sold, and consumed in our society.

In 2003, ten billion animals were killed in slaughterhouses in the United States alone. That is more than 27 million animals a day, today there are many more.
The situation worldwide is that more than 50 billion animals – mainly chickens, but of course also cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, ducks, geese, and turkeys – are slaughtered for their meat every year. That is more than five times the human population on earth.

But nobody cares about which animals this meat comes from.
The meat mafia has long been aware of the disgust it would cause consumers to learn how animals are kept, abused, and slaughtered.
Therefore, the meat industry invests a lot of money to keep the system of animal exploitation secret, or to fake it.

The organic farms with the happy cows in the pasture, the humanely slaughtered animals, the animal-friendly farm next door… these are all myths that help us to remain either uninformed or misinformed.

Myths are the meat industry’s tools to make meat-eaters think of what they are going to eat, and not the suffering of the animals they eat.

We never tire of saying: Eating meat is not normal, not natural, and not necessary.
Eating meat is murder.
And everyone who eats meat is complicit in this murder.

My best regards to all, Venus

EU Decides You Do Know What A ‘Veggie Burger’ Is Compared to a ‘Beef’ Burger, But You Cannot Differentiate ‘Soya’ Milk From Cows Milk Even When Labelled. Are You Dumb or What ?


WAV Comment:  Please see our concerns about this and the CAP before the event:

Well, the EU Parliament has this time at least seen part sense.  It has been decided that us / you are intelligent enough to know the difference – that a beef burger comes from a dead cow, and that a veggie burger does not.  Celebrate with a Vegan ‘Burger’.  Now the term ‘milk’ seems more confusing to everyone in industry and the EU Parliament – milk comes from long suffering cows, but ‘milk alternatives’ such as soya milk must not be called such ! – I can sense my Litmus paper coming out later when I have a cup of tea to check if my ‘milk’ is non cow, or from a suffering cow.  And to think these people are paid vast sums of Euros to decide for you because they do not think that you, a humble citizen, are intelligent enough to know where your ‘white liquid’ comes from.



Friday 23/10/20 –  European farmers lose attempt to ban terms such as ‘veggie burger’

Meat-related words can be used to describe plant-based foods, decides European parliament

Plant-based products that do not contain meat can continue to be labelled “sausages” or “burgers”, European politicians have said, after they rejected a proposal backed by the meat industry to ban the terms.

In votes on issues relating to agricultural products, the European parliament said that so-called veggie burgers, soy steaks and vegan sausages can continue to be sold as such in restaurants and shops across the union.

Europe’s largest farmers’ association, Copa-Cogeca, had supported a ban, arguing that labelling vegetarian substitutes with designations bringing meat to mind was misleading for consumers.

On the opposite side of the debate, a group of 13 organisations including Greenpeace and WWF urged lawmakers to reject the proposed amendments, arguing that a ban would have not only exposed the EU “to ridicule”, but also damaged its environmental credibility.

They said promoting a shift toward a more plant-based diet is in line with the European Commission’s ambition to tackle global warming. Losing the ability to use the terms steak or sausage might make those plant-based products more obscure for consumers.

After the vote, the European Consumer Organization, an umbrella group bringing together consumers’ associations, praised the MEPs for their “common sense”.

“Consumers are in no way confused by a soy steak or chickpea-based sausage, so long as it is clearly labelled as vegetarian or vegan,” the group said in a statement. “Terms such as ‘burger’ or ‘steak’ on plant-based items simply make it much easier for consumers to know how to integrate these products within a meal.”

Together with Greenpeace, the group regretted that lawmakers accepted further restrictions on the naming of alternative products containing no dairy. Terms like “almond milk” and “soy yogurt” are already banned in Europe after the bloc’s top court ruled in 2017 that purely plant-based products cannot be marketed using terms such as milk, butter or cheese, which are reserved for animal products.

E.U. Says ‘Veggie Burgers’ Can Keep Their Name

The European Parliament voted on Friday on proposals that would have banned products without meat from being labelled burgers or sausages.

LONDON — When is a burger not a burger? When it contains no meat. At least according to a divisive proposal that was in front of the European Parliament this week, part of a set of measures that would have banned the use of terms like “steak,” “sausage,” “escallop” or “burger” on labels for plant-based alternative products.

But after a decisive vote against the measure on Friday, it seems veggie burgers will still be on the menu.

“Reason prevailed, and climate sinners lost,” Nikolaj Villumsen, a member of the European Parliament from Denmark posted on Twitter. “It’s worth celebrating with a veggie burger.”

A proposal to expand a ban on descriptions such as “yogurt-style” or “cream imitation” for nondairy replacements did pass, extending previous limitations on the use of words like “milk” and “butter” on nondairy alternatives.

The proposed changes — a small part of a package of agricultural measures — received more attention than perhaps desired either by their proponents among meat and livestock groups, who said they would prefer to focus on helping farmers work sustainably, or the environmentalists and food manufacturers opposing it, for whom it is a distraction from climate-change policy.

Jasmijn de Boo, vice president of ProVeg International, a group aimed at reducing meat consumption, said that the proposal was not in the interest of consumers or manufacturers, and that shoppers were not confused by the labels currently on store shelves.

“Why change something to a ‘veggie disc’ or ‘tube’ instead of a sausage?” she said. “It’s ridiculous.”

Those in favor of the change said that labeling plant-based products with meat terms were misleading and could open the door for other confusing labels.

“We simply call for the work of millions of European farmers and livestock sector workers to be acknowledged and respected,” Jean-Pierre Fleury, the chairman of Copa-Cogeca, Europe’s largest farming lobby group, said in a statement this month. He described the use of meatlike names for plant-based products as “cultural hijacking.”

The decision is a victory for environmental advocates over an E.U. farming lobby that is one of the strongest voices in the bloc and plays an outsize role in policymaking, considering that the sector has been shrinking for years.

Camille Perrin, the senior food policy officer at the European Consumer Organization, called decision “great news” and a “common sense” vote.

“Consumers are in no way confused by a soy steak or chickpea-based sausage, so long as it is clearly labeled as vegetarian or vegan,” she said in a statement after the vote. “Terms such as ‘burger’ or ‘steak’ on plant-based items simply make it much easier for consumers to know how to integrate these products within a meal.”

It is not the first debate over plant-based foods as that sector has exploded in recent years.

Labels for plant-based dairy alternatives like “soy milk” or “tofu butter” are illegal in the bloc after dairy producers won a 2017 ruling backed by the European Court of Justice.

In 2018, France banned the use of meat terms to describe vegetarian products. In dozens of states in the United States, advocates of vegetarian food have clashed with farmers and lobbyists over legislation that makes it illegal for plant-based products to be called meat.

Several parties in the European Parliament had also submitted proposals with different caveats since the initial amendment was introduced, and those are still to be voted on. Manufacturers like Beyond Meat, Unilever and Ikea, along with the European Medical Association, have opposed the changes, which they described in an open letter as “disproportionate and out of step with the current climate.”

Many said that approving the amendment would be counter to a goal set by the European Parliament this month to reduce carbon emissions 60 percent by 2030.

And shoppers seem to like the names. In a 2020 survey from the European Consumer Organization, about 42 percent of respondents said they believed “meaty” names for plant-based products should be permitted if products were clearly labeled vegetarian or vegan. Twenty-five percent said that such names should be banned.

A spokesman for Copa-Cogeca said the organization did not believe that shoppers could not tell the difference between meat and plant-based products, and said that farmers were not against vegetable alternatives. But he said that differentiating the markets — much like those of butter and margarine — was among a host of initiatives that would support struggling farmers who are trying to adapt to a world more focused on sustainability.

Some said the proposal would provide more fodder for what critics call the European Union’s penchant for overregulation. Alexander Stubb, a former prime minister of Finland, said the bloc should legislate only “where there are impediments to the free movement of goods, services, money and people.”

He described the amendment as “overkill” that would bolster the arguments of those who campaigned for Britain’s exit from the bloc: “This is one of these symbolic sad cases — a bit like legislating on the curve of cucumbers.”

EU lawmakers vote for ‘veggie burgers,’ take hard line on dairy labels

(CNN)Restaurants and shops in the European Union should be allowed to label products as “veggie burgers” or “vegan sausages,” the European Parliament said on Friday, while calling for tighter curbs on labelling of plant-based dairy substitutes.

EU lawmakers voted to reject proposals, backed by farmers, to ban plant-based products from using terms such as steak, sausage or burger.

“I’m going to celebrate with a vegan burger,” Swedish EU lawmaker Jytte Guteland said after the result was announced.

Farmers had argued that the using words like burger or sausage for non-meat products could mislead consumers. European farmers association Copa Cogeca said allowing such terms would open a “Pandora’s box” of confusing wording.

But medical groups, environmentalists and companies that make vegetarian products have said that banning these terms would discourage consumers from shifting to more plant-based diets, undermining the EU’s environmental and health goals.

A majority of EU lawmakers also voted on Friday for stricter rules on labelling of dairy substitutes, backing a ban on terms such as “milk-like” or “cheese-style” for plant-based products that contain no dairy ingredients.

The European Court of Justice already banned terms like “soy milk” and “vegan cheese” three years ago, ruling that words such as milk, butter, cheese and yoghurt cannot be used for non-dairy products.

The labelling rules are part of a bigger EU farming policy package for 2021-2027, and are not final. Parliament must strike a compromise with EU member states on the final policy.

Elena Walden, policy manager at the non-profit Good Food Institute Europe, called on EU countries to “clear up this mess and reject confusing and unnecessary restrictions on plant-based dairy products.”

Lawmakers approved their position on the farming policy package on Friday despite calls from Green lawmakers and campaigners, including Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, to reject the proposal. They say it does not do enough to curb the sector’s emissions or protect nature from the effects of intensive factory farming.

‘World Vegan Day’ Is On 1/11/20.

We are sending this out in advance – so please make a note of the date.

It is ‘World Vegan Day’ on November 1st.

Veganism was once dismissed as just another short lived trend, but with plant-based diets surging in popularity over the past few years, vegan food has hit the mainstream. 51% of people questioned are happy to see vegan food in shops and restaurants. 

Israel touts itself as the world leading vegan country with 5.2% of the population relying on a plant-based diet

People who eat vegan and vegetarian diets have a lower risk of heart disease, but will require supplements of B12; which is stored in the liver. Researchers found that those who didn’t eat meat had 10 fewer cases of heart disease and three more strokes per 1,000 people compared with the meat-eaters  This B12 issue is more than easy to resolve:

Vitamin B12 dificiency: Symtoms and ways to address it

To get the full benefit of a vegan diet, vegans should do one of the following:

Eat fortified foods (see below) two or three times a day to get at least three micrograms (mcg or µg) of B12 a day.

OR Take one B12 supplement daily providing at least 10 micrograms.

OR Take a weekly B12 supplement providing at least 2000 micrograms.

Fortified foods are those that have nutrients added to them that don’t naturally occur in the food. These foods are meant to improve nutrition and add health benefits. For example, calcium may be added to fruit juices.

Here are some leads from the Vegan society in the UK which may make you think a bit:

If the world went vegan, it could save 8 million human lives by 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two thirds and lead to healthcare-related savings and avoided climate damages of $1.5 trillion.

Staggering ! – If the UK population was killed at the same rate farmed animals are killed around the world, it (UK population) would be ended in just 11 hours.

Over a billion farmed animals in Britain are killed each year in slaughterhouses.

UK – Over 10 million pigs, 15 million sheep, 14 million turkeys, 15 million ducks and geese, 982 million broiler chickens, 50 million ‘spent hens’, 2.6 million cattle, 4.5 billion fish and 2.6 billion shellfish are killed in the UK each year – over 8 billion animals.

Interest in ‘veganism’ increased seven fold in the five years between 2014 and 2019, according to Google trends. It now gets almost four times more interest than vegetarian and gluten free searches.


With WAV being part based in the UK (also in Germany); lets check out some UK information:

Demand for meat-free food in the UK increased by a massive 987% in 2017 and going vegan was predicted to be the biggest food trend in 2018. Sources:[1], [2]

The UK plant-based market was worth £443 million in 2018. Source 

Meat substitute sales grew by 451% in the European market in the four years to February 2018. Source

The number of vegans in the UK quadrupled between 2014 and 2019. In 2019 there were 600,000 vegans, or 1.16% of the population. 

Vegans and vegetarians look set to make up a quarter of the British population in 2025, and flexitarians just under half of all UK consumers.Source

Why ?

Cruelty Free – Over half (56%) of Brits adopt vegan buying behaviours such as buying vegan products and checking to see if their toiletries are cruelty-free. 50% of Brits questioned said they know someone who is vegan, and 1 in 5 Brits (19%) would consider going vegan. SourceResearch carried out by Opinion Matters for The Vegan Society between 14 and 16 July 2017 involving a sample of 2,011 UK adults


Meat substitute sales grew by 451% in the European market in the four years to February 2018. Source


The number of vegans in America grew by 600% from nearly 4 million in 2014 to 19.6 million in 2017. Source

Consumption of plant milk increased by 61% while consumption of cow’s milk decreased by 22%. Sources: [1], [2]

Plant milks make up 13% of the entire milk category. Their sale grew by 6% in 2019, while cow’s milk sales declined by 3%. Source

41% of US households purchase plant-based milks. Source

Get this – Agriculture is responsible for 80-90% of all US water consumption. Source

80% of all antibiotics sold in the US are for farmed animals – not to treat illness but to promote growth and preventatively due to the stressful conditions the animals are raised in. Sources: [1][2], [3]

There were as many people searching for vegan Thanksgiving recipes as there were people searching for turkey Thanksgiving recipes in November 2018. Source

A farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people.Source

72% Americans oppose testing cosmetics products on animals.Source

The are a few basic reasons why people often choose to undertake a vegan diet.  Two of the main issues are the health benefits associated with and also animal welfare.  There is no doubt that changing to vegan can be good for your health.

Many people go plant based because they have big concerns about the animal welfare; intensive farming and what it is doing to the planet.

80% of all antibiotics sold in the US are for farmed animals – not to treat illness but to promote growth and preventatively due to the stressful conditions the animals are raised in.  Agriculture is responsible for 80-90% of all US water consumption.  A farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people.

Intensive farming and the transport and slaughter of the animals in the system is of major concern to many – they don’t like it and want to break free from supporting it.

On the left of the page there is a ‘SEARCH’ box; type in any subject relating to a specific issue (live export, intensive farming etc) and you will be taken to all posts on the site relating to that issue.  Search out what you want to obtain more on.

Veganism is here to stay; there is no doubt about that.

Have a good ‘World Vegan Day’ on 1/11/20.

Regards WAV.

EU: MEP’s Attempt To Deliver A Death Sentence for Nature and the Environment. Would You Expect Anything Else From the Gutless ?

The European Parliament in Strasbourg - Multimedia Centre

WAV Comment: We hope that by their actions against the call for change by humble EU citizens; as well as causing a death sentence for nature with their ‘extinction machine’ approach; MEPs are directing themselves very well into making ‘their place’ another ‘extinction machine’.  ‘Normal’ people (such as EU citizens) will only take so much, and like the fellow (ex EU) citizens of the UK; it will not be long before other EU nations see sense and decide that they can do better by going it alone and walking away from the useless calamity named Members of the European Parliament (MEP).  Like the UK having left; this will mean that there are no longer MEPs representing their member state.  By its own internal actions, the EU is destroying itself due to sucking up to the lobbyists whilst ignoring the people; many (not all) gutless MEPs who wish to hide behind the EU ‘system’ and the untold damage it is doing to nature and the environment as a result.

Quote from the following article – “Earlier this year, 3,600 scientists called for an overhaul of the CAP, warning that it was a central driver of the biodiversity and climate emergencies as it funded practices that cause significant biodiversity loss, climate change, and soil, land and water degradation.

The new CAP document deletes “the need for farmers to have a tool for more sustainable use of nutrients”, Ms Bradley said, pointing out that agriculture is the biggest source of nitrate pollution in EU waters, responsible for dead zones and toxic algae”.

Death sentence on nature': MEPs accused of turning European agricultural  policy into 'extinction machine' | The Independent

Premium Photo | Hand holding tree. concept eco day

Article: The Independent; London.

‘Death sentence on nature’: MEPs accused of turning European agricultural policy into ‘extinction machine’

‘There are no reasons to spend a third of the EU budget on industrial agriculture which drives biodiversity loss and worsens the climate crisis,’ says critic

Members of the European Parliament have been accused signing “a death sentence” on nature, the climate and small farms after they rejected a series of eco-friendly reforms.

MEPs voted against proposals to cut subsidies for factory farming and to protect grasslands and peatlands – a major storage reservoir of greenhouse gases.

One critic said the vote on the EU agriculture reform package would bring extinction closer for many species after it failed to offer incentives for farmers to reduce their environmental impact.  

Saker Falcon (c) | Raptors bird, Pet birds, Beautiful birds

Above – Here today – EU gone tomorrow

BirdLife Europe said the politicians voted to make the policy “an extinction machine”, adding: “Nature has lost this battle.”

Now environmentalists are pressuring MEPs before a final vote by the full parliament tomorrow (Friday).

How EU farm subsidies are abused by oligarchs and populists

The votes on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), funded by nearly €400bn (£350bn), will shape farming in the block for the next seven years.

A deal by the largest groups in the European Parliament – the European People’s Party (EPP), Socialists & Democrats (S&D) and Renew Europe – involved lowering environmental conditions attached to the policy. And MEPs voted against an emissions-reduction target for agriculture of 30 per cent.

Harriet Bradley, an agriculture policy expert at BirdLife Europe, said the decisions meant the world was “one step closer to extinction for many species”.

She said perhaps “one of the most shocking and spiteful” votes to environment was that “in the unlikely event that agri ministries are queuing up to fund environmental schemes, they shall be prevented [from doing so] by maximum spends on environmental measures”.

A ban on converting grasslands in biodiversity-rich nature-protected areas was lifted, so more could be turned into maize fields, she reported.

The intensification of agriculture, including pesticide use, fuels carbon dioxide emissions and pollution, a key factor in nature destruction, including the decline of farmland birds and pollinators.

WWF accuses EU commission of ‘deliberately harming climate action’

Earlier this year, 3,600 scientists called for an overhaul of the CAP, warning that it was a central driver of the biodiversity and climate emergencies as it funded practices that cause significant biodiversity loss, climate change, and soil, land and water degradation.

The new CAP document deletes “the need for farmers to have a tool for more sustainable use of nutrients”, Ms Bradley said, pointing out that agriculture is the biggest source of nitrate pollution in EU waters, responsible for dead zones and toxic algae.

Ecoschemes will fund new spraying machines that could potentially cause damage if used to kill insects and weeds, she added.

“This is about how 400bn of taxpayers money is going to be spent in the make-or-break decade for #climate and #biodiversity,” she tweeted.

Greenpeace’s EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero said: MEPs have signed a death sentence for nature, climate and small farms, which will keep disappearing at an alarming rate. For over 60 years, European farm policy has been blind to farming’s impact on nature, rewarding farmers for producing more or expanding their farms.  

“The EU Parliament is wilfully continuing that destruction while scientists warn that farming must change to tackle the climate crisis and protect nature.”

Ecologist Carola Rackete tweeted: “There are no reasons at all to spend a third of the EU budget on industrial agriculture which drives biodiversity loss on land and worsens the climate crisis.”

A report earlier this week by the EU environment agency said unsustainable farming, forestry and the sprawl of urbanisation were degrading the health of Europe’s animals and natural habitats.

The report showed more than half of pollution pressure on biodiversity came from agricultural practices, stating the current CAP did not provide enough funding.

Climate activist Greta Thunberg tweeted: “No matter what the EU climate target for 2030 will be, reaching it with a business-as-usual common agricultural policy will be basically impossible. So the MEPs voting in favour of #FutureofCAP final vote tomorrow will be responsible for surrendering on our future.”

WWF accused politicians of being “in a state of complete denial about the biodiversity and climate crises”.

A European Parliament spokesman said: “There are nearly 2,000 votes on CAP reform this week to three separate reports addressing common market rules, national strategic plans and future financing.

“As with many issues, there are political forces pulling in both directions, so the end result is inevitably a compromise.  But this would represent a greener CAP than we currently have as it provides a number of incentives for farmers to produce more sustainably.”

A third of the budget would be for “green” initiatives, assistance to smaller farms and capping payments to large agri-businesses, he said.

Negotiations will take place over the coming weeks to hammer out a deal between the parliament and the European Council.

The EU Council said ministers had voted for financial support for eco-friendly farming; to increase rewards for farmers more committed to greening and to help smaller farmers embrace the green transition.

Regards Mark

Opportunity to Provide Expertise at the European Parliament - Interview  with Alexandre Mathis | INOMICS

Germany: private battlefields!

What’s going on with Germany’s farmers ?!

In Baden-Württemberg, south Germany, a country butcher stunned his cattle with gunshots from a long gun.

Outwardly, the farm presented itself as an idyllic butcher’s shop, but behind the facade, the animals stood in their own feces.
Before being slaughtered, he stuns them with shots from a long gun – absolutely illegal.

In the white butcher’s smock, you can see the farmer in his slaughterhouse with the gun pointed at the cow.
A shot in the head, but it doesn’t work, the cow just stumbles and falls on the calf.
Then there is another shot.

“It was filmed in secret for three weeks,” says Philip Hermann from the organization Butcher Against Animal Murder.
“This is a trustworthy butcher who runs a family farm. The keeping of the animals and the slaughtering process are so cruel that it is hard to imagine.
The video shows that cows smeared with manure stand knee-deep in manure, unanesthetized turkeys bleed to death, pigs are beaten and piglets can hardly breathe”.

Every Monday is slaughter day on the farm, every Monday the misery repeats itself.
Instead of stunning the cows with a captive bolt, the farmer shoots them in the head with a caliber that is far too small.
Only with the second shot do the animals fall to the ground.

The vet says: The authorities should have intervened here long ago”.
The butcher-farmer sees it differently: “my animals have no transport routes. We do everything to make sure that they are fine “

The Vet Office speaks of “serious violations of the Animal Welfare Act”, has closed the animal operation, and filed criminal charges.

The public prosecutor’s office is investigating and the farmer is no longer allowed to keep animals.


Some explanations about the video: Philipp Herrmann visits the crime scene with the journalist, where the organization “Butchers Against Animal Murder” secretly filmed the “animal-friendly” stable for three weeks.
He himself used to be a butcher, today he campaigns for animals.

The farmer shoots and does not hit the cow. She falls on the floor with full consciousness.
He doesn’t shoot again until two and a half minutes later.
In addition, because there are other animals around, there is a risk of accidents, according to the veterinarian and animal welfare officer.
The cow is then carried to the slaughterhouse with a crane, and you can clearly see that it was not completely hit by the farmer’s shots, so it is still alive.
The recordings show that it is not re-stunned.
The cow is cut up in this condition, although it is completely smeared with feces. Violation of the hygiene regulations
You can see how the animals are kept in the excrement up to the knee.
The vet doctor finds the images shocking.

The reporter then visits the butcher’s shop, which delivers “own” meat.
She orders turkey steaks and asks if everything comes from one source.
The butcher proudly says: “It’s all our own production, we do everything ourselves, we have our own farm, if you need something for Christmas, you would get it too”.

When the reporter leaves the shop, you can see how many meat eaters are waiting to buy meat from the farmer next door without suffering.
Or rather, to pay dearly for the farmer’s lie.
You can then see in the recordings with what good conscience these consumers can buy the turkey from this “animal-friendly” farm
The turkeys are slaughtered without anesthesia. Their necks are twisted and left bleeding on the ground.

When confronted with the farmer, he claims:” I almost always hit when I shoot, the one in the video was just an exception.
I did everything to make the animals feel good”.

As soon as the activist says that he cuts the turkeys himself and makes them bleed and suffer, he replies … no, he doesn’t … “this is all an exaggeration … the activist should leave the court, immediately”!!

Although he hired his lawyer to take over the matter, he couldn’t help much too!
The veterinary office has revoked his license to slaughter animals.
And he has to hand over the animals by the end of the year.
Only the butcher’s shop remains open !!

Maybe he comes up with the idea of transforming the butcher’s shop into a barbershop.

My best regards to all, Venus

EU: 23/10/20 All Eyes on EU Court for Decision on Religious Slaughter.

Belgium Bans Religious Slaughtering Practices, Drawing Praise and Protest -  The New York Times

All eyes on EU court for decision on religious slaughter

22 October 2020

Stunning animals before slaughter and avoiding unnecessary suffering is surely the least we owe these fellow sentient beings.

The practice of pre-stunning is mandatory throughout the EU.

Although the EU Animal Slaughter Regulation allows for a ‘religious exception’, it also expressly enables member states to adopt “national rules aimed at ensuring more extensive protection of animals at the time of killing”.

That’s how Denmark, Sweden and Slovenia were able to ban slaughter without stunning.

However, today a compromise between a religious exception, allowing slaughter without stunning, and an outright ban of the practice is close to reach.

Read more at source

EU Observer


EU court adviser backs ritual animal slaughter without stunning

By Reuters Staff

BRUSSELS (Reuters) – EU judges should strike down a Belgian law requiring all animals be stunned prior to their death, which has effectively outlawed slaughter according to Jewish and Muslim rites, an EU court adviser said on Thursday.

Gerard Hogan, an advocate general of the Court of Justice of the European Union, said an EU law of 2009 set out that animals should normally be stunned before they are slaughtered, but made a clear exception for slaughter prescribed by religious rites.

EU judges typically follow the opinions of advocate generals although are not bound to do so. They would normally deliver their ruling in two to four months.

The case came to the EU court in Luxembourg after a 2017 decree in the Belgian region of Flanders to amend its law on protection and welfare of animals by requiring all animals be first stunned.

Jewish and Muslim association challenged the decree and Belgium’s Constitutional Court referred the case to the EU Court of Justice.

Hogan said the religious exception reflected the European Union’s desire to respect freedom of religion and the right to manifest religious belief in practice and observance despite avoidable suffering caused to animals.

Jewish and Muslim methods of slaughter involves the animals’ throats being cut with a sharp knife, which advocates says results in death almost immediately. Traditionally, prior stunning is not permitted.

Belgian campaign group Global Action in the Interest of Animals (GAIA), whose representatives were present at the court on Thursday, said it was disappointed and perplexed by the opinion, but noted the judges might rule differently.

“How will the court deal with (EU) members that have for years had general bans on slaughter without stunning: Denmark, parts of Finland, Slovenia and Sweden?” said GAIA lawyer Anthony Godfroid.

All eyes on EU court for decision on religious slaughter

The popular image of a ritual killing is that of a butcher restraining an animal to expose its throat, covering its eyes with its ears while muttering prayers to calm it.

Sadly, this is far from the experience of animals being killed without pre-stunning for halal or kosher meat, where they are strung up and knifed in a relentless industrial process.

  • By now technological development makes it possible for animals to be butchered humanely, while still preserving religious freedom (Photo: Lukas Budimaier)

Even when their throat is cleanly cut, the massive injury triggers a barrage of sensory information to the brain, meaning their last, long minutes of consciousness as they bleed out are filled with pain and terror.

Stunning animals before slaughter and avoiding unnecessary suffering is surely the least we owe these fellow sentient beings.

That’s why the practice of pre-stunning is mandatory throughout the EU.

Although the EU Animal Slaughter Regulation allows for a ‘religious exception’, it also expressly enables member states to adopt “national rules aimed at ensuring more extensive protection of animals at the time of killing”.

That’s how Denmark, Sweden and Slovenia were able to ban slaughter without stunning.

However, today a compromise between a religious exception, allowing slaughter without stunning, and an outright ban of the practice is close to reach.

This is the method known as reversible stunning, which renders the animal unconscious for the time it takes to cut its throat while respecting the religious requirement of it remaining alive so the blood is pumped out by its still-beating heart.

According to well-established scientific evidence, this method is not only less traumatising for the animal and makes its handling easier for the butcher, but it is also accepted by a growing number of representatives of these religious communities.

However, reversible stunning now faces a major legal challenge across Europe.

After the Flemish region introduced reversible stunning in 2017, various Jewish and Muslim associations contested this decree before national courts and sought its total or partial annulment.

The case reached the Belgian Constitutional Court, which referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a final decision.

What’s at stake in the present case is not a ban on religious slaughter, but whether a member state may adopt measures to improve the welfare of animals being slaughtered in the context of a religious rite – the aim of the Flemish legislation in requiring the animal to be reversibly stunned.

Not only does this method meet religious community requirements to have animals alive at the time of the throat cut, but it is also proportionate to its declared goal to protect animal welfare while guaranteeing the religious liberty and freedom contained in the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Reversal on reverse stunning?

However, in a recent opinion, though seemingly favourable to the adoption of other technical conditions to minimise the suffering of animals at the time of the killing, a member of the Court of Justice of the EU – Advocate General (AG) Hogan – proposed that the court should find that member states were not permitted to implement reversible stunning.

The opinion argues that the ‘religious exception’ was intended to “grant more specific protection to the freedom of religion” in this context and that when establishing stricter national rules, member states must “operate within [its] confines”.

Yet this appears to overlook the fact that the EU legislation submits the adoption of stricter national rules to only one condition, that the importing country – in this case, Belgium – does not prevent the circulation of animal products from another member state with a laxer regime, i.e. meat from animals that were not stunned before slaughter.

There would be no need for this provision to exist if countries were entirely bound by the ‘religious exception’.

We disagree with the contention that the “preservation of the religious rites of animal slaughter often sits uneasily with modern conceptions of animal welfare” and that as a result, the court should not allow member states to “hollow out” the ‘religious exception’. Technology and best practices are there to guarantee that both interests can be reconciled and respected.

Far from being motivated by Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, the Flemish decree prescribing reversible stunning is the outcome of long-standing consultations with the relevant religious communities in an effort to strike a new balance between the exercise of religious freedom and animal welfare.

The acceptance of reversible stunning appears all the more important when analysing the broader context: in Europe, there are many more animals slaughtered without stunning than those needed, but no labelling is required for such meat.

This situation severely affects EU consumers’ right to know if they’re buying and consuming meat that might be derived from animals that have not been stunned before killing.

When these religious traditions were established, there were well-founded sanitary reasons for encouraging people to shun the flesh of animals they could not identify as being recently alive. But advances in food safety have long made such practices redundant.

By now technological development makes it possible for animals to be butchered humanely, while still preserving religious freedom.

It is time for European law to recognise it is no longer acceptable to deny them a kinder end to their lives.

Regards Mark

‘Meat And Dairy Carry Infectious Disease Pathogen Linked To Diabetes And Crohn’s’ – A Plant Based News Article.

Reproduced from Plant Based News without any amendments.



Meat And Dairy Carry Infectious Disease Pathogen Linked To Diabetes And Crohn’s

In the world of diabetes, more than 92 percent of all patients have either prediabetes or type 2 diabetes, with the remaining eight percent having either type 1 or type 1.5 diabetes.

Both type 1 and type 1.5 diabetes are autoimmune conditions that have a genetic basis, but often require an environmental ‘trigger’ to begin.

Given that type 1 diabetes has increased by 100 percent in prevalence over the past 25 years, scientists are constantly on the lookout for environmental triggers that might help explain why the rate of type 1 diabetes diagnosis is higher today than it has been at any point in human history, and why the prevalence of type 1 diabetes is increasing by about three percent per year.

MAP in Dairy Products Increase The Risk Of Type 1 Diabetes

Even though many people think of autoimmune conditions as being caused by poor genetics, a collection of fascinating research is suggesting that drinking milk and eating meat can both increase your risk for type 1 diabetes and type 1.5 diabetes—in addition to Crohn’s disease—via a specific pathogen known as mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis (MAP).

MAP is a distant relative of the bacteria Mycobacterium bovis, which is the culprit for tuberculosis (TB) and leprae (leprosy) in humans and TB in animals. MAP does not cause TB or leprosy in humans.

MAP is a mycobacterium, or a bacteria that grows like a fungus, and has been shown to influence susceptibility to autoimmune type 1 diabetes.

Studies show the connection between MAP and type 1 diabetes apparent that a recent review of current scientific literature showed that 100 percent of human studies analyzed detected the presence of MAP bacteria in those living with type 1 diabetes.

So how does MAP enter the food supply? Well, it’s a little… unsavory. MAP infects the gastrointestinal tract of industrialized cows (cows being raised for food or milk) causing an often fatal condition known as Johne’s disease. 

While the MAP bacteria lives in the intestines of cows, it is also present in the fecal matter of infected cows, which means that the MAP bacteria can easily be passed between animals exposed to one another’s fecal material. Unfortunately, this is all too common when hundreds or thousands of cows are living together in close quarters, as is common in large industrialized farms.

Under ideal conditions, MAP present in the intestines and fecal matter of livestock would pose no threat to human health, assuming that their intestines were removed after slaughter and their fecal matter remained separated from the slaughterhouse.

However, when animals are slaughtered, fecal residue from the soil ends up clinging to the boots, clothes, and gloves of slaughterhouse workers, which then cross-contaminates the carcasses of the animals, contaminating both the milk and the meat products en route to the grocery store.

No matter how stringent the conditions are at industrial slaughterhouses, MAP migrates into dairy and meat products; avoiding this fecal contamination when animals are slaughtered is virtually impossible at large scale.

This means that MAP is present in milk and dairy products that you purchase at the grocery store, including raw milk, bulk milk, pasteurized milk, infant food formula, cheese, ice cream, and flavored milk drinks. A study published in 2007 revealed that more than 68 percent of all U.S dairy operations housed cows infected with MAP, and that more than 95 percent of farms containing more than 500 cows housed animals infected with MAP.

Even though milk must be pasteurized (treated at high heat to kill off disease-causing bacteria) before being sold at grocery stores, a small fraction of live MAP bacteria can survive pasteurization.

Approximately three out of every 100 milk products purchased in the U.S contain living MAP bacteria, meaning that milk and milk products are a vehicle that transports infectious bacteria directly from cows to humans, increasing risk for developing various autoimmune diseases, including type 1 diabetes.

MAP is Also Present in Meat Products

MAP is also present in the meat you buy at the grocery store or butcher, including beef, pork, chicken, and organ tissues. Studies have shown that between 15-20 percent of commonly eaten meat products test positive for MAP DNA, and that ground beef presents the greatest risk for transporting MAP into the human food chain.

recent investigation in 298 children in Sardinia, Italy, found that those who ate more meat before the age of two years old developed significantly more cases of type 1 diabetes and that ‘high meat consumption tends to be an important early life cofactor for type 1 diabetes development’.

This same research team also showed that both milk consumption and meat intake are significantly correlated with the incidence of type 1 diabetes in children younger than 15 years old in forty countries around the world.

What Causes Autoimmunity?

But how exactly does autoimmunity happen in the first place? The process is known as molecular mimicry, a sneaky tactic used by various bacteria and viruses in which pathogenic proteins attempt to evade detection by the human immune system by ‘disguising’ themselves as mammalian proteins.

In both young children and adults, microscopic holes in the lining of your gut wall allow pathogenic proteins to pass directly from your digestive system into your blood before they have been sufficiently cut by digestive enzymes.

Once these pathogenic proteins are present in your blood, your immune system recognizes them as foreign proteins and mounts an immune response that targets them for destruction. But because these pathogenic proteins contain specific regions that mimic proteins found in your body, your immune system can mistakenly target proteins on human cells in tissues all over your body for destruction, setting the stage for an autoimmune reaction.

Think of autoimmunity as a form of biological ‘friendly fire’ in which your immune system is hijacked by a pathogenic protein that tricks your immune system into destroying critical human cells containing proteins with a similar structure.

When infected with MAP, your immune system manufactures antibodies that mistakenly attack the ZnT8 protein on the surface of beta cells, targeting them for destruction.

To target these proteins for destruction, your immune system activates cells known as macrophages to engulf and destroy entire beta cells, leading to a near or complete loss of insulin production.

Final Remarks

As is true in almost all biological scenarios, the connection between dairy and meat consumption and type 1 diabetes is indefinite. Therefore, not everyone who drinks dairy and eats cattle, sheep, goats is at risk for type 1 diabetes.

But what this evidence does indicate is that even pasteurized dairy products at the grocery store may harbor living MAP bacteria, which can influence your risk for the development of type 1 diabetes. Despite needing more novel studies to demonstrate MAP’s causation for Crohn’s disease and multiple sclerosis, it is not worth the detrimental risk on your health.

Given that the insulin producing beta cells in your pancreas are the only cells in your body capable of manufacturing insulin, it’s important to ensure that the food you eat protects these critical cells at all ages.

While reducing your intake of dairy products can minimize your risk for type 1 diabetes, eliminating dairy products altogether is the safest way to truly minimize your risk.


England: Ready for ‘World Vegan Day’ on 1/11; Vegan ‘Butcher’ Shop Selling Entirely Plant Based Food Is Ready to Go !

London shares the way for Vegans with the Netherlands.

What a brilliant concept which will obviously attract so many people, and hopefully turn more towards ditching meat – the first permanent Vegan ‘butcher’ shop – Rudy’s Vegan Butcher is set to open its doors on ‘World Vegan Day’, November 1.

With this, even if people still currently eat some meat; just out of pure interest, they will investigate what is on offer here and hopefully try it; maybe finding out that meat free is even better for them.

Rudy's Vegan Butcher is set to open its doors on World Vegan Day, November 1, in Islington, north London. Ahead of its launch, the eatery has released a mocked-up photos of its produce, which looks just like a traditional butcher, though all its items are entirely plant-based
For those outside of London who want to get their hands on some vegan meat, Rudy's will be delivering nationwide - with all orders on World Vegan Day coming with a free pack of baycon. The shop - which also has its own restaurant in Camden - already sell DIY kits at home (pictured)
For those outside of London who want to get their hands on some vegan meat, Rudy's will be delivering nationwide - with all orders on World Vegan Day coming with a free pack of baycon. The shop - which also has its own restaurant in Camden - already sell DIY kits at home (pictured)

Here is the link:

You can only just make it out in one of the photos of the shop; but there is tiling (on the left) showing a pig – and underneath the words ‘friends not food’. – how great and true is that ?

The store, which is decked out and looks just like a traditional butcher, is completely different as all its items are entirely plant-based.

On sale will be homemade pastrami, dirty burger patties, cheeze sauce & chilli-non-carne, as well as a rack of jack, lobstah salad, meatballs, chick’n lover pate and shredded BBQ pulled porc.  We (WAV) note that all the foods have variations in names  (cheeze, lobstah, porc) which is obviously to get round all the junk that is put out by the EU etc declaring that you cant call milk by name etc if it is not from a cow.  See more on our past posts relating to all that at:

Additional – for information – In the USA:

For those outside of London who want to get their hands on some vegan meat, Rudy’s will be delivering nationwide – with all orders on World Vegan Day coming with a free pack of baycon.  

The shop – which also has its own restaurant in Camden – already sell DIY kits at home. 

For opening day, the shop will also be giving away 100 lbs of free baycon to the first 200 customers through the door. 

Sounds great and progressive for plant based eating;

Regards Mark

You Can Have ‘Cleansing Milk’ for Your Skin, ‘Milk of Magnesia’ for Stomach Upsets; Yet the Dairy Industry Does Not Want ‘Soya Milk’ to Be Called Such. Desperate Times for Them.

The animal agriculture industry is feeling extremely threatened by the growth in the numbers of people going vegan and consuming a plant only diet, and, in response, is calling for a ban on the use of terms such as burger, sausage, cheese, milk, ice cream etc for plant based equivalents. The Irish Farmers Union is attempting to persuade Irish MEP’s to vote to ban words traditionally used by the animal agriculture industry such as burger, steak, milk, cheese etc.

Interview on Newstalk

Sandra Higgins was interviewed by Mark Cagney, along with IFA President Tim Cullinanon on this morning’s Newstalk Breakfast. You can listen to the interview here.

Food terminology

The production of plant based equivalents of animal foods has a history that is thousands of years old, dating to Chinese Buddhist monk’s use of seitan (made from wheat gluten) and tofu (made from soya beans). There has been an enormous growth in the production and supply of plant based substitutes for animal foods which meets the demand by people for more ethical food production which necessitates the use of plants instead of animals.

Many vegans would prefer to dissociate from terms which have been used to associate living, sentient animals with food, because they are not food, they are feeling beings with rights. It is perfectly feasible to eat a wholefoods, plant diet without these substitutes. Indeed, it is cheaper and in many cases healthier to do so. However, people buying and consuming plant based substitutes, for the most part, live in countries where we have all grown up consuming animal products such as burgers, cheese, milk and ice cream. It is a matter of convenience to have plant based substitutes replace dietary patterns and recipes based on animal products. Many of these products are a very useful way of meeting our nutritional needs. They ease the transition to a plant diet and to veganism for many people and that can only be a good thing.

Most terms such as burger, sausage, etc refer to the shapes of food. Many animal versions of these products already contain more plant ingredients than animals’ bodies. It is the right of the plant based foods industry to label their products in a manner that facilites their sale.

Is this threatened Ban something Vegans should Be Concerned About?

The cost to the plant based food industry of changing it’s labelling and packaging would be harmful to a growing, ethical, and sustainable method of food production which, in every way, is better than using the lives and bodies of other animals who share our capacity to feel and have an interest in staying alive. Interestingly, there are two cases in the US that we are aware of, that have won their right to use dairy terminology (Miyoko’s Butter and Plant Based Milk in Virginia).

The EU has already banned the use of dairy terms such as milk on plant milks. The ban has done little to halt the rapid expansion of the market for plant substitutes for dairy products. Most people do not even notice the label. The Gestalt principles of perception operate even when most of an object is missing. Our minds are programmed to logically make sense of the world in terms of our understanding. That is why a carton of a product made from oats or soy does not have to be labelled ‘milk’ for the consumer to purchase it on the understanding that it is milk. The main concern in the consumer’s mind is that the milk did not violate the rights of other animals to their lives; that it is not harmful to the environment; and that it contributes to a diet that is nutritionally adequate, healthy, tasty, and affordable.

Misplaced Perception of Threat

The perception of threat by the animal agriculture industry is completely misplaced. The future of food production must, necessarily, be plant based and farmers will be necessary for the production of that plant food and are entitled to earn a living and be supported to transition in other ways to a more ethical, sustainable way of farming that excludes the use of other animals. The industry itself has seen the potential for expansion into the production of plant based foods; many of the vegan substitutes on our supermarket shelves are produced by the industry as it cashes in on this growing market. Given the current crises facing us in terms of a pandemic that has its origins in our oppression and use of other animals, combined with the loss of biodiversity and the climate crisis, which are caused, to a significant extent, by animal agriculture, surely it is in our interests to find solutions to halt disaster and ensure the sustainability of human life, than to argue over the terminology of the food we consume.

Misleading? The Kettle Calling the Pot Black

The argument that plant based substitutes for animal foods are misleading is ironic. The most misleading products of all on our shop shelves are those made from the bodies of other animals. The lengths to which the industry goes to to hide the standard legal practices on farms and in slaughterhouses, to fight against the science that explains the damage that animal agriculture inflicts on the environment and on other life, and to attempt to dispute the facts on the health benefits of a plant diet, are evidence  that it is an industry based on misleading consumers.

There isn’t a single producer of animal products that would sanction putting the facts of animal agriculture on its food packaging.

Milking It

Why the furore over plant based foods and not a similar reaction to the use by the cosmetic industry of the term ‘cleansing milk’, the fruit and veg industry’s use of terms ‘coconut milk’ and the ‘flesh’ of fruit, or the pharmaceutical industry’s reference to ‘milk of magnesia’ or the medical phrase ‘milking’ referring to the expression of the contents of a tube or duct to obtain a specimen or to test for tenderness? 

Has anyone ever reacted to the term ‘milking it’?

It is a derogatory phrase referring to the unjust taking advantage of another; a term which aptly derives from the dairy industry’s unjust process of breeding mammals so that they can be impregnated and lactate milk for their babies which is then taken from them for human consumption; the atrocious breeding of animals to give birth and lactate even though they are prevented from this natural right to feed their babies who are separated from them after birth; the exploitative and violent process of selectively breeding animals so that their bodies can be exploited for dairy products that humans do not need, until the burden of metabolic stress, continual lactation and pregnancy, combine to reduce their production of milk and their lives are ended in slaughterhouses.

Regards Mark

Individual Soya Milk Substitute Portions 80 Pods: Grocery

confused people – Google Search

Confused Group Stock Illustrations – 933 Confused Group Stock  Illustrations, Vectors & Clipart - Dreamstime