Monthly Archives: May 2018

Millions set to #PassOnPlastic for world’s first One Plastic Free Day

Millions of people from across the globe are set to say no to plastic pollution as part of the world’s first One Plastic Free Day on June 5 this year.

Organised by international campaign group A Plastic Planet, One Plastic Free Day is aiming to inspire 250 million people from around the world to avoid plastic-packaged food and drink products for 24 hours.

A Plastic Planet is asking social media users to take a photo of the plastic-packaged products they are giving up for One Plastic Free Day and share it on social media, saying why they have been inspired to #PassOnPlastic.

Lives of millions

A Plastic Planet is calling on people everywhere to show how they are breaking free from the shackles of unnecessary plastic packaging.

Campaigners say the day will focus attention on the growing international consensus for radical measures to stem the tide of plastic pollution.

Coinciding with World Environment Day, One Plastic Free Day is also set to prompt international companies to pledge to slash their plastic footprint.

Backed by celebrities including adventurer Ben Fogle and Hollywood actress Bonnie Wright, A Plastic Planet will be sharing on Twitter a host of GIFs that Tweeters can use to signal their support in the lead up to One Plastic Free Day.

Sian Sutherland, a co-founder of A Plastic, said: “One Plastic Free Day will touch the lives of millions of people around the world. Across every continent, people are waking up to the fact that plastic has absolutely no place in food and drink. Where is the logic in wrapping something as fleeting as food in something as indestructible as plastic?

Slowly changing

“Our addiction to plastic is this generation’s smoking. For years, we were blissfully unaware of the terrible damage done by throwaway packaging to our oceans, our soil and the health of future generations. Now we know the truth.

“One Plastic Free Day is all about uniting the world to turn off the plastic tap. It’s just one day to think twice before reaching for that plastic-wrapped food and drink product. None of us are plastic saints; just do what you can.”

Fiona Morgan, head of inspiring action at Sky Ocean Rescue, said: “The world’s first One Plastic Free Day represents a big moment in the fight to stop our oceans from drowning in plastic and spreading the word.

“We all aim to inspire people to make simple everyday changes to eradicate single-use plastic as the problem can be solved by working together. We’re delighted to support A Plastic Planet to encourage people to #PassOnPlastic on June 5.”

Melati Wijsen, founder of Bye Bye Plastic Bags, said: “The beauty of One Plastic Free Day is that it is inspiring millions of young people across Asia and beyond.

“It’s a wonderful action that gets everyone thinking, slowly changing and suddenly it isn’t just one day but everyday in which your lifestyle becomes more plastic-free. I’ve seen what plastic waste has done to my home in Bali and I want to make sure that the world unites so that we stop plastic ruining our beautiful Earth.”

This Article

This article is based on a press release from One Plastic Free Day. 

Stars of stage and screen back national nature challenge 30 Days Wild

Naturalists, TV presenters and authors are backing The Wildlife Trusts’ national nature challenge to do something ‘wild’ every day during June.

Author Abi Elphinstone, TV presenter Gillian Burke, Olympian Alex Gregory, and chart-topping James McVey from The Vamps have all put their weight behind the campaign to reconnect people with wildlife in a fun and inspirational way.

More than 54,500 people, schools and workplaces have signed up to 30 Days Wild which starts on Friday June 1st.  Sign-ups are rising, and organisers hope to beat last year when an estimated 250,000 took part.

Technology is great

New research shows that 30 Days Wild is unique in improving people’s perception of beauty in nature, and that noticing natural beauty makes people happier and want to care for it.

Gillian Burke, the biologist and Springwatch presenter, is supporting 30 Days Wild. Will she dance in a downpour as one of her Random Act of Wildness.

She said: “I’d love people to connect with the wildlife around them – I think lots of people don’t know how to do it… this is the perfect way to start and discover how you can make a difference. Where will your wild adventure take you? I might dance in a downpour!”

Ellie Harrison, the ecologist and Vice President of The Wildlife Trusts said: “We know that encouraging children to spend time in nature is a good thing. It’s not easy for us to remember how to connect with the child within and to have fun. But if we do that, it becomes infectious.”

Alex Gregory, the double Olympic Champion and author of Dadventures said: “It’s all too easy to fall into the habit of walking into the house and shutting the door. There are too many things indoors that are attractive to our children and us adults alike, mostly revolving around a screen. I think technology is great, I love it, as long as there is something else.

Mental health

“Often the best memories are made quickly for free. This is what the outdoors gives us. Taking the first step outside is the biggest challenge, after that, with a willing mind and a spot of enthusiasm, bonding moments and lasting memories can easily be made together. What is it that we remember from our childhoods? That afternoon watching TV? Or the time mum climbed a tree with us after school?”

Nick Baker, the naturalist and Vice President of The Wildlife Trusts said: “Ever since I was a small boy I’ve been fascinated by wildlife and the natural world. It’s so important for us all to have regular contact with nature – I know it makes me feel happier and healthier.”

Isabel Hardman, the assistant editor of The Spectator, and founder of #wildflowerhour, added: “As a society, we’re really disconnected from nature. Some people think you have to go miles to see wildlife, but we don’t even notice nature at our feet.

“I take time for myself and for nature every day, no matter how busy I am. Those 15 minutes outside are just more important for my mental health, so I prioritise them. Even in the middle of the city, there’s always something to see, something to learn.

“Being involved in nature gives people a way of talking about mental health. It helps to build something we’ve lost, too – community. The online nature-loving community is huge, and 30 Days Wild is the perfect way to tap into that.”

Natural beauty

New this year is the first ever Big Wild Weekend from 16 June with more than 100 wildlife events including bushcraft, osprey trails, mammal tracking, wild sleepovers, wild picnics and more.

Abi Elphinstone, author of the bestselling children’s novel SKY SONG, spent her childhood building dens and running wild across highland glens. She said: “My siblings and I used to camp under the stars up the glen, fish our pond for giant beetles and scramble over the moors in search of hidden waterfalls – and I believe the reason I am a writer is because the wilderness I explored as a child made me one.”

New research shows that 30 Days Wild is unique in improving people’s perception of beauty in nature, and that noticing natural beauty makes people happier and want to care for it.

Dr Miles Richardson, Director of Psychology, University of Derby explains: “Over the past three years we’ve repeatedly found that taking part in 30 Days Wild improves health, happiness, nature connection and conservation behaviours. Now we’ve discovered that engagement with the beauty of nature is part of that story.

“Tuning-in to the everyday beauty of nature becomes part of a journey which connects us more deeply to the natural world. As people’s appreciation of natural beauty increases, so does their happiness.  

Garden meadows

“We respond to beauty – it restores us and balances our emotions. This, in turn, encourages people to do more to help wildlife and take action for nature.”

30 Days Wild is encouraging people to make their neighbourhoods wilder and green-up their streets, to help wildlife and to share the joy of nature.

Lucy McRobert, campaigns manager for The Wildlife Trusts concludes: “30 Days Wild is a lovely way to get closer to nature and marvel at the everyday wildlife that lives all around you.

“Sit quietly and enjoy watching dragonflies dance over a pond or take a moment to sow a window-box of wildflowers to help bees. Get together with your neighbours to create hedgehog highways or sow front-garden meadows along the length of your street. No matter how small the action, it all counts!”

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This story is based on a press release from 30 Days Wild.

Readers who sign up for 30 Days Wild will receive a free pack with a booklet of inspirational ideas for Random Acts of Wildness, a recipe for wild strawberry and thyme ice cream, wildflower-seeded paper to sow, a wall chart to record your activities and wild stickers. There are special online packs for schools with outdoor lesson plans and giant Random Act of Wildness cards. Workplaces can join in too, with tailored download packs to bring the ‘wild’ to work.

Defending democracy in Brazil means demanding Lula da Silva’s freedom

The unlawful imprisonment of Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, Brazil’s former president, and the speed with which his false charges were pushed through the courts show how aggressively the country’s rightwing forces are pushing back against the working classes. 

Shouting Lula Livre – “Free Lula” – is about far more than showing support for Lula’s Workers’ Party, or backing a particular candidate. And what is at stake is a political, not a judicial, struggle: the dominant classes are desperate to prevent Lula from running in October’s presidential election, because they want to stall greater social equality.

In this context the fight for Lula’s right to be a candidate represents the resistance of the peasants, the working classes, students, feminists, environmentalists, black and indigenous peoples to current attempts to destroy several decades of hard-won progress on Brazilian peoples’ rights and democracy.

Multiple coups

Sergio Moro, a federal judge, sentenced Lula to nine and a half years in prison in July 2017, based on false corruption and money laundering charges.

Moro claimed Lula was the secret owner of a three-storey apartment allegedly given to him by the OAS construction company in exchange for contracts with the state-owned oil giant Petrobras.

In January 2018, a separate court increased Lula’s sentence to 12 years. Lula’s request to remain free while he appealed the conviction was denied on 4 April by the Supreme Federal Court, the highest court in Brazil. After a massive rally in front of the Metalworkers Union Office in São Bernardo, Lula handed himself in to police on 7 April.

Across Brazil and the world, legal experts have condemned Lula’s incarceration as unlawful and unconstitutional. This is nothing more than a coup d’état aimed at stopping Lula, whose approval rating runs at 80 percent in some parts of Brazil, from once again governing the country.

Lula’s imprisonment is the conclusion of the rightwing political putsch, begun in 2016 with the illegitimate ouster of president Dilma Rousseff, a Workers’ Party member elected in 2014.

Dilma Rousseff was overthrown through joint parliamentary, judicial and media-based manoeuvres aimed at privatising Brazil, handing the country over to bankers, transnational corporations and the national conservative elite.

This is now the de facto regime’s power base, supporting the illegitimate and submissive ‘president’ Michel Temer. Temer is subservient to the transnational oil giants Shell, Exxon and BP. In return for their support, Temer has granted the fossil fuel companies deepwater oil exploration rights.

Life and death

The current situation needs to be laid out with all clarity: what is at stake in Brazil is the people’s right to food, housing, healthcare, education, and a life without fear.

Since Temer came to power, we have witnessed the reversal of loans for family farming, the removal of massive housing programs for low income families, and the withdrawal of popular Brazilian cultural revival and development programs.

Transnational agribusiness and the national agrarian elites are cashing in for their interests. Public spending on education and healthcare has been frozen for 20 years through a Constitutional amendment passed by Congress and ratified by Temer.

The social programs and policies for women established under the Workers’ Party tenures have been completely dismantled or undergone dramatic budget cuts, in a context of rising living costs and minimum salary reductions. 

The weight of expected social security repeals will also be borne by women and the working class, while private banks secure windfall deals. Because lives are now at stake in Brazil, it is essential to protect defenders, and defend the unity of the people and the leftwing forces, as well as basic civil and political rights.

In February 2018 – after a Rio Carnival in which the Paraíso do Tuiuti samba school questioned whether slavery still exists in Brazil – the illegitimate Federal Government ordered the Army’s intervention in the city under the guise of tackling gang violence.

But the military intervention was buying Temer time to force through murky dealings. Constitutional amendments, such as the social security repeal, cannot be voted on during a State of Emergency, and Temer’s government had not yet secured the political backing necessary for its bill to pass in Congress. 

On 14 March, Marielle Franco, a black, lesbian feminist and elected municipal legislator for the Socialism and Liberty Party, and one of the most militant voices against the military occupation of the favelas (shanty towns) and defender of human rights – was murdered.

Franco had denounced the Army’s ongoing abuses in the Acari community of Rio de Janeiro the day before she was attacked, along with her driver Anderson Pedro Gomes and advisor Fernada Chaves, who survived. No one has been arrested over the murders. 

On 24 January, Márcio Oliveira Matos, another Landless Workers’ Movement leader, was killed at home in the rural settlement Boa Sorte in the region of Chapada Diamantina, Bahia, where he also worked as public administrative secretary for the municipality of Itaetê.

Front Line Defenders reported in their Annual Report on Human Rights Defenders at Risk in 2017 that Brazil was the deadliest country in the world for human rights defenders, with 67 activists murdered.

Meanwhile, the Pastoral Land Commission, which specialises in the analysis of land rights conflicts in Brazil, said last year’s levels of violence against human rights defenders broke all records since 2003. 

Colonialism reborn

Latin America knows by heart the assault of imperialist forces on its democratic processes. Brazil’s current struggle draws us back to the 1964 military coup, in which thousands of activists were tortured, disappeared and murdered, and leftwing political parties were forced underground. 

Shortly before the Supreme Federal Court’s decision on Lula’s submission to remain free during his appeal, Army Commander-in-Chief Eduardo Villas-Boas clearly intended to intimidate the court when he tweeted that the military “rejects impunity” and demands “respect for the Constitution, social peace and democracy”. 

We are witnessing the revival of the colonialism and racism that subdued our Indigenous peoples and African-descended population with slavery, expropriation and genocide. 

The male chauvinist movement in Congress shouted “Goodbye, dear!” as Dilma was ousted, only to be replaced with an entirely male cabinet. It is seeking to deny our historical and hard-won conquests and deprive us of political space.

Nevertheless, social movements in Brazil are fighting harder than ever for a more participatory democracy. We have taken responsibility for our role as agents of change and are building unity in the struggle for sovereignty.

In this way, we are all Marielle, Marcio, Lula – the defenders of the commons, territories and democracy who are attacked, persecuted and killed. Crying “Free Lula” today represents the fight for system change and the acceptance of one’s self as part of this historical responsibility.

This Author

Lucia Ortiz was born in Porto Alegre, Brazil. She is a geologist and has worked with Friends of the Earth Brazil for environmental justice since 2000. For the last seven years she has been coordinating Friends of the Earth International’s Economic Justice Resisting Neoliberalism program.

Why Podemos and els Comuns have so far failed the Catalan fight

Catalonia and its capital have in recent years seen many attempts at improving the environment and society. The Town Hall led by activists in the Barcelona en Comú (BeC) platform has managed to include environmental clauses in 80 per cent of public contracts.

It now has a municipal energy corporation that will employ solar panels around the city to illuminate street lighting and public buildings. By January some households will be able to switch to public energy – and enjoy reductions to bills if they install their own solar panels.

Advances such as these – as well as in the social field and the ability of campaigners to shape policy – have made mayor Ada Colau and ‘the Commons’ a cause célebrè among many activists internationally. 

Collective empowerment

Environmental laws with a potentially far bigger reach were passed by the Catalan parliament – led by an alliance between pro-independence platforms. These included a ban on fracking, and introducing carbon taxes and targets for making energy provision renewable. Further legislation was approved to prohibit evictions, close migrant detention centres, and introduce a basic income. 

The problem with the parliamentary changes has been that the Constitutional Court (TC) – Spain’s highest legal body – suspended their application in the run up to the referendum on independence. The odd suspension has in turn been lifted since but others – including against fracking – have not.

In some cases rejection was attributed to the Catalan parliament supposedly acting beyond its administrative jurisdiction, but ideological motivations were also apparent.

For instance, the TC ruled that imposing a 50 percent target for renewable energy (only by 2030) would be too costly for firms! The suspensions added to Catalans’ existing resentment towards the state’s prohibition of a referendum on independence.

In the end, more than two million people made the 1 October 2017 vote happen despite large-scale police violence in what has been described as “one of the most powerful demonstrations of collective empowerment in Europe in decades”. 

Explosive events

This mobilisation and a general strike two days later was opposed by the Catalan one per cent – as shown by the largest firms relocating their headquarters elsewhere in the Spanish state – and was led by an independence movement that was politically mixed, fairly middle-class, but more left-wing than the Catalan average.

Elections and polls suggested that a Catalan government of parties to the left of traditional social democracy was a real possibility. So surely supporting Catalan self-determination was a ‘no brainer’ for the left? Not so – unfortunately.

The Socialists (PSOE) – if they should even be treated as left-wing – has been a pillar of support in suppressing Catalonia’s self-government after its parliament declared independence in late October.

The party was rightly attacked for doing this by Podemos and the Barcelona and Catalan ‘Comuns’ – political organisations created out of a wave of grassroots protest across Spain, between 2010 and 2014. BeC even ended its government coalition with the Catalan Socialists.

Yet crucially neither Podemos or els Comuns recognised the October vote as a real – or binding – referendum, in the process demoralising and saddening a great many Catalans. This was despite the nastiness of the Spanish state being clear long before the explosive events in September and October.

Arresting officials

The Rajoy government had refused many Catalan requests for dialogue over holding a bilaterally recognised vote, and a minister was revealed to have conspired with ‘anti-corruption’ chiefs and police to expose (or frame) pro-Catalan politicians for corruption. A handful of Catalan ministers were fined 5 million euros for holding a non-binding referendum in 2014. 

A gulf emerged between much of the grassroots of the ‘new politics’ and their leaderships. When Podemos Catalonia members voted to participate on 1 October, Pablo Iglesias, Spanish general secretary, rapidly tweeted that if he “were Catalan”, he would not vote.

The parliamentary group leader of the Catalan Podemos-Communist (CSQP) alliance played a notable role attacking the “illegality” of the referendum, bureaucratically silencing pro-referendum voices from group MPs – despite half of CSQP voters backing a unilateral referendum.

A very different approach was taken by the general secretary of Podemos Catalonia, Albano-Dante Fachín. Despite not being pro-independence, he was among the first to call for the grassroots occupation that ended up happening on 1 October, which he rightly maintained was needed to defend democracy

Colau and Iglesias were active in denouncing the savagery of the state after the struggle escalated from late September, sparked by police sent to Catalonia raiding government offices and arresting officials. This was a very welcome contribution due to their considerable political profile across Spain.

However, once independence was declared, the Catalan ministers were imprisoned and new elections were imposed, Comuns leaders spent almost as much time attacking those being repressed as the authoritarian actions by the state.

Moreover, in the election campaign, despite the recent imprisonment of ministers and activists, the Comuns-Podemos-Communist coalition was silent over ways to overcome the national conflict. 

Justifications for ambiguity?

What is the reasoning that the new left gives to support its performance? Ada Colau told me in March that the referendum could not be have been treated as binding because “many Catalans felt it did not address them”.

She argued that Catalans’ were more likely to get a right to decide through winning “new majorities” in Spain, rather than the unilateral road which she said “produced repression, the imprisonment of leaders, and the loss of Catalan self-government”. Similar ideas have been defended by Podemos and Communist partners – among them IU leader Alberto Garzón.

For Catalan activists Pau Llonch and Josep-Maria Antennas, the promise of constitutional reform through political change on a Spanish level rings hollow. The impossibility of minority-national independence is a pillar of the constitutional text, which was mainly written by ex-Franco supporters.

It only can be reversed by an elected national government, and even then when the reform was backed by two thirds of members in both the Congress and the Senate. But the three biggest political groups in Congress actively support the repressive intervention in Catalonia, and the make up of the Senate is even less favourable to territorial democratisation.

Podemos is the one party that acknowledges the ‘multi-national’ nature of the state and defends progressive reform. But the organisation has been in steady decline on many levels – exemplified by its current crisis over a party plebiscite on whether Iglesias and his parliamentary-spokeswoman partner were right to buy an expensive house in an elite area!

Existing power

Furthermore, the party’s aspirations were lowered to being a junior partner in a Socialist (PSOE) government years back, and the PSOE wants to harden the constitution to facilitate longer sentences for those struggling for independence! All this makes territorial change through Madrid at best a pipe-dream, and at worst an insult to people’s intelligence. 

The second problem with Podemos and the Commons’ approach has been their decision to effectively turn their backs on a mass grassroots movement. By denying the practical effects of the movement’s central act – the referendum – they may have arguably encouraged Rajoy and the judges in their offensive. It is easier to attack a vote only supported by “nationalists” – rather than a broader group of supporters.

As state, media and corporate elites all acted against the vote, the referendum needed be recognised and acted upon as a form of class struggle. Big errors have also been made on the pro-independence side: especially by its liberal leadership, which was slow to declare independence and then deserted the battlefield during the backlash. But Podemos and els Comuns’ ambiguities also have played their part in the recent defeats.

Fundamentally, the ‘new politics’ has made the old mistake – also made by early social-democrats – of seeing the institutions as the main instrument for change. This leads to an obsession with “winning” elections and remaining popular. This in turn leads to attempts to represent the many Commons voters that have Spanish nationalist ideas.

Their left-reformism also led Iglesias, Colau and the new organisations to join forces with Communist-led organisations – such as ICV in Catalonia. Yet the dominant aspiration in ICV has been – for decades – to be the left wing of the existing power structures.

Repelling progressives

It was sadly predictable that they would leap to the defence of the “’78 regime” at its most difficult hour, and that they would make it difficult for more principled members of the new parties to be able to shape events.

As the new left has adapted to being in the institutions – and the movement towards the referendum refused to be de-railed – it has progressively abandoned commitment to minority-national democracy, including the Commons’ initial defence of Catalonia having non-subordinated sovereignty.

Podemos has been worse at responding to the Catalan struggle because of its Laclauian populist strategy – based on mobilising “progressive patriotic” sentiment.

This approach was modelled on Latin American political movements that mobilised left-nationalism in a context of US regional hegemony and interference.

But such a strategy is more problematic in the Spanish state. As well as Spanish nationalism repelling progressives due to its association with Franco’s regime, it is a worldview difficult to marry with allowing Spain’s minority nations to separate to form their own state.

When Podemos first stood in elections – in May 2014 – its programme included Catalans having the “right to decide”. Once it adopted populism – later combined with euro-communism – it even dropped support for a grassroots initiative to create a progressive Catalan constitution – independent or federalist. 

In its beginnings Podemos and the Commons promised a “democratic revolution” – but in Catalonia they have failed a massive democratic test. Fortunately the pro-Catalan grassroots are still on the street fighting for change. Environmental and social movements would do well to follow suit.

This Author

Luke Stobart is currently writing for Verso Books on recent challenges to the status quo in the Spanish state. Please support his related crowdfunding campaign on Verkami.

Farming’s shame: the unbelievable cruelty of Red Tractor Assured pig farming

Many pork products appear – at the point of purchase – to come from decent, traditional farms. Farms where animals are a healthy, happy and valued as part of the operation before some of them are turned into food. Sadly, the reality is grim.

The shocking truth is that the vast majority of meat sold in the UK comes from intensive operations where the animals live short lives of intense misery. The businesses are increasingly automated and mechanised, minimising human contact and turning these sentient animals into cogs in a grisly, grinding economic machine.

Read: Special Investigation: How the common agricultural policy promotes pollution

In recent years the value of pork has fallen, demand for pork in the UK has dropped, production continues to rise as efficiency and productivity improve, leading to more pig meat on the market. UK pork battles against cheaper EU imports, exacerbated by the weakness of the euro against the sterling.  

Environmental stimulation

These pressures on UK pig farming favours the expansion of intensively raised pigs, where farmers have massive pig units, as well as producing their own animal feeds and utilising waste products – slurry – to increase profits.

Supermarkets and food corporations facilitate the descent to lower welfare meat by using misleading marketing and, in many cases, creating fake farms to label products.

Consumers are supposed to drive the market and influence what the supermarkets sell, in turn influencing what farms produce. However, in reality supermarkets are price driven, and consumers are blind to the realities of farming.

Assurance Schemes, such as The Red Tractor, are designed to reassure customers but actually simply deceive. The “hellhole” pig “farm” exposed by a Viva! investigation and reported in the Daily Mail was Red Tractor Assured.

The pigs were crammed into small, dirty concrete pens. Dead animals lay rotting. Chains were hung from the ceiling – a grotesque perversion supposed to offer the animals environmental stimulation but actually just making the scene more reminiscent of a concentration camp.

High welfare

Lex Rigby, campaigns manager at Viva! said: “Consumers are increasingly led to believe the UK has the highest animal welfare standards in the world, yet time and time again our undercover investigations have revealed the shocking reality of what that in truth means.

“We’ve filmed dead and dying animals crammed into squalid overcrowded hellholes; dumped and abandoned in gangways; tossed in wheelbarrows and left to rot. We’ve witnessed an appalling lack of enrichment in their filthy concrete prisons, leading to further frustration, aggression and ultimately cannibalism. It’s no life for any animal.”

The Red Tractor helps farmers to sell their product, as they sell under the supposed banner of quality-assured British food. The farms are inspected by Red Tractor, which has been government-assured, meaning they will receive fewer inspections from government authorities.

This lax approach to regulation means welfare standards are not fully adhered to, and, for the benefit of profit, farmers can cut corners and find ‘excuses’ for not fully complying or committing to better welfare for the pigs.

This ill conceived system makes it more profitable for farmers to massively dose their pigs with antibiotics, so they can be kept indoors at the highest densities. With the current floored certification schemes the only way a consumer can actually be confident of buying high welfare pork is by purchasing organic.

Potentially grim

All UK pig farmers are required to ensure that pigs have some material to nest and play with to give them some stimulation from their environment. Horrifyingly, many farmers achieve this by simply hanging chains in the pig’s sheds. The Red Tractor Pig Standards stipulate that “chains alone are not acceptable”, they may only be used when in conjunction with other objects or materials.

Farmers are able to get around these regulations by saying they throw in a handful of root vegetables, or put a handful of shredded paper in a farrowing crate (which is pretty useless to a sow, considering she can’t turn around or move enough to make a nest with it).

Government authorities are ultimately responsible for ensuring farms are conforming to current welfare regulations. However it is quite evident that this system is not working. Government authorities devolve enforcement to assurance schemes, who are giving certification to farms in breach of even the minimum standards of welfare.

Some UK supermarkets have committed to selling 100 percent fresh UK pork, which appears to the consumer as good news, supporting the ‘British’ campaign, and one major supermarket appears to be leading the way in high welfare pork, with the majority of it’s fresh products labeled as ‘Outdoor Reared’.

However, many of the labels on food packaging are actively misleading. For example, “outdoor reared” pigs are born outside, but then actually spend the vast majority of their lives indoors in potentially grim conditions.

Contract growers

The gaping chasm between consumer understanding and reality has led to increasingly urgent campaigning on the part of organisations like Compassion in World Farming and Farms Not Factories as well as many celebrity chefs from Jamie Oliver to Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, all of whom strongly oppose the way these intelligent, social mammals are being treated.

These campaigns are having some traction in the UK. Sales of higher welfare meat have gone up. Perhaps more significantly, veganism is growing very rapidly as people turn their backs on animal products altogether.

However, globally the demand for meat is increasing. Some large pig operations in the UK are keen to grow rapidly, often encouraging ‘contract growers’ (who are given pigs at weaning age and are fed till slaughter) to join their business. Many have no background in farming and are purely in it for profit.

The “hell hole” pig factory which has so shocked consumers was run by JMW Farms. JMW farms is one of the largest producers of pigs in the UK and Ireland. Almost unbelievably, after the investigation was made public they were inspected by Red Tractor – which found nothing wrong with their operation. 

JMW has ended its lease at Lambrook Farm after the exposure of this particular pig unit. However, being a massive company with several farms in Northern Ireland, England and Ireland and with over 50 contract growers, the closure of one unit was inconsequential to them.

Pig ‘performance’

The company have since purchased a £5.85 million pound farm in Norfolk, housing 30,000 pigs, and have expanded a pig unit in Somerset housing 8,000 finishing pigs.

JMW is a typical example of a UK livestock mega farm.  To maximise profits it combines pig production with being a feed miller and renewable energy producer – energy produced in an anaerobic digester using pig slurry.

The company has an annual turnover of about £40 million. It employs 145 persons, as well as providing self-employment opportunities for 50 contract growers and the associated supply chain.

JMW currently has 15,000 sows with a current stock level of 140,000 pigs and killing over 250,000 pigs per annum. JMW is thought to supply Tesco and Asda supermarkets, as well as exporting meat products worldwide, including an expanding Asian market.

The company has a pig research unit, which is researching ways of reducing the costs of animal feed without reducing pig ‘performance’ – the number of piglets born per sow and their growth rate to slaughter.  

Mass production

They have produced a liquid feed, which doesn’t affect productivity, but sadly for the pigs denies them the pleasure of even eating solid food, and also causes a 2-fold increase in ‘sow dirtiness’ – unpleasant for the pig, but no consequence to the farmer as the pigs are housed on a slatted floor so the slurry is carried away to the anaerobic digester to generate energy.  

These disturbing practices and trends demonstrate how the quest for increased profit drives a race to the bottom for animal welfare. Businesses demonstrating no concern for animal welfare perform well on the stock exchange.

JMW, the Armagh-based company, has been included in a list of Britain’s elite businesses by the London Stock Exchange in 2016. The Inspire report highlighted the fast-growing companies headquartered outside London. Jim Wright of JMW Farms was a Entrepreneur of the Year finalist, and named NSF Assured Pig Farmer of the Year, 2015.  

JMW describes itselve as having “an acute awareness of the worldwide need for conservation and sustainability of natural resources and have to date made considerable investment in renewable energies. JMW Farms pride themselves in their personal ecological policy and endeavour to continue with this policy all the while contributing to the country’s economy and infrastructure.”

In reality, JMW Farms dominate the market and perpetuate poor welfare standards, its portrayal of being ecologically sustainable is only a result of the need to dispose of a mass production of slurry which is diverted into renewable energy via biogas. However, they are actually legally obliged to deal with this waste, otherwise they wouldn’t gain the environmental licence enabling them to operate.

Consumer driven

JMW is expanding its recruitment of ‘contract growers’, who are private/independent farmers who have entered into an agreement with JMW to grow pigs. Terms are agreed where JMW farms supply the pig and the contract grower feeds the pig. The arrangement works on a target /performance basis which when achieved is both beneficial to grower and producer.

One such contract grower, who has 2,000 pigs in a purpose built unit, with automated feed and drink, is quoted to say: “If someone from a timber background with no experience of farming can do it, anyone can!”

The set up seems to require very little human engagement with the animals, this is no longer farming, it is so far removed from what farming is and should be, this is just a money making business raising and exploiting animals in an inhumane way.

Despite JMW being portrayed as having an astute business acumen, with it’s business awards, it is certainly not on the list of high welfare, environmentally conscious farms with close ties to the land.  Its farm’s published offenses include: being prosecuted for keeping to many pigs; being fined for a forklift death and a fine for breaching environmental regulation.

Sadly, JMW Farms is not unusual in how they treats pigs. Many intensive pig factories in the UK have similar conditions. Regulators do not strictly apply animal welfare legislation and penalties are not strong enough to change farm’s operations.  

Consumers are blind to how their meat is raised, and they are heavily influenced by marketing and price. The consumer driven market is a myth. If you want to help end this immense suffering the only option is to stop buying normal pork products and join the campaigns to prevent business people from setting up operations that mistreat animals like this.

These Authors

Matt Mellen is a communicator and strategist specialising in movement building, public affairs and environmental campaigns. He founded an edits EcoHustler Online Magazine. Kirstie Philpot has worked in research, animal behaviour, ecology, wildlife epidemiology, and farm animal welfare. She has also worked in a senior role within the healthcare industry.

Problem to opportunity: migration in times of climate change

Misunderstanding No.1: “Climate change is leading to an increase in natural disasters, and these disaster are the main cause of climate migration.”

Human-induced climatic changes are leading to more frequent and often intensified hurricanes, floods and droughts. A severe tropical storm, for example, can cause the deaths of many people, destroy infrastructure and property, and ultimately lead to the evacuation and expulsion of tens of thousands. In 2016 alone, about 23.5 million people were displaced by natural disasters.

However, it’s important to distinguish between the temporary displacement of communities and permanent migration. After a natural disaster like a hurricane or a flood has occurred, most of the people affected will eventually return home – in the course of weeks or months after the event – and will try to rebuild what has been destroyed.

Picking up life again in the wake of a natural disaster, however, is never straightforward. Sometimes there is nothing left to rebuild: the island state of Fiji, for example, has lost almost 50 percent of its Domestic National Product during the 2017 hurricane season because of sustained damages to their community.

Although they can be considered the most visible and sudden expression of climate change, natural disasters are not the main drivers of global climate-induced migration.

More devastating than these individual extreme events, however, are slow environmental changes that occur due to a changing climate: desertification, soil destruction, changing precipitation patterns and sea-level rise, all contribute to food scarcity, loss of livelihood and social pressure. These so-called slow-onset events force people to abandon their traditional lifestyle and to find other ways to make ends meet.

One way to deal with these changes is to search for a ‘better’ place to live. Even then environmental degradation and natural disasters are often only an additional trigger, and not the main cause for people migrating.

Chronic poverty, issues of land ownership, limited local employment opportunities and lack of state support in the region of origin usually play a more decisive role in people’s migration story. Additional ‘pull factors’ such as the promise of better work and improved living standards in other places, further add to the complex confluence of factors driving migration.

Although they can be considered the most visible and sudden expression of climate change, natural disasters are not the main drivers of global climate-induced migration.

Misunderstanding No.2: “Europe will be flooded by climate refugees.”

No. At the moment Europe should not be expecting millions of ‘climate refugees’ seeking refuge within its borders, and even in the near future this not a realistic scenario.

Forecasts range from 25 million to one billion people displaced by climate and environmental changes worldwide by 2050 – and are highly controversial. They are based on a wide variety of climate scenarios and assumptions about the responses of the affected populations. Accurately predicting this complex play between climate and migration is not within science’s capacity at the moment.

When conditions can no longer sustain the communities in a particular region, the main destination for those moving will be a larger city in their homeland. Only a small fraction of people migrating choose to leave their homeland across borders.

Although millions of people are currently already affected by climate change in a direct manner, most of them stay in their home region and try to cope with the changes that come their way. That often results in stronger inequity, less food and less local jobs.

When conditions can no longer sustain the communities in a particular region, the main destination for those moving will be a larger city in their homeland.

There they hope for better opportunities and can often count on friends or family to support them. Only a small fraction of people migrating choose to leave their homeland across borders, and more than 90 percent of these transnational migrants will look for a new life in countries directly neighbouring their own.

The long road to Europe is simply too expensive for those most affected by climate change: local farmers in Africa and Asia.

Misunderstanding No.3: “Those displaced by climate change are the most vulnerable population group.”

Not all people in a certain region are equally at risk from the effects of climate change. Important here is not only how extreme events and climate change affect a region, but also who is affected by these changes, and whether those affected have the resources and skills to avert the damages and manage the consequences.

Both adapting to climate change and climate migration are primarily social phenomena. Studies in the north of Bangladesh, for example, show how richer villagers have a higher resilience in years of drought or flooding, and are able to compensate for their failed harvests with other income and savings.

The ‘middle class’ has a bit more difficulties in times of scarcity, and often individual family members are temporarily sent to neighboring cities where alternative means of income are more abundant.The income collected in the city can then be used to repair the incurred damages and to maintain the family.

Those leaving a region affected by change are often the most well-off segment of the population. The ones most affected by climate change often don’t have the means to escape or change their situation.

The (mostly landless) poorer classes are often forced to migrate after environmental change hits, because there is no adequate work left in the area. At their new destination they often have to work hard at the lowest wages and are exposed to exploitation and marginalisation. They can barely make up for their losses and have a hard time maintaining their family.

The poorest layer of the population, however, is no longer able to migrate to a new region. They have insufficient resources or too weak health to take the journey, and are sometimes called the “imprisoned population”.

This stratified distribution of resilience to economic and environmental changes within local communities shows there is no common response to a disrupted environment.

Those leaving a region affected by change are often the most well-off segment of the population. The ones most affected by climate change often don’t have the means to escape or change their situation, further aggravating social inequality and injustice.

Migration as an opportunity for adaptation to climate change

Climate change is certainly not an isolated factor in the current displacement of hundreds of thousands of people, and Europe is certainly not the main destination for people migrating.

A changing climate does, however, play an increasingly prominent role in the migration story of those who try to build up their lives in a new place.

The debate on climate and migration should not be blinded by the numbers behind displaced persons and migrants, but should focus on the opportunities that migration brings as an adaptation strategy for those affected by climate change.

The mobility of people in the context of climate change should not be seen as the failure of local adaptation to new weather conditions.

On the contrary, insofar as human rights and dignity are respected and workers are protected from exploitation, migration opens new and often better life perspectives for many people who are affected by climate change, and leads to new experiences, new knowledge and new capital. Often it is the only way to successfully adapt to local changes in the climate.

This relatively new perspective – migration not as a problem, but as an opportunity to better deal with the challenges of climate change – is also increasingly recognized by policy makers.

This Author

Arthur Wyns is a tropical biologist and science journalist who writes about climate change, environment and migration. Arthur and the Masereel Fund are working on an informing and sensitising project around climate migration from a co-human perspective, in collaboration with other partners. More information can be found at klimaatling.be. Arthur tweets from @ArthurWyns.

10 animal and environment campaigns you can support right now

1) PETA: stop Amazon allowing the sale of live animals

Amazon is allowing live lobsters to be packaged and delivered by post. The small sea creatures that can journey up to 100 miles in a year are denied any natural livelihood and are put under stressful conditions when they are packaged in cramped boxes and sent to buyers. This is a welfare concern for PETA who say that the conditions in the packaging mean that they are unable to breathe properly.

What you can do: Send a letter to Mr Douglas Gurr, Amazon UK Country Manager, asking him to ban the sale of lobster and other live animals.

2) Friends of the Earth: prevent fracking in Lancashire

Fracking firm Cuadrilla Resources plans to start the UK’s first major commercial fracking operation in summer 2018, depending on government consent. The local council rejected their fracking plans in 2015 but following the government’s overturning of the decision, Cuadrilla recently finished drilling the country’s first horizontal well at their Preston New Road site in Lancashire.

What you can do: Ask Greg Clark, the energy secretary, to stop the operations by refusing to give his consent.

3) Kathleen Haase on change.org: stop Thomas Cook and British Airways supporting SeaWorld

The documentary Blackfish struck a chord for many with its heartbreaking story about the treatment of killer whales at amusement parks. However, leisure resorts such as SeaWorld still operate despite the physical and mental trauma its operations can cause whales. The British tourism companies Thomas Cook and British Airways continue to sell tickets to SeaWorld, thereby supporting this treatment of the animals. At the end of April, SeaWorld’s Orlando park reportedly failed an animal welfare inspection ordered by Thomas Cook.

What you can do: Write a letter to Thomas Cook asking them to stop selling tickets, and sign a petition demanding the same of British Airways.

4) Woodland Trust: stop the destruction of ancient woodland in South Wales

South Wales local council is threatening several ancient woodlands with its plans to build a new link road for improving access to Cardiff airport. In April, Vale of Glamorgan council announced two potential routes for a new road connecting the A48 with junction 34 the M4, but the two options would mean destroying six and seven ancient woodlands respectively.

What you can do: Sign a petition to call on the council to reconsider their plans in a way that wouldn’t destroy ancient woodlands.

5)  Greenpeace: re-allocate quotas for sustainable fishing and coastal communities

Fishing quotas limit the amount of fish caught by each boat. Greenpeace has found that just three companies have 61% of the English fishing quota. Large operators are typically less sustainable, says Greenpeace, and do not offer as many benefits and employment opportunities to coastal communities.

What you can do: Send a letter to Michael Gove, the environment secretary, and George Eustice, the fisheries minister, to re-allocate the fishing quotas to local and more sustainable fishers.

6) Soil Association: stop greenwashing beauty products

The beauty industry has been ‘greenwashing’ beauty products, according to the Soil Association. Beauty companies have been using misleading labels that say their products are organic, when they actually contain ingredients prohibited from certified products.

What you can do: sign the petition calling on companies to use ‘natural’ and ‘organic’ claims responsibly.

7) Friends of the Earth: reduce pesticide use to save insect populations

Pesticides are linked to struggling populations of bees and other insects in the UK, and local council policies are crucial to protecting them. Friends of the Earth has successfully asked some local councils to put vital pollinating insects first by introducing Pollinator Action Plans.

What you can do: ask your local council to put its own Pollinator Action Plan in place and share your ideas for making a difference.

8) 10:10: make the rules on wind power fair

Plans to build new onshore wind farms in England are currently being hobbled by government rules, despite the potential of such sites to help the country tackle climate change. The written ministerial statement on onshore wind, issued 18 June 2015, introduced additional planning requirements for onshore wind farms which made it harder to get the go-ahead for new sites.

What you can do: write to James Brokenshire, secretary of state for housing, to ask him to unlock onshore wind by removing these additional planning requirements.

9) RSPCA: ban sky lanterns on council land

Paper sky lanterns make for an exotic and colourful addition to any celebration, but most people don’t know how harmful they can be to wildlife and farm animals. More than 200,000 sky lanterns (also known as Chinese lanterns) are sold in the UK each year, and when the flame extinguishes, they fall back to earth. Animals can then get injured or die from getting tangled up in the wire frames or ingesting them. Lanterns are illegal in parts of Germany and Austria or this reason, and now 16 out of 22 Welsh councils have banned them on their land.

What you can do: urge your local council to ban the use of sky lanterns on council-owned land.

10) Caged Nationwide on change.org: end the use of bolt guns on unwanted greyhounds

Thousands of ex-racing greyhounds are not rehomed and become “unaccounted for” every year.  Existing UK legislation states that any person can use a bolt gun to destroy a greyhound if they are the legal owner. Botched attempts can leave dogs injured and in pain until a vet puts them down. Caged Nationwide attempts to alert the public to the wrongs of greyhound racing in general, but it is campaigning for a change in law so the animals are at least entitled to a humane death if they must be put down at all.

What you can do: sign the petition calling for a change in law so the animals must be put down with intravenous euthanasia, administered by trained vets.

These Authors

Ellie O’Donnell is a freelancer and investigative journalism MA student on the Evening Standard Scholarship at City University. She tweets at @ellietodonnell. Alexandra Heal is a journalist and MA student at City University, London. She freelances for BBC News and is co-founder of siftguide.com. She tweets at @alexandraheal. 

What aquaculture could mean for fish populations

Fish farming could be useful for economies, hunger and wild fish populations.

Humans need protein to survive. Protein helps build muscle, bone and skin, and it also helps your body produce and repair tissue. Protein gives your body the energy it needs to function throughout the day, and assists in maintaining or losing weight. Protein also contributes to concentration and brain function.

Fish and seafood are excellent sources of protein because they are low in fat but high in protein and other vitamins and nutrients. They are also readily available to a variety of different cultures and economic groups. However, as the population increases and more people turn to fish for their dietary needs, the wild populations of fish species decreases. To combat this issue, fish farms have been developed.

Fish farms

Aquaculture has been around for a long time, with the earliest evidence dating to China in 1000 BCE.  While fish farming has changed and evolved, the practice is essentially the same: fish, mollusks or crustaceans are grown in controlled environments to be consumed as food.

Some of the most common species currently raised on fish farms include catfish, tilapia, salmon and carp, along with shrimp, crayfish, crabs, scallops, oysters and clams.

Not only does aquaculture supply the world with a food source, but it also creates jobs and supports local economies. The fish farms in Africa help sustain a nutritional diet and provide employment to locals.

If done correctly, it can also have minor impacts on the environment and be a sustainable practice that helps wild fish species rebound from overfishing. It also reduces the amount of bycatch that occurs with some fishing practices. Bycatch is the accidental capture of species that aren’t being fished for, including turtles and dolphins, which impacts their populations.

Anyone can develop a fish farm. The practice isn’t limited to commercial businesses with huge budgets and large fish tanks. Individuals can raise fish in their backyards, much like growing your own garden. Like large-scale farming, backyard fish farms provide the necessary protein for you and your family and a sustainable way to raise fish that doesn’t have a significant impact the environment.

Environmental impacts

With dwindling wild populations of fish species, fish farms are a sustainable way to feed the world the protein their bodies need. Fish farms are viewed both negatively and positively, and they aren’t the perfect solution — yet.

There are concerns that some industries overcrowd their tanks, which can lead to disease. There are also concerns that the antibiotics and steroids that the fish populations receive will impact human health.

Some other questions experts have raised include what happens to wild fish populations when fish farms are in pens in the open ocean. There are concerns that disease can spread from the penned fish to wild populations or that if farmed fish escape, they can change the biodiversity of an ecosystem.

These concerns are legitimate and worth studying to determine if there are ways to mitigate them. Technology and science are advancing so fish farms are environmentally friendly, sustainable and reduce impacts on wild fish populations and the environment.

There’s always room for improvement, and as humans become more knowledgeable about fish farming practices, this industry will continue to improve. In turn, this will help wild fish populations — and other marine creatures — so that they aren’t overfished or turned into bycatch.

There isn’t a perfect solution to the issue of protecting our planet and finding a way to feed an increasing population. Humans have done a lot of damage to the environment and wild animal populations beyond fish. However, with the implementation of fish farms, it is one industry that’s trying to reduce the environmental impact and find a healthy, sustainable way to feed the world.

This Author

Emily Folk is a conservation and sustainability writer and the editor of Conservation Folks.

The totally different responses from Asda and Tesco to Round Up ‘micro protest’

You can judge a multinational corporation by how it deals with its critics. And the contrast between how Asda and Tesco coped when the internationally recognised aristocrat activist Hector Christie turned up at their stores in North Devon complaining about probable carcinogenic ingredients in Monsanto made Round Up weed killer.

The Devon farmer and scion of the aristocratic Christies has made headlines around the world in his time – famously being thrown out of the Labour Party conference after heckling Tony Blair in protest at the Iraq war, and also fooling riot police amid the carnage in Genoa in Italy during the G8 protests by dressing as a priest.

Hector at Asda
Hector Christie at Asda

But now he is pioneering the “micro protest” where just one or two activists can walk into a supermarket, stage an eye-catching ceremony of “rounding up the Round Up” into a trolly, and then taking the loot to the manager and asking them to sign a declaration that they believe the product is safe for customers.

Biocide is suicide

Christie arrived with a few fellow protesters at Asda at lunchtime on Wednesday, took a trolly and marched to the weedkiller shelf. He filled his trolly with Round Up and then started to cover the trolly in yellow and black tape bearing the warning, “No entry – glyphosate causes cancer“.

Within minutes a team of ASDA staff had swarmed in, and began intimating that the campaigners were committing criminal damage, threatened to call the police and misrepresented the Data Protection Act to try and stop filming taking place.

A staff member was heard to say: “You can’t be filming in the store. If you are not buying this you need to pop it back now – you need to do it now. You are damaging property that belongs to Asda. “

A second Asda employee said: “We will have to let the police know you have been filming – it’s data protection.” A third added: “You are going to get into loads of trouble for that.”

Hector’s accomplice, who was wearing a tee-shirt with the slogan ‘biocide is suicide’, told the staff that he was concerned that Round Up contains a carcinogenic ingredient.

Hector at Tesco
Hector at Tesco

Threats and spectacle

“What you are selling is carcinogenic,” he complained. “I’m not selling anything,” the Asda representative said. The response: “It’s in your store!”

Hector and his micro protest then set off for nearby Tesco, where again he filled his trolly with Round Up, decorated it with tape, and then heading for the customer service desk asking to see the manager.

But this time, the response was completely different. The manager was away, they were told, and the duty manager was summoned. She took a while and the protesters were left to their own devices, somewhat dumbstruck. “We might as well put it back on the shelf and head home”, said one of the activists.

When the manager did arrive, she listened attentively and then asked for advice on how to deal with slugs in the garden without using salt – which may be harmful to the health of her dog. A third protester – a professional permaculture gardener – advised and then everyone drifted home. “Dried seaweed, gravel, egg shells, beer traps, wood chip”. Without the threats and spectacle that had taken place in Asda.

The Tesco protest made for quite a genteel – and serial – protest. Hector is hoping to inspire protests across the country to do the same protest at supermarkets stocking Round Up, with a day of action planned for 30 May 2018. 

A spokesperson for Asda said: “We respect everyone’s right to their view and the right to protest peacefully. We also expect people to respect our customers, colleagues and property.”

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist.

 

The totally different responses from Asda and Tesco to Round Up ‘micro protest’

You can judge a multinational corporation by how it deals with its critics. And the contrast between how Asda and Tesco coped when the internationally recognised aristocrat activist Hector Christie turned up at their stores in North Devon complaining about probable carcinogenic ingredients in Monsanto made Round Up weed killer.

The Devon farmer and scion of the aristocratic Christies has made headlines around the world in his time – famously being thrown out of the Labour Party conference after heckling Tony Blair in protest at the Iraq war, and also fooling riot police amid the carnage in Genoa in Italy during the G8 protests by dressing as a priest.

Hector at Asda
Hector Christie at Asda

But now he is pioneering the “micro protest” where just one or two activists can walk into a supermarket, stage an eye-catching ceremony of “rounding up the Round Up” into a trolly, and then taking the loot to the manager and asking them to sign a declaration that they believe the product is safe for customers.

Biocide is suicide

Christie arrived with a few fellow protesters at Asda at lunchtime on Wednesday, took a trolly and marched to the weedkiller shelf. He filled his trolly with Round Up and then started to cover the trolly in yellow and black tape bearing the warning, “No entry – glyphosate causes cancer“.

Within minutes a team of ASDA staff had swarmed in, and began intimating that the campaigners were committing criminal damage, threatened to call the police and misrepresented the Data Protection Act to try and stop filming taking place.

A staff member was heard to say: “You can’t be filming in the store. If you are not buying this you need to pop it back now – you need to do it now. You are damaging property that belongs to Asda. “

A second Asda employee said: “We will have to let the police know you have been filming – it’s data protection.” A third added: “You are going to get into loads of trouble for that.”

Hector’s accomplice, who was wearing a tee-shirt with the slogan ‘biocide is suicide’, told the staff that he was concerned that Round Up contains a carcinogenic ingredient.

Hector at Tesco
Hector at Tesco

Threats and spectacle

“What you are selling is carcinogenic,” he complained. “I’m not selling anything,” the Asda representative said. The response: “It’s in your store!”

Hector and his micro protest then set off for nearby Tesco, where again he filled his trolly with Round Up, decorated it with tape, and then heading for the customer service desk asking to see the manager.

But this time, the response was completely different. The manager was away, they were told, and the duty manager was summoned. She took a while and the protesters were left to their own devices, somewhat dumbstruck. “We might as well put it back on the shelf and head home”, said one of the activists.

When the manager did arrive, she listened attentively and then asked for advice on how to deal with slugs in the garden without using salt – which may be harmful to the health of her dog. A third protester – a professional permaculture gardener – advised and then everyone drifted home. “Dried seaweed, gravel, egg shells, beer traps, wood chip”. Without the threats and spectacle that had taken place in Asda.

The Tesco protest made for quite a genteel – and serial – protest. Hector is hoping to inspire protests across the country to do the same protest at supermarkets stocking Round Up, with a day of action planned for 30 May 2018. 

A spokesperson for Asda said: “We respect everyone’s right to their view and the right to protest peacefully. We also expect people to respect our customers, colleagues and property.”

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist.