I continue to have hope and feel a shift in the way people view themselves in relation to the larger, global ecosystem. And reading Why we need ‘ecolocracy’ re-affirmed my belief in humanity’s ability to stop and reflect upon itself and the impact we’ve had on the natural world to meet our needs.

The recent wave of student protests sweeping across Europe needs our attention and our support.

Their protesting of governments’ neglecting to adequately address one of our most urgent challenges, climate change, clearly demonstrates that young people understand the need for change and want change enough to take to the streets and risk fines for not attending school.

Forgotten relationship

They realise the complexity of the situation and their sense of urgency must be a signal to us all that for us to more than exist in the future, there needs to be change.

Considering that we believe we need and value consumer goods to give our lives meaning drives the continued exploitation of Earth’s resources and each other, we are blindly tied to the delusion created by consumerism and use it as a measure of self-worth and success.

The article Capitalism has become a force of evil reinforces this and reminds me of the continued effectiveness of the advertising that feeds mainstream culture and the illusion that drives consumerism as represented in Manufacturing Consent.

How do we shift people out of, what I call, eco-vacancy and help them bridge the forgotten relationship with nature and understanding of ourselves and our interconnectedness with a higher ecological system – woman with nature as opposed to man over nature?

Collectively

Yes, we can use biomimicry to solve many of the problems we’ve created, but more people need to understand the bio and interconnectedness of all things universal.

For that to happen on a massive scale more schools and more educators must shift from teaching individual subjects which promotes a Newtonian/Mechanistic/fragmented view of the world, to an integrated curriculum that explores and develops a systems view of life way of thinking and then living that life.

Many schools are teaching the skills of systems thinking about the relationship between earth systems and human impact on those systems. But we’re a small pocket movement.

I have hope that the shift will take a firm hold. Once we convince the masses that their needs are natures needs then maybe we can begin the steady and long upward climb towards the significant changes we need to make collectively, to save ourselves.

This Author

Rita Bouchard is an educator at Antioch University of Los Angeles and an advocate for alternative education in public schools.

“We are thrilled that Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. is joining the movement of hundreds of brands embracing standardised recycling labeling with How2Recycle. By telling people exactly how to recycle their packaging, Johnson & Johnson is empowering parents to take proper action while making their lives easier.”

This is a statement from Kelly Cramer, lead of How2Recycle at the Sustainable Packaging Coalition. So is this what passes as corporate sustainability these days, in a marketplace littered with crony capitalism?

Is this really how low the bar has dropped for a sustainability announcement in 2018? Is Johnson and Johnson so seduced with their own PR messaging that they’ve come to believe that this action is in any way commensurate with our planet’s environmental challenges?

False complacency 

In the era of climate change (IPCC Special Report) and unprecedented plastic pollution, it’s hard to imagine a company doing less. And for those who say that every little bit helps, I disagree. 

It doesn’t help when a corporation responds to a crisis in this way and makes it sound like an important step. It lulls us into a state of complacency, and rather than standing up and voicing our concerns with what appears to be a serious lack of engagement, we are quiet, believing that someone else is on the job taking care of the problem.

If enhancing wellbeing was a legal requirement of our business model rather than letting the free market decide how best to maximize earnings, imagine how profound an impact this industry could have.

Imagine if it chose to switch from plastic to glass which is endlessly recyclable and if they developed a deposit and collection system (like Ontario Canada where the Beer Store has a 96 percent bottle recovery rate) where all bottles could be reused rather than discarded to wreak havoc on the environment and human health.

Imagine if it publicly challenged another industry that has a single use plastic problem like the bottled water/soda industry, to join them on their journey to reduce social and environmental harm. Now that would be newsworthy. Global recycling of plastic is around nine percent.

Broken system 

Our system is broken – societal wellbeing is mostly absent from large companies’ decision making.

Oh, there are some small gestures here and there and some companies are better at it than others, but the incentive to change operations and rethink business models in this era of plastic pollution, ecosystem degradation and climate change is insignificant (or simply too long term) compared to the vast financial benefits of turning a blind eye and keeping the gravy train rolling along. 

Once a product (or service) and its “delivery container” has served its purpose, much of the cost of garbage collection and processing as well as the damage to ecosystems, biodiversity and human health, magically disappear for the corporation.

Both up and downstream, pollution and waste are essentially free and social exploitation is mostly overlooked. The resulting mess is left for society to clean up – a society that had no say in the choices made by private business and did not share in the profits of the company.

By any rational standard this is monumentally unfair. Every child learns at an early age that they are responsible for cleaning up their own mess but in the era of neoliberalism and crony capitalism, these lessons have seemingly been forgotten.

Ocean plastics

Corporate-friendly governments have made it easier for companies to operate with fewer regulations and have shielded them from legal repercussions of social or environmental harm caused by greed or incompetency.

Corporations, shareholders and the top 0.1 percent have never been happier – crony capitalism has delivered vast wealth. Best of all for the so-called “elites”, society has been seduced into thinking that governments are inefficient and clumsy when it comes to solving problems and that social and environmental problems are best solved using market solutions. Anand Giridharadas explores this issue in his book, Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World.

We have reached a new low in proclaiming that business is part of the solution when it comes to environmental and social harm. But, for the sake of argument, let’s allow the staunch market capitalist, free of any government regulation, a chance to tackle the ocean plastic problem?

The first question a good capitalist always asks is, “What is the business opportunity?” The next step is to flush out some of the key issues. Let’s assume the two people involved in the discussion are named Donald and Mickey:

Donald: Mickey, do you know anything about this ocean plastic issue?

Mickey: I think fish are dying and waterways are clogged with plastic which degrades into tiny pieces and poisons fish. I’ve also heard that when the plastic degrades it releases CO2 which contributes to climate change and the tiny pieces of plastic can also enter into human water supplies. Besides that, I think our customers are growing concerned that we might be contributing to this problem. I’ve heard that some of them are looking at our competitors who are exploring how to address this issue.

Donald: Have we done the numbers on how many customers we might lose? 

Mickey: It’s hard to say. Often what people say in a questionnaire/interview is different than when it comes to putting their money on the table. All things being equal, people still seem pretty conditioned to seek out the lowest price.

Donald: Are there any regulations on the horizon that will require us to change our business practices? 

Mickey: None that I know of. In fact, thanks to our consistent lobbying efforts, most political contacts agree that business is the most efficient way to solve these problems. So for the time being government should leave us alone.

Donald: Now onto some of the bigger issues, how would moving away from plastic packaging affect our operations and shareholder returns? Would we need to spend a lot of time finding new suppliers and retooling? 

Mickey: It’s possible that our short term costs would rise which would likely affect our short term profitability. And yes, we would have to find new suppliers, change some of our operational procedures and maybe retool somewhat. We would likely gain some positive PR but it’s very hard to quantify.

Some of the other literature that I’ve read tells me that our employees would feel better about working for us and we might experience lower turnover. One last thing, there is a movement to make investing more “responsible” but the movement is rather weak and most companies can get by by signing a charter or by joining some vague industry commitment for changes that won’t kick in for at least 5-10 years.

Donald: It doesn’t sound too urgent and it all sounds like a quagmire to me. Put together a report and we’ll talk about it with our board at the next meeting in 6 months. And can you please get me a bottled water from the fridge?

Collective wellbeing

There’s no incentive to act immediately and there would likely be negative impacts to our earnings. The benefits of PR are difficult to quantify.

The responsible investing movement is still quite weak and we can make some small industry commitments which won’t cost anything and keep us in good standing for the time being: let’s wait and see what happens with our competitors; let’s get some answers from our political contacts on whether this is something that we will need to address anytime soon – and find out whose campaign we should fund to slow this whole anti-plastic business down.

This is how market (crony) capitalism solves a problem like ecosystem destruction, biodiversity loss and broad health impacts. It doesn’t.

Without a clear business case or strong regulations, business will stall and delay. They will look to place the responsibility for their mess on government and society and kick the problem down the road. If they do take any action, (for most companies) it will be the simplest and least costly approach.  

This is precisely why every global ecosystem on our planet is in decline. Not every problem has a market solution. Regulation is necessary when the market is ineffective at protecting our collective wellbeing.

If corporations can’t act for the best interests of society, then we need to push them in that direction. We need to make them responsible for their own mess.

This Author 

Brad Zarnett is the Founder of the Toronto Sustainability Speaker Series (TSSS) which has been showcasing sustainability leadership since 2008. You can follow Brad on twitter at @bradzarnett or on LinkedIn. 

This article was first published on Toronto Sustainability. You can read a follow-up piece here. 

Scientists and regulators have been debating the use of glyphosate and other chemical pesticides for years. Expert assessors have made claims for and against glyphosate’s potential to cause cancer in humans without arriving at a satisfactory consensus and, unsurprisingly, the European Union’s reauthorisation of glyphosate in 2017 resulted in calls for an overhaul of the regulatory process.

Subsequent hearings conducted by the European Parliament’s Special Committee on the Union Authorisation Procedure for Pesticides covered important topics but failed to identify the deeper, more insidious cause of regulatory uncertainty: reliance on the wrong species.

Thousands of rats, dogs, mice, and rabbits have suffered and died in tests for the “safety” assessment of glyphosate. Yet, after decades of testing and retesting, uncertainty surrounding the potential toxicity of the substance – which is widely used in agricultural and consumer products – seems, if anything, to have intensified.

Unreliable tests

Regulators rely heavily on the two-year rodent cancer bioassay to decide whether a chemical will cause cancer in humans.

The test, which was globally adopted as a standardised protocol in 1981, requires hundreds of rats and/or mice and is notorious for producing variable results of questionable relevance to human health.

As many scientific experts will confirm, substances known to cause cancer in humans often fail to do so when tested in rats and mice, and the opposite is also true: one study showed that out of 20 known non-carcinogens in humans, 19 were found to be carcinogenic in other animals.

To assess the human carcinogenicity of glyphosate, international evaluators looked at fourteen separate rodent cancer tests (eight using rats and six using mice). More than 3,500 animals were used, but not a single experiment produced the same results when repeated. EU risk assessors studied additional unpublished test data, meaning the total number of tests conducted is even higher, yet confidence in the regulatory outcome is at an all-time low.

Under today’s validation standards, the rodent cancer bioassay wouldn’t stand up to the scientific scrutiny that is required of new testing strategies under development.

Repeated mistakes

When studies yield questionable and inconsistent outcomes, there has been a tendency – especially with controversial chemicals such as glyphosate – to ignore the problems associated with testing on animals and, astonishingly, to call for more animal testing.

In addition to causing yet more animal suffering, uncertainty leads to delays in regulatory decisions for years or even decades.

According to the president of the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, for just seven of the required toxicology tests used to assess glyphosate, over 100 separate studies have been conducted and at least 31,000 animals have been killed. 

Yet, in addition to being unreliable predictors of adverse health effects in humans, the data produced from these laboratory tests are difficult to extrapolate to real-life human exposure.

There is little doubt that relying on flawed animal tests is hazardous to humans, and the problem won’t be solved by throwing more money at irrelevant tests on animals.

Animal suffering

One rodent cancer bioassay typically uses more than 400 animals.

It begins as soon as possible after the rat or mouse pups are weaned. Usually, they’re forced to ingest chemicals by gavage (a procedure that involves forcing a tube down their throats).

The substances can produce side effects such as painful, long-term tumour growth as well as lethargy, nausea, tremors, and convulsions. The animals undergo daily dosing for up to two years before being killed and dissected.

For each individual animal used in these experiments, pain, suffering, and death are certain. If the goal is to protect human health, regulators and researchers must acknowledge the limitations of these studies and instead rely on data collected using human-relevantmethods.

Superior methods

Fortunately, a paradigm shift toward human-relevant, non-animal test methods is already underway. There are myriad human cell-based techniques and computational models for predicting many adverse health effects, such as local effects on the skin and eyes.

Assessing chemical carcinogenicity is complex, but scientists are rapidly establishing new strategies for identifying potential human carcinogens.

To screen effectively for carcinogens, some researchers are using human tissues to find early-stage cancer markers. Others are developing advanced computational models using artificial intelligence to learn about carcinogenic chemical signatures.

In addition, large, long-term human population studies, such as the Agricultural Health Study, are collecting decades of data to assess the correlation between pesticide application and cancer.

This new, human-relevant technology is bringing us closer to replacing flawed animal tests in order to provide reliable predictions for chemical safety and better protection of human health.

Regulatory shift

Following work carried out by its special committee, the European Parliament has recommended strengthening the regulation of pesticides, improving access to information, and promoting “low-risk” alternatives made from naturally occurring substances.

Importantly, the Parliament recognised the flaws inherent in using animals to predict effects in humans as well as the need for data sharing in order to reduce animal testing and accelerate the development of human-relevant tests.

However, for new methods to be accepted by regulatory authorities, there must be a collective effort by all stakeholders, including manufacturers, regulators, and scientists, to work together to improve the current battery of non-animal tests. The focus must be on human-relevant data.

This Author

Emily McIvor is a science policy adviser for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Foundation and has more than 20 years of experience of working on EU policy.

Nothing says ‘pay attention’ quite like children walking out of their classrooms to educate adults on the most pressing issue of their generation. 

Young climate activists are tracing the connections between escalating hunger, decaying democracies, and environmental chaos – and building the momentum for a global Climate Strike planned for 15 March.

It is now estimated that some 70,000 schoolchildren in 270 cities and towns around the world over are making a habit of these new weekly protests. 

Food insecurity 

The connections between maintaining a liveable planet for our youth and providing for human rights could not be clearer. At the core of those rights is food, as it is precisely the one that sustains life – yet it is consistently violated by a variety of state and corporate actors whose interests lie in profit accumulation rather than providing for basic needs. 

Today, the number of food-insecure people around the world has surpassed 821 million – a figure that has been on the rise for several years now despite commitments to achieve zero hunger by 2030. Paradoxically, the majority of those who go hungry are small-scale food providers in the countryside – such as farmers, fishers, and pastoralists – who live and work on the frontlines of the climate crisis.  

High-level meetings come and go – each with its promise to tackle hunger, poverty, and environmental degradation while achieving financial gains. 

When the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund met in Bali in late 2018, the institutions stated their commitment to mitigating famine in partnership with technological and agricultural giants. The World Economic Forum hailed the Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders as an innovative leadership platform for tackling the climate crisis at its annual Davos meeting in January. 

At the heart of these intentions and initiatives lies the recycled message that big business can solve the world’s most pressing issues. 

Structural inequalities

The rural workers that provide food are not invited to participate in these institutionalised corporate spaces in any meaningful way; they aren’t recognised as protagonists in their own development. 

Even worse, they are seen as nuisances obstructing large-scale investment projects similar to the ones that inflicted much of the human and environmental damage at the outset. 

Given this context, it is unsurprising that hunger is on the rise, and is exacerbated by climate change and other forms of violence and conflict.  

Christiana Louwa, a small-scale fisher from Kenya who is a leader of the World Forum of Fisher Peoples, a global social justice movement, said: “We want to make politicians understand the human tragedies and structural causes behind these figures, and that they are consequences of man-made policy failures that can and must be stopped.” 

But if decision-making spaces continue to exclude many, what kind of options exist for those like Louwa who seek to conquer the twin tasks of tearing down harmful policies and putting something better in their place? In the world of food, agriculture, and the environment, all roads lead to Rome.

United Nations 

Individuals and social justice movements have three distinct mechanisms through which they are able to target their policy demands. They can pressure their own governments to implement policy, they can demand that their states interact with global governance to legislate policy, or they can supersede the state and work directly with global governance institutions.

Intergovernmental institutions – namely the United Nations and its various branches – play a key role in creating rights-based mechanisms to hold member states accountable for the basic needs of their populations. 

Human rights-based legislation is sometimes directed towards groups that are perceived as especially vulnerable – like women, refugees, peasants or Indigenous peoples. At other times, it outlines a specific basic need, such as housing and shelter or water and sanitation. 

These rights are usually debated in the UN branch closest to the population or need being advocated, brought to the United Nations Human Rights Council, and, if all goes well, they are then adopted by the General Assembly. 

When it comes to food and its inextricable ties to control over land, the branch to target is the Rome-based Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and its multi-stakeholder platform, the Committee on Food Security (CFS). 

Powerful corporations

Like other parts of the UN, the FAO is often muddled with bureaucratic procedures that are difficult for everyday people and their movements to permeate. 

Since the CFS includes the political interests of corporations and big NGOs with which they are aligned, it can be challenging – if not impossible – for small-scale food providers with scant financial means to bring their demands to the table. 

A good example is Climate-smart agriculture, an approach that FAO claims is in line with its vision of hunger and poverty alleviation as well as sustainable agriculture. Some climate activists warn, however, that Climate-smart agriculture is simply a renovation of Green Revolution policies. 

In the past, these policies put land and seed control in the hands of powerful corporations; today they do so by applying carbon trading to farmland with the stated goal of saving the environment.  

It is for this reason that many have lost faith in the international systems governing environmental and human rights, and constructed their own people’s processes and assemblies. But this is also why a coalition of people from within and outside the FAO system decided to try something new by creating the Civil Society Mechanism (CSM). 

Participatory spaces

The CSM brings together small-scale providers and consumers in constituencies – smallholder and family farmers, pastoralists, fishers, indigenous peoples, agricultural and food workers, landless, women, youth, consumers, urban food insecure, and non-profits – to formulate their political demands and deliver them to member states via the CFS. 

Currently, the CSM’s membership represents some 380 million people on the frontlines of food insecurity and climate change across all regions and continents. 

Elizabeth Mpofu, a small-scale farmer from Zimbabwe, said: “The Rome processes are where UN member states make decisions, so the work done by social movements is a benefit to my own community in Shashe.” Mpofu’s southern African village was once in the spotlight of the first wave of land reform in Zimbabwe. 

For social movements, involvement in people’s processes and global governance are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are complementary and mutually reinforcing strategies of working both inside and outside institutional spaces. A good example is advocating for agroecology, which is both political (a battle cry for food sovereignty and climate justice) and scientific (a concrete way of feeding people and reducing greenhouse gas emissions).  

Now, the Zimbabwe Organic Smallholder Farmers’ Forum (ZIMSOFF), an organisation that Mpofu leads, is active in Shashe and throughout the country in promoting fair agricultural practices and food policies. Mpofu said: “In Shashe at the grassroots level, we are pushing for agroecological farming practices so as to achieve food sovereignty.” ZIMSOFF has been able to bring its concerns to Rome through the CSM. 

Rights-based legislation

ZIMSOFF is also currently hosting La Vía Campesina, the transnational peasant movement that stresses the need for hunger-eradication policies to be rooted in larger struggles for land, territory, and agrarian reform. La Vía Campesina has been one of the most active groups driving the CSM agenda. 

It was out of the CSM policy space that movements helped generate one of the most promising pieces of rights-based legislation: the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (Tenure Guidelines). 

After a lengthy and participatory consultation with small-scale food providers, the CFS/FAO delivered these guidelines in 2012 with the stated purpose of democratising land, water, and related natural resources for the most vulnerable and marginalised citizens. 

The Tenure Guidelines are currently the only international instrument dedicated to land, fisheries, and forests, and advocates claim that it has set a new global standard for land tenure and resource control from a right-to-food perspective.

When UN member states sign onto the guidelines, they are agreeing to minimal standards – many of which were proposed by social movements – in order to protect food sources, territory, and the climate. Small-scale food providers and others can then use this legislation to hold states accountable to their actions. 

In a similar vein, the CFS is in the preparatory phase of developing the Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition, which are expected in 2020. Just as the Tenure Guidelines unapologetically link food to land, this promising political tool stresses that food access alone does not equal adequate nutrition. 

Global governance

The way in which social movements approach global governance highlights their desire to reverse the problematic tendency to silo the world’s most pressing problems such as land, trade, food, and GMOs. 

Activists have used the CSM to demand that states and global governance attack these issues at their shared root. Social movements insist that the answers are there, from the food sovereignty political project to agroecology to climate justice. 

Kannaiyan Subramaniam, a peasant leader from the South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements (SICCFM), explained: “Food production should be predominantly local, national, and regional, and distributed locally by small peasants.”

Subramaniam divides his time between the vegetable garden on his family land in Tamil Nadu and the UN offices in the heart of Rome. He sees his role with global governance as a counterattack to the trade policies in India that have put many farmers out of business, or worse. Free trade agreements favouring large-scale agriculture and imports have driven more than three hundred thousand Indian peasants to suicide since 1995. Among those deaths, some 60,000 were linked to climate change.  

Subramaniam continued: “Corporations are part of problems and not solutions. There should be better-regulated trade in the place of free trade, to protect the interests of peasants, fishers, and Indigenous peoples’ food production.”

It is perhaps this new generation of activists, equipped with tools capable of taking on corporations and states, that will get us to this point – where we look to frontline communities to heal the broken system rather than regressing deeper into the politics that shattered it in the first place. 

This Author 

Salena Tramel is a journalist and PhD researcher at the International Institute of Social Studies (ISS) in The Hague, where her work is centered on the intersections of resource grabs, climate change mitigation, and the intertwining of (trans)national agrarian/social justice movements.

Image: Peasant leader with agroecological seeds from ZIMSOFF, © Salena Tramel. 

Michael Gove, the environment secretary, yesterday addressed a Parliamentary reception calling for a #BetterDealForAnimals after Brexit, vowing “I will continue to make sure we have the strongest legal protections in place for our animals.”

But he has so far failed to introduce legislation despite more than 50 MPs and peers and 36 animal protection organisations demanding action at the event. Animals will lose vital legal protections post-Brexit, unless Gove introduces protections before departure from the EU.

Thirty-six welfare organisations have come together to call for a law that will create a duty for all Ministers in the UK to fully regard animal welfare in policy-making and ensure that animal sentience laws are not weakened once we leave the EU. Alesha Dixon and animal welfare campaigners have launched a petition calling for immediate action.

Action now

Gove said after the event: “Animals are sentient beings who feel pain and suffering, so it is absolutely right that we recognise this in UK law after we leave the EU. I was delighted to attend this important Parliamentary reception and hear from the many charities involved about how we can maintain and enhance our reputation as a leader on animal welfare.

“Our plans to increase protections for animals include raising the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years and banning third-party sales of puppies and kittens. I will continue to make sure we have the strongest legal protections in place for our animals.”

A petition, hosted on the UK Government and Parliament website, launched today follows a major event in Parliament yesterday which saw 50 MPs and Peers attend to sign a pledge and back the #BetterDealForAnimals campaign. Attendees included Sue Hayman MP, shadow secretary of state for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, David Rutley MP and Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative MP and former owner of The Ecologist.

Animal sentience is currently enshrined in EU law but has not been carried across into UK law. As Brexit fast approaches, the petition calls on the UK Government to ensure this will be explicitly enshrined in law and for any future legislation or government policy to fully consider its impact on the welfare of animals.

Sonul Badiani-Hamment, #BetterDealForAnimals event organiser and external affairs adviser for World Animal Protection, said: “Time is running out for animals and we need action now.

Ethics expertise

“Today was a missed opportunity for the secretary of state who should have announced that he is enacting legislation without delay to stay true to his public commitments and protect animals post-Brexit. If he really wants the UK to be a world leader in animal welfare, it’s time to act before animals become victims of Brexit.”

A BetterDealForAnimals spokesperson said: “A nation of animal lovers will not stand-by while our decision makers threaten animal protections. We must speak up for animals who can’t speak for themselves.

“With eighty six percent of the UK Government’s own voters saying they want animal welfare laws maintained or strengthened, Ministers must heed this message and live up to its promises to protect our treasured animals. Acknowledging in law that animals have the capacity to feel pain and suffering is vital to protect them.

“That is why we have launched a petition urging members of the public to put pressure on the governments in the UK to take action for animals. Yesterday’s event in Parliament was a great success and highlights the cross-party support in Westminster for the demand to fully recognise animal sentience in UK law before we leave the EU.”

Animal welfare organisations are also calling for a new independent Animal Welfare Advisory Council to provide advice to all government ministers at the UK and devolved level. This body would support governments in fulfilling their duties to animals, ensuring decisions are underpinned by the best scientific and ethics expertise.

This Article

This article is based on a press release from #BetterDealForAnimals. You can support this campaign by signing the petition here.

Michael Gove, the environment secretary, yesterday addressed a Parliamentary reception calling for a #BetterDealForAnimals after Brexit, vowing “I will continue to make sure we have the strongest legal protections in place for our animals.”

But he has so far failed to introduce legislation despite more than 50 MPs and peers and 36 animal protection organisations demanding action at the event. Animals will lose vital legal protections post-Brexit, unless Gove introduces protections before departure from the EU.

Thirty-six welfare organisations have come together to call for a law that will create a duty for all Ministers in the UK to fully regard animal welfare in policy-making and ensure that animal sentience laws are not weakened once we leave the EU. Alesha Dixon and animal welfare campaigners have launched a petition calling for immediate action.

Action now

Gove said after the event: “Animals are sentient beings who feel pain and suffering, so it is absolutely right that we recognise this in UK law after we leave the EU. I was delighted to attend this important Parliamentary reception and hear from the many charities involved about how we can maintain and enhance our reputation as a leader on animal welfare.

“Our plans to increase protections for animals include raising the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years and banning third-party sales of puppies and kittens. I will continue to make sure we have the strongest legal protections in place for our animals.”

A petition, hosted on the UK Government and Parliament website, launched today follows a major event in Parliament yesterday which saw 50 MPs and Peers attend to sign a pledge and back the #BetterDealForAnimals campaign. Attendees included Sue Hayman MP, shadow secretary of state for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, David Rutley MP and Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative MP and former owner of The Ecologist.

Animal sentience is currently enshrined in EU law but has not been carried across into UK law. As Brexit fast approaches, the petition calls on the UK Government to ensure this will be explicitly enshrined in law and for any future legislation or government policy to fully consider its impact on the welfare of animals.

Sonul Badiani-Hamment, #BetterDealForAnimals event organiser and external affairs adviser for World Animal Protection, said: “Time is running out for animals and we need action now.

Ethics expertise

“Today was a missed opportunity for the secretary of state who should have announced that he is enacting legislation without delay to stay true to his public commitments and protect animals post-Brexit. If he really wants the UK to be a world leader in animal welfare, it’s time to act before animals become victims of Brexit.”

A BetterDealForAnimals spokesperson said: “A nation of animal lovers will not stand-by while our decision makers threaten animal protections. We must speak up for animals who can’t speak for themselves.

“With eighty six percent of the UK Government’s own voters saying they want animal welfare laws maintained or strengthened, Ministers must heed this message and live up to its promises to protect our treasured animals. Acknowledging in law that animals have the capacity to feel pain and suffering is vital to protect them.

“That is why we have launched a petition urging members of the public to put pressure on the governments in the UK to take action for animals. Yesterday’s event in Parliament was a great success and highlights the cross-party support in Westminster for the demand to fully recognise animal sentience in UK law before we leave the EU.”

Animal welfare organisations are also calling for a new independent Animal Welfare Advisory Council to provide advice to all government ministers at the UK and devolved level. This body would support governments in fulfilling their duties to animals, ensuring decisions are underpinned by the best scientific and ethics expertise.

This Article

This article is based on a press release from #BetterDealForAnimals. You can support this campaign by signing the petition here.

Proposals to allow trophy hunting of elephants to resume in Botswana, home to Africa’s largest elephant population, and even use the meat for canned pet food have been strongly criticised by the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting (CBTH).

A report by ministers  recommends a lifting of the ban and also calls for the “establishment of elephant meat canning” for pet food. Approximately 130,000 elephants – representing one-third of the world’s total remaining African elephant population – live in the country which is the size of France.

The CBTH has led international efforts to stop plans to bring back trophy hunting in the southern African nation.

Elephant trophy

Supporters of the charity including Bill Oddie and Sir Ranulph Fiennes handed in an open letter to Botswana’s High Commission in October 2018. The letter was signed by Joanna Lumley, Stephen Fry and Chris Packham, among others. A global petition coordinated by CBTH was signed by 250,000 people.

Eduardo Gonçalves, of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, said: “African elephants are in serious trouble. Populations have crashed in recent years, and there is a real risk of the species going extinct. Allowing elephants in their last stronghold to be killed for entertainment is the last thing it needs.

“The proposal to kill them for pet food is beyond bizarre. If the trophy hunting ban is lifted, we can expect to see an increase in elephant trophies, ivory and body parts coming into Britain. The UK was one of Botswana’s primary markets prior to the ban.

“It would be a travesty if this plan led to Britain – which oridesnitself as a world leader in wildlife conservation – once more becoming a major global destination for elephant trophies.”

The vote by Botswana’s parliament to call for the resumption of elephant trophy hunting was condemned by conservationists and public figures.

Disappear

Joanna Lumley said: “I have always considered trophy hunting the lowest of the low. Killing animals for fun is just disgusting. We are urging President Masisi to reject the proposal to lift the ban on trophy hunting for the sake of the elephants in his beautiful country and for the reputation of humans everywhere.”

The proposal has angered leading conservationists. Bill Oddie warned that allowing trophy hunting could spell disaster: “I’m just incredulous that anyone would even think this is a good idea.

“Elephants are fast approaching a pre-extinction phase. They’ve disappeared from much of Africa. You’ve got small isolated groups separated from one another. Trophy hunting in the one place where they are relatively thriving could spell disaster. Botswana is the last hope for the African elephant. If we lose them here, the whole battle could be lost.”

Damian Aspinall added: “As a conservationist and as someone directly involved in working to save persecuted species, I can say from first-hand experience that hunting for ‘sport’ is putting tremendous pressure on our wildlife.

“Trophy hunting is simply inexplicable and inexcusable, and those who practice it need to take a long, hard look at themselves and what they’re doing. Elephants have been with us for millions of years. Are we really going to allow them to disappear within the blink of an eye just because a handful of people take pleasure from killing them?”

Trophy

Legendary explorer Sir Ranulph Fiennes is another leading name to have thrown his weight behind the campaign: “Our children will despise us if we let elephants die out.

“We should hang our heads in shame at what’s going on. People who kill elephants for fun need to be stopped. We need a global ban and tough jail terms for trophy hunting and poaching.”

Politicians from across the political spectrum have condemned Botswana’s plans and backed a ban on trophy hunting. Sir Ed Davey MP (Lib Dem) said: “The case for legal hunting of elephants ranges from weak to immoral.

“Legal hunting can often act as a cover for illegal hunting, endangering the species – and the idea that tourist money trickles down to support local people who then prevent poaching simply isn’t proven. We need the ban – and we need to resource its enforcement, urgently.”

Chris Williamson MP (Labour) added: “The appalling, indiscriminate killing of elephants for their tusks is barbaric. There has been a spate of killings in Botswana, a previous safe haven for these beautiful creatures.

Collapsed

“That’s why I am calling on the Botswana Government to take action to address the slaughter of these animals without delay”.

Trophy hunting was banned in 2014 by President Ian Khama following a decline in elephant numbers in the country, since which populations have recovered. However the election of President Masisi last year has seen a push for trophy hunters to be allowed back into the country.

Botswana’s parliament passed a resolution last May calling on the government to overturn the ban, a move supported by the Vice President. President Masisi launched a ‘public consultation’ exercise which has now concluded and recommends a resumption of hunting.

It is thought there were as many as 10 million elephants at the beginning of the 20th century.  Populations in Zimbabwe have collapsed by up to 75 percent in some parts of the country.

The population in Tanzania has crashed by 60 percent in the last five years, and halved in Mozambique. In Zambia – which has one of the largest groups in the 1960s – numbers have plummeted from around 200,000 to 10,000.

This Article

This article is based on a press release from Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting.

Michael Gove, the environment secretary, yesterday addressed a Parliamentary reception calling for a #BetterDealForAnimals after Brexit, vowing “I will continue to make sure we have the strongest legal protections in place for our animals.”

But he has so far failed to introduce legislation despite more than 50 MPs and peers and 36 animal protection organisations demanding action at the event. Animals will lose vital legal protections post-Brexit, unless Gove introduces protections before departure from the EU.

Thirty-six welfare organisations have come together to call for a law that will create a duty for all Ministers in the UK to fully regard animal welfare in policy-making and ensure that animal sentience laws are not weakened once we leave the EU. Alesha Dixon and animal welfare campaigners have launched a petition calling for immediate action.

Action now

Gove said after the event: “Animals are sentient beings who feel pain and suffering, so it is absolutely right that we recognise this in UK law after we leave the EU. I was delighted to attend this important Parliamentary reception and hear from the many charities involved about how we can maintain and enhance our reputation as a leader on animal welfare.

“Our plans to increase protections for animals include raising the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years and banning third-party sales of puppies and kittens. I will continue to make sure we have the strongest legal protections in place for our animals.”

A petition, hosted on the UK Government and Parliament website, launched today follows a major event in Parliament yesterday which saw 50 MPs and Peers attend to sign a pledge and back the #BetterDealForAnimals campaign. Attendees included Sue Hayman MP, shadow secretary of state for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, David Rutley MP and Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative MP and former owner of The Ecologist.

Animal sentience is currently enshrined in EU law but has not been carried across into UK law. As Brexit fast approaches, the petition calls on the UK Government to ensure this will be explicitly enshrined in law and for any future legislation or government policy to fully consider its impact on the welfare of animals.

Sonul Badiani-Hamment, #BetterDealForAnimals event organiser and external affairs adviser for World Animal Protection, said: “Time is running out for animals and we need action now.

Ethics expertise

“Today was a missed opportunity for the secretary of state who should have announced that he is enacting legislation without delay to stay true to his public commitments and protect animals post-Brexit. If he really wants the UK to be a world leader in animal welfare, it’s time to act before animals become victims of Brexit.”

A BetterDealForAnimals spokesperson said: “A nation of animal lovers will not stand-by while our decision makers threaten animal protections. We must speak up for animals who can’t speak for themselves.

“With eighty six percent of the UK Government’s own voters saying they want animal welfare laws maintained or strengthened, Ministers must heed this message and live up to its promises to protect our treasured animals. Acknowledging in law that animals have the capacity to feel pain and suffering is vital to protect them.

“That is why we have launched a petition urging members of the public to put pressure on the governments in the UK to take action for animals. Yesterday’s event in Parliament was a great success and highlights the cross-party support in Westminster for the demand to fully recognise animal sentience in UK law before we leave the EU.”

Animal welfare organisations are also calling for a new independent Animal Welfare Advisory Council to provide advice to all government ministers at the UK and devolved level. This body would support governments in fulfilling their duties to animals, ensuring decisions are underpinned by the best scientific and ethics expertise.

This Article

This article is based on a press release from #BetterDealForAnimals. You can support this campaign by signing the petition here.

Proposals to allow trophy hunting of elephants to resume in Botswana, home to Africa’s largest elephant population, and even use the meat for canned pet food have been strongly criticised by the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting (CBTH).

A report by ministers  recommends a lifting of the ban and also calls for the “establishment of elephant meat canning” for pet food. Approximately 130,000 elephants – representing one-third of the world’s total remaining African elephant population – live in the country which is the size of France.

The CBTH has led international efforts to stop plans to bring back trophy hunting in the southern African nation.

Elephant trophy

Supporters of the charity including Bill Oddie and Sir Ranulph Fiennes handed in an open letter to Botswana’s High Commission in October 2018. The letter was signed by Joanna Lumley, Stephen Fry and Chris Packham, among others. A global petition coordinated by CBTH was signed by 250,000 people.

Eduardo Gonçalves, of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, said: “African elephants are in serious trouble. Populations have crashed in recent years, and there is a real risk of the species going extinct. Allowing elephants in their last stronghold to be killed for entertainment is the last thing it needs.

“The proposal to kill them for pet food is beyond bizarre. If the trophy hunting ban is lifted, we can expect to see an increase in elephant trophies, ivory and body parts coming into Britain. The UK was one of Botswana’s primary markets prior to the ban.

“It would be a travesty if this plan led to Britain – which oridesnitself as a world leader in wildlife conservation – once more becoming a major global destination for elephant trophies.”

The vote by Botswana’s parliament to call for the resumption of elephant trophy hunting was condemned by conservationists and public figures.

Disappear

Joanna Lumley said: “I have always considered trophy hunting the lowest of the low. Killing animals for fun is just disgusting. We are urging President Masisi to reject the proposal to lift the ban on trophy hunting for the sake of the elephants in his beautiful country and for the reputation of humans everywhere.”

The proposal has angered leading conservationists. Bill Oddie warned that allowing trophy hunting could spell disaster: “I’m just incredulous that anyone would even think this is a good idea.

“Elephants are fast approaching a pre-extinction phase. They’ve disappeared from much of Africa. You’ve got small isolated groups separated from one another. Trophy hunting in the one place where they are relatively thriving could spell disaster. Botswana is the last hope for the African elephant. If we lose them here, the whole battle could be lost.”

Damian Aspinall added: “As a conservationist and as someone directly involved in working to save persecuted species, I can say from first-hand experience that hunting for ‘sport’ is putting tremendous pressure on our wildlife.

“Trophy hunting is simply inexplicable and inexcusable, and those who practice it need to take a long, hard look at themselves and what they’re doing. Elephants have been with us for millions of years. Are we really going to allow them to disappear within the blink of an eye just because a handful of people take pleasure from killing them?”

Trophy

Legendary explorer Sir Ranulph Fiennes is another leading name to have thrown his weight behind the campaign: “Our children will despise us if we let elephants die out.

“We should hang our heads in shame at what’s going on. People who kill elephants for fun need to be stopped. We need a global ban and tough jail terms for trophy hunting and poaching.”

Politicians from across the political spectrum have condemned Botswana’s plans and backed a ban on trophy hunting. Sir Ed Davey MP (Lib Dem) said: “The case for legal hunting of elephants ranges from weak to immoral.

“Legal hunting can often act as a cover for illegal hunting, endangering the species – and the idea that tourist money trickles down to support local people who then prevent poaching simply isn’t proven. We need the ban – and we need to resource its enforcement, urgently.”

Chris Williamson MP (Labour) added: “The appalling, indiscriminate killing of elephants for their tusks is barbaric. There has been a spate of killings in Botswana, a previous safe haven for these beautiful creatures.

Collapsed

“That’s why I am calling on the Botswana Government to take action to address the slaughter of these animals without delay”.

Trophy hunting was banned in 2014 by President Ian Khama following a decline in elephant numbers in the country, since which populations have recovered. However the election of President Masisi last year has seen a push for trophy hunters to be allowed back into the country.

Botswana’s parliament passed a resolution last May calling on the government to overturn the ban, a move supported by the Vice President. President Masisi launched a ‘public consultation’ exercise which has now concluded and recommends a resumption of hunting.

It is thought there were as many as 10 million elephants at the beginning of the 20th century.  Populations in Zimbabwe have collapsed by up to 75 percent in some parts of the country.

The population in Tanzania has crashed by 60 percent in the last five years, and halved in Mozambique. In Zambia – which has one of the largest groups in the 1960s – numbers have plummeted from around 200,000 to 10,000.

This Article

This article is based on a press release from Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting.

Michael Gove, the environment secretary, yesterday addressed a Parliamentary reception calling for a #BetterDealForAnimals after Brexit, vowing “I will continue to make sure we have the strongest legal protections in place for our animals.”

But he has so far failed to introduce legislation despite more than 50 MPs and peers and 36 animal protection organisations demanding action at the event. Animals will lose vital legal protections post-Brexit, unless Gove introduces protections before departure from the EU.

Thirty-six welfare organisations have come together to call for a law that will create a duty for all Ministers in the UK to fully regard animal welfare in policy-making and ensure that animal sentience laws are not weakened once we leave the EU. Alesha Dixon and animal welfare campaigners have launched a petition calling for immediate action.

Action now

Gove said after the event: “Animals are sentient beings who feel pain and suffering, so it is absolutely right that we recognise this in UK law after we leave the EU. I was delighted to attend this important Parliamentary reception and hear from the many charities involved about how we can maintain and enhance our reputation as a leader on animal welfare.

“Our plans to increase protections for animals include raising the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years and banning third-party sales of puppies and kittens. I will continue to make sure we have the strongest legal protections in place for our animals.”

A petition, hosted on the UK Government and Parliament website, launched today follows a major event in Parliament yesterday which saw 50 MPs and Peers attend to sign a pledge and back the #BetterDealForAnimals campaign. Attendees included Sue Hayman MP, shadow secretary of state for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, David Rutley MP and Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative MP and former owner of The Ecologist.

Animal sentience is currently enshrined in EU law but has not been carried across into UK law. As Brexit fast approaches, the petition calls on the UK Government to ensure this will be explicitly enshrined in law and for any future legislation or government policy to fully consider its impact on the welfare of animals.

Sonul Badiani-Hamment, #BetterDealForAnimals event organiser and external affairs adviser for World Animal Protection, said: “Time is running out for animals and we need action now.

Ethics expertise

“Today was a missed opportunity for the secretary of state who should have announced that he is enacting legislation without delay to stay true to his public commitments and protect animals post-Brexit. If he really wants the UK to be a world leader in animal welfare, it’s time to act before animals become victims of Brexit.”

A BetterDealForAnimals spokesperson said: “A nation of animal lovers will not stand-by while our decision makers threaten animal protections. We must speak up for animals who can’t speak for themselves.

“With eighty six percent of the UK Government’s own voters saying they want animal welfare laws maintained or strengthened, Ministers must heed this message and live up to its promises to protect our treasured animals. Acknowledging in law that animals have the capacity to feel pain and suffering is vital to protect them.

“That is why we have launched a petition urging members of the public to put pressure on the governments in the UK to take action for animals. Yesterday’s event in Parliament was a great success and highlights the cross-party support in Westminster for the demand to fully recognise animal sentience in UK law before we leave the EU.”

Animal welfare organisations are also calling for a new independent Animal Welfare Advisory Council to provide advice to all government ministers at the UK and devolved level. This body would support governments in fulfilling their duties to animals, ensuring decisions are underpinned by the best scientific and ethics expertise.

This Article

This article is based on a press release from #BetterDealForAnimals. You can support this campaign by signing the petition here.