Is his heart in the right place? We think so. But when you have a platform as a vegan, the absolute worst, most horrific thing you can ever do for the planet, humans and other animals, is try to justify the violent and unnecessary slaughter of innocents, especially whilst using mainstream anti-vegan sentiment such as “keyboard warriors”, “but you kill ants”, “you support monocropping”, and so on as a way of defending the taking of an indefensible position.

Does that mean we think people including Rich should hate on Molly and John? No. Most vegans recognise they too were once not living by compassionate principles due to their indoctrination from birth.

Does that mean we don’t see what good they are doing by rebuilding topsoil, drawing down carbon, removing their personal use of harmful pesticides and chemical laden fertilizers? No.

Do vegans believe they do not have a negative impact simply by existing? No, and if they do they are obviously delusional.

Should vegans be doing all they can to reduce their negative impact by supporting holistic and chemical free plant-based food economies? Absolutely, wherever possible, which is not an easy task in our current food system, but no doubt many are trying.

Do vegans have the right to call out Rich Roll for his promotion of unnecessarily killing animals? Absolutely.

What Molly and John (and Rich) are doing is reinforcing carnism, human superiority and violence whilst asking vegans to practice empathy and accusing vegans of being “holier than thou” for challenging them.

If you missed it, you can listen here.

Apricot Lane is what is being touted as a ‘regenerative farm’. In simplified terms, this is holistic land management farming principles that seek to rebuild healthy soil and promote biodiversity, do away with chemical pesticides and fertilizers and incorporate the use of animals in rotational systems that claim to make the soil most efficient at sequestering carbon. We have recently covered the fallacies claimed about using animals in these systems when publishing the Planetary Vegan article on the subject (read here) so won’t go into this further here. But we must add, it was a smashing-your-head-against-the-wall moment when during the interview John acknowledges deforestation as a major problem for the planet, whilst also promoting 100% grass-fed beef to an ever-growing human population.

Cattle at Apricot Lane Farm

Even if you buy into Molly and John’s regenerative farming principles that claim animals are essential to be used in a healthy and earth friendly farming practice, (interestingly both John and Rich admit they have never even bothered to research veganic regenerative farming), there is still absolutely no reason why

1. Those animals cannot be rescues rather than bred into an already over-populated so-called farmed animal world, and
2. Those animals need to be killed.

When Rich puts this to the couple, we receive an absolutely ludicrous spiel as to why they must slaughter the animals which doesn’t actually answer Rich Roll’s question. John explains that when his cows become geriatric, he would have to spend time carrying them to the water trough (!) rather than tending to his duties on the farm and then, doomsday, he and the whole system would fall apart.

He then deviates right off course and speaks of his dog who was rescued from a hoarding situation to basically claim that if we didn’t slaughter animals for food they’d all just be hoarded and suffering. John assumes we will all be ignorant to the fact that their farm has only been in existence for 8 years, yet cows and pigs live to approximately 20 years of age, and sheep 12 years of age. So how is he already supplying dead animal flesh to so many sellers? Frustratingly Rich does not question him on this fallacy.

Even if John and Molly were allowing the animals to live until painful arthritis potentially kicks in, they seem completely unaware that there is a compassionate thing called euthanasia which avoids the horrifying experience of being sent to a slaughterhouse to get a bolt gun to the head or be slowly gassed, bleed out and cut into pieces.

When it comes to animals we are always looking for excuses. Do we send granny off to be stabbed in the throat when she is unable to get around and then romanticise it as being resourceful by making use of her body?

Let’s face it. The animals at Apricot Lane are being killed because John and Molly are carnists. They acknowledge the importance of respecting the earth, her inhabitants and eco-systems, but like so many others, they draw a blind-spot when it comes to their human superiority over other animals they have been indoctrinated to see as food.

We are then forced to suffer through another Matthew Evans moment of “but vegans kill mice” (read our response to that nonsense here) and sadly Rich entertains this narrative, seemingly forgetting the section in the definition of vegan ‘as far as is possible and practicable.’ Rich is 100% correct to highlight that we all have an impact and blood on our hands by simply existing. So fuck it! Let’s just go on a blood-lusting rampage, shall we?

Rich is clearly impressed with the work of Molly and John and recognises, as we do, that what current farming practices, both animal and crop, are doing to the soil and eco-systems is disastrous. Promoting the need for this to be urgently addressed is admirable. However, we’re confident a hard-working couple from the regenerative veganic farming community could have been sourced. The core issue with Rich doing this interview in the first place and what he does through the interview, is he reinforces other animals to the position of less than, perpetuating the very problem that is the root cause of so many problems we face, being that humans remain more superior than others, as he irresponsibly justifies their right to cause unnecessary harm for no reason other than indoctrinated habit.

His use of the terms kindness, compassion and connection during the discussion in reference to a business that slaughters innocent animals for profits again mocks what those words stand for. These terms are being hijacked globally, as animal agriculture industries, both big and small, work to convince people that there is a kind way to kill someone and that we can be connected whilst unnecessarily taking someone’s life. There is no greater disconnect.

If we are to ever create a world of non-violence, respect, harmony and equality that Rich claims to strive for, there is never, ever, room for the intentional and unnecessary killing of individuals who do not want to die. And those in our movement who have a platform have an even greater responsibility to uphold that commitment.

Apparently, some have called for a Rich Roll boycott. That is of course their prerogative. We are not. Rich Roll often puts out very important discussions to the world which have positive impact, and we have absolutely no doubt his intentions are always good. However, we believe he has to take responsibility for the fact that he has basically given every listener who was considering becoming vegan an excuse to throw in the towel before they even get started.

For that we say this was a big fail on your part Rich. A big, fat, fail.

For more information on killing with kindness visit the ultimate betrayal.

You may have had the unfortunate experience of seeing Jonai Farms feature on The Project earlier this week – watch here

This operation touts what they refer to as ‘ethicurean’ food, working to convince consumers who are starting to open their eyes to the horrors of animal agriculture that they can still eat the dead bodies of animals and not feel bad about it.

Tammi has been sending the pigs she claims to care about to gas chambers to endure a horrifying, torturous death since she began profiting from their exploitation many years ago. She has stated that she has seen the killing method used and believes it to be “best practice”, and completely acceptable to her so long as on-farm slaughter is not an option.

You can decide that for yourself. This link contains footage from the very gas chamber Tammi sends the pigs she exploits to

“We abhor cruelty to animals” she states on her website.

When Vegan Rising members called Tammi out for the suffering and taking of the lives she profits from in a forum earlier this year, Tammi openly and quite proudly stated she has no problem with the killing of animals who do not want to die.

Yet, when explaining to The Project that she would soon have her own slaughterhouse she states “I wouldn’t say I’m looking forward to it as you don’t look forward to killing. But I am looking forward to not sending them off for someone else to kill anymore”.

Why would someone not look forward to killing? Could it be because it is unethical, violent and unjust? Could it be because the pigs she will be stabbing in the throat are the same pigs she claimed to care about the day before? Could it be because deep down we all know killing is wrong and she will be forced to truly face the reality of what she promotes and profits from, making ethicurean buzzwords of kindness, connection, ethical, wholesome and humane harder to tout?

We do not for a moment think Tammi will have an epiphany and throw in the towel once she commences watching the individuals she apparently cares for plead for their lives. Sadly, Tammi is too far down the path of her saviour complex.

She quotes EB White on her website “I awake each morning torn between a desire to save the world, and to savour the world. This makes it hard to plan my day.”.

Let’s be clear. Raising and killing pigs (and cows) for profits is NOT saving the world.

Nearing the end of this pro animal killing news story, Tammi can’t help herself from taking a dig at vegans (as she often does) – you know, those people who do actually abhor cruelty to animals.

“One of my favourite things about how cranky vegans get with me is the death threats that I have had from them in the past. That’s right – those with the most compassion for animals are making death threats against human animals”.

Sorry, but does this mean Tammi acknowledges killing shows lack of compassion?

If one thing is clear it is that Tammi is a very, VERY confused individual. She joins a growing number of other disconnected and delusional saviours who think they can slip the words killing and kindness into the same sentence. That is a convenient (and profitable) position to take at a time when so many are making the connection and looking for ways to reduce their negative impact on animals and the planet, ensuring animals remain subjugated, exploited and harmed – and we feel better about it.

Because nothing screams ethics and kindness like mocking the dead bodies of individuals who wanted to live, and fought until their last breath.

To recognise someone’s desire to live and live well, yet take their life from them anyway is the ultimate betrayal.

After the disturbing revelations last month (see here) that rocked the Australian racing industry, this $9 billion a year Goliath swiftly cranked up into full damage control, aided and abetted by members of the industrial-complex.  The pathetic gesture of a $25 million Equine Welfare plan was hastily announced in the hopes of placating an increasingly-disillusioned public in the run up to racing’s most profitable week of the calendar year.  $25 million out of the pot at Racing Victoria won’t be missed any more than the 122 horses (at least) that have died on the track this year.  On both counts, there’s plenty more where they came from.  

With public confidence in the racing industry on the undeniable wane, and numbers at this year’s Melbourne Cup the lowest since 1995, all subtlety can wait.  Give the punters their fairy tale, even if it means drenching the front page of the usually-solemn ‘The Australian’ in a saccharine world of fantasy. 

Our writer, John Stensholt, certainly paints a pretty picture of Tuesday’s main spectacle at Flemington.   And nothing unites a jaded, lukewarm nation faster than a strong dose of fanatical, over-the-top patriotism. 

For we learn that not any old horse, but an Australian horse, against all odds (well, odds of $11 actually) beat all those pesky, unwelcome foreign horses to rightfully claim the Cup, win the hearts of this nation and rebuild public trust.  Enter our Aussie hero ‘Vow and Declare’.  These strange and foreign horses from other lands are met with suspicion and contempt, the would-be villains of the piece.  Isn’t the language of the racing industry baffling?  These individuals are given nationalities but denied sentience.

That this sugar-sweet narrative has elbowed its way to the front page of a national broadsheet is somewhat offensive and yet wholly unsurprising: for here we have a powerful and influential industry that have been exposed to be radically at odds with their carefully crafted and honed brand.  You’d be forgiven for thinking that such a mawkish sentimental narrative has flourished from the pen of a pensive teenage girl.  In reality, this is front page news courtesy of a grown adult male, and uncomfortable reading for those attempting to digest their muesli at the breakfast table.  A story as wholesome and satisfying as any classic rags to riches prose, weaving fantastical characters composed of lovable larrikins, Aussie Battlers and misty-eyed dutiful wives. 

However, these picture-book characters aren’t the working-class heroes they are trumpeted to be.  Our horse ‘owners’ aren’t a “bunch of ordinary Aussies” as the article would have us believe. 

Cashed up and bored; Company Directors, Politicians and Deputy Mayors constitute the lion’s share of ‘ownership’ of the individual who happened to race for his life a fraction faster than the others on Tuesday. 

Paul Lansky is described in the article as a “Noosa bloke in construction who breeds horses for a hobby”.  Our writer would have us believe Lansky is the good honest grafter we might find commuting on an early morning train or bus, in worn, torn hi-vis, lunch bag in calloused hand.  In reality he’s the OWNER of a multi-million dollar construction business, whose portfolio includes, but isn’t limited to, shopping centres, complexes, substations and supermarkets.  As for his ‘hobby’, there’s not many ‘ordinary Australians’ who are in a financial position to enslave, breed and train thoroughbred horses for shits and giggles. 

What about our ‘Draughtsmen from Melbourne’s south east’?  Ostensibly, it’s a well-paying job commanding well over the average Australian wage, particularly if you are Stuart Livingstone, the DIRECTOR of Digimech, a mechanical drafting business.  Simply put, he’s doing ok. 

Well-connected Deputy Mayor Geoff Corrigan, supposedly ‘fell in love’ with Vow and Declare, but somehow still had room in his heart to ‘share ownership’ with other well-heeled types, who were presumably similarly lovestruck, but really – who is still buying into the hokum at this point? 

In order to regain the faith of the average Australian, the ‘Sport of Kings’ apparently recognises that it must humble itself to have accessibility amongst the ordinary.  To be seemingly comprised of ‘ordinary Australians’ who got lucky.  However, an industry built on animal abuse and human misery for the pleasure of the elite can never be acceptable amongst ordinary Australians, regardless of whatever romantic filter their hardworking PR machine deems effective. 

These aren’t your normal Aussie blokes.  This isn’t a charming, nationalistic tale of plucky underdog done good.  Something smells of horse shit, and it’s not just the mounting yard. 

For more information on the life of a horse used for racing, see our page here. 

Read the fairy tale article here.

The Financial-Legal-Military-Industrial-Meat-Medical-Pharmaceutical-Media Complex

The Weekly Times is known among animal abusers as the go-to for all their anti-animal liberation activist propAGanda. It serves its readers well by continually spreading lies straight from the (f)harmers mouths to ensure 1) they keep their readership happy and 2) they help to continue the cycle of violence against other animals so that they themselves can continue to live their own lives as oppressive carnists.

They have certainly had some rippers but we must say this article takes the cake!

The last straw: Family gets out of farming after activist attacks. Published 24 July 2019.

Attacks? If you call activists exposing the suffering of tens of thousands of so-called “free-range” chickens, many who could barely walk under their own weight and were slowly dying for this (f)harmers profits “attacks” then sure.

The Weekly Times won’t name the (f)harmers but we know which operation they are referring to, as it is the only so-called “free-range poultry” property to have 70 activists occupy it.

You can read the full article here or, just read on and we can break it down for you with some inconvenient truths thrown into the mix. What a novel concept that is, hey Weekly Times.

1) The family “lived in fear after two invasions”

Fact: there were not two “invasions”. There was one rescue and shed occupation with approximately 70 people quietly entering a shed, documenting the atrocities, and helping suffering chickens access water. The action was carried out by the animal rights group Meat The Victims.

2) “they had hoodies on and we couldn’t see their faces”

Fact: Urm…, they would be biosecurity suits, (you know, those things that only activists seem to be wearing in these places, contrary to what the media and politicians would have you believe), accompanied by surgical face masks, as breathing in these ammonia filled sheds becomes difficult within minutes. They look very menacing, don’t they!

3) the action “saw significant property damage”

Fact: There was no property damage at this action. The police were told a watering system was damaged in the second shed. This watering system was already broken which was evident due to the amount of water visible to a couple of activists who documented inside that shed then left, (featured in the video below). No charges for property damage were ever laid.

If this property has had damage it certainly didn’t happen at this action. Having said that, let’s consider something for one moment. (F)harmers are openly complaining about property damage (some graffiti), whilst they are profiting from tens of thousands of chickens being crammed into sheds in unimaginable agony, waiting to be hung upside down and have their throats sliced open. Can we please get some perspective here. The nerve to play the victim in any way goes to show just how disconnected (f)harmers are from the horrific violations of justice hundreds of thousands of innocent individuals are unnecessarily subjected to each year at this one property alone.

4) activists caused the “horrifying deaths of about 300 chickens from smothering.”

Fact: Activists recovered and laid out 30 birds who had died before their arrival to show the world just one example of how much suffering takes place where animals are exploited.

These chickens were found in just part of one shed. Most were already stiff, meaning they had been dead for at least a few hours. It is, in fact, the accepted industry standard that 4% of chickens raised for their flesh will die before being sent to slaughter.[i] In an industry that breeds and murders over 650 million individuals per year in Australia alone, that equates to 26 million chickens who will die often slowly and painfully in the sheds each year as tiny chicks or oversized babies from heart attacks, starvation and thirst, or from drowning on their own fluid due to their organs being unable to cope with their unnatural size.

In the shed referred to in this article of likely 40,000 birds (an industry-standard), that is 1,600 individuals that would be expected to die over their short 6 weeks of life, averaging the death of 38 per night. It looks like this operator is quite in line with the industry standard. Congratulations!

Also, it is interesting to note the use of the word “horrifying” in relation to the apparent deaths of 300 birds caused by activists. The living (if you could call it that) appeared to be approximately 1 week away from being slammed into crates and thrown onto trucks. Where do these operators think they go? Disneyland for chickens?

Below is a sequence of images from when the operators first arrived to the shed that morning. Expression: Inconvenienced? Yes. Horrified? No! They don’t even look at the dead birds laid out. They are looking beyond them at the 70 activists. That is because their deaths are not “horrifying”, they are a daily occurrence – part of the industry-accepted death rate.

We do have a theory on why they have accused activists of killing 300 chickens, not just in the Weekly Times article, but something they also did immediately after the action. A video was taken of many other dead birds discovered in freezers at the property. It looks like about 300 to us. Blaming the activists for their deaths would be a good story to get out there had these birds also been laid out to further expose “horrifying” industry standards at the property. Perhaps activists even brought their own freezers (sarcasm in case you missed it).

5) They were verbally very aggressive.

Fact: No one was abused in any way, verbally or other. Everyone left when asked by the police. Anyone would be free to contact them and ask. That’s what journos are supposed to do right?

As an aside, but an important one, this shed is RSPCA approved. You know, that large group that says they care for all creatures great and small whilst taking kick-backs from (f)harmers whilst telling us all lies about the apparently wonderful lives these individuals are living.

Does this look like a wonderful life to you?

Above is Timmy. He was rescued that day and taken straight to the vet who said he would have been in immense pain for a long time and could not be helped. He was euthanised, but not before being shown the love he always deserved.

This above little girl was also rescued and shown mercy as her legs would never have the strength to support her. She was completely crippled and had been slowly dying from thirst and starvation.

Like all sheds that raise chickens for their flesh, it was filled with thousands just like her. They are the victims here. She was the victim, not those who cause their suffering and get exposed for it. The poor me (f)harmer stories constantly being spruiked by The Weekly Times can be seen for the propAGanda that they are for anyone who dares be brave enough to really look.  

Conveniently, you will see a call to arms at the end of the Weekly Times article, with the links to make a submission to the Federal and Victorian state government inquiries into the impacts of activists on (f)harmers. An inquiry which you can guarantee will be filled with more of the same lies and “poor me” stories from abusers ignoring the plight of the real victims. Take a stand today against animal abuse and make your own submission. These proposed laws seek to do one thing – hide the truth. Nothing more.

Submissions to the Federal senate inquiry here.

Submissions to the Victorian state government inquiry here.

Guidance on how to make your submission to the Victorian state government inquiry can be found here.

To learn more about the horrors of the chicken meat industry and the betrayal of the RSPCA visit our informative page Chickens Used For Their Flesh here.

This article was written in loving memory of Timmy and the millions of others who suffer horrendous lives and deaths at places such as that in Tyabb.

[i] https://www.chicken.org.au/chicken-meat-production/#Rearing_the_Meat_Chicken_Flock

The Financial-Legal-Military-Industrial-Meat-Medical-Pharmaceutical-Media Complex

Militant Field-Mouse-Activist Matthew Evans gave well-meaning vegans some solid schooling last week when he broke down the stats, number crunched the figures and served up a plethora of inconvenient truths guaranteed to leave a bad taste in every plant-eater’s mouth.   There was simply no escaping exposure to the meandering 9min read taking up valuable, prime real estate in the weekend edition of The Australian (suffer it for yourself here).  Social media saw to that, as the article gained serious traction on all the major platforms.  

“So you’re a vegan… but are you, really?” screamed the title, to the delight of defensive meat eaters the length and breadth of the country.  ‘The Australian’ readers were about to read A LOT of what they wanted to hear, presumably over their bacon and eggs on a Saturday morning. 

From the sub-title, Evans creates divisions where there aren’t any.  “The number of animals that die each and every day to produce vegan food is astonishing”.  Vegan Food.  By ‘Vegan Food’ he actually means pastas, wheat and cereals – the foods he goes on to condemn,  completely ignoring the fact that well over 90% of the consumers eating ‘vegan food’ (i.e. plants) are meat eaters.  Forget that: the blame must lie with the 1-2% of Australians who identify as ‘vegan’. 

Let’s get back to basics (and it’s mildly embarrassing that we should have to remind Evans, a food writer and farmer, what the term ‘vegan’ actually means):

“Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose”. The Vegan Society.

The operative words being ‘possible and practicable’.  Vegans concur that this way of living is nuanced as we live in a society where animal exploitation is endemic.  In a world that moulds animal products into car tyres and melts slaughterhouse offcuts into glues and paints and building materials, avoiding every animal product is simply not possible.  What would Evans have us do to earn the title ‘Vegan’?  Are we to stop using phones?  Stop going to the footy because, at the moment, the ball is unfortunately made of leather?  A commitment to doing one’s best is the key to living a true vegan lifestyle, and vegans agree that this looks different according to personal circumstances.  Evans wilfully misunderstands the definition and concept of living vegan because he can’t argue against it.  However he can argue against his own concept of a vegan: the self-righteous, field mouse murderers that they are. 

Without a doubt, the statistics are shocking.  According to Evans, Collydean farm in Northern Tasmania produces 400 tonnes of peas a season, but not without killing 150 deer, 800-1000 possums and 500 wallabies.  Evans repeats: “The number of animals that die to produce vegan food is astonishing”.

These are horrific numbers and nobody would be comfortable with these statistics, however rest easy, we have our 1-2% of society to blame as peas are firmly slotted into the ‘vegan food’ category.  Who knew that meat eaters have ethical restrictions of their own, where peas and pasta are evil but roast suckling pig scores moral points? 

The amount of animals killed on Collydean farm is truly shocking and heartbreaking and … completely unverifiable.  On Evan’s own admission, the farm hasn’t been given its real name.  We’re provided with an unhelpful, vague region of ‘Northern Tasmania’ and an overview of their mixed activities (interestingly, including the enslavement and exploitation of cattle and sheep), but nothing tangible from which to verify this information.  But who cares about validating a source when you are reading what you want to hear?

The article really doesn’t get any more credible, citing a report from 2005 and coming to the conclusion that ‘if we didn’t kill mice the cost of food would rise drastically’.  Thrown into the mix is a 2013 unnamed case study in which rice farmers (somewhere) killed 200,000 native ducks to protect their fields.  And then there’s the insect killing carnage happening on Evan’s own doorstep, ‘Fat Pig Farm’:

“The most animals that die on… our property are the snails and slugs that would destroy our garden if left unchecked.  We kill close to 5000 moths, slugs and snails each year to grow vegetables”.

Close to 5000!  It’s amazing how Evans can be so incredibly accurate, given that we are talking about beings smaller than the loose change in our pocket.  Is someone on the farm counting insect casualties?  But of course not: Evans is a shrewd user of large, unverifiable numbers to take the focus off the real issue of the unnecessary torturing and killing of 2 billion sentient land individuals and plenty more aquatic beings worldwide EVERY WEEK for food and products we don’t need.  If Evans is such a fan of high numbers, we have got plenty for him.

Undeterred, the article plods on through some dodgy rhetoric on honeybee pollination and the illusion of vegan wine (which is, apparently, full of mice and lizards) and degenerates into a sound condemnation of peanut butter and raisins, which are reduced to insect graveyards.  “Your Brazillian soy beans and Californian almonds” are responsible for some serious carbon emissions.  Bad, bad vegans.  Let’s ignore the fact that 90% of the soy grown in the world is used to feed livestock and that land equivalent in size to 46 rugby fields has been cleared across QLD every single hour for the past 30 years for grazing.  Those facts have no place in this article. 

There’s a similarly unverifiable factoid appearing in pub trivia quizzes worldwide in which humans eat a certain number of insects in our sleep.  By Evan’s definition of veganism, only chronic insomniacs stand a chance of being bestowed with the mythical, mystical virtue of Veganism. 

“When you eat, you’re never truly vegan” – Matthew Evans, 2019.  Matthew, please read the definition of veganism.  We’ll wait. 

You’d think a writer so concerned with the collateral damage animals suffer from crop production would at least explore practical alternatives to these unconscionable massacres.  A topic vegans and meat eaters alike would be interested in.  However it is never alluded to. 

Don’t worry though, our clever writer has the answer to this ethical nightmare, and it’s not peanut butter.  It’s a call for a “nuanced, sensible debate about meat consumption… in which condemnation, aggression and intolerance should play no part”. 

An archetype was conspicuously missing from this article, but thankfully Evans provides at the conclusion.  Enter the Angry Vegan.  Evans may be clueless in his definition of veganism, but he would at least be smart enough to know a vegan’s position on meat consumption IS one of condemnation.  That unnecessary consumption of a sentient being is not tolerated.  Of course, this does not mean that the defender of veganism approaches a debate in an aggressive manner, but with a valuable stereotype to uphold in the interest of his business and world view, Evans would be crazy not to wheel it out. 

Getting through this painful 9min read of posturing is a test of patience – something vegans have in spades.  Negotiating daily life in a world intent on harming our most vulnerable while most of our friends and relatives remain unaware or, worse still, don’t care, relies on us vegans to practice patience more than most.  Our reward for enduring this rambling …. Is the footnote:

“Edited extract from On Eating Meat by Matthew Evans (Murdoch Books, $32.99), out Monday”.

Less a searing expose of the hypocrisy of field mouse murderers, and more a plug for a pro-meat book coming to a bookstore near you on Monday.  With veganism thrown decisively under the bus for good measure. 

PropAGanda

The Financial-Legal-Military-Industrial-Meat-Medical-Pharmaceutical-Media Complex

“Toddler Fed VEGAN diet so malnourished, she had no teeth, Court told”

Sydney Morning Herald

“Sydney Toddler fed VEGAN diet so malnourished, she couldn’t sit up, Court hears”

9news.com.au

“VEGAN zealot parents’ neglect left baby girl with no teeth”

Daily Telegraph

“Child starved by VEGANS is now obese ‘through fear it will happen again’”

Metro

“Parents face court over neglect of child on VEGAN only diet”

News.com.au

“VEGAN child weighed 5kg and had no teeth”

Coffs Coast Advocate

“Carer lays bare the tragic long-term impact of VEGAN parents’ neglect on their baby”

News.com.au

Anyone unlucky enough to subscribe to Google Alerts for the word ‘Vegan’ were privy to a deluge of ‘Child Neglect’ articles one unpleasant morning last week.  A genuinely horrible and heartbreaking case of abuse emerged from Sydney’s suburbs, where we learned a toddler was taken to hospital in March 2018 after suffering a seizure.  When admitted to hospital, it was discovered her height and weight were markedly low for her age.  Cue report after report, telling the harrowing tale of a shocking case of a malnourished little girl.   It made for grim reading.

Unfortunately, there are no prizes for spotting the mandatory buzzword in each headline.  One can only imagine the memo coming from the writers’ respective bosses: Reporters, whatever you do, make sure the word VEGAN is in the headline. 

When this little girl was admitted to hospital, a rightful outcry soon ensued.  She presented with severe problems, shockingly small and underweight, underdeveloped, and what one doctor described as ‘floppy’. 

The finger is pointed decisively and universally at the ‘Vegan diet’ her mother provided. 

A little further into their article, Metro.co.uk report that the toddler had a diet consisting of “oats, potatoes, rice, tofu, bread, peanut butter and rice milk.”

Within the article, metro.co.uk reveal that it was also discovered that the child had never been vaccinated, and hadn’t seen a doctor since the days after her birth.  Neighbours also reported they ‘did not even know she existed for a long time’. 

The article also explains that the baby’s mother was following a very limited diet in what they justifiably describe as “extreme eating measures”:

From the beginning the baby’s mother did not co-operate with the health services, discharging herself three hours after giving birth. 

News.com.au paints a bleak picture of home life, reporting that the father (not a vegan, rendering a few of these headlines even more inaccurate) maintained that the relationship between himself and his wife had broken down, and that the only time their youngest child fell seriously ill, her father called triple-0.  In an investigation into the girls medical history, doctors found an absence of immunisations, no follow-up check ups after she was born and no birth certificate or Medicare number. 

It is clear that there is much more than a terrible diet at play in this household, but from these screaming headlines, you would be forgiven for assuming otherwise.  It’s insensitive to delve too deeply into a problematic family environment, so let’s just stick to the vegan references.

Let’s be clear: this diet is wholly unsuitable for a baby, child, teenager, adult or elderly person.  This diet is dangerously inadequate in nutrients, vitamins and minerals. 

Let’s look at that list of foods again:

Oats, potatoes, rice, tofu, bread, peanut butter and rice milk.

As a vegan, even reading that list makes one feel sick.  Is it any wonder that an extremely limited handful of bland foods which happen to be ‘vegan’, contributed towards the terrible circumstances this child has found herself in?  That her meals consisted only of these ingredients, with no access to a healthful rainbow of colourful nutrient-rich vegetables: no cruciferous plants, collards or leafy greens to be seen.  It is zero wonder this child was in such a woeful state of health. 

The culprit here is not veganism.  It is a poorly-planned diet, a lack of understanding of basic nutrition on the mother’s part, and a lack of accountability for the health and wellbeing of their daughter.  A plant-based diet has been approved by many of the major health organisations as being appropriate for any stage of life, providing that they are well-planned. 

The American Dietetic Association has a clear position on this: “Appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.  Well planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes”. 

It’s worth highlighting that a badly-planned diet that happens to include animal products would also have presented a wealth of problems to an infant.  Feeding a young child from a narrow range of ingredients, none of them being vegetables, is not at all advisable.  However for the purposes of clicks, it is far more lucrative to paint veganism as the Bad Guy. 

Slapping ‘vegan’ onto a negative headline is desirable at this point in time because most of society still isn’t sold on the idea of aligning their already-held beliefs with their actions.  The dominant ideology of animal products being natural, normal and necessary is a concept they are invested in, so any headline requiring a continuation of the status quo will be well received.  Couple that with the important and emotional topic of child nutrition and you’ve got a highly effective scare tactic that is sure to frighten concerned parents out of pursuing the notion any further. 

A wealth of useful information on raising children to be healthy, happy vegans can be found at the following links:

www.plantbasedmum.com

www.veganaustralia.org.au/veganism_and_pregnancy

www.parents.com/baby/feeding/nutrition/how-to-raise-a-vegan-baby/

We’ll wrap this up with just a handful of the millions of healthy child-friendly plant-based recipes available online. The below images sourced from thekindcook.com Our love, respect, and admiration goes out to all the parents out there raising their children to be healthy, thoughtful and conscious young vegans. We are sorry the media very irresponsibly contributes to any possible negative and uneducated judgment you may receive.

PropAGanda

The Financial-Legal-Military-Industrial-Meat-Medical-Pharmaceutical-Media Complex

“I wouldn’t be in the industry if I didn’t love my cows”: The reality of working on a dairy farm. 
Mandy Nolan, for mamamia.com.au

Mamamia is an Australian opinion and lifestyle website targeted at women.  An online hub for ‘women’s news’ and opinion spanning many topics, with an estimated 100+ contributors.  Due to their large base of content creators and their seemingly-never-satiated audience, the website has the ability and inclination to churn out a large amount of new content on a rolling, constant basis.  Stories arrive briskly but may only stay at the top for 10 or 20 minutes, as they soon become another juicy piece of clickbait on a never-ending scrolling banner that makes up the website’s main page. 

Under their ‘Real Life’ section, Mamamia treats their readers to Mandy Nolan’s interview with dairy farmer Ebony King, a young woman responsible for the day to day running of a dairy farm in South Australia. 

From the outset we are sold a bucolic paradise so often painted by those working in this exploitative industry.  A fair dinkum, hardworking, Aussie Battler depiction of early mornings, antisocial hours and the love of working the land.  This fantasy goes infinitely further (as is the go-to tactic of those in the animal harming industries) to proclaim that all this is done for the love of the animals, and that ultimately, unhappy animals will not produce a tasty product. 

Ebony’s workplace ‘implements strict practices around animal welfare and environmental sustainability’.  Considering her workplace is a dairy farm, this statement reads more accurately as farce.  An industry in which essential standard practices include: forceful impregnation, separation of mother and baby, infanticide, exploiting individuals for their breast milk, the repetition of these violations until the individual can’t viably continue, with a final ride to a slaughterhouse to be hung up and have her throat slit.  Dairy farms clearly don’t qualify as an authority on ‘animal welfare’.  Surely in the best interests of this animals’ welfare, she is simply left alone.  Click here for more on Dairy.  As for environmental sustainability, dairy farms are amongst the worst offenders of environmental degradation.  Their contribution to a host of environmental issues we are faced with today is significant.  Dairy is one of the most unsustainable industries ravaging our planet today, demanding unfathomable amounts of fresh water, large areas of land, and producing waste, methane and nitrous oxide emissions in alarming quantities.  To use the words ‘dairy’ and ‘environmental sustainability’ in the same sentence can only work in terms of a denouncement of the strongest nature.  For a further exploration of dairy’s devastating effects on our planet, see an unbiased and balanced article from Business Insider at: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/there-are-a-lot-more-problems-with-the-dairy-industry-than-the-price-of-milk-2016-5

Let’s give Ebony the benefit of the doubt, however, and presume she has been told otherwise.  Perhaps by her boss, second generation dairy farmer Rita Hurrell.  Indoctrinated into this industry without choice, her cognitive dissonance towards the individuals she is inherently harming is a well-ingrained, learned behaviour absolutely essential to her ability to continually function in her role as a dairy farmer. 

“You definitely develop a love for your animals” says Rita.  “They all have personalities of their own and you always have your favourites.  If you didn’t love cows you wouldn’t be a dairy farmer”. 

The level of conflict this woman is experiencing can’t be underestimated: on one hand she is conceding that these individuals have sentience, unique character and nuance – to the point where she expresses a preference for some over others.  Rita takes this even further for expressing her ‘love’ for the animals on her property.  And yet she is responsible for subjecting them to tortures, miseries and trauma that the average person would not wish on their worst enemy.  She is actively involved in the standard procedures listed above.  Obviously, this isn’t the behaviour of someone who purportedly loves another. 

Perhaps she believes her own spin: as someone who grew up around such barbaric processes, the industry standard practices would have been normalised in her own mind decades ago.  Or perhaps she is the shrewd businesswoman: aware that perpetuating the mythology of gentle cows magically producing milk and eager to bestow their nutritional goodness onto humankind shifts more units and creates more capital.  Whatever her internal thought processes, it’s ultimately not relevant: the issue is, these lies are continually being rehashed and reformed into mainstream puff pieces, relentlessly marched out across popular publications and forever shared via social media to audiences of hundreds of millions. 

Of course, she goes even further down the humane-washing route to spout the obligatory buzzwords her concerned customers want to hear: there’s plenty of bragging about tree-planting and providing shade (an extremely basic provision essential to an animal’s life).  The fate of male calves can even be glossed over with some clever wording, as ‘their farm is focussing on opportunities to reduce the number of bobby calves’.  Here’s a thought: don’t forcefully impregnate someone.  Problem solved. 

Why would an online publication like Mamamia award the dairy industry with such a wonderful and unchallenged endorsement?  The ‘article’ concludes with this disclaimer:

“This content is brought to you with thanks by our brand partner, Dairy Australia”.  If the alternating flashing banner advertising dairy at the top of the piece didn’t give the game away, the significant blurb penned by PR experts at the end of the piece would leave no doubts. 

This piece of ‘journalism’ is simply an advertisement for a dirty industry with impressive financial clout.  Dairy Australia has made an art form of repackaging misery to appeal to the masses, and it is through these partner schemes that their immoral, misleading rhetoric can reach a wide range of potential customers.  Most readers will take this ‘article’ at face value, comfortable in their choice to continue to support the dairy industry, placated in any concerns they might have regarding any mistreatment, and unaware that, once again, they are being conned by the Financial-Legal-Military-Industrial-Meat-Medical-Pharmaceutical-Media Complex.

The Financial-Legal-Military-Industrial-Meat-Medical-Pharmaceutical-Media Complex. 

Headline “Abattoir kills with kindness”
The Weekly times, April 17 2019

The humane myth is forever prevalent in animal harming industries, and as consumers become more informed about the consequences of their choices, we confidently predict an increase in the enthusiastic adoption of feel-good consumer labels such as ‘ethical’, ‘organic’ and the ubiquitous ‘happy meat/milk/eggs’. 

With undercover farm and slaughterhouse footage freely and extensively available to anyone with an internet connection, industries profiting from animal exploitation can see the writing on the wall.  Most consumers are against animal cruelty, but a lifetime of conditioning courtesy of the financial-legal-military-industrial-meat-medical-pharmaceutical-media complex has rendered them blinkered and unquestioningly complicit.  Even in the midst of the Age of Information, incentive to pull back the curtain and do independent research remains the preference of a small minority. 

However, this is changing.  The push for plant-based eating, which has traditionally been championed by those in the animal rights and welfare/protection area, is now increasingly echoed by those in environmental protection, climate change action and health and wellbeing circles.  For the conscientious consumer, there are more reasons than ever to remove animal products from their shopping list. 

The (limited) visibility of terrified animals and stench of their excrement during transportation on slaughterhouse trucks via public roads and highways doesn’t look good for any players in the meat industry.  The transportation issue has been a particular pebble in the shoe of ‘Happy Meat farms’, who earn their crust profiting from the naivety of consumers who feel a concern for the welfare of the animals they are eating.  Many vegetarians and vegans attribute their shift in attitude to eating animals somewhat to the sight of a pair of frightened eyes glowing out of a slaughterhouse truck, straight through their windscreen, and into their hearts. 

Transportation and killing are two headaches for the happy meat industry in particular.  Up until this point, there is a case to be argued that the animals under the ‘happy farms’ regime have led relatively good lives.  To clarify, this is in comparison to the intensively farmed animals which make up the vast majority of modern farming, with relatively being the operative word.  A life in which an individual’s execution date has been mapped out from the moment they were born is not a life which belongs to them.  They are a commodity; a unit of production.  They may have been looked after slightly better than most of their kind on other farms, but their purpose for being artificially bred into this world remains exactly the same. 

But the meat industry is as imaginative as it is manipulative, and next month, Australia’s first mobile abbatoir is set to roll into operation in NSW.  Provenir was founded in 2017 with the ‘ethical consumer’ very much in mind.  From their website:

“Currently, all livestock processed in Australia is done so at a fixed abattoir, often after live transport over long distances and experiencing an unfamiliar environment.  In our view this system is flawed in that livestock are put through the unnecessary stress prior to processing.

This is not only bad for animal welfare and our farmers, it can also negatively affect the eating quality of the meat. The founders of Provenir we knew there had to be a better way.”

It’s interesting that this small company seems so eager to throw the other 99% of the meat industry under the ethical bus, however this is a shrewd attempt to paint themselves as ‘The Good Guys’ in an inherently evil industry.  Their plug to ‘kill with kindness’ by visiting ‘happy farms’ and performing the killing onsite, is what they perceive to be enough to satiate the qualms of the uneasy consumer looking for a way to continue prioritising taste over ethics.  That’s all they need: just enough feel-good labels and happy solutions to keep their consumers glowing with false virtue. 

This rhetoric is reiterated on their website, with a barrage of the standard, conscience-massaging labels we have come to expect from those in the animal killing industry who’d rather we’d buy their dead bodies than those from that terrible farm next door, who are doing it all wrong. 

Ever played ‘Happy Meat Bingo’?  It’s easy.  Simply go onto a website, article or media release featuring a company championing the oxymoron that is the ‘Ethicurian Movement’ and tick off the buzzwords of marketing spin designed to continue to dupe the hapless consumer into thinking there’s a right way to do the wrong thing.  Provenir are masters of the buzzword; on their website alone they have managed to hit all the Feel-Good spots:

Highest welfare        Free Range              Grass Fed                 100% Australian

No hormones           No antibiotics          Naturally raised          Artisan Butchery

Sustainable              Integrity                   Ethical                     Accountability

These words quickly pale into meaninglessness when considering the life of the victim has been taken unnecessarily and violently. 

Provenir have worked hard to quickly gain a footing in an industry that runs counter to the very value they maintain to pioneer: the highest animal welfare.  It is of far greater interest to an animal and their welfare to remain alive and free to live out their life, than to have their lives taken from them for nothing more than ‘protein’ on a plate; a meal, soon forgotten.  A mobile slaughterhouse cannot extinguish the horror of an animal’s life being violently taken against their will for food and products that humans do not need.  No matter how slick their marketing, Provenir cannot run away from this truth.

 It is essential that consumers who are trying to make an ethical choice do not fall for the ‘Happy Meat’ fairytale.  At Vegan Rising, we are focused on exposing the humane myth, as we are confident that farms will start to turn in this direction as standard practices in animal agriculture continue to face more scrutiny and exposure. 

Whether an animal first suffers a long uncomfortable trip to a slaughterhouse, or the human paid to take away their life appears on their doorstep, the end result is exactly the same for that individual. 

We will continue to call out these bogus ethical operators and nip their rhetoric in the bud. 

There is no kind way to kill someone who doesn’t want to die. 

PropAGanda

The Financial-Legal-Military-Industrial-Meat-Medical-Pharmaceutical-Media Complex. 

Last week’s article in The Australian took great pains to assure fretting egg-eaters everywhere that their favourite weekend brunches have been given the scientific green light to enjoy in unlimited quantities.   

Journalist Peta Bee sets off to debunk recent research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.  A March 2019 study of 30,000 people eating 3 or 4 eggs a week was found to increase the chance of dying from a heart attack or a stroke.  It also found people who ate an average of two eggs a day had a 27 per cent higher risk of a heart attack or other cardiovascular episodes. 

You’d think on this admission it would be a matter of case closed, however Peta Bee sets off on a mission to stitch and sew together any authoritarian spin she can find to build a case up against the pretty cut and dry facts that hen eggs are rich in cholesterol too much cholesterol raises risks of heart attacks and strokes.

Derailing these damning findings require the assembly of a motley crew of boffins, ‘experts’ and authoritarians.  Dieticians, Sports Nutritionists, Scientist and Students: The Avengers have assembled and the Australian egg board can heave a collective sigh of relief. 

Not all heroes wear capes, right?  First on the scene and swooping in to the rescue is Helen Bond, a Dietician for the British Dietetic Association, to allay our fair citizens fears of the harms of eating chicken ovulations, offering a rainbow of reassurances.

She trumpets the supercharged ability of eggs as ‘a nutrient-packed bullet shot of goodness’.  An interesting analogy we will get back to.  Digging a little further on her website, we discover that Dietician Helen Bond wears a few different hats: “She currently provides assistance to several top name food companies, Public Relations (PR) consultancies and marketing agencies”

Helen Bond – BSc.(Hons) SRD, MBDA
Consultant Dietitian and Public Relations Adviser .

In other words, she can spin a good yarn.   Tellingly, Bond doesn’t specify which companies she is working for.  She utilises an age old skill that the meat, dairy and egg industry have used since the beginning of time: she creates confusion.  According to Bond, it’s not dietary cholesterol that affects blood cholesterol, but saturated fat.  In making this revelation she has no hesitation in throwing other animal products under the bus, pointing the finger at butter and fatty meats.  She also muddies the waters of the US study by suggesting it is far too simplistic and doesn’t show ‘cause and effect’.   Creating confusion is a popular strategy employed by ‘authoritarians’ to effectively wear out the will of the reader and give up on their quest to make informed choices. 

The entirely irresponsible sub heading “You can eat as many as you like” provides an oasis of reassurance for the fact-weary egg-eater.   Under this heading, we discover that University of Sydney nutrition scientists reporting in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that people on a high egg or low egg diet made no difference to cardiovascular risk. 

Published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the research extends on a previous study that found similar results over a period of three months.

Led by Dr Nick Fuller from the University’s Boden Institute of Obesity, Nutrition, Exercise and Eating Disorders at the Charles Perkins Centre, the research was conducted with the University of Sydney’s Sydney Medical School and the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital.

However, upon further investigation on their website, we unearthed this little nugget: “The research was supported with a grant from Australian Eggs; they had no role in the research design, conduct, analyses or writing of the manuscript.”

Nah they just paid for it. 

Next up we have another darling of the British Dietetic Association, one Azmina Govindi, a balm for egg-loving ears, telling us ‘eggs don’t need to be rationed’.  Azmina is a media spokesperson to the British Dietetic Association introduced right smack in the middle of the article, her opening remarks placed alongside another study by a journal called “Heart”.  This study has produced lofty claims of daily egg consumption being associated with lower risk of stroke and cardiovascular disease.  Heart Journal also runs a comprehensive website and hosts a correspondence section wherein two doctors, Dr David Spence and Dr David Jenkins, both from the Stroke Prevention and Atherosclerosis Research Centre, have comprehensively rebutted these claims

In a piece entitled “Cardiovascular benefit of egg consumption is most unlikely”

Spence and Jenkins explain that: “The conclusion of the recent report that egg consumption reduced cardiovascular risk1 is most unlikely to be valid. It has been clear for many years that dietary cholesterol increases coronary risk, and a single 65 g egg contains 237 mg of cholesterol, more than the 200 mg daily limit that is still wisely recommended in a number of guidelines.”

The fact of the matter is that eggs have been proven time and again to be cholesterol “bullet shots”, and with 14 out of 15 of the biggest causes of death in the Western World being diet related, eggs will constantly have to keep their expensive marketing campaigns going.  A winning tactic is maintaining a hazy confusion amongst the general public who want to make healthful choices but prefer not to sacrifice their tastebuds.  Throwing shade on scientific studies condemning eggs is a popular strategy, and given the power of the Financial-Legal-Military-Industrial-Meat-Medical-Pharmaceutical-Media Complex., the egg industry is never short of a plethora of associated business partners only too keen to be an authoritarian mouth piece, and keep customers buying through sheer confusion. 

PropAGanda

The Financial-Legal-Military-Industrial-Meat-Medical-Pharmaceutical-Media Complex. 

“At least we don’t kill the babies” shouldn’t be the key selling point of any product, let alone one who markets itself as being ‘ethical’.  The slaughter of five day old trembling, bewildered baby boys is surely the most heinous element of the relentlessly exploitative Dairy Industry.  If we take this most viscerally shocking component of standard practice on a dairy farm and find a way to eliminate it, do we now have an ethical business?

The ‘Kind Milk’ movement seems to think so.  In an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald this week, we are introduced to farmer Cathy Palmer and partner Dr Les Sandles, touting their ‘idyllic’ business at How Now Dairy.  The major drawcard that this dairy has invested in is the concept of ‘bobby calf free milk’, where genetic boffins proclaim to have commanded god-like control over artificial insemination processes by producing only female calves.  From clinical beginnings in a sterile laboratory, How Now have created an appealing, bucolic story of little girls suckling and staying with their doting mothers, to eventually achieve their ambitions by becoming part of the milking herd when they reach maturity. 

Kind milk.

However, all is not as it seems at How Now Dairy.  The lofty claim in the Sydney Morning Herald article that “Palmer and her partner Dr Les Sandles use artificial insemination technology to ensure their 30 cows only give birth to females” flies in the face of the ‘News’ article on How Now Dairy’s own website.  http://hownowdairy.com.au/customnews/is-the-drought-hitting-us/

Under their obligatory whinge about drought conditions in the area (hmm, wonder what caused THAT) is the heartwarming photograph of a newborn calf being licked by his mother.  HIS.  They don’t even hide the fact that their ‘beautiful boy Jet’, a male calf who will never, ever produce cow’s milk, has been born on their dairy.  The photograph can be dated to approximately August 2018.  Wonder where Jet is now? Oh wait, How Now claim they ‘allow’ the males to live to 3 years old then stab them in the throat to sell their bodies for profit. Well, that’s nice and ‘ethical’ of them, isn’t it.

As a side note, sexing the semen isn’t 100% accurate: depending on what article you stumble across on an online search, figures are placed between 78% and 90%.  Pressure is on scientists to improve this percentage, however a 100% accuracy result won’t diminish the plethora of unethical practices that make up the fabric of dairy farming. 

So, let’s be clear.  A company marketing itself to be the epitome of all that is humane, wholesome and ethical:

STILL forces females to endure life in a genetically manipulated body to produce more milk than their systems can comfortably deal with,

STILL holds these individuals as prisoners,

STILL subjects individuals to the harsh reality and high risks of an unsustainable industry,

STILL forces bulls via human interaction to ejaculate for their semen,

STILL forcefully impregnates females against their will,

STILL forces females to endure giving birth,

STILL separates mums from their babies for much of the day

STILL exploits females for their milk,

STILL sends them to slaughter when their milk production drops Well, this is a claim How Now will argue. But when a company compares the sentience of a cow to a carrot (yes, this is exactly what Dr Les Sandals said in recent Q&A) then you can’t imagine why he’d spend the time and resources to allow exploited cows to live out their lives once they are no longer “gifting” them with their milk. Unless of course he REALLY loves carrots.

Whichever way you look at it, this company looks to the individuals under their regime as commodities, units of production, a resource to be exploited. 

This isn’t an ethical company.  This isn’t a humane practice.  This is every bit as evil, because it is actually attempting to pose as the moral answer for naïve customers. 

Here at Vegan Rising, we focus on the so-called ‘humane ethicurian movement.’  As the truth about animal agriculture continues to be exposed, it is guaranteed that those who want to continue operating will repackage their death industry to appeal to concerned consumers by ‘taking out the worst parts’, before they lose their customers to delicious and healthier plant-based alternatives. We are confident that this trick will continue to be played on the hapless consumer (as demonstrated, it is already in motion). 

We call out the ‘ethicurian movement’ in the same breath that we call out ‘worst practice’ because it’s ultimately the same thing.  It is commodifying, manipulating and exploiting the body of another and taking their life for unnecessary reasons, and there is no kind way to do this.

“Every dairy knows the time is coming where the consumer is going to rip the Band Aid off and say, ‘We all know what the truth is about dairy’,” Palmer says.  These words will come back to haunt her. 

It will be interesting to ascertain how the rest of the Dairy Industry feels about ‘one of their own’ slamming standard agricultural practices in milk production.  This dairy has somehow managed to get the rest of the animal harming industry and those who advocate for a kinder world offside.   Perhaps this whole evil empire will implode on itself.  In the meantime, we will continue to expose their lies, their abhorrent cruelty and their slick marketing spin. 

Palmer is right about one thing: the truth about dairy is coming out.  ALL of it. 

For more on the injustice of the ‘ethicurean movement’ visit our  feature campaign The Ultimate Betrayal here.

The full article.