Monbiot is a journalist, author, and environmental activist, and writes a regular column for the Guardian. In an op-ed titled “New reports tell us cattle and sheep farming can be sustainable – don’t believe them, it’s all bull,” he debunks two recent pro-meat “studies.” Both have links to the industry and were published separately within a week of one another.

The first study focuses on so-called “regenerative grazing.” It was commissioned by Oxfordshire’s FAI Farms and funded by McDonald’s, and claims that the farm is “beyond net-zero.” However, Monbiot notes that the work is “without a single usable data point,” due to miscalculated carbon sequestration, inconsistent samples, and other “unquantifiable” variables not taken into account by the report or mentioned in its summary.

A second study, documenting what it calls “regenerative mixed farming,” was published by the Sustainable Food Trust (SFT). It suggests that cows and sheep be grazed on temporary meadows on which rotating crops are grown for two years out of every 10. Instead of pork and poultry – the two most widely consumed meats – it says that people should eat beef, lamb, and dairy.

According to Monbiot, an industry-wide rollout of SFT’s proposed “regenerative” methods would require either extensive food importation or a prescriptive national diet, along with permanently higher food prices and an immediate 50 percent reduction in food waste. Patrick Holden, the founder of SFT and farming advisor to King Charles, is notably a dairy farmer.

Read more: Factory Farms Cost UK Taxpayers Over 1.2 Billion Pounds Per Year, Says New Report

New reports amount to ‘industry lobbying’

Monbiot’s analysis comes shortly after DeSmog confirmed that a meat industry-backed PR firm was behind the extensive backlash received by 2019’s landmark EAT-Lancet Report.

In March, a report by The Animal Law Foundation found that British consumers are “systematically misled” about meat, dairy, eggs, and animal products in the food system. Changing Markets Foundation reported that 22 big meat and dairy companies are using tobacco industry-style “delay, distract, and derail” tactics to mislead shoppers.

Monbiot noted that beef and lamb are the most resource-intensive and “climate-damaging” foods of all, despite what the two new reports suggest. Farming cows and sheep causes pollution and prevents the return of carbon-storing, environmentally valuable ecosystems. 

“If such claims arose from any other sector, we would recognise them for what they are: industry lobbying,” wrote Monbiot. “But because their bucolic imagery chimes with deep cultural themes, enthusiasm for such non-solutions extends all the way from McDonald’s to King Charles. The phenomenally complex challenge of feeding the world without devouring the planet will not be met through wishful thinking and romantic simplicities.”

Read more: ‘It’s Pseudoscience’: George Monbiot Blasts Regenerative Grazing In Heated Debate

This article was written by Liam Pritchett on the PBN Website.

Ocean with David Attenborough is directed by Toby Nowlan, Keith Scholey, and Colin Butfield, and produced by Silverback Films and Open Planet Studios in association with All3Media International, National Geographic, and Minderoo Pictures.

Silverback Films described the new documentary as Attenborough’s “greatest message of hope” yet, a feature-length film about the importance of healthy oceans for a healthy planet. Altitude Films published a trailer for Ocean with David Attenborough earlier this month.

“After living for nearly 100 years on this planet, I now understand the most important place on earth is not on land, but at sea,” said Attenborough in the trailer. “Today, it is in such poor health I would find it hard not to lose hope, were it not for the most remarkable discovery of all: the ocean can recover faster than we had ever imagined. It can bounce back to life.”

The new film comes to cinemas on May 8, 2025. In addition to launching on Attenborough’s 99th birthday, the film’s release is timed ahead of World Ocean Day and the United Nations Ocean Conference in June. This year also marks the halfway point of the United Nations’ “Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development” (2021 – 2030).

Read more: New Documentary Follows ‘Incredible’ 87-Year Old Vegan Ultrarunner Paul Youd

‘If we save the sea, we save our world’

On April 24, NGO Dynamic Planet and National Geographic Society’s Pristine Seas programme launched the Revive Our Ocean initiative. It aims to assist local communities in their efforts to establish marine protected areas in coastal waters.

Life on earth is reliant on healthy seas, but without immediate intervention, the world’s oceans will be unrecognizable within just 20 years. More than 190,000 marine protected areas would need to be established in the next five years to meet the agreed-upon “30-by-30” target of protecting 30 percent of oceans, which some experts say may not be enough.

“This is the story of our ocean, and how we must write its next chapter together,” said Attenborough in the trailer. “For if we save the sea, we save our world. After a lifetime of filming our planet, I’m sure that nothing is more important.”

This article was updated on April 28, 2025, to remove mention that Revive Our Ocean is backed by David Attenborough. David Attenborough is not directly involved with Revive Our Ocean.
Read more: Is David Attenborough Vegan? Here’s What We Know

This article was written by Liam Pritchett on the PBN Website.

In March, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) asked 2,203 US adults how strongly they would consider eating a plant-based diet to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). Sixteen percent of those surveyed said that they would “strongly” consider it, while an additional 30 percent said that they would “somewhat” consider it.

The current food system is deeply inefficient and animal agriculture is a key driver of emissions. Estimates for how much it contributes to global heating vary, but it’s generally understood to be responsible for at least 16.5 percent of total emissions. A study published earlier this year found that farming animals was the leading cause of the climate crisis, responsible for around 53 percent of global average temperature rise between 1750 and 2020.

PCRM noted that 54 percent of those surveyed were unaware of which foods contribute the most emissions. However, when prompted to rank foods based on their output of emissions, 54 percent correctly said that beef was the highest-emitting. Beef creates 70kg of GHGs per 1kg of protein, and is linked with deforestation, land disputes, and human rights violations.

Read more: Meat Industry Drove Backlash To Landmark EAT-Lancet Food Study, Report Finds

‘People should eat a plant-based diet’

PCRM’s survey found that 40 percent of respondents agreed or somewhat agreed that the US government should tax the meat and dairy industry for its excess GHG emissions. Fifty-nine percent also strongly or somewhat agreed that the government should incentivize farmers moving away from animal farming and towards environmentally beneficial crops.

PCRM published the new survey results ahead of Earth Day on April 22, and described adopting a plant-based diet as a “win-win” for both personal and planetary health. PCRM-affiliated medical doctor Roxanne Becker said, “This Earth Day – and every day – people should eat a plant-based diet to keep themselves and the planet healthy.”

Earlier this month, a new scientific journal entry by two UK-based plant-based healthcare professionals highlighted the potential for plant-based diets to tackle the “intertwined crises” of poor health, biodiversity loss, social injustice, and the climate crisis.

Read more: Animal Ag, Not Fossil Fuels, Is The Leading Cause Of Climate Change, Says New Study

This article was written by Liam Pritchett on the PBN Website.

The EAT-Lancet report was a first-of-its-kind scientific review of what constitutes a healthy and sustainable diet. It included recommendations for speeding up food system change and described “The Planetary Health Diet,” which emphasizes nutritious, sustainable plant foods.

Some of the world’s most prominent food and nutrition experts carried out the research before publishing it in a peer-reviewed, evidence-based scientific report. However, it was met with notable backlash, much of which featured misinformation, conspiracy theories, and personal attacks.

According to a leaked document seen by investigative journalism website DeSmog, PR firm Red Flag played a significant role in fueling backlash against the report. According to DeSmog, the document indicates that Red Flag briefed journalists, think tanks, and influencers to frame the EAT-Lancet report as “radical,” “out of touch,” and “hypocritical.”

Read more: Animal Ag, Not Fossil Fuels, Is The Leading Cause Of Climate Change, Says New Study

‘Red Flag turned EAT-Lancet into a culture war issue’

Red Flag reportedly conducted its campaign against EAT-Lancet on behalf of the Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA), which protects the industry against “emerging threats.” The AAA also features board members representing Cargill and Smithfield Foods, two of the world’s largest meat companies. The PR firm’s client list also includes companies from the tobacco and chemicals industries, along with Google, and DeSmog reported that Red Flag advises the Meat Institute.

“Red Flag turned EAT-Lancet into a culture war issue,” said Jennifer Jacquet, professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami and lobbying expert, per DeSmog. “Instead of having nuanced conversations about the data, Red Flag takes us back to mud slinging. […] This document is a portrait of what we’re up against – as people who care about the truth, about climate change, and about the future.”

Since the publication of the EAT-Lancet report in 2019, a growing body of research has reaffirmed its core points: that the current meat-focused food system is both unsustainable and unhealthy, and that emphasizing nutritious plant-based foods in place of animal proteins would have far-reaching benefits to human health, planetary health, and beyond.

An updated report titled EAT-Lancet 2.0 is coming later this year.

Plant Based News has reached out to both Red Flag and the Animal Agriculture Alliance for comment.

Read more: Over 130 Organizations Call For ‘EU Action Plan’ On Plant-Based Foods

This article was written by Liam Pritchett on the PBN Website.

While the Met Office has not yet issued any weather warnings, it predicts that temperatures in Greater London could reach 24C on Friday, April 11. This would make it the hottest day of the year after last Friday’s 23C.

London Fire Brigade has urged people to “act responsibly” and follow safety advice, as the UK’s high temperatures and unseasonably dry conditions make wildfires far more likely. People should be particularly vigilant around BBQ safety, discarded cigarettes, and litter.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service issued an “extreme wildfire warning” for Thursday, April 10. The service previously published a warning at the start of April and another alert in mid-March. In all three cases, the Scottish fire service noted that human behavior is the cause of many wildfires and that responsible behavior is crucial in their prevention and mitigation.

An amber wildfire warning is currently in place for Northern Ireland, which has also experienced unseasonable conditions and unpredictable fires. Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service (NIFRS) has been fighting a significant blaze in the Sandbank Road area of Hilltown since Sunday, which Sky News reported may have been caused deliberately.

Read more: Animal Ag, Not Fossil Fuels, Is The Leading Cause Of Climate Change, Says New Study

The UK’s 2025 wildfires so far

Scotland has had four wildfires in the last week, including a large blaze near East Ayrshire that required campers and other visitors to leave the area. In England, Dorset’s Moors Valley Country Park has had to close after several wildfires broke out on Wednesday.

There have been several moorland fires in Devon and Cornwall this week, preceded by a huge fire on Rosenannon Downs in March that Cornwall Wildlife Trust described at the time as an “attack on nature.” The total number of Cornish wildfires increased by 80 percent last year.

Overall, there have been 286 UK wildfires reported so far in 2025. That’s 100 more fires than were recorded during the same period of 2022, which saw record-breaking temperatures and an unprecedented number of wildfires nationally and throughout parts of Europe.

‘Wildfires are not a seasonal threat’

UK fire chiefs said at the time that the worsening climate crisis has created a “clear and present risk” of future fires. Rising temperatures, droughts, and extreme weather events linked to the changing climate have created optimal conditions for wildfires to get out of control.

The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) made several recommendations to the government about wildfires, resilience, and the future of the UK fire services last year. Earlier this month, the NFCC highlighted “rising pressures” on fire services and called for action once again.

“There is no getting away from the fact that climate change is driving increases in extreme weather events, such as wildfires,” said NFCC chair Phil Garrigan. “Wildfires are not a seasonal threat – they are becoming a persistent and growing risk to life, property, and the environment. We must adapt and invest now to ensure our services are equipped to meet this challenge.”

Read more: London At ‘Clear Risk’ Of Wildfires Caused By The Climate Crisis

This article was written by Liam Pritchett on the PBN Website.

Speaking at the London Assembly Mayor’s Question Time in March, Polanski called on Khan to “show climate leadership” and make a “good example” by rolling out plant-based meals as the default option at City Hall’s canteen, “the most local place possible.”

By “default,” Polanski explained that meat and dairy-based foods would still be available, but customers would have to request them specifically, as people do with meat-free options now.

He also said that he would “love to talk” to Khan about free school meals and how they could also be made plant-based by default. “This is the very first option though, just City Hall canteen, just making sure there are plant-based options that are the default options.”

Khan declined to take action. He told Polanski several times that his priority was ensuring choice and said that at the moment, City Hall and the city of London have a “good balance.”

Read more: UK Hospitals ‘Fall Short’ On Sustainable Meals, Study Finds

School dinners and plant-based by default

Polanski explained to Khan how he hosted an event with Viva! earlier this year at the all-vegan community restaurant Karamel in Wood Green, North London. Over 100 campaigners and experts in areas like food, climate, and anti-poverty attended, and that collective’s suggestions have been made into A Cruelty-Free Manifesto For London.

This manifesto includes five key recommendations for the Mayor of London, which include transforming public catering to plant-based by default, adopting a cruelty-free supply chain, promoting plant-based living through education and campaigns, creating a fund to support local food growing, and collaborating with London’s many plant-based health professionals.

“A third of human-caused emissions are caused by our food,” said Polanski in a video posted to Instagram. “That’s why it’s really important that we have targeted, specific food policy to help tackle the climate crisis.”

The publication of A Cruelty-Free Manifesto For London and Polanski’s exchange with Khan came shortly after a new policy briefing found that plant-based meals in schools and hospitals could save the NHS £54.9 million pounds per year. A portion of these savings could then be used to emphasize sustainable, British food from small and organic growers.

Nearly 20 percent of UK children experience food poverty, and a 2024 study found that free school meal allowances are often too low for children to buy healthy options like fruit. Meat is also currently compulsory on school menus, but removing this requirement – and making plant-based options the default – could make healthy, sustainable food more accessible.

Read more: Healthy Plant-Based Diets Lower Risk Of Death From Cardiometabolic Disorders, Finds Study

This article was written by Liam Pritchett on the PBN Website.

The food sector – and the animal agriculture sector in particular – is a significant and neglected contributor to rapid climate change. Latest estimates indicate that the production of animal-based foods is responsible for at least 20 percent of anthropogenic GHG emissions (though some studies put this figure much higher). This is expected to increase as animal product consumption increases globally.

The environmental impact of pet food

In wealthy nations like the US, dogs and cats consume at least 20 percent of all farmed land animals. Given its relatively high consumption of animal-based ingredients, the pet food sector is associated with substantial environmental impacts. This poses a significant challenge for environmental sustainability. But it also represents a largely untapped opportunity to mitigate the “pawprints” of our dogs and cats.

In this article, we summarise the findings of our recent study, one of the first comprehensive studies exploring the environmental impacts of pet food (Nicholles and Knight, 2025). We examine the impacts of meat-based pet food, and the benefits of a transition to more sustainable non-animal alternatives. We conclude that the most effective measure we can currently take to mitigate the environmental impacts of companion animal diets is to transition dogs and cats to nutritionally sound vegan pet foods. 

It is now clear that the importance of dietary change to combat the climate crisis is not limited to humans: we must also address what we feed to our companion animals.

Companion animal diets 

The global companion animal population is vast. Over 50 percent of households worldwide have a dog or a cat – the two species which make up 95 percent of pet food sales. Global dog and cat populations have recently been estimated as reaching 1 billion animals. Domestic dogs have a collective biomass of about 20 million tonnes, roughly equal to the combined biomass of all remaining wild terrestrial mammals. Cats have a total biomass of two million tonnes. Such large numbers of animals require a huge quantity of food resources.

What’s more, we can expect these numbers to increase significantly. As countries develop, people tend to have fewer children, and have more disposable income to spend on companion animals. We can see this in pet food sales trends: the global pet food ingredients market is expected to increase from USD $32.2 billion in 2022 to $44.5 billion in 2027.

From the food they eat, to the feces they produce, to accessories and services designed for them, there are a range of environmental impacts associated with caring for a dog or cat. However, the vast majority of these impacts come from pet food, and specifically the type of pet food (i.e. the ingredients) being fed. 

In other words, when it comes to the environmental impact of pets, what matters most is: what are we feeding them? 

What is the climate cost of meat-based pet food? 

Most pet food consumed globally is meat-based, and this comes with significant environmental impacts. Just over half – 53.1 percent –  of all ingredients in pet food are animal-based. These include human grade products such as meat, fish, dairy, and egg products, and non human-consumable products (also known as animal byproducts), predominantly meat and bone meal. Globally, 74.9 percent of animal-based ingredients are animal byproducts (largely used because they are cheap), whereas this number falls to 50.8 percent in the US, where wealthier consumers are more able to afford more premium diets using higher levels of human grade ingredients. 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, such a reliance on animal-derived ingredients leads to significant environmental impacts. In the US, 25-30 percent of the environmental impacts of livestock production within the US have been attributed to companion animal diets. 

While estimates on the impacts of meat-based pet food vary, all studies on this subject agree these cannot be ignored. One found that, in Japan, the environmental impacts of a medium dog’s diet were greater than that of the average Japanese person’s diet. For a large dog, they were greater than the average Japanese person’s entire environmental footprint. 

This is undoubtedly a challenge for environmental sustainability. But it’s also an opportunity. Because the environmental impact of pet food is currently so high, there are significant opportunities to mitigate these impacts. In countries with high rates of companion animals, like the US, the benefits achieved by transitioning dogs away from meat-based diets is equivalent to one quarter to one third of the environmental benefits achievable through human dietary change. 

Read more: Is 2025 The Year Of Ethical Dog Food?

What about animal byproducts?

Until recently, the environmental impact of pet food was dismissed as negligible. Pet food relies heavily on animal byproducts, and it was generally assumed that these ingredients would be wasted if not used in pet food.

Claims like this have been repeatedly criticized. They wrongly assume that animal byproducts would be wasted in landfill if not used in pet food. The argument also assumes – crucially – that animals must be farmed in the first place.

In fact, only 25 percent of animal byproducts produced in high-income countries like the US are used in pet food, and the sector competes with various others for these ingredients. Animal byproducts are used in pet food not because they would otherwise be wasted, but instead because they are cheaper than human grade cuts of meat. The sale of animal byproducts helps prop up slaughtering industry profits. 11.4 percent of the gross income from beef is from byproducts, and 7.5 percent for pork. 

Moreover, as we showed in 2023, animal byproducts are less efficient than human grade meat. This is because animal byproducts only make up a minority of the average animal carcass used for pet food (39.2 percent for dogs, and 31.3 percent for cats). Compared to using human grade meat, using animal byproducts in pet food requires 1.4 times more animal carcasses for dog food, and 1.9 times more for cat food. As a result, more livestock animals are required (and with them, greater environmental impacts incurred) to feed dogs and cats animal byproducts.

Given this, it is more reasonable to view these animal ingredients as coproducts rather than byproducts. In doing so, they are acknowledged as valuable commodities in and of themselves, rather than externalised byproducts that can be excluded from environmental impact calculations. 

In summary, the idea that we can dismiss the environmental impacts of pet food because they use animal byproducts that would otherwise be wasted, is entirely false. It incorrectly assumes that animal byproducts would be wasted if not used in pet food, and it fails to recognise that these actually incur greater environmental impacts, compared to human grade meat. 

In reality, the best way to reduce the environmental impacts of our companion animals’ diets is to transition them away from diets high in animal products, towards nutritionally sound vegan ones, or those based on cultivated meat once they become more widely available. 

Read more: Plant-Based Dog Food Brand Wins Dragons’ Den Backing

Environmental benefits of vegan pet food

Fortunately, a range of alternative pet food protein sources derived from plants, fungi, cultivated meat and microorganisms are emerging, and offer huge potential to reduce the environmental impact of pet food. Various plant-based pet food companies are already widely commercially available in the UK and other countries (a non-exhaustive list is available at www.sustainablepetfood.info). 

If we transitioned all dogs and cats onto nutritionally sound vegan diets, the benefits for environmental sustainability would be game changing. A global transition for pet dogs alone would save 1.5 times the greenhouse gases produced by the UK, as well as vast amounts of land and freshwater. The food energy savings would be sufficient to feed 450 million people – more than the entire EU population. At least six billion land animals would also be spared from slaughter annually, and another billion if pet cats were also transitioned. 

There are also some emerging pet food alternatives that may offer even greater environmental benefits. In February 2025, Meatly, a UK-based biotech company that makes cultivated chicken-based pet food, partnered with vegan pet food company The Pack to launch the world’s first cultivated meat pet food product for retail sales. And Calysta, a company producing animal-free pet food via precision fermentation, offers a product already at commercial scale with environmental impacts reportedly a fraction of those from plant-based ingredients, let alone animal-based ones. The first nutritionally complete pet food using their protein product was launched by Marsapet in February. 

What needs to change

The best thing we can do to reduce our companion animals’ environmental “pawprints” is to transition them to nutritionally sound vegan diets. Dogs and cats fed these diets seem to enjoy them as much as meat-based diets, and modern vegan pet foods are generally of equivalent, if not superior, quality and nutritional soundness to meat-based pet foods. Moreover, as we summarised recently in Plant Based News, there is a strong and growing body of evidence demonstrating that dogs and cats fed nutritionally sound vegan diets experience health outcomes as good as or better than those fed meat-based diets. Given these significant environmental and health benefits, there is no longer any sound reason not to support a companion animal dietary transition. 

Other mitigation strategies include choosing to care for small rather than large animals where possible, adopting instead of buying companion animals, and preventing overfeeding (which is currently common). Importantly, however, gains from reducing overconsumption will quickly be outpaced by rising companion animal populations globally. Hence, these are supplementary strategies that should be pursued in tandem with, rather than in place of, a wider structural transition to nutritionally sound vegan diets. 

Additionally, given the very significant environmental impacts associated with companion animal diets, public awareness on this topic is shockingly low. Along with governments and the mass media, those with large platforms in pet care or adjacent communities should communicate the environmental benefits of a transition towards vegan pet food to their audiences. For those resistant to the idea at first, a gradual transition (say, feeding 50 percent vegan and 50 percent meat-based pet food) would still significantly reduce an animal’s dietary “pawprint.” 

Addressing the impact of companion animal diets on climate change is an environmental imperative. We now have very good evidence demonstrating health and environmental benefits associated with modern, nutritionally sound vegan diets for dogs and cats. In light of this evidence, there is no good scientific reason not to support companion animal dietary change. Given the very significant potential to mitigate climate change and environmental breakdown, support from guardians, government, and industry is clearly warranted. 

Read more: Lewis Hamilton Says Bulldog Roscoe Is A ‘Different Dog’ Since Going Plant-Based

This article was written by Billy Nicholles on the PBN Website.

A new policy briefing estimates that shifting towards plant-based whole foods like vegetables, pulses, and legumes in UK hospitals could save the NHS £54.9 million per year by reducing procurement costs. The briefing also suggests that those savings could go towards procuring more British food from organic farmers and smaller growers.

Other policy recommendations include for the government to scrap the UK’s current School Food Standards rules, which make it compulsory to serve meat at least three days per week. 

Instead, schools would also be able to emphasize healthy and sustainable plant foods, ensuring at least two portions of vegetables or pulses for children at every meal. The briefing also includes measures to cut food waste, reduce transport emissions, and regulate imports.

“Every day we spend millions of pounds of the public’s money on food,” said Sustain’s campaign manager Ruth Westcott. “This should be going in the pockets of sustainable farmers, and to creating a healthy environment and healthy people.”

The policy briefing is titled Serving Up, and subtitled “Aligning public procurement of food for UK public institutions with healthy sustainable diets.” It is backed by 25 health and sustainability organizations, including the Centre for Sustainable Healthcare, School Food Matters, Plant-Based Health Professionals UK, Sustain, Feedback Global, and more.
Read more: What Are ‘Plant Points’ – And Why Is Everyone Recommending Them?

Adopting changes could make healthy, sustainable meals ‘more abundant’

Approximately £5 billion is currently spent annually on public procurement of food and catering services in the UK. Preventative healthcare was a key manifesto pledge for Labour, and the government has also re-committed to its pledge to overhaul food procurement.

A recent analysis of 36 NHS hospitals found that many were falling short of climate goals. Forty-two percent of hospital menus had no entirely plant-based dinner options, and 50 percent had no plant-based lunch options. In October, a report and accompanying open letter signed by 1,000 health experts called for the NHS to go plant-based by default.

Also last year, members of the UK Children’s Parliament endorsed plant-based school meals, while Ecotricity founder Dale Vince called for an end to compulsory meat in schools. A study published in May 2024 reported a lack of fresh fruits and vegetables in schools and noted that free school meal allowances are too low for some children to buy healthy food.

“Our schools and hospitals can make healthy sustainable meals more abundant, without taking away any freedom of choice,” said Feedback’s senior campaigns manager Martin Bowman. “We also need universal free school meals to ensure no child goes hungry in one of the richest countries in the world.” 

Read more: Supermarkets Have A Methane ‘Blind Spot’, Finds New Report

This article was written by Liam Pritchett on the PBN Website.

According to the report by Changing Markets Foundation and Mighty Earth, no major food retailer reports the methane emissions in their supply chain. Nor do they have methane emissions reduction targets. This is despite meat and dairy accounting for an estimated third of their total emissions, the report says.

The 20 top-grossing retailers in the US and Europe assessed in the report include Tesco, Lidl, Walmart, and Costco. They received scores across 18 indicators, such as their recognition of the link between methane and animal products, their emissions reporting, and whether they set targets for increasing sales of plant-based proteins. Tesco scored the highest, but still has a lot of room for improvement with 51 out of 100 possible points.

Read more: Brits Urged To Cut ‘Two Fry Ups’ Worth Of Meat A Week To Reduce Emissions

‘Empty words’

Nine of the supermarkets assessed have made commitments to reach net zero emissions by 2050. But these are mostly “just empty words,” the report says, as meat and dairy remain a “blind spot” in their plans.

Out of the 20 retailers, 11 publicly recognize agriculture’s climate impact. Eight refer directly to methane from farming animals, but none are monitoring and reporting on their methane emissions, even for their own brand products over which they have more control. A small number publicly reference feed additives for dairy herds to reduce methane emissions. Tesco, for example, mentions its trial with dairy brand Arla to feed cows Bovaer, which has proved controversial with customers.

Emissions from meat and dairy and the rest of the supply chain fall under scope 3 emissions, which are indirect emissions that occur in a company’s value chain. But only six of the supermarkets have scope 3 emissions reduction targets. Instead, they mostly focus on scope 1 and 2, which covers direct emissions such as energy used in stores.

Promoting plant-based options

One area where many retailers are doing better is on offering and promoting plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy. However, the report found US supermarket chains far lagging behind European ones in this regard.

Most of the European retailers offer a wide range of own brand alternatives and invest in developing and promoting these products. Most US retailers by contrast have no own brand options or only offer a limited selection. According to the report, demand for alternative proteins is similarly strong in the US as it is in Europe, with a growing number of people aiming to cut down on their meat consumption.

Read more: Denmark Agrees Deal On Agriculture Emissions Tax

Several supermarkets including Tesco, Lidl, and Carrefour have set sales targets for their plant-based alternatives. Lidl, for example, is aiming for a quarter of its protein sales to be plant-based by 2030.

Retailers must step up their climate action by “setting targets to reduce their methane emissions and reporting transparently on these,” the report says. It recommends that they set methane reduction targets of at least 30 percent by 2030 from a 2020 baseline. It also recommends that they work towards 60 percent of the protein they sell being plant-based by 2030.

This article was written by Claire Hamlett on the PBN Website.

The nonprofit humanitarian organization has published a video titled “The Importance of Serving Plant-Based Foods During Disasters.” American Red Cross is working with partners such as Plant Based Treaty to ensure plant-based options are widely available.

“A lot of people are eating plant-based for whatever reason,” said Samantha Lau, a campaigner for Plant Based Treaty, in the video. “Could be dietary reasons, could be allergy, it could be lactose intolerance, religious reasons – for whatever reason that people choose to eat plant-based, we just want to make sure that they have access to it.”

Nigel Holderby, the assistant director of external relations at American Red Cross, said that she can find it “very difficult” to find options as a plant-based person with food allergies. 

“Having that as part of what we’re building into the core of our food service means that we’re serving more people and we’re meeting them where they are,” explained Holderby. “We’re part of a network, we’re part of this response community. So just being able to provide our local restaurants here with the access to people to provide things that they need, I think is another avenue for the Red Cross to be part of the community response.”

Lau noted that in the wake of the Los Angeles wildfires, some of the people sheltering at Pasadena’s convention center were initially unable to access plant-based options. However, Plant Based Treaty stepped in and made plant-based food available to those who needed it.

Read more: Tabitha Brown Partners With Vegan Food Truck To Feed Those Affected By LA Wildfires

Extreme weather in Los Angeles

American Red Cross is continuing to support the victims of Los Angeles’s enormous wildfires, which displaced thousands of Californians across the region. The Palisades and Eaton fires alone burned down around 40,000 acres of land and over 15,000 buildings.

On Tuesday of this week, fire authorities issued further evacuation warnings ahead of expected heavy rain and mudslides in the area, including in the Palisades neighborhood.

According to a report by UCLA researchers, the scale and severity of California’s wildfires is linked to the climate crisis. A separate study – published in the Journal of Climate earlier this month – suggests that California’s increasingly heavy rain and winds are also in keeping with broader predictions about the climate crisis and frequent, extreme weather events.

“One of the biggest changes that we’re seeing across the country is that people want to help,” said Holderby. “We’ve seen an outpouring of local volunteers that raised their hands, they want to be part of the response, they want to help their neighbors, and I think there’s a healing in engaging our local community as part of the response and the recovery that’s coming.”

Read more: New Report On Why Healthcare Settings Should Go Plant-Based By Default

This article was written by Liam Pritchett on the PBN Website.

Signatories include Olympic weightlifter Kendrick J. Farris, Olympic rock climber Alexander Megos, Olympic weightlifter Angeline Berva, Olympic road cyclist Simon Gescheke, and Paralympic swimmer Sarah Bofinger. Other top athletes such as France’s “strongest woman” Angeline Berva and vegan strongman Patrik Baboumian also signed the open letter.

“As a vegan athlete, I’ve experienced how a plant-based lifestyle not only fuels peak performance but also aligns with a vision of sustainability and compassion,” said Farris, who has been vegan for over a decade and appeared in 2018’s documentary The Game Changers.

The open letter is addressed to LA28 CEO Reynold Hoover and begins by thanking him for his commitment to an eco-friendly approach to the next Olympic Games. The letter notes that the 2024 games in Paris set a strong precedent by making 60 percent of its meals vegan, but suggests that “Los Angeles can do even better” when it hosts the Olympics in 2028.

“Advocating for a vegan Olympics in Los Angeles is a powerful statement about our collective responsibility to protect the planet and promote a kinder, healthier future,” added Farris. “Together, we can show the world that greatness thrives on compassion.”

Read more: Vegan Strongman Patrik Baboumian Shares His Favorite Protein Sources

LA28: animal charities call for plant-based Olympics

The open letter was organized by Jenny Canham, the director of outreach and engagement at the nonprofit Animal Outlook. Canham began calling for a plant-based Olympics last year and highlighted the “incredible strides” LA has made with plant-based initiatives recently.

In 2024, West Hollywood announced a “groundbreaking” new policy of providing plant-based food by default at all council-run events. Also in 2024, Los Angeles County passed a motion that required all departmental food to be plant-based by default.

Animal agriculture is a top contributor to the climate crisis. Plant proteins have an 89 percent lower environmental impact than animal-derived meat, with comparable nutrients and myriad health benefits.

LA28 will see participation from around 15,000 athletes and the attendance of millions of visitors. At 2024’s games, hundreds of chefs prepared more than 40,000 meals every day.

Plant Based News has contacted the Olympics for comment.

Read more: The Top 10 Most Vegan-Friendly Cities In The World

This article was written by Liam Pritchett on the PBN Website.

Faunalytics and The Good Growth Co surveyed 381 university-educated adults aged between 18 and 26 from the US, China, Thailand, and Indonesia. Researchers asked participants about motivators for making lifestyle changes, barriers to improving animal and environmental protections in their countries, solutions to these barriers, and motivators for considering careers in environmental or animal protection.

The study found that 93 percent of respondents are concerned about the environment and animals. In total, 84 percent said they had changed their behavior as a result of this concern, with a higher proportion of Thai and Indonesian respondents having done so than American or Chinese.

Read more: Men Eat More Meat Than Women In More Gender-Equal Countries, Study Finds

But the study results show that concerned young people don’t know how to take effective action. Most lifestyle changes reported by respondents concerned individual mitigation efforts such as recycling, avoiding single-use plastics, and buying more environmentally friendly products. Across all countries, only a minority of respondents mentioned dietary change or farmed animals as specific areas of action or concern. This is despite adopting a plant-based diet being one of the most effective ways people can reduce their environmental impact and help animals at the same time.

Barriers to action

It may seem like people opposed to veganism or taking climate action are ideologically opposed to doing so, but among Gen Z that’s not the case. According to the study, the reasons respondents gave for not taking more action on environmental and animal issues were emotional and practical rather than ideological.

Among most frequently cited practical barriers were personal cost, inconvenience, and time constraints. Emotional barriers were mainly the feeling that action is pointless, being unmotivated, and feeling “drained.” The study authors highlight that this indicates fundamental shifts in values and beliefs may not therefore be necessary for change. Rather, practical solutions and understanding emotional barriers could be more effective to help people take action.

Read more: Americans Will Choose Falafel Burgers Over More Realistic Meat Alternatives, Study Finds

Respondents also identified a lack of public understanding of the issues as a major barrier. Correspondingly, they believe better public awareness and education campaigns as being a key solution to solve environmental and animal problems.

Regional differences

Respondents from Asian countries were much more likely than US respondents to say they felt they and their societies were taking adequate action to protect animals and the environment. More than a third felt their country was doing enough, and more than 80 percent felt they were personally doing enough.

In the US, less than half felt they were taking enough individual action, and only 14 percent believed the US as a whole was doing enough. US respondents were more likely than Asian respondents to blame corporate “villains” for harms to animals and the environment, such as “big oil companies” and “mega-farms.” Asian respondents, by contrast, felt individuals being ignorant or selfish was a bigger problem.

What advocates can do

The study makes several recommendations for people working in environmental and animal advocacy. One is to consider the emotional and practical ways to help young people engage more with the issues and solutions. Another is to work on connecting the plight of farmed animals with people’s existing concerns and motivations. For example, if people are more worried about environmental protection, highlighting the environmental impact of animal agriculture could be more motivating than animal welfare.

“Thankfully, our data found that most Gen Z-ers don’t have ideological barriers to protecting animals or the climate,” Jack Stennett, lead researcher, said in a statement. “To me, this indicates that advocates need to work hard on dismantling other barriers to activism, like removing a sense of futility and providing stronger financial and career incentives.”

Read more: Digital ‘Nudging’ Can Motivate Online Shoppers To Buy Plant-Based Foods, Says Study

This article was written by Claire Hamlett on the PBN Website.

The study drew on data from 14,566 conservation projects with a combined fund of USD $1.963 billion. An analysis showed that 82.9 percent of the funding and 84 percent of the projects were focused on vertebrates. This is 10 to 40 percent more than reported in previous studies. Among vertebrates, birds and mammals receive 85 percent of funding, while amphibians receive just 2.8 percent.

Large mammals such as elephants and rhinos are even more overrepresented in conservation projects. Though they account for only a third of threatened mammals, 86 percent of funding is dedicated to them. Meanwhile, funding for other mammals that are classed as endangered such as rodents, bats, and hedgehogs is limited. Overall, funding supports around six percent of species classified as threatened, and 29 percent of the funding was used for species of “least concern.”

Read more: ‘Old And Wise’ Animals Essential For Species Survival, Study Finds

“Both governments and nongovernmental stakeholders urgently need new approaches to help tackle the biodiversity crisis,” the researchers write. This includes “realigning funding priorities to ensure representative funding across taxa toward vulnerable and currently neglected species.”

Small species and plants neglected

Plants and invertebrates receive hardly any conservation attention, the research found. Each accounts for only 6.6 percent ($129 million) of funding and 7.8 percent and 5.7 percent of conservation projects, respectively. This is despite 45 percent of flowering plant species being threatened with extinction, and invertebrates accounting for around 97 percent of all animals on the planet. Fungi and algae are even more neglected, accounting for less than 0.2 percent of funding each.

Part of the problem is that a relatively small number of these species have assessed for their conservation status. While 80 percent of vertebrates have been assessed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), only 18 percent of plants, 1.8 percent of invertebrates, and 0.4 percent of fungi have been. Many of these species remain undocumented by science.

A further problem, according to the new research, is that the majority of conservation projects target single species instead of multiple species. This means habitats and ecosystems that support many “less conspicuous species” don’t get as much support.

“Future allocation of funding needs to address these biases by distributing resources to a wider range of vulnerable species,” the researchers write.

Read more: Wild Fish Can Tell Humans Apart By Their Clothing, Study Finds

This article was written by Claire Hamlett on the PBN Website.

Nature groups will finally be allowed to release beavers into English waterways after years of rewilding advocacy and debate. According to the Guardian, it’s believed that Downing Street initially blocked beaver release plans because Labour government officials viewed it as a legacy of the previous Tory government that would “needlessly upset farmers.”

The Department for Environment, Food, & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Natural England published a roadmap today that includes a detailed plan for licensing and long-term population management, including for already established beaver colonies.

“The beaver’s ability to transform and revitalize our degraded landscape is extraordinary,” said Stuart Otway, Principal Officer in Natural England’s Complex Cases Unit, and Delphine Pouget, Principal Officer in Natural England’s Species Recovery & Reintroductions Team.

“Natural England believes that their successful reintroduction will play a vital part in restoring rivers and wetlands, addressing the nature crisis, and contributing to the delivery of national biodiversity targets including the creation of wildlife-rich habitats,” they added.

Read more: UK Government ‘Won’t Be Commenting’ On Pre-Election Pledge To Ban Foie Gras

Wild beavers will bring a ‘wealth of ecological benefits’ to England

Beavers are large, semi-aquatic rodents. They were hunted to extinction nearly half a century ago, but 20 years of carefully licensed beaver releases into enclosures, several escapees, and some illegal rewilding created today’s thriving current population of around 400 animals.

Beavers are a keystone species, meaning they help to define their entire ecosystem, and their presence is extremely beneficial for the environment. The 30 families who now live in Somerset’s River Otter – previously the only licensed population in the country – have had a measurable positive impact on their home in the years since the trial began.

Research published by the University of Exeter in 2024 found that beaver-made wetlands promote other wildlife like kingfishers and otters. They also alleviate the impact of flooding and drought, with Devon’s four wild beaver territories storing over 24 million liters of water.

According to the Wildlife Trusts, beavers also clean their water and reduce siltation, something that England’s polluted, frequently lifeless rivers desperately need. Beaver wetlands also sequester carbon, another much-needed ecosystem service.

“After centuries of absence, beavers are beginning to reclaim their rightful place in the English landscape,” said Otway and Pouget. “These industrious mammals, once hunted to extinction, are now being returned to our rivers and wetlands, bringing with them a wealth of ecological benefits.”

Read more: UK Rewilding Group Could Bring Rare White Storks To London

This article was written by Liam Pritchett on the PBN Website.

Burning fossil fuels for energy is widely accepted as the leading cause of global warming. But in a peer-reviewed paper published in Environmental Research Letters, Gerard Wedderburn-Bisshop argues that animal agriculture is actually the primary driver of climate change, responsible for 53 percent of global average temperature rise between 1750 and 2020. That equates to 0.64ºC of warming. In contrast, he claims that fossil fuels are responsible for 19 percent of warming, equating to 0.21°C.

Read more: Scientists Observe Factory Farm Pollution From Space

Wedderburn-Bisshop, a former Australian government environmental scientist who is now Executive Director of World Preservation Foundation, contends that the way emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are calculated, devised in the 1990s, are out of date. Applying advances in understanding of emissions gives a more accurate picture of global warming’s causes, he argues. This method reveals land use change, driven mainly by animal agriculture, to be a far bigger contributor of emissions than previously thought.

Consistent accounting

There are three advances in climate science that Wedderburn-Bisshop applies to arrive at his conclusion. First is the use of consistent carbon accounting. His paper explains that emissions accounting rules of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have meant that full emissions are counted for fossil fuels and all other sources, with the exception of deforestation.

When vegetation and trees regrow, they draw down carbon. This has led to emissions from human activities causing deforestation being counted partially as net emissions rather than gross emissions. Meanwhile, gross emissions are counted for burning fossil fuels. But all emissions, no matter the source, get drawn down by growing vegetation, which means they should be counted the same way, and that deforestation-causing sectors shouldn’t be credited with the free work nature is doing to absorb their emissions, says the study.

Consistent use of gross emissions accounting across sectors reveals animal agriculture, the biggest cause of land use change and deforestation, to be responsible for 19 percent more carbon than fossil fuels since 1750, according to the paper. Another paper published by Wedderburn-Bisshop in October 2024 covers this topic in more depth.

Effective Radiative Forcing and inclusive accounting

How to account for the warming potentials of different greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide and methane, has been the subject of much debate. Global Warming Potential over a 100 year period (GWP100) has been the IPCC standard metric, but recently there have been efforts, pushed particularly by high-methane emitting sectors like animal agriculture, to use others such as GWP*, which accounts for the shorter lifespan of methane compared to CO2.

Instead of GWP, Wedderburn-Bisshop argues that Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF) should be used. “ERFs are the best science available on warming caused by each gas. They are calculated in very complex atmospheric and spatial models, and are fitted to observations, so they are the most accurate metric we have,” he said. Using ERF to measure the climate impact of different gases reveals that methane’s impact, understood cumulatively, has been vastly underestimated.

Read more: UK Facing Broccoli Shortage Due To Changing Climate

The third advance that changes understanding of the main sources of climate change is for all emissions, both warming and cooling, to be counted. While animal agriculture emits mostly warming gases, fossil fuels emit gases that have both warming and cooling effects. The cooling gases have masked the warming impact of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. This inclusive accounting reveals that while fossil fuel warming accounts for 0.79°C, there is 0.59°C cooling from co-emissions. By contrast, agriculture as a whole has caused 0.86°C warming but only 0.13°C cooling.

Policy implications

“Ignoring cooling from fossil fuel burning strongly distorts the true picture of what human activities have caused global warming,” Wedderburn-Bisshop told Plant Based News. “If we account for cooling, we have a far greater understanding of what is actually happening, so we are in a far better position to develop a more effective policy response.”

Applying inclusive and consistent accounting along with ERF would mean a shift in climate policy. “Normalizing and adopting gross deforestation emissions accounting would support policies aimed at reducing deforestation and preserving forests,” writes Wedderburn-Bisshop. “Knowing that clearing and re-clearing re-release an increasing proportion of fossil carbon informs policy that destruction of forest of any age could be seen in the same way as burning coal.”

However, the break down of cooling aerosols will result in future warming from fossil fuels. For this reason, Wedderburn-Bisshop stresses the necessity of an urgent shift away from fossil fuels.

Choices to be made

Wedderburn-Bisshop’s approach disputes the long-held view that fossil fuels are the leading cause of climate change. According to the IPCC, anthropogenic carbon dioxide has contributed the most to global warming, followed by methane. The official figure from the United Nations states that animal agriculture is responsible for 14.5 percent of emissions, which is a figure still supported by many climate scientists. Another study published in 2021 put the “minimum figure” at 16.5 percent.

However, Wedderburn-Bisshop’s paper is part of an ongoing debate about how best to measure emissions and their warming impacts. The IPCC has discussed the choices that need to be made when it comes to which emissions metrics to use. In 2018, it wrote: “Some of the choices involved in metrics are scientific (e.g., type of model, and how processes are included or parameterized in the models). Choices of time frames and climate impact are policy-related and cannot be based on science alone, but can be used to analyse different approaches and policy choices.”

Read more: Over 130 Organizations Call For ‘EU Action Plan’ On Plant-Based Foods

This article was written by Claire Hamlett on the PBN Website.