Tag Archives: what

Confronting industrialism: if you can’t clean it up, don’t make it! Updated for 2026





Some of the most important questions confronting us are: what should we do about this culture’s industrial wastes, from greenhouse gases to pesticides to ocean microplastics?

Can the capitalists clean up the messes they create? Or is the whole industrial system beyond reform? The answers become clear with a little context.

Let’s start the discussion of context with two riddles that aren’t very funny.

Q: What do you get when a cross a long drug habit, a quick temper, and a gun?
A: Two life terms for murder, with earliest release date 2026.

And,

Q: What do you get when you cross a large corporation, two nation states, 40 tons of poison, and at least 8,000 dead human beings?
A: Retirement with full pay and benefits. Warren Anderson, CEO of Union Carbide. Bhopal.

The point of these riddles is not merely that when it comes to murder and many other atrocities, different rules apply to the poor than to the rich. And it’s not merely that ‘economic production’ is a get-out-of-jail free card for whatever atrocities the ‘producers’ commit, whether it’s genocide, gynocide, ecocide, slaving, mass murder, mass poisoning, and so on.

Do we even care? We already know they don’t …

The point here is that this culture is clearly not particularly interested in cleaning up its toxic messes. Obviously, or it wouldn’t keep making them. It wouldn’t allow those who make these messes to do so with impunity. It certainly wouldn’t socially reward those who make them.

This may or may not be the appropriate time to mention that this culture has created, for example, 14 quadrillion (yes, quadrillion) lethal doses of Plutonium 239, which has a half-life of over 24,000 years, which means that in a mere 100,000 years that number will be all the way down to only about 3.5 quadrillion lethal doses: Yay!

And socially reward them it does. I could have used a whole host of examples other than Warren Anderson, who was playing on the back nine long after he should have been hanging by the neck (he was sentenced to death in absentia, but the US refused to extradite him).

There’s Tony Hayward, who oversaw BP’s devastation of the Gulf of Mexico and who was ‘punished’ for this with a severance package worth well over $30 million. Or we could throw another couple of riddles at you, which are really the same riddles:

Q: What do you call someone who puts poison in the subways of Tokyo?
A: A terrorist.

Q: What do you call someone who puts poison (cyanide) into groundwater?
A: A capitalist: CEO of a gold mining corporation.

We could talk about frackers, who make money as they poison groundwater. We could talk about anyone associated with Monsanto. You can add your own examples. I’d say you can ‘choose your poison’ but of course you can’t. Those are chosen for you by those doing the poisoning.

Civilization’s ability to overcome our native common sense

I keep thinking about one of the most fundamentally sound (and fundamentally disregarded) statements I’ve ever read. After Bhopal, one of the doctors trying to help survivors stated that corporations (and by extension, all organizations and individuals) “shouldn’t be permitted to make poison for which there is no antidote.”

Please note, by the way, that far from having antidotes, nine out of ten chemicals used in pesticides in the US haven’t even been thoroughly tested for (human) toxicity.

Isn’t that something we were all supposed to learn by the time we were three? Isn’t it one of the first lessons our parents are supposed to teach us? Don’t make a mess you can’t clean up!

Yet that is precisely the foundational motivator of this culture. Sure, we can use fancy phrases to describe the processes of creating messes we have no intention of cleaning up, and in many cases cannot clean up.

And so we get phrases like ‘developing natural resources’, or ‘sustainable development’, or ‘technological progress’ (like the invention and production of plastics, the bathing of the world in endocrine disruptors, and so on), or ‘mining’, or ‘agriculture’, or ‘the Green Revolution’, or ‘fueling growth’, or ‘creating jobs’, or ‘building empire’, or ‘global trade’.

But physical reality is always more important than what we call it or how we rationalize it. And the truth is that this culture has been based from the beginning to the present on privatizing benefits and externalizing costs. In other words, on exploiting others and leaving messes behind.

Hell, they call them ‘limited liability corporations’ because a primary purpose is to limit the legal and financial liability of those who benefit from the actions of corporations for the harm these actions cause.

Internalizing insanity

This is no way to run a childhood, and it’s an even worse way to run a culture. It’s killing the planet. Part of the problem is that most of us are insane, having been made so by this culture. We should never forget what RD Laing wrote about this insanity:

“In order to rationalize our industrial-military complex [and I would say this entire way of life, including the creation of messes we have neither the interest nor capacity to clean up], we have to destroy our capacity to see clearly any more what is in front of, and to imagine what is beyond, our noses. Long before a thermonuclear war can come about, we have had to lay waste to our own sanity.

“We begin with the children. It is imperative to catch them in time. Without the most thorough and rapid brainwashing their dirty minds would see through our dirty tricks. Children are not yet fools, but we shall turn them into imbeciles like ourselves, with high IQs, if possible.”

We’ve all seen this too many times. If you ask any reasonably intelligent seven-year-old how to stop global warming caused in great measure by the burning of oil and gas and by the destruction of forests and prairies and wetlands, this child might well say, “Stop burning oil and gas, and stop destroying forests and prairies and wetlands!”

If you ask a reasonably intelligent thirty-year-old who works for a ‘green’ high tech industry, you’ll probably get an answer that primarily helps the industry that pays his or her salary.

Part of the brainwashing process of turning us into imbeciles consists of getting us to identify more closely with-and care more about the fate of-this culture rather than the real physical world. We are taught that the economy is the ‘real world’, and the real world is merely a place from which to steal and on which to dump externalities.

Does nature have to adapt to us? Or us to nature?

Most of us internalize this lesson so completely that it becomes entirely transparent to us. Even most environmentalists internalize this. What do most mainstream solutions to global warming have in common? They all take industrialism as a given, and the natural world as having to conform to industrialism.

They all take empire as a given. They all take overshoot as a given. All of this is literally insane, in terms of being out of touch with physical reality. The real world must always be more important than our social system, in part because without a real world you can’t have any social system whatsoever. It’s embarrassing to have to write this.

Upton Sinclair famously said that it’s hard to make a man understand something, when his job depends on him not understanding it.

I would add that it’s hard to make people understand something when the benefits they accrue through their exploitative and destructive way of life depend on it. So we suddenly get really stupid about the waste products produced by this culture.

When people ask how we can stop polluting the oceans with plastic, they don’t really mean, “How can we stop polluting the oceans with plastic?” They mean, “How can we stop polluting the oceans with plastic and still have this way of life?”

And when they ask how we can stop global warming, they really mean, “How can we stop global warming without stopping this level of energy usage?”. When they ask how we can have clean groundwater, they really mean, “How can we have clean groundwater while we continue to use and spread all over the environment thousands of useful but toxic chemicals that end up in groundwater?”

The answer to all of these is: you can’t.

First we must recover our sanity. Then we must act

As I’ve been writing this essay about the messes caused by this culture, there’s an allegorical image I can’t get out of my mind. It’s of a half-dozen Emergency Medical Technicians putting bandages on a person who has been assaulted by a knife-wielding psychopath.

The EMTs are trying desperately to stop this person from bleeding out. It’s all very tense and suspenseful as to whether they’ll be able to staunch the flow of blood before the person dies.

But here’s the problem: as these EMTs are applying bandages as fast as they can, the psychopath is continuing to stab the victim. Worse, the psychopath is making wounds faster than the EMTs are able to bandage them. And the psychopath is paid very well for stabbing the victim, while most of the EMTs are bandaging in their spare time.

And in fact the health of the economy is based on how much blood the victim loses – as in this culture, where economic production is measured by the conversion of living landbase into raw materials, e.g., living forests into two-by-fours, living mountains into coal.

How do we stop the victim from bleeding out? Any child can tell you. And any sane person who cares more about the health of the victim than the health of the economy that is based on dismembering the victim can tell you. The first thing you need to do is stop the stabbing. No amount of bandages will make up for an assault that is ongoing, indeed, one that is accelerating.

What do we do about this culture’s fabrication of industrial wastes? The first step is stop their production. Actually the first step is that we regain our sanity, that is, we transfer our loyalty away from the psychopaths, and toward the victim, toward, in this case, the planet that is our only home.

Once we do that, everything else is technical. How do we stop them? We stop them.

 


 

Derrick Jensen is Member of the Steering Committee of Deep Green Resistance. See more details. Read Derrick Jensen’s blog.

Also on The Ecologist:Reclaim Environmentalism!’ by Derrick Jensen & Lierre Keith.

 

 




390964

Confronting industrialism: if you can’t clean it up, don’t make it! Updated for 2026





Some of the most important questions confronting us are: what should we do about this culture’s industrial wastes, from greenhouse gases to pesticides to ocean microplastics?

Can the capitalists clean up the messes they create? Or is the whole industrial system beyond reform? The answers become clear with a little context.

Let’s start the discussion of context with two riddles that aren’t very funny.

Q: What do you get when a cross a long drug habit, a quick temper, and a gun?
A: Two life terms for murder, with earliest release date 2026.

And,

Q: What do you get when you cross a large corporation, two nation states, 40 tons of poison, and at least 8,000 dead human beings?
A: Retirement with full pay and benefits. Warren Anderson, CEO of Union Carbide. Bhopal.

The point of these riddles is not merely that when it comes to murder and many other atrocities, different rules apply to the poor than to the rich. And it’s not merely that ‘economic production’ is a get-out-of-jail free card for whatever atrocities the ‘producers’ commit, whether it’s genocide, gynocide, ecocide, slaving, mass murder, mass poisoning, and so on.

Do we even care? We already know they don’t …

The point here is that this culture is clearly not particularly interested in cleaning up its toxic messes. Obviously, or it wouldn’t keep making them. It wouldn’t allow those who make these messes to do so with impunity. It certainly wouldn’t socially reward those who make them.

This may or may not be the appropriate time to mention that this culture has created, for example, 14 quadrillion (yes, quadrillion) lethal doses of Plutonium 239, which has a half-life of over 24,000 years, which means that in a mere 100,000 years that number will be all the way down to only about 3.5 quadrillion lethal doses: Yay!

And socially reward them it does. I could have used a whole host of examples other than Warren Anderson, who was playing on the back nine long after he should have been hanging by the neck (he was sentenced to death in absentia, but the US refused to extradite him).

There’s Tony Hayward, who oversaw BP’s devastation of the Gulf of Mexico and who was ‘punished’ for this with a severance package worth well over $30 million. Or we could throw another couple of riddles at you, which are really the same riddles:

Q: What do you call someone who puts poison in the subways of Tokyo?
A: A terrorist.

Q: What do you call someone who puts poison (cyanide) into groundwater?
A: A capitalist: CEO of a gold mining corporation.

We could talk about frackers, who make money as they poison groundwater. We could talk about anyone associated with Monsanto. You can add your own examples. I’d say you can ‘choose your poison’ but of course you can’t. Those are chosen for you by those doing the poisoning.

Civilization’s ability to overcome our native common sense

I keep thinking about one of the most fundamentally sound (and fundamentally disregarded) statements I’ve ever read. After Bhopal, one of the doctors trying to help survivors stated that corporations (and by extension, all organizations and individuals) “shouldn’t be permitted to make poison for which there is no antidote.”

Please note, by the way, that far from having antidotes, nine out of ten chemicals used in pesticides in the US haven’t even been thoroughly tested for (human) toxicity.

Isn’t that something we were all supposed to learn by the time we were three? Isn’t it one of the first lessons our parents are supposed to teach us? Don’t make a mess you can’t clean up!

Yet that is precisely the foundational motivator of this culture. Sure, we can use fancy phrases to describe the processes of creating messes we have no intention of cleaning up, and in many cases cannot clean up.

And so we get phrases like ‘developing natural resources’, or ‘sustainable development’, or ‘technological progress’ (like the invention and production of plastics, the bathing of the world in endocrine disruptors, and so on), or ‘mining’, or ‘agriculture’, or ‘the Green Revolution’, or ‘fueling growth’, or ‘creating jobs’, or ‘building empire’, or ‘global trade’.

But physical reality is always more important than what we call it or how we rationalize it. And the truth is that this culture has been based from the beginning to the present on privatizing benefits and externalizing costs. In other words, on exploiting others and leaving messes behind.

Hell, they call them ‘limited liability corporations’ because a primary purpose is to limit the legal and financial liability of those who benefit from the actions of corporations for the harm these actions cause.

Internalizing insanity

This is no way to run a childhood, and it’s an even worse way to run a culture. It’s killing the planet. Part of the problem is that most of us are insane, having been made so by this culture. We should never forget what RD Laing wrote about this insanity:

“In order to rationalize our industrial-military complex [and I would say this entire way of life, including the creation of messes we have neither the interest nor capacity to clean up], we have to destroy our capacity to see clearly any more what is in front of, and to imagine what is beyond, our noses. Long before a thermonuclear war can come about, we have had to lay waste to our own sanity.

“We begin with the children. It is imperative to catch them in time. Without the most thorough and rapid brainwashing their dirty minds would see through our dirty tricks. Children are not yet fools, but we shall turn them into imbeciles like ourselves, with high IQs, if possible.”

We’ve all seen this too many times. If you ask any reasonably intelligent seven-year-old how to stop global warming caused in great measure by the burning of oil and gas and by the destruction of forests and prairies and wetlands, this child might well say, “Stop burning oil and gas, and stop destroying forests and prairies and wetlands!”

If you ask a reasonably intelligent thirty-year-old who works for a ‘green’ high tech industry, you’ll probably get an answer that primarily helps the industry that pays his or her salary.

Part of the brainwashing process of turning us into imbeciles consists of getting us to identify more closely with-and care more about the fate of-this culture rather than the real physical world. We are taught that the economy is the ‘real world’, and the real world is merely a place from which to steal and on which to dump externalities.

Does nature have to adapt to us? Or us to nature?

Most of us internalize this lesson so completely that it becomes entirely transparent to us. Even most environmentalists internalize this. What do most mainstream solutions to global warming have in common? They all take industrialism as a given, and the natural world as having to conform to industrialism.

They all take empire as a given. They all take overshoot as a given. All of this is literally insane, in terms of being out of touch with physical reality. The real world must always be more important than our social system, in part because without a real world you can’t have any social system whatsoever. It’s embarrassing to have to write this.

Upton Sinclair famously said that it’s hard to make a man understand something, when his job depends on him not understanding it.

I would add that it’s hard to make people understand something when the benefits they accrue through their exploitative and destructive way of life depend on it. So we suddenly get really stupid about the waste products produced by this culture.

When people ask how we can stop polluting the oceans with plastic, they don’t really mean, “How can we stop polluting the oceans with plastic?” They mean, “How can we stop polluting the oceans with plastic and still have this way of life?”

And when they ask how we can stop global warming, they really mean, “How can we stop global warming without stopping this level of energy usage?”. When they ask how we can have clean groundwater, they really mean, “How can we have clean groundwater while we continue to use and spread all over the environment thousands of useful but toxic chemicals that end up in groundwater?”

The answer to all of these is: you can’t.

First we must recover our sanity. Then we must act

As I’ve been writing this essay about the messes caused by this culture, there’s an allegorical image I can’t get out of my mind. It’s of a half-dozen Emergency Medical Technicians putting bandages on a person who has been assaulted by a knife-wielding psychopath.

The EMTs are trying desperately to stop this person from bleeding out. It’s all very tense and suspenseful as to whether they’ll be able to staunch the flow of blood before the person dies.

But here’s the problem: as these EMTs are applying bandages as fast as they can, the psychopath is continuing to stab the victim. Worse, the psychopath is making wounds faster than the EMTs are able to bandage them. And the psychopath is paid very well for stabbing the victim, while most of the EMTs are bandaging in their spare time.

And in fact the health of the economy is based on how much blood the victim loses – as in this culture, where economic production is measured by the conversion of living landbase into raw materials, e.g., living forests into two-by-fours, living mountains into coal.

How do we stop the victim from bleeding out? Any child can tell you. And any sane person who cares more about the health of the victim than the health of the economy that is based on dismembering the victim can tell you. The first thing you need to do is stop the stabbing. No amount of bandages will make up for an assault that is ongoing, indeed, one that is accelerating.

What do we do about this culture’s fabrication of industrial wastes? The first step is stop their production. Actually the first step is that we regain our sanity, that is, we transfer our loyalty away from the psychopaths, and toward the victim, toward, in this case, the planet that is our only home.

Once we do that, everything else is technical. How do we stop them? We stop them.

 


 

Derrick Jensen is Member of the Steering Committee of Deep Green Resistance. See more details. Read Derrick Jensen’s blog.

Also on The Ecologist:Reclaim Environmentalism!’ by Derrick Jensen & Lierre Keith.

 

 




390964

Rifkind and Straw: Westminster is swimming in corporate influence Updated for 2026





For the right fee David Miliband will have dinner with you. A couple of years ago, that fee seems to have been around £20,000 + (substantial) expenses. These days, it seems he only asks for £10,000 to £15,000.

I raise this because two of the elder Miliband’s predecessors at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have got themselves into a bit of bother, having been caught red handed offering to use the influence bestowed on them by the British electorate to advance the interests of a fictional Chinese firm in exchange for a significant sum of money.

Jack Straw used the same defence as he did when the Guardian put to him serious questions about his involvement in torture: that he had done nothing which was against the law. I am sure this is true.

He may deserve to be in prison for his role in the Iraq War, but he’s not stupid enough to commit more minor offences. Unless you’re a fool, there are plenty of ways to amass a personal fortune from the office time and influence granted to you by your constituents without deviating one iota from the legislation you have a role in writing.

For me, though, these scandals are interesting not because they highlight a few bad apples, but because they are a window into a whole world. There is no suggestion, for example, that any of David Miliband’s dinner engagements have been with anyone particularly unsavoury, but yet they still leave a bad taste in my mouth.

What are you really buying for a £26,000 speech?

I suppose part of my concern is that I’ve seen the man speak. Despite what the papers always said, he’s no more charismatic than his brother – by which I mean, he can tell a joke and string a sentence together, but it’s nothing special. He’s no Brown or Blair.

Given this, why would a company pay more than £26,000 in total to have him at their event? Is it for the jokes, or for something else? Who would they sit him next to during the dinner? What conversation would they have over their starters? What questions would they ask?

Influence is a complex business. It’s about knowing how to put things, and who to put them to. The corridors of power are a maze. Westminster and Whitehall are like the internet without any search engines. With no guide, it’s almost impossible to find what you need. Almost everyone gets lost. How much each of us can influence formal politics depends, therefore, partly on the access we have to those who know parliament best and so can give us a steer.

If you want to know who to talk to about this government policy, or how to get that detail of law changed, then sitting at dinner next to a former foreign secretary would be very useful. Of course, none of this information is secret. There is no reason he shouldn’t tell anyone who asks. It’s just, not everyone has the opportunity to pose their question. Most people can’t pay £20,000 to get to sit next to the former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Snouts in the corporate trough

Of course, it’s unfair to pick on David Miliband. There are huge numbers of current and former politicians who will happily dine at your top table if you write them a vast cheque – Gordon Brown is said to charge £100,000 a night, though his office say (and I don’t doubt) that he doesn’t pocket a penny of it, that it all goes to charity.

And I’ve deliberately chosen the fluffy end of the scale. If we’re looking for deals which stink even more, then we’d be talking about former Labour Health Secretary Alan Milburn cashing in on his own NHS privatisation schemes; those coalition MPs with connections to private healthcare companies; or the fact that Tory MP and former whip Brian Wiggin is being paid £5k a year by a company which got the contract to run privatised welfare benefits.

But the harder ways in which our democracy is being auctioned off are only a small part of the problem. Because what really matters are the softer mechanisms – the ways in which those with lots of money find guides to navigate the complexities of the British state, the web of gentle influence which quietly ensures that British public policy never crosses certain lines, that the voices heard first, the people whose language MPs become accustomed to speaking, are at a certain end of the income spectrum.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing when each of these stories breaks is that those who have done wrong seem not to understand where or that they have erred. Like toddlers being told off for putting their fingers in the chocolate spread, they simply don’t see what the issue is. This is because the story about Rifkind and Straw isn’t so much a one off scandal as a system. The walls of Westminster are papered with corporate logos.

Whether it’s a black-tie dinner or a seat on an advisory board, if access to power can be bought, the rich will always be at the front of the queue. Oxfam recently predicted that the UK will soon be the most unequal country in the developed world. Should we really be surprised?

 


 

Adam Ramsay is the Co-Editor of OurKingdom and also works with Bright Green. Before, he was a full time campaigner with People & Planet. His e-book ‘42 Reasons to Support Scottish Independence‘ is now available.

This article was originally published by openDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.

Creative Commons License

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/adam-ramsay/it%27s-no-surprise-rifkind-and-straw-don%27t-get-it-westminster%27s-swimming-in-cor

 




390765

TTIP: What bit of the word ‘no’ doesn’t the Commission understand? Updated for 2026





Even a tyrant might baulk at effecting a policy which 97% of people oppose. But the European Commission is moving forward with the US-EU trade deal (known as TTIP), despite getting just that result from its largest consultation in history. Nonetheless, corporate plans for this huge trade deal have been badly damaged.

Last year, in response public criticism, the Commission issued a consultation on so-called ‘investor protection’. That’s the bit of trade deals which gives corporations the right to sue governments for implementing policies that damage their profits. So for Investor protection read corporate privilege.

Not surprisingly it’s hugely unpopular. Over 97% all of the 150,000 respondents to the Commission’s consultation – that’s more than 100 times that of any previous trade consultation – rejected investor protection outright.

Where’s the ‘I don’t want this’ box?

Unfortunately, the Commission insists that they were answering a question that hadn’t been asked. At no point in the whole dense, legalistic consultation document were participants given an option to say ‘we don’t want this’.

Rather they were asked questions almost impossible to understand by anyone who isn’t a trade lawyer. When campaign groups created an easy-to-follow online response action, they were accused of “hijacking” the process.

On Tuesday, the Commission released its findings in full. They show that an enormous number of EU citizens responded to the consultation, more than any consultation in history, as well as nearly 450 businesses, campaign organisations, think tanks and trade unions.

The analysis shows that this really is a battle between big business and the rest of us. The exclusion of public services is “strongly opposed by a significant number of business associations who want to see exceptions and limitations brought down to a minimum.”

Unsurprisingly, corporate giants like Chevron, Suez and Repsol, which have sued countries under similar investor protection, are fully supportive of those systems. Indeed some reject any weakening of a system which has allowed tobacco giant Philip Morris to sue Uruguay for putting health warnings on cigarette packets.

But even across the business world, there is no consensus. “[S]mall companies are more critical” – not surprising given small business is unlikely to have access to this world of corporate privilege.

UK: Cameron is all for it, we are all against it

The country generating most response to the EU (52,000 participants) is Britain. This is good, because the British government is pushing investor protection more than any other. Last year they intervened to make sure the Commission kept its nerve.

Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström admitted on Tuesday that the “consultation clearly shows that there is a huge scepticism against the ISDS [investor protection] instrument”, but she will continue to try to work out a compromise nonetheless. This is deeply worrying because the last compromise made in the Canada-EU treaty (CETA) actually risks giving corporations more power.

The deal has been welcomed by veteran investment arbitrator Todd Weiler: “I love it, the new Canadian-EU treaty … we used to have to argue about all of those [foreign investor rights] … And now we have this great list. I just love it when they try to explain things.”

The Commission now embarks on further ‘consultation’. But they have been dealt a serious blow by campaigners from across Europe, who now need to get even more active.

Will the European Parliament step up to the mark?

The European Parliament will adopt a position on TTIP in May. Early signs are that this will be a real showdown and vitally important to whether or not TTIP passes into law.

German Social Democrat Bernd Lange from the trade committee, one of the most important parliamentarians on TTIP, wrote last month that everything important “can be attained in TTIP without the inclusion of ISDS provisions”.

The Environment Committee has been even more critical, worrying “that the TTIP and other mega trade deals are likely to reshape global trade rules and set new standards, while also being discriminatory … risking sidelining important issues for developing countries such as food security, agricultural subsidies and climate change mitigation”

2015 is the make or break year for TTIP, and the coming months are vitally important. To have any hope of stopping this corporate juggernaut, we need to win critical votes in the EU Parliament on TTIP and CETA.

 


 

Nick Dearden is director of Global Justice Now.

Creative Commons License

This article was originally published by openDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.

 




389224

TTIP: What bit of the word ‘no’ doesn’t the Commission understand? Updated for 2026





Even a tyrant might baulk at effecting a policy which 97% of people oppose. But the European Commission is moving forward with the US-EU trade deal (known as TTIP), despite getting just that result from its largest consultation in history. Nonetheless, corporate plans for this huge trade deal have been badly damaged.

Last year, in response public criticism, the Commission issued a consultation on so-called ‘investor protection’. That’s the bit of trade deals which gives corporations the right to sue governments for implementing policies that damage their profits. So for Investor protection read corporate privilege.

Not surprisingly it’s hugely unpopular. Over 97% all of the 150,000 respondents to the Commission’s consultation – that’s more than 100 times that of any previous trade consultation – rejected investor protection outright.

Where’s the ‘I don’t want this’ box?

Unfortunately, the Commission insists that they were answering a question that hadn’t been asked. At no point in the whole dense, legalistic consultation document were participants given an option to say ‘we don’t want this’.

Rather they were asked questions almost impossible to understand by anyone who isn’t a trade lawyer. When campaign groups created an easy-to-follow online response action, they were accused of “hijacking” the process.

On Tuesday, the Commission released its findings in full. They show that an enormous number of EU citizens responded to the consultation, more than any consultation in history, as well as nearly 450 businesses, campaign organisations, think tanks and trade unions.

The analysis shows that this really is a battle between big business and the rest of us. The exclusion of public services is “strongly opposed by a significant number of business associations who want to see exceptions and limitations brought down to a minimum.”

Unsurprisingly, corporate giants like Chevron, Suez and Repsol, which have sued countries under similar investor protection, are fully supportive of those systems. Indeed some reject any weakening of a system which has allowed tobacco giant Philip Morris to sue Uruguay for putting health warnings on cigarette packets.

But even across the business world, there is no consensus. “[S]mall companies are more critical” – not surprising given small business is unlikely to have access to this world of corporate privilege.

UK: Cameron is all for it, we are all against it

The country generating most response to the EU (52,000 participants) is Britain. This is good, because the British government is pushing investor protection more than any other. Last year they intervened to make sure the Commission kept its nerve.

Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström admitted on Tuesday that the “consultation clearly shows that there is a huge scepticism against the ISDS [investor protection] instrument”, but she will continue to try to work out a compromise nonetheless. This is deeply worrying because the last compromise made in the Canada-EU treaty (CETA) actually risks giving corporations more power.

The deal has been welcomed by veteran investment arbitrator Todd Weiler: “I love it, the new Canadian-EU treaty … we used to have to argue about all of those [foreign investor rights] … And now we have this great list. I just love it when they try to explain things.”

The Commission now embarks on further ‘consultation’. But they have been dealt a serious blow by campaigners from across Europe, who now need to get even more active.

Will the European Parliament step up to the mark?

The European Parliament will adopt a position on TTIP in May. Early signs are that this will be a real showdown and vitally important to whether or not TTIP passes into law.

German Social Democrat Bernd Lange from the trade committee, one of the most important parliamentarians on TTIP, wrote last month that everything important “can be attained in TTIP without the inclusion of ISDS provisions”.

The Environment Committee has been even more critical, worrying “that the TTIP and other mega trade deals are likely to reshape global trade rules and set new standards, while also being discriminatory … risking sidelining important issues for developing countries such as food security, agricultural subsidies and climate change mitigation”

2015 is the make or break year for TTIP, and the coming months are vitally important. To have any hope of stopping this corporate juggernaut, we need to win critical votes in the EU Parliament on TTIP and CETA.

 


 

Nick Dearden is director of Global Justice Now.

Creative Commons License

This article was originally published by openDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.

 




389224

TTIP: What bit of the word ‘no’ doesn’t the Commission understand? Updated for 2026





Even a tyrant might baulk at effecting a policy which 97% of people oppose. But the European Commission is moving forward with the US-EU trade deal (known as TTIP), despite getting just that result from its largest consultation in history. Nonetheless, corporate plans for this huge trade deal have been badly damaged.

Last year, in response public criticism, the Commission issued a consultation on so-called ‘investor protection’. That’s the bit of trade deals which gives corporations the right to sue governments for implementing policies that damage their profits. So for Investor protection read corporate privilege.

Not surprisingly it’s hugely unpopular. Over 97% all of the 150,000 respondents to the Commission’s consultation – that’s more than 100 times that of any previous trade consultation – rejected investor protection outright.

Where’s the ‘I don’t want this’ box?

Unfortunately, the Commission insists that they were answering a question that hadn’t been asked. At no point in the whole dense, legalistic consultation document were participants given an option to say ‘we don’t want this’.

Rather they were asked questions almost impossible to understand by anyone who isn’t a trade lawyer. When campaign groups created an easy-to-follow online response action, they were accused of “hijacking” the process.

On Tuesday, the Commission released its findings in full. They show that an enormous number of EU citizens responded to the consultation, more than any consultation in history, as well as nearly 450 businesses, campaign organisations, think tanks and trade unions.

The analysis shows that this really is a battle between big business and the rest of us. The exclusion of public services is “strongly opposed by a significant number of business associations who want to see exceptions and limitations brought down to a minimum.”

Unsurprisingly, corporate giants like Chevron, Suez and Repsol, which have sued countries under similar investor protection, are fully supportive of those systems. Indeed some reject any weakening of a system which has allowed tobacco giant Philip Morris to sue Uruguay for putting health warnings on cigarette packets.

But even across the business world, there is no consensus. “[S]mall companies are more critical” – not surprising given small business is unlikely to have access to this world of corporate privilege.

UK: Cameron is all for it, we are all against it

The country generating most response to the EU (52,000 participants) is Britain. This is good, because the British government is pushing investor protection more than any other. Last year they intervened to make sure the Commission kept its nerve.

Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström admitted on Tuesday that the “consultation clearly shows that there is a huge scepticism against the ISDS [investor protection] instrument”, but she will continue to try to work out a compromise nonetheless. This is deeply worrying because the last compromise made in the Canada-EU treaty (CETA) actually risks giving corporations more power.

The deal has been welcomed by veteran investment arbitrator Todd Weiler: “I love it, the new Canadian-EU treaty … we used to have to argue about all of those [foreign investor rights] … And now we have this great list. I just love it when they try to explain things.”

The Commission now embarks on further ‘consultation’. But they have been dealt a serious blow by campaigners from across Europe, who now need to get even more active.

Will the European Parliament step up to the mark?

The European Parliament will adopt a position on TTIP in May. Early signs are that this will be a real showdown and vitally important to whether or not TTIP passes into law.

German Social Democrat Bernd Lange from the trade committee, one of the most important parliamentarians on TTIP, wrote last month that everything important “can be attained in TTIP without the inclusion of ISDS provisions”.

The Environment Committee has been even more critical, worrying “that the TTIP and other mega trade deals are likely to reshape global trade rules and set new standards, while also being discriminatory … risking sidelining important issues for developing countries such as food security, agricultural subsidies and climate change mitigation”

2015 is the make or break year for TTIP, and the coming months are vitally important. To have any hope of stopping this corporate juggernaut, we need to win critical votes in the EU Parliament on TTIP and CETA.

 


 

Nick Dearden is director of Global Justice Now.

Creative Commons License

This article was originally published by openDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.

 




389224

TTIP: What bit of the word ‘no’ doesn’t the Commission understand? Updated for 2026





Even a tyrant might baulk at effecting a policy which 97% of people oppose. But the European Commission is moving forward with the US-EU trade deal (known as TTIP), despite getting just that result from its largest consultation in history. Nonetheless, corporate plans for this huge trade deal have been badly damaged.

Last year, in response public criticism, the Commission issued a consultation on so-called ‘investor protection’. That’s the bit of trade deals which gives corporations the right to sue governments for implementing policies that damage their profits. So for Investor protection read corporate privilege.

Not surprisingly it’s hugely unpopular. Over 97% all of the 150,000 respondents to the Commission’s consultation – that’s more than 100 times that of any previous trade consultation – rejected investor protection outright.

Where’s the ‘I don’t want this’ box?

Unfortunately, the Commission insists that they were answering a question that hadn’t been asked. At no point in the whole dense, legalistic consultation document were participants given an option to say ‘we don’t want this’.

Rather they were asked questions almost impossible to understand by anyone who isn’t a trade lawyer. When campaign groups created an easy-to-follow online response action, they were accused of “hijacking” the process.

On Tuesday, the Commission released its findings in full. They show that an enormous number of EU citizens responded to the consultation, more than any consultation in history, as well as nearly 450 businesses, campaign organisations, think tanks and trade unions.

The analysis shows that this really is a battle between big business and the rest of us. The exclusion of public services is “strongly opposed by a significant number of business associations who want to see exceptions and limitations brought down to a minimum.”

Unsurprisingly, corporate giants like Chevron, Suez and Repsol, which have sued countries under similar investor protection, are fully supportive of those systems. Indeed some reject any weakening of a system which has allowed tobacco giant Philip Morris to sue Uruguay for putting health warnings on cigarette packets.

But even across the business world, there is no consensus. “[S]mall companies are more critical” – not surprising given small business is unlikely to have access to this world of corporate privilege.

UK: Cameron is all for it, we are all against it

The country generating most response to the EU (52,000 participants) is Britain. This is good, because the British government is pushing investor protection more than any other. Last year they intervened to make sure the Commission kept its nerve.

Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström admitted on Tuesday that the “consultation clearly shows that there is a huge scepticism against the ISDS [investor protection] instrument”, but she will continue to try to work out a compromise nonetheless. This is deeply worrying because the last compromise made in the Canada-EU treaty (CETA) actually risks giving corporations more power.

The deal has been welcomed by veteran investment arbitrator Todd Weiler: “I love it, the new Canadian-EU treaty … we used to have to argue about all of those [foreign investor rights] … And now we have this great list. I just love it when they try to explain things.”

The Commission now embarks on further ‘consultation’. But they have been dealt a serious blow by campaigners from across Europe, who now need to get even more active.

Will the European Parliament step up to the mark?

The European Parliament will adopt a position on TTIP in May. Early signs are that this will be a real showdown and vitally important to whether or not TTIP passes into law.

German Social Democrat Bernd Lange from the trade committee, one of the most important parliamentarians on TTIP, wrote last month that everything important “can be attained in TTIP without the inclusion of ISDS provisions”.

The Environment Committee has been even more critical, worrying “that the TTIP and other mega trade deals are likely to reshape global trade rules and set new standards, while also being discriminatory … risking sidelining important issues for developing countries such as food security, agricultural subsidies and climate change mitigation”

2015 is the make or break year for TTIP, and the coming months are vitally important. To have any hope of stopping this corporate juggernaut, we need to win critical votes in the EU Parliament on TTIP and CETA.

 


 

Nick Dearden is director of Global Justice Now.

Creative Commons License

This article was originally published by openDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.

 




389224

Fracking in the UK: what to expect in 2015 Updated for 2026





The current UK coalition government has overseen the greatest fossil fuel boom since the discovery of North Sea oil, but the controversy that surrounds shale has made it an interesting factor in the run-up to this year’s general election.

The government has shown absolutely no evidence that it is willing to slow down its committed march towards the commercial development of shale gas.

For example, the government recently approved amendments to the infrastructure bill which, amidst heavy public resistance, will allow fracking companies to extract shale from right underneath people’s homes.

This is irrespective of a wide range of academic reports listing both health and environmental implications, as well as direct human rights inflictions.

Chancellor George Osborne also pledged a further £35 million in the Autumn Statement towards the development of shale gas, with £5 million in particular dedicated to twisting the public’s arm on the matter.

And with the introduction of a Task Force on Shale Gas headed by the ex-environmental minister Lord Chris Smith, the energy industry is very serious in styling a UK fracking boom on America’s recent ‘shale revolution’.

Political instability in Eastern Europe has also contributed to the pro-fracking agenda and has encouraged the government to pursue an easier option over greener, alternative energy sources that may take longer to develop.

Shale has continuously been hyped as a cheap energy source that will define UK energy independence from foreign imports – a view discredited by the government’s own energy researchers.

Environmental opposition

An increasing amount of communities across the UK have begun organising attempts to resist fracking proposals in their local area.

Talking to DeSmogUK, Hannah Walters from Frack Off UK said: “This is the fastest growing social movement in the UK right now.

“There are currently around 170 anti-fracking community groups actively resisting this industry on a day-by-day basis with several more forming each week. We’re expecting that number to pass 200 as we move into 2015.”

For example, residents in Fife, Scotland are now urging their council to postpone fracking developments due to worrying reports on health implications and environmental pollution.

However, campaigners are likely to be heavily scrutinised by the police. In December, it was revealed that the police asked Canterbury Christ Church University to hand over a list of members of the public who attended a fracking debate on its campus.

While the University declined the request, it follows similar disclosures that police have been monitoring political activities at campuses around the country, as well as spying on groups that use non-violent methods in their campaigning.

Health impacts

At the end of last year, a hard-hitting report was commissioned by the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation and delivered to Prime Minister David Cameron. It cites human rights liabilities for the British Government if fracking commences commercially across the UK.

Focusing primarily on the health implications of people living near frack sites, the report called on the government to investigate the impact of fracking on the rights of individuals.

Other reports have also expressed concern regarding the implications on people around fracking sites due to the chemicals involved with hydraulic fracturing.

Talking to the CourierDr Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: “There is a growing body of evidence that environmental and health risks associated with onshore unconventional gas extraction, including coalbed methane, are inherent and impossible to eliminate.”

In a recent damning report by the government’s chief scientific adviser, the author of one of the chapters, Prof Andrew Stirling of the University of Sussex, warned that fracking could carry unforeseen risks that would replicate problems seen with asbestos and thalidomide.

The chapter states: “History presents plenty of examples of innovation trajectories that later proved to be problematic – for instance involving asbestos, benzene, thalidomide, dioxins, lead in petrol, tobacco, many pesticides, mercury, chlorine and endocrine-disrupting compounds.”

Caroline Lucas, MP for the Green Party, when recently writing for the Guardian also lambasted the government’s pursuit of fossil fuels as a “public health imperative”, adding that to save lives, “urgent change is needed”.

Industry decline

Ed Davey, the energy and climate change secretary has recently expressed his concern regarding a declining fossil fuel industry that needs to adapt to a changing climate and market, stating that the energy industry is “seeing a move from carbon capitalism to climate capitalism.”

“We know with climate change we have got to move out to a low-carbon agenda and we are already seeing the signs that the market is going to be helping to drive this”, he said.

Adaptability and divestment from fossil fuel holdings is a theme expressed by both the secretary and green business institutions, who argue for greater transparency to protect future investors.

They may have been inspired by events in the US where the rapidly grown shale industry has taken a big hit from declining oil prices.

The self titled ‘granddaddy’ of fracking, Harold Hamm, recently lost half of his multi-billion dollar fortune in a shockwave financial crisis that has led to doubts regarding shale as the saviour of US energy politics.

 


 

Richard Heasman writes for DeSmogUK and tweets @Richardheasman4.

This article was originally published on DeSmogUK.

 

 




388553

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