Executive Summary
This roadmap outlines a strategic, stepwise approach for FDA to reduce animal testing in preclinical safety studies with scientifically validated new approach methodologies (NAMs), such as organ-on-a-chip systems, computational modeling, and advanced in vitro assays. By partnering with federal agencies like NIH and VA through ICCVAM, FDA can accelerate the validation and adoption of these human-relevant methods, improving predictive accuracy while reducing animal use. This transition will enhance public health by streamlining drug development and ensuring safer therapies reach patients faster, while positioning FDA as a global leader in modern regulatory science and innovation.
Background
There is growing scientific recognition that animals do not provide adequate models of human health and disease. Over 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals do not go on to receive FDA approval in humans predominantly due to safety and/or efficacy issues (1). Animal-based data have been particularly poor predictors of drug success for multiple common diseases including cancer (2), Alzheimer’s (3) and inflammatory diseases (4). Some medications which are generally recognized safe in humans, such as aspirin, may have never passed animal testing (5). Conversely, some compounds which have appeared safe in animal
models have been lethal in human trials (5). These examples highlight basic physiologic differences between humans and other animal species.
Due to the limitations of animal testing as well as ethical concerns about animals testing, there has been increased focus within the scientific community on New Approach Methodologies (NAMs). NAMs encompass in vitro human-based systems, in silico modeling, and other innovative platforms that can collectively evaluate immunogenicity, toxicity, and pharmacodynamics in humans and provide an opportunity to improve the predictive relevance of preclinical drug testing while reducing or replacing animal use. NAMs also have enormous cost saving potential (6).
Recent legislative changes have signaled Congress is simultaneously open to regulatory innovation. In late 2022, Congress passed the FDA Modernization Act 2.0,2 which explicitly authorized the use of non animal alternatives (cell-based assays, computer models, etc.) to support an investigational new drug (IND) application and “remove[d] a requirement to use animal studies” for biosimilar biologics license application (BLA) (7). This landmark policy empowered FDA to accept NAMs in lieu of animal studies. Then in 2024, the Science Board to the FDA provided comprehensive recommendations on how the agency can spur adoption
of scientifically validated NAMs.3
Public sentiment is also supportive of this transition with a recent survey finding that >85% of both Democratic and Republican-identifying adults felt that animal experiments should be phased out in favor of more modern methods.4 Together, scientific advances and policy drivers create an opportune moment for the FDA to chart a roadmap to reduce animal testing while improving drug development.
1https://www.acd.od.nih.gov/documents/presentations/12142023_NAMs_Working_Group_Report.pdf
2 H.R.2565 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): FDA Modernization Act of 2021 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
3https://www.fda.gov/media/182478/download#:~:text=NAM%20Subcommittee%20Recommendations,all%20of%20FDA%20to%20use
4https://pcrm.widen.net/s/qzfxtfh7bw/animal-testing-survey

Initial focus on monoclonal antibody testing
This program is intended to begin with monoclonal antibodies (mAb) as a promising area for reducing animal use in preclinical safety testing, and then will expand to include other biological molecules and eventually new chemical entities and medical countermeasures. Current FDA requirements for mAbs mandate GLP compliant repeat-dose toxicity studies (often 1–6 months duration) in animals, alongside assessments of pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety pharmacology. Anti-drug antibody formation (immunogenicity) is monitored because animals often mount immune responses to human mAbs, which can alter exposure and confound
toxicity interpretation. However, animal immunogenicity is not predictive of human immunogenicity due to interspecies differences in immune systems (6). In addition to inherent biological differences, stress of laboratory life and use in research can impact immune function, inflammatory responses, metabolism, and disease susceptibility and progression.5 Moreover, some safety risks may go undetected in animals – a notable example is the mAb TGN1412, which caused a life-threatening cytokine release syndrome in human volunteers despite appearing safe in preclinical monkey studies. That tragedy highlighted the limitations of
animal models for certain immune-activating mAbs and spurred efforts to develop in vitro assays to better predict human-specific responses (7).
Beyond scientific shortcomings and ethical issues, animal testing of mAbs poses practical challenges. The cost of drug development can vary by therapeutic class, with a market report noting the cost to develop a mAb at $650-$750 million and taking up to 9 years.6 Typical mAb development programs typically use 144 non-human primates (NHPs).7 In recent years, costs of NHPs have skyrocketed, up to $50,000 per NHP.8 The time and cost of long-term animal studies slow down delivery of new therapies to patients. Indeed, a majority of drug development failures are due to lack of efficacy or unexpected safety issues that were not evident in
animal tests (1), meaning that issues for humans were only realized in clinical trials or after approval. As more predictive methods are integrated into decision-making earlier, companies will not only save the direct costs of avoiding certain nonclinical animal use, but they will also be positioned to make better business decisions by making more informed go/no go decisions regarding which therapeutics to advance, which could ultimately lower drug costs.
New Approach Methodologies (NAMs)
NAMs offer the tools to assess safety, efficacy, and pharmacology of drugs and therapeutics without traditional animal models. NAMs include in vitro human-based systems such as organs-on-chips, “in silico”, or computer-based modeling, as well as other innovative platforms that can collectively evaluate immunogenicity, toxicity, and pharmacodynamics with high relevance to human biology. The FDA and the broader scientific community recognize NAMs as a means to obtain “faster and more accurate human risk assessments” while reducing animal use (8). Below is an overview of key NAM categories and their applicability to drug development:
In Vitro Human-Derived Systems (Organoids and Microphysiological Systems)
Advances in tissue engineering have led to organoids and microphysiological systems (MPS) (often called “organs-on-chips”). These systems use human cells to recreate miniature organ units or even interconnected multi-organ networks. Organoids are self-organizing cell cultures (e.g. liver organoids, gut organoids) that model native tissue architecture and function. Organ-on-a-chip devices go a step further by incorporating microfluidic flow, mechanical forces, and multi-cell type co-cultures on a bioengineered chip, emulating the in vivo environment. For example, a human Liver-Chip can co-culture hepatocytes with non-parenchymal cells
under perfusion, displaying liver-like metabolism and responses. These platforms maintain human-specific biology that animals lack, allowing detection of effects that only manifest in human tissue.
5 Bailey J. Does the stress of laboratory life and experimentation on animals adversely affect research data? A critical review. Altern Lab Anim. 2018;46(5):291-305. doi:10.1177/026119291804600501
6 https://www.labmate-online.com/news/news-and-views/5/frost-sullivan/market-report-therapeutic-monoclonal-antibodies-in-europe/22346
7 https://nc3rs.org.uk/our-portfolio/reducing-animal-use-monoclonal-antibody-development
8 https://emulatebio.com/organ-chips-vs-nhps-cost-calculator/


Notably, microphysiological systems can be as predictive (or more predictive) of human responses than animal tests (9). The drive to eliminate animal testing in cosmetics led to the first successes of this approach – e.g. in vitro human skin models that supplanted rabbit skin tests – and now human-based MPS devices exist for liver, heart, lung, kidney, and other organs. A recent example is a Human Liver-Chip, which was recently evaluated for its ability to predict drug-induced liver injury (DILI) and accepted into FDA’s Innovative Science
and Technology for Advancing New Drugs (ISTAND) pilot program. In a validation study, the Liver-Chip correctly identified 87% of hepatotoxic drugs that caused liver injury in patients (10).

In monoclonal antibody safety, organoids/MPS can evaluate target-specific and off-target effects in a controlled human microenvironment. For instance, if a mAb may cause liver injury via an immune-mediated mechanism, a Liver-Chip with integrated immune cells could detect cytokine release or hepatocyte damage. if a mAb has cardiovascular risks (e.g. binding an off-target in heart tissue), a cardiac tissue chip or human stem-cell derived cardiomyocyte assay can screen for pro-arrhythmic effects. These models also permit real-time monitoring of functional endpoints (e.g. electrophysiology, enzyme release, biomarkers) that parallel
clinical safety markers. Many mAbs have immune-related effects, so human immune organoids (like lymph node or spleen organoids) and blood-on-a-chip systems with circulating immune cells can be used to test for cytokine release, T-cell activation, or other immunotoxicity. Indeed, after TGN1412, researchers developed invitro cytokine release assays (CRAs) using human blood and immune cells to screen therapeutic antibodies for pro-inflammatory activity (7). Such assays, including whole-blood and peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) models, can now be employed to identify any mAb that might trigger a dangerous cytokine surge, thereby adding a crucial safety net that animal tests struggled to provide. Additionally, multi-organ “human
body-on-a-chip” setups can simulate pharmacodynamic effects systemically – for example, connecting liver and tumor tissue chips with an immune compartment to study a cancer immunotherapy mAb’s on target tumor killing and off-target organ toxicity in one human microphysiological model. By using human cells, these systems avoid species differences and can reveal toxicological effects that are more relevant to patients.

In Silico Tools and Computational Modeling
In silico approaches are another pillar of NAMs. Computational modeling, artificial intelligence (AI), and machine learning (ML) can leverage existing data to predict safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetics, reducing the need for new animal experiments. Key in silico tools include:
• Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling: PBPK models are mathematical simulations of drug ADME (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion) using species- specific physiology. They have become integral in small-molecule drug development and are increasingly applied to biologics. FDA may review PBPK simulations to inform first-in-human dosing and to justify waiving animal studies that would normally serve that purpose. As PBPK models are refined, they can also predict how differences between patients (e.g. body weight, disease state) might affect a drug’s pharmacokinetics, further enhancing safety margins.
• ML and AI Predictive Models: Machine learning algorithms can be trained on drug sequence features, structural motifs, and known clinical outcomes. Recently developed ML models analyze the amino acid sequence of an antibody’s variable region to predict whether the mAb is likely to have high or low immunogenicity (11). Such tools can flag problematic sequences early guiding engineering to “de-risk” the product before it ever enters an animal or human. Machine learning models are also being explored to predict toxicities (like acute systemic toxicity, off-target binding, or cytokine release potential) by learning patterns from molecules that caused certain adverse events (12).
• Quantitative Systems Pharmacology (QSP) and Modeling of Biological Pathways: QSP models combine computational biology and pharmacology, simulating how a drug interacts with complex human biological networks. For example, a QSP model of an autoimmune disease could simulate how an antibody modulates inflammatory pathways, helping to predict efficacious dose ranges and potential toxic outcomes (such as over-suppression of the immune system). These models could reduce reliance on animal disease models by providing a virtual human on which to test “what-if” scenarios.
• Bioinformatics and In silico Off-target Screening: Using databases of human proteins and AI, one could screen a product’s sequence for any unintended targets (such as cross-reactivity to human tissues). In silico tools can analyze whether the drug might bind to similar epitopes in the human proteome, highlighting potential safety concerns that would traditionally be checked via animal tissue cross-reactivity studies or broad receptor binding panels.

Overall, in silico NAMs may act as powerful adjuncts or replacements for animal studies by predicting human-relevant outcomes through data and modeling. They are rapid, cost-effective, and can integrate vast amounts of existing knowledge – for instance, an AI model might instantly compare a new drug to hundreds of prior ones to assess risk, something impossible with animal testing alone. Importantly, as regulators gain confidence in these tools (through retrospective validation and prospective pilot use), they could be formally adopted to reduce or replace specific animal tests.

Thresholds will need to be developed and modified for when animal testing can be reduced or eliminated. This should be continuously updated as modeling programs are augmented with more data, validated and improved.

Other Innovative Platforms
Beyond complex in vitro and computational in silico categories, a variety of innovative approaches can also contribute to a non-animal safety testing ecosystem:
• Ex vivo Human Tissues: Advances in organ donation and tissue preservation allow scientists to test drugs on actual human tissues. For example, donated human organ slices (liver, heart, etc.) maintained in culture can be exposed to a drug to look for localized toxic effects or immune cell infiltration. While limited in lifespan, such ex vivo systems use native human tissue architecture, complementing engineered organoids.
• High-Throughput Cell-Based Screening: Robotic high-content screening using panels of human cells (including induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cells from diverse genetic backgrounds) can profile the effects of a product on many cell types. This can reveal off-target cytotoxicity or functional changes in a broad, human-relevant manner, something traditionally assessed with multi-species animal testing.
• Microdosing and Imaging in Human Volunteers: In certain cases, microdosing studies in humans can yield early pharmacokinetic and distribution data via PET imaging. This is not a routine approach for biologics yet, but as modeling and microdose safety are established, it could provide direct human data in place of animal distribution studies, with minimal risk.
• Refined In Vivo Methods (for transition): As the field reduces reliance on animal testing, interim steps can involve refined in vivo methods. For instance, using humanized transgenic can reduce animal numbers and pain (these still involve animals, but fewer, or with less severe procedures).

Each NAM described addresses one or more aspects of what animal studies currently provide, often with enhanced human relevance. To minimize animal testing, it will be essential to use an integrative strategy: for example, a combination of a human organ chip for toxicity, a PBPK model for PK, and an AI immunogenicity predictor might together cover the same ground as a traditional whole-animal study, but with greater accuracy and ethical acceptability.

Implementation of reduced toxicity testing in animals at the FDA
in the next 3 years

1. Explore Pre-existing International Data: Determine if drug toxicity data from humans already exists in countries where the compound has been approved. If international data exist, drug and biologic manufacturers will be encouraged to collect, analyze and provide these data, which the FDA will now consider in IND applications. By default, it will not be necessary to submit additional human data to the FDA if the product has been approved in a different country with similar regulatory standards unless the data are felt to be insufficient by FDA reviewers. If data are felt to be insufficient, FDA reviewers will outline specifically where uncertainty lies and what type of additional safety information they would like to see.
2. Encourage sponsors to submit NAM data in parallel with animal data to build a repository of
   experience. For example, communicate with manufacturers that we welcome organoid or in silico study results in IND/BLA packages as supportive data. Ensure companies understand that less animal testing will be required if NAM data are validated. Offer regulatory relief (e.g. fewer animal study replicates) to those who do so. Identify a few pilot cases where, based on strong rationale, an animal study is waived in favor of a NAM. For instance, if a mAb targets a human-specific receptor and the only possible animal model is a transgenic mouse, FDA could allow a sponsor to substitute a battery of human in vitro tests or MPS plus a PBPK model instead of the transgenic mouse study. Monitor the outcomes of those programs closely (through clinical trial phases) to verify safety was not compromised.
3. Develop an open-access repository with a comprehensive collection of international drug toxicity data from animals and humans. No comprehensive database containing animal and human toxicity data currently exists. Databases are either limited to countries or international collaborations focusing on publicly available toxicity testing information. One example is the Integrated Chemical Environment,91 containing legacy animal studies in addition to curated data from the US Tox21 program, which has generated toxicity measurements of thousands of chemicals (13,14). This program has led to models integrating in vitro assays that have been found to be as reliable as animal models and in some cases superior (15), but can be substantially augmented with other private and/ or international datasets. The FDA will plan to expand the Tox21 program and combine other existing international databases to create a comprehensive database to be utilized in toxicity modeling efforts. The FDA will also plan to partner with the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to expand and validate this database.
4. Reduce the routine 6-month primate toxicology testing for mAbs that show no concerning signals in 1-month studies plus NAM tests to three months. Notably, first-in-human enabling study, suggesting that shorter or fewer studies could suffice in most cases (15). Adopting a data-driven paradigm (such as a weight-of-evidence model) could allow FDA to confidently drop these extended animal studies for many mAbs.
5. Reduction in animal toxicity testing timeframes for other drug categories: Reduced duration of animal toxicity testing may be implemented for additional drug and biologic compounds. This will be initiated be based on all relevant prior clinic information about the compound or class of compounds and augmented by modeling in the case of low toxicity risk prediction. The FDA may implement a randomized study of new drugs evaluating costs and benefits (human, animal and economic) of 3 months of animal testing augmented with AI vs 6 months of animal testing with AI vs 3 or 6 months of animal testing alone to evaluate the benefits and costs of this initiative. 9 Integrated Chemical Environment (ICE)
   
6. Changes in toxicity testing will be tracked and quantified on a bi-annual basis and will include, to the extent feasible:
   (1) Animal testing hours and cost by species
   (2) Toxicity testing costs per IND
   (3) Economic analysis of safety signals identified through NAMs/modeling vs through animal testing
   (4) Changes in toxicity testing costs over time
   (5) Rates of novel toxicities first identified in humans or not until post-marketing surveillance
   (6) Time from IND to full approval
   In the long-term (3-5 years), FDA will aim to make animal studies the exception rather than the norm for pre-clinical safety/toxicity testing. By this stage, validated NAMs could cover all critical areas, and FDA requirements can shift to a NAM-based default. Animal tests might only be considered if a specific scientific question cannot yet be answered by NAM (and even then, only the minimal animal use necessary, with strong justification). Ultimately, the vision is that no conventional animal testing will be required for mAb safety, and eventually all drugs/therapeutics – instead, a comprehensive integrated NAM toolbox (human cell models + computational models) will be the new standard.
   Scientific and Technical Steps for FDA Adoption of NAMs
   Transitioning from animal-based testing to NAMs for safety will require careful planning, robust science, and collaboration. Below is a stepwise list of specific actions the FDA is considering for validation and integration of NAMs into their regulatory process: 1. Map Critical Endpoints and Use Cases: FDA should begin by identifying the key safety and efficacy questions for drugs and biologics where NAMs could replace or augment animal data. These include acute toxicity, chronic toxicity and organ injury, pharmacokinetics and bio- distribution, immune responses and pharmacodynamics (target engagement and functional effects). For each area, perform a gap analysis of current methods. Prioritizing such gaps helps focus on where NAMs will have the most impact and urgency. 2. Support Targeted Development of NAM Technologies: FDA (through research collaborations with NIH and other venues) should invest in the development of NAM models. This could involve:
   a) Developing organotypic models for drug toxicity.
   b) Creating an open-access comprehensive database of drug and biologic toxicity data from animals and humans to improve model training data.
   c) Developing ways to study the efficacy and costs of NAMs vs more traditional models of animal testing.
   d) Developing studies to determine appropriate thresholds for reducing or eliminating animal testing based on predetermined level of likelihood and predicted severity of toxicity. 3. Establish Validation and Qualification Pathways: It will be critical to continuously rigorously validate NAMs to build confidence in their reliability. Possible approaches include:
   a) Retrospective analyses: Gather data from past (preferably well-known and well-defined) drug toxicities and determine the accuracy with which NAM (e.g. an organ chips, ML models, integrated strategies) would have predicted the human outcome. This can be compared with animal study predictiveness for a wide range of drug and biologic classes. All research projects should be preregistered and published in a timely manner.
   
   b) Prospective validation trials: In collaboration with stakeholders, perform parallel testing of new drugs products in both animals and NAM systems, to directly compare accuracy, financial costs as well has harms to both humans and animals. For example, test a novel cancer therapy with organ-on-chips, computer modeling and in vivo alone or combined, and see which method/s best correlate with clinical effects both in clinical trials and in subsequent real-world data.
   c) Reproducibility and standardization: Work through consortia (perhaps via ICCVAM, discussed below) to have multiple independent labs test the same drug product in a given NAM to ensure reproducibility. Develop standardized protocols for these methods so that results are replicable across laboratories.
   d) Benchmark against human data: Ongoing validation studies should be implemented that assess how well NAM predictions align with human clinical trial and post-marketing findings.
   e) NAMs-based prospective post-marketing studies: When appropriate use NAM predictions for prospective post-marketing studies of side effects.
   To formalize acceptance, FDA could employ its “Drug Development Tool” (DDT) Qualification programs (like the ISTAND pilot) for NAMs. This provides a pathway where method developers submit qualification plans to FDA, and FDA reviews the evidence that the NAM is fit for a specific Context of Use. Once qualified, any sponsor could use that NAM in an application with confidence that FDA will accept the data. Creating clear contexts of use for NAMs is crucial; the qualification requirements will vary by intended use and defining this upfront guides the validation process (15). 4. Develop Regulatory Guidance and Standards: FDA will update or create guidance documents that articulate how NAMs can be used in various development programs. This might include:
   a) Guidance on replacing specific animal studies: e.g. “If an appropriately validated microphysiological system or in vitro assay is used to assess XYZ toxicity, a second-species chronic toxicity study may not be required.” The guidance would enumerate what data/validation is needed to justify such a replacement.
   b) Technical guidance on conduct of NAMs: to ensure industry runs these new assays to high standards (analogous to GLP). For example, specify expectations for tissue chip stability, cell characterization, or computational model verification when used in regulatory submissions.
   c) Case examples: Provide examples in guidance of how sponsors can incorporate NAM data alongside or in place of animal data in their IND/BLA submissions. Clear regulatory expectations will encourage sponsors to invest in NAMs.
   Updating international guidelines is also important. FDA can propose revisions to ICH guidelines (e.g. ICH S6) to reflect NAM usage, ensuring global regulatory alignment so that companies do not face different rules in different regions. An ultimate vision could be an ICH guideline on New Approach Methodologies for Drugs and Biologics Safety Testing, which FDA can champion once enough evidence has been generated. 5. Training, Communication, and Culture Change: For this transition to succeed, FDA must ensure its reviewers and scientists are well-versed in NAM technologies and open to novel types of evidence. The Agency will commit to:
   a) Provide training workshops for review staff on interpreting organ-on-chip data, understanding AI model outputs, and analyzing in vitro-in vivo extrapolation from PBPK models. Building this expertise will increase comfort and consistency in reviewing NAM-based submissions.
   
   b) Foster a culture that recognizes the scientific merit of NAMs. Management can explicitly encourage consideration of NAM data and celebrate successful cases where a non-animal method provided a key insight or decision-enabling information, while maintaining a critical eye on potential areas of weakness where NAMs may not yet be sufficient and need further development.
   c) Maintain open dialogue with industry, academia, and NGOs. For instance, hold public meetings or advisory committee discussions on NAM advances in drug and biologic development, and incorporate external expert feedback.
   d) Communicate to sponsors via guidance and Q&A documents how they can engage FDA early (e.g. in pre-IND meetings) to discuss proposals for using NAMs. Clear communication will alleviate uncertainty and spur more sponsors to utilize these methods 6. Monitor Outcomes and Iteratively Refine: As NAMs become integrated, FDA should establish metrics to monitor their performance in practice (e.g. correlation of NAM predictions with clinical trial safety data). Learn from any unexpected outcomes – if a safety issue arises in humans that NAMs did not predict, analyze why and determine how models might be improved. Likewise, track efficiency gains (e.g. reduction in drug development time, fewer animals used) as measures of success. This feedback loop will allow the roadmap to be adjusted and improved continually.
   By executing these steps in collaboration with other federal partners, such as the NIH, the FDA will build a solid scientific foundation to reduce and, when appropriate, entirely replace animal tests with NAMs.
   Interagency Coordination through ICCVAM
   The FDA will collaborate with the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), which provides a ready-made platform for partnership with other federal entities like NIH and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). ICCVAM is a committee of 18 U.S. agencies (including FDA, NIH, DoD, EPA, VA, and others) established to “work together to develop and evaluate new, improved, and alternative test methods and strategies”. Leveraging ICCVAM can accelerate progress by pooling expertise, data, and resources across government.
   How FDA can partner via ICCVAM and related interagency initiatives:
   • Coordinated Validation Efforts: Through ICCVAM, FDA can enlist multiple agencies’ laboratories in multi-site validation studies of NAMs for drug and biologic safety. For example, NIH’s Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Methods (NICEATM; the support organization for ICCVAM) has significant experience in method validation, and can assist in designing validation studies, statistical analyses, and independent evaluation of a new test’s performance. If the FDA identifies a promising organoid model, ICCVAM could establish a working group to validate it, with participants from across the federal government and support from NICEATM. This collaborative validation not only shares the workload but also adds credibility – a method validated by multiple agencies is more likely to gain broad acceptance.
   • Funding and Research Support from NIH: The National Institutes of Health can direct funding towards NAMs that FDA deems priority. A pertinent example is the Complement Animal Research in Experimentation (Complement-ARIE) program, which supports the development of combinatorial NAMs for critical biomedical research and regulatory questions. The NIH and FDA could also co-sponsor challenge grants or prize competitions for developing NAM solutions to specific problems (such as a computer model predicting antibody biodistribution in humans). The VA might contribute funding or clinical data for projects that have dual benefit for veteran health research and regulatory science.
   
   • Shared Data and Databases: Under ICCVAM’s coordination, agencies can compile shared databases of toxicology and immunogenicity that include both animal and human data from various sources. FDA’s vast repository of historical IND/BLA data (de-identified/encrypted as needed) combined with NIH’s research data could be a treasure trove for training AI models or doing retrospective NAM analyses. The creation of a central database for validated NAMs, called the Collection of Alternative Methods for Regulatory Application (CAMERA), is being led by ICCVAM and is already underway, with a beta version expected mid-2025. This will be used until a more comprehensive international database can be developed. This initiative will include an FDA-NIEHS partnership with the National Toxicology Program (NTP).
   • ICCVAM Workgroups and Outreach: FDA can take a leadership role in ICCVAM workgroups
   specifically focused on safety testing of drugs and/or biologics using complex in vitro models and other NAMs. ICCVAM also hosts annual public forums and Communities of Practice webinars – FDA can use these to communicate its NAM roadmap progress and engage external stakeholders. ICCVAM’s 2025 Communities of Practice webinar will discuss ongoing work in complex in vitro models, including NAM based case studies.
   • Cross-Agency Training and Expertise Exchange: FDA scientists can collaborate with NIH intramural researchers who are pioneers in organs-on-chips, with VA researchers exploring human-based models for trauma or rehabilitation or NTP researchers on testing and methods validation. Short-term staff exchanges or joint training sessions (e.g. FDA reviewers visiting a NIH tissue chip lab, and NIH scientists learning about regulatory review processes) will foster mutual understanding. This ensures the methods developed meet regulatory standards and that FDA is intimately familiar with the science behind them.
   • Public-Private Partnerships via Federal Consortia: ICCVAM isn’t limited to just government agencies; it often engages with industry, academic, and NGO stakeholders as observers or through sponsored workshops. FDA can encourage ICCVAM to organize public-private partnership forums, (initially on mAb testing and developing a more comprehensive and open access toxicity database), following models such as the IQ Consortium’s Microphysiological Systems Affiliate, a collaboration among pharmaceutical companies and FDA scientists that was formed to tackle MPS evaluation for drug development.
   In essence, ICCVAM provides the mechanism for a unified federal strategy. By partnering with NIH, VA, DoD and others, FDA can harness a wide pool of scientific innovation to validate NAMs faster than it could on its own. Such collaboration also presents a united front to the public and stakeholders that federal agencies are committed together to reducing animal use and advancing human-centric science.
   Recommendations and Policy Considerations
   Building on the above, the FDA leadership intends to combine scientific rigor with policy actions, minimizing animal testing in preclinical safety evaluation:
   • Develop Clear Guidance and Regulatory Flexibility: Issue new guidance (or revise existing ones like ICH S6(R1)) that explicitly allows for alternative methods. In the interim, use mechanisms like case-by case waivers or exemptions to permit sponsors to omit animal studies if they provide adequate NAM data. For example, FDA could announce that for products meeting specific criteria, a single species study is sufficient if accompanied by an orthogonal NAM dataset addressing the same safety questions, or in other cases an exclusively NAM-based approach may be warranted. Such policy signals will encourage wider trial of NAMs in submissions.
   • Incentivize Sponsors and Promote Success Stories: Consider incentives for companies that utilize NAMs – for instance, fast-track meeting requests and regulatory reviews, or publish case studies of successful FDA approvals that minimized animal testing. Publicize when FDA approvals were achieved with novel approaches (similar to how FDA highlights first-in-class approvals, it could highlight “first approval with no animal testing” as a milestone) and highlight the benefits (decreased cost, high accuracy, less harm to animals, etc). This positive reinforcement can shift industry practices. Over time, as animal testing becomes seen as optional rather than mandatory, industry will move away from the old defaults.
   • Ensure Scientific Rigor and Continuity: While pursuing replacement, maintain a focus on scientific validity. FDA must assure that any new method is equal or superior to the animal test it replaces in protecting patients. By following modern validation principles (15), FDA can make this transition without increasing risk. In fact, by using human-relevant models, safety for patients should improve. FDA should continuously update its approach based on effects on valuable outcomes.
   • Legislative and Funding Support: Work with lawmakers to secure funding (perhaps via FDA’s budget or NIH collaborations) specifically earmarked for NAM validation and implementation. If needed, seek further legislative reinforcement – e.g. establishing deadlines after which certain animal tests cannot be required if alternatives exist (similar to how EU banned cosmetic animal testing). Although FDA has authority to use alternatives, increased support and oversight means Congress can be kept informed of progress (consistent with the proposed FDA Modernization Act 3.0).
   • Global Leadership and Harmonization: Use FDA’s influence in international regulatory forums to drive a global shift. Propose discussions at ICH for incorporating NAMs into guidelines for biologics. Collaborate with EMA, PMDA, and others on joint workshops or qualification projects (perhaps an international validation of a particular organ chip). This will help sponsors have confidence that NAM based strategies will be accepted worldwide, not just in the US, which is critical for adoption. Work on collaborative international initiatives that are not limited to within the FDA. The ultimate vision is a global regulatory environment where animal testing for biologics is largely obsolete, replaced by a new standard toolbox of approved NAMs.
   Conclusion
   This scientific roadmap lays out an initial strategy for FDA to reduce and replace animal testing in preclinical safety assessment of drugs and biologics and will be refined based on feedback provided by FDA stakeholders. By combining cutting-edge in vitro systems, advanced in silico modeling, and robust validation efforts – and by working collaboratively across government and industry – the FDA can ensure that drug development becomes more ethical, more efficient, and more predictive of human outcomes. Patients will benefit from safer and faster-to-market therapies, animals will be spared from testing, and the science of drug development will enter a new era aligned with 21st-century technology. This plan aligns with congressional directives and global trends, positioning FDA as a leader in regulatory science innovation. Implementing
   this roadmap will demonstrate FDA’s commitment to embracing scientific advancements, which are ethical, reduce costs and improve human health.
   Citations 1. Marshall LJ, Bailey J, Cassotta, Marshall LJ, Bailey J, Cassotta M, Herrmann K, Pistollato F. Poor Translatability of Biomedical Research Using Animals – A Narrative Review. Altern Lab Anim. 2023 Mar;51(2):102-135. doi: 10.1177/02611929231157756. Epub 2023 Mar 7. PMID: 36883244. 2. Mak IW, Evaniew N, Ghert M. Lost in translation: animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment. Am J Transl Res. 2014 Jan 15;6(2):114-8. PMID: 24489990; PMCID: PMC3902221. 3. Pippin, John J., et al. “Animal Research for Alzheimer Disease: Failures of Science and Ethics.” Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change, edited by Kathrin Herrmann and Kimberley Jayne, vol. 22, Brill, 2019, pp. 480–516. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctvjhzq0f.27. Accessed 10 Apr. 2025.
   4. Seok J, Warren HS, Cuenca AG, et al; Inflammation and Host Response to Injury, Large Scale Collaborative Research Program. Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Feb 26;110(9):3507-12. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222878110. Epub 2013 Feb 11. PMID: 23401516; PMCID: PMC3587220. 5. Bell J. Aspirin killed the cat: animal research models do not always apply to humans. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2019 Sep;15(9):683-685. doi: 10.1080/17425255.2019.1652596. Epub 2019 Aug 5. PMID: 31382791. 6. Chapman K, Pullen N, Coney L, Dempster M, Andrews L, Bajramovic J, Baldrick P, Buckley L, Jacobs A, Hale G, Green C, Ragan I, Robinson V. Preclinical development of monoclonal antibodies: considerations for the use of non-human primates. MAbs. 2009 Sep-Oct;1(5):505-16. doi: 10.4161/ mabs.1.5.9676. Epub 2009 Sep 30. PMID: 20065651; PMCID: PMC2759500.
7. Vessillier S, Eastwood D, Fox B, Sathish J, Sethu S, Dougall T, Thorpe SJ, Thorpe R, Stebbings R. Cytokine release assays for the prediction of therapeutic mAb safety in first-in man trials–Whole blood cytokine release assays are poorly predictive for TGN1412 cytokine storm. J Immunol Methods. 2015 Sep;424:43-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jim.2015.04.020. Epub 2015 May 7. PMID: 25960173; PMCID: PMC4768082.
8. FDA Science Board Subcommittee. Potential Approaches to Drive Future Integration of New
   Alternative Methods for Regulatory Decision-Making. US FDA; 2024. https://www.fda.gov/
   media/182478/download
9. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. New Directions for Chemical
   Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2022. doi:10.17226/26342.
10. Ewart, L., Apostolou, A., Briggs, S.A. et al. Performance assessment and economic analysis of a human Liver-Chip for predictive toxicology. Commun Med 2, 154 (2022).
11. Wang H, Hao X, He Y, Fan L. AbImmPred: An immunogenicity prediction method for therapeutic
    antibodies using AntiBERTy-based sequence features. PLoS One. 2024 Feb 23;19(2):e0296737. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296737. PMID: 38394128; PMCID: PMC10889861.
12. Mansouri K, et al. CATMoS: Collaborative Acute Toxicity Modeling Suite. Environ Health Perspect. 2021 Apr;129(4):47013. doi: 10.1289/EHP8495. Epub 2021 Apr 30. Erratum in: Environ Health Perspect. 2021 Jul;129(7):79001. doi: 10.1289/EHP9883. Erratum in: Environ Health Perspect. 2021 Oct;129(10):109001. doi: 10.1289/EHP10369. PMID: 33929906; PMCID: PMC8086800.
13. Badwan BA, Liaropoulos G, Kyrodimos E, Skaltsas D, Tsirigos A, Gorgoulis VG. Machine learning approaches to predict drug efficacy and toxicity in oncology. Cell Rep Methods. 2023 Feb 21;3(2):100413. doi: 10.1016/j.crmeth.2023.100413. PMID: 36936080; PMCID: PMC10014302
14. Huang R. A quantitative high-throughput screening data analysis pipeline for activity profiling. Methods Mol. Biol. 2016;1473:111–122. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-6346-1_12
15. Chien HT, Prior H, Andrews L, van Aerts L, Cauvin A, Clarke DO, Datta K, Dempster M, Dybdal N, Freebern W, de Haan L, Herzyk D, Hey A, Kissner T, Kronenberg S, Leach MW, Lee D, Schutte K, Sewell F, Trouba K, Ulrich P, Weir L, van Meer P. Re-evaluating the need for chronic toxicity studies with therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, using a weight of evidence approach. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2023 Feb;138:105329. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105329. Epub 2022 Dec 30. PMID:36592682

Ekaterini Tsalampouni
 
Thursday, April 10, 2025, 7 p.m. Paris time (CEST)

The next lecture in the series of events “Time for Action” of the Volos Academy for Theological Studies, will take place on Thursday, April 10, 2025, at 7 p.m. Paris time (CEST).

The speaker will be Ekaterini Tsalampouni, Professor of New Testament in the Faculty of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The lecture will have the title “‘Cosmic Liturgy’ and the Care for the Creation”. The lecture is also part of the “Liturgy after the Liturgy” series, organized by the Holy Metropolis of France and the Vicariate of French-Speaking Parishes of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in collaboration with the Volos Academy.

The event will be accessible online, either via Zoom (at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84913433453) or via the YouTube channel of the Vicariate, at https://www.youtube.com/c/lalettreduvicariat. The event will be moderated by Dr. Nikolaos Asproulis, Deputy Director of the Volos Academy; it will be in Greek, and there will be simultaneous translation into French.

The participation of creation in the cosmic worship and praise of the Creator God has deep roots in the Jewish and Christian traditions. Concerning the latter in particular, the origins of this idea are to be found in biblical texts. The subsequent patristic production and liturgical practice creatively embraced and elaborated it. In this continuum of tradition, the non-human creation is presented as an active participant in this cosmic worship of the Creator. Their prayer is, on the one hand, an irrefutable testimony to the wisdom of the Creator and the world’s beauty and, on the other, an example and exhortation to human beings to join their voices with the rest of creation in a common praise of God. The first part of the introduction presents the basic qualitative characteristics of this cosmic worship as it is reflected in the biblical texts. Special attention is given to the question of whether these images of the creation’s praise can lead to a reconsideration of the anthropocentric view of both the history of creation and salvation, as well as the eschatological vision. In the second part, the soteriological potential of this image will be highlighted, and the connection with the Eucharistic event and the liturgical experience of the Church will be made. What is the place of creation in the cosmic liturgy, and how does its role within it lead to an enriched and less anthropocentric understanding of the role of man as priest of the creation? The third and final part of the paper considers whether this understanding of the role of creation in the secular liturgy can be relevant to contemporary reflection on the environment and contribute to the formation of an ecologically aware ethos among members of the Church community.

Ekaterini Tsalampouni is Professor of New Testament at the Department of Social Theology and Christian Culture, Faculty of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Her research focuses on New Testament exegesis and theology and the Graeco-Roman context of the New Testament. She studied at the Faculty of Theology in Thessaloniki and continued her postgraduate studies in Heidelberg. In 1999, she defended her doctoral thesis titled “Macedonia in New Testament times”. She worked as a religion teacher in Secondary Education and as an appointed lecturer at the Department of Orthodox Theology of the University of Munich. She is a member of several academic societies: Society of Biblical Literature, European Association of Biblical Theology, Colloquium Paulinu,m etc. She is a member of the board of the Hellenic Bible Society and the Volos Academy of Theological Studies. Her publications include “Macedonia in New Testament Times” (2002), “Ecology and the New Testament: Method and Examples” (2013), “The Spirit as a Hermeneutical Lens of Israel’s Past and the Church’s Present and Future: 2 Cor 3:16-17 and its Reception in Patristic Tradition” (2019), “Sola Scriptura: A Greek-Orthodox Perspective”(2019) etc.

Interview with POCA Patron Met. Serafim of Zimbabwe and Angola

“Ecological repentance is the path to justice,” says Metropolitan Serafim at COP29

At COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, His Eminence Metropolitan Serafim Kykotis of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa, a longstanding participant in COPs as part of the World Council of Churches (WCC) delegation, highlighted the critical role of faith in addressing the climate crisis. He underscored the need for ecological repentance and the pivotal role of youth leadership in advancing climate justice.

How would you explain to a young person the connection between Christian identity and the call to action for climate justice?

Metropolitan Serafim: Our hope relies on the youth to succeed in what we have failed. At the WCC 11th Assembly in Karlsruhe, one of the priorities was the climate change crisis. That’s why there was a resolution to establish the Commission on Climate Justice and Sustainable Development.

We need ecological metanoia—ecological repentance. Historically, much ecological harm has come from negative anthropogenic activities, many of which Christians were complicit in, particularly during colonial rule. We must confess these ecological sins and demonstrate repentance through justice and sharing, just as the first Christian communities did. The youth must lead us now, as we have destroyed much of the world.

You have often spoken of ecological repentance. How does this reflect in Christian theology and practice?

Metropolitan Serafim: Ecological repentance means turning away from harm and restoring justice. It is the realization that when we abuse nature, we abuse God. Nature is our life; it is God’s creation. Protecting nature and sharing its gifts are acts of gratitude and love for God. Growing up in a large family, I learned to live simply and harmoniously with nature. This connection to creation shaped my understanding that we cannot survive without nature, though nature can survive without us. We must embrace the theology of sharing, as reflected in the Psalms, where Prophet David confessed his sins, showing that abusing nature is abusing God.

What is the role of church leaders in influencing global climate action?

Metropolitan Serafim: Church leaders must be the prophets of our time, as Jonah was for Nineveh. They must stand at the forefront, addressing political leaders with courage and conviction. At the WCC, we emphasize the importance of moving from resolutions to action. Theology must inspire real change. When leaders prioritize military spending over humanity’s needs, they harm the planet and the people. Faith leaders must advocate for these resources to be used to protect the earth and support the vulnerable. The WCC’s mission is to remind leaders that the planet is a gift from God and must be preserved for future generations.

How can churches regain their influence in global discussions about climate justice?

Metropolitan Serafim: In many communities, particularly in the global South, churches still hold moral authority. Church leaders must use their voices to engage with governments and media. They must inspire policymakers to fulfil their responsibilities and ensure that climate action addresses the needs of the most vulnerable.

We must also demonstrate the theology of sharing in our actions. By living simply and sharing resources, churches can model the justice and love that the Gospel calls us to embody.

What would you say for those struggling to find hope in the face of climate challenges?

Metropolitan Serafim: Hope lies in repentance and change. As the Bible says, “God is love,” and those who love live in God. The Parable of the Good Samaritan teaches us to act selflessly, caring for others as an expression of love for God. When we follow God, we follow the light. Without God, we walk in darkness, risking harm to ourselves, others, and the planet. Let us return to God, embracing ecological repentance as the path to justice, hope, and salvation.

`

We recently received this email from Steve Robinson a regular contributor to Ancient Faith Radio giving us permission to use his beautiful and moving podcast entitled ‘All dogs go to Heaven’.

‘I was just introduced to your website when I posted on Facebook about putting our dog down. 

Years ago I did a podcast on Ancient Faith Radio called “All Dogs Go to Heaven”. Here is the link if you want to include it in your resources. 

Thank you for your work regarding the blessings and gift from God of our animals!

• This is a Media Briefing from Animal Free Science Advocacy Australia on the shocking use of animals to study interpersonal violence, and is another example of the failure of the present system of ‘ethical’ decisions from universities and research centres.

• A recent study, “Pathophysiology, blood biomarkers, and functional deficits after intimate partner violence-related brain injury: Insights from emergency department patients and a new rat model” (January 2025), raises significant ethical and scientific concerns and underscores inherent failings in the Australian regulatory system governing animal use in research. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889159124006342
• The Study
• Concussion in intimate partner violence (IPV) often involves a concomitant strangulation and this research sought to investigate this association. The researchers developed a rat model to simulate brain injuries akin to those sustained during IPV. This model involved subjecting rats to mild traumatic brain injuries to mimic the conditions of head trauma often reported in IPV cases and developed what is described as the first rat model of non-fatal strangulation (NFS), examining the consequences of strangulation and concussion in isolation and in combination on pathophysiology, blood biomarkers, and behaviour at 2 hours and 1-week post-injury. The study involved:

• Inducing brain injury via a metal plate. Subjecting 6-7 week-old female rats (comparable to human adolescents) to non-fatal strangulation using a rubber band applying 680g pressure to their necks. Strangulation lasting for 90 seconds, a duration that would be lethal to humans
• Behavioural and cognitive testing post-injury included maze assessments to evaluate memory deficits and anxiety-like behaviours. Neuroinflammation, cognitive deficits, and histopathological changes were measured.
• 
  The study was conducted with ethical approval by the Alfred Medical Research and Education Precinct Animal Ethics Committee, with participation from researchers at Monash University and the University of Queensland and raises concerns about adherence to ethical standards and the scrutiny applied during the approval process. Investigators received funding via the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). While the study aims to address gaps in research on intimate partner violence (IPV)-related brain injuries, its use of animal models to simulate non-fatal strangulation is unjustified on scientific or ethical grounds. The justification is lacking due to several apparent failures to meet the requirements of the Code:
• The use of animals when non-animal methods could have been used
• Failure to apply best practice to minimise pain and distress
• Failure to ensure ethical justification
• Failure to ensure scientific integrity in the study design
• 
  1 Key Ethical Concerns
  Alternative Methods are Available
  The Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals in Scientific Research (2013) states that animal studies should only be conducted when no alternatives exist. Advanced human-based approaches, such as anatomical and functional and human biomarker studies, can provide more relevant insights without ethical compromises. Indeed, the study simultaneously investigated human biomarker from patients presenting to an emergency department within 72 h of concussion, demonstrating the feasibility of human-focused research. Public health research focusing on improving healthcare access, community support, and legal protections for IPV survivors offers more immediate and impactful benefits.
  Simulating Violent Acts
  NFS is one of the most potentially lethal forms of intimate partner violence and is classified as a violent crime in all Australian states and territories. Strangulation would also be classified as an offence under animal protection legislation, but an exemption to such offences is permitted if the research is conducted under a scientific license with the approval of an animal ethics committee. However, conducting research that simulates this act on animals could be viewed as incompatible with societal standards for addressing IPV and may breach community expectations of humane treatment.
• 
  Key Scientific Concerns
  The findings are not directly translatable to human experiences due to species differences and the artificial nature of the injuries and are of limited relevance to human IPV survivors. For example:
• Rats’ brains are structurally different, lacking the complex neocortex found in humans. There may be a faster recovery and greater neuroplasticity compared to humans. Differences in immune responses and injury mechanisms reduce translational validity. Biomarkers are known to be altered in persons with PTSD and persons experiencing strangulation will often experience symptoms of complex trauma, post event: PTSD, chronic insomnia, depression, suicidal ideations, memory problems, nightmares, anxiety, severe stress reaction, amnesia, and psychosis. The experience of being strangled during an assault is clearly traumatic irrespective of physical injury and these uniquely human circumstances cannot and should not be studied in animals.
• 
  2 The use of juvenile rats, which are more physiologically vulnerable to trauma, further raises questions about the validity of the model.
• 
  Confounding Methodologies:
• Anaesthesia used during the experiments altered neuroinflammatory and stress responses, rendering results incomparable to conscious human experiences. The absence of a psychological component in the rat model—critical in IPV-related trauma—further limits its relevance.
• The method used to inflict injuries does not replicate the dynamics of human strangulation events, which involve varied and unpredictable forces. The strangulation force is approximately three times the rats’ body weight and would correspond to 180kg on the neck of a 60kg human.
• The injuries simulated are unrealistically severe; strangulation lasting 90 seconds under the applied forces would not be survivable for humans, further reducing the model’s utility. Rats were anesthetised during the procedure, which eliminated their ability to struggle or display stress responses that are integral to understanding human IPV scenarios.
• The paper indicated clear methodological shortcomings. For example: – The human and rodent biomarker data were… analyzed on different platforms that used different antibodies and have different sensitivities” The “rat study only included two recovery times, neither of which directly aligned with the human study of 72 h”.
  “It would also be highly speculative to suggest that the rat behavior tests we employed to detect motor and cognitive abnormalities are the translational equivalent to self reported human symptoms.”
• 
  Animal Welfare Concerns:
• The animals might experience pain, discomfort, or stress during and after the induction of injuries. Cognitive and behavioural impairments observed in the study suggest suffering.
• Minimal analgesia was provided post-procedure using bupivacaine and buprenorphine, drugs with delayed onset and limited effectiveness for managing severe pain.
• The choice of analgesics was potentially inadequate, failing to pre-empt pain effectively and compounding post-procedural suffering. The paper does not indicate where it was administered, nor does it indicate the amount or area over which it was administered. The post-injury phase may still involve lingering pain or discomfort as the brain heals or fails to heal properly.
• 
  3 Value of Research Findings:
  It could be argued that the research findings could have been predicted without conducting the animal procedures. For example, the paper reports that “the NFS method was successful in reliably reducing cerebral blood flow and blood oxygen saturation”. Given the severity of the airway and cervical vascular occlusion to which the animals were subjected, these changes are readily predictable. Similarly predictable is one of the paper’s conclusions that the combination of mTBI and NFS “exacerbates functional deficits, neuropathophysiology, and blood biomarkers in rats”.
  IPV is not just a physical condition; it is a complex, multifaceted issue involving socio economic, psychological, and cultural dimensions that cannot be modelled in animals. Animals should not be used in any research re-creating violent criminal acts. The study authors states that there is insufficient human data to validate the rodent model of NFS. This raises a further question about ethical justification: if it was already known that the model could not be validated, why was it approved?
• 
  AFSA urge:

• Animal Ethics Committees: To reject applications which use animal models for IPV research.
• Scientific Journals: To establish stricter ethical standards and reject studies that use animal models to replicate violent crimes, particularly when alternative methodologies are available.
• Funding Bodies: To commit to funding survivor-focused, human-relevant studies.
  The NHMRC must enhance oversight to ensure ethical compliance.
• Public Policy Makers: To prioritise initiatives that improve healthcare access, legal protections, and community support for IPV survivors over funding animal-based research.
  
• This study highlights the need for ethical rigor and survivor-centred research in IPV studies.
• Simulating violence in animals, particularly when human-based methods exist, undermines both scientific integrity and public trust. Public funds must be allocated to advancing ethical and impactful research that directly benefits IPV survivors.

We are delighted to announce the first in our series of Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia Webinars.

Using previously unseen video material specifically recorded for Pan Orthodox Concern for Animals Charity (POCA), our esteemed panel of Orthodox theologians will discuss themes from two videos entitled ‘Raising Awareness’ and ‘Leave us in Peace’.

The Flyer below gives further information and details of how to register. Please share with your friends and local churches to encourage Parish engagement with the subject of Creation Care.

JANUARY

We began the year with the good news that the accomplished Orthodox theologian and philosopher, Nikolaos Asproulis will join Pan Orthodox Concern for Animals as its new Chair, whilst Dr Christina Nellist will remain President and become its new Treasurer, following the death last year of Father Simon Nellist.

Dr. Nikolaos is currently Deputy Director (2017- today) of the Volos Academy for Theological Studies, Volos, Greece, and Lecturer at the Hellenic Open University, Patras, Greece. He graduated in Theology (University of Athens, 1997). He obtained MTh (2007) and PhD degrees (2016) in Theology at Hellenic Open University. Asproulis’ research focuses on the history and development of contemporary Orthodox theology (20st – 21st century), a field in which he approached several research avenues: systematic theology, ecclesiology, political theology, spirituality, hermeneutics, and animal theology. During his doctoral research, he specialized in the study of contemporary Orthodox theology with a special focus on the neo-patristic movement and its main figures (Florovsky and Zizioulas). His dissertation was entitled “Creation, History and Eschaton in Contemporary Orthodox Theological Hermeneutics: From Georges Florovsky to John D. Zizioulas.” He published articles in peer-reviewed journals like the Review of Ecumenical Studies, Communio Viatorum, Participatio, et. al., while he serves as reviewer in journals like Critical Research on Religion (Sage), Open Theology (De Gruyter) and Review of Ecumenical Studies (De Gruyter). Dr Nikolaos was an academic associate of the official scholarly theological journal of the Orthodox Church of Greece, Theologia (2009-2016). He is currently an official representative of the Church of Greece in CEC thematic group on Economic and Ecological Justice (2017-8, 2019-2023), Coordinator of the Network of Ecumenical Learning in Eastern and Central Europe (Nelcee – http://www.nelcee.org/); WP5 Volos Academy Team member of RESILIENCE (https://www.resilience-ri.eu/) ; and project manager of the Ecotheological project and activities of the Volos Academy for Theological Studies (https://churchgoesgreen.acadimia.org). Furthermore, he is fluent in Greek (native), English (excellent), French (reading, understanding). Despite the demanding work to organize more than 15 international conferences at Volos Academy between 2009 till today, Nikolaos has not ceased publishing since the start of his doctoral trajectory with the resulting list of numerous contributions to international journals and book chapters. Nikolasos has published over 73 articles, written 5 books, edited, or coedited 15 books and translated 7 books. He is expected to publish in 2025, a first systematic contribution to Animal Studies from an Orthodox perspective under the title: Eastern Orthodox Christian Animal Theology: God, Animals and Creation in Dialogue (Lexington Books, forthcoming 2025). We are sure you will agree that this is an excellent appointment and join us in congratulating him on his appointment.

Throughout the year we continued to support various petitions and sign letters to government ministers or institutions to increase animal protection and decrease animal suffering. This covers Bills/Acts on a wide range of issues such as the Animals Low Welfare Activities Abroad Act; the banning of animal skins in London Fashion Week; switching from real fur to faux fur for the King’s Guard’s headwear; calling for the government to ban children from attending hunts; banning the use of harmful pesticides that kill insects and bees; stopping the unnecessary deaths of many horses each year in racing events; banning the Canadian seal hunt; banning greyhound racing; banning the horse-drawn carriages in Mallorca; banning the badger cull in the UK; urging airlines to stop shipping animals to research laboratories, etc.

We also continued to post details, teachings and icons of Orthodox Saints who are known for their kindness and care for animals (Orthodox and non-Orthodox) such as St Seraphim of Sarov; St Brendan; St Isaac the Syrian; St Paul the Hermit; St Ninian; St Gertrude; St. Paisios; St. Luke of Simferopol; St. Hubertus; St Blaise.

We also continued to post details or links to various Reports on aspects of animal protection and climate instability, such as the report on reducing meat and dairy diets, which is, of course, relevant for both issues.

On other occasions we published more detailed work or information of our presentations at various events, such as that of Dr. Nikolaos Asproulis, deputy director of the Volos Academy for Theological Studies and Chair of POCA, who delivered a talk at the conference entitled Together for Europe Workshop Ecology. This was on the ontological interdependence among all creatures of God and the need for Christian theology to reconsider the content of the imago Dei doctrine so as to also include non-human creatures, and his attendance at the latest Halki Summit and topic “Water: Spirit and Science – Exploring Spiritual and Scientific Perspectives”, organized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in cooperation with the Hellenic Open University.

MARCH

In March we began to work on a new book relating to Orthodoxy entitled:  CREATION CARE: EASTERN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVES and this should be published during 2025.

We also began discussions on how we might begin a Newsletter for our followers. One outcome was to invite individuals from different countries to write a paragraph or so, on the situation in their respective countries regarding Animal Protection, including any events, seminars etc on this and related themes, by the church.

MAY

In May, Dr Christina Nellist was invited by the Volos Academy to present a paper at the European Academy of Religion’s conference in Sicily, on how farmed animals and the meat and dairy diet, play a significant part in climate instability.

AUGUST

 In August Dr Christina was invited by the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics to give a lecture at Merton College, Oxford, on the work of the great Russian Writer, Philosopher and Theologian, Count Lev Tolstoy. This was entitled ‘Ahimsa, Animals and Anarchy’, and will be published in a book of collected papers by Palgrave in the coming year.

Dr Christina was also invited to participate in an Interfaith Vegan Panel discussion organised by the Shamayim Jewish Animal Advocacy.

See – https://youtu.be/CJIgw9i1LMI

SEPTEMBER

We promote Orthodox and non-orthodox calls for papers from different publishing houses/ journals and organizations, and we publish details of our books and articles in journals/magazines, e.g.                             

https://www.cambridgescholars.com/product/978-1-5275-7420-5;

https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=IfN0DwAAQBAJ

https://www.cambridgescholars.com/product/978-1-5275-7421-2.

https://ecen.org/articles/orthodox-church-addresses-climate-crisis

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/priests-of-creation-9780567699107

OE Magazine 2nd Edition (1) – Flipbook – Page 1 (paperturn-view.com)

We also answer questions and requests from members of the public from across the world on a range of issues.

We continue to promote Green Parish initiatives and education at Parish level.

In September we were blessed with a new Patron, Met. Serafim Kykotis of Zimbabwe

and Angola.

His Eminence, the Most Reverend Metropolitan Serafim Kykotis of Zimbabwe is the Archbishop of Zimbabwe and Angola and Exarch of Southern Africa (Zimbabwe, Angola), part of the Church of Alexandria. Prior to his assignment to Zimbabwe  and Angola, Archbishop Seraphim was Archbishop of Johannesburg and Archbishop of Kenya.

His Eminence Metropolitan Serafim Kykotis was born on February 2, 1961 in Galataria, Paphos. George knew that he wanted to serve God at an early age so, at the age of twelve years, he was accepted as a novice, with the name Seraphim, at the Monastery of Kykkos on the island of Cyprus (hence the surname Kykkotis). Besides from working with agriculture at the monastery, the young Seraphim was a very good student, first attending the Pan-Cypriot High School and then the Lyceum of Kykkos from which he graduated with honors in 1982.

On September 8, 1983, Seraphim was ordained a Hierodeacon by Archbishop Chrysostomos of Nea Justiniana (1977–2006). He was then transferred from the Church of Cyprus to the Church of Greece under Archbishop Seraphim of Athens (1974–2004) in order to continue his education at the Theological School of the University of Athens, from which he graduated in 1987. During the period he attended the theological faculty, Hierodeacon Seraphim also served in Athens. Upon return to Kykkos in Cyprus, he served as Director of the Library of his Monastery.

From 1988 to 1991, Hierodeacon Seraphim continued his education in Great Britain, studying English and Patristics at Christ Church college in Canterbury and at the Universities of Oxford and Durham under His Eminence Kallistos (Ware)  then Bishop of Dioclea (1982–2007), Professor of Orthodox Theology at Oxford and Very Rev. Dr. George Dragas.

Metropolitan Serafim as ecologist stresses that everything one has received from God must be given back, without corruption. For him, hunger and poverty in Africa are a result of our sins and selfishness. He emphasizes the important of ecological metanoia (repentance) from our ecological sins, by starting a new green way of life without polluting the creation of God. “Because Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are everywhere present and fill all things, this gives us a holy vision in which we recognize that the life of God exists in all things, everywhere in the world. We must have respect for all things in the creation and treat every living thing, every person, every animal, every bird, every tree and every leaf with love, care and respect. As Orthodox Christians we inspire others by living our Christian faith. This is also our most powerful way of teaching. The scriptures tell us many things about the right operation of the earth. As Orthodox Christians we must strive to fulfil all of the Biblical teachings. Today we realize that the best ecologists are the saints. They often tame wild animals, bring healing to people and the earth, and teach a gentle, kind and loving way toward all things.”

He was elected Metropolitan of Kenya and Tanzania in 1997. In these countries today there are three Metropolis and five Bishoprics. He served also as the Dean of the Seminary of Nairobi “Archbishop Makarios III of Cyprus”. Later he was elected Metropolitan of Johannesburg and Pretoria-Tsuane (2001 -2010). Since 2010, he serves as Metropolitan of Zimbabwe and Angola. He is a Member of the Patriarchal Commission on Environment and Sustainable Development, he represents the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate and His Holiness Pope and Patriarch Theodoros II at the International Organizations, UN, AU and to WCC and All African Conference of Churches as well as at the official International Theological Dialogue of Orthodox and Anglicans. He is also member of the Central com. of the WCC and member of the new commission on Climate justice and sustainable Development of WCC. His Eminence observes his name day on January 2 in memory of Saint Seraphim of Sarov.

We are also blessed with the inclusion of Dr David Goodin, Professeur Associé at the Université Laval, Institut de Théologie Orthodoxe de Montréal, as the latest member of our administrative team and our Canadian representative.

Dr David’s research interests include theodicy and eco-theology with a specialization on the sacred forests of the Ethiopian Täwaḥədo tradition. He is the author of numerous academic books and articles, including Confronting Evil: Theodicy in the Eastern Patristic Tradition (Alexander Press, 2021). Originally from Miami, Florida, Dr. David K. Goodin now resides and teaches in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

OCTOBER

In October our President was interviewed on her work and the work of our charity, by the Supreme Master Ching Hai International Association. This will be aired on their television channel in the near future.

At the end of the month Dr Christina attended a two-day Annual Egyptological colloquium at the British Museum, entitled: ‘Animal mummies: from beliefs to practice’ as part of her ongoing research into this subject.

 Mummy of a cat, Egypt, British Museum EA 65502 (photograph and x-ray image).

NOVEMBER

Our President attended the Animals in War Service at the Memorial in Park Lane, London, where she laid a wreath on behalf of Pan Orthodox Concern for Animals and the Animal Interfaith Alliance.

Here is the link to a short article on the service and this year’s speech from a member of the NOWZAD TEAM.

ANIMALS IN WAR REMEMBRANCE SERVICE – Pan-Orthodox Concern for Animals

DECEMBER

In November and December much time was given to organising THE PAN ORTHODOX CONCERN FOR ANIMALS’ WEBINAR SERIES. Our first Webinar will be on the work of Met. Kallistos of Diokleia entitled: MET. KALLISTOS OF DIOKLEIA: EDUCATION ON ANIMALS AND CREATION CARE. It will take place on February 25^th, 2025, at the following times: US Pacific 10:00; US Eastern 13:00; UK 18:00; Greece 20:00; Moscow 21:00. The Panel will include Fr John Chryssavgis; Dr Nikolaos Asproulis; Fr Nektariy (Sokolov); Dr Elizabeth Theokritoff and Dr Christina Nellist.

Using unseen video material created for POCA, the panel will discuss themes raised in two Met. Kallistos videos – ‘Raising Awareness’ and ‘Leave us in Peace.’ Information will also be given on relevant Orthodox courses and materials followed by an audience Q & A. The Webinar will be hosted by The Volos Academy for Theological Studies. An official flyer will be produced in early 2025, and we will ask you to download it and circulate it among your churches and the wider communities.

Further invitations to give interviews and present at International conferences have been received for 2025 and we shall keep you updated on our FB group and page:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/241617983038367

Facebook

Finally, the POCA team thank you for your help and support, which is so very gratefully received, and the pleasure of wishing you all a wonderful 2025.

by George P. Nassos

Sustainability Should Be Embedded in All Business Courses

After 32 years in the corporate world, which ended over 25 years ago, I went into academia as the Director of the MS in Environmental Management & Sustainability program at Illinois Institute of Technology’s Stuart School of Business. It was a few years later when I concluded that sustainability should not be a separate curriculum, but rather be embedded in all the courses of the other business curricula. I tried to convince the director of the MBA program, but it was too early in the understanding of sustainability strategies. Consequently, the business school professors did not want to make changes to their syllabi.

Since that time the major environmental issues of our planet have deteriorated further, and environmental sustainability has become even more important. Global warming, now known as climate change, has increased and exceeding the 1.5°C. increase limit is inevitable. The overconsumption of our natural resources continues to increase, and globally we are consuming the equivalent of 1.7 earths of resources such as food, wood, cotton, and other agricultural products. The quantity and quality of freshwater continues to decline with fracking as an example of the misuse of this valuable resource. And, of course, contributing to all of these environmental issues is the rapid growth of the population. In less than 100 years, we have more than quadrupled the global population, going from two billion to over eight billion. For these reasons, sustainability is much more critical in preserving our planet while the business organizations continue to provide their products and services.

Around the beginning of the 21st century, companies started to create positions for sustainability managers either by hiring someone who completed a sustainability program or promoting someone within to fill the position. Quite often, the person promoted into the position was not sufficiently knowledgeable to hold such a position, but the company fulfilled the requirements of its stakeholders to have such a position in the company.

Today, having a sustainability director or Chief Sustainability Officer can be asking too much from the person if s/he does not have a staff for support. A recent study of around 2,200 sustainability professionals found that one-third of the respondents were dissatisfied with the resources accessible to them. There were so few resources available to them that many cases resulted in burnout. The problem is that there are not enough fellow employees that are knowledgeable in sustainability. The obvious way to resolve this issue is for their fellow employees to learn something about sustainability. Companies should offer sustainability training to their employees so they can all work together to make the company truly sustainable while at the same time avoiding greenwashing.

This problem could easily be avoided if the schools, business schools and other colleges, embedded sustainability in the appropriate curricula. In a business school offering a major in marketing, for example, sustainability should be included in the various marketing courses teaching the students the benefits of sustainability for the purpose of marketing the product. An

operations management course should include sustainability in order to learn how to make a company’s operations sustainable in terms of material use efficiency and energy consumption. The finance courses would include something that has become very popular, that of ESG investing. ESG, the latest term referring to sustainable development, has led to ESG investing as those companies operating truly sustainably outperform those that haven’t found sustainability yet. Accounting students need to understand sustainability as there are many new SEC reporting requirements for companies operating sustainably.

I highly recommend that business schools eliminate their MS programs in Sustainability Management and embed sustainability in all their other curricula. This way all their graduates will understand the benefits of sustainability and how to implement them. However, the business schools should still offer a certificate program in sustainability for former students that never learned the subject. As an alternative to obtaining a sustainability certificate, companies should offer in-house training in sustainability for those employees that didn’t learn this very important strategy in school. Companies will then have a major portion of their employees knowledgeable about sustainability, and they can all work together to improve their company and the global environment as much as possible.

When considering the results of the recent presidential election, environmental sustainability, CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), or ESG (Environment, Social, Governance), whatever you want to call it, may be more important than ever in the U.S. Donald Trump has pledged to terminate some Environmental Protection Agency rules targeting power plant pollution, end certain rules encouraging electric vehicle sales, ease liquid natural gas export permitting, increase oil drilling, and other environmental issues. Sustainability strategies should be integrated into the operations of businesses of all sizes as soon as possible so we can protect our environment regardless of the Trump administration’s new policies.

ANIMAL IN WAR 2024 LONDON

This is a brief commentary on the 2024 Animals in War Remembrance service for the millions of animals who have died in human conflicts.

We gathered at the beautiful Animals in War Memorial in Park Lane at 15:00 hours. It was cold as is usual at this time of year, but standing in that cold is a reminder of the tiny sacrifice we make to honour those animals who suffered and died, and continue to die, during the many human-made conflicts around the world.

This service is organized by The Anglican Society for the Welfare of Animals (ASWA), who are also part of the Animal Interfaith Alliance (AIA), as is our own organization Pan-Orthodox Concern for Animals (POCA).

The service was conducted by Rev Samantha Chandler and began with an Introduction, Welcome and first hymn ‘O God our help in ages past’, followed by an Old Testament reading from Isaiah 2:3-4 (NRSVA). This was followed by a poem by Richard Biby:

JUST A DOG

From time to time, people tell me, “lighten up, it’s just a dog,” or “that’s a lot of money for just a dog.”

They don’t understand the distance travelled, the time spent, or the costs involved for “just a dog.”

Some of proudest moments have come about with “just a dog.”

Many hours have passed, and my only company was “just a dog”, but I did not once feel slighted.

Some of my saddest moments have been brought about by “just a dog”, and in those days of darkness, the gentle touch of “just a dog” gave me comfort and reason to overcome the day.

If you, too, think it’s “just a dog”, then you probably understand phrases like “just a friend”, “just a sunrise”, or “just a promise.”

“Just a dog” brings into my life the very essence of friendship, trust, and pure unbridled joy.

 “Just a dog” brings out the compassion and patience that make me a better person.

Because of “just a dog” I will rise early, take long walks and look longingly to the future.

So, for me and folks like me, it’s not “just a dog” but an embodiment of all the hopes and dreams of the future, the fond memories of the past, and the pure joy of the moment.

“Just a dog” brings out what’s good in me and diverts my thoughts away from myself and the worries of the day. I hope that someday they can understand that it’s not “just a dog” but the thing that gives me humanity and keeps me from being “just a man” or “just a woman.”

So, the next time you hear the phrase “just a Dog”, just smile, because they “just don’t understand.”

                                                                ………………..

This was followed by another poem, written and read by Janet Wilkes, then the Intercessions were read by Barbara Gardner. There was an Introduction to the Act of Remembrance and then The Two Minute Silence:

“They shall not grow old as we that are left grow old; age shall not weary the.                      At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.”

This was followed by The Laying of Wreaths on the Memorial.

I laid a wreath on behalf of POCA and the AIA, and it was wonderful to be joined by a Chelsea Pensioner Terry, Barbara Gardner (Founder of AIA) and Richard Ryder (President AIA). We were also joined by our dear friends from the Save the Asian Elephants organisation Duncan and Emanuela ( www.stae.org), and David Hill from Nowzad, (www.nowzad.com) who gave the main speech and kindly gave me his copy to include  here:

“Conflict zones are not only battlegrounds for humans, but also sadly for animals too. In the chaos of war, countless creatures suffer and are often forgotten amidst the human tragedy. From dogs used to detect explosives to horses and donkeys carrying supplies, animals play a crucial role, without choice risking their lives alongside their human counterparts. The Nowzad charity was founded by a former Royal Marine Commando, Pen Farthing from his own personal experience in Afghanistan. Whilst on troop patrol in 2006 within the town of Nowzad, Helmand Province, Pen rescued a stray dog from a vicious dogfight set up by the locals, sparking a passion to help the countless other animals caught in the conflict. The Nowzad charity now provides vital veterinary care, rescuing animals from dangerous situations, and finding loving homes for those in need, with our family of supporters right across the world.

Last year, under the endorsement of the Taliban, we were so proud to open Afghanistan’s first and only veterinary hospital and run the country’s first mobile veterinary clinic – taking in and treating injured dogs, cats, horses, donkeys and a range of wildlife, 24 hours a day.

More recently, Nowzad has extended its reach to Ukraine, a country devastated by war. We have a base in Lviv, from where we distribute vital aid and supplies to animal shelters and rescue groups in the hardest-hit areas. Nowzad is also working to provide veterinary training and support to local organizations, ensuring that animals receive the care they need, even in the midst of conflict. Nowzad’s work is a testament to the power of compassion and the belief tat all creatures deserve the change at a life without suffering and harm, even during a war.

Today we remember those animals who had no choice when war came.”

The service ended with the hymn ‘Just as I am’, followed by the Final Blessing by Rev Samantha.

Vladimir Chertkov, (with a preface by Leo Tolstoy)

Allowed by censorship. St. Petersburg, December 5, 1890

Printing house of A. S. Suvorin. Ertelev Lane, 13

Original here: http://www.vita.org.ru/library/prose/chertkov-amusement.htm.

Preface

A few years ago I happened to hear the following conversation between young novice hunters and former hunters who had given up hunting because of the awareness of the immorality of this amusement:

Young hunter (with confidence): What’s wrong with hunting?

Former hunter : It is bad, unnecessary, for fun to kill animals.

It is impossible to object to this, nor to agree with it. So it’s just clear and unquestionable. But, despite this, the young hunter did not give up hunting at the same time, and is still hunting. But the confidence in the harmlessness of hunting is broken; Conscience is awakened in relation to a cause that has hitherto been undoubtedly considered right.

And the young man will not hunt for long. This is the effect that this beautiful article will undoubtedly produce on all those who read it. God grant that there are as many of them as possible, especially from young people.

Leo Tolstoy October 15, 1890

Sometimes they say that it is easier to buy a hare,
than to spend time chasing him.
And, indeed, it is easier to buy a hare;
but the purchase of a hare will not replace hunting for a person,
because the purchased hare will not distract a person
from thinking about himself, about death, about misfortunes;
and hunting, playing, excitement, drunkenness,
vain cares and amusements do just that.

Pascal.

Constantly remind me, my conscience,
that I cannot harm anyone with impunity,
that by inflicting a wound on a living being,
I am doing damage to my own soul.

Mercier

Ask any hunter what the main charm of hunting is, and a rare one will say that it gives him pleasure to chase and kill animals. Most hunters will say that the beauty of hunting is not in killing, but in what is associated with it.

It is in vain to think, the hunter will say, that the very act of killing game or beast gives the main pleasure of hunting. If that were the case, it would be much easier to slaughter calves and chickens in the barnyard. The attractiveness of hunting is not in the pursuit and killing of animals, but in all those various sensations and impressions that the hunter experiences from leaving the house to returning. Hunting gives a person who is constantly engaged in one or another monotonous activity the opportunity to break out of his usual rut and, forgetting all conventional constraints, live in fits and starts with nature. And his communication with nature during hunting is not limited to passive contemplation of it: during hunting, man, obeying the law inherent in all living things – the struggle for existence, merges with nature and lives at one with it.

“A hunter exercises not only the strength and endurance of the body, the dexterity and flexibility of movements, the accuracy of the eye, the firmness of the hand, but also some spiritual qualities: energy, enterprise, perseverance. Thus, in addition to getting closer to nature, the hunter also develops in himself such physical and mental strengths that, under the conditions of urban and office life in general, are inactive and therefore weaken. From this point of view, hunting has an educational value for young people: it tames them to rely on their own strength, does without outside help; And this is especially useful for those who from childhood are accustomed to using someone else’s labor in everything that requires the application of physical strength. In addition, the passion for hunting is often beneficial in that it saves a young man from other hobbies that are morally and physically pernicious, such as wine, cards, and women. It is not for nothing that hunting is considered a courageous and noble entertainment and has been honored by all peoples since ancient times.”

This is what hunters say, who want to justify and comprehend their favorite fun. And at first glance these arguments seem to be well-founded. But are they really fair?

For many years I was a passionate hunter. I took this occupation with the greatest seriousness, not only hunting in all sorts of ways, but also theoretically studying hunting from books. Nothing in the world was so enthusiastic about me as hunting: I knew no pleasure higher than the excitement of hunting. And yet, doubts crept into my soul about the legitimacy of this pleasure. Not wanting to give up the hunt, I tried in every possible way to stifle this doubt in myself. And at first I succeeded. But doubt grew over the years, undermining the pleasure of hunting. And then the tiny, barely audible reproach of conscience gradually grew and finally began to bother me in earnest. I was compelled to face the truth, and as soon as I did so, I understood the evil of the hunt with my whole being. Now I cannot but recognize hunting as not only inhuman, but downright bestial, and therefore peculiar only to savages and people in general, who still live an unconscious life, but in no way correspond to the level of spiritual enlightenment on which we consider ourselves worth.

I gave up hunting, but for a long time, whenever I remembered hunting, I longed to return to it. Now, thank God, this passion has completely subsided in me, and I can, calmly looking back, sum up all that I have thought and felt about it.

They say that it is not the hunt itself that is important, but the conditions that accompany it.

But if this were so, then the mere communion of the hunter with nature could satisfy him. However, this is not the case. Neither walking, nor rolling, nor any occupation in the garden, in the field, in the midst of nature, can replace the hunter with a special pleasure, which, as hunters say with the consciousness of their superiority, is available only to those who have a hunting feeling.

What is this special hunting feeling and the pleasure it evokes?

No matter how much a hunter refuses, his main pleasure in hunting is precisely in chasing and killing animals. In this, and only in this, lies the whole meaning of hunting and the enjoyment of it, and the vaunted hunting feeling. It is this, and nothing else, that gives hunting its attractiveness.

It is also said that the attractiveness of hunting arises from the fact that, by indulging in it and surrendering to the law of the struggle for existence inherent in all living things, man unites with nature.

It is indeed true that if a man hunts for the maintenance of his existence, which happens only in rare cases, he is subject to the law of the struggle for existence. But, firstly, this never happens not only for rich, but also for well-to-do hunters; and secondly, the struggle for existence has a special meaning for man, which can hardly be expressed in the form of hunting.

It is true that in nature everything is constantly struggling for existence. But even among animals, the struggle for existence is not limited to devouring the weak by the strong, many animals exert no less effort and skill in the struggle against the elements of nature, arranging for themselves dwellings that protect them from bad weather, and similar cares. For man, the main form of the struggle for existence consists in the construction of dwellings, the manufacture of clothing, and, most importantly, in obtaining food for himself, in the cultivation of nutritious plants. As you move further and further away from the original savage state, the forms of the struggle for existence gradually change. The most primitive form of this struggle, hunting, really coincides with the methods of fighting in animals; But as the conditions of life improve, this brutal struggle with animals becomes superfluous, and at the present time it is no longer at all necessary for mankind to kill animals even for its own subsistence, as is confirmed by all people, whose number is constantly increasing, who consciously eat only vegetable and dairy food.

And therefore hunting is no longer a natural form of struggle for existence, but a voluntary return to a primitive animal-like state, with the only difference that for primitive man hunting served as a natural matter, corresponding to all the rest of his way of life. For modern cultured man, however, such an occupation encourages, exercises and develops in him such animal instincts that have long outgrown human consciousness.

One has only to vividly recall or imagine the conduct of every hunter during the hunt to be convinced that he, giving full rein to the worst qualities of his nature, resorts to such actions as under any other circumstances he would be ashamed to even think of.

There is a category of actions, some methods of action, which are quite reasonably recognized as unworthy of a decent person. Deception, deceit, imitation of someone else’s identity, ambush, waiting for one’s victim around the corner, attacking him from behind, chasing one by many, the weakest strong, finishing off a lying person, exploiting for one’s own benefit the hopeless situation of a living being, its hunger, infatuation, parental love, forcibly taking children away from parents and parents from children, luring one’s victim to certain death under the guise of a good deed – all these are vile and vile deeds in themselves. regardless of who they are committed against. And yet, by some astonishing inadequacy, all these abominable and criminal acts, and many others, which are worthily similar to them, are shamelessly committed in the sight of all in the hunt with unrequited creatures, by the very people who would not shake hands with their acquaintance if they knew that he had done something similar to a man. It is as if people are so intolerably burdensome to behave among their own kind, that they go to the forests and fields, looking for such animals over which they can freely vent their embarrassment and give full rein to their lowest and most brutal inclinations.

To tear open the belly with a dagger, to crush the brain on a stump, to tear it to pieces, etc., all these are the most ordinary and even necessary actions in hunting. But it is natural for every person to feel sorry for animals and it is painful to see their suffering. Why then do the same people, as soon as they are on the hunt, not only not feel sorry, but also not ashamed to deceive, persecute, chase, poison and torture animals in every possible way? Every man commits such acts in hunting for which he would elect or beat a street boy if he were to catch him committing them on animals that are not recognized as game.

Let every hunter consider his conduct towards the creatures he hunts; let him be transported to their position for a moment, and he will be forced to admit that this is so.

It is a strange thing that we are proud of the progress of civilization, we smugly survey what we consider to be its successes in all possible branches of life, and at the same time we do not notice that our life is often based on the most savage, unjust and cruel principles, which the future humanity will remember in due time with the same disgust with which we now look back. For example, slavery and torture.

Hunting, of course, is not the most important and egregious of all the surviving outrages of the past; but its shameless and unhindered prosperity in our time is curious and instructive. It is instructive that the true meaning of the hunt cannot be obscured and embellished with the false guise of serving some great principle, which is supposed to be necessary for the good of men, just as the true meaning of most of the manifestations of the remnants of barbarism that have survived to this day is obscured and concealed.

But the human mind is obliging and always ready to find a noble excuse for any bad deed. So it was with me when I doubted the legality of hunting, but did not want to give it up yet. I am now both ashamed and amused to remember how many intricate excuses I invented at that time only in order to somehow retain the moral right to continue my favorite amusement.

I remember that one of my justifications was the idea that every animal, carnivorous or non-predatory, destroys other living creatures. Not only does the wolf eat sheep and hares, but the hare certainly swallows with its food a large number of insects that accidentally get there and want to live as much as any other animal. Therefore, by killing one living creature in the hunt, I thereby save the lives of all those creatures that it would destroy if it continued to live. Comforted by this excuse, which seemed to me a sufficient argument, I continued to hunt.

But one day, standing on the edge of the forest during a roundup, I threw down vodka with a shot and ran up to him to finish him off with a thick stick reserved for this purpose. I struck the bridge of my nose, the most delicate part of the wolf’s body, and the wolf looked me straight in the eyes with a wild frenzy and gave a dull sigh with each blow. Soon his paws twitched convulsively, stretched out, a slight shiver ran through them, and they stiffened. I ran to my room and, all out of breath with excitement, hid behind my tree, waiting for a new victim. In the evening, in bed, I remembered the impressions of the day, and my imagination kept returning to the moment when a rustle was heard in the bushes, not far from me, a wolf appeared on the edge of the forest and began to look around. I remembered how the wolf, not noticing me and hearing the cries of the beaters behind him, set off from the forest into the steppe, how at that moment I knocked him down with a shot and how I began to finish him off.

I remembered all this with a sinking heart and relived my excitement with pleasure. Remembering this, I noticed that with a kind of real voluptuousness I reveled in the sufferings of a dying animal. I felt ashamed of myself. And then I felt at once, not in my mind, but in my heart, that this killing of the wolf was in itself a bad deed, that worse than the deed itself was my enjoyment of it, and that worst of all was the unscrupulousness with which I justified all this.

Only then did reason point out to me the logical inconsistency of my previous reasoning in favor of hunting. I realized that if, in killing a wolf, I consoled myself by saving its victims from death, then, in the position of the wolf itself, I could say in the same way that by staying alive and eating, for example, a hare, I was saving those insects which the hare would have swallowed with its food if it had lived, and so on without end.

Perhaps it would not be worth mentioning such pathetic sophisms. But when analyzing them, an analogy with those high-sounding phrases and profound arguments with which we are accustomed to justify the larger outrages of modern life, legitimized by public opinion, involuntarily suggests itself.

I also remember that at one time the danger to which the hunter is exposed in certain types of hunting served in my eyes as a circumstance that gave hunting some special dignity. I did not notice then that the hunter always arranges himself in such a way that there is incomparably less danger for him than for the animal; and the main thing is that, risking his life for fun, given to him to serve people, the hunter not only does not reduce, but even increases his guilt. There are so many ways to serve one’s neighbor at the risk of one’s life that it is a sin to expose oneself to it for one’s own lust.

But even if hunters are proud of the danger to which they sometimes expose themselves, they do not at all perceive another, incomparably more substantial danger, to which they are constantly exposed in all, absolutely all kinds of hunting.

Compassion provides one of the most precious qualities of the human soul. Feeling sorry for the suffering creature, a person forgets himself and is transferred to his position. In this way he frees himself from the limitations of his separate personality and is able to feel the unity of his life with the life of other beings, which seems to him without suffering incomprehensible and alien, completely separate, having nothing in common with his life. By exercising and developing this faculty, man approaches merging with that extra-personal life which raises his consciousness to a higher level and gives him the greatest good available to him. Thus compassion, while helping other beings to alleviate their sufferings, is at the same time of greater benefit to the one in whom it is born.

Buddha Sakkia-Muni, the teacher of compassion, forbade his disciples to kill any living creature. A touching legend has survived about how one of his wandering followers came across a dog suffering from an ulcer filled with worms. The wanderer, as the legend says, sat down on the ground, pulled out the worms with his own hands, raked them into a heap on the road and went on. But suddenly he remembered that he had taken food from the worms, and that they would die without it. And he felt sorry for them. He went back and cut a piece of meat out of his shank and put it in a pile of worms so that they would have something to eat. And only then did he go his own way with a calm soul.

This story is instructive, of course, not in the sense that we should all give ourselves alive to be devoured by worms, but in the sense that there is no limit to the increase in the feeling of pity, and that it should never be stifled, but, on the contrary, always encouraged.

Pity is the same feeling, whether it is caused by the suffering of a person or a fly. In both cases, a person, giving himself up to pity, emerges from his personality and increases the volume and content of his life. And therefore a person should especially cherish every manifestation of pity in himself, no matter what kind of creature it may be aroused, at the first slightest glimmer of pity, even if it is caused by the most seemingly insignificant reason, this feeling should be given free play without stifling it. A person who understands the meaning of pity will not be afraid that its manifestation may seem ridiculous to people. What does it matter to him that, by carrying a caught mouse out into the yard and releasing it from the mousetrap, instead of killing it, he provoked the ridicule or disapproval of those around him, when he knows that by doing so he has not only saved from death a creature who no less values his life, but, by giving free way to the feeling of compassion, has approached that supreme life of all-embracing love? which, not fitting into any conventional boundaries, frees him from death and merges with the source of life.

Every hunter does just the opposite: he does not once or twice, but constantly stifles this precious feeling of pity in its very beginning. There is hardly one among the hunters who has never experienced the slightest hint of pity for any of his victims. But every hunter always hastens to drown out this feeling, considering it shameful. And so, the first sprout of compassion, pity, from which grows the highest and most joyful feeling of love, is trampling. It is in this gradual, spiritual suicide that the main harm of hunting lies.

Yes, no matter how you look at it, hunting is a senseless, cruel and destructive thing for the moral sense of man. Therefore, it is not surprising that, in addition to evil relations with the animals themselves, hunters also mostly show the most unattractive sides of their character in communication with each other. Self-satisfaction, self-love, vanity, charisma, boasting, lying, envy, schadenfreude — all these and similar qualities are constantly manifested in hunters, depending on their upbringing, in a more or less rude and frank form. With this, I am sure, will agree any hunter who has taken a closer look at his own mood at the hunt, and at the relations of his comrades among themselves.

Perov’s famous painting “Hunters” perfectly depicts one side of this relationship. During breakfast in the field, a man of respectable years, apparently telling some of his hunting adventures, lied. His young comrade is apparently still so naïve that he does not dare to doubt the veracity of the venerable narrator. But the third listener scratches his head with such an obvious expression of distrust that excludes the possibility of the slightest respect for the gray-haired liar.

All this happens all the time.

I remember another small picture. The fox was hunted at the very burrow, to which the unfortunate woman had only two gallops left. Frenzied dogs, grabbing one by her throat, the other by her ass, tear her in different directions. She, with her mouth open, is suffocating with suffering and horror. The hunters who galloped up are savagely enjoying themselves. One of them has already jumped off his horse and runs up to the fox, tightly gripping the arapnik with which he will finish it off. Another, an old man, at full gallop reining in his horse, stared at the suffering animal with bloodthirsty animal joy. From different directions, other hunters rush to the same place.

The author of the picture, without any, apparently second thought, simply depicted one of the most ordinary episodes of hunting in a hit-and-run. But the viewer, not the hunter, looking at this disgusting scene, is decidedly involuntarily presented with the question: which of the characters is the most bestial, whether the dogs are fervent and furious, or their owners who are brutal.

There is another painting by an English artist, striking in this respect – “A Quiet Autumn Night”. On the rocky shore of a picturesque, moonlit lake, a huge deer, wounded but not tracked by hunters, has sunk to the ground in exhaustion and is breathing its last breath. Above him, with its neck stretched up, stands a doe, weeping tears, roaring desperately with an expression of such hopeless grief and suffering that it is impossible without indignation to think of those monsters who, having committed their bloody and idle crime, at this very moment, smoking and drinking wine or beer, are lying in armchairs near the blazing fireplace and discussing their heroic hunting exploits.

If it were possible to depict in a picture all the suffering and sorrow which in the course of his life the hunter alone brought into the midst of the animals he persecuted, tortured, and killed, I believe that, however callous and heartless he might be, he would nevertheless be ashamed and ashamed.

There is no need, I think, to prove the bad educational value of hunting and the harmful influence produced by that plausible environment, that false halo of nobility and even heroism, in which the most inhuman kinds of activity, including hunting, are clothed in our time. When a child or a young man sees how much importance adults attach to such an empty amusement as hunting, sees with what attention and solemnity all the trifles relating to this amusement are arranged, and, above all, sees with what undisguised pleasure people whom he respects are engaged in inflicting suffering on defenseless creatures, it is difficult to expect that such a child or youth will correctly form the concepts of good and evil. about what is important, what is insignificant, what is really worthy of respect and imitation, and what, on the contrary, deserves condemnation and contempt. It is truly horrible for the rising generation when one thinks of the atmosphere of legalized evil and approved vices which they have to breathe at the very time when the pure air of goodness and truth is most necessary for their proper spiritual growth.

It is in favour of hunting that for young people who are forced to lead a monotonous and unsympathetic life, hunting alone provides the opportunity for physical exercise in the open air in direct communion with nature. But this argument is also unfair.

For this purpose the most useful, worthy, and peaceful of all human occupations suggests itself, agriculture, in the various branches of which an infinitely varied application can be found for the very faculties of soul and body, the exercise of which is credited to hunting. Sowing, ploughing, mowing, harvesting grain and hay, threshing, felling wood, various carpentry work, laying a bed of land, gardening, gardening, caring for animals and bringing them out—it is impossible to enumerate all the various occupations connected with agriculture, and which require no less exercise of physical strength, art, and skill than shooting or riding. In all these occupations, communication with nature is constant and close, as well as with animals, which in this case man teaches to help him in a reasonable and necessary matter, as opposed to teaching them to serve the idle amusement of hunters.

Having said, as best I could, what was in my heart about hunting, I confess frankly that I expect only ridicule and mockery from most hunters in return. It is not to people with established views which fully satisfy them that I am addressing in the present case, but to that comparative minority of chiefly young people in whom the consciousness has not yet become rigid but has retained its inquisitiveness and capacity for further development, and who are bold enough to take a critical view of their views and, if necessary, to change them, even if this entails giving up some favourite amusement.

Life is not a joke, and there is no life’s work that can be treated jokingly or lightly.

October 1, 1890

Article by Natalia Doran (Trustee POCA)

This article, originally intended to be a review of Hugh Warwick’s recently published Cull of the Wild, turned out, in the process of writing, to be more of a response to the book, a response explicitly from the point of view of animal rights. In the Introduction to his book Hugh Warwick states that he wants to have “an honest conversation about conservation”. My own aim is to suggest what a next turn in this conversation might be.
Overall, the main message of the book, imbedded in the dramatic framework of the
author’s interviews and travels, and accompanied by the recounting of many interesting and useful facts, is that we sometimes have to kill animals in the name of conservation. The message does not so much come across, as creeps into your consciousness through repetition: we have to kill some animals, sad though it is – sometimes to prevent the extinction of local species, sometimes to protect other animals, whom we deem to have a better claim to the habitat.
Many examples of this type of conservation are given: hedgehogs in the Orkney Islands, who threaten wading birds; mink who are blamed for the struggles of water voles, rats in various situations, deer, grey squirrels – the list goes on. Hugh Warwick meets and interviews many people, most of whom are conservationists engaged in the killing of animals, but some of whom, most notably the ethologist Marc Bekoff and Professor Wayne Linklater, are opposed to killing as a matter of principle. While the inclusion of these dissenting voices makes for ethically sound journalism, the overarching narrative of the book gives the impression that the author’s sympathies are on the side of the killers. Most sections reporting interviews with the killers are rounded off with tacit agreement, in the spirit of, “Well, this is very sad, but it has to be done”. Whereas the sections reporting opposition to the killing are concluded with an implied disagreement or criticism, e.g. “It was with Wayne Linklater that I found some of the stickier territory”. The criticism is twofold. First of all, those who oppose killing are accused of being unwilling to consider the middle ground – in Hugh Warwick’s view, a clear failure. Which begs the question of why the goal of every debate should be the finding of the middle ground. It could equally, if not preferably, be the finding of the truth, wherever it may lie. The second criticism is that humanity’s responsibility for saving species from extinction is being shunned. Especially in the cases where humans introduced predator species into new habitats, Cull of the Wild considers it the responsibility of the human to set things right, even if it takes extensive killing to do so. This criticism is far-reaching, and is worth considering in more detail. The following four considerations may be relevant.

1. Biodiversity, species, individual.
   In writing the Cull of the Wild, the author gives himself a rather generous starter pack: biodiversity is a self-evident good and species are self-evidently worth preserving. These propositions, however, can be, and are, questioned. As the ethicist Andrew Linzey pointed out, the concept of biodiversity is philosophically vacuous – why should there be a certain number of species, and not another? After all, it does not seem to bother anyone that only Homo Sapiens is left, of the many Hominid species that once walked the earth. As long as that one human species behaves itself, it does not occur to anyone to bemoan the fact that it is just one. With non-human animals, however, the survival of the largest possible number of species becomes an absolutized good, justifying the most horrific acts of cruelty. Furthermore, the extinction of species is demonstrably a natural and inevitable process. Yes, we should do all in our power to make sure we do not cause the extinctions. (A parallel with the death of individuals is valid: it is inevitable and natural that individuals die, but we should not cause these deaths.) But to make preventing these extinctions into an absolute goal, leading to extensive “eco-cleansing”, is simply illogical. Closely connected with the above point is the consideration of the moral value of individuals versus the moral value of species. This is where the watershed between conservation and animal rights often occurs: conservation prioritizes species (resulting in individual lives being sacrificed for their preservation), whereas animal protection prioritizes individuals (resulting in opposition to the killing of individuals for the sake of conservation). At first sight these priorities seem to be a matter of elective preference. But this is not so. If we ask ourselves why animals are accorded moral consideration in the first place, we usually answer that it is because of their sentience, i.e. the fact that animals feel joy, fear, pain, etc. But sentience is something that is predicated of individuals, not species. It is the individuals that feel joy, fear and pain, not the species. It follows that the moral priority of individuals is correct, and killing individual animals in order to preserve species is an example of putting the moral cart before the horse.

2. Philosophical basis of the discussion.
   The sort of conservation, largely espoused by Hugh Warwick, that considers it acceptable to kill some animals to help others, usually makes an appeal to science. The legitimacy of such an appeal can be questioned. Does science actually dictate that some animals are killed in order to help others? Science gives us the facts, the raw material for decision making, but it does not dictate one course of action or another. For example, science can tell us that euthanizing every human over the age of 60 would solve the NHS crisis. But the decision to thus cull or spare the seniors would be made with the help of a different set of decision-making tools, namely the tools of philosophy in general and ethics in particular. For most of the narration of the book the reader is invited to consider only two ethical positions: deontology, the idea that the most important thing in decision-making is abiding by the rules of morality (“do not kill”, “do not steal”, etc.), and utilitarianism, a system in which decisions would be made on the basis of the consequences of your actions, classically, whether your actions would cause pleasure or pain to the largest number of individuals. Hugh Warwick explicitly adopts the utilitarian approach, and this leads to problems. The most obvious problem is the frequent misapplication of the actual utilitarian principle. The book often morphs into the idea of the end justifying the means: for example, the extensive use of the anticoagulant poison brodifacoum and the deliberate introduction of myxomatosis into the rabbit population are mentioned matter-of-factly in this spirit. This is not a legitimate application of the utilitarian principle, which should be about calculating the pain and pleasure that an action causes, and not about justifying any course of action by its result. But even when applied in the correct way, utilitarianism in conservation is problematic. Utilitarian calculation of pain and pleasure is, by definition, based on exact and complete data. But in conservation such data is hardly ever available to us. There are just too many factors to consider, and it is usually impossible to predict exactly who will be affected by a certain action, and how. Human interference in nature is famously prone to the law of unintended consequences. One example was provided by the author himself: the reintroduction of red kites in Oxfordshire was deemed a “great conservation success story” – until it turned out that the kites have a taste for lapwing chicks, a bird that was marked for VIP conservation status. And the name of these examples is legion. Since utilitarianism requires exact and complete data, and in conservation it can never be fully reliable, it is questionable whether utilitarianism is in fact the best guide for decision- making in this human activity. Furthermore, there are instances where utilitarianism in conservation becomes completely self- contradictory, leading to the justification of illegal practices that fly in the face of public morality. One example is the killing of hen harriers by gamekeepers – in the utilitarian calculation, this is justified, because a large number of grouse benefit, as well as curlews. An ethical approach that runs into such contradictions is hardly fit for purpose. It is only on page 259 out of 293 that the third option (actually, the first option of classical philosophy), namely virtue ethics, is mentioned, and, even then, it is mentioned in such a cursory and slanted way as to present it as merely a kind of ethical instrumentalism, i.e. being nice to animals in order to promote human virtue. This position misrepresents, or rather under-represents, virtue ethics. Virtue ethics does not rule out the use of deontological or utilitarian principles, but makes them subordinate to the ethically thinking subject. We act in accordance with who we are. It is the only realistic ethical stance, since the only thing we can fully control is our own reaction to a situation. Unlike the utilitarian stance, it does not rely on evidence that is in principle unavailable to us, nor does its application lead to obvious moral contradictions.

3. Logical error is dealing with causation.
   Hugh Warwick’s argument for killer conservation, often centers around the fact that it was the humans who introduced ‘problem species’ into the habitat in the first place. The conclusion is drawn that it is therefore the responsibility of the humans to remove the offending individuals, most often by killing them. But to consider that the solution to a problem consists in reversing its cause is a logical error. If the cause of our breaking a leg was falling down the mountain, the solution is not climbing back up the mountain. Environmental toothpaste cannot be squeezed back into the tube, and, even if animals do cause problems and we did bring them into the habitat, killing them does not remove our misdeed, but adds another type of misdeed to it.
4. Positive and negative moral obligations
   Killer conservation usually stems from a confusion in the understanding of our positive and negative moral obligations. It would therefore be useful to make these concepts explicit. In the most basic terms, positive moral obligations are the “do’s”, the things we should do, whereas negative moral obligations are the ‘don’ts’, the things we should not do. For example, if I have small children, I have a positive moral obligation to feed, house, educate them, etc. I also have a negative moral obligation not to harm them. In the case of children I meet in the street, I do not have the same positive moral obligations to provide for them. But I have exactly the same moral obligation not to harm them. It becomes clear that our positive moral obligations are, of necessity, limited by our resources, whereas our negative moral obligations are more or less universal. In the case of animals, when we take on moral obligations to help them, care should be taken not to take on positive responsibilities (to provide safety, etc., to further the survival of species) that are not necessarily our own, while ignoring negative moral imperatives not to harm, that should be universal. No one appointed us to police the environmental impact of other species. It would be a full-time job to control our own.

With these four considerations in mind, it appears that the case for killer conservation falls apart
logically, as well as being self-evidently cruel; the latter point being something that even the author of the Cull of the Wild himself admits. So why do it?

JBS broke its supply chain rules buying cows from deforesters of Brazil’s wetlands.

Story by Naira Hofmeister and Fernanda Wenzel

the world’s biggest meat company bought cattle more than 100 times from a farm that was sanctioned and fined almost £2m for illegally destroying unique and vulnerable wetlands in Brazil, Unearthed can reveal. 

Brazilian beef giant JBS, which supplies KFC, McDonalds, Walmart and Tesco, has been repeatedly linked to large-scale Amazon destruction. JBS’s cattle purchases appear to be in direct contravention of its promises to keep its supply chain clean. 

The findings come as part of a wider investigation into the growing impact of Brazil’s beef industry on Brazil’s Pantanal wetlands, a biodiversity hotspot that is increasingly threatened by wildfires and agribusiness. Our investigation, based on an analysis commissioned from satellite imagery experts AidEnvironment, found direct and indirect suppliers to Brazil’s top three meatpackers had denuded an area of at least seven times the size of Manhattan in the Pantanal in the past five years. 

The vast majority of this, 93%, was linked to JBS. Unearthed then investigated the top 10 deforesters in the analysis and found direct JBS suppliers involved with illegal deforestation and an Indigenous land conflict. 

JBS needs to be held responsible for both its reckless destruction of the ecosystem and its deceptive greenwashing

JBS has recently been promoting its deforestation controls and green credentials ahead of an attempt to list shares on the New York Stock Exchange. It says it is clamping down on deforestation in its supply chain, but is significantly expanding production in the Pantanal, with plans to create Latin America’s largest abattoir. The UNESCO World Heritage-listed wetland has just had one of its worst-ever wildfire seasons.  

“It is appalling to find out that JBS continues to be a major cause of egregious deforestation, while it deceives customers with claims that it is reducing deforestation in its supply chain,” US Senator Cory Booker said in response to our investigation. “JBS needs to be held responsible for both its reckless destruction of the ecosystem and its deceptive greenwashing.”

In a statement, JBS said: “The farms mentioned are blocked by JBS and therefore automatically prevented from doing business with the company. Blocks caused by embargoes are carried out as soon as there is visibility in the systems fed by the public institutions responsible.” 

This story was published with

• Mongabay

JBS did not comment on the scale of deforestation linked to its suppliers found by the investigation, and added that the farms were blocked before Unearthed contacted the company.

Brazil director of Mighty Earth, João Gonçalves, said: “To feed its massive meat operations JBS has demonstrated, once again, that it has little regard for people or planet by continuing to source cattle, more than 100 times, from a banned farm responsible for deforestation in the vulnerable Pantanal.

“A war on nature is being waged by the meat industry in the Pantanal and JBS is on the frontline,” he added.

The Pantanal is a unique mosaic of marshes, woodlands and rivers. It floods seasonally, its streams and rivers swollen by torrential rains that travel south from the Amazon rainforest. Until relatively recently, it has been a haven for wildlife, home to the world’s largest concentration of jaguars, hundreds of bird species and large mammals such as tapirs and giant anteaters. 

While remaining high, Amazon deforestation has dropped since President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva returned to the presidency in 2023. But it has continued to rise in its lesser-known neighbour the Pantanal, according to an analysis by mapping collaborative MapBiomas. Droughts, worsened by climate change and deforestation in the Amazon, make it easier for fires set by farmers to clear vegetation to burn out of control. This year satellites detected 10,956 fires from June to September, making this the second worst fire season since records began. Only 2020 was more intense, which killed more than 17 million vertebrates and burned almost 30% of the biome. 

“We are facing one of the worst situations ever seen in the Pantanal,” Marina Silva, Brazil’s environment minister, told journalists. 

Brazil’s butchers

Since its beginnings 70 years ago as a family butcher in the state of Goiás, JBS has expanded to become the world’s biggest meat producer, with business interests across five continents. 

This meteoric rise has demanded the large-scale transformation of large swathes of Brazil’s rainforests and savannahs into cattle ranches. In recent years, under increased international scrutiny for its role in Amazon deforestation, and seeking to list in the US, JBS has said it will eliminate all deforestation from its Brazilian Amazon supply chain by 2025 and country-wide, including the Pantanal, by 2030. 

JBS has a “zero tolerance deforestation” policy and has blocked 16,000 ranchers who were not in compliance, JBS CEO Gilberto Tomazoni told The New York Times last year.

“We have put [in] a blockchain to get information from the indirect suppliers. Until now, we have around 50% of the indirect suppliers in the blockchain…when we are fully in this blockchain we can track 97% of our beef.” 

But in the Pantanal, JBS is expanding its footprint. Earlier this year the company said it would double the capacity of its Campo Grande II abattoir, which receives cattle from many of the suppliers identified in this investigation, allowing it to slaughter 4,400 cows every day.

This February, the Campo Grande II abattoir received two deliveries of cattle from a farm called Fazenda Querência in Aquidauana municipality, Mato Grosso do Sul state, according to JBS’s transparency platform. 

According to JBS’s own supply chain rules, this purchase should not have been possible. Brazil’s environmental enforcement agency, IBAMA, had placed an embargo for illegal deforestation over 1 sq km of the farm the month before, and JBS claims its systems automatically block it from buying cattle from any embargoed farms. 

Embargoes are Brazil’s mechanism for punishing farmers for destroying vegetation without permission, or in areas that are legally supposed to be protected. They prevent illegally deforested land from being used, allowing vegetation to recover while imposing a financial penalty. Buying cattle from this farm directly violates JBS’s environmental commitments.

This embargo was cancelled in late October by a preliminary court ruling. But it was far from the only time JBS appears to have bought cattle from Querência while it was under sanction. From 2018 to 2023, JBS’s transparency platform lists 112 purchases of cattle by JBS’s Campo Grande I and II abattoirs from Fazenda Querência in Aquidauana. IBAMA records show that Fazenda Querencia had two active IBAMA embargoes during this period. One of these embargoes, imposed in 2016, covered 28 sq km, roughly half the size of Manhattan, and included a fine for almost £2m.  

Get stories like this in your inbox every week

Sign up

The embargos were recently lifted, but in both cases, the farm owners had admitted to illegally deforestation of Pantanal vegetation. 

(JBS’s platform only lists farm names and municipalities, but only one farm in Aquidauana named Fazenda Querência appears in Brazil’s national land registry.)

JBS declined to say when Querência or the other properties had been blocked, only that the “acquisitions followed JBS Purchasing Policy according to the available information at the time.”

In total, according to AidEnvironment’s analysis, Fazenda Querência cleared a total of 50 sq km of natural vegetation between 2019 and 2023 – destroying an area of the Pantanal equal to half the size of Paris. 

In response to our questions, André Ribeiro Corrêa, a member of the family that owns Querência, said that they had contested the 2024 embargo. He sent a document showing a court order to lift the embargo while Ibama makes a final decision. Corrêa declined to comment further. 

From 2018 to 2023, while regularly buying cattle from an embargoed farm, JBS exported 83 shipments of beef or cattle byproducts from Campo Grande municipality to the UK, totalling 1,350 tonnes, trade data collected by Panjiva suggest, although the data does not detail which abattoir the products originated from. JBS exports to the US from Campo Grande totaled 46,600 tonnes, and to Italy, which imports JBS cowhides for its leather industry, more than 24,000 tonnes. Panjiva data also suggests that JBS exported beef to Germany and the Netherlands from Campo Grande during this period. 

“The meatpacking plants operating in the Pantanal are the same as those in the Amazon, but they apply fewer controls there to suppliers,” said Luciano Furtado Loubet, a state prosecutor from Mato Grosso do Sul who works on environmental enforcement. “The companies do not carry out audits to verify if their controls and systems are working properly,” he added.

AidEnvironment’s analysis tracked recent deforestation on a sample of farms that had directly or indirectly supplied Brazil’s biggest meatpackers – JBS, Marfrig and Minerva – from 2018-2019. Using GTAs from 2018-2019 – documents that track cattle between ranches and slaughterhouses, originally designed to prevent the spread of diseases – and satellite data, it found 190 farms had deforested a total of 426 sq km of the Pantanal biome from 2019 to 2023. 

This number is likely to be an underestimate, as AidEnvironment only had access to a non-comprehensive sample of GTAs, and the meatpackers may have established new supply relationships since. 

Marfrig said that from 2018 to 2019, it had bought cattle from 46 properties in the Pantanal, and subsequently blocked 17 of them when they were found to be in breach of one of the company’s commitments.

“The company reaffirms its commitment not to purchase animals from deforested areas, conservation units, indigenous lands, Quilombola territories, embargoed areas and properties or owners on the dirty list of labour analogous to slave labour in all the biomes where it operates,” Marfrig said in a statement, adding that it was already monitoring 100 percent of its direct suppliers and 93 percent of its indirect suppliers in the Pantanal.

Minerva said it had pledged to monitor all its direct and indirect suppliers in South America by 2030. Currently, it is monitoring all of its direct suppliers in Brazil, which are subject to annual audits, the company said.

“With each new animal sale, every property undergoes a compliance analysis, in accordance with the criteria adopted by the Company,” the statement read. “If any irregularities are identified in relation to the criteria, the supplier is blocked in the system, preventing further trade until the situation is regularised. In this context, the most recent audits show that all purchases made have reached 100 percent compliance.” 

Of the total deforestation linked to the three companies, 394 sq km, or 93 percent, was associated with JBS – an area larger than the Isle of Wight. 

Fazenda Querência’s huge swathe of land clearing accounts for 13% of the deforestation found in the sample of JBS suppliers analysed by AidEnvironment from 2019-2023. 

The second-biggest deforester in the analysis, Fazenda Tupaceretã, converted 17 sq km of native vegetation between 2019 and 2023. 

JBS stopped buying cattle from the farm while a 2018 embargo across 5.8 sq km was active. In fact, the farmer’s representative complained to IBAMA that the producer was “unable to sell cattle or access credit” as a result of the embargo. Trading with JBS resumed in 2020 after the owner of Tupaceretã paid “forest replacement fees” and a fine to IBAMA for the illegal land clearance. 

But between September 2021 and April 2022 – during which period Tupaceretã sold three lots of cattle to JBS – land-use experts at MapBiomas found new deforestation in areas of the farm legally required to be preserved. 

“The alert shows that deforestation was carried out for planting pasture,” said Eduardo Rosa, from MapBiomas’s Pantanal team.

JBS’s compliance system uses PRODES satellite data, which is released annually by Brazil’s space agency INPE. But MapBiomas publishes new deforestation alerts weekly, verified by staff and accompanied by detailed reports and high-resolution images.

The property was sold in December. Planet Labs satellite images from July and August show a vast 145 sq km area across Fazenda Tupaceretã that appears to have burned during this year’s fire season. Satellites have picked up more than 91 fires burning on the property this year. A lawyer for the new owners said they have not sold cattle since buying the farm. They did not offer an explanation for the fire. 

JBS’s supply chain rules do not exclude farms which use fire to clear land, despite a 2021 Greenpeace investigation linking the record-breaking Pantanal fires of 2020 to JBS’s cattle suppliers.

A lawyer for Fazenda Tupaceretã’s previous owner Linneu Rondon, who died in April, said that Rondon’s estate has signed an agreement with the Mato Grosso do Sul Public Prosecutor’s Office to repair the environmental damage found on the farm, and has paid a fine to IBAMA to settle the 2018 embargo.

Embargoes are only one of JBS’s supply chain rules; another states the company “does not purchase from those involved with invasion of indigenous lands”.

But prosecutors have accused the owners of another Pantanal JBS supplier in our analysis, Fazenda Touro Peru, in Porto Murtinho municipality, Mato Grosso do Sul state, of farming on Indigenous territory. Touro Peru was a regular JBS supplier from 2018 to 2022, and deforested 4.4 sq km over the past five years. 

Prosecutors alleged that its owners registered a different cattle farm, called Baía da Bugra, in the Kadiwéu Indigenous Territory, also in Porto Murtinho. 

According to a 2021 judicial decision, the family sought to annul the official recognition of the indigenous territory, arguing their ownership of the farm pre-dates the demarcation of the Kadiwéu territory in the 1980s. The conflict is long-standing; in 2013 and 2017 members of the Kadiwéu ethnic group occupied the farm in protest. 

Other farms belonging to the family, Fazenda Santa Lucia and Fazenda Sapucay, are also JBS suppliers in Aidenvironment’s analysis, totaling a further 1.7 sq km of deforestation. Around 60% of the Kadiwéu territory was burned during this year’s fires. 

A lawyer for the family that owns the farms sent a statement after publication noting that Touro Peru had permits for the deforestation, and denied the family had “invaded” Indigenous lands. 

He said that instead, it was “a dispute created by a government error, which expanded the area of the Kadiwéu Indigenous Reserve by means of a Decree, generating an overlap with the area of the Baía da Bugra Farm, whose process of canceling the expansion of the demarcation has been underway since the beginning of this year.”

Traditional farming under threat

For generations, the Pantanal has remained a stronghold for wildlife while still supporting traditional low-intensity farming compatible with preservation: cattle graze on the natural native grasslands and move with the seasonal flooding. Consequently, around 85% of the Pantanal’s native vegetation remains. Cows graze alongside species that are threatened elsewhere, such as marsh deer, white-lipped peccaries and giant anteaters. 

But now the biome is under pressure from large-scale agribusiness in the neighbouring Cerrado biome, where grain crops, particularly soy, are driving deforestation. 

“Around the Pantanal, soya has taken over. So the pressure to raise cattle is growing in the Pantanal because outside the biome there is no more room for it,” said biologist Gustavo Figueiroa, from SOS Pantanal, an NGO.

All the JBS suppliers that Unearthed has investigated – the top 10 deforesters in AidEnvironment’s analysis of the meatpacker’s suppliers – are situated in the five municipalities with the biggest burned area in 2024. A recent study from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro showed these were also among the most deforested locations in the Pantanal in 2023.

“Cattle farmers want to produce more per hectare and the way is to replace the native grassland with brachiaria pasture,” said Rafael Chiaravalloti, a professor specialising in Pantanal natural resource management.

The IBAMA embargoes imposed on the Querência and Tupaceretã farms all note that deforested areas were seeded with ‘brachiaria’ grass, an invasive species that competes with native grasses and is highly flammable.

With the expansion of JBS’s Campo Grande II slaughterhouse experts say demand for cattle in the Pantanal will rise.

“Any expansion of JBS’ meat operations will push the biome to breaking point, impacting the Amazon and the Cerrado,” said Mighty Earth’s Gonçalves. “JBS must get full control of its beef supply chains and urgently suspend all ranchers hell-bent on this destruction of nature for profit.”

As a wetland, the biome is also particularly sensitive to the drought currently impacting the entire continent. A recent WWF Brazil study predicts that this year could be the biome’s driest since records began – even worse than 2020, when a historic drought led to unprecedented fires, many of them started on cattle ranches. 

“It is considered a drought when the Paraguay River drops below four metres. In the 2024 floods, this measurement did not exceed one metre,” said Helga Correa, conservation specialist at WWF-Brazil.

Now some scientists fear the wetlands may be approaching a tipping point, when the Pantanal would lose its capacity for natural recovery, suffering an abrupt loss of species. 

“The Pantanal is one of the most biodiverse wetlands in the world,” Correa said. “It is a heritage that we need to conserve.”

……………….

WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP STOP THIS DESTRUCTION? GIVE UP EATING MEAT AND DAIRY; REDUCE YOUR INTAKE OF MEAT AND DAIRY; BUY YOUR MEAT FROM LOCALLY SOURCED FARMS WITH THE HIGHEST ANIMAL WELFARE = STOP/REDUCE/BUY LOCAL /HIGHEST ANIMAL WELFARE. GO ON – YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE!!

We as Christians, taught by Holy Tradition and by the experience of the
Holy Church Fathers, link always the theme of man as custodian of creation
with the need for repentance. When man fell, due to his sin, he lost his
identity. Because of his tendency toward transgression, man became weak
and cannot find in himself sufficient strength to return to his Creator. Man
accepts God’s love and becomes a being of communication, a being as
communion, improving, with all the Saints, his God-likeness.
So man becomes the custodian of the creation which is created by the
will of God for the single reason – to become one in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1,
22-23; 4,15). The human being is called to protect the work of God’s hands
because the deeds of God protect [nurture] him. The creation needs God for
its existence as it cannot exist by itself. Man is searching for eternity and
he is determined to care for the conjunction of unity and differences. Love
disables divisions, while the Spirit assembles all.
We are profoundly hurt by the divisions in witnessing the Christian
truth before the modern world which is yearning for spiritual direction and
the meaning of the mystery of life.
His Beatitude Patriarch Irinej, Metropolitan of Belgrade and All-Serbia,
August 31, 2012

Q.How is the Fall related to environmental destruction?
Q.Why are human beings the custodian and protector of God’s works?
Q.How can man reclaim his lost identity?

This is an excellent video from BBC Bitesize, which covers a wide range of animal protection issues. Does it matter how we treat animals? – KS3 Religious Studies – BBC Bitesize

England has stalled or is going backwards on many of its international targets to stop or reverse the collapse of biodiversity, conservationists have warned (£). 

A coalition of groups including the RSPB, the National Trust, and the Zoological Society of London issued the warning ahead of next week’s COP16 UN conference in Cali, Colombia, on stopping extinctions and habitat destruction.

The group found that England was not on course to fully meet any of its biodiversity goals, and on tackling chemicals and the effects of climate change on nature it was going backwards. 

The UK won’t be the worst heel-dragger at the COP, however. The conference was supposed to be the deadline for countries to submit their plans for meeting the biodiversity targets agreed in Montreal in 2022, including protecting 30% of land and sea for nature. In fact, around 80% of countries have failed to submit these plans. 

If, like me, you find all that a bit depressing, I’d recommend this upbeat new piece from the Conversation about the role that major cities can and are playing in restoring biodiversity and making space for nature. 

More than half of global food production will be at risk of failure within the next 25 years, without urgent action to conserve water and stop destruction of the ecosystems we depend upon for fresh water, the Guardian reported this week. 

This was the key finding of a major review by the Global Commission on the Economics of Water, which also concluded that global demand for fresh water would outstrip supply by 40% by the end of this decade. 

The news came as the European Environment Agency reported that two thirds of the EU’s water bodies were in bad condition and water scarcity was affecting a fifth of its land each year (£). 

Closer to home, both the Observer and the BBC published exclusives this week about illegal sewage dumping by England’s privatised water companies. The BBC reported yesterday that United Utilities “repeatedly dumped millions of litres of raw sewage illegally” into the iconic Lake Windermere “over a three-year period”. 

It gives us great pleasure and an honour to announce that the accomplished Orthodox theologian Dr David Goodin, will join Pan Orthodox Concern for Animals as its Canadian representative. Dr. Goodin earned a PhD in Religious Studies from McGill University in the philosophy of religion, with a concentration in Patristic theology. Currently, he is a Professeur Associé at the Université Laval, Institut de Théologie Orthodoxe de Montréal. Research interests include theodicy and eco-theology with a specialization on the sacred forests of the Ethiopian Täwaḥədo tradition. He is the author of numerous academic books and articles, including Confronting Evil: Theodicy in the Eastern Patristic Tradition (Alexander Press, 2021). Originally from Miami, Florida, David K. Goodin now resides and teaches in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

All reactions:

10Kelly Wright, Melchiades A Lozano and 8 others

The Beginning of the Ecclesiastical New Year 2024

To the Clergy, Monastics, and Faithful of the Orthodox Church in America,

My Beloved Children in the Lord,

Joyous feast and happy New Year!

Thou hast visited the earth and made it drunk; thou hast abundantly enriched it. The river of God is filled with waters; thou hast prepared their sustenance, for thus is the preparation thereof. 
                                        – Psalm 64:9

The world observes its civil New Year in the midst of the Northern Hemisphere’s winter, in the cold and dark of early January. Indeed, according to the ancient Roman reckoning of time, that period of the year was so bleak that it was practically acalendrical: March was originally the first month of the Roman calendar, and December the tenth and last, with those gloomy days of deep winter, our January and February, lying outside of normal social time.

In the Church, on the other hand, we observe our New Year at the height of harvest, in the season of greatest abundance: “Spring is beautiful, but autumn is plentiful,” to paraphrase a rustic Russian saying. This is reflected in the psalmody that we sing on this feast: “Thou shalt bless the crown of the year with thy goodness, and thy fields shall be filled with fatness” (Ps. 64:11).

“The river of God” – “thy fields.” These sayings remind us that the natural world, with all its bounty and beauty, is the creation of God, and it belongs to him. “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof, the world and all that dwell therein” (Ps. 23:1). Man is placed in this world as its steward, not its ultimate master or owner, and the creation around us is given to us not as a right, but as a gift. Moreover, though we are given temporal dominion over our environment, the natural world, like all things that come from God, finds its truest meaning when it is offered back to God. We are called to be not just steward, but sacrificer, priest, taking what is given and offering it back to the Giver.

In this act of sacrifice—the sacrament, the mystery—we encounter and receive an even greater gift, the Giver himself. Creation, the superfluous work of God’s love, becomes the very means of encounter with God. In the greatest sacrament, the Eucharist, we offer up bread and wine—the bounty of God’s earth, the work of our hands in stewardship—and we receive back the Flesh and Blood of God himself.

Therefore, creation is holy, not because of some intrinsic quality, but because of its origin and its destiny: it comes from God and, when used properly, it is given back to God. Thus, as we celebrate the bounties of the natural world on this ecclesiastical New Year, properly ascribing thanks to God, we are also called to assess our stewardship over the natural world. We must ensure that we use all the good gifts of this world responsibly and moderately, not exploiting our stewardship or abusing our dominion.

I emphasize that this work of stewardship, though it has communal and social dimensions, is first and foremost the work of each human being, each Christian. Each of us is called to offer our environment, our work, our day-to-day, our spaces and places, our time, our very breath, back to God through virtue, generosity, thanksgiving, and prayer. We are, all of us and each of us, called to share our bounty, beautify our domain, and exercise prudent husbandry of the things entrusted to our care.

Thus, as we join in celebration of the New Year, reaping the harvest of the earth’s blessings, I pray that we always partake of nature’s extraordinary abundance with moderation and thanksgiving and generosity to others, properly exercising our role as priest and mediator—in and through Christ, the Great High Priest and true Mediator—offering up to God his own of his own, such that the very hills might be girded with joy and valleys cry aloud with the song of hymns (Ps 64:13).

To our great and everlasting God, who crowns the year with goodness and bounty, who by his power made the ages and yet rules forever, before and after and beyond all seasons and times, who is one in Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: to him be all glory, thanks, and adoration, now and ever and unto ages of ages.

Wishing you all a blessed New Year and many blessed years to come,

Sincerely yours in Christ,

+Tikhon
Archbishop of Washington
Metropolitan of All America and Canada

Article from Carbon Brief website by
Yanine Quiroz 05.09.2024 | 3:16pm

According to the study, published in Nature Climate Change, if consumers with higher dietary emissions reduced their red meat consumption in favour of more legumes and nuts, global food-system emissions would fall by 32%.

At the same time, improving the diets of “underconsuming” populations would result in a 15% increase in dietary emissions.

The researchers analysed the emissions from food products consumed by two kinds of populations – those who consume higher levels of animal-based products and those who have lower intakes of these foods – in more than 100 countries. Then, they modelled the changes in emissions resulting from a potential shift in the global diet.

The study also analyses how diets – and their emissions – vary by income group within individual countries. The findings suggest that inequalities in dietary emissions are “more pronounced” within low-income countries. 

The authors suggest that changing the food choices of consumers could not only contribute to mitigating climate change, but also to addressing inequality and food security. 

Dietary emissions

Food systems make up about one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions. 

These emissions vary greatly between different regions, but they also vary within a given country, due to a population’s food preferences, lifestyles and income. 

To find out how each population group contributes to dietary emissions, the researchers analysed emissions along the supply chain of 140 different food products, including emissions from agricultural land-use change.

Then, using a database of consumption patterns of different population groups – classified by household expenditure – they calculated the distribution of dietary emissions in 139 countries or areas. 

The authors found that in many regions and countries, total meat and dairy emissions exceed those from plant-based foods – even though meat and dairy typically account for less than one-quarter of calories consumed. 

This is not necessarily an indicator of wealth. Both high-income countries and regions, such as Australia and the US, and lower-income ones, such as India and the rest of east Asia, generate the majority of their food-related emissions from animal-based diets. 

However, in many other low-income countries and regions, including Indonesia, the rest of south-east Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, plant-based foods produce most dietary emissions. 

The map below shows the total national dietary greenhouse gas emissions (red shading) and the per-capita dietary emissions (yellow circles). 

The chart shows the regional breakdown of dietary emissions by food type, including grains (light purple), dairy products (light yellow) and beef, lamb and pork (light blue). The regions are organised by GDP, from high (left) to low (right).

These trends are partially explained by cultural factors. For example, in south-east Asia, 42% of dietary emissions come from grains, due to the predominance of rice-based dishes.

The affordability of varied food also plays a role, the authors say. For example, high prices of animal-based foods lead many lower-income countries and individuals to opt for starchy staple foods that are cheaper, but contain high levels of carbohydrates, as in south-east Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. 

Diet and income

The researchers also examined the differences in dietary emissions within countries.

The following chart shows the breakdown of dietary emissions by food type (in the coloured bars). Each country or region is broken down into deciles based on wealth, with the lowest-income 10% of the population on the left and the highest-income 10% on the right.

In some countries, the consumption of red meat and dairy products is similar regardless of the population group. For example, in the chart above, consumption of beef, lamb and pork (light blue), dairy (light yellow) and poultry, eggs and fish (blue) in the US, Australia and Canada are at similar levels across all income groups.

However, in other countries, such as Russia, India, Brazil and the rest of Latin America, as individuals’ expenditure increases, per-capita consumption of red meat and dairy products tends to rise – along with their dietary greenhouse gas emissions, according to the chart. 

One exception is parts of east Asia, where the poorest population has high dietary emissions due to a substantial intake of red meat. For example, the research says, consumption of beef and mutton is common among lower-income populations in Mongolia.

Dr Andrêa Ferreira, a postdoctoral scholar at Drexel University and a senior researcher at the Iyaleta Research Association, an independent research collective in Brazil, says that the researchers made an “amazing” effort in attempting to collect standardised global data on food consumption and expenditure.

However, Ferreira cautions that the data might not consider the many aspects influencing how people and nations choose and use certain foods, including gender inequalities and cultural practices.

A more equitable diet

Although previous studies have addressed emissions from food consumption, the novelty of this research, the authors say, is that it breaks down these emissions by expenditure groups. Furthermore, the study models how a global diet shift could reduce inequities between these groups. 

For comparison, the researchers chose the EAT-Lancet “global planetary health diet”, a model diet designed to be “healthy for both people and planet”. The EAT-Lancet diet suggests increasing the consumption of vegetables, fruits, nuts and legumes, and reducing meat and dairy intake. For example, the diet suggests consuming no more than 98 grams of red meat (pork, beef or lamb), 203 grams of poultry and 196 grams of fish per week. 

Yanxian Li, the lead author of the study, says her research team chose that diet because it provides detailed intake numbers for different food products and it has been widely used in research, allowing them to compare their results with previous studies. Furthermore, the EAT-Lancet diet is flexible and can take into account different local customs and cultural practices. 

Li, who is a PhD researcher at Integrated Research on Energy, Environment and Society (IREES) at University of Groningen in the Netherlands, tells Carbon Brief:

“We have to realise that different [countries] have different diet structures. For example, some Muslim countries don’t eat pork. We [wanted] to find an option which can [be] compatible with local diets”.

Li and her colleagues found that if the entire world adopted the EAT-Lancet diet, the global dietary emissions would drop by 17%, compared to 2019 levels. 

High-income groups in mid- and high-income countries would cut 32.4% of global dietary emissions by reducing their intake of meat and dairy products. However, this reduction would be partially offset by an increase of 15.4% in emissions of poorer populations that would result from them achieving a balanced, nutritious diet, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.

To achieve such a global dietary change, the study suggests policymakers set up a wide range of incentives, from carbon pricing and “eco-labelling” to policies to lower the cost of and widen access to healthier foods for low-income populations. 

Prof Klaus Hubacek, chair of IREES, a professor at University of Groningen and study co-author, says individuals can also make a difference by choosing less carbon-intensive, locally produced and seasonal food items.

The research also indicates that with the diet shift, emissions footprints from legumes and nuts would increase, due to a wider consumption of those foods from most population groups.

However, that does not mean people have to eat one or two specific products throughout their lives – more diverse diets are better for our health, Li says. She tells Carbon Brief:

“It’s important to ensure that [vulnerable groups] still have enough nutrition from animal-based products…There’s still some room for the rich people to save some good resources for the poor ones”. 

Ferreira says this flexibility is more realistic than asking everybody to become vegetarian or vegan, which “doesn’t take into account that food is about culture”.

She suggests having a diverse diet and improving access to nutritionists and nutritional education, telling Carbon Brief:

“I see food as a right, so I work with the perspective that each of us should be allowed to choose the best practice to eat…For me, it’s [about] how we move forward to a balanced diet, and we assure the right of food diversity all over the world.”