Main points:
— Veganism is growing in popularity, gaining the interest of individuals from all backgrounds and of all ages. It is important to mark veganism, or simply the reduction of animal consumption, as one of the major actions that can be taken to save planet Earth from the damaging effects of human activity;
— it has been shown that dietary choices can have a considerable effect on climate change, as 15-30% of the overall greenhouse gas emissions is linked to the food sector;
— vegan laws may be concerned with the regulation of dietary or purchase choices. Implementation of some regulations might be harder than wished for, primarily because of the attitudes, stigmas, and prejudices towards certain aspects of veganism, as well as dietary restrictions of some (if very strict plant-based food serving laws were to be implemented).
Introduction
The Earth’s climate is drastically changing. Wildfires, floods, hurricanes appear in regions that they did not previously hit. The United Nations estimates the world’s population will grow to 9.8 billion people by 2050. What is more, modern food systems have a highly unsustainable impact on the planet[1]. With the population increasing, the environmental problems will only grow; nevertheless, they can be mitigated if actions are taken in due time. Aside from significant actions of governments, large corporations, and the affluent, there is a plethora of methods and habits to pick up on an individual, man-in-the-street level, to support the actions that slow down the already inevitable climate catastrophe. One of such ways is to reduce animal-derived food consumption, go vegetarian, or ideally, vegan[2]. Veganism is growing in popularity, gaining the interest of individuals from all backgrounds and of all ages[3]. This has left a mark on legislators, forced to accommodate the efforts for recognition of vegan rights and ethos. And that may already beg the question of whether there is a current of new, plant-based laws starting to emerge. What ‘vegan laws’ are like and what they could look like, taking the trends in the contemporary ecological, scientific and legal debate, is an interesting and seemingly pragmatic matter to explore. It might be that despite one’s animosity towards the lifestyle, vegan laws might need to become everybody’s reality.
This article aims at exploring what ‘vegan laws’ might entail, what sort of regulations these have and might bring around, and, at last, evaluate which of these might be the most pragmatic and feasible to adopt.
Veganism — definition
The definition from the Cambridge Dictionary describes veganism as ‘the practice of not eating or using any animal products, such as meat, fish, eggs, cheese, or leather: Strict veganism [or ethical veganism][4] prohibits the use of all animal products, not just food, and is a lifestyle choice rather than a diet’[5]. Veganism does not have to be adopted because of one’s desire to curb their individual carbon emissions but, naturally, also because of one’s care and regard for animal well-being. The choice to give up animal-based products may also stem from health-related considerations. All of these, or only selected, reasons might be relevant for a particular individual; in either case, most often, the adoption of veganism under whichever circumstance brings significant changes to one’s life and, as said, benefits to the planet[6].
Veganism – impact on the planet
It has been shown that dietary choices can have a considerable effect on climate change, as 15-30% of the overall greenhouse gas emissions is linked to the food sector[7]. When assessing diets, researchers take into consideration multiple factors, such as the nutritional quality, global warming potential, and the impact on regional biodiversity, just to list a few. All of these are factors that affect how one’s food choices eventually influence the condition of the planet[8]. In one study, run by researchers from Denmark and Spain, the vegan diet, when compared to the Mediterranean diet, was rendered to be less impactful — the latter requiring three times the amount of land and more negatively affecting biodiversity. It is primarily because of the emission related to livestock production, which is not applicable to products catered for vegans. The study also considered the impacts of transportation and the requirements for preparation, which for meat or dairy products are higher than for plant-based items (due to higher requirements for water, electricity, etc.)[9]. Another example, a systematic review of sixteen scientific works on the matter from 2019, comes to identical conclusions[10]. What is important to note, however, is that when it comes to the vegan diet and it being a better option for the protection of the environment, it must be remembered that not all dietary choices, even if purely plant-based, significantly contribute to lowering emissions[11]. To truly become eco-friendly, one should opt for local vegan options[12], ideally ones that do not require much plastic packaging, etc.
Meat, dairy, and eggs productions are phenomena vegans are concerned about, but as said, there is also the aspect of non-use of any animal-derived products, such as leather clothing, accessories, fur items, etc. The Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s Higg Materials Sustainability Index, which measures the impact of production up until the fabrication point, gives most leather products an impact of 159 points, with cotton scoring 98 and polyester 44[13]. As widely agreed, tanning of leather is the most impactful stage of leather item production[14], and despite the claims of the feasibility to reduce the damage caused, independent studies do not conclude it is certain[15]. Fur production does not look up[16]. Wool fabrication has also been linked to detrimental consequences, such as the formation of badlands[17].
Another major activity that veganism stands firmly against is animal testing, be it for drugs, cosmetics, the perfume industry, and so on. Somewhat surprising for some, it may also have adverse and more detrimental consequences for the planet than the alternative — lab testing. There is limited research conducted when it comes to the consequences of animal testing, as record-keeping and regulation of all aspects of animal use in research are typically not required by law. Yet, it is known that animal testing uses more than 100 million animals a year, resulting in a significant increase in the pollution of air, water, and soil, not to mention the concerns of undesired effects on public health and the harm done to biodiversity overall[18]. A review of the available literature confirms the thesis[19].
Vegan laws — rights, encouragements and bans
When one googles the term ‘vegan laws’, the first search result that appears is a paragraph on the rights of vegans that stem from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, as must be noted, apply to all humans irrespective of their dietary and lifestyle inclinations. Adducing the Declaration is just a way to ensure that one holds certain freedoms and that veganism, as such, should not be negated. Similar arguments can be based on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief or the ECHR. In this line of legislation, there is also notable case law; for example, the landmark UK case in which Judge Robin Postle ruled that ethical veganism is a philosophical belief protected under the Equality Act 2010[20]. This is not something to dismiss as in consequence, public institutions, like schools, could be sued for discrimination in case they do not accommodate vegan dietary choices in the cafeterias, just as they might be cited for not including halal food items for Muslims, for example. And seeing the success of the suit that started it all, it is not a mere vegan pipe dream[21].
If searched further, however, actual vegan laws may be found. These are the ones that exactly may be tied to the potential benefit of the planet rather than a theoretical assertion of rights. Prominent examples are, for instance, the laws requiring at least one item on a public menu to be plant-based. Such a rule has already been introduced in Portugal for all public canteens. This means that in all schools, including universities, hospitals, prisons, public office canteens, people have the option to choose a vegan meal. It is a unique legislation, stepping further than the preceding German ban on meat products from all official functions or Japan’s Cabinet Office or Cabinet Secretariat making a meat-free menu a staple in their office canteens[22]. Or the regulation having the French schools serve vegetarian meals at least once a week[23]. Similarly, in 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill requiring hospitals, healthcare facilities, and state prisons to offer at least one vegan option at every meal. All of these laws accommodate the choice to lead a vegan lifestyle and might force some to integrate vegan meals or more vegan/vegetarian options into their diet, in theory reducing the CO2 production emission at least for, for example, a meal a day.
A noteworthy practice can be noticed in the example of individual corporations creating their own vegan policies. For instance, in August 2021, Volkswagen announced that from the following September its factory in Wolfsburg will give up serving the famous currywurst. Despite some protests, the car manufacturer stands by the decision, quoting the desire to help its workers lead a healthier lifestyle and to become more eco-friendly[24].
When it comes to fur, there seems to be more prominence in the enacted legislation. This might be because animal exploitation for fashion is more and more often considered redundant and unnecessarily cruel; while animal-derived food products are considered to be viable because of tradition, history, etc. Bans on fur production are fairly common, gaining prominence in many countries. For example, in 2020, the lower chamber of the Polish Parliament voted in a new bill that would prohibit breeding for fur. The idea underlying the bill is not to halt the damaging impact of the fur industry on the environment but rather to prevent the incubation of new contagious diseases which are often found to have their source at the fur farms[25]. Nonetheless, this law is in the spirit of veganism, and such regulation would greatly reduce national emissions. Alas, the law was not enacted and after some efforts to revise it, due to the backlash coming from different industries, it was put aside, still placed in limbo until today.
More optimistically, Israel banned the sale of fur for fashion. The decision was taken by the Israeli Minister of Environment Protection and was to make the Israeli market more emission-sensitive and eco-friendly. Israel was the first country to take such a step but having faced the pandemic of COVID-19, this might become a trend among many states; even on the EU scale, the public and prominent NGOs are now calling for a union-wide ban, concerned with the fur production’s impact on the condition of public health and environment[26].
The United Kingdom banned fur farming in the early 2000s and is considering extending the ban towards imported goods as well. Other European countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, and the Czech Republic are also pondering upon production and sale bans. Meanwhile, many cities and brands already implemented their own policies directed at fur production[27].
When it comes to leather or wool, fewer top-down laws are banning their production. This is a result of the fact that leather is perceived to be a by-product of meat production, in the line of thinking that if the animal is already being killed for meat, it would be a pity to throw out its skin or hair. This idea is accurate only in some cases[28]. Nevertheless, brands and corporations handle that matter themselves. To illustrate, Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger banned the use of exotic leather in 2020, highlighting the proclaimed responsibilities towards the planet and the protection of animal species[29]. Banning only exotic leathers is one step; Helsinki Fashion week of 2018 banned leather altogether, in favour of the vegan equivalents — again, quoting the impacts of natural leather production[30]. When it comes to wool, similar individual initiatives are seen — by Valentino, Puma, and others[31].
Animal testing for cosmetics is banned in more than 40 countries, among which are Australia, Colombia, Guatemala, Iceland, India, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Kingdom, several states in Brazil, and the EU with its 27 Member States[32]. Important to know is that for years many vegans, even within those countries, refused to purchase from some brands that advertise themselves as vegan. The reason for that is the fact that despite not putting an animal-tested cream or lotion on the aforementioned markets, the same brand would test the same product on animals for the Chinese shelves. This, nonetheless, is to be soon a memory, with China announcing in 2019 that it is moving away from its strict obligation to have all products tested on animals. In 2021, the process of change is still moving forward[33]. The reason behind the move is not dictated by environmental concerns but is a byproduct of economic calculation[34]. The effect for the planet, and the animals, is the same, however.
In the EU, the prohibition of the type of testing is largely rooted in the concern for animal well-being; nevertheless, the environmental implications are also somewhat acknowledged, by the argument of redundancy of animal testing in the light of new scientific alternatives and sustainability[35]. Drugs and vaccines are still required to be tested using a combination of methods, also including animal testing[36]. The situation is similar in other countries, taking that the risk of not checking medication on living organisms is considered too grave[37].
The future of vegan laws
National governments that are adjusting dietary recommendations to hit environmental goals or to help improve the overall health of their citizens must opt for the recommendation to lower the consumption of animal-based products[38]. Yet, implementation of some regulations might be harder than wished for, primarily because of the attitudes, stigmas, and prejudices towards certain aspects of veganism, as well as dietary restrictions of some (if very strict plant-based food serving laws were to be implemented). The contemporary situation, the rather significant lack of laws in most countries, shows that legislators are rather cautious of implementing certain solutions. Nevertheless, small steps can still have an impact on the condition of the environment and the mandatory vegan option in each school and public canteen is a rather indisputably positive development. The trend is promising and even though sometimes minuscule, these lenient laws are most likely to keep appearing, also taking that individuals advocate for some on a personal level by a privately-owned business, for example. When it comes to the production of fur, leather, etc., significant actors are standing in the way of change; however, with the growing effort of NGOs and the public at large, the governments are pressed to introduce change. One should never underestimate the power of petitions or street protests. Yet, undoubtedly, bills like the one in Poland, in spite of the received backlash from the fur moguls, are a promising step, showing the reflection of the powers that be on the impact that our actions have on the well-being of animals and, more or less consciously acknowledged, the condition of the planet. These laws have the biggest chance of succeeding if the governments feel sufficient pressure from the bottom-up, and they are very likely to keep springing up around the world. Animal testing, despite the seemingly significant progress having been made, might be one of those matters even the very sympathetic might find puzzling, taken that the mistrust and uncertainty related to something as serious as drug testing is difficult to fight against. Yet, the public pressure has already done a lot, which now affects other states. This already resembles a snowball and even if no major steps are being taken recently, the laws already present reduce the harmful impacts of animal testing to a lush extent. More action in this sector is plausible, yet one ought not to expect any cold-turkey decisions for some product testing, notwithstanding the market pressure.
Conclusion
Many vegan laws are enacted to curb animal cruelty, while the ecological effects of such are either acknowledged in passing or not at all. This is a trend that might still prevent a large-scale implementation of such regulations, and it is important to mark veganism or simply the reduction of animal use as one of the major actions that can be uptaken to save planet Earth from the damaging effects of human activity. Some laws are being enacted in a significant quantity already at present, some are likely to gain more momentum with time and advocacy efforts. Meanwhile, some might be hard to pursue, taking industrial backlash or even public concern. The key, as always, is providing information on the nature of the non-vegan activities, their pros and cons and the results of inaction. Public debate, like in any matter, should be open and backed by scientific proof.
Governments should act together and fulfil their environmental obligations, for the sake of upholding legitimacy and protecting those they swore to protect. Otherwise, citizens will take action, peacefully, through legislation, a notable example being the famous URGENDA case, or violently, when it might be already too late for all.
[1] Chai B. C. et al. “Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets”. MDPI. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm?utm_campaign=later-linkinbio-honestafnutrition&utm_content=later-4834849&utm_medium=social&utm_source=instagram (accessed 15 August 2021).
[2] Springmann M. et al. 2016. “Analysis and valuation of the health and climate co-benefits of dietary change”. Natural Academy of Sciences, 113, 15 4146-4151.
[3] Starostinetskaya A. 2020, “Interest in Veganism Hits All-time High in 2020, Google Trends Report Shows”. Vegnews. https://vegnews.com/2020/9/interest-in-veganism-hits-all-time-high-in-2020-google-trends-report-shows (accessed 13 August 2021).
[4] Added by the author of this article.
[5] “veganism”. Cambridge Dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/veganism (accessed 13 August 2021).
[6] Kortetmäki T. and Oksanen M. 2020. “Is there a convincing case for climate veganism?”. Agriculture and Human Values. Springer Link. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10182-x (accessed 15 August 2021).
[7] Castañéa S. and Assumpció A. 2017. “Assessment of the nutritional quality and environmental impact of two food diets: A Mediterranean and a vegan diet”. Journal of Cleaner Production 167, 929.
[8] For example, to clarify any confusion, the excessive use of water for agricultural production may lead to droughts which in consequence may cause wildfires, which significantly pollute the air contributing to the increase in the excess of greenhouse gases and the enlargement of the ozone hole. Everything has its price and consequence.
[9] Castañéa S. and Assumpció A. 2017. “Assessment of the nutritional quality and environmental impact of two food diets: A Mediterranean and a vegan diet”. Journal of Cleaner Production 167, 929, 933, 936.
[10] Chai B. C. et al. “Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets”. MDPI. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm?utm_campaign=later-linkinbio-honestafnutrition&utm_content=later-4834849&utm_medium=social&utm_source=instagram (accessed 15 August 2021).
[11] Kortetmäki T. and Oksanen M. 2020. “Is there a convincing case for climate veganism?”. Agriculture and Human Values. Springer Link. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10182-x (accessed 15 August 2021).
[12] Chai B. C. et al. “Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets”. MDPI. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm?utm_campaign=later-linkinbio-honestafnutrition&utm_content=later-4834849&utm_medium=social&utm_source=instagram (accessed 15 August 2021).
[13] 2018. Fibre Briefing: Leather”. Common Objective. https://www.commonobjective.co/article/fibre-briefing-leather (accessed 15 August 2021).
[14] 2018. “Fibre Briefing: Leather”. Common Objective. https://www.commonobjective.co/article/fibre-briefing-leather (accessed 15 August 2021).
[15] For example: Laurenti R, Redwood M, Puig R and Frostell B. 2016. “https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jiec.12504?casa_token=GQGTVyiKUFEAAAAA%3ATDa2SlbuM_cHek2BiYrGXiMjgQwIOXn2ZG1a2t0olN_rzsyFxG-CHHsLieGUS9Ek5XMUCtqu3rWnGDYFJw (accessed 15 August 2021).
[16] Wakefield I. P. 2011. “Drop Dead Stylish: Mitigating Environmental Impact of Fur Production Through Consumer Protection in the Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 2010”. Penn State Law Review, 19, 268-273.
[17] 2006. “Annual Review 2006”. Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford.
[18] Groff K, Bachli E, Lansdowne M and Capaldo T. 2014. “Review of Evidence of Environmental Impacts of Animal Research and Testing”. environments. ISSN 2076-3298.
[19] Ellis J, Hall M, Ong P, Wege L, Paterson N and Smith C. “Animal Testing at Dalhousie University: A brief insight into social, economic, and environmental effects of nonhuman animal testing”. https://cdn.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/science/environmental-science-program/ENVS%203502%20projects/2010/AnimalTesting.pdf (accessed 16 August 2021).
[20] Mr J Casamitjana Costa v The League Against Cruel Sports: 3331129/2018 – Consent Judgment.
[21] Certainly, how likely to succeed such a suit depends on the national legislation, case law tradition and the circumstances; the grounds given for this decision, however, and taking the international support for the protection of veganism, as illustrated above, are rather indicating a favourable result for the claimants.
[22] 2017. “Portugal puts vegan meals on public menu”. https://meatfreemondays.com/portugal-puts-vegan-meals-public-menu/ (accessed 13 August 2021).
[23] 2018. “French schools to offer vegetarian menu once a week”. The Connexion. https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/French-schools-now-need-to-offer-vegetarian-menu-at-least-once-a-week-says-Assembly (accessed 13 August 2021).
[24] Faber M. 2021. “Volkswagen zmusza pracowników do weganizmu i rezygnuje z currywurst”. Świat Rolnika. https://swiatrolnika.info/volkswagen-weganizm-currywurst?fbclid=IwAR2Kyu_ia3AJeCumvnGPRskGDZTt-5_1BLvOw0Zj9E89uxYq1j6JORYp7cg (accessed 15 August 2021); 2021. “The Volkswagen canteen goes meatless and abandons the famous”. Byri. https://www.byri.net/2021/08/09/the-volkswagen-canteen-goes-meatless-and-abandons-the-famous/ (accessed 15 August 2021).
[25] 2021. “”Piątka dla zwierząt” wejdzie w życie? Minister odpowiada”. Money. https://www.money.pl/gospodarka/piatka-dla-zwierzat-wejdzie-w-zycie-minister-odpowiada-6611212856220512a.html accessed 15 August 2021; Block K. and Amundson s. 2021. “Now is the time for countries across the world to ban fur”. A Humane World Blog. https://blog.humanesociety.org/2021/06/now-is-the-time-for-countries-across-the-world-to-ban-fur.html (accessed 15 August 2021).
[26] 2021. “COVID-19 First Detected in European Mink Farms a Year Ago — NGOs and the Public Urge the EU to Act”. Fur-free Alliance. https://www.furfreealliance.com/covid-19-first-detected-in-european-mink-farms-a-year-ago-ngos-and-the-public-urge-the-eu-to-act/ accessed 15 August 2021; Xia C., Shiung Lam S. and Sonne C. 2020. “Ban unsustainable mink production”. Science Mag. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6516/539.1 (accessed 15 August 2021).
[27] Hernandez J. 2021. “Israel Has Become The 1st Country To Ban The Sale Of Most Fur Clothing”. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/14/1006279660/israel-has-become-the-first-country-to-ban-the-sale-of-fur-clothing?t=1629039400015 (accessed 15 August 2021).
[28] Styles R. 2011. “Ask the Ecologist: Is wearing leather ever OK?”. The Ecologist. https://theecologist.org/2011/jun/13/ask-ecologist-wearing-leather-ever-ok (accessed 16 August 2021).
[29] Welch H. 2020. “Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger Ban the Use of Exotic Animal Leather”. The Beet. https://thebeet.com/calvin-klein-and-tommy-hilfiger-ban-the-use-of-exotic-animal-leather/ (accessed 16 August 2021).
[30] Conlon S. 2018. “Helsinki fashion week to ban leather as vegan fabrics catch on”. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/aug/17/helsinki-fashion-week-to-ban-leather-from-2019-as-vegan-fabrics-catch-on (accessed 16 August 2021).
[31] “Valentino, UNIQLO and Other Companies Ban Alpaca Wool”. PETA Asia. https://www.petaasia.com/living/fashion/companies-ban-alpaca-wool/ accessed 26 August 2021; Remington C. 2021. “Puma to ban mulesed wool by 2025”. EcoTextile. https://www.ecotextile.com/2021051827799/fashion-retail-news/puma-to-ban-mulesed-wool-by-2025.html (accessed 26 August 2021).
[32] “Cosmetics testing FAQ”. The Humane Society of the United States. https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/cosmetics-testing-faq accessed 16 August 2021; It must be acknowledged that animal testing is permitted only is very rare cases under the REACH regulations: 2021. “Cosmetic Testing”. Understanding Animal Research. https://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/openness/cosmetics/ (accessed 16 August 2021).
[33] Waite T. 2021. “China Ends Mandatory Animal Testing for a Majority of Cosmetics”. Dazed Digital. https://www.dazeddigital.com/beauty/head/article/52658/1/china-ends-mandatory-animal-testing-for-a-majority-of-cosmetics (accessed 16 August 2021).
[34] McKie R. 2015. “UK scientists to help China stop animal tests on imported goods”. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/07/china-cosmetics-uk-training-stop-animal-testing (accessed 16 August 2021).
[35] 2021. “Cosmetic Testing”. Understanding Animal Research. https://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/openness/cosmetics/ accessed 16 August 2021; “Save the Animals: Stop Animal Testing”. Lone Star College. https://www.lonestar.edu/stopanimaltesting.htm (accessed 16 August 2021).
[36] “Animal welfare and the European Pharmaceutical industry: Your questions answered”. efpia. https://www.efpia.eu/media/219817/animal-welfare-and-the-european-pharmaceutical-industry-your-questions-answered-2017.pdf (accessed 16 August 2021).
[37] Guglielmi G. 2021. “Ban on animal testing still in limbo”. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d43978-021-00009-6 accessed 16 August 2021; Kabene S and Baadel S. 2019. “Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK”. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 12: 15.
[38] Scarborough P, Bradbury K, Key T, Appleby P, Mizdrak A, Briggs A.M and Travis R C. 2014. “Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK”. Clim. Chang. 125, 188.
Comments are closed.