Category: General News

EU: Veggie Burger Out ? – European Parliament to vote on terminology for plant-based meat and dairy substitutes.

WAV Comment: This is the kind of thing they consider important; live transport and intensive farming system legislation can go to hell. Typical useless EU.

Here below are some animal abuse issues we have covered in just the last week or so.  Yes all EU  issues that need addressing real fast. 

But the MEP’s don’t take action about any of this do they ? – they sit on their self opinionated fat backsides deciding paltry issues like if a veggie burger can be called a veggie burger.  How sad is this; but oh so very EU.  Why do people still want to be in this pathetic ‘club’ ? – get out and be nations again.

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/10/05/italy-essere-animali-reveal-terrible-violence-on-a-pig-farm-supplying-beretta-cured-meats/

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/10/05/portugal-unpublished-and-shocking-images-inside-the-ships-transporting-live-animals-from-portugal-to-israel/

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/10/02/1-4-million-signatures-call-the-eu-to-act-on-farmed-animal-welfare/

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/10/02/call-to-stena-line-stop-illegal-calf-transports/

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/10/07/germany-mass-murder-on-the-march/

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/10/06/eu-animal-farming-in-eu-worse-for-climate-than-all-cars/

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/10/06/bulgaria-inbred-lion-cubs-victims-of-neglect-rife-in-bulgarias-decaying-zoos/

No more veggie burgers?

European Parliament to vote on terminology for plant-based meat and dairy substitutes

8 October 2020

Today, Eurogroup for Animals and 12 other NGOs sent a letter to the Members of the European Parliament urging them to vote against a ban on the use of ‘meatish’ and ‘dairyish’ names for plant-based products on 20 October. This ban would contradict the ambitions of the Green Deal, which promotes the uptake of more sustainable food and would further also interfere with consumers’ demand for plant-based products.

In the second plenary session in October, the European Parliament will vote on the regulation establishing a Common Organisation of the Markets (CMOs) in agricultural products (2018/0218 COD). This regulation is one of the three regulations composing the Common Agricultural Policy.

As it presently stands, this text proposed by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) includes two alarming amendments: 

  • Amendment 165would effectively ban widely accepted and commonly used terms, such as ‘veggie burger,’ or ‘plant-based steak’. 
  • Amendment 171 would further restrict the naming of dairy alternatives by prohibiting terms, such as ‘yoghurt-style’, ‘alternative to cheese,’ or ‘butter substitute’ to describe plant-based dairy alternatives. 

In an open letter to the Members of the European Parliament, Eurogroup for Animals expressed its concern over these amendments, and urged Members to oppose these two amendments. In the letter, Eurogroup for Animals explains why the measures contained in these two amendments contradicting the EU’s objective, as laid out in the European Green Deal measures to create a more sustainable and healthy food system. Encouraging the broader uptake of plant-based diets is instrumental in achieving the European Commission’s climate neutrality objectives, and prevent a decline in global biodiversity.

Countless studies have evidenced that industrial animal agriculture is a major contributor to climate change, environmental degradation, public health risks, biodiversity loss, and poor animal welfare. In the Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission explicitly acknowledges the need to shift dietary habits. The Commission further points to the necessity to increase the intake of plant-based foods and reduce red and processed meat consumption levels  to reduce the risk of life-threatening diseases and decrease the environmental footprint of the food system. In 2018, the Commission’s Plant Protein Report already noted that the market for meat and dairy alternatives was particularly promising in the EU, with annual growth rates of 14% and 11%, respectively.

This possible ban is also inconsistent with consumers’ purchasing habits and perceptions. For many years already, European consumers have been accustomed to seeing and buying plant-based products displaying terms such as ‘veggie burger’ or ‘plant-based steak’. Prohibiting the use of such well-recognised terms not only is unnecessary, but it would also lead to preventing them from making informed purchasing choices.

Indeed, a recent survey by the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) demonstrates that EU consumers are overwhelmingly favour of the use of meat-related terms for plant-based foods. The report shows that more than 68% of consumers support ‘meaty’ names for plant-based food products, as long as the products are clearly labelled as plant-based or vegetarian. Furthermore, petitions against the proposed restrictions have already garnered thousands of signatures.

It is now in the hands of the Members of the European Parliament to vote against such a  ban and to  improve information to consumers. For example, by requiring the use of qualifiers for non-meat products, such as “plant-based” or “vegetarian”, while reserving the terms with no qualifiers for meat products. This would mean that “sausages” would be made from meat, and  “plant-based sausages” would be made of plant-based ingredients. If high quality consumers information is the goal, the use of qualifiers along with meat and dairy denominations is the way to go. 

England: Tory MP denounces ‘absurd’ government rule exempting hunters and shooters from coronavirus rule of six. Do Votes Matter Above All Else ??

WAV Comment:  I (Mark) have worked with Sir Roger in the past re live animal transport in ‘our’ home county of Kent.  He is the MP (Member of Parliament) for North Thanet (Kent).  The other constituency of South Thanet, which includes Ramsgate port; through which all live animal exports currently take place by convicted criminal (in a UK court of law – animal welfare offences) Dutchman Onderwater – 

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/07/30/england-dutch-criminal-exports-british-sheep-for-eid-slaughter-the-conservatives-do-nothing-except-talk-the-talk-we-want-action/. 

South Thanet has an MP named Craig Mackinlay.

At the end of the day all animal issues are really about governments getting votes; nothing else.  I have been campaigning long enough against live exports; hunting, badger culling etc to have experience of that attitude.  For example; take New York in the USA; I did a very recent post re Covid, in New York and wet markets.  As it was Yom Kippur;  the general concerns about Covid and animal wet markets – the proven source of the virus – in New York, were thrown out of the window in favour of obtaining votes – please read more about this in the article: https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/09/22/usa-the-priority-reducing-covid-or-getting-votes-seems-getting-votes-win/

Here in England where I live; ‘protected’ Badgers – Under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, in England and Wales (the law is different in Scotland) it is an offence to: Wilfully kill, injure or take a badger (or attempt to do so). … Dig for a badger. Intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy a badger sett, or obstruct access to – that it unless you are the government, then you can  kill whatever badgers you wish ! – are being culled in vast numbers to present an ‘action face’ by the government to dairy farmers. 

As a rule; those same farmers are also land owners; and thus are more Conservative in their votes than Labour Party supporters.  So the Conservative government has to be seen taking action for them, and this is done currently through the badger cull.  Badger killing = farmers votes = government power.

The Badgers, as a result of this action, are the ones who really pay the price with their lives.

Votes are the No. 1 issue; real issues such as animal welfare, come a very poor second.

So back to Roger Gale MP and the article below.  Under current Covid regulations (the rule of 6 persons maximum) introduced by the Conservative government; little children are prevented from visiting their grandparents in other households.  People are expected to comply with this ruling in order to reduce Covid transmission.  But; and it is a big but; if you are a hunter and you wish to go out on the moors killing wildlife; then you ARE allowed to go out in bigger parties of more than 6; you get a special ‘exemption’ which allows this.

How do I and Roger (Gale) read this ? – one rule for ‘normal’ people who cannot visit family in large numbers; but (government) ‘exemptions for larger groups’ if they want to go out together and blast away in a blood frenzy; killing as much wildlife as they can.  Oh yes; these people are often landowners who usually vote Conservative (like the badger killers); so as I have said; votes are the priority over protecting animal welfare; despite what the government says.

Please read the article below as it will probably make more sense than my blurb !

Regards Mark

————————————————————–

Coronavirus: Time to break the rules and visit grandparents? | News | The  Times
Shooting parties of more than six are still legal
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is blood-1.png

Tory MP denounces ‘absurd’ government rule exempting hunters and shooters from coronavirus rule of six

Exclusive: ‘It is apparently in order to assemble in large groups to hunt and to shoot mostly hand-reared birds,’ says party grandee

A veteran Conservative MP has slated Boris Johnson’s exemption of hunting and shooting from the coronavirus “rule of six”.

Sir Roger Gale said: “I find it absurd that while restrictions are placed upon public gatherings including most sporting events, including horseracing, and that while gatherings of more than six people even within a family are prohibited, it is apparently in order to assemble in large groups to hunt and to go out to shoot mostly hand-reared ‘wild’ birds.  

“Do hunters and shooters not catch or transmit Covid 19?”

The UK population has been told it is illegal for people to meet in groups of more than six, in an effort to limit the spread of the virus.

But the government has exempted shooting and hunting from the restrictions, a move which has prompted uproar among many people.

The pheasant-shooting season began last week. Up to 20 million pheasants are shot a year of the roughly 50 million that are bred.

Hunters have regularly been seen in the countryside in groups of more than six since the rule was introduced last month, and in once case were filmed at an event mixing with police officers.

The government regulations forbid mixing in groups of more than six before or after sporting events.

Days after large gatherings were banned, about 130 people met for a stag hunt, almost all not wearing masks, in scenes that critics said “made a mockery of the social sacrifices” of others to limit the spread of coronavirus.

The government was accused of hypocrisy in creating exemptions for “friends” and other people deemed as being more inclined to vote Conservative while introducing fines for the rest of the population.

Sir Roger, a long-time animal-welfare supporter, voted against the internal market bill, which breaches international law, saying: “An Englishman’s word used to be his bond. Under Johnson that is not so.”

One animal lover wrote: “One cannot visit family members who may be physically or mentally ill or really struggling if it means there would be seven or more, and one cannot visit loved ones in hospital, but if one wants to go out in huge numbers and kill animals, it is allowed.”

A government spokesperson said: “We have exempted over 30 types of sport, exercise and physical activity such as football, rugby and other outdoor pursuits. Outdoor activity is safer from a transmission perspective, and it is often easier to social distance. Where such activities take place, safety measures must be taken including conducting a risk assessment and compliance with Covid-19 secure guidance.”

Source:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hunting-shooting-rule-six-exempt-tory-mp-roger-gale-covid-b835803.html

England: Why Does Plant Based Vegan Food Have To Be Marketed As ‘Tastes Like Steak’ Etc ? – Vegans Are Vegans To Stop Animal Suffering – Understand This.

WAV Comment: I (Mark) have not eaten any dead animal meat for well over 33 years.  I take a vegan diet as a) I consider plant based to be very healthy; non fattening etc; and b) primarily because of my personal concerns for animal welfare issues.  In short, An animal does not die to put something on my plate.

We all have our opinions, which is great and to be encouraged; but I rather hate the fact (as below) that veggie or vegan food is often sold as ‘vegan meat’; ‘vegan steak’, ’vegan bacon’, ‘fishless fillets’ and ‘vegan sausages’ etc.  As a vegan, I do not want to eat things that are supposed to represent in any way steak, bacon or fish.  Because of my hatred for the way animals are abused to produce the same, I simply want a plant based meal that is just that; a plant based meal without the cruelty. I dont want nit dressed up as something it is not – they should be sold as non meat; not ‘tastes like’ steak, bacon and the rest.

Having a range of plant based products called plant based steak, sausage and fish fillets is typical marketing jargon; but you almost always find that vegans are vegans because they don’t want to be associated with animal abuse or meat in any way.  So pretending then that plant based products taste like steak; bacon or fish are not really on my wavelength; so why do it ?.  The only positive to me is that ‘real’ steak eaters may eventually try the plant based version and then move over to it; improving their health and doing a great deal for the environment and especially saving animal deaths.

But for me; veganism has principles; and they include avoiding animal abuses; the environment and better health.  So lets keep vegan food free from the ‘tastes like bacon or steak’ labels; and sell it is simply for what it is – ie cruelty free food which benefits the environment.  How about labelling them instead as ‘animal abuse free’, or ‘more environmentally friendly’ products.  This approach may even attract yet more custom; those who want to do the right thing and avoid animal suffering whilst doing better for the mush persecuted environment.

Just my view;

Regards Mark

Value Supermarket Morrisons Launches Vegan Steak And Bacon

The new meat alternatives are part of an extensive range including plant-based burgers, sausages, fishless fillets and more

MARIA CHIORANDO

OCT 6, 2020

https://www.plantbasednews.org/lifestyle/morrisons-launches-vegan-steak-bacon

Morrisons has launched a major new line of vegan meat under its V-Taste branding.

The value supermarket’s new offering includes a range of options including vegan steak (£3) and vegan bacon (£2.50).

Among the other plant-based meat alternatives are fishless fillets (£2), burgers (£2.50), and two styles of sausages – chorizo and Cumberland (£2.50).

Morrisons vegan meat

In a statement sent to Plant Based News, a Morrisons spokesperson described the bacon as ‘thick cut rashers’, which they said are the ‘perfect pairing to a butty on a Sunday’.

The steak, they added, are ‘high in fiber and a source of protein’, and match well with any traditional steak sauces.

The fishless fillets are described as ‘flaky’, and are made from fava beans and rice, coated in a breading.

Morrisons vegan options

Morrisons initially launched its V Taste range towards the end of 2018. It started as a line with around 10 products, including two flavors of vegan cupcakes – red velvet and chocolate – as well as a number of savory dishes like Lentil Hotpot among others.

The line was described as being value for money, with all items priced between £1 and £3.

Since the launch, Morrisons has consistency expanded the range, adding items like pigs in blankets, a foot-long vegan sausage roll, and mozzarella sticks among others.

USA: New Jersey Proposes To End Black Bear Trophy Hunting.

Breaking news: New Jersey proposes plan to end black bear trophy hunting

We applaud Gov. Phil Murphy, who made a campaign promise to end black bear trophy hunts, for his commitment to not approve the state’s bear management plan in 2021 if it contains lethal bear hunting. Photo by Alamy

Breaking news: New Jersey proposes plan to end black bear trophy hunting

New Jersey’s governor wants no more black bear trophy hunts in the state on his watch.

The New Jersey Fish and Game Council today proposed an amendment to the state’s 2021 bear management plan that would effectively suspend the annual black bear trophy hunt after the conclusion of this year’s hunt, which is scheduled to start next week. New Jersey’s bear hunt is particularly barbaric. It allows trophy hunters to use such cruel methods as baiting the animals with piles of rotting sugary food and chasing bears off state lands, where bear hunting is not allowed, and onto private lands, just so they can be killed. It also allows baby bear cubs to be hunted.

We applaud Gov. Phil Murphy, who made a campaign promise to end black bear trophy hunts, for his commitment to not approve the state’s new bear management plan if it contains lethal bear hunting. If the amendment is approved, it would mean there would be no bear trophy hunting in New Jersey starting next year, and presumably for the next four years.

A Humane Society of the United States poll last year showed that a supermajority of residents oppose such hunts. An even stronger majority is opposed to bear baiting. But unfortunately, attempts in the state legislature to prohibit baiting bears or bear trophy hunting have not been brought up for full floor votes.

While the plan is yet to be finalized, this is a big step forward and it is great news for our wildlife staff and our New Jersey state director who worked long and hard for this outcome. Unfortunately, the proposed changes won’t stop the 2020 bear hunting season, which will begin Oct. 12. We strongly urge Gov. Murphy to take steps available to him and immediately call off this hunt as well.

The New Jersey Fish and Game Council will accept public comment on this proposed change until Dec. 4, and will hold a public hearing before it is finalized. The comment period will open soon, and if you’re a resident of New Jersey, we urge you to weigh in and let the council know that you support ending the trophy hunting of black bears in the state. Please watch this space for further updates.

Excellent News !

Regards Mark

Basic rights for great apes

An initiative calls for basic rights for primates other than humans. The population in the canton of Basel-Stadt will soon be able to vote on it.

In the Swiss canton of Basel-Stadt, the population will soon be able to decide whether other primates should have basic rights in addition to humans. Specifically, it is about a “right of non-human primates to life and to physical and mental integrity”. Monkeys in particular are meant.

These are “highly intelligent”, it is said to justify the initiative, they “can communicate with people in sign language, are capable of suffering, feel empathy for others and can both remember past events and look into the future”.

All 300 species of primate have a large brain, complex social structures, and a high physical and psychological ability to suffer – which unfortunately also makes them particularly interesting for animal experiments.
The originator of the initiative is the Sentience association. It should be possible to keep monkeys in the zoo, as well as to use them for research purposes. However, the primates should then not have to suffer and otherwise experience “no stress”.

The Basel Parliament, the Grand Council, initially rejected the initiative as inadmissible in 2018. With the argument: such a constitutional amendment at the cantonal level violates Swiss federal law.
The Swiss Federal Supreme Court saw it differently.
Cantons are likely to go beyond the protection guaranteed in the federal constitution. The initiative can therefore be put to a vote.

In Germany, Peta is suing for animal rights

In Germany, too, there is a discussion about the basic rights of animals.

In November last year, the animal welfare organization PETA filed a constitutional complaint on behalf of the piglets, more precisely: for all “male pigs that are neutered without anesthesia”. The aim is to accelerate the abolition of this controversial, but so far common practice, which aims to prevent a strong odor from boar meat.

So the lawsuit goes far beyond the Basel initiative.

On the one hand, PETA does not want to introduce basic rights such as physical integrity for animals through a constitutional amendment but assumes that they already apply today. On the other hand, PETA is not limited to human-like primates.

If pigs, cows, and chickens had the right to life and freedom, meat consumption, animal husbandry, and slaughter would be difficult to justify.

The Federal Constitutional Court has not yet decided on the PETA lawsuit.

The Primate Initiative is not really proving to be revolutionary, but rather an appreciative step – in the right direction.
From a legal point of view, there are no convincing arguments against the constitutional extension of certain basic rights to certain animals.

That would be an expression of central character traits of us humans: brotherhood and humanity.

https://taz.de/Klage-fuer-Tierrechte/!5713134/

 

And I mean…It should be viewed as a criminal injustice to use great apes in medical experiments, to keep them in captivity, to execute them to death, or to destroy their habitat.

The natural home of these animals must be just as worthy of protection as the home of an indigenous people.

Great apes should no longer be property but should be given personal status. As with “underage” such as young children or coma patients who cannot speak for themselves, the legal claims of great apes would have to be represented by trustees.
That is quite feasible.

I think that the historical moment has come to overcome the barrier of “speciesism” after nationalism, racism, and sexism.

Denying animal rights just because “others” do not belong to our species is an expression of speciesism and structurally synonymous with racism or sexism. It is an ethically illegitimate way of thinking and acting.

My best regards to all, Venus

EU: Animal farming in EU worse for climate than all cars.

Animal farming in EU worse for climate than all cars

Less and better animal farming is crucial in the fight against climate breakdown, but it is also essential in preventing new pandemics.

Greenhouse gas emissions from animal farming in the EU account for 17% of the EU’s total emissions, and do more damage to the climate than all cars and vans put together, according to new analysis. The scale of the problem means that the EU cannot reach the goals of the Paris climate agreement, and avoid the worst impacts of climate breakdown, without a reduction in the number of farm animals, said Greenpeace.

The analysis by Greenpeace also found that yearly emissions from animal farming rose by 6% between 2007 and 2018. The increase, the equivalent of 39 million tonnes of CO2, would be like adding 8.4 million cars to European roads.

Science is clear, the numbers as well: we can’t avoid the worst of climate breakdown if politicians keep defending industrial production of meat and dairy.

Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director

The new calculations, using UN Food and Agriculture Organization data and other peer-reviewed scientific research, estimate that animals on European farms emit the equivalent of 502 million tonnes of CO2 per year. When including indirect greenhouse gas emissions, coming from animal feed production, land use, deforestation and other land-use change, the total annual emissions attributable to European animal farming are the equivalent of 704 million tonnes of CO2.

Greenhouse gas emissions from animal farming in the EU are:

More than all cars and vans on European roads (656 million tonnes of CO2 per year)

More than the total emissions, from all sectors, of Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary (647 million tonnes of CO2 per year)

More than 18 times the emissions of the biggest and most polluting coal station in Europe, Poland’s Bełchatów power plant (38 million tonnes of CO2  per year)

Read more at source

Greenpeace Europe

Regards Mark

Bulgaria: Inbred lion cubs ‘victims of neglect rife in Bulgaria’s decaying zoos’.

Photo – Zdenek Machacek

Inbred lion cubs ‘victims of neglect rife in Bulgaria’s decaying zoos’

Country’s government accused of issuing permits to places that fail EU standards

Two inbred lion cubs in a Bulgarian zoo are victims of “systemic neglect of animal welfare in the country’s zoos”, according to an animal-rescue charity. 

Simba and Kossara, who are less than three months old, were the result of breeding between a brother and sister and were abandoned by their mother when she was unable to care for them. 

They were discovered very weak, curled up in a small box, just days after being born. After being moved to another “inappropriate” zoo, the pair are now still suffering in a small enclosure with a concrete floor, according to the charity Four Paws. 

Inbreeding and poor conditions are rife at zoos in Bulgaria, which operate in breach of minimum standards set by the EU, it’s claimed.

The country is believed to have 24 lions and 15 tigers in captivity, of which only a handful are being looked after properly, the animal-welfare organisation says.

Bulgaria’s state zoos, built during the Soviet era, are “underfunded and decaying”, and the government is accused of granting zoo permits without checking whether EU standards of care for animals and conservation are met – illegal under EU rules. 

Simba and Kossara were born in cramped conditions at a zoo in early July, but after being discovered “in a critical state”, they were moved to a clinic in Sofia, and from there to a second zoo. 

Four Paws said its offer to rehome the animals at a sanctuary in the Netherlands had been repeatedly ignored. 

Barbara van Genne, of the organisation, said: “They are among the most recent victims of the authorities’ negligence. The cubs have been taken from one inappropriate enclosure to another, and neither is equipped for their species-appropriate long-time care. 

Read more at source

The Independent

Regards Mark