It’s no secret that the meat industry is trying hard to improve its image. As research continues to demonstrate the impact of meat and milk on greenhouse gas emissions, lobbyists for the livestock industry have been working to develop a counter-offensive. 

The Protein Pact was launched in July 2021 and consists of mostly U.S. based livestock industry firms. The National Pork Producers Council is one of these groups, which challenged California’s Prop 12 before the Supreme Court and lost. The council’s president made headlines recently when he said he wouldn’t comply with even the modest animal welfare requirements of California law.

Chances are, you might have noticed a significant backlash against plant-based proteins and “fake meat” in the last year. There are strong indications that the meat industry has positioned influencers, dietitians and other messengers to influence public opinion on the benefits of meat. The Protein Pact organization works with Red Flag Consulting which is known for its efforts to interfere with climate policy action in the EU. 

The group has also funded academic research to promote their claims. U.C. Davis’s CLEAR center, is funded in part by pact partner IFeeder and has been the subject of multiple investigative news stories, including one published in the New York Times, about its misleading communication efforts. Other controversial figures like Richard Berman are named in articles about the backlash against vegan meat. The Berman PR company has been involved in defending industries such as big tobacco. 

“Big meat” has an image problem that can’t be whitewashed. It revolves around the cruel treatment of animals in industrial farms, as well as the harm the industry causes the planet. The industrial production of meat and exploitation of animals makes up 15% of global emissions and 60% of food production emissions. It’s no surprise that moves away from big meat and towards plant protein would be met with attempts to stifle these efforts.

It’s important to remember that influencers make their money from paid sponsorships and so-called candid advice may be funded by less than above-board sources. Articles with knee-jerk titles that claim to debunk veganism and vegan protein could well be part of a backlash that is more about business interests than science. Vegans can help to combat this disinformation by carefully fact-checking and tracing the sources of articles sent my family and friends. 

“Please forgive me. If I don’t kill you, I can’t feed my family” was the desperate apology a slaughterhouse worker used to whisper to the dogs in their cages in the Cambodian slaughterhouse where he used to work. The worker burst into tears as he described killing up to 6 dogs a day in a Cambodian slaughterhouse. Unlike workers in slick Western meat processing plants who are removed from the killing, Cambodian workers who participate in horrific violence on a daily basis fully experience the reality of what they are doing.

The dogs themselves are rounded up and put into cages and then suffer a drawn-out, tortuous end to their lives. They are transported to the slaughterhouses in crowded cages huddled with other dogs, and kept in rusty cages before being killed. The dogs are killed in brutal, horrific ways with no agreed upon system of killing. Some are hung from trees, others are drowned in fetid water. Some are strangled. Some are stabbed and some are beat over the head. Workers learn to prefer beating dogs over the head because it’s quicker, or drowning them in closed cages so they don’t have to hear their cries.

Yet amid all the horror, somehow there is a ray of light for Cambodian dogs. The organization Four Paws, which has worked tirelessly on behalf of dogs in Cambodia, has succeeded in shutting down the worker’s former employer, one the country’s biggest slaughterhouses. If the closure of this business disrupts the supply chain, it will send a strong message about the acceptability of the dog meat trade in Cambodia. The province of Siem Reap has also decided to ban the trade. But in Cambodia over 3 million dogs a year are slaughtered for the dog meat trade. There is still so much more work to be done to turn the tide against this horrific slaughter.

Four Paws did not just shut down the slaughterhouse, it supported workers to find alternative income and helped some of them to open a grocery store. The organization follows through on an understanding of the relationship between human misery and animal misery. One begets the other as poor workers are forced to kill for a living and dogs die to make profits for rich humans who are conveniently removed from the killing. The kind of clothes that those in business wear are different from the blood-stained rags of hired animal killers, yet it is the clean suits that are the real hallmarks of mass killers.

In a poignant moment, the worker who had murdered the dogs was able to release fifteen of them from their cages when the factory shut down. This time the worker was able to whisper to the animals: “you are free now” In this moment, the workers’ freedom and the animals’ freedom were not different, they were intricately intertwined and impossible without each other.

Please visit Four Paws website and make a donation to support the important work they are doing: four-paws.us/campaigns-topics/campaigns?utm_source=google&utm_medium=grant&utm_campaign=Evergreen&utm_content=UNR1907ADGRNTevergreenBrand&gclid=EAIaIQobChMInt2_1rKq6wIVFIzICh25fAV7EAAYASAAEgLww_D_BwE

https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3037201/inside-cambodias-brutal-dog-meat-trade-which-claims

This week, a chance to vote on a bill to ban the live sheep trade fell flat in the Australian House of Representatives. It had passed the Senate and had wide support among Australian politicians across both sides of the aisle. It failed because two politicians refused to “cross the floor” and take a stand to support the bill. Earlier this year, video footage exposed the horror of the live sheep trade, showing sheep packed together, afflicted from the heat and dying on the long voyage north to the Middle East. An Australian Green politician has rightly said the live sheep trade is “simply incompatible with animal welfare.” It just won’t do to slightly improve conditions, as the Liberal party have suggested, by increasing space and ventilation. Travel will still be hard on the animals, and exporters will likely cut corners to save money on power etc.

Australian politicians have made this ban political by choosing to treat it as a partisan issue. The Liberals don’t want to vote with the opposition party because the opposition have made this a policy issue for the next election. If politicians prefer to be political rather than vote for animal welfare, that is their choice. It now represents an opportunity – an opportunity for Australians to put pressure on their politicians to end this trade, or suffer in the next election. It can also be an opportunity to take more comprehensive action to protect animals. No one is even talking about live exports of other animals, such as cattle. Please read more, sign and share, and if you’re an Australian voter, contact your representatives!

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/10/live-exports-ban-coalition-pressured-to-allow-lower-house-vote-after-bill-passes-senate

https://secure.animalsaustralia.org/take_action/live-export-shipboard-cruelty/?r=5b9a9f999e7521536860057&ua_s=e-mail#action

When mainstream publications like Fortune.com start publishing articles arguing for a meat tax, you know that something is in the air. Sweden, Denmark and Germany are calling for a meat tax. The American Institute for Cancer Research and the American College of Cardiology are in favor. The environmental costs of methane and soil erosion from the cattle industry are well known. Meanwhile, people are waking up to the horrible conditions that animals suffer in factory farms. The article also points out how much damage the meat industry does in its production phase even before animal products go into people’s bodies. Air and water pollution from meat production predominantly affects people unfortunate enough to live within range (usually lower income people, who are often people of color).

When we treat the environment, animals or other human beings as dehumanized products, there are always consequences for individual and collective wellbeing. Cruelty has been sold as self-interest when in fact it is quite the opposite – it undermines whole environmental systems and deprives us of our potential to peacefully co-exist with animals.

http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/meat-tax-climate-change-health-us/