Tag Archives: because

Truth is our country Updated for 2026





As Jesus told the people of Nazareth, a prophet is without honor in his own country. In the United States, this is also true of journalists.

In the United States journalists receive awards for lying for the government and for the corporations. Anyone who tells the truth, whether journalist or whistleblower, is fired or prosecuted or has to hide out in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London, like Julian Assange, or in Moscow, like Edward Snowden, or is tortured and imprisoned, like Bradley Manning.

Mexican journalists pay an even higher price. Those who report on government corruption and on the drug cartels pay with their lives.

The Internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia, has as an entry a list by name of journalists murdered in Mexico. This is the List of Honor. Wikipedia reports than more than 100 Mexican journalists have been killed or disappeared in the 21st century.

Despite intimidation the Mexican press has not abandoned its job. Because of your courage, I regard this award bestowed on me as the greatest of honors.

A daily fraud perpetuated on readers, viewers and listeners

In the United States real journalists are scarce and are becoming more scarce. Journalists have morphed into a new creature. Gerald Celente calls US journalists “presstitutes”, a word formed from press prostitute. In other words, journalists in the United States are whores for the government and for the corporations.

The few real journalists that remain are resigning. Last year Sharyl Attkisson, a 21-year veteran reporter with CBS resigned on the grounds that it had become too much of a fight to get truth reported. She was frustrated that CBS saw its purpose to be a protector of the powerful, not a critic.

Recently Peter Oborne, the UK Telegraph’s chief political commentator, explained why he resigned. His stories about the wrongdoings of the banking giant, HSBC, were spiked, because HSBC is an important advertiser for the Telegraph. Osborne says:

“The coverage of HSBC in Britain’s Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril.”

Last summer former New York Times editor Jill Abramson in a speech at the Chautauqua Institution said that the New York Times withheld information at the request of the White House. She said that for a number of years the press in general did not publish any stories that upset the White House. She justified this complete failure of journalism on the grounds that “journalists are Americans, too. I consider myself to be a patriot.”

So in the United States journalists lie for the government because they are patriotic, and their readers and listeners believe the lies because they are patriotic.

Stripped of Truth, journalism becomes propaganda

Our view differs from the view of the New York Times editor. The view of those of us here today is that our country is not the United States, it is not Mexico, our country is Truth. Once a journalist sacrifices Truth to loyalty to a government, he ceases to be a journalist and becomes a propagandist.

Recently, Brian Williams, the television news anchor at NBC, destroyed his career because he mis-remembered an episode of more than a decade ago when he was covering the Iraq War. He told his audience that a helicopter in which he was with troops in a war zone as a war correspondent was hit by ground fire and had to land.

But the helicopter had not been hit by ground fire. His fellow journalists turned on him, accusing him of lying in order to enhance his status as a war correspondent. On February 10, NBC suspended Brian Williams for 6 months from his job as Managing Editor and Anchor of NBC Nightly News.

Think about this for a moment. It makes no difference whatsoever whether the helicopter had to land because it had been hit by gun fire or for some other reason or whether it had to land at all. If it was an intentional lie, it was one of no consequence. If it was a mistake, an episode of ‘alse memory’, why the excessive reaction? Psychologists say that false memories are common.

The same NBC that suspended Brian Williams and the journalists who accused him of lying are all guilty of telling massive lies for the entirety of the 21st century that have had vast consequences.

The United States government has been, and still is, invading, bombing, and droning seven or eight countries on the basis of lies told by Washington and endlessly repeated by the media. Millions of people have been killed, maimed, and displaced by violence based entirely on lies spewing out of the mouths of Washington and its presstitutes.

We know what these lies are: Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Assad of Syria’s use of chemical weapons. Iranian nukes. Pakistani and Yemeni terrorists. Terrorists in Somalia. The endless lies about Gaddafi in Libya, about the Taliban in Afghanistan. And now the alleged Russian invasion and annexation of Ukraine.

All of these transparent lies are repeated endlessly, and no one is held accountable. But one journalist mis-remembers one insignificant detail about a helicopter ride and his career is destroyed.

Truth is the enemy of the state

We can safely conclude that the only honest journalism that exists in the United States is provided by alternative media on the Internet. Consequently, the Internet is now under US government attack. ‘Truth is the enemy of the state’ – and Washington intends to shut down truth everywhere.

Washington has appointed Andrew Lack, the former president of NBC News, to be the chief executive of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. His first official statement compared RT, Russia Today, the Russian-based news agency, with the Islamic State and Boko Haram. In other words, Mr. Lack brands RT as a terrorist organization.

The purpose of Andrew Lack’s absurd comparison is to strike fear at RT that the news organization will be expelled from US media markets. Andrew Lack’s message to RT is: “lie for us or we are going to expel you from our air waves.”

The British already did this to Iran’s Press TV.

In the United States the attack on Internet independent media is proceeding on several fronts. One is known as the issue of ‘net neutrality’.

There is an effort by Washington, joined by Internet providers, to charge sites for speedy access. Bandwidth would be sold for fees. Large media corporations, such as CNN and the New York Times, would be able to pay the prices for a quickly opening website.

Smaller independent sites such as mine would be hampered with the slowness of the old ‘dial-up’ type bandwidth. Click on CNN and the site immediately opens. Click on paulcraigroberts.org and wait five minutes. You get the picture. This is Washington’s plan and the corporations’ plan for the Internet.

The vindictive state against the honest citizen

But it gets worse. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which attempts to defend our digital rights, reports that so-called ‘free trade agreements’ such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (and the Trans Atlantic Trade & Investment Partnership / TTIP) impose prison sentences, massive fines, and property seizures on Internet users who innocently violate vague language in the so-called trade agreements.

Recently, a young American, Barrett Brown, was sentenced to 5 years in prison and a fine of $890,000 for linking to allegedly hacked documents posted on the Internet. Barrett Brown did not hack the documents. He merely linked to an Internet posting, and he has no prospect of earning $890,000 over the course of his life.

The purpose of the US government’s prosecution, indeed, persecution, of this young person is to establish the precedent that anyone who uses Internet information in ways that Washington disapproves, or for purposes that Washington disapproves, is a criminal whose life will be ruined.

The purpose of Barrett Brown’s show trial is to intimidate. It is Washington’s equivalent to the murder of Mexican journalists.

The aim is simple – world domination

But this is prologue. Now we turn to the challenge that Washington presents to the entire world.

It is the nature of government and of technology to establish control. People everywhere face the threat of control by government and technology. But the threat from Washington is much greater. Washington is not content with only controlling the citizens of the United States. Washington intends to control the world.

Michael Gorbachev is correct when he says that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst thing that has happened to humanity, because the Soviet collapse removed the only constraint on Washington’s power.

The Soviet collapse released a terrible evil upon the world. The neoconservatives in Washington concluded that the failure of communism meant that History has chosen American ‘democratic capitalism’, which is neither democratic nor capitalist, to rule the world. The Soviet collapse signaled ‘the End of History’, by which is meant the end of competition between social, political and economic systems.

The choice made by History elevated the United States to the pre-eminent position of being the “indispensable and exceptional” country, a claim of superiority. If the United States is “indispensable”, then others are dispensable. If the United States is exceptional, then others are unexceptional. We have seen the consequences of Washington’s ideology in Washington’s destruction of life and stability in the Middle East.

Washington’s drive for World Hegemony, based as it is on a lie, makes necessary the obliteration of Truth. As Washington’s agenda of supremacy is all encompassing, Washington regards truth as a greater enemy than Russians, Muslim terrorists, and the Islamic State.

As truth is Washington’s worst enemy, everyone associated with the truth is Washington’s enemy.

The empire of chaos and lawlessness

Latin America can have no illusions about Washington. The first act of the Obama Regime was to overthrow the democratic reformist government of Honduras. Currently, the Obama Regime is trying to overthrow the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina.

As Mexicans know, in the 19th century Washington stole half of Mexico. Today Washington is stealing the rest of Mexico. The United States is stealing Mexico via financial imperialism, by subordinating Mexican agriculture and self-sustaining peasant agricultural communities to foreign-owned monoculture, by infecting Mexico with Monsanto’s GMO’s, genetically modified organisms, seeds that do not reproduce, chemicals that destroy the soil and nature’s nutrients, seeds that leave Mexico dependent on Monsanto for food crops with reduced nutritional value.

It is easy for governments to sell out their countries to Washington and the North American corporations. Washington and US corporations pay high prices for subservience to their control. It is difficult for countries, small in economic and political influence, to stand against such power. All sorts of masks are used behind which Washington hides US exploitation-globalism, free trade treaties …

But the world is changing. Putin has revived Russia, and Russia has proved its ability to stand up to Washington. On a purchasing power basis, China now has the largest economy in the world. As China and Russia are now strategic allies, Washington cannot act against one without acting against the other. The two combined exceed Washington’s capabilities.

The United States government has proven to the entire world that it is lawless. A country that flaunts its disrespect of law cannot provide trusted leadership. My conclusion is that Washington’s power has peaked.

One ring to rule them all …

Another reason Washington’s power has peaked is that Washington has used its power to serve only itself and US corporations. The Rest of the World is dispensable and has been left out.

Washington’s power grew out of World War 2. All other economies and currencies were devastated. This allowed Washington to seize the world reserve currency role from Great Britain.

The advantage of being the world reserve currency is that you can pay your bills by printing money. In other words, you can’t go broke as long as other countries are willing to hold your fiat currency as their reserves.

But if other countries were to decide not to hold US currency as reserves, the US could go broke suddenly.

Since 2008 the supply of US dollars has increased dramatically in relation to the ability of the real economy to produce goods and services. Whenever the growth of money outpaces the growth of real output, trouble lies ahead. Moreover, Washington’s policy of imposing sanctions in an effort to force other countries to do its will is causing a large part of the world known as the BRICS to develop an alternative international payments system.

Washington’s arrogance and hubris have caused Washington to ignore the interests of other countries, including those of its allies. Even Washington’s European vassal states show signs of developing an independent foreign policy in their approach to Russia and Ukraine. Opportunities will arise for governments to escape from Washington’s control and to pursue the interests of their own peoples.

The media’s new imperatives: make money; serve the state

The US media has never performed the function assigned to it by the Founding Fathers. The media is supposed to be diverse and independent. It is supposed to confront both government and private interest groups with the facts and the truth.

At times the US media partially fulfilled this role, but not since the final years of the Clinton Regime when the government allowed six mega-media companies to consolidate 90% of the media in their hands.

The mega-media companies that control the US media are GE, News Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS. (GE owns NBC, formerly an independent network. News Corp owns Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and British newspapers. Disney owns ABC. Time Warner owns CNN.)

The US media is no longer run by journalists. It is run by former government officials and corporate advertising executives. The values of the mega-media companies depend on their federal broadcast licenses.

If the companies go against the government, the companies take a risk that their licenses will not be renewed and, thus, the multi-billion dollar values of the companies fall to zero. If media organizations investigate wrongful activities by corporations, they risk the loss of advertising revenues and become less viable.

Ninety percent control of the media gives government a Ministry of Propaganda, and that is what exists in the United States. Nothing reported in the print or TV media can be trusted.

Today there is a massive propaganda campaign against the Russian government. The incessant flow of disinformation from Washington and the media has destroyed the trust between nuclear powers that President Reagan and President Gorbachev worked so hard to create. According to polls, 62% of the US population now regards Russia as the main threat.

I conclude my remarks with the observation that there can be no greater media failure than to bring back the specter of nuclear war. And that is what the US media has achieved.

 


 

Paul Craig Roberts won the International Award for Excellence in Journalism 2015. This article is a transcript of his acceptance speech at the Club De Periodistas De Mexico, March 12, 2015. It was first published on his website, also available in Spanish.

Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts’ How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is How America Was Lost.

 

 




391469

Save the Arctic sea ice while we still can! Updated for 2026





Fossil fuel companies, and their supporters in government, seem blissfully unaware of the dangers ahead, threatening everybody on this planet.

The sea ice is declining far more rapidly than anyone expected. It is declining towards disappearance in summer months, yet the colossal negative impact of a low albedo Arctic has hardly been discussed. This is tragic because the whole situation could have been avoided with good leadership at negligible economic cost.

And as reported this week on The Ecologist, new scientific research indicates that the apparent ‘pause’ in global warming has, in fact, been no such thing. Instead the surplus heat – two Hiroshima bombs-worth a second – has simply been ‘buried’ deep in the Pacific Ocean.

That’s because of two important climate cycles, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, whose operation has masked the warming. But soon they will tip the other way and the ‘Big Heat’ is set to begin – a five to ten year burst of rapid warming that will be most severe in the Arctic.

Commercial advantages for some …

If you read the mainstream media, only the positive impact of a melting Arctic is mentioned: an Arctic ripe for exploitation.

Through not grasping the huge negative impact of a low albedo Arctic, the fossil fuel companies still appear entirely happy for the sea ice to disappear as quickly as possible – the sooner the better. Therefore they naturally resist any action to save the sea ice. In particular they don’t want geoengineering deployed to cool the Arctic, because it might succeed in saving it!

Certain fossil fuel companies have already invested heavily in exploiting the vast store of oil and gas in the Arctic. These companies, and the governments who support them, are preparing for a bonanza when the sea ice disappears in summer: it will be so much easier and safer to extract the fossil fuel when the sea ice and freezing conditions have gone during summer months.

Furthermore, the disappearance of the sea ice will open up the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route (formerly known as the Northeast Passage) to trade through summer months. So China and nations bordering the Atlantic (including the UK) are expecting to benefit enormously. Russia is investing heavily in ports and infrastructure to support the anticipated heavy traffic.

Various environment groups and the UK Environment Audit Committee have argued against drilling in the Arctic because they are concerned about oil spills and gas blow-outs which could ruin the local environment. They also seek to protect the wild life and Arctic ecosystem. But their arguing will be futile once the sea ice has gone in summer. It will be too late to protect the environment.

Environmentists have less concern about the opening up of the trade routes, because this will reduce CO2 emissions from transport of goods which at present have much longer journeys.

The Arctic bombshell is waiting to go off

While there is all this talk of exploiting the Arctic, little or nothing is said about the adverse effects of having an Arctic free of sea ice during summer months.

Nothing has been said by the IPCC. Nothing has been said in the mainstream media. Nothing has been said by the scientific community at large. This is a terrible omission. It is quite scandalous.

While most experts agree that there will come a time when the Arctic Ocean will be free of ice during summer months, there is no such agreement on the time-scale. Models suggest that it will take decades.

But observations of an exponential trend of sea ice decline suggest that this time could be within a decade. Scientific reports of especially rapid temperature rise in Alaska have also been emerged. For example Barrow, Alaska has experienced a 7C temperature rise over 34 years, attributed to the decline in sea ice.

So what are the effects? During summer months, a vast area of reflective ice will have been replaced by open water, absorbing 90% of sunshine and warming the Arctic air above. It is clear that the Arctic will be warming much faster than at present – likely at over 2°C per decade.

As heat dissipates around the planet, there will be a huge contribution to global warming in the long term. Estimates put this at equivalent of 3.3 W/m2 (Flanner, 2011) or about twice the current warming from CO2.

But what are the immediate consequences of this super-rapid warming in the Arctic? At present we have an acceleration of three particular processes, affected by Arctic warming to date:

  • Firstly, we have a dramatic rise in Northern Hemisphere weather extremes, as the jet stream behaviour is disrupted.
  • Secondly we have an exponential increase in meltwater from the Greenland Ice Sheet, flowing through moulins on the surface of the ice into the sea and raising the sea level.
  • And thirdly we have a dramatic increase in methane emissions from the Arctic Ocean seabed.

As the temperature in the Arctic continues to increase, these processes will continue almost indefinitely. We can expect worsening Northern Hemisphere climate causing widespread crop failures; faster sea level rise causing progressive flooding of low-lying regions; and growing methane emissions leading to even more catastrophic global warming.

These are three immediate results of the switching on of heat as the Arctic Ocean enters the low sea-ice state. The combination will be devastating for all mankind – with mass starvation and mass migration liable to trigger a world war.

This is the terrifying bombshell. The bonanza will be short-lived, as the effects of a seasonally ice free Arctic Ocean begin to bite.

For a few billion dollars a year, we can save the Arctic

Something must be done to prevent the ocean entering this low-ice state. Therefore the Arctic must be cooled enough to save the sea ice.

The first moment at the end of summer that the sea ice finally disappears from the ocean is called the ‘blue ocean event’. It is significant because it could mark the entry of the ocean into a permanent low-ice state for subsequent years – the point of no return. The point of no return could be a soon as next September.

By any ordinary standards, we have left it too late to cool the Arctic. But any reduction in the risk of passing the point of no return is worthwhile, when all our futures are at stake.

Fortunately researchers are increasingly confident that a stratospheric aerosol haze, produced from sulphur dioxide, SO2, could provide significant cooling of the Arctic for modest expenditure of the order of a few billion dollars per year.

This type of cooling could be replaced by cloud brightening using ultra-fine seawater droplets when the technology is ready for large-scale deployment within a year or two.

There should be no significant negative economic impact from this action, except that the resources in the Arctic become frozen assets. But they should be frozen assets in any case if global warming is to be kept below 2 degrees C, according to a recent paper.

There should be positive political impact, because governments will be working together in a common cause to protect their own citizens and all the citizens of the world. The fossil fuel industry has to be persuaded that preserving the Arctic sea ice is essential for the future of themselves and their stakeholders.

Objections from the anti-geoengineering lobby have to be overcome, because we have no other realistic option to reduce the colossal risk of passing a point of no return this September.

 


 

John Nissen is Chair of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group.

 

 




390984

Pork at Christmas? Make sure it’s from a happy pig! Updated for 2026





If books and newspapers are facing crisis, may we suggest a different type of reading: short, daily, tasty, and politically active? 

Fifty years ago, where to buy meat was not a question at all as most of it came from markets or small shops. Today choices have multiplied, and so has the packaging. Studies show that children select cereals because of the cartoons on the boxes, not because of the taste. 

It’s not so different for adults. Have you ever found yourself in front of a supermarket meat section, unsure of what to choose? There are many labels describing the method of production, but what do they mean?

“Um, let’s see. That chicken is so cheap that it’s quite scary. That beef label is green, so is it organic? That pork says it is British, does that mean it has been ethically raised? How can I support local farmers?”

Supporting humane, sustainable farming 

In the UK three quarters of the pork we eat is produced in animal factories that stuff animals with antibiotics, disregard basic animal welfare laws, sicken the local population with stench and contaminate local watercourses.

In a world where the bond between regulators and the corporations they are supposed to regulate is so close, waiting for a strong political intervention to ban animal factories may be a little time-wasting.

But consumers’ power is often underestimated. In 1998, when Shell decided to dispose of the Brent Spar Platform at sea, Greenpeace called for a general boycott and Shell lost 30% of their daily profits in Germany. And guess what? Shell decided to dismantle the platform on land as requested.

The 2013 ‘horse meat’ scandal caused frozen burger sales to tumble 41% compared to the previous year, according to the BBC.

What to look for: Organic, Free Range, Outdoor Bred, Freedom Food

Many products have disappeared from the market or have been significantly reduced purely out of consumers’ disdain. Eggs from caged hens have become less common, for example.

So what about the on-going scandal of pigs in animal factories? People are often inactive because they underestimate the effect of their choices, but if we all act together we could bring an end to this industrial, inhumane system. If there’s no welfare label on the pork, don’t buy it, it’s that easy.

Today, choosing what you buy is a stronger statement that voting in an election. The UK supermarket labelling system is not perfect but it does allow us to choose meat that has been raised in systems that are sustainable because the pigs are healthy and do not require routine antibiotics.

Look for pork labelled Freedom Food, Outdoor Bred, Free Range or best of all Organic, and stand up for pig welfare, and the centuries-old, magnificent British landscapes and rural heritage.

There are other labels too – but these may not mean all you expect them to. So look here for a full rundown of all the labels you might find in UK supermarkets, and the production methods they describe. (Summary below)

Choose pork raised on real farms 

And just to remind yourself of why it’s so important, please watch and share Tracy Worcester’s campaign and 3-minute video ‘Take the Pig Pledge to buy meat from Farms Not Factories(embed below).

It asks people to join a worldwide movement to boycott pork from animal factories – and instead to buy high welfare from supermarkets, butchers, farmers’ markets or online, and in restaurants to ask for pork that has been raised on a high welfare farm.

 

Choosing high welfare pork on supermarket shelves says “no, thanks” (as politely as you may wish) to those animal factories that abuse animals by overcrowding them often on bare concrete slats, over-use antibiotics causing more and more diseases to become resistant, and bankrupt high welfare farmers that have been feeding us for generations. 

When you go out for dinner, ask the waiter where the meat comes from. You’re paying for the meal and you have a right to know.

And the Farms Not Factories high welfare pork directory shows you where to find high welfare pork from farms, shops & restaurants that you can trust.

What really happens when you pick the right label?

Buying pork from high welfare production methods ensures that the animals have not been mistreated. It also means that you are paying a fair price and that your money supports humane, sustainable farming, thus helping to preserve real farming skills and vibrant rural communities. 

Yes, it really is that easy. It’s time for a new generation of label readers to lead the way – and make real farming a best seller.

 


 

Giulia Barcaro is creative director at Farms not Factories.

Check out: Worldwide high welfare pork directory.

 

Labels summary from Pig Pledge

Organic

sa_organic_black_tstarpic5
5-stars

  • Sows and piglets have access to the outdoors all their lives
  • No genetically modified feed
  • Antibiotics rarely used

Organic pigs are kept in conditions that, as far as possible, allow them to express their natural behaviour. This includes being kept in family groups with free access to fields when conditions allow. In practice this means that most organic pigs will be outdoors all year round, though indoor housing is permitted in severe weather conditions, provided that there is plenty of straw bedding for the pigs, and continued access to an outdoor run. As well as the Soil Association Organic Standard, there are ten other approved UK organic certification bodies.Further information

Free range

Label-freerangestarpic4
4-stars

  • Sows and piglets have access to outdoor space all their lives
  • Antibiotics rarely used

These pigs are born outside, in fields and they remain outside until they are sent for slaughter. They are provided with food, water and shelter and are free to roam within defined boundaries. Free range pigs have very generous minimum space allowances, which are worked out according to the soil conditions and rotation practices of the farm. Breeding sows are also kept outside, in fields for their productive life.Further information

Outdoor bred

Label-outdoorstarpic3
3-stars

  • Sows have access to the outdoors all their lives
  • Piglets brought indoors for fattening after 4 weeks, usually with straw or other bedding
  • Less use of antibiotics

These pigs are born outside, in fields where they are kept until weaning (normally around 4 weeks) and moved indoors. Breeding sows are kept outside in fields for their productive lives. The pigs are provided with food, water and shelter with generous minimum space allowances. ‘Outdoor reared’ is a similar system, but the piglets usually have access to the outdoors for up to 10 weeks before being moved indoors.Further information

Freedom Food

label-freedomfoodwhitestarpic2
2-stars

  • Indoor pigs must have bedding
  • No farrowing crates
  • Limited tail docking
  • Routine antibiotics on some farms

Freedom Food is the RSPCA’s labelling and assurance scheme dedicated to improving welfare standards for farm animals. About 30% of pigs reared in the UK are reared under this label. Freedom Food assesses farms to the RSPCA’s strict welfare standards and if they meet every standard they can use the Freedom Food label on their product. The scheme covers both indoor and outdoor rearing systems and ensures that greater space and bedding material are provided.

For more information visit: www.freedomfood.co.uk

Further information

Red Tractor

redtractor1star-redtractor
1-star

  • Lowest legal UK standards
  • Farrowing crates allowed
  • Pigs often indoors on bare concrete with no straw
  • Tail docking widespread
  • Routine antibiotics on some farms.

The Red Tractor Assured Food Standards scheme only assures UK consumers that meat products comply with UK minimum legal requirements. 80% of British pork farms unite under this label, so although the scheme will include farms using a wide range of production methods, the label is in no way a guarantee of good animal welfare and allows intensive production. In 2012, advertisements falsely claiming that British pork sold with the Red Tractor label were “high welfare” had to be banned after several complaints. The Red Tractor logo used in conjunction with a Union Jack only guarantees that the pork is British.

For more information visit: www.redtractor.org.uk

Further information

No welfare label

label-nolabel0star-nowelfarelabel
0-stars

  • Mostly imported, often raised below UK welfare standards
  • Farrowing crates allowed
  • EU sow stall limits often ignored
  • Most pigs confined indoors on bare concrete with no straw
  • Illegal tail docking widespread
  • Widespread routine over-use of antibiotics

 

 




388385

Pork at Christmas? Make sure it’s from a happy pig! Updated for 2026





If books and newspapers are facing crisis, may we suggest a different type of reading: short, daily, tasty, and politically active? 

Fifty years ago, where to buy meat was not a question at all as most of it came from markets or small shops. Today choices have multiplied, and so has the packaging. Studies show that children select cereals because of the cartoons on the boxes, not because of the taste. 

It’s not so different for adults. Have you ever found yourself in front of a supermarket meat section, unsure of what to choose? There are many labels describing the method of production, but what do they mean?

“Um, let’s see. That chicken is so cheap that it’s quite scary. That beef label is green, so is it organic? That pork says it is British, does that mean it has been ethically raised? How can I support local farmers?”

Supporting humane, sustainable farming 

In the UK three quarters of the pork we eat is produced in animal factories that stuff animals with antibiotics, disregard basic animal welfare laws, sicken the local population with stench and contaminate local watercourses.

In a world where the bond between regulators and the corporations they are supposed to regulate is so close, waiting for a strong political intervention to ban animal factories may be a little time-wasting.

But consumers’ power is often underestimated. In 1998, when Shell decided to dispose of the Brent Spar Platform at sea, Greenpeace called for a general boycott and Shell lost 30% of their daily profits in Germany. And guess what? Shell decided to dismantle the platform on land as requested.

The 2013 ‘horse meat’ scandal caused frozen burger sales to tumble 41% compared to the previous year, according to the BBC.

What to look for: Organic, Free Range, Outdoor Bred, Freedom Food

Many products have disappeared from the market or have been significantly reduced purely out of consumers’ disdain. Eggs from caged hens have become less common, for example.

So what about the on-going scandal of pigs in animal factories? People are often inactive because they underestimate the effect of their choices, but if we all act together we could bring an end to this industrial, inhumane system. If there’s no welfare label on the pork, don’t buy it, it’s that easy.

Today, choosing what you buy is a stronger statement that voting in an election. The UK supermarket labelling system is not perfect but it does allow us to choose meat that has been raised in systems that are sustainable because the pigs are healthy and do not require routine antibiotics.

Look for pork labelled Freedom Food, Outdoor Bred, Free Range or best of all Organic, and stand up for pig welfare, and the centuries-old, magnificent British landscapes and rural heritage.

There are other labels too – but these may not mean all you expect them to. So look here for a full rundown of all the labels you might find in UK supermarkets, and the production methods they describe. (Summary below)

Choose pork raised on real farms 

And just to remind yourself of why it’s so important, please watch and share Tracy Worcester’s campaign and 3-minute video ‘Take the Pig Pledge to buy meat from Farms Not Factories(embed below).

It asks people to join a worldwide movement to boycott pork from animal factories – and instead to buy high welfare from supermarkets, butchers, farmers’ markets or online, and in restaurants to ask for pork that has been raised on a high welfare farm.

 

Choosing high welfare pork on supermarket shelves says “no, thanks” (as politely as you may wish) to those animal factories that abuse animals by overcrowding them often on bare concrete slats, over-use antibiotics causing more and more diseases to become resistant, and bankrupt high welfare farmers that have been feeding us for generations. 

When you go out for dinner, ask the waiter where the meat comes from. You’re paying for the meal and you have a right to know.

And the Farms Not Factories high welfare pork directory shows you where to find high welfare pork from farms, shops & restaurants that you can trust.

What really happens when you pick the right label?

Buying pork from high welfare production methods ensures that the animals have not been mistreated. It also means that you are paying a fair price and that your money supports humane, sustainable farming, thus helping to preserve real farming skills and vibrant rural communities. 

Yes, it really is that easy. It’s time for a new generation of label readers to lead the way – and make real farming a best seller.

 


 

Giulia Barcaro is creative director at Farms not Factories.

Check out: Worldwide high welfare pork directory.

 

Labels summary from Pig Pledge

Organic

sa_organic_black_tstarpic5
5-stars

  • Sows and piglets have access to the outdoors all their lives
  • No genetically modified feed
  • Antibiotics rarely used

Organic pigs are kept in conditions that, as far as possible, allow them to express their natural behaviour. This includes being kept in family groups with free access to fields when conditions allow. In practice this means that most organic pigs will be outdoors all year round, though indoor housing is permitted in severe weather conditions, provided that there is plenty of straw bedding for the pigs, and continued access to an outdoor run. As well as the Soil Association Organic Standard, there are ten other approved UK organic certification bodies.Further information

Free range

Label-freerangestarpic4
4-stars

  • Sows and piglets have access to outdoor space all their lives
  • Antibiotics rarely used

These pigs are born outside, in fields and they remain outside until they are sent for slaughter. They are provided with food, water and shelter and are free to roam within defined boundaries. Free range pigs have very generous minimum space allowances, which are worked out according to the soil conditions and rotation practices of the farm. Breeding sows are also kept outside, in fields for their productive life.Further information

Outdoor bred

Label-outdoorstarpic3
3-stars

  • Sows have access to the outdoors all their lives
  • Piglets brought indoors for fattening after 4 weeks, usually with straw or other bedding
  • Less use of antibiotics

These pigs are born outside, in fields where they are kept until weaning (normally around 4 weeks) and moved indoors. Breeding sows are kept outside in fields for their productive lives. The pigs are provided with food, water and shelter with generous minimum space allowances. ‘Outdoor reared’ is a similar system, but the piglets usually have access to the outdoors for up to 10 weeks before being moved indoors.Further information

Freedom Food

label-freedomfoodwhitestarpic2
2-stars

  • Indoor pigs must have bedding
  • No farrowing crates
  • Limited tail docking
  • Routine antibiotics on some farms

Freedom Food is the RSPCA’s labelling and assurance scheme dedicated to improving welfare standards for farm animals. About 30% of pigs reared in the UK are reared under this label. Freedom Food assesses farms to the RSPCA’s strict welfare standards and if they meet every standard they can use the Freedom Food label on their product. The scheme covers both indoor and outdoor rearing systems and ensures that greater space and bedding material are provided.

For more information visit: www.freedomfood.co.uk

Further information

Red Tractor

redtractor1star-redtractor
1-star

  • Lowest legal UK standards
  • Farrowing crates allowed
  • Pigs often indoors on bare concrete with no straw
  • Tail docking widespread
  • Routine antibiotics on some farms.

The Red Tractor Assured Food Standards scheme only assures UK consumers that meat products comply with UK minimum legal requirements. 80% of British pork farms unite under this label, so although the scheme will include farms using a wide range of production methods, the label is in no way a guarantee of good animal welfare and allows intensive production. In 2012, advertisements falsely claiming that British pork sold with the Red Tractor label were “high welfare” had to be banned after several complaints. The Red Tractor logo used in conjunction with a Union Jack only guarantees that the pork is British.

For more information visit: www.redtractor.org.uk

Further information

No welfare label

label-nolabel0star-nowelfarelabel
0-stars

  • Mostly imported, often raised below UK welfare standards
  • Farrowing crates allowed
  • EU sow stall limits often ignored
  • Most pigs confined indoors on bare concrete with no straw
  • Illegal tail docking widespread
  • Widespread routine over-use of antibiotics

 

 




388385

Pork at Christmas? Make sure it’s from a happy pig! Updated for 2026





If books and newspapers are facing crisis, may we suggest a different type of reading: short, daily, tasty, and politically active? 

Fifty years ago, where to buy meat was not a question at all as most of it came from markets or small shops. Today choices have multiplied, and so has the packaging. Studies show that children select cereals because of the cartoons on the boxes, not because of the taste. 

It’s not so different for adults. Have you ever found yourself in front of a supermarket meat section, unsure of what to choose? There are many labels describing the method of production, but what do they mean?

“Um, let’s see. That chicken is so cheap that it’s quite scary. That beef label is green, so is it organic? That pork says it is British, does that mean it has been ethically raised? How can I support local farmers?”

Supporting humane, sustainable farming 

In the UK three quarters of the pork we eat is produced in animal factories that stuff animals with antibiotics, disregard basic animal welfare laws, sicken the local population with stench and contaminate local watercourses.

In a world where the bond between regulators and the corporations they are supposed to regulate is so close, waiting for a strong political intervention to ban animal factories may be a little time-wasting.

But consumers’ power is often underestimated. In 1998, when Shell decided to dispose of the Brent Spar Platform at sea, Greenpeace called for a general boycott and Shell lost 30% of their daily profits in Germany. And guess what? Shell decided to dismantle the platform on land as requested.

The 2013 ‘horse meat’ scandal caused frozen burger sales to tumble 41% compared to the previous year, according to the BBC.

What to look for: Organic, Free Range, Outdoor Bred, Freedom Food

Many products have disappeared from the market or have been significantly reduced purely out of consumers’ disdain. Eggs from caged hens have become less common, for example.

So what about the on-going scandal of pigs in animal factories? People are often inactive because they underestimate the effect of their choices, but if we all act together we could bring an end to this industrial, inhumane system. If there’s no welfare label on the pork, don’t buy it, it’s that easy.

Today, choosing what you buy is a stronger statement that voting in an election. The UK supermarket labelling system is not perfect but it does allow us to choose meat that has been raised in systems that are sustainable because the pigs are healthy and do not require routine antibiotics.

Look for pork labelled Freedom Food, Outdoor Bred, Free Range or best of all Organic, and stand up for pig welfare, and the centuries-old, magnificent British landscapes and rural heritage.

There are other labels too – but these may not mean all you expect them to. So look here for a full rundown of all the labels you might find in UK supermarkets, and the production methods they describe. (Summary below)

Choose pork raised on real farms 

And just to remind yourself of why it’s so important, please watch and share Tracy Worcester’s campaign and 3-minute video ‘Take the Pig Pledge to buy meat from Farms Not Factories(embed below).

It asks people to join a worldwide movement to boycott pork from animal factories – and instead to buy high welfare from supermarkets, butchers, farmers’ markets or online, and in restaurants to ask for pork that has been raised on a high welfare farm.

 

Choosing high welfare pork on supermarket shelves says “no, thanks” (as politely as you may wish) to those animal factories that abuse animals by overcrowding them often on bare concrete slats, over-use antibiotics causing more and more diseases to become resistant, and bankrupt high welfare farmers that have been feeding us for generations. 

When you go out for dinner, ask the waiter where the meat comes from. You’re paying for the meal and you have a right to know.

And the Farms Not Factories high welfare pork directory shows you where to find high welfare pork from farms, shops & restaurants that you can trust.

What really happens when you pick the right label?

Buying pork from high welfare production methods ensures that the animals have not been mistreated. It also means that you are paying a fair price and that your money supports humane, sustainable farming, thus helping to preserve real farming skills and vibrant rural communities. 

Yes, it really is that easy. It’s time for a new generation of label readers to lead the way – and make real farming a best seller.

 


 

Giulia Barcaro is creative director at Farms not Factories.

Check out: Worldwide high welfare pork directory.

 

Labels summary from Pig Pledge

Organic

sa_organic_black_tstarpic5
5-stars

  • Sows and piglets have access to the outdoors all their lives
  • No genetically modified feed
  • Antibiotics rarely used

Organic pigs are kept in conditions that, as far as possible, allow them to express their natural behaviour. This includes being kept in family groups with free access to fields when conditions allow. In practice this means that most organic pigs will be outdoors all year round, though indoor housing is permitted in severe weather conditions, provided that there is plenty of straw bedding for the pigs, and continued access to an outdoor run. As well as the Soil Association Organic Standard, there are ten other approved UK organic certification bodies.Further information

Free range

Label-freerangestarpic4
4-stars

  • Sows and piglets have access to outdoor space all their lives
  • Antibiotics rarely used

These pigs are born outside, in fields and they remain outside until they are sent for slaughter. They are provided with food, water and shelter and are free to roam within defined boundaries. Free range pigs have very generous minimum space allowances, which are worked out according to the soil conditions and rotation practices of the farm. Breeding sows are also kept outside, in fields for their productive life.Further information

Outdoor bred

Label-outdoorstarpic3
3-stars

  • Sows have access to the outdoors all their lives
  • Piglets brought indoors for fattening after 4 weeks, usually with straw or other bedding
  • Less use of antibiotics

These pigs are born outside, in fields where they are kept until weaning (normally around 4 weeks) and moved indoors. Breeding sows are kept outside in fields for their productive lives. The pigs are provided with food, water and shelter with generous minimum space allowances. ‘Outdoor reared’ is a similar system, but the piglets usually have access to the outdoors for up to 10 weeks before being moved indoors.Further information

Freedom Food

label-freedomfoodwhitestarpic2
2-stars

  • Indoor pigs must have bedding
  • No farrowing crates
  • Limited tail docking
  • Routine antibiotics on some farms

Freedom Food is the RSPCA’s labelling and assurance scheme dedicated to improving welfare standards for farm animals. About 30% of pigs reared in the UK are reared under this label. Freedom Food assesses farms to the RSPCA’s strict welfare standards and if they meet every standard they can use the Freedom Food label on their product. The scheme covers both indoor and outdoor rearing systems and ensures that greater space and bedding material are provided.

For more information visit: www.freedomfood.co.uk

Further information

Red Tractor

redtractor1star-redtractor
1-star

  • Lowest legal UK standards
  • Farrowing crates allowed
  • Pigs often indoors on bare concrete with no straw
  • Tail docking widespread
  • Routine antibiotics on some farms.

The Red Tractor Assured Food Standards scheme only assures UK consumers that meat products comply with UK minimum legal requirements. 80% of British pork farms unite under this label, so although the scheme will include farms using a wide range of production methods, the label is in no way a guarantee of good animal welfare and allows intensive production. In 2012, advertisements falsely claiming that British pork sold with the Red Tractor label were “high welfare” had to be banned after several complaints. The Red Tractor logo used in conjunction with a Union Jack only guarantees that the pork is British.

For more information visit: www.redtractor.org.uk

Further information

No welfare label

label-nolabel0star-nowelfarelabel
0-stars

  • Mostly imported, often raised below UK welfare standards
  • Farrowing crates allowed
  • EU sow stall limits often ignored
  • Most pigs confined indoors on bare concrete with no straw
  • Illegal tail docking widespread
  • Widespread routine over-use of antibiotics

 

 




388385

Pork at Christmas? Make sure it’s from a happy pig! Updated for 2026





If books and newspapers are facing crisis, may we suggest a different type of reading: short, daily, tasty, and politically active? 

Fifty years ago, where to buy meat was not a question at all as most of it came from markets or small shops. Today choices have multiplied, and so has the packaging. Studies show that children select cereals because of the cartoons on the boxes, not because of the taste. 

It’s not so different for adults. Have you ever found yourself in front of a supermarket meat section, unsure of what to choose? There are many labels describing the method of production, but what do they mean?

“Um, let’s see. That chicken is so cheap that it’s quite scary. That beef label is green, so is it organic? That pork says it is British, does that mean it has been ethically raised? How can I support local farmers?”

Supporting humane, sustainable farming 

In the UK three quarters of the pork we eat is produced in animal factories that stuff animals with antibiotics, disregard basic animal welfare laws, sicken the local population with stench and contaminate local watercourses.

In a world where the bond between regulators and the corporations they are supposed to regulate is so close, waiting for a strong political intervention to ban animal factories may be a little time-wasting.

But consumers’ power is often underestimated. In 1998, when Shell decided to dispose of the Brent Spar Platform at sea, Greenpeace called for a general boycott and Shell lost 30% of their daily profits in Germany. And guess what? Shell decided to dismantle the platform on land as requested.

The 2013 ‘horse meat’ scandal caused frozen burger sales to tumble 41% compared to the previous year, according to the BBC.

What to look for: Organic, Free Range, Outdoor Bred, Freedom Food

Many products have disappeared from the market or have been significantly reduced purely out of consumers’ disdain. Eggs from caged hens have become less common, for example.

So what about the on-going scandal of pigs in animal factories? People are often inactive because they underestimate the effect of their choices, but if we all act together we could bring an end to this industrial, inhumane system. If there’s no welfare label on the pork, don’t buy it, it’s that easy.

Today, choosing what you buy is a stronger statement that voting in an election. The UK supermarket labelling system is not perfect but it does allow us to choose meat that has been raised in systems that are sustainable because the pigs are healthy and do not require routine antibiotics.

Look for pork labelled Freedom Food, Outdoor Bred, Free Range or best of all Organic, and stand up for pig welfare, and the centuries-old, magnificent British landscapes and rural heritage.

There are other labels too – but these may not mean all you expect them to. So look here for a full rundown of all the labels you might find in UK supermarkets, and the production methods they describe. (Summary below)

Choose pork raised on real farms 

And just to remind yourself of why it’s so important, please watch and share Tracy Worcester’s campaign and 3-minute video ‘Take the Pig Pledge to buy meat from Farms Not Factories(embed below).

It asks people to join a worldwide movement to boycott pork from animal factories – and instead to buy high welfare from supermarkets, butchers, farmers’ markets or online, and in restaurants to ask for pork that has been raised on a high welfare farm.

 

Choosing high welfare pork on supermarket shelves says “no, thanks” (as politely as you may wish) to those animal factories that abuse animals by overcrowding them often on bare concrete slats, over-use antibiotics causing more and more diseases to become resistant, and bankrupt high welfare farmers that have been feeding us for generations. 

When you go out for dinner, ask the waiter where the meat comes from. You’re paying for the meal and you have a right to know.

And the Farms Not Factories high welfare pork directory shows you where to find high welfare pork from farms, shops & restaurants that you can trust.

What really happens when you pick the right label?

Buying pork from high welfare production methods ensures that the animals have not been mistreated. It also means that you are paying a fair price and that your money supports humane, sustainable farming, thus helping to preserve real farming skills and vibrant rural communities. 

Yes, it really is that easy. It’s time for a new generation of label readers to lead the way – and make real farming a best seller.

 


 

Giulia Barcaro is creative director at Farms not Factories.

Check out: Worldwide high welfare pork directory.

 

Labels summary from Pig Pledge

Organic

sa_organic_black_tstarpic5
5-stars

  • Sows and piglets have access to the outdoors all their lives
  • No genetically modified feed
  • Antibiotics rarely used

Organic pigs are kept in conditions that, as far as possible, allow them to express their natural behaviour. This includes being kept in family groups with free access to fields when conditions allow. In practice this means that most organic pigs will be outdoors all year round, though indoor housing is permitted in severe weather conditions, provided that there is plenty of straw bedding for the pigs, and continued access to an outdoor run. As well as the Soil Association Organic Standard, there are ten other approved UK organic certification bodies.Further information

Free range

Label-freerangestarpic4
4-stars

  • Sows and piglets have access to outdoor space all their lives
  • Antibiotics rarely used

These pigs are born outside, in fields and they remain outside until they are sent for slaughter. They are provided with food, water and shelter and are free to roam within defined boundaries. Free range pigs have very generous minimum space allowances, which are worked out according to the soil conditions and rotation practices of the farm. Breeding sows are also kept outside, in fields for their productive life.Further information

Outdoor bred

Label-outdoorstarpic3
3-stars

  • Sows have access to the outdoors all their lives
  • Piglets brought indoors for fattening after 4 weeks, usually with straw or other bedding
  • Less use of antibiotics

These pigs are born outside, in fields where they are kept until weaning (normally around 4 weeks) and moved indoors. Breeding sows are kept outside in fields for their productive lives. The pigs are provided with food, water and shelter with generous minimum space allowances. ‘Outdoor reared’ is a similar system, but the piglets usually have access to the outdoors for up to 10 weeks before being moved indoors.Further information

Freedom Food

label-freedomfoodwhitestarpic2
2-stars

  • Indoor pigs must have bedding
  • No farrowing crates
  • Limited tail docking
  • Routine antibiotics on some farms

Freedom Food is the RSPCA’s labelling and assurance scheme dedicated to improving welfare standards for farm animals. About 30% of pigs reared in the UK are reared under this label. Freedom Food assesses farms to the RSPCA’s strict welfare standards and if they meet every standard they can use the Freedom Food label on their product. The scheme covers both indoor and outdoor rearing systems and ensures that greater space and bedding material are provided.

For more information visit: www.freedomfood.co.uk

Further information

Red Tractor

redtractor1star-redtractor
1-star

  • Lowest legal UK standards
  • Farrowing crates allowed
  • Pigs often indoors on bare concrete with no straw
  • Tail docking widespread
  • Routine antibiotics on some farms.

The Red Tractor Assured Food Standards scheme only assures UK consumers that meat products comply with UK minimum legal requirements. 80% of British pork farms unite under this label, so although the scheme will include farms using a wide range of production methods, the label is in no way a guarantee of good animal welfare and allows intensive production. In 2012, advertisements falsely claiming that British pork sold with the Red Tractor label were “high welfare” had to be banned after several complaints. The Red Tractor logo used in conjunction with a Union Jack only guarantees that the pork is British.

For more information visit: www.redtractor.org.uk

Further information

No welfare label

label-nolabel0star-nowelfarelabel
0-stars

  • Mostly imported, often raised below UK welfare standards
  • Farrowing crates allowed
  • EU sow stall limits often ignored
  • Most pigs confined indoors on bare concrete with no straw
  • Illegal tail docking widespread
  • Widespread routine over-use of antibiotics

 

 




388385

Pork at Christmas? Make sure it’s from a happy pig! Updated for 2026





If books and newspapers are facing crisis, may we suggest a different type of reading: short, daily, tasty, and politically active? 

Fifty years ago, where to buy meat was not a question at all as most of it came from markets or small shops. Today choices have multiplied, and so has the packaging. Studies show that children select cereals because of the cartoons on the boxes, not because of the taste. 

It’s not so different for adults. Have you ever found yourself in front of a supermarket meat section, unsure of what to choose? There are many labels describing the method of production, but what do they mean?

“Um, let’s see. That chicken is so cheap that it’s quite scary. That beef label is green, so is it organic? That pork says it is British, does that mean it has been ethically raised? How can I support local farmers?”

Supporting humane, sustainable farming 

In the UK three quarters of the pork we eat is produced in animal factories that stuff animals with antibiotics, disregard basic animal welfare laws, sicken the local population with stench and contaminate local watercourses.

In a world where the bond between regulators and the corporations they are supposed to regulate is so close, waiting for a strong political intervention to ban animal factories may be a little time-wasting.

But consumers’ power is often underestimated. In 1998, when Shell decided to dispose of the Brent Spar Platform at sea, Greenpeace called for a general boycott and Shell lost 30% of their daily profits in Germany. And guess what? Shell decided to dismantle the platform on land as requested.

The 2013 ‘horse meat’ scandal caused frozen burger sales to tumble 41% compared to the previous year, according to the BBC.

What to look for: Organic, Free Range, Outdoor Bred, Freedom Food

Many products have disappeared from the market or have been significantly reduced purely out of consumers’ disdain. Eggs from caged hens have become less common, for example.

So what about the on-going scandal of pigs in animal factories? People are often inactive because they underestimate the effect of their choices, but if we all act together we could bring an end to this industrial, inhumane system. If there’s no welfare label on the pork, don’t buy it, it’s that easy.

Today, choosing what you buy is a stronger statement that voting in an election. The UK supermarket labelling system is not perfect but it does allow us to choose meat that has been raised in systems that are sustainable because the pigs are healthy and do not require routine antibiotics.

Look for pork labelled Freedom Food, Outdoor Bred, Free Range or best of all Organic, and stand up for pig welfare, and the centuries-old, magnificent British landscapes and rural heritage.

There are other labels too – but these may not mean all you expect them to. So look here for a full rundown of all the labels you might find in UK supermarkets, and the production methods they describe. (Summary below)

Choose pork raised on real farms 

And just to remind yourself of why it’s so important, please watch and share Tracy Worcester’s campaign and 3-minute video ‘Take the Pig Pledge to buy meat from Farms Not Factories(embed below).

It asks people to join a worldwide movement to boycott pork from animal factories – and instead to buy high welfare from supermarkets, butchers, farmers’ markets or online, and in restaurants to ask for pork that has been raised on a high welfare farm.

 

Choosing high welfare pork on supermarket shelves says “no, thanks” (as politely as you may wish) to those animal factories that abuse animals by overcrowding them often on bare concrete slats, over-use antibiotics causing more and more diseases to become resistant, and bankrupt high welfare farmers that have been feeding us for generations. 

When you go out for dinner, ask the waiter where the meat comes from. You’re paying for the meal and you have a right to know.

And the Farms Not Factories high welfare pork directory shows you where to find high welfare pork from farms, shops & restaurants that you can trust.

What really happens when you pick the right label?

Buying pork from high welfare production methods ensures that the animals have not been mistreated. It also means that you are paying a fair price and that your money supports humane, sustainable farming, thus helping to preserve real farming skills and vibrant rural communities. 

Yes, it really is that easy. It’s time for a new generation of label readers to lead the way – and make real farming a best seller.

 


 

Giulia Barcaro is creative director at Farms not Factories.

Check out: Worldwide high welfare pork directory.

 

Labels summary from Pig Pledge

Organic

sa_organic_black_tstarpic5
5-stars

  • Sows and piglets have access to the outdoors all their lives
  • No genetically modified feed
  • Antibiotics rarely used

Organic pigs are kept in conditions that, as far as possible, allow them to express their natural behaviour. This includes being kept in family groups with free access to fields when conditions allow. In practice this means that most organic pigs will be outdoors all year round, though indoor housing is permitted in severe weather conditions, provided that there is plenty of straw bedding for the pigs, and continued access to an outdoor run. As well as the Soil Association Organic Standard, there are ten other approved UK organic certification bodies.Further information

Free range

Label-freerangestarpic4
4-stars

  • Sows and piglets have access to outdoor space all their lives
  • Antibiotics rarely used

These pigs are born outside, in fields and they remain outside until they are sent for slaughter. They are provided with food, water and shelter and are free to roam within defined boundaries. Free range pigs have very generous minimum space allowances, which are worked out according to the soil conditions and rotation practices of the farm. Breeding sows are also kept outside, in fields for their productive life.Further information

Outdoor bred

Label-outdoorstarpic3
3-stars

  • Sows have access to the outdoors all their lives
  • Piglets brought indoors for fattening after 4 weeks, usually with straw or other bedding
  • Less use of antibiotics

These pigs are born outside, in fields where they are kept until weaning (normally around 4 weeks) and moved indoors. Breeding sows are kept outside in fields for their productive lives. The pigs are provided with food, water and shelter with generous minimum space allowances. ‘Outdoor reared’ is a similar system, but the piglets usually have access to the outdoors for up to 10 weeks before being moved indoors.Further information

Freedom Food

label-freedomfoodwhitestarpic2
2-stars

  • Indoor pigs must have bedding
  • No farrowing crates
  • Limited tail docking
  • Routine antibiotics on some farms

Freedom Food is the RSPCA’s labelling and assurance scheme dedicated to improving welfare standards for farm animals. About 30% of pigs reared in the UK are reared under this label. Freedom Food assesses farms to the RSPCA’s strict welfare standards and if they meet every standard they can use the Freedom Food label on their product. The scheme covers both indoor and outdoor rearing systems and ensures that greater space and bedding material are provided.

For more information visit: www.freedomfood.co.uk

Further information

Red Tractor

redtractor1star-redtractor
1-star

  • Lowest legal UK standards
  • Farrowing crates allowed
  • Pigs often indoors on bare concrete with no straw
  • Tail docking widespread
  • Routine antibiotics on some farms.

The Red Tractor Assured Food Standards scheme only assures UK consumers that meat products comply with UK minimum legal requirements. 80% of British pork farms unite under this label, so although the scheme will include farms using a wide range of production methods, the label is in no way a guarantee of good animal welfare and allows intensive production. In 2012, advertisements falsely claiming that British pork sold with the Red Tractor label were “high welfare” had to be banned after several complaints. The Red Tractor logo used in conjunction with a Union Jack only guarantees that the pork is British.

For more information visit: www.redtractor.org.uk

Further information

No welfare label

label-nolabel0star-nowelfarelabel
0-stars

  • Mostly imported, often raised below UK welfare standards
  • Farrowing crates allowed
  • EU sow stall limits often ignored
  • Most pigs confined indoors on bare concrete with no straw
  • Illegal tail docking widespread
  • Widespread routine over-use of antibiotics

 

 




388385

‘Misleading’ fracking ad ‘must not appear again’ Updated for 2026





A reader of the Daily Telegraph saw red on reading an ad by Breitling Energy Corporation – one the the US’s biggest frackers – making big promises about the benefits of fracking in the UK.

Now their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been upheld on all six counts, as the ad is ruled to be making claims that are at the same time misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

“Dear Citizens of the United Kingdom”, the ad began. “Do you know that your country is blessed with an incredible gift? It’s shale gas – natural gas trapped in layers of shale rock deep below the surface of the earth …

“The British Geological Survey has recently released new shale gas estimates considerably higher than former estimates. This is fantastic news for the UK – especially in the wake of a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter …

“This means: Decades worth of natural gas … Millions of pounds in tax revenues to support social and other government programs … Freedom from interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply … Lowering energy prices for millions … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy … “

But not a single claim held water!

But now its claims have been ruled out of order. The complainant set out the following issues, all of which were upheld following the ASA’s painstaking research:

Claim 1: “a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter” – false because it exaggerated the severity of the shortage.

ASA: “We considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the UK had been in real danger of running out of gas, and therefore that the reference to a ‘near-catastrophic’ shortage was misleading.”

Claim 2: “This means … decades worth of natural gas” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “Because the report related to shale gas resources only and not reserves, and because we understood that informed opinion was at best divided as to the likely recovery factor of those resources, we concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 3: “This means … Millions of pounds in tax revenues” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “We considered that it was not possible definitively to calculate the likely tax revenues resulting from the resources identified by the BGS report … We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 4: “interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply”, because Russia did not supply gas to the UK and had never interrupted the UK’s gas supply.

ASA: “the claim … exaggerated the outcome of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine dispute for the UK and misled as to both the direct intent of Russia’s actions and the probability of future similar events causing interruptions or shortages in the UK.”

Claim 5: “This means … Lowering energy prices for millions” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known, and that in any case domestic extraction would have minimal impact on energy prices because the UK was part of an integrated European gas market.

ASA: “Whilst we acknowledged the view expressed by David Cameron that fracking in the UK had ‘real potential’ to drive down energy bills, we noted that that view was contingent upon a number of assumptions as to the size of UK shale gas reserves and the scale upon which extraction would be adopted, and were concerned in any case that the press article did not constitute robust documentary evidence in support of the claim.”

Claim 6: “This means … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy” – false because there were no reliable estimates for the carbon footprint of shale gas extraction, that extraction carried the risk of methane emissions, which if unburnt was more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that there was no certainty that gas would be used instead of, rather than in addition to, coal.

ASA: “it was not certain that the development of UK shale gas resources would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions where that happened alongside a concurrent reduction in the use of coal for energy. We also considered that the wording ‘by replacing coal with natural gas for energy’ implied that shale gas would be used instead of coal, when that was only one of several scenarios including an additional energy source to meet increased future demand.”

A final telling off

In conclusion, the ASA admonished the Dallas, Texas based Breitling, “The claims must not appear again in their current form.

“We told Breitling Energy Corporation to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence in support of claims likely to be regarded as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation, that matters of opinion were not presented as objective claims, and that their future ads did not suggest that their claims were universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion existed.”

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth commented: “Supporters of fracking claim that their opponents peddle myth and misinformation, but this verdict and a previous ASA decision against Cuadrilla for their ‘misleading advertising’, is a damning indictment of fracking industry spin.”

But most remarkable is that Breitling’s claims coincide precisely with those made by David Cameron, the UK’s pro-fracking Prime minister, his equally pro-fracking Chancellor, David Osborne, and other Cabinet members.

Now that the claims they make at every opportunity have been subject to exhaustive scrutiny and found to be simultaneously misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated, will they change their tune?

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Read: ASA Adjudication on Breitling Energy Corporation.

 

 




383657

‘Misleading’ fracking ad ‘must not appear again’ Updated for 2026





A reader of the Daily Telegraph saw red on reading an ad by Breitling Energy Corporation – one the the US’s biggest frackers – making big promises about the benefits of fracking in the UK.

Now their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been upheld on all six counts, as the ad is ruled to be making claims that are at the same time misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

“Dear Citizens of the United Kingdom”, the ad began. “Do you know that your country is blessed with an incredible gift? It’s shale gas – natural gas trapped in layers of shale rock deep below the surface of the earth …

“The British Geological Survey has recently released new shale gas estimates considerably higher than former estimates. This is fantastic news for the UK – especially in the wake of a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter …

“This means: Decades worth of natural gas … Millions of pounds in tax revenues to support social and other government programs … Freedom from interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply … Lowering energy prices for millions … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy … “

But not a single claim held water!

But now its claims have been ruled out of order. The complainant set out the following issues, all of which were upheld following the ASA’s painstaking research:

Claim 1: “a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter” – false because it exaggerated the severity of the shortage.

ASA: “We considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the UK had been in real danger of running out of gas, and therefore that the reference to a ‘near-catastrophic’ shortage was misleading.”

Claim 2: “This means … decades worth of natural gas” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “Because the report related to shale gas resources only and not reserves, and because we understood that informed opinion was at best divided as to the likely recovery factor of those resources, we concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 3: “This means … Millions of pounds in tax revenues” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “We considered that it was not possible definitively to calculate the likely tax revenues resulting from the resources identified by the BGS report … We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 4: “interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply”, because Russia did not supply gas to the UK and had never interrupted the UK’s gas supply.

ASA: “the claim … exaggerated the outcome of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine dispute for the UK and misled as to both the direct intent of Russia’s actions and the probability of future similar events causing interruptions or shortages in the UK.”

Claim 5: “This means … Lowering energy prices for millions” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known, and that in any case domestic extraction would have minimal impact on energy prices because the UK was part of an integrated European gas market.

ASA: “Whilst we acknowledged the view expressed by David Cameron that fracking in the UK had ‘real potential’ to drive down energy bills, we noted that that view was contingent upon a number of assumptions as to the size of UK shale gas reserves and the scale upon which extraction would be adopted, and were concerned in any case that the press article did not constitute robust documentary evidence in support of the claim.”

Claim 6: “This means … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy” – false because there were no reliable estimates for the carbon footprint of shale gas extraction, that extraction carried the risk of methane emissions, which if unburnt was more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that there was no certainty that gas would be used instead of, rather than in addition to, coal.

ASA: “it was not certain that the development of UK shale gas resources would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions where that happened alongside a concurrent reduction in the use of coal for energy. We also considered that the wording ‘by replacing coal with natural gas for energy’ implied that shale gas would be used instead of coal, when that was only one of several scenarios including an additional energy source to meet increased future demand.”

A final telling off

In conclusion, the ASA admonished the Dallas, Texas based Breitling, “The claims must not appear again in their current form.

“We told Breitling Energy Corporation to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence in support of claims likely to be regarded as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation, that matters of opinion were not presented as objective claims, and that their future ads did not suggest that their claims were universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion existed.”

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth commented: “Supporters of fracking claim that their opponents peddle myth and misinformation, but this verdict and a previous ASA decision against Cuadrilla for their ‘misleading advertising’, is a damning indictment of fracking industry spin.”

But most remarkable is that Breitling’s claims coincide precisely with those made by David Cameron, the UK’s pro-fracking Prime minister, his equally pro-fracking Chancellor, David Osborne, and other Cabinet members.

Now that the claims they make at every opportunity have been subject to exhaustive scrutiny and found to be simultaneously misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated, will they change their tune?

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Read: ASA Adjudication on Breitling Energy Corporation.

 

 




383657

‘Misleading’ fracking ad ‘must not appear again’ Updated for 2026





A reader of the Daily Telegraph saw red on reading an ad by Breitling Energy Corporation – one the the US’s biggest frackers – making big promises about the benefits of fracking in the UK.

Now their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been upheld on all six counts, as the ad is ruled to be making claims that are at the same time misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

“Dear Citizens of the United Kingdom”, the ad began. “Do you know that your country is blessed with an incredible gift? It’s shale gas – natural gas trapped in layers of shale rock deep below the surface of the earth …

“The British Geological Survey has recently released new shale gas estimates considerably higher than former estimates. This is fantastic news for the UK – especially in the wake of a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter …

“This means: Decades worth of natural gas … Millions of pounds in tax revenues to support social and other government programs … Freedom from interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply … Lowering energy prices for millions … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy … “

But not a single claim held water!

But now its claims have been ruled out of order. The complainant set out the following issues, all of which were upheld following the ASA’s painstaking research:

Claim 1: “a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter” – false because it exaggerated the severity of the shortage.

ASA: “We considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the UK had been in real danger of running out of gas, and therefore that the reference to a ‘near-catastrophic’ shortage was misleading.”

Claim 2: “This means … decades worth of natural gas” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “Because the report related to shale gas resources only and not reserves, and because we understood that informed opinion was at best divided as to the likely recovery factor of those resources, we concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 3: “This means … Millions of pounds in tax revenues” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “We considered that it was not possible definitively to calculate the likely tax revenues resulting from the resources identified by the BGS report … We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 4: “interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply”, because Russia did not supply gas to the UK and had never interrupted the UK’s gas supply.

ASA: “the claim … exaggerated the outcome of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine dispute for the UK and misled as to both the direct intent of Russia’s actions and the probability of future similar events causing interruptions or shortages in the UK.”

Claim 5: “This means … Lowering energy prices for millions” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known, and that in any case domestic extraction would have minimal impact on energy prices because the UK was part of an integrated European gas market.

ASA: “Whilst we acknowledged the view expressed by David Cameron that fracking in the UK had ‘real potential’ to drive down energy bills, we noted that that view was contingent upon a number of assumptions as to the size of UK shale gas reserves and the scale upon which extraction would be adopted, and were concerned in any case that the press article did not constitute robust documentary evidence in support of the claim.”

Claim 6: “This means … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy” – false because there were no reliable estimates for the carbon footprint of shale gas extraction, that extraction carried the risk of methane emissions, which if unburnt was more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that there was no certainty that gas would be used instead of, rather than in addition to, coal.

ASA: “it was not certain that the development of UK shale gas resources would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions where that happened alongside a concurrent reduction in the use of coal for energy. We also considered that the wording ‘by replacing coal with natural gas for energy’ implied that shale gas would be used instead of coal, when that was only one of several scenarios including an additional energy source to meet increased future demand.”

A final telling off

In conclusion, the ASA admonished the Dallas, Texas based Breitling, “The claims must not appear again in their current form.

“We told Breitling Energy Corporation to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence in support of claims likely to be regarded as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation, that matters of opinion were not presented as objective claims, and that their future ads did not suggest that their claims were universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion existed.”

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth commented: “Supporters of fracking claim that their opponents peddle myth and misinformation, but this verdict and a previous ASA decision against Cuadrilla for their ‘misleading advertising’, is a damning indictment of fracking industry spin.”

But most remarkable is that Breitling’s claims coincide precisely with those made by David Cameron, the UK’s pro-fracking Prime minister, his equally pro-fracking Chancellor, David Osborne, and other Cabinet members.

Now that the claims they make at every opportunity have been subject to exhaustive scrutiny and found to be simultaneously misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated, will they change their tune?

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Read: ASA Adjudication on Breitling Energy Corporation.

 

 




383657