The UK is finally freeing hens from cages – here’s what the 2032 cage ban means for animal welfare

From veganfoodandliving.com

Phasing out cages is finally on the UK government’s agenda, but will the 2032 ban actually deliver for animals? Only if we learn from the past...

The British countryside is often pictured as an idyllic landscape of roaming livestock, yet for millions of animals, the reality is far more confined.

For decades, activists have campaigned against the industrial ‘stacking’ of sentient beings, waiting for a legislative shift that feels permanent. That shift may have finally arrived.

On 12th January 2026, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) launched a major consultation on a proposed ban of colony cages for egg-laying hens. Starting with a ban on introducing new colony cages and similar caging systems, along with eradicating any existing battery cages in use, the proposed legislation aims for a total phase-out of cages by 2032.

This follows Defra’s Animal Welfare Strategy for England, a set of reforms published in December 2025, which promised to see the end of trail hunting and snare traps in the UK along with vast improvements for domestic and farmed animals.

The reforms start by phasing out the use of existing battery cage systems in the UK. Photo © Sittisak/Adobe Stock

Is the 2032 cage ban a realistic goal?

The road to a cage-free Britain is currently occupied by millions of hens still living in ‘enriched’ colony systems. While the proposal sounds like a definitive win, history teaches us that agricultural timelines can be as fragile as an eggshell.

Critics often point to the 2012 EU-wide ban on battery cages as a cautionary tale. While it successfully removed the most cramped, barren cages, it simply replaced them with the ‘enriched’ colony versions that the UK now looks to phase out.

These systems only offer each hen space roughly the size of an A4 sheet of paper – a scant improvement on the previous battery cages. And, as stated in Defra’s consultation, the colony cage system still “restricts choice, preventing access to the ground and other levels, and limiting the ability to run, flap wings, dustbathe or forage.”

In a Defra press release, Dame Angela Eagle, the UK’s Farming Minister, stated that the government is “committed to improving the lives of farm animals” while supporting farmers to remain profitable. However, whether this leads to a total welfare revolution or another half-measure transition remains in question.

The risk of a ‘barn egg’ loophole

There is a growing concern that phasing out cages could lead to a mass shift toward intensive indoor barn systems. In these environments, while hens aren’t behind bars, they can face different welfare issues, such as smothering or injurious pecking in high-density flocks. Without strict regulations on stocking densities and environmental enrichment, a cage-free label doesn’t automatically mean a happy hen.

Anthony Field, Head of Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) UK, noted that the consultation is an “extremely encouraging move” and a “huge” step towards addressing the suffering of millions. However, the British Egg Industry Council (BEIC) has voiced additional concerns that the ban could “deliver little meaningful benefit for hens” if not paired with protections against imported eggs produced to lower standards.

The ban may offer some welfare improvements for British hens, but if imported eggs – produced in cramped conditions – are cheaper, there may be little benefit overall. Photo © poco_bw/Adobe Stock

Beyond the colony cage ban

The Animal Welfare Strategy for England goes beyond banning cages for hens. It’ll also see the phasing out of farrowing cages and CO2 stunning for pigs, along with exploring alternatives to animal testing.

To ensure this strategy doesn’t fizzle out, experts are calling for robust financial support for farmers and strict trade protections. As the consultation remains open until 9th March 2026, the coming weeks will determine if 2032 is a true milestone or just another moving target in the history of agricultural compromise.

https://www.veganfoodandliving.com/news/2032-cage-ban-hens-uk/ 

The carbon footprint of a vegan diet will surprise you

From vegoutmag.com 

By Jordan Cooper

Going plant-based cuts your food emissions by up to 75%, but the real story behind those numbers is way more interesting than you'd expect

You've probably heard that eating vegan is better for the planet. It's become one of those things people just kind of know, like how recycling helps or flying less matters.

But here's the thing: when you actually dig into the data, the gap between plant-based eating and animal agriculture is so massive it almost feels like a typo.

We're talking about a difference that makes switching to an electric car look like a rounding error. And yet, most people dramatically underestimate just how significant their food choices are when it comes to climate impact.

Let's break down what the science actually says, because the numbers tell a story that might reshape how you think about that veggie burger on your plate.

The numbers are kind of wild

A major study from the University of Oxford found that shifting to a plant-based diet can reduce your food-related carbon footprint by up to 73%. That's not a small tweak. That's nearly three-quarters of your dietary emissions just gone.

To put this in perspective, the average meat-eater's diet generates about 7.2 kg of CO2 equivalent per day. A vegan diet? Around 2.9 kg.

Over a year, that difference adds up to roughly 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide you're not pumping into the atmosphere. For context, that's about the same as driving 3,700 miles in a gas-powered car.

What makes these numbers surprising isn't just their size. It's that food choices are something you control three times a day, every single day. No waiting for policy changes or new technology.

Why animal products hit so hard

The carbon intensity of animal agriculture comes from a few different places, and understanding them helps explain why the gap is so dramatic.

First, there's the animals themselves. Cows and sheep produce methane through digestion, and methane is about 80 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year period.

Then there's the land use problem. Raising livestock requires enormous amounts of space, both for the animals and for growing their feed.

About 77% of global agricultural land is used for livestock and feed crops, yet it produces only 18% of global calories. That's a wildly inefficient system.

The supply chain adds more emissions through transportation, refrigeration, and processing. When you stack all these factors together, even the lowest-impact beef still generates more emissions than the highest-impact plant proteins.

Not all vegan foods are created equal

Here's where it gets interesting. Being vegan doesn't automatically mean you're eating the most climate-friendly diet possible.

Some plant foods have higher footprints than others, and knowing the difference can help you optimize if that's your thing.

Air-freighted produce, like out-of-season berries or asparagus flown in from another continent, can have surprisingly high emissions.

Almonds and rice are more water-intensive than other crops. Highly processed vegan foods require more energy to manufacture than whole foods.

But here's the reality check: even the most carbon-intensive plant foods still come in way below most animal products.

A kilogram of chocolate has a bigger footprint than a kilogram of lentils, sure. But it's still nowhere near beef. So while there's room for improvement within a vegan diet, the baseline is already dramatically better.

The behavioural science angle

What fascinates me about this topic is why people underestimate food's climate impact so consistently.

Research suggests we're wired to focus on visible, tangible actions. Turning off lights feels like you're doing something. Choosing a bean burrito over a beef one feels less concrete.

There's also the issue of psychological distance. Climate change feels far away, both in time and geography. Your lunch feels immediate and personal. Connecting the two requires a mental leap that our brains aren't naturally great at making.

The good news is that once people actually see the numbers, behaviour often shifts. A study published in Nature Food found that carbon labels on menus reduced the carbon footprint of food selections by about 5%. Information changes choices when it's presented at the right moment.

What this means for you

If you're already vegan, congratulations. You're making one of the single most impactful personal choices available for reducing your carbon footprint. The data backs you up in a big way.

If you're vegan-curious or just trying to eat more plant-based meals, know that every swap counts. You don't have to be perfect to make a difference. Replacing beef with beans even a few times a week moves the needle significantly.

And if you've ever felt like individual actions don't matter in the face of systemic problems, consider this: food systems respond to demand.

Every plant-based meal is a tiny vote for a different kind of agriculture. Enough tiny votes, and the whole system starts to shift.

Final thoughts

The carbon footprint data on vegan eating isn't just good news for the planet. It's a reminder that we have more agency than we often realize.

In a world where climate anxiety can feel paralyzing, here's something concrete you can do today, tomorrow, and every day after.

I started photographing my neighborhood farmers market a few years back, and watching the seasonal produce cycle has made me more connected to where my food comes from.

That connection makes the abstract numbers feel real. Your plate is a daily opportunity to align your values with your actions.

The surprise isn't really that vegan diets have a lower carbon footprint. It's how much lower. And once you know that, it's hard to unknow it.

https://vegoutmag.com/lifestyle/gen-bt-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-vegan-diet-will-surprise-you/

Opinion UK: Sunak should go vegan for a month so he can fix Britain’s agriculture industry

From cityam.com

Gen V wants Rishi Sunak to go vegan. He should, but only to understand what our food system needs – with sustainable farming and lab-made meat as great alternatives to an army of vegans, writes Sascha O’Sullivan

There are a million reasons for Rishi Sunak to go vegan, and all of them are funded by Gen V, a non-profit promising to donate £1,000,000 to a charity of the prime minister’s choosing if he can abstain from animal products for a month.

The campaign was launched at the end of last year to be timed with ‘Veganuary’, but posters are still plastered all over London’s underground network. 

And while I’m sure his chosen charity would enjoy the money, the real reason Rishi Sunak should go vegan is so he realises that most people won’t.

Going vegan is hard and no matter what you say, it’s more expensive. The cost of a litre of whole milk at Tesco is 60 per cent cheaper than the equivalent oat milk. There are cheaper non-dairy milks, but if you’ve ever made a coffee with Alpro’s almond milk, you’ll know how bland and watered down they are.

It is also time consuming. Preparing vegan meals, especially at the beginning, takes a lot more conscious effort. Many have the ability to do this, they have extra time on weekends or in the evenings to prepare nutritious animal-free food.

But as is the case with so many initiatives to make the UK a more sustainable place, it leaves those on the economic fringes behind because they are time poor, financially poor or, as is often the case, both.

Perhaps during the time he spends soaking his oats or whipping up a dahl, Sunak can consider the alternative to a mass-movement of vegans: sustainable farming.

Rishi Sunak speaking at a farm in Hampshire during the Conservative Party leadership election last summer. (Photo by Chris J Ratcliffe – Pool/Getty Images)

You probably don’t need me to repeat the statistics the veggie lobby groups trot out from time to time, but I will anyway: livestock farming is responsible for about 15 per cent of man-made greenhouse gas emissions, it also requires a massive amount of land – around 85 per cent of the rolling British countryside – but it only accounts for 32 per cent of our calories.

There probably will be more people who go vegan as time wears on and more competition in the meat-free industry pushes prices down.

But farming will not disappear as an industry, even if it has disappeared from the agenda in Westminster.

During the Brexit years, sustainable farming practices was to be one of the freedoms we unleashed. The various reviews of the subsidy schemes have largely failed to create any perceptible change in Britain’s farming practices.

There are more sustainable farms in the UK. One of the biggest names is Daylesford Organic, the brainchild of Carole Bamford, the wife of Tory Party donor and JCB chair John Bamford. But even with a growth in sales, it haemorrhages cash – counting a pre-tax loss of £291,000 last year against £49.1m worth of sales. Only once has it scraped  a profit – £9,000 in 2020 – and has had combined losses of £65m since first filing accounts in 2005.

Daylesford is only one example, but it shows how expensive it is to run a farm betting on people being able to fork out £8 for beef mince. And the farm in Gloucestershire has deep pockets behind it. Many others do not.

The pre-Brexit farming subsidies, which used to amount to more than £230 per hectare for your average 85 hectare farm, have been whittled down by 35 per cent and will cease entirely by 2027. One of the new schemes, for soil conservation, pays £22 per hectare. The idea behind the new rules was to stop the blunt per hectare measurement and instead give farmers “public money for public good”.

Public good includes things like sustainable farming, local nature restoration and landscape recovery, in a bid to restore the soil destroyed by conventional farming methods.

The former environment secretary George Eustice acknowledged the UK was “one of the most nature depleted countries in the world”.

There is a potential pot of gold to save Rishi from Britain’s food conundrum – lab-made meat. It’s an innovation which has managed to win the approval of people from across the political spectrum from the Institute of Economic Affairs to Guardian columnists. And the main stumbling block is a favoured enemy of the Conservative Party: EU-era red tape.

Rules still retained in UK law mean it takes years for firms to get approval, driving innovation and the possibility of cheap, sustainable meat alternatives from our shores.

So yes, Rishi Sunak should go vegan for a month, donate the million quid to Ukraine or the aid effort in Turkey and Syria, but he should use it to reflect on how much needs to be done to change the way we eat.

https://www.cityam.com/sunak-should-go-vegan-for-a-month-so-he-can-fix-britain-agriculture-industry/

ELEVENTH HOUR: Veganism, the climate crisis, and a multi-billion-dollar opportunity

From mb.com.ph

By Shiela R. Castillo

A few years ago, this statement was splashed all over newspapers, magazines, and social media: “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use, and water use.” It came from Joseph Poore, an Oxford researcher. Poore looked at the overall impact of our food systems on the environment.

But first, what is veganism? The Vegan Society defines veganism as “a philosophy and way of living, which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans, and the environment. In dietary terms, it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

There is indeed diet in the definition, but clearly, it shows that veganism is not just about diet, but a way of life that seeks to end animal exploitation.

The Oxford study examined 40,000 farms in 119 countries and some 40 agricultural products consumed by humans. They found that the production of animal-sourced food (ASF) like meat and dairy accounts for the use of 83 percent of all farmland. It also produces 60 percent of agriculture’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while only providing 18 percent of calories and 37 percent of protein for humans. So where do we get the 82 percent of calories and 63 percent of proteins? You guessed it right, from plants.

Another study from the University of Minnesota shows how animal agriculture is a very inefficient system, using too much land and emitting high GHG while producing only a small percentage of food for humans. Only 59 percent of calories produced become food and most of the loss is shown in the feed conversion ratios (FCRs).

It also found that if biofuels and animal feed are dropped to focus on only food crops, instead of feed crops for animals, we can increase food calories produced by 70 percent. It could feed up to four billion people and solve world hunger. It could also register significant reductions in methane emissions, which is 25 percent more potent as a GHG than carbon dioxide.

By focusing only on food crops globally, we could free up around 75 percent of land being used for animal agriculture and still produce more than enough food for everyone. That’s a lot of land that can be allotted for protected areas, rewilding, and agricultural regeneration. Dropping animal feed would also mean ASF production would drop, and people would have to skip meat, dairy, and eggs, and eat a whole-foods plant-based diet and vegan alternatives.

Comparisons show that vegans have the lowest food-related emission compared to vegetarians and those who eat meat-based diets. (Source: shrinkthatfootprint.com)

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that animal agriculture emits 18 percent of all GHGs, more emissions than the transport sector. Different studies and sources estimate much higher, from 25 percent to 51 percent, and claim that many animal agriculture emissions are unaccounted for. However, even FAO’s conservative estimation still accounts for almost 1/5 of all emissions. Clearly, animal agriculture is a climate issue we could no longer ignore.

Projections show that by 2050, crop production must double to meet the demand of feeding a growing global population. If we continue to raise animals for food, they will continue competing with humans with their feed.

Considering all of these, animal agriculture is not as innocent as large producers want us to believe. Most of the subsidies that it receives pull down the price tag of ASF while increasing externalized costs. Externalized costs, or what economists call negative externalities, refer to the harmful impacts of a transaction to an unrelated third party or even the larger society. An example of an externalized cost is the pollution of water bodies where animal farms dump excretions.

In mid-September this year, the United Nations (UN) Environment Programme, FAO, and UN Development Programme (UNDP) came out with a report which reveals that 87 percent of all agriculture subsidies in 88 countries, including the Philippines, distort pricing and are environmentally and socially harmful.

The report titled “A Multi-Billion-Dollar Opportunity” says that around US$470 billion of this agricultural support goes to price incentives, chemical inputs harmful to humans, and the environment such as pesticides and fertilizers, among others. It was also found that the most emission-intensive products such as meat and dairy, receive the highest subsidies. On the other hand, smaller landholders, who are more efficient in producing 35 percent of the world’s food on only 12 percent of farmlands, receive less subsidy. It’s a great illustration of economic inequity and how animal agriculture has more disadvantages than advantages.

The UN report proposes the repurposing of these harmful subsidies to support climate-smart practices and innovation toward the attainment of Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) and just climate transition.

The climate crisis requires all hands on deck. This means that every little bit helps—from reducing individual emissions through a vegan diet and more mindful, earth-friendly lifestyle to large-scale shifting to renewables and phasing out of industrial animal agriculture.

The UN says we have a multi-billion-dollar opportunity to make a difference now. By repurposing support to harmful animal agriculture and focusing more on food crops for humans, we will be reaping many benefits to our health, to the climate, and the environment as a whole.

Shiela R. Castillo is a social development professional, foresight practitioner, and climate advocate with 20 years of experience in the Philippines and Cambodia. She has been a Climate Reality Leader since 2011 and mentor since 2016. In 2017, The Climate Reality Project Philippines conferred to her the Luntiang Dahon for Climate Leadership Award. A passionate environmentalist and animal rights activist, Shiela is a vegan and initiator of several online communities on veganism. She also has eponymous blogs on WordPress and Medium.

https://mb.com.ph/2021/11/04/eleventh-hour-veganism-the-climate-crisis-and-a-multi-billion-dollar-opportunity/

Veganism – A Way to Contribute to Sustainable Development Goals

From indrastra.com

By Anshul Saini

A possible solution to mitigate climate change and live sustainably

There is no debate that veganism is ethically and mortally better not just for animals but for society at large too. Applications of veganism are no more limited to food and diet, but now answer many possible ways for organizations, individuals, and countries to meet their Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

In 2019, the Amazon forests caught fire due to farmers and loggers using fire as a way to clear land for soy crops or grazing land for cattle i.e. for converting the sensitive rain forest into soy farming hub so that the same can be used to raise livestock for meat, dairy, and eggs production. These fires in 2019 alone released a carbon bomb of massive 228 megatons which was the highest since 2010, along with releasing other greenhouse and poisonous gases including Carbon Monoxide. 

In 2021, the effects of climate change were witnessed by Europe, with all the countries from Turkey to Spain were engulfed with forest fires as a result of rising temperature and heatwaves. Again, resulting in an increase in carbon footprint in a single year. Similarly, many more countries worldwide are affected by similar direct and indirect effects of climate change leading to water and food crisis which in turn may aggravate as a civil and national crisis, all due to rising carbon emissions. 

So much carbon emission for the world’s love for meat, eggs, and dairy!

The hard truth remains, that carbon emissions are not decreasing fast enough to limit global warming despite global agreements in place including CoP21 etc. Since 1990, carbon emissions have witnessed an increase of over 60%. Further, the deforestation occurring due to intentional clearing of land for livestock and/or due to forest fires further reduces the available carbon sinks for the planet that ends up compounding the effects of climate change i.e. global warming, extreme weather, and a range of related issues that are going to get more complicated for nations to deal with. 

Veganism may come as a rescue to this dire situation for global citizens to address. Studies have concluded that cutting meat and dairy from diets could reduce individual carbon footprint by over 73% and if the world comes together to this movement, global farmland area could be reduced by 75% which is equivalent to the combined area of the US, EU, China, and Australia. The freed-up farmland accordingly could help safeguard and restore the earth’s biodiversity which in turn could help to achieve the global goals of mitigating climate change. On the other hand, the grains that are used to feed livestock (to convert into meat) can be used to feed the hungry across the world alleviating millions out of their sorrow and suffering. The above situation will help address multiple SDGs and will mean a win-win situation for several countries and communities across the horizon. 

Google searches on veganism are at an all-time high with the popularity score increasing from 33 in 2009 to 100 in 2019, and this trend is has surged especially amongst high-income group countries. The searches for “veganism” have doubled in America and tripled in Australia, France, and Spain, and quadrupled in Sweden over the past few years. The US had 9.7 Million classified as Vegans in 2019. 

In the UK, as in 2018, there were an estimated 600,000 vegans and of these, around 360,000 described themselves as ‘lifestyle vegans’ i.e. those who commit to only using or buying cosmetics and clothes free from animal products. 

This supports the fact that prominent fast-food chains such as Greggs, McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC, and many more have launched vegan food options in Europe. Around a quarter of all evening meals in the UK were vegan or vegetarian as in 2018 and the trend continues to follow an upward curve. 

Veganism has now fuelled the growth of an industry purely into vegan alternatives to animal-derived products that’s already worth billions of dollars, including products such as non-dairy milk and cheese, imitation meat, and leather made from plant-based sources (such as pineapple leaves, cactus, apple peel, etc.). 

Celebrities too have a role to play in influencing and encouraging people to opt for veganism. There is a reasonable mention on social media about celebrities such as Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus, and Ellen DeGeneres for not consuming animal products. ‘#vegan’ has more than 87 million posts listed on Instagram (as of Jan 2020). 

The movement which was initially associated with hippies venturing into animal farms to free captive and tortured animals has now extended towards a global cause to stand for that is in a true sense a revolution for sustainability.   

The world doesn’t need a reason to embrace the philosophy of veganism anymore. Almost no country is untouched by the issues of climate change that have resulted in the suffering and plight of millions across the world due to food insecurity, water scarcity, floods and famines, and other adverse effects on human civilization. 

Climate change is caused by the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that leads to a rise in temperature. While the world has spoken amply about emissions of these greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels, a subject conveniently undermined by policymakers and communities has been animal agriculture that contributes up to 50% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. 

Around 83% of global farmland is consumed to address dairy, eggs, and meat production whereas it provides only 18% and 37% of calories and protein. The carbon emissions from animal agriculture (meat, eggs, and dairy-based food products) are more than all cars, trains, and airplanes combined. This only reiterates where the true focus of the world truly needs to focus to undertake real concrete measures towards sustainable goals. 

To summarize, animal agriculture is a major contributor to environmental degradation, human health, and animal suffering and leads to global issues such as ocean acidification, freshwater withdrawal, deforestation, and climate change. It is the single most cause that is responsible for up to 91% of the deforestation of Amazon forests. The future of human civilization as well as other species today depends upon our collective actions to safeguard the planet. 

While food choices are often termed as a matter of ‘personal choice’ that represents the region’s culture and more, modifications in food systems are an immediate call to action required by communities around the world. There is no planet B, everyone needs to act. A shift to a Vegan diet stays one of the best ways to practice and embrace the Sustainability Goals at individual and organizational goals.

About the Author

Anshul Saini is a digital media professional with over 10 years of experience in the Infrastructure, Food, and Real Estate sectors. He holds a Master of Science degree in Marketing from the University of Glamorgan, UK, (now the University of South Wales) and has also attended the ‘Stepping into Leadership’ program from the Indian School of Business, Mohali, India.  Anshul enjoys a strong interest in the subjects of Sustainability, Food, and Place Marketing.  He tweets at @anshulsainee

https://www.indrastra.com/2021/09/Veganism-A-Way-to-Contribute-to-SDGs.html